The "normal physics" of pressurization and our understanding of atmospheric containment don't apply in a galaxy far, far away... (IMHO)

Because TIEs make noise in space. ;-) And have to bank and turn like an atmospheric craft...

Why? Because... STAR WARS...

...baby.

So at some point, someone in some TV show will fly a TIE into open space without a helmet on, and there will be much ado about having to "retcon" things and people wondering what it could possibly mean...

...while the author just wanted to have a cool story about a dude stealing a TIE fighter.

(an image came unbidden to mind of an X-Wing pilot trying to fly in combat with a couple dozen plush stuffed animals in the cockpit)

Tangentially related:

Oh, my.

A much anticipated and great show, lot of people's Q's got answers and think most listener's would have gotten a lot out of it.

However!

Its still here...

The 800lb gorilla vs the 800lb pane of glass

It was kind of interesting that they pretty much denied there was any problems with it, but basically anyone who gets shot down in 2 rounds like most of us do, still see the problem inherant in the system itself.

I can full appreciate the space combat system is dangerous and needs to be fast paced, but like most things in life, some of us move at our own pace when we run our games to suit our own predilictions or even just because some of our players are a bit 'dim' and take ages to figure stuff out.

Moving on because FFG won't address it.

Houserule a reaction dodge/parry effect for space combat in your games.

That sucks and I'm not entirely happy with it.

"Working as intended". They want the rules for space combat to be fast and deadly. *shrug*

I'll be posting up my suggested houserule for the Snap Roll "reactive incidental" on my blog later this week. Feel free to playtest it at home and i'd love to hear feedback.

Otherwise,thanks to everyone who provided questions. I hope we got them answered for you.

"Fast and deadly"

Except, you know, for speed, shields, handling and piloting having absolutely nothing to do with survivability. It's initiative-rush rocket-tag.

Well, except for speed increasing the danger of hazardous terrain and thus lowering it.

Dropped the bloody ball on that one. Expected as much (what with the vehicular and equipment history here), but hoped I'd be proven wrong for once.

Rather than just being 'another bloody whinger', here's a few of my own ideas for when 'Lethal' becomes un-fun in your games:

Some ideas I've been thinking about to reduce the lethality of being in Silhouette 3 or smaller vehicles.

Pick one, pick some or if you're getting your arse beat like you owe Jabba the hut 50,000 credits, pick a few of them together and see how it works out for you.

Option 1 'Get tougher' (Sil 3 or Smaller vehicles)
Increase the Hit Threshold across the board for Sil 3 or smaller vehicles by +50% and round them up/down to the closest number. Everything is still pretty lethal, but not likely to die immediately from a linked laser cannon or exploderise on contact.

Option 2 'Get out of the way' (Sil 3 or Smaller vehicles)
Pilots get 1 Reaction-Roll per turn to 'Jink' out of the way of a single attack. Costs 2 Personal Strain and they increase the difficulty to-be-hit by their Piloting Skill halved/round up and would combine with Evasive Manoeuvres.

Baron Bob for example has Piloting of 3, looking down the barrel of some turbolasers on an attack run, he opts to 'Jink' out of the way of that attack.
He increases the difficulty of the to-hit by a factor of 3/2= 1.5, rounded up = 2.

Option 3 'Get on their six' (Sil 3 or Smaller vehicles)
Mostly an expansion on 'Gain the Advantage', it carries the standard bonuses of the GtA as a piloting action, however; the Enemy cannot return fire if they have only forward mounted weapons, against turreted or vehicles with multiple fire arcs you could apply it as-

• Only a turreted or point defence weapon can fire on the attacker
• They are attacked on their weakest arc of defence

Option 4 'Get Deflectors up' (All Silhouettes)
Essentially, making shields earn their keep instead of being 33% do nothing, 33% do very little and 33% actually do something in terms of making a ship harder to kill.
Each Shield adds +1 to the Soak of the Ship in that arc as well as its variable effect, while the shielding is up and working. Downed shields have no effect, Talents that add 'Defence #' also contribute to this deflection quality to a maximum of 4 in any given arc at any one time.
Deflector Shields have no soak effect against slow moving weapons like Torpedoes or Missiles, but they work perfectly fine against being rammed or hitting rocks.

NB: Take care to note that it makes big ships very tough!

"Fast and deadly"

Except, you know, for speed, shields, handling and piloting having absolutely nothing to do with survivability. It's initiative-rush rocket-tag.

Well, except for speed increasing the danger of hazardous terrain and thus lowering it.

Dropped the bloody ball on that one. Expected as much (what with the vehicular and equipment history here), but hoped I'd be proven wrong for once.

I'm glad you toned it down a bit in your edit, however I still feel that you are pointing out perceived flaws that are not actual flaws but deliberate choices and now that the developers basically told us this is so.

