So, any chance the 'harder' questions will be covered?

It's not like it would be too much work: only choosing a few from the myriad of solutions - many of them workable - provided, and stuffing them into an errata document to be official. Could be as easy as five minutes and copy-paste. People who love these games can and have worked out viable solutions and I'm pretty sure no one's asking for royalties on errata.

Most importantly though that would be one of the few (if not maybe even one of the first) times that a system with some serious holes in it actually gets them something other than denied by the creators, but actually gets them plugged. I can't imagine "Oh yeah and they listened to players so the space combat system's amazing now" would make bad press!

I'm not quite sure I follow you, but the developers and writers and FFG staff appear quite frequently on the Order 66 podcast. I think it's awesome, but it's not necessarily a unique or rare situation.

Is the FFG Star Wars system the one you're talking about "with serious holes in it"? I'm not sure I agree, also not sure why it would be "denied by its creators".

Also not sure if you're aware but they DO have errata documents for some of the books that are already out.

I think I'm probably just confused about what you're saying?

It was a more general statement (although I remember the equipment chapters of Dark Heresy 2 and its beta); even when there's a rather obvious problem; whether the massive class disparities of d20 system's fantasy games, or the "don't even face a normal bandit until you've got a few hundred xp in you, their 8k4 dicepools will grind you into dust" of L5R, things tend to go unaddressed in a permanent fashion.

A lot of those are **** near impossible to miss, as well, and yet most games only have some typos and the like dealt with in their errata, but inherent major system issues are usually never touched - even rabidly defended by some who rather enjoy abusing the problems.

Right now, one has to wonder how ship combat in this system ever got past the design team *to* testing in the first place let alone released. Even 5 piloting 5 agility is exactly as difficult to hit as someone with 1 green, because it's entirely a matter of one's gunnery skill and comparative silhouettes. Even an ace is taken out of the fight in a single average attack roll or two depending on what he's flying.

If that's not a massive flaw in a system where there's supposed to be starships fighting, I dunno what is. But perhaps most frustratingly while it remains unaddressed in an official capacity this -unlike the system flaws of many other systems- CAN be easily remedied, the changes likely requiring half a page at most in nice point form.

A few little switches here and there (there are some comprehensive threads arguing over the subject) and you'd have a spectacular ship fight too!

Edit: Just to add: [Close] as the main sensor range for starfighters is pretty problematic as well, given those with missiles cannot target things without a check to boost range (and blind the ship to the other three arcs, or two, depending on whether a starfighter has only two arcs for more than just shield angling) and craft in short range of each-other *cannot* communicate, as comms are equal in range to sensors!

Sounds like you should probably design a game, I bet it would have no problems at all!

So if other people could, one should not fix existing issues? Is that what you are saying?

How is that in any way helpful to the game?

Maybe because you are addressing "flaws" that are not flaws but deliberate design choices?

Writing rulebooks is fairly long, sometimes tedious work especially once one gets to doing the layout. Things can slip-by, rules written months earlier can end up not quite matching with a continuation/extension/addendum to those rules written a few months later, and not everything can be noticed or figured out before release.

You should give them the benefit of the doubt, at least, rather than what you may inadvertently infer by calling it "deliberate design".

I doubt making it impossible for numerous ships to communicate with anything more-than-several-kilometers-away-but-less-than-a-dozen in ideal conditions was deliberate. I also doubt shields making a rookie piloting a Star Destroyer somewhat better at dodging than a Wedge in a TIE Interceptor - rather than soaking some damage and protecting the hull for a while - a was the deliberate, intended effect, and I doubt proton torpedoes were intended to be the premier anti-fighter weapon designed to vaporize entire wings of fighters -who may not have seen it coming at all because they were blind beyond gun range- at a time.

Errors or miscalculations happen, they're just much more easily caught when the product is passed across thousands of eyes instead of but a handful. A small team cannot envision every single possible usage or combination of the rules they're coming up with. Now people have found some, and it would be wonderful if those problems were fixed up.

