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.

We fielded a question about this exact wording on the Order 66 Podcast. When a listener asked us about it for our questions segment, we answered that both of these were referring to the same thing; Gain the Advantage. The comment on page 127 was simply a general description and reference to the Gain the Advantage action found in the Vehicle Combat chapter.

We could be wrong, but that's how we've always read it.

If it's supposed to be that each fighter needs to succeed at making an opposed pilot check before they can make an attack check, that isn't clear at all. It would really need to be stated it works that way somewhere.

Plus, that doesn't feel right to me. It would artificially increase the time Space Combat takes by forcing pilots to make 2 die rolls per turn. It's one thing to make space combat last longer by manipulating the damage results, it's another to have every pilot need to make 2 checks per turn. One prolongs combat but keeps the action quick and focused, the other prolongs it with a second round of questions like "now what do I upgrade? how many setbacks do I negate?" which usually causes everyone else at the table to tune out.

Also, how would that work for gunners then? Would the gunners aboard a Lancer frigate or in the turrets of a YT-2400 not fire unless the pilot makes an opposed Pilot check against every target they want to shoot at?

Oh, and my aforementioned blog-post concerning The Snap Roll is up.

http://fragmentsfromtherim.blogspot.com/2015/02/suspending-rules-snap-roll-action.html

In brief...

SNAP ROLL - Out-Of-Turn Incidental

Pilot Only: Yes
Silhouette: 1-4
Speed: 2+
Quick reflexes and fly-by-wire systems are not only important in maneuvering a ship into a superior attack position, but are also helpful to quickly respond to enemy fire blasting away a ship's shields and hull. Snap Roll allows pilots to utilize the maneuverability of their ship and their own exceptional skill to suddenly react to incoming fire.

When his ship is successfully hit by a Gunnery combat check, the pilot can elect to take a Snap Roll Incidental action and reduce the damage of the attack by the sum of their ship's Handling plus the pilot's Ranks in Piloting (Planetary or Space, whichever is applicable to the vehicle he's controlling). This sudden dodge puts the ship, and the pilot, under extreme stress and g-forces; when this incidental action is taken the ship suffers 3 System Strain (bypassing Armor) as the high-G maneuver taxes on-board systems and support surfaces. Additionally, the pilot suffers 3 Strain (bypassing Soak) as those same G-forces pull, crush, and exhaust him.

If a person is wearing a flight suit that reduces the amount of Strain incurred from Critical Hits to the ship, they reduce the Strain they take from a Snap Roll action to 1. Droids are immune to the personal Strain damage as long as they are at a station, locked in a droid socket, or have some other means to prevent them from being bounced around the ship's interior.

Review and use as you like.

Fair point Phil. I did read these as being different, because what is on pg. 127 could be applied to any size/speed of ship, whereas Gain the Advantage is only for ships at or capable of travelling at Speed 4. Gain the advantage is specifically not an opposed check.

I don't think it necessarily increases the amount of rolls in a given turn, but the opposed check would be necessary if the pilot is specifically not trying to gain the advantage, but rather trying to blast away at an opponent indiscriminately rather than trying to line up a kill shot.

I've been giving some thought as to how this would work with a YT-1300 and other ships with turrets. I think it may be safe to run the opposed check with ships that are Silhouette 4 and smaller. I think of some of the banter between Hera and Kanaan in Rebels where he's trying to fire on incoming TIE's and she's trying to bring the ship into a position where Kanaan can use the turret to take the shot. While Hera could be trying to gain the advantage, it isn't clear that the Ghost is a speed 4 ship... although I acknowledge it could well be.

Perhaps one way to handle it is that the pilot of a Silhouette 4 turret-bearing craft rolls an opposed check against one craft or minion group. Success indicates that the weapons can be brought to bear on that craft or group and one or two advantage means that another turret can fire at another ship whose piloting skill is equal to or lower the original target craft. I'd even toss in a boost dice or two simply because turrets have a much wider firing arc.

As for a Lancer, since it's Silhouette 5, you're dealing with four firing/shield arcs. Opposed rolls are unnecessary, since craft of Silhouette 4 or smaller indicate which shield arc they're in. The bigger ship can then fire the weapons in that arc at the approaching craft. The Lancer is particularly dangerous because the ventral and dorsal turrets can fire at anything in the aft arc.

Does this help? As I said, perhaps I'm reading it differently, but I always saw the description on pg. 127 and Gain the advantage as two different things... mostly because Gain the Advantage is never an opposed check...

Edit: I should say, I do like the snap roll idea though

I really don't like giving Droids a free pass on the system strain for that maneuver.

I really don't like giving Droids a free pass on the system strain for that maneuver.