No one is telling you to like the RAW but criticizing it for not being something it was never intended to be just seems a tad bit dishonest. No one "dropped the ball", it is just that you would have prefered a different ball, that's all.

"Fast and deadly"

Except, you know, for speed, shields, handling and piloting having absolutely nothing to do with survivability. It's initiative-rush rocket-tag.

Well, except for speed increasing the danger of hazardous terrain and thus lowering it.

Dropped the bloody ball on that one. Expected as much (what with the vehicular and equipment history here), but hoped I'd be proven wrong for once.

Combat encounters rarely occur in a vacuum. Piloting skill should be able to enhance your survivability as surely as Athletics checks can help you evade your foes, on a situational basis.

Pilots can take the Gain the Advantage action, which can 1) get rid of another pilot's Advantage previously Gained on you, directly improving your defense, and 2) allow you more freedom to take Evasive Maneuvers, indirectly improving your defense.

A high piloting skill can generate a high amount of Advantage and/or Triumph. These can be used to perform extra maneuvers, add Setback to your opponents' combat checks, break Aim/Stay on Target maneuvers, upgrade the difficulty of incoming combat checks, and do other fun things to your enemies to help you stay alive. Lower piloting skills result in fewer Advantage & Triumphs.

There are also several talents that can affect your defensiveness (Pilot, Driver, Squadron Commander, Hotshot, Starfighter Ace): Tricky Target, Defensive Driving (ranked), Brilliant Evasion, Master Pilot (allows you to make Gain the Advantage as a maneuver, once again indirectly improving survivability), Koiogran Turn, Intuitive Evasion.

And now there's the Unmatched Survivability signature ability for Aces in Stay on Target. Is all this really not enough?

"Fast and deadly"

Except, you know, for speed, shields, handling and piloting having absolutely nothing to do with survivability. It's initiative-rush rocket-tag.

Well, except for speed increasing the danger of hazardous terrain and thus lowering it.

Dropped the bloody ball on that one. Expected as much (what with the vehicular and equipment history here), but hoped I'd be proven wrong for once.

I'm glad you toned it down a bit in your edit, however I still feel that you are pointing out perceived flaws that are not actual flaws but deliberate choices and now that the developers basically told us this is so.

No one is telling you to like the RAW but criticizing it for not being something it was never intended to be just seems a tad bit dishonest. No one "dropped the ball", it is just that you would have prefered a different ball, that's all.

A deliberate choice can still be a flaw, the developers' vision isn't sacrosanct or anything like that. Of course what is and isn't a flaw is also very subjective.

Comparing this to say personal-scale combat, if two combatants are standing out in the open at average range, both armed with missile launchers, technically doesn't that also come down to whoever fires first? Similarly, most air combat today with modern fightercraft does come down to whoever gets the first shot, which usually goes to whoever has the better radar (sensor) range.

But here's the thing, in personal scale combat, how often are two combatants going to be standing at medium range from each other on an open field with missile launchers? That's not poor rules, that's poor encounter design.

We make a point of designing encounters to make them interesting by including terrain, places where people can hide behind, but most of all encounters all have an objective. Space combat should be no different than personal combat. If in an starfighter encounter, one needs to reserve one's limited supply of proton torpedoes or missiles for destroying specific objectives (which is why you never saw protons fired at anything but an exhaust port or a deflection tower in any of the films), then the missile question becomes moot. Sure, it's an easy win in a dogfight, but the dogfight itself is usually not the objective, but rather the obstacle in the way of the objective.

Comparing this to say personal-scale combat,

In most personal combat, the typical damage ratings and soak values of combat-focused characters along with typical WT of 12+ (and often much higher) makes a few hits in personal combat more survivable than starfighter combat.

The trouble is, missile-launchers have a breach rating, make personal scale armor/soak moot anyway. I don't disagree that the damage potential to armor ratio in Starship combat is a lot tighter. An A-wing can only take two shots from a light or medium laser cannon before its goes over its hull threshold. Similar deal with a TIE fighter... but these two ships tend to operate in swarms. This is where the squadron rules make it more interesting.

I think one of the other big things that needs to be said in terms of starship combat is the questions as to whether or not a given ship is able to bring their guns to bear on another ship. This is handled narratively, rather than through the game mechanics of something like X-wing miniatures. One often overlooked feature in Starship combat is the opposed piloting check (AoR Core. pg. 127). A pilot needs to win an opposed check in order to determine which weapons they get to bring to bear. If the check is unsuccessful, they don't get to bring their weapons to bear, and then may need to choose an alternate action (such as gaining the advantage, which would make the need for an opposed check in the next turn moot). In this case, maneuverability of the ship comes into play, because of course each pilot is rolling with whatever advantage or setbacks their craft provide, plus whatever additional setbacks are provided through the terrain. I don't think it's unreasonable to be trying to shoot at another ship with 3-5 setbacks in play... which would include shields, but would also include terrain issues...