Since NPC astromech droids do not take actions, and since Speaks Binary only applies to actions taken by NPC droids, is this an intentionally voided interaction?

Maybe because you are addressing "flaws" that are not flaws but deliberate design choices?

One person's considered choice is another person's error.

For the record, I'm not really aking sides one way or the other, but even if you completely 'get' and like the system as written, you have to appreciate that there are many people who have problems with it. The heated, er, 'discussions' that arise whenever it is discussed are proof of that. There aren't nearly as many arguments about personal combat, and that shows there is something there that, at the very least, could benefit from official clarification, even amendment.

The poster above who mentioned that an Agility 5 pilot skill 5 character is just as easy to hit as an AG 2 pilot skill 1 Presents a compelling case, unless I'm missing something fundamental. Of course talents etc will come into play, but there surely must be a way to better represent the Wedges and the Fels in this system?

It was a more general statement (although I remember the equipment chapters of Dark Heresy 2 and its beta); even when there's a rather obvious problem; whether the massive class disparities of d20 system's fantasy games, or the "don't even face a normal bandit until you've got a few hundred xp in you, their 8k4 dicepools will grind you into dust" of L5R, things tend to go unaddressed in a permanent fashion.

A lot of those are **** near impossible to miss, as well, and yet most games only have some typos and the like dealt with in their errata, but inherent major system issues are usually never touched - even rabidly defended by some who rather enjoy abusing the problems.

Right now, one has to wonder how ship combat in this system ever got past the design team *to* testing in the first place let alone released. Even 5 piloting 5 agility is exactly as difficult to hit as someone with 1 green, because it's entirely a matter of one's gunnery skill and comparative silhouettes. Even an ace is taken out of the fight in a single average attack roll or two depending on what he's flying.

If that's not a massive flaw in a system where there's supposed to be starships fighting, I dunno what is. But perhaps most frustratingly while it remains unaddressed in an official capacity this -unlike the system flaws of many other systems- CAN be easily remedied, the changes likely requiring half a page at most in nice point form.

A few little switches here and there (there are some comprehensive threads arguing over the subject) and you'd have a spectacular ship fight too!

Edit: Just to add: [Close] as the main sensor range for starfighters is pretty problematic as well, given those with missiles cannot target things without a check to boost range (and blind the ship to the other three arcs, or two, depending on whether a starfighter has only two arcs for more than just shield angling) and craft in short range of each-other *cannot* communicate, as comms are equal in range to sensors!

Yay, another L5R player Yes, the dice pools in that system are pretty ridiculous, and there are a lot of unanswered questions in that system...

I can't help but noticing that every time somebody complains about how little influence the piloting skill has, they are deliberately ignoring the Gain the Advantage escalation mechanic, which should be won by the better pilot. Does that not work for you?

I admit that the upgrade by evasive maneuvers is only upgrading difficulty to hit twice, max, but that's not bad at all...

In general I like the fact that you stay useful in space combat even if you don't have 5 Agility 5 Piloting. Maybe there is a flaw in your assumption that this particular skill/characteristic combination should be the be-all/end-all of space combat. There is a ton of XP to sink into talents that help in space combat too. I think the fact that Gunnery is so powerful in Space Combat is something worth looking into though. Neither Agil5/Piloting 5 nor Agil 5/Gunnery 5 should be that powerful.

The ridiculous frequency with which five yellow dice accrue advantage and Triumph gives us the tools how to handle this. We need more uses for Piloting Triumphs. A cursory look at table 7-5 EotE reveals that most of them are for Gunnery rolls. This needs to change.

Maybe because you are addressing "flaws" that are not flaws but deliberate design choices?

One person's considered choice is another person's error.

I would still steer clear of the word flaw in that case. It is a design with which you might not agree and which you would like to see differently but that does precisely what it set out to do.