It says they have to be bolted down however, which makes me think its mainly for the purpose of protecting your npc astromechs rather than your droid pilot PCs.

My thoughts were that droids don't have a circulatory system that would drain blood from their brains when suddenly subjected to a 9-g turn or an 7-g roll. As long as they were strapped in, their artificial forms should not take any adverse effects from high-g maneuvering.

The circuits and parts are held together by "something" and that will be affected by G forces. Internal wiring, connections, support structures...all could be affected and could be counted as "strain" in exactly the same way a ship suffers strain.

or the turn was so sudden and chaotic that their processors were bogged down by the trillions of calculations and adjustments it just had to make. The dice tell you what happens mechanically, and it's up to you in how to interpret that narratively.

DarthGM, that is probably the best solution to starfighter combat I've ever seen, and probably the most elegant and simple as well. It even gives more utility to the dedicated flight suits, which is just a bonus.

Nice but I wouldn't call it "the solution" on its own. One problem I see with it though is the strain on the ship. Assuming no ion weapons are incoming and average gunnery results by rookies one can pull this off perhaps twice in a combat, with a solid couple of days (or an entire week just 'resting') to repair the strain. Some starfighters might even scrapped by the second use of it outright as well, depending on the model.

It likely doubles the survivability of the ship, for sure, but doubling "virtually nothing" has a rather high cost in this case, as you're going to have to use it whether being shot at by greenhorns in a TIE or by IG-88's aggressor. I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely a last-ditch mechanic; the inherent systemic problems to starship combat at this moment still require some more 'passive' improvements too.

We still require modifications to shields to actually protect the ship rather than make starfighters worse at dodging than the Executor, and some measure of the setback mechanic driven by piloting and handling as opposed to what's supposed to be defensive shielding.

Except there is little indication that 'normal' shields ever acted as a barrier for the craft they are on. Indeed, we see in the movies ships being impacted and damaged while their deflector shields are still operational. Personally I feel the setback shields are a better representation of what we see shields and armor doing in Star Wars then the old system of "temporary Hit Points"

One problem I see with it though is the strain on the ship. Assuming no ion weapons are incoming and average gunnery results by rookies one can pull this off perhaps twice in a combat, with a solid couple of days (or an entire week just 'resting') to repair the strain. Some starfighters might even scrapped by the second use of it outright as well, depending on the model.

There's just no pleasing you, is there?

How do you figure it takes a couple days to fix the system strain? You can use the Damage Control action to fix system strain as often as you like. Assuming a single success, it takes 1 turn to fix 1 System Strain.

It's when you use Damage Control to fix Hull Trauma that the "once per encounter" limit comes into play.

Damage Control Action

"...Damage Control can be attempted as many times as needed to reduce a ship's system strain to zero (with the caveat that a single character can still only perform one action per turn, of course)..."

I forgot the once per encounter was trauma-only, my bad.

As for shields: They're shown to take a beating outright in several instances. Most visible example would be the Gungan shield bubbles which acted outright as barriers. Small transports like the Millenium Falcon also take direct hits a few times with the shields letting some of the energy through - but not all, and Star Destroyers also take a beating, not have the shots 'bounce off' the shields. Droidekas are another example, I think, though my memory on their shielding is pretty sketchy (not my favorite movie).

There's of course also the games where they act this way, if you don't mind leaving 'canon' a little. Overall, regenerating ablative damage-soak (aka "temp-HP") would seem to be the most appropriate way I can think of portraying the shields, certainly not the "1/3 nothing, 1/3 an advantage, 1/3 a success, never a triumph" negation mechanic that makes you less likely to be hit but does nothing for your hull when actually struck by incoming fire.

As an example, if defense rating were temporary HT/ST per round (multiply by 1+Massive Rating perhaps for bigger ship values), you would add significant survivability over time to all ships, despite just reducing a TIE's linked lasers by a measly one (two if angled-front) total per turn!

Gungan shield bubbles as well as droideka shields are a type simply not seen in the original trilogy. A massive one is implied to be around the Death Star, but it is not seen on screen. There's been some debate elsewhere, but those shields are a different type, likely granting a talent not unlike a Jedi's Reflect or Parry.

As others have noted, deflector shields on a fighter aren't necessarily eliminated when a fighter is hit, but it reduces potential damage.

Full disclosure: I know Xwing handles it differently.

Most of the time you see damage being let through in the movies are because the attacks had more power then the shields can absorb, and you see shots being absorbed in the OT much more then you see partial hits leaking through, with the exception of when fighters are hit.