"Fast and deadly"

Except, you know, for speed, shields, handling and piloting having absolutely nothing to do with survivability. It's initiative-rush rocket-tag.

Well, except for speed increasing the danger of hazardous terrain and thus lowering it.

Dropped the bloody ball on that one. Expected as much (what with the vehicular and equipment history here), but hoped I'd be proven wrong for once.

I'm glad you toned it down a bit in your edit, however I still feel that you are pointing out perceived flaws that are not actual flaws but deliberate choices and now that the developers basically told us this is so.

No one is telling you to like the RAW but criticizing it for not being something it was never intended to be just seems a tad bit dishonest. No one "dropped the ball", it is just that you would have prefered a different ball, that's all.

A deliberate choice can still be a flaw, the developers' vision isn't sacrosanct or anything like that. Of course what is and isn't a flaw is also very subjective.

Especially since the 'flaw' itself is the intended design choice.... I do agree on that subjectivity but calling the Golden Gate flawed for being painted International Orange because you like blue better is about as pointless.

While I definitely think it's cool that the designers are willing to answer questions, it really seems like quite a lot of the questions got side stepped. A significant amount of the answers were about the feel of the rules rather than the mechanics of the rules. Too many of their replies came down to GM intervention rather than addressing missing, vague, or potentially incorrect content.

Why is the Dragoon the best pistol ever (or at least close)? This got completely skipped.

Why do the A/KT armors have a useless ability? Because a GM might add random strain on characters without a rules reason and the players need some way to mitigate that.

Does the T-Wing have missiles or torpedoes? They didn't even want to hear the question and said the stat block is correct. Too bad the stat block contradicts itself.

There were a few more, but you get the idea.

Masque,

Simple explanation is that they only have so much time, and there's stuff that simply isn't going to be asked in the interests of time. Plus, any questions that do get in are at the hosts' discretion, and GM Chris was pretty up front that they were going to cherry pick.

Of course, given over half this thread is complaining about the basic rules for starship combat, pretty easy for stuff to get missed in all the ranting.

Especially since the 'flaw' itself is the intended design choice.... I do agree on that subjectivity but calling the Golden Gate flawed for being painted International Orange because you like blue better is about as pointless.

Paint it anyway you want, but if the system isn't working for people and the proposed solution provided is 'you're all playing it wrong' or based on particular in-game circumstances, then its quite rightly not standing up to any kind of robust criticism.

Page 127 is kept (intentionally) vague, and if used in this fashion would wreck "fast and deadly" in a far worse fashion than any of the changes that have been proposed. You would require opposed piloting checks in addition to actual taken turns, followed by the occasional slowdown caused by having to recalculate alternative actions and dice pools. Chances are it's just a reference to the ill-executed "Gain the Advantage" maneuver system. Starships are, additionally, far more likely to encounter "empty space" situations than characters, and their effective blindness to anything beyond sensor range makes preparatory evasives quite unlikely; as long as 'limited ammo' weapons are involved, numerous starfighters can and *will* be wiped out before they even know they need to roll initiative.

Missiles and torpedoes, having the range and power that they have compared to regular starfighter guns, are not only extremely decisive, but their actual power versus Sil 5+ vessels actually makes their 'intended' use far less likely: Unless you truly have a wall of projectiles to sling at a given ship before it vaporises your squadron, attacking capital or supercapital vessels is a poor use of your extremely limited resource indeed. Thus this use becomes a "those 30 NPCs" deal, and completely disjointed from the 'life' of a PC starship.

Also in regards to 'toning it down', actually my edit was the addition of the parentheses section and the bit about speed and hazardous terrain (for the sake of accuracy). I'm not sure that really toned much down. Being told "we're playing it wrong" when the problem shows up in the most simple and generic/universal situations, and that we should just houserule it is pretty much saying "play something else" outright: what are we if not playing something else entirely once we've rewritten massive chunks of system?

Since errata for Age seems to take an age (bad pun intended), let me sneak these in:

Page 56: The R-60 "T-wing" Interceptor is listed as having proton torpedo launchers, but the game stat line is that of concussion missile launchers (Damage 6; Critical 3; Blast 4, Breach 4, Guided 3). Should this fighter have proton torpedoes (requiring a change to the game stat line) or should it mount concussion missile launchers (with the given stat line)?

The answer that was given, that the stat blocks are correct in the event of conflicting information, doesn't really answer this question since the conflict is entirely within the stat block.