The poster above who mentioned that an Agility 5 pilot skill 5 character is just as easy to hit as an AG 2 pilot skill 1 Presents a compelling case, unless I'm missing something fundamental.

Well shooting to hit a PC/NPC in a non-ship combat situation doesn't take the statistics of the target into account neither. It is their actions that change the dice pool. Just because someone is extremely agile it doesn't mean shooting at him should be any different than shooting someone else is, it is as soon as he/she does something to actively avoid fire that it gets more difficult. The same goes for pilots. Who cares who is flying? I If I shoot at an x-wing moving at speed 3 in a straight line it makes no difference whether it is piloted by Antilles, Porkins or Luke. It is just as easy to hit. But if the pilot makes evasive manouvers, performs an action to gain the advantage, or flies into an asteroid field to make hitting him harder, then it matters.

Well shooting to hit a PC/NPC in a non-ship combat situation doesn't take the statistics of the target into account neither. It is their actions that change the dice pool. Just because someone is extremely agile it doesn't mean shooting at him should be any different than shooting someone else is, it is as soon as he/she does something to actively avoid fire that it gets more difficult. The same goes for pilots. Who cares who is flying? I If I shoot at an x-wing moving at speed 3 in a straight line it makes no difference whether it is piloted by Antilles, Porkins or Luke. It is just as easy to hit. But if the pilot makes evasive manouvers, performs an action to gain the advantage, or flies into an asteroid field to make hitting him harder, then it matters.

I think you may want to check out the statistics in my first post ITT. Evasive maneuvers and GtA don't offer much of an increase in survivability. The system *appears* to have options to make competent pilots harder to hit, yes, but they don't have enough impact- in the case of GtA, not enough to justify their opportunity cost of spending an action.

In non-combat situations there's about the same amount of survivability buffs you can get (upgrading 1-3 times from Dodge/Sidestep), but crucially damage is much lower relative to HP. Going from 70% to 50% chance to be hit is useful when you can survive 3-4 hits- it buys you a few extra rounds. Going from 70% to 50% chance to be hit when you can still be downed by a single hit isn't that useful, particularly if it costs you your action to do it. On average it won't even get you an extra round, and you just wasted a round's action (and thus your ability to contribute to winning the combat) to do it so it has a negative value.

I can't help but noticing that every time somebody complains about how little influence the piloting skill has, they are deliberately ignoring the Gain the Advantage escalation mechanic, which should be won by the better pilot. Does that not work for you?

I admit that the upgrade by evasive maneuvers is only upgrading difficulty to hit twice, max, but that's not bad at all...

See above (and my previous posts): GtA escalation is a nice idea, but unless you use Agatheron's "Can't shoot someone who has the Advantage over you" house rule it is actually quite bad. That, unfortunately, makes it a trap choice- something which just has the *appearance* of being useful to someone who hasn't done the stats to check. FFG are generally good about not including traps (and certainly don't put them in intentionally like Monte bloody Cook in D&D3e) but some always slip through.

Well shooting to hit a PC/NPC in a non-ship combat situation doesn't take the statistics of the target into account neither. It is their actions that change the dice pool. Just because someone is extremely agile it doesn't mean shooting at him should be any different than shooting someone else is, it is as soon as he/she does something to actively avoid fire that it gets more difficult. The same goes for pilots. Who cares who is flying? I If I shoot at an x-wing moving at speed 3 in a straight line it makes no difference whether it is piloted by Antilles, Porkins or Luke. It is just as easy to hit. But if the pilot makes evasive manouvers, performs an action to gain the advantage, or flies into an asteroid field to make hitting him harder, then it matters.

I think you may want to check out the statistics in my first post ITT. Evasive maneuvers and GtA don't offer much of an increase in survivability. The system *appears* to have options to make competent pilots harder to hit, yes, but they don't have enough impact- in the case of GtA, not enough to justify their opportunity cost of spending an action.