Most shots that hit the Falcon are absorbed fully rather then partially leaking through in ANH. Ditto for what we see of the battle over Tatooine at the beginning of A New Hope except for the shot that punches through and cripples it. And the same holds true for the close quarters shots we get of the fighting at Endor

Another good example is Jango chasing Obi-Wan through the geonosis asteroid field. It's pretty clear that a LOT of the fire is impacting shields, until they are too weak and shots get through, hitting the ship and the droid.

Watch Ep 3 at around 2:50. You can see shots hitting the lucre hulk, with big blue splashes on the shields. Old school? The Falcon escaping the first Death Star. The first barrage from the TIEs that connects impacts with bright flashes (shields), not explosions.

This next one is awesome, but tricky to see (although very obvious in slow-mo). In the battle of Endor a Y-Wing is damaged and spirals out of control before colliding with a Star Destroyer. It's at about 1:44 on my version. On impact there is a very large flash, right before a smaller explosion. It's obviously deliberate, and I believe it's the fighter hitting shields.

A few examples of shields being a physical thing being hit and absorbing damage, rather than making the target harder to hit.

Alright, I accept your point about absorbing damage, rather than deflecting it.

Even so, it doesn't solve the primary issue we see with the old (temperory hp) system of shielding, that vehicles get damaged and even destroyed without losing shields first. This would suggest that shields are more akin to Soak than Hull Points. It's not like Star Trek, where we routinely hear about shields being "at 87% and holding" They're either working, or lost.

It's not like Star Trek, where we routinely hear about shields being "at 87% and holding" They're either working, or lost.

Actually, that's exactly the kind of thing they say in Rebels...

Oh. Well. Color me behind the times.

Another good example is Jango chasing Obi-Wan through the geonosis asteroid field. It's pretty clear that a LOT of the fire is impacting shields, until they are too weak and shots get through, hitting the ship and the droid.

....

A few examples of shields being a physical thing being hit and absorbing damage, rather than making the target harder to hit.

A lot of this behavior of shields is reflected in the structure of the combat turn itself:

Remember, "Rounds can last for roughly a minute or so in time." This is more than enough time to narrate flying around, jockeying for position, and then shields ablating a volley of laserfire before one or two shots get through.

--

The scene between Obi-Wan and the Fett boys is also an excellent example of what space combat encounters can be like. As GMs and players, we have the opportunity to create hair-raising chase scenes with deadly implications. Not the kind of gamist, balanced encounters that people are looking for in a miniatures game, but a fast-paced cinematic scene with an obvious and specific goal in mind (get to the cruiser, escape the bad guys, punch through the blockade, catch up with the fleeing target, distract the bad guys long enough for your teammates to do their job, extract your ally, get to a place where you're not being jammed so you can send a transmission, etc).

Agreed, it's more in the narration of the scene itself rather than the mechanics, which is a skill.

I tend to describe it in the way the books suggest, where the shots are hitting but reduced in magnitude by failures and setbacks.

The only issue I have with that is that even with 'full shields' it's rare for even the weakest shot to have no effect at all, which is something we do see in the movies and shows.

It's a tricky balance.

Agreed, two flights trying to kill each other is standard for miniatures, but almost pointless in RP.

Anyway, at least at our table, we tend to describe any "miss" where at least one failure popped up on the setback dice as "deflected (absorbed) by the shield". Same as a miss in ground combat (partly due to blacks) are often described as striking the cover.

That forces one to have to explain that that single TIE that just vaped your A-Wing in a single attack roll through your angled double-front because both dice ended up blank though.

You were apparently just THAT bad with your 4agi 4 piloting, compared to the 2 agi 1 piloting rookie, that he managed to batter down your shields over that entire minute (seriously who came up with a minute for starfighter combat turns) until somehow exactly only two shots out of all that time ever got through where none did before, and are instantly fatal, as nothing in between happened; no partial bleedthrough, no damage in between volleys, just 59 seconds of plink plink plink plink plink plink plink plink boom.

Agreed, two flights trying to kill each other is standard for miniatures, but almost pointless in RP.

Anyway, at least at our table, we tend to describe any "miss" where at least one failure popped up on the setback dice as "deflected (absorbed) by the shield". Same as a miss in ground combat (partly due to blacks) are often described as striking the cover.

That problem is that Setback dice are not potent enough to reflect how effective shields are. Both both a narrative perspective and a mechanical one, particularly the latter, they are simply not powerful enough.

The only issue I have with that is that even with 'full shields' it's rare for even the weakest shot to have no effect at all, which is something we do see in the movies and shows.

See, but this still doesn't take into account the variable length of combat rounds. A combat check is not limited to "a shot." It can be a single clean shot in the space of 2 seconds; it can be an indiscriminate volley of rapid fire; it can even be a combination of various methods of shots, in between the jockeying and maneuvering that pilots do.