The opposed check is specifically not a reference to Gain the Advantage, as stated by both Andrew Fischer and Sam Stewart. The reason being is that Gain the Advantage is only useable by ships travelling at speed 4 or faster, while the opposed check can be for a ship at any speed. I don't see that as slowing things down at all, but rather it keeps the element of pilot skill and ship maneuverability in play. It also inevitably has red and yellow dice included in any such rolls, which allow for the possibilities of triumph and despairs to be spent in combat in creative ways before a shot is even fired.

The opposed check isn't to be used all the time, but it is a useful way to determine if someone who wants to shoot is able to bring their weapons to bear.

Also, I've always seen the starship combat as an extension of personal combat, which is why I see it working. Usually players are moving in and around cover, picking their targets carefully and using terrain to their advantage. It's on a rare occasion that someone simply runs at an opponent blasting away, and that rarely ends well for either participant. Why do we presume that starship combat should be any different?

It's on a rare occasion that someone simply runs at an opponent blasting away, and that rarely ends well for either participant. Why do we presume that starship combat should be any different?

In this game, that situation often ends well for the guy that shoots first so long as he has a weapon that can totally destroy his opponent in one shot. In personal combat, such weapons (like the missile tube) seldom appear, but in starfighter combat we see them all the time in the form of concussion missiles and proton torpedoes.

if the system isn't working for people

It is though? There is about 2 or 3 on here that it isn't working for, you make it seem as if the entire hobby is going through these motions when that simply isn't true.

The opposed check is specifically not a reference to Gain the Advantage, as stated by both Andrew Fischer and Sam Stewart. The reason being is that Gain the Advantage is only useable by ships travelling at speed 4 or faster, while the opposed check can be for a ship at any speed. I don't see that as slowing things down at all, but rather it keeps the element of pilot skill and ship maneuverability in play. It also inevitably has red and yellow dice included in any such rolls, which allow for the possibilities of triumph and despairs to be spent in combat in creative ways before a shot is even fired.

The opposed check isn't to be used all the time, but it is a useful way to determine if someone who wants to shoot is able to bring their weapons to bear.

Ok, so when do you use it if not once per turn? Once at the begining of the fight? Once every three turns? If not every turn, do you prevent the ship that "lost" the roll from firing for more than one turn? Or do you give it setback dice?

If you plan to use Gain the Advantage, if you have successfully achieved GtA, if you're performing an action that doesn't involve shooting someone else. Really I see the opposed roll used in circumstances while you're trying to bring your weapons to bear.

That's my short answer, I could do a more detailed one later when I'm not on my iPad...

You use the opposed roll that is "specifically not Gain the Advantage" to determine whether or not you have Gained the Advantage when you use Gain the Advantage?

WAT.

Um... I don't think you understood what the difference between an opposed roll to determine if weapons can be brought to bear and what Gain the Advantage bestows. There's a difference.

Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook, page 127:
During space conflict, pilots may jockey for position to determine which shields face the enemy and which weapons may be brought to bear. When opponents attempt to negate these efforts, the winner is identified through an opposed Piloting (Space) check.

Generally I see this associated with a fly/drive maneuver that is not associated with trying to close or open a gap between range bands. So in a basic dogfight, this is the equivalent to personal scale of moving yourself into position to be able to fire, while taking cover behind boxes, flanking your opponent etc. The idea is that in personal scale, if two people are trying to get to the same point, or achieve the same goal, you use an opposed check to see who wins. In a dogfight, this is even more so and is happening with far greater frequency.

Now for Gain the Advantage.

Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook Page 247

This action represents the frantic give-and-take of a dogfight between small craft like starfighters and patrol boats or high-speed vehicles like airspeeders. It allows the pilot to gain the upper hand on a single opponent so that he positions himself for a better attack during the following round. The pilot executes a piloting check with the difficulty determined by the relative speeds of the ships involved in the attack. These difficulties are outlined in Table 7-3: Speed Advantage Difficulty. If the check succeeds , the pilot ignores all penalties by his own and his opponent's use of Evasive Maneuvers starship maneuver until the end of the following round. In addition, the pilot chooses which defensive zone he hits with his attack...

In this case, once Advantage is gained, a pilot then does not have to roll an opposed check to see if they bring their weapons to bear in their next turn. The ship is in their sights, and so an opposed check is redundant, and the player who has gained the advantage may spend their maneuver on something else, such as say, aim or even their own evasive maneuvers. If advantage has been gained, the ship that is being targeted cannot bring their weapons to bear unless they then do a further gain the advantage action on their own turn to try and bring it back, and it can go back and forth until one of the ships fails. The big difference here is that gaining the advantage is fundamentally easier than an opposed piloting check... but it's only something that ships capable of speed 4 can do. An unmodified YT-1300, for example, cannot gain the advantage because its too slow.

So does this make sense? Gain the advantage makes the opposed piloting check in the following turn unnecessary, and goes even further by eliminating penalties incurred by evasive maneuvers, therefore increasing the odds of hitting your opponent by a considerable amount.