1. The A-Wing's pivot only pivoted about 60 degrees in each direction in the original design, so no, it wouldn't have an aft fire arc.

2. The only piloting rolls that happen in combat by the rules is GtA and moving through hazardous areas. And while handling does help with the hazardous areas, Speed is useless in it (and that does make sense, I'm just saying that if you pile in hazardous areas a lot to make maneuvering better, you are effectively removing speed advantage).

3. GtA is trash as written. A slower ship has no incentive to even bother GtAing a faster ship that has GtAed him. A-Wing GtA's Y-Wing. Y-Wing ignores penalties, fires on A-Wing, 70% of the time the A-Wing will just blow up, threat gone.

4. Sensor ranges in the game are whack. An X-Wing can outrun how far it can see on sensors in one maneuver, even if they are using active sensors.

5. Why are fast ships the ones that have to rely on "narrative" while slower ships can just you know rely on the rules?

You are overpowering the advantage of Speed. Speed is not inherently an advantage in combat. Maneuverability is. A good marksman can hit something travelling in a straight line at high speed as well as something moving slower. This is especially true when you consider that your continuing argument is that nothing else matters (when in fact it does, you just refuse to play the game that is in front of you).

When nothing else matter (because, who needs narrative), a fast ship is always travelling exactly towards or exactly away from an enemy ships guns, which means it is no harder to hit than someone sitting still. By your own rules, Speed means nothing.

If Speed meant so much by itself, they'd be strapping guns on drag racers and fighting tanks.

Maneuverability adds to piloting rolls, which add to the ability to move through obstacles, GtA, oppose piloting checks, etc.

Boosts add advantages, and advantages can make it harder for the enemy to hit you.

Fast ships only really on "narrative" because you ignore every rule that pertains to them. Should the rules REALLY make fast ships impervious?

Why would the rules even include firing arcs, opposed pilot rolls, etc., if you were not supposed to incorporate them? It's just crappy GM'ing to ignore those things and want a rule for every single circumstance.

The dice are narrative. You can't get around that FACT.

I totally understand you are looking for a more tactical game. I just don't understand why you are assuming this should be it?

3 boost dice give on average enough advantage to apply 1 setback, to 1 target. Considering a X-Wing or Y-Wing just has one more shield, that doesn't make up for anything. (and the X-Wing has one boost dice of its own).

Also, you seem to ignore that all my house rule additions to making ships harder to hit have to do with 1. Handling during EVASIVE MANEUVERS meaning that it has nothing to do with anything moving in a straight line, and 2. Inside close range. And if you somehow think that things are moving speed 6 at close range without ever turning... I'm not even sure how that works. are they like, going straight, hitting a wormhole and reappearing on the other side of close range? So how about you knock off the strawman.

I never stated that no ship ever turns unless they say they turn, because that is pants on head retarded and there is no way a ship moving at speed 6 could stay in the same relative position as a ship moving say speed 2 unless they did. That isn't "narrative", that is LOGIC.

And on again to the strawmen. OH NO I'M MAKING FAST SHIPS IMPERVIOUS!. Yeah, that is why I flattened the GtA speed chart so that super fast ships didn't double up on their speed + maneuverability advantage too much.

And on the opposed pilot checks in the description of the skill, why the hell did they bother writing these very specific maneuvers to represent dogfighting, like evasive maneuvers and GtA, if you were intended to completely ignore them to use something not even included in the Starship combat section? There are very specific rules, but we are supposed to ignore that in order to use something that has no guidelines on how to actually use it. Is it an action? Is it a maneuver? How is it used?

And once again the "YOU JUST WANT A TACTICAL GAME" argument. Yeah man, because my house rules totally added more tactical nuance than tracking the speed of every ship in combat.

Come back when you can do more than create strawmen to beat up because someone is criticizing your precious perfect game and you want to call them a bad GM. That precious perfect game that has ships that can outrun their own sensors, and accelerating and moving a vehicle in the same turn is detrimental to its systems.

Dude, come back when you understand the game and your not such a total **** (because honestly that's all I've seen you act like here.)

You're just yelling like a child now.

Your houserules do nothing but prove you just don't get it.

(And no game is perfect, but man you sure think you are.)

You don't understand how anything in the real world works in these situations, and yet you don't want to emulate the films, so you're really just arguing to try to prove how right you are that the game most of us enjoy is somehow wrong because you say so, and here's a load of really unnecessary Houserules.

Honestly, if this thread was called "houserules for starship combat" I would never have looked here. But it says the game is broken, which is just plain ignorant.

I should have known to just let you prattle on in this thread and continued to ignore it.

Yep, I'm an ass. I'm the one who has been telling people how they are a bad GM, that they just don't "get" the game, and spinning huge strawmen arguments to shoot down to prove I'm right.

Oh wait, no, that's you.

