So I consider myself fairly knowledgeable about space and vehicle combat, but last night I had a moment of self doubt.

The players were strafing a building. It didn't seem that complicated, I counted the building in question as a Sil 5 vehicle with a speed of 0, equipped with a laser turret (there's some more stuff too, but the building is the important part). Because of the building type, the encounter requirements, and the narrative details, I also gave it shields.

So, after a round or two of combat I decide to have the building shield operator move a point of shields around to better protect the place.

The Pilot Player decides to GtA on the building. I allow it, he does, the encounter plays through to completion.

Meat of the Matter: Afterward I started thinking about that GtA vs the Sil 5 target. On the one hand the players met the requirements of the GtA action, so I don't see an issue. On the other hand positioning and facing of a Sil 5+ vehicle is supposed to be more of a thing, requiring that "Fly/Drive" to move within the close range band to determine weapons arc and availability.

So... was GtA the right move? or should I merely have required a Fly/Drive instead to allow the aircraft to move from a shielded side to an unshielded side?

Normally I probably wouldn't let this bother me, but I know for a fact I'll be doing this again, if not in this campaign, then in another, and so I'd like to nail this one down.

Doesn't GtA just work to eliminate evasive maneuvers? How much maneuvering is that building doing?

First thought is that it sounds fine to me. It just means the building occupants aren't able to accurately predict where to put the extra point of shielding because the pilot is using terrain or whatever distractions he can to fool them.

Doesn't GtA just work to eliminate evasive maneuvers? How much maneuvering is that building doing?

It also lets you pick which arc you want to shoot at.

Doesn't GtA just work to eliminate evasive maneuvers? How much maneuvering is that building doing?

It also lets you pick which arc you want to shoot at.

Right, that makes sense. I would actually assume that going up against a building you always have the advantage for that regard.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question/concern. Since the building is sil 5, it does not get to choose which facing the opponents hit. The PCs can always attack the weaker facing without worrying about gaining the advantage. If I recall correctly, that is.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question/concern. Since the building is sil 5, it does not get to choose which facing the opponents hit. The PCs can always attack the weaker facing without worrying about gaining the advantage. If I recall correctly, that is.

That's kinda what's got me flustered.

On the one hand, it's sil 5, so it's facing is more a matter of the movement of the aircraft. On the other, GtA still seems to apply.

Or is it a player option?

WAIT YES! I THINK THAT'S IT!

Option 1 - Just move to the side with the least defense. Nothing else to say.

Option 2 - GtA, which counts as moving to the side in question while also allowing the Player to take Evasive Action without a penalty to his own aircraft's firing.

Sound right? That would work for all Sil 5 targets too, not just immobile buildings...

I think it's fine either way. A maneuver to simply attack the most vulnerable spot, or an action/skill check to attack the vulnerable spot AND ignore your Evasive Maneuvers penalty for your attacks. Great option, especially for your freighter pilots.

For me, anything that gives some more love to the GtA action is a win

I think you used it correctly, if for no other reason then to allow the attacking player to still gain a benefit from taking evasive maneuvers.

I think it's fine either way. A maneuver to simply attack the most vulnerable spot, or an action/skill check to attack the vulnerable spot AND ignore your Evasive Maneuvers penalty for your attacks. Great option, especially for your freighter pilots.

For me, anything that gives some more love to the GtA action is a win

Yeah, GtA makes sense as the ship is basically trying to get the advantage over the shield operator. Doesn't do a whole lot of good if the building has the same amount of shielding on all sides.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question/concern. Since the building is sil 5, it does not get to choose which facing the opponents hit. The PCs can always attack the weaker facing without worrying about gaining the advantage. If I recall correctly, that is.

That's kinda what's got me flustered.

On the one hand, it's sil 5, so it's facing is more a matter of the movement of the aircraft. On the other, GtA still seems to apply.

Or is it a player option?

WAIT YES! I THINK THAT'S IT!

Option 1 - Just move to the side with the least defense. Nothing else to say.

Option 2 - GtA, which counts as moving to the side in question while also allowing the Player to take Evasive Action without a penalty to his own aircraft's firing.

Sound right? That would work for all Sil 5 targets too, not just immobile buildings...

... except that it should probably be just a maneuver to get to the side with the least defense rather than a rolled action.

There are times where you have to go with common sense rather than odd but literal interpretations of RAW. For example, shooting yourself in the head with a blaster isn't going to do damage + successes - total soak (Brawn + armor), even though it should if you strictly follow the rules.

