Is there really a reason to cap the number of purple dice used at 5, instead of say 7 like green dice. (6 max stat, +1 for cybernetics).

I mean, obviously you don't want to use it often, but there are a number of times that I find a slightly higher base difficulty (rather than circumstantial from setback) that didn't involve the chances of Despair (which too much Despair can honestly turn the game a bit slapstick) useful.

I'm working on some house rules, and I find that I could really use a few higher difficulties. Is there anything you think would break by adding Insurmountable () and Impossible ()

You forgot to include red Challenge dice, now imagine 5 purple AND 5 challenge dice...

In my games I've mentioned that six difficulty dice qualifies the task as Impossible. The reason I never thought of a level with seven difficulty dice is because, going by the heroic aspect of the game, the highest possible difficulty should always be a little less than the highest possible player competence. As heroes, the players should always have the chance to rise above the challenges they face, and six challenge against seven difficulty still leaves a high enough chance of failure that any player who succeeds against it feels like they earned it.

Frankly, the only time I could conceive of seven v. seven happening would be in an opposed roll, which is how it should be if the players are squaring off against a Nemesis. But while I understood the need for a theoretical six difficulty check, I still can't think of anything that would need even that.

You forgot to include red Challenge dice, now imagine 5 purple AND 5 challenge dice...

Red Dice are always created by upgrading purple dice, so you will never go over 5 dice + setback dice unless you manage to upgrade PASSED 5 Challenge dice.

And you ignored the point of trying to raise difficulty in ways that don't add Despair chances.

In my games I've mentioned that six difficulty dice qualifies the task as Impossible. The reason I never thought of a level with seven difficulty dice is because, going by the heroic aspect of the game, the highest possible difficulty should always be a little less than the highest possible player competence. As heroes, the players should always have the chance to rise above the challenges they face, and six challenge against seven difficulty still leaves a high enough chance of failure that any player who succeeds against it feels like they earned it.

Well, the 7 dice difficulty was high silhouette vs small silhouette ships in the house rules I was making, so its invariably something that will happen not to the PCs, but to NPCs firing at them. (and it would only come into affect when a Ship 6 or sizes larger in sillhouette fires at a ship moving speed 4 or higher at close range with a weapon like a Turbolaser that isn't made for fast tracking)

It's a combo of things:

For a difficulty high enough it's assumed that the probability of something going wrong will be inherit enough to justify the upgrades and increased risk of despair.

FFG doesn't want new players to have to purchase a dozen dice packs just to play. So they made the typical dice cap at 6, to keep things manageable.

If you've got enough dice and feel upgrades or adding setbacks aren't appropriate to represent the situation I don't see the game breaking.

5 difficulty isn't a hard cap. That's just for arbitrarily-set base difficulties. GMs can still add +1 difficulty, like for finding super-rare merchandise or perhaps shooting at something at Extreme Range with sniper shot and autofire. +1 difficulty for tasks that are made more difficult than normal is totally within the spirit of the rules.

5 difficulty for Formidable tasks is only a suggestion. It's a very good suggestion and is based on lots of playtesting and feedback, but still just a suggestion. It needn't be followed rigidly, but I'd suggest that you have a definite narrative reason (so you can explain to your players) for why the difficulty you are setting is so high.

I could be wrong (I'm AFB), but I thought it was suggested the dice cap at 5, but additional difficulties *upgraded* existing dice. So instead of 7 difficulty dice, you'd end up with RRPPP, plus any setbacks. Or maybe I just made that up at some point, but I like it

Tractor 6 is already in the rules.

The core rule books (EoE pp. 18, and AoR pp. 25) have a sidebar that talks about going beyond Formidable difficulty. Beyond Formidable is Impossible. These tasks still use the five difficulty dice, but you have to spend a Destiny Point to even attempt the impossible. And on top of that, no further Destiny Points can be spent on that roll. I like it, but...

In the case of Rarity going above 10, which is already a Formidable Negotiation (buying) or Streetwise check (selling), the rules say to upgrade the difficulty dice using the usual upgrading rules. At Rarity 16 (trying to find a Rarity 9 or 10 item on an uncivilized world in Wild Space), the check adds (unupgraded) difficulty die number 6... This seems to invalidate the Impossible Tasks rule.

There is also the case of Tractor 6, as HappyDaze mentioned. Heavy tractor beams demand a Difficulty 6 Piloting check to escape. Is that six difficulty dice, again invalidating the Impossible Tasks rule, or is it five difficulty dice and you upgrade one to a challenge die?

Or do we throw out the Impossible Task rule as written and just say Impossible means six difficulty dice (and no Destiny fee)?

You can do as you like but between upgrades for Challenge dice and creative ideas for the addition of Setbacks it should be pretty rare for a need to go higher.

I'm having trouble conceiving a scenario in which 6 Difficulty dice were called for, but risking a Despair due to Challenge die would be 'undesirable.' This seems to be a solution searching for a problem (i.e. - fixing what is not broken).