On the other hand, I think I said something to the degree at one point that if the system works for you, that's fine, good for you, but it doesn't for me.

Every single post I made is filled with my exact reasoning and pointing to the rules. How that is being a ****, I don't know. Notice how the thread is mostly civil when people aren't dropping in and calling people bad GMs, too stupid to get the rules (without actually quoting any of the rules), and dismissing the arguments based on "narratiiiiiive!"

If my rules supposedly show how I "don't get it", point out why. Just screaming "You don't get it!" means jack.

How is constantly saying dickish things to begin any of your replies to anyone being not a ****?

All you have done in this thread is tell people they are wrong and the game is broken. You just did it two posts up!

And no matter that every time a rule which takes care of any complaint you have is pointed out, you just dismiss it as not good enough or "narrative."

Earlier in this thread you showed you have no idea what air groups, combat missions, and dogfighting is actually all about. Instead of ever saying you were wrong, you just backpedaled and continued to argue.

People are continuously pointing out why you don't get it, but you just keep saying the same stuff anyway. I'm not going to perpetually repeat it, just read the thread over again.

(And sensors are crap in Star Wars. They are shown depending on visual detection often.)

Its really odd that the thread has been civil for about 3-4 pages and it only got nasty again when you showed up.

Could it be that the personality that is destabilizing the thread is the one that showed up right before it got nasty again? No, no that couldn't be it. Must be my fault.

(Also, really, two posts up? You mean the one where I responded to you saying I am a bad GM, I don't get the game, I want fast starfighters to be impervious, I think all ships move in straight lines all the time. You mean that one? The one where I pointed out that every single thing you said was a strawman argument? Yeah. Sorry. No.)

Edit: Also, also. On the name of the **** thread: I didn't name it. I have no control over what the thread is named. Period. None. Zero. Zilch. You cannot ******* blame me for the name of the thread. I've said several times that I don't think the the starship system is broken. Repeatedly, throughout the thread. I just think there are minor weird spots, and am giving my reasons WHY and giving potential solutions. Which is a hell of a lot better than insulting anyone who doesn't agree with everything in the game.

Yup, that one. Once again, denial.

Okay, to become more civil, why is the game "broken" on Speed, but yet your houserules don't change this? They only add unneeded complication to the system.

Why the up in arms attitude about the A-Wing, which is really a glorified TIE?

TIE's 1 advantage is that they are super agile, yet they blow up all the time in the films. Why is Speed the end all, be all of the dogfight?

Also, why do many of your examples use high piloting or gunnery as a negative example? (Saying that Handling is meaningless as piloting gets higher,etc.) A great pilot or gunner SHOULD be able to compensate for a less than perfect fighter.

Notice that almost every time I said speed I said "high speed, maneuverable, craft". The two usually go together, that was what I was emphasizing. I never have claimed Speed was everything, but the fact that Speed and Maneuverability go together almost universally in the game, it is easier to shortcut to saying "fast ships" or something like that.

In fact, I made speed in GtA LESS important intentionally, because I knew handling already made a more maneuverable ship better at GtA. The main thing I did was make GtA BETTER, so that when used by the high maneuverability ships, the other ship doesn't just go "I fire".

Second, I added the setback during Evasive Maneuvers to starfighters with better handling (I did it through a ship quality, so that it wasn't one more thing to remember (divide by two, round up, etc) and instead was just a quality of the ship. Its no more complicated than the A-Wings jammer.

I'm not sure why you think I didn't add anything to make the fast maneuverable ships better.

I didn't change the fly/drive range band movements, no. The reason for that is more that because of the abstracted distances, its pretty difficult to make 6 categories of movement. I get why they lumped together 1 and 2, 3 and 4, 5 and 6. No house rules for it I could really come up with didn't just complicate things by adding more range bands or something like that.

I did think about house ruling fly/drive to only be possible to use once a round period though. Otherwise technically the X-Wing can outpace an A-Wing solely based on double fly because the X-Wing has more strain and has an Astromech to do damage control.

When it comes to outflying, that's when chase rules take over. (If you are taking about running away.)

If I were to "houserule" 1 thing, or just wish for a change in the book, it would be to combine the Pilot skill description and the GtA action, by adding that a successful use also allows the pilot to choose which of the enemy's fire arcs he is in. This is how I play it, & the only rule tweak I see needed to make GtA work more like I imagine it should in real life.

(To me, the rules and the FAQ already say as much, but I can see how it could be made a lot clearer.)

The funny thing is that that is way more of a boost than I gave to fast ships.

If you do it exactly like that, the A-Wing has a huge advantage on GtA AND its really good (preventing the target from even firing for free). If the A-Wing initiates (likely due to sensor range), its first GtA is P difficulty with BBB, then the X-Wing would require a PPPP difficulty with B to bring it back.

