Honestly I'm half-tempted to write a 2-3 adventure minicampaign starring the players as TIE pilots just to make the most extreme use of this....

I'm actually working on a capitol ship one shot, where the ship carries twice the pilots they need for the fighters they can carry (for "rotating shifts") and then carry enough "spare tie parts" to assemle into extra ties whenever one dies. The Tie Commander pregen will be in charge of deciding where his Aces, Academy pilot minions, and Imperial gunners-in-tie-suits go. He can go fly himself if he wants, but he's go a choice beween LN, Intercepter or bomber...or a cushy seat back on the capital ship that lets him use leadership abilites...

Unless you have brilliant evasion, you should not expect to survive a 1v1 fighter combat.

Man youre a fountain of good ones eh?

The squadron rules say that if targeted, the squadron leader gets to redirect a successful hit «he or his vessel suffers to a minion in his [...] squadron instead, which destroys, disables, or otherwise eliminates that minion from the encounter, at the GM's discretion». Also, the squadron may be able to bolster its defense by using one of many formations during the attack, notably "Evasive Maneuvers" and "Screen Formation". How would you adjudicate the whole "at the GM's discretion" with starship combat? Would you destroy (some?) ships, only disable them, "eliminate [them] from the encounter"? It puts a different pressure on the GM if the PCs actually own the ships (credit cost), or care about their squad-mates (relationship cost). But the difference in space battles is that if the ships are destroyed, the "credit cost" is immense, pressuring the GM to make the right decision about the ships that have been hit.

Thats why GMs make the big bucks...
It depends on what you got going on. Sandbox or planned, did the players bring the whole squadron or part, good tactics or bad ones, carp rolls or hot. It all adds up and all you can do as the gm is make the best call you can.

Maybe the cost is different if the players are part of the Rebel Alliance, and expect the funds and other pilots to be provided by the rebellion. In the case of the Edge of the Empire "standard setting", space battles
do take place, and as a GM of a group of Super Rich™ PC's, for whom the expenses of space combat would be directly subtracted from their quarterly earnings ( ), I could understand the frustration of losing several spacecrafts worth 70,000+ credits a piece. Also, contrary to the Alliance, criminal PCs have to recruit (or pay) for their minions personally.
Or maybe I'm just a tad too worried.

Now this is easier to settle. Mercs aren't cheap, yeah guards, thugs, and enforcers are; but a merc starfighter strike unit? You pay for that kind of firepower training and experience. For reference, the price chart in DC, each pilot/flight crew would start at mid-to-high NCO pricing, and that's just personal pay. Factor in ground crew, expenses, fuel advances, ammo advances, transport and field costs (the players aren't dumb enough to launch from their own base I hope), casualty compensation deposit (yeah, that's a thing) and so on... Its gonna get huge.

If you think it might be kinda fun. See the players eyes light up when they get their first 500,000 credit job, only to spend all but a few thousandtfor themselves...


Also..

Anyone used this rule mechanic in-game and how did it work out for you?

Oh and when you use the squad rules. Name the NPCs... so that when they need to pull one as defense they know who they are. Disable them for the first few encounters.. have them available to role play with at base eTc. Then when the pull the defense and it kills a favored npc it has impact...then go back to disabling a few.

OK, say I agree with you, and we use the Squadron rules for starfighter combat. Let's say the players have access to a steady stream of minions and a bevy of snubfighters as well, which happens to be true in my campaign as well (they kind of acquired a Venator... and have quite a few ol' V-wings as well). Let's also say they are driving an ARC-170 supported by minion pilots in the V-wings.

The squadron rules say that if targeted, the squadron leader gets to redirect a successful hit «he or his vessel suffers to a minion in his [...] squadron instead, which destroys, disables, or otherwise eliminates that minion from the encounter, at the GM's discretion». Also, the squadron may be able to bolster its defense by using one of many formations during the attack, notably "Evasive Maneuvers" and "Screen Formation". How would you adjudicate the whole "at the GM's discretion" with starship combat? Would you destroy (some?) ships, only disable them, "eliminate [them] from the encounter"? It puts a different pressure on the GM if the PCs actually own the ships (credit cost), or care about their squad-mates (relationship cost). But the difference in space battles is that if the ships are destroyed, the "credit cost" is immense, pressuring the GM to make the right decision about the ships that have been hit.

Maybe the cost is different if the players are part of the Rebel Alliance, and expect the funds and other pilots to be provided by the rebellion. In the case of the Edge of the Empire "standard setting", space battles do take place, and as a GM of a group of Super Rich™ PC's, for whom the expenses of space combat would be directly subtracted from their quarterly earnings ( ), I could understand the frustration of losing several spacecrafts worth 70,000+ credits a piece. Also, contrary to the Alliance, criminal PCs have to recruit (or pay) for their minions personally.