I'm having trouble conceiving a scenario in which 6 Difficulty dice were called for, but risking a Despair due to Challenge die would be 'undesirable.' This seems to be a solution searching for a problem (i.e. - fixing what is not broken).

Several squadrons of Alliance Starfighters vs. Imp Star Destroyer. The house rules I made were for making it harder for Capital Ships to hit Starfighters and Space Transports, due to the fact that as written, it is instant death, which it is very obviously not accurate to what we see on screen, because the Falcon still exists. (You are also not likely to destroy it unless you have a lot of fighters and missiles, but I feel that the current instantdeathification is inaccurate to what we see on screen).

With Evasive Maneuvers going, every attack already has 1 Challenge die. If you combine all of the heavy turbolasers into 5 turret batteries, you are looking at 6 attacks a round for just the batteries. If you upgrade it to 2 dice, that is an average of 1 despair every round for the Impstar, and that just comes off as really really slapstick, as it consistently has turrets malfunction and the like.

Several squadrons of Alliance Starfighters vs. Imp Star Destroyer. The house rules I made were for making it harder for Capital Ships to hit Starfighters and Space Transports, due to the fact that as written, it is instant death, which it is very obviously not accurate to what we see on screen, because the Falcon still exists. (You are also not likely to destroy it unless you have a lot of fighters and missiles, but I feel that the current instantdeathification is inaccurate to what we see on screen).

With Evasive Maneuvers going, every attack already has 1 Challenge die. If you combine all of the heavy turbolasers into 5 turret batteries, you are looking at 6 attacks a round for just the batteries. If you upgrade it to 2 dice, that is an average of 1 despair every round for the Impstar, and that just comes off as really really slapstick, as it consistently has turrets malfunction and the like.

Okay, it seems we disagree pretty squarely about a few things. I've never experienced a situation in which a Star Destroyer easily hits and destroys Silhouette 2, 3, or 4 ships. Yeah, if a heavy turbolaser hits a fighter, it's toast, but then it should be. It is a battleship shooting a speedboat after all.

So, yeah, I still don't see this as an issue. If it works for you, then kudos, but maybe if you hadn't house ruled things in the first place you wouldn't be running into this issue.

Well an Imperial Star Destroyer would be equal to an Battleship. If that ISD hits a starfighter with it's tubolasers it would be like a Battleship hitting a F-16 with it's 240mm cannons. If such a battleship decides to fire all firepower against a minor craft, like a starfighter or an light freighter it would go boom in a split sec.

However, it would be ridiculous to fire all firepower against such a minor craft, instead they would use just some of the guns, most likely even the smaller ones, not the Heavy Turbolasers but more like a few of the Light Turbolasers to destroy such a minor ship. Even with a large Minion Group with maxed out skills, the diff would still be Formidable with a few setback dice thrown in from angeled shields, and most likely the ship being fired upon would use some evasive maneuvers (and if a PC ship, perhaps some destiny.

With the slow-fire from the Turbolasers they can only attack every other turn, so the ISD would only fire a few shots (e.g roll the dice a few times) before the ship makes it to hyperspace. A standard YT-1300 can take to direct hits from an light Turbolaser so you better hurry up to fly into Hyperspace. And said YT-1300 would be something like the real world equivalent to a fishing boat so two hits from a battleship is darnly pretty good.

/Poseur gives a few thoughts about the ISD VS Mille, erhm YT-1300 debate

By the rules, if the gunners on an Imperial Star Destroyer are 2 Agility, and they fire as a group of 5 they are rolling 2 yellow, 3 green. If they are firing on a Silhouette 3 craft with 1 shields that is performing evasive maneuvers, they will hit ~47% of the time. With 2 shields this moves up to 41%.

By this math, assuming the Falcon has 3 aft shields when angled. Now let's assume Han has grabbed the two defensive talents from the pilot tree. (we will ignore Brilliant Evasion for the moment, I'll get back to it.)

With YYGGGRPPPPBBBB, Each battery of the Star Destroyer will hit 31% of the time. I'm going to use 30% because its a bit easier to do the math. The Falcon is running with it chasing him the majority of the chase, so he is in its forward firing arc. All its turbolasers can hit that arc. The Imp could attack with 2 of these batteries each turn (though this isn't the most efficient way of dealing with the Falcon, as we will see in a second). But lets say they do. Fire twice.

Let's assume that 2 shots will "disable" the Falcon, and one will damage it. This is pretty accurate for a YT1300 (we are buffing up a lot of other stuff such as its shields, since it is the Falcon).

If firing 2 turbolasers every turn:

After the First Turn:
51% chance of being damaged
9% chance of being disabled

After the Second Turn
76% chance of being damaged
35% chance of being disabled

After the Third Turn
88% chance of being damaged
58% chance of being disabled

If it instead they didn't bother to stagger them, they would immediately get the third turn: 58% chance of disabled.