To do the same thing mine has like, PP + BBB for the A-Wing, and PPP + B for the X-Wing, and the A-Wing has to get two advantage to avoid being fired on.

I'm really not sure why you are so adamant about how I want fast ships to be invincible, when the rule you are using is much more fast ship friendly than mine...

(I do prefer the way you wrote it to the way I interpret the book, but I think it might go too far in the other direction and make Speed + Handling too good in fighter to fighter combat).

Though I think if you use it the way you said, you should have to declare the fire arc you are in and that is also the one you have to fire at, so that if you are in the aft of an X-Wing, it can angle its shields and you can either choose to take it head on and risk being shot, or try to shoot through the shields.

I will say one error I've made in thinking. I forget that initiative isn't static and you can go last in one round and first in the next. This does make GtA more attractive, as you can GtA and then fire before your opponent can try to win it back. (Also, ironically meaning you want someone on your team to have bad initiative). Though you can, also, just fire twice.

In my campaign, if you've successfully Gained the Advantage over a target, they can only fire on you with aft-facing weapon systems until the GtA is broken or dropped. That makes being both maneuverable and fast quite attractive.

In my campaign, if you've successfully Gained the Advantage over a target, they can only fire on you with aft-facing weapon systems until the GtA is broken or dropped. That makes being both maneuverable and fast quite attractive.

I did this too, but I found my players were still neglecting GTA - mainly because you're still vulnerable to other people shooting you.

Norton, yeah, I didn't explain it all that well, but what you describe is how I play GtA. So if you GtA, the shields you choose to fire at is also the enemy weapon arc you are in. This way maneuverable ships can get on your tail where you "can't shake them", but you can boost rear shields to help against their attacks.

This also make having a wingman realistically more important.

Funny thing is, this is how I interpreted the rules as a whole, so it's how I have been playing it all along without realizing it wasn't clearly that way.

Yeah, I like that it does make having a wingman to cover your back more important. I wish that the squadron rules were a bit better, they feel a bit meh at the moment, but I might try to bang up a way to do a combined fighter/wingman thing at some point. Something not very complicated, but more than the "ablative armor" that the squadron rules create now.

The awing is fast, but in situations where speed doesnt matter, only handling (say, maneuvering in a canyon run) the Xwing has a demonstratably superior capability in legend canon. I have some awing houseruls I want to bring up, but phone is dying.

The awing is fast, but in situations where speed doesnt matter, only handling (say, maneuvering in a canyon run) the Xwing has a demonstratably superior capability in legend canon. I have some awing houseruls I want to bring up, but phone is dying.

If you are talking about the X-Wing novels, I seem to remember that was Kell Tainer, who was a pretty talented pilot. And it actually works thematically in the rules, since when flying through hazardous areas, the faster you are going the higher the difficulty.

The awing is fast, but in situations where speed doesnt matter, only handling (say, maneuvering in a canyon run) the Xwing has a demonstratably superior capability in legend canon. I have some awing houseruls I want to bring up, but phone is dying.

If you are talking about the X-Wing novels, I seem to remember that was Kell Tainer, who was a pretty talented pilot. And it actually works thematically in the rules, since when flying through hazardous areas, the faster you are going the higher the difficulty.

Given that the Awings actually had to go even slower than Kell's not-so-spectacular wingman, I would argue that the Awing would have a lower handling than the Xwing, but should have other compensating advantages, like built-in pilot talents.

for instane, making the Awing Silluette 2 before the jammer, in that it's a compact fighter specially designed for stealth, and it would gain a defensive advantage against other fighters, that would improve furthur if the pilot takes the sillouette reducing talent. IIRC, it would also give the fighter a bonus to hit other fighters... making having a +3 maneuver less nessisary. With a Silluette 2 (1 with jammer)and Maneuver +2, it would excell at shooting and not getting shot, but not as great at getting on somene's tail. (which implies slowing down to keep them in front of you)

The Bwing and Tie Defender, meanwhile, could use a system like "Advanced flight controls: Once per round, take 3 system strain (or spend 3 advantage) to upgrade a maneuver to a second action. This must be a different action- You cannot fire both the lasers and ions in one turn, but you can reinforce shields and repair strain on the same turn." This would put the Bwing in the same ballpark as the 2 seat Y wing as far as combat capability, without giving it quite the same action economy of the 3 seat (counting droid) craft.

Apparently I killed the discussion.

Apparently I killed the discussion.

Congratulations!

+2 Kudos.

Apparently I killed the discussion.

Good.

Apparently I killed the discussion.

Critical Injury triggered multiple times with a Vicious weapon and several ranks of Lethal Blow for a net result of 142

I would think that 15 pages translates to a pretty high Massive rating, though....

I would think that 15 pages translates to a pretty high Massive rating, though....

You roll enough Triumphs, and Massive ain't a thing