they get 5 yellows. you stop upgrading at a certain point.

Why do people shoot guns at attacking fighter jets? It is better than doing nothing. And who knows you might get lucky. Certainly better than Vader they got away and we did not try and stop them.

Why do people shoot guns at attacking fighter jets? It is better than doing nothing. And who knows you might get lucky. Certainly better than Vader they got away and we did not try and stop them.

People have gotten lucky. We've lost planes to ground fire in Korea and Vietnam due to lucky hits that injured the pilots. The reality is that in our world there are no scales of damage/defense. While a bullet might not do damage to something like an Aircraft carrier (overall), it can still damage people and parts on the ship that are meaningful in terms of reducing the effectiveness of the ship (damaged radar motors or emitters don't work well, small arms can damage missile launchers, etc...). This is the problem of simulations (RPGs) vs reality. In animate object damage is always just weird.

So, the troopers probably couldn't destroy the Falcon with small arms fire, but, as we see in shots from the movie, they were damaging parts of the ship until it got off the ground and its shields came up (scorch marks to the landing struts, the loading ramp struts, the wall behind Solo, etc...). Maybe they could get a shot into the cockpit and hit the pilot through the fairly large windows...

Why do people shoot guns at attacking fighter jets? It is better than doing nothing. And who knows you might get lucky. Certainly better than Vader they got away and we did not try and stop them.

People have gotten lucky. We've lost planes to ground fire in Korea and Vietnam due to lucky hits that injured the pilots. The reality is that in our world their are no scales of damage/defense. While a bullet might not do damage to something like an Aircraft carrier (overall), it can still damage people and parts on the ship that are meaningful in terms of reducing the effectiveness of the ship (damaged radar motors or emitters don't work well, small arms can damage missile launchers, etc...). This is the problem of simulations (RPGs) vs reality. In animate object damage is always just weird.

So, the troopers probably couldn't destroy the Falcon with small arms fire, but, as we see in shots from the movie, they were damaging parts of the ship until it got off the ground and its shields came up (scorch marks to the landing struts, the loading ramp struts, the wall behind Solo, etc...). Maybe they could get a shot into the cockpit and hit the pilot through the fairly large windows...

which could be the result of a triumph. Which is the beauty of this system.

Why do people shoot guns at attacking fighter jets? It is better than doing nothing. And who knows you might get lucky. Certainly better than Vader they got away and we did not try and stop them.

People have gotten lucky. We've lost planes to ground fire in Korea and Vietnam due to lucky hits that injured the pilots. The reality is that in our world their are no scales of damage/defense. While a bullet might not do damage to something like an Aircraft carrier (overall), it can still damage people and parts on the ship that are meaningful in terms of reducing the effectiveness of the ship (damaged radar motors or emitters don't work well, small arms can damage missile launchers, etc...). This is the problem of simulations (RPGs) vs reality. In animate object damage is always just weird.

So, the troopers probably couldn't destroy the Falcon with small arms fire, but, as we see in shots from the movie, they were damaging parts of the ship until it got off the ground and its shields came up (scorch marks to the landing struts, the loading ramp struts, the wall behind Solo, etc...). Maybe they could get a shot into the cockpit and hit the pilot through the fairly large windows...

which could be the result of a triumph. Which is the beauty of this system.

Still need a point of damage over there Threshhold to apply a crit. Which is the reason the Missile Tube, which is supposed to be an light anti-armor weapon, blows sheebs so bloody hard.

That motorcycle gives new meaning to heated seats if you try and fire it still on it. Anyway it not just limited to SW btw folks. I had a group of players in a DnD game get a hold of a ballista and aimed it at a castle door. Needless to say there was a chunky salsa effect from splintering wood and a giant sharp stick slamming into the ten guys trying to reinforce said door. Vehicle weapon versus personal. Naw, that not personal it just rude crude and highly effective. Though from a GM perspective you may want to allow some scifi physics apply. The snowspeeders had to be adapted to the cold but so did they needed to be adapted to fit weapons. Now in Empire when the snowspeeders went against the AT-AT they did squat damage to them. Could they get lucky (yes they did but only after knocking the suckers down) so scifi physics could say that said vehicles couldn't equip anything over personal grade weapons or simply they couldn't allocate enough energy to do significant damage, i.e. decrease weapon damage. Just an opinion and observation based on the fact that a team of 4 players in snowspeeders could of done 2-8 strafing runs on an AT-AT and killed it. This is based on the game rules not how it played out in the movie mind you.