"Appears to have", "Don't have enough impact" this seem like weird things to say... This are pretty much statements that imply the moves/actions are not what you want them to be and are not carrying any validity for others.

In our games we have found that starship combat is a blast. It is very much like it was in the movies and being a good pilot still doesn't mean you are impossible to hit. Then again I never look at the game at such a mathimatical level anyway... And I am not sure I would enjoy doing so.

"Appears to have", "Don't have enough impact" this seem like weird things to say... This are pretty much statements that imply the moves/actions are not what you want them to be and are not carrying any validity for others.

In our games we have found that starship combat is a blast. It is very much like it was in the movies and being a good pilot still doesn't mean you are impossible to hit. Then again I never look at the game at such a mathimatical level anyway... And I am not sure I would enjoy doing so.

You can have fun in any system. I've had great fun playing Exalted and D&D3e. That doesn't mean that a game shouldn't be designed so that the choices available to you are transparent and balanced. As it stands, in most situations taking an action to shoot is better for your survivability than taking an action to GtA- that's not transparent (the action that *appears* to be best for survivability isn't the one themed around surviving) or balanced (one action is almost always less useful than the others available even if implied to be of equal importance).

You don't have to go into the maths to notice the imbalance (anyone who's played Exalted/D&D3e can attest), but you do have to go into the maths to figure out why it's imbalanced. You can't discuss game design without involving maths when a game mechanic involves probability.

Plus "In our games..." isn't really a useful response as we can all trade anecdotes forever. I and many other people have found vehicle combat to be too lethal. This is why we have to actually check the system maths against some baseline scenarios, because A. we all run very different games and B. humans are ~really~ bad at intuitive probabilities. If you think combat works fine because it works fine for you, *without* checking how the mechanics actually play out... I mean, it may be because I'm a scientist but that seems kinda arrogant to me? When faced with a range of anecdotal evidence, to assume that *your* anecdotal evidence must be correct and everyone else's is wrong?

Wow, I guess the gloves came off...

I take offense at being called arrogant and would ask you to be civil when addressing me or anyone else with opposing views.

I do agree that anecdotal evidenc is extremely lacking, but so is the basic premises that "Starship combat is too deadly" or that certain talents-manouvers-actions "Don´t have enough impact" as these are extremely subjective notions and as a scientist you should know that your tastes and opinions are a terrible basis for any scientific discourse. What is "too deadly" for you might be "too vanilla" for someone else and vice versa.

On top of that I would like to point out that I don't believe that stating that the written rules work fine for a group can be considered completely "anecdotal evidence". Now, if I had said "This one time, we encountered blah, blah, blah, etc. etc. therefor the game is bad/fine/wrong/great." then I would agree, however I am making a basic statement on how the game we play (using the written rules) matches what we see in the movies (and mind you, starship combat is extremely deadly in the movies.) You can argue that certain probabilities make certain manouvers less powerful or influential than the image you have in your mind of what such a manouver/action should bring to the table but again that is a subjective notion and carries about a little value as anecdotal evidence does.

Consider how often the main characters in the movies (or Rebels, don't know about Clone Wars) had their starship shot out from under them. I've had two campaigns of FFGSWRPG and I've had it happen four times. None of those fights were against overwhelming opposition (the first was against two groups of two-minion TIE fighters - pretty much what the MF took out without significant damage in E.IV).

Consider how often the main characters in the movies (or Rebels, don't know about Clone Wars) had their starship shot out from under them.

Yeah, there is a reason they are the main characters though...

But if you consider that Wedge Antilles is the only pilot to survive both attacks on the Death Star then you might appreciate space combat is dangerous indeed.

Love the MF abbreviation for the Falcon though... One tough MF!

Wow, I guess the gloves came off...

I take offense at being called arrogant and would ask you to be civil when addressing me or anyone else with opposing views.