And its not like this is the only weapons they have. And against a Fighter it would be 1 hit and you are out. And we are using a HEAVILY defensive build with a bunch of shields and pilot talents.

The only real defense is brilliant evasion. Which I assume Han had, but its almost too good in the other direction. 1 Pilot check, you can't attack me at all! (for x rounds)

If the ISD is firing all its guns, yes mostly everything would be toast in a turn, even another ISD (I presume). The thing is, nobody would fire all cannons against a minor, non threatening craft, that would just be ridiculous. But if they decide to fire all guns against a fighter och freighter, it should be toasted in a turn like KJDavid said, it would be like shooting a speedboat with a battleship.

It's like if the Bismarck used all (actually not all) of its guns:

• 8 × 38 cm (15 in) SK C/34 (4 × 2)
• 12 × 15 cm (5.9 in) SK C/28 (6 × 2)
• 16 × 10.5 cm (4.1 in) SK C/33 (8 × 2)

To sink a fishing boat just because it's captain wanted to be sure it where sunk. It's just overkill (and it should be).

Remember I'm using a very highly skilled Han.

Being anywhere near anything with a turbolaser is basically instant death to a fighter half the time it fires on it. And with those being long range shots, that means instant doom from further out than a fighter can even tell a cap ship is THERE.

This is why you dont stat an ISD for a RPG..

ISD are set back drop pieces.. EoE or AoR is not a tactical Space simulation. IF folks would just get over that fact, these threads would not pop up...

I agree that the star-fighters are a bit squeaky, but it is also how i want them (and at least to some extent how they are portrayed in the films). We seem to be on a different view just on what the Turbolasers should be capable of and how that works within the game with the rules and the narrative. Am I right with this though?

This is why you dont stat an ISD for a RPG..

ISD are set back drop pieces.. EoE or AoR is not a tactical Space simulation. IF folks would just get over that fact, these threads would not pop up...

I don't really agree to this. Have the ISD focus it's main guns on something else, have TIEs to attack star-fighters, or fly into close( or short range, cant remember witch one is the shortest range now) range and use the ISD as difficult terrain instead of an actual combat threat. I would say the Turbolasers cant really hit the starfighters on the closest range band ( I know it can in the rules, but rules also say narrative, and the movies say that would be hard for the turbos). Have the ISD provide Blanket barrage. Think about what the officers would order to be the most reasonable use of its guns, not what would be the most rule-efficient.

I.e. you can attack a ISD with a few proton torpedo ready star-fighters and bring it down, but it will and should be hard work.

I just feel it should be MUCH MUCH harder for a turbolaser to track a starfighter. They aren't designed for it, they are made to shoot at other capital ships, not 12 meter ships moving at much much higher speeds.

Its like your comment about a battleship firing all its weapons. They aren't firing 8 inch deck cannons against a fighter plane. They would have next to no chance of hitting it.

I think the issue is that ISDs shouldn't just have Capital ship style weapons. They should have fighter defense batteries as well, but that is not how it got statted up forever ago, so we are stuck with it the way it is. (I mean, as in, the rules we get won't have them. Obviously we can house rule them on).

The reason why the ISDs in The Empire Strikes Back didn't splatter the Falcon is because they had orders from Lord Darth Vader himself to capture the freighter. While we often refer to Star Destroyers as battleships and snubfighters as air superiority fighters, they are not truly equivalent.

If you want to keep an ISD from splattering a freighter in a one-on-one engagement, don't group the turbolasers into 5-gun groups. Put all the guns in one minion group. It's a lot simpler to keep up with from the GM's perspective. Then your chances of 'splattering' the freighter are a lot smaller.

Not sure why a freighter would do anything but run like hell from an ISD, but, that's another topic.

Anyway, when it comes to snubfighters versus a Star Destroyer, there's a reason why an incredulous pilot muttered, "Two starfighters against a Star Destroyer?"

I generally agree that the Turbolasers shouldn't really have it so easy to hit the starfighters. But you (you generally meaning, not you personally) could instead have the ISD use Blanket Barrage, which imo is a good way to portrait the turbolasers from really big capital ships against starfighters or have fewer guns attack the same target.

Yeah and the thing with the battleship analogy, fireing all guns with targeting computers against a small aircraft (if it could) would surely be a bit hard without those computers but with them, it sure even out the odds.

But yes, if one doesn't like how likely an ISD could bring down an x-wing one could houserule it.

Another thing in-universe is that the ISD is also a carrier and imperial strategy uses hordes of TIE fighters to attack other starfighters (even using the blanket barrage, its not really like the empire care for a few shots of frendly fire) and the ISD would most likely have other ships escorting it, patrol boats, gunships, cruisers and so forth.

Anyway, when it comes to snubfighters versus a Star Destroyer, there's a reason why an incredulous pilot muttered, "Two starfighters against a Star Destroyer?"

That's a very good quote in this debate.

/Poseur wants Ion cannon support.