The snowspeeders had to be adapted to the cold but so did they needed to be adapted to fit weapons. Now in Empire when the snowspeeders went against the AT-AT they did squat damage to them. Could they get lucky (yes they did but only after knocking the suckers down) so scifi physics could say that said vehicles couldn't equip anything over personal grade weapons or simply they couldn't allocate enough energy to do significant damage, i.e. decrease weapon damage. Just an opinion and observation based on the fact that a team of 4 players in snowspeeders could of done 2-8 strafing runs on an AT-AT and killed it. This is based on the game rules not how it played out in the movie mind you.

The AT-ATs have Armor 4, and a whole boatload of HT. If the speeders can’t mount anything better than an Auto-Blaster (with damage 3), it’s going to take them a really long time to do much damage.

But a YT-2400 with a pair of twin medium laser cannons would be able to tear them up pretty quickly, if the gunners were good.

The snowspeeders had to be adapted to the cold but so did they needed to be adapted to fit weapons. Now in Empire when the snowspeeders went against the AT-AT they did squat damage to them. Could they get lucky (yes they did but only after knocking the suckers down) so scifi physics could say that said vehicles couldn't equip anything over personal grade weapons or simply they couldn't allocate enough energy to do significant damage, i.e. decrease weapon damage. Just an opinion and observation based on the fact that a team of 4 players in snowspeeders could of done 2-8 strafing runs on an AT-AT and killed it. This is based on the game rules not how it played out in the movie mind you.

The AT-ATs have Armor 4, and a whole boatload of HT. If the speeders can’t mount anything better than an Auto-Blaster (with damage 3), it’s going to take them a really long time to do much damage.

But a YT-2400 with a pair of twin medium laser cannons would be able to tear them up pretty quickly, if the gunners were good.

Which is actually in keeping with the films, given Luke's line in ESB of "that armor's too thick for blasters!" when Rogue Squadron engaged those AT-ATs during the Battle of Hoth, requiring them to get creative in taking those walkers down.

Heck, a Y-Wing would rip through an AT-AT pretty quickly with just its laser cannons, and faster still if they opted to use a proton torpedo.

The snowspeeders had to be adapted to the cold but so did they needed to be adapted to fit weapons. Now in Empire when the snowspeeders went against the AT-AT they did squat damage to them. Could they get lucky (yes they did but only after knocking the suckers down) so scifi physics could say that said vehicles couldn't equip anything over personal grade weapons or simply they couldn't allocate enough energy to do significant damage, i.e. decrease weapon damage. Just an opinion and observation based on the fact that a team of 4 players in snowspeeders could of done 2-8 strafing runs on an AT-AT and killed it. This is based on the game rules not how it played out in the movie mind you.

The AT-ATs have Armor 4, and a whole boatload of HT. If the speeders can’t mount anything better than an Auto-Blaster (with damage 3), it’s going to take them a really long time to do much damage.

But a YT-2400 with a pair of twin medium laser cannons would be able to tear them up pretty quickly, if the gunners were good.

Which is actually in keeping with the films, given Luke's line in ESB of "that armor's too thick for blasters!" when Rogue Squadron engaged those AT-ATs during the Battle of Hoth, requiring them to get creative in taking those walkers down.

Heck, a Y-Wing would rip through an AT-AT pretty quickly with just its laser cannons, and faster still if they opted to use a proton torpedo.

unfortunately they were using the snubfighters for escorts against star destroyers.

unfortunately they were using the snubfighters for escorts against star destroyers.

Which was their only choice as the snowspeeders can't fly in space.

While a bullet might not do damage to something like an Aircraft carrier (overall), it can still damage people and parts on the ship that are meaningful in terms of reducing the effectiveness of the ship (damaged radar motors or emitters don't work well, small arms can damage missile launchers, etc...).

Or, as my dad's instructor in flight school told him, "Today you will learn how to destroy a twenty million dollar aircraft with a five cent bullet."

"The Superflare - Modified Mobquet Flare-S Swoop" is described on page 65 of Dangerous Covenants.

It has an "Oversized Weapon" auto-blaster (2 threat on a weapon check means speed drops by one and immediate hard pilot check, or can lose all power). It has an entire large paragraph dedicated to other drawbacks such as slow recharge (sapping speed during) and so on.