I do agree that anecdotal evidenc is extremely lacking, but so is the basic premises that "Starship combat is too deadly" or that certain talents-manouvers-actions "Don´t have enough impact" as these are extremely subjective notions and as a scientist you should know that your tastes and opinions are a terrible basis for any scientific discourse. What is "too deadly" for you might be "too vanilla" for someone else and vice versa.

But... that's not what my argument has been. If you check my earlier posts, you'll see I pointed out that the game purports to support some play styles (e.g. Ace v. Ace combat) but doesn't actually make it an interesting or viable encounter. I'm sorry if you took offence, but I'm not just making vague statements about how combat is 'too deadly' for my tastes- I've constructed sample encounters that the game suggests should be viable (and, in SoT, Ace v. Ace combat is encouraged) and demonstrated the mechanics don't support them as an interesting encounter, and shown that within them options which are presented as useful are in fact not.

If you want to participate seriously in the discussion you are going to have to argue against my examples or provide counterexamples that show the rules work as intended, not just say "It works fine for me".

Wow, that is a lot of off-topic posts.

Maybe you guys should make a new thread if you're not interested in asking the Devs questions about Stay on Target in this one.

Agreed.

Question!

Xextos have 2 free maneuvers compared to the usual 1 free maneuver for most species.

If a character is encumbered (carrying a load exceeding his encumbrance threshold) by an amount equal to or great than his Brawn rating, he loses his free maneuver.

If a Xexto becomes so encumbered, does he lose both of his free maneuvers, or just one?

Another questions!

I know it's not in Stay on Target, but it is about a ship...I was hoping one of the gentlemen present could comment on the Action VI Bulk Transport's encumbrance threshold! Like, more than double that of a Nebulon-B, 10 times that of a GR-75 medium transport, and rivaling that of cruisers and Star Destroyers. Was it meant to be so high at 10,000? Can it really pack 60 times more banana boxes in its hold than a YT-1300?

Sex in advance.

We may as well throw in the question of why a TIE Fighter with a cargo capacity of 65kg is; depending on one's interpretation of the RAW:

Either Incapable of stuffing 5 holdout pistols or just one rifle into the entire thing without an overload penalty

OR

Taking over-encumbrance penalties due to a non-jawa pilot being more than encumbrance 4 to begin with even if you don't count all his gear (like that armored flightsuit and life support system) in which case where and what ARE the penalties?

OR

Taking NO encumbrance penalties whatsoever because the penalties are for people in actions that a TIE fighter literally never has to worry-about/roll-for, thus making the entire encumbrance rating, well.. useless?

I would still steer clear of the word flaw in that case. It is a design with which you might not agree and which you would like to see differently but that does precisely what it set out to do.

I think encumbrance is a fine example here. Go on, then, let's all hear how the ship encumbrance rules and ratings are doing precisely what they set out to do.

Look, I appreciate that you like and enjoy the system and want to defend it. We also like and enjoy the system. But pretending there's no problem - other than being delusional given the math has been done on these problems - doesn't HELP the system. Rabidly defending things with "it's fine learn to play" does it no service, it only leaves new players confused when they start running into issues and imbalances yet slam into a wall of "no you're the problem", veterans annoyed and on-the-lookout-for-alternatives because of all the houseruling and reworking they have to do to keep things viable, and keeps the authors wondering why sales aren't great when everyone's claiming it's so good and issue-free.

Start writing, get yourself a good editor and you'll eventually understand how valuable - as humbling as it may be sometimes (really, really humbling; I was not very good) - a critical dose of reality can be for one's hard work.

Well, since you are quoting me I guess I should answer... I have no idea what you are talking about though. When did this whole encumbrance thing come up before? Why should I defend something I have never discussed nor see any benefit of doing so? When and where did I say the system was flawless? Where did I say "it is fine learn to play it"?

This is a weird, weird reply to get....

Hey guys, I'll second the appeal to keep things on-topic. If we need to, we can create threads and quote people there for further discussion, such as it is.