Everything said above makes sense, and I don't think you were wrong in any way.

However, I wouldn't have allowed the GtA since I consider the action to represent dog fighting ships where one ship gets in the better position. No matter ho much rolling and turning the disadvantanged ship does, the one with GtA is on its six, locked onto its path, and firing away. Since the building isn't really moving, I don't see how their evasive maneuvers can be cancelled in this way. To set up for a strafing run, there is that moment where the ship has to steady itself.

All just personal opinion: I would have allowed Evasive Manuevers and Stay on Target, but not GtA. I would have allowed a single fly/drive to move to another arc instead.

I was thinking about this through the day as well, Ghost.

My recommendation to GtA was made while forgetting that it was a Sil5 target. You moved a point of shield to another position, which helped lend to this confusion.

I agree with Domingo in that we should have just narrated a maneuver to their unguarded side. Same effect, but without the need to assemble a pool.

In any case, the result was the same. No real benefits were gained in this way that would not have been gained by the simple narration. We just took the long way around to shooing at their weak point.

Everything said above makes sense, and I don't think you were wrong in any way.

However, I wouldn't have allowed the GtA since I consider the action to represent dog fighting ships where one ship gets in the better position. No matter ho much rolling and turning the disadvantanged ship does, the one with GtA is on its six, locked onto its path, and firing away. Since the building isn't really moving, I don't see how their evasive maneuvers can be cancelled in this way. To set up for a strafing run, there is that moment where the ship has to steady itself.

All just personal opinion: I would have allowed Evasive Manuevers and Stay on Target, but not GtA. I would have allowed a single fly/drive to move to another arc instead.

Except that, IIRC, ships, even with fixed weapons, can return fire. So, GtA isn't someone locked onto someone's six, but that you have managed to find the timing to hit them from an angle (any angle) of your choosing.

Maybe I am misunderstanding your question/concern. Since the building is sil 5, it does not get to choose which facing the opponents hit. The PCs can always attack the weaker facing without worrying about gaining the advantage. If I recall correctly, that is.

That's kinda what's got me flustered.

On the one hand, it's sil 5, so it's facing is more a matter of the movement of the aircraft. On the other, GtA still seems to apply.

Or is it a player option?

WAIT YES! I THINK THAT'S IT!

Option 1 - Just move to the side with the least defense. Nothing else to say.

Option 2 - GtA, which counts as moving to the side in question while also allowing the Player to take Evasive Action without a penalty to his own aircraft's firing.

Sound right? That would work for all Sil 5 targets too, not just immobile buildings...

... except that it should probably be just a maneuver to get to the side with the least defense rather than a rolled action.

There are times where you have to go with common sense rather than odd but literal interpretations of RAW. For example, shooting yourself in the head with a blaster isn't going to do damage + successes - total soak (Brawn + armor), even though it should if you strictly follow the rules.

Baring terrain it would be a maneuver. That's what makes it a choice. You can spend a maneuver to move and still have an action, or GtA which eats your action, but allow evasive action/bonuses for gunners.

Seems to make sense.

Everything said above makes sense, and I don't think you were wrong in any way.

However, I wouldn't have allowed the GtA since I consider the action to represent dog fighting ships where one ship gets in the better position. No matter ho much rolling and turning the disadvantanged ship does, the one with GtA is on its six, locked onto its path, and firing away. Since the building isn't really moving, I don't see how their evasive maneuvers can be cancelled in this way. To set up for a strafing run, there is that moment where the ship has to steady itself.

All just personal opinion: I would have allowed Evasive Manuevers and Stay on Target, but not GtA. I would have allowed a single fly/drive to move to another arc instead.

This is the thinking that got me on the topic, but it also provides a point of inconsistency. Today its a building, what about space stations, or ships with no engine, or an ion cannon mine?

Remember GtA only lasts till the end of the next round. So there's the setting up and execution of a run. After the effect expires you gotta set up another run.

This is the thinking that got me on the topic, but it also provides a point of inconsistency. Today its a building, what about space stations, or ships with no engine, or an ion cannon mine?

No inconsistency here. In the previous attacking space stations thread, I already gave my opinion on GtA. I just have a dissenting view, and I can live with it.

This thread made more sense after I figured out GtA meant Gain The Advantage and not Grand Theft Auto.