Or maybe I'm just a tad too worried.

I am not sure at all that it would work well for an Edge of the Empire game. Most of my thoughts have been towards your Age of Rebellion game and working with the Alliance. In an Edge game, I could see the difficulties of having a ready pool of cannon fodder in both costs (economic and relationship) and that may be hard to overcome.

With EotE I find that the battles work much better when the players are all in one ship working together.

As Daeglan mentioned, I would vary it up. Mostly disable when possible except for key scenes. Have the Imperials take prisoners that must later be rescued, stuff like that.

This is a great idea. My calculation would be slightly different, to wit: Spend 3 system strain to reduce damage equal to Ship Handling + Pilot (Space) ranks + Skilled Jockey ranks.

No personal strain -- that is dirt in the game. Also as a GM, I'd want to have this option on TIE fighters.

Why Skilled Jockey? Because right now, it's something of a speed-bump talent if your ship has a handling of +0. Also, there's at most 2 ranks in a tree (pilot and driver), and 1 in Fringer so the pliotting sub-tree there also gets some love. Also, it uses more of the design space so that Piloting skill isn't the only way to increase survivability. It also supports the idea that folks who want to be the greatest starfighter pilot the galaxy has ever seen can actually get there, if they pay for it.

This is a great idea. My calculation would be slightly different, to wit: Spend 3 system strain to reduce damage equal to Ship Handling + Pilot (Space) ranks + Skilled Jockey ranks.

No personal strain -- that is dirt in the game. Also as a GM, I'd want to have this option on TIE fighters.

Why Skilled Jockey? Because right now, it's something of a speed-bump talent if your ship has a handling of +0. Also, there's at most 2 ranks in a tree (pilot and driver), and 1 in Fringer so the pliotting sub-tree there also gets some love. Also, it uses more of the design space so that Piloting skill isn't the only way to increase survivability. It also supports the idea that folks who want to be the greatest starfighter pilot the galaxy has ever seen can actually get there, if they pay for it.

Disagree with skilled jockey. It doesn't just remove setbacks from low handling, it removes setbacks in general. So terrain, threat/advantage generated setback/ect all canceled by ranks in skilled jockey.

This is one of those "Add setback to everything" talents where if it feels like a speedbump it's because the GM is throwing enough dice at you.

This is a great idea. My calculation would be slightly different, to wit: Spend 3 system strain to reduce damage equal to Ship Handling + Pilot (Space) ranks + Skilled Jockey ranks.

No personal strain -- that is dirt in the game. Also as a GM, I'd want to have this option on TIE fighters.

Why Skilled Jockey? Because right now, it's something of a speed-bump talent if your ship has a handling of +0. Also, there's at most 2 ranks in a tree (pilot and driver), and 1 in Fringer so the pliotting sub-tree there also gets some love. Also, it uses more of the design space so that Piloting skill isn't the only way to increase survivability. It also supports the idea that folks who want to be the greatest starfighter pilot the galaxy has ever seen can actually get there, if they pay for it.

Disagree with skilled jockey. It doesn't just remove setbacks from low handling, it removes setbacks in general. So terrain, threat/advantage generated setback/ect all canceled by ranks in skilled jockey.

This is one of those "Add setback to everything" talents where if it feels like a speedbump it's because the GM is throwing enough dice at you.

...but you disagree with using the ranks in Skilled Jockey? It's not clear if you're just disagreeing with my throwaway commentary.

Little of both.

Your throwaway commentary provides justification to your use, and has some flaws in that SJ is pretty useful if your GM is giving you the opportunity to use it (which he should be).

For the actual proposed methodology I get you're trying for a vehicular reflect but the math is too good.

Handling+Ranks+SkilledJock adds up. So on an X-wing... 1 handling+say 2 ranks+say 2SJ= reduce damage by 5. That's actually enough that a character with very little XP under his belt can (when factoring in shields and armor, for a total reduction of 8+) regularly negate all damage. And with a ST of 10 on an X-wing that's 3 times he can do that, ignoring the R2 unit and damage control effects.

That's actually one of the hangups with vehicular reflect attempts. Unlike actual reflect which is it's own talent with tree locations and XP values, adding in an aftermarket vehicular reflect doesn't have that. So you end up with problems like this.

Skill ranks have XP value, but also utility beyond Vehicular Reflect. Also do you really want a minion group to have that kind of power?

Talents have XP value, but if Vehicular reflect isn't factored into that XP value it will be flawed. Also Minions typically don't have talents, so they'll rarely be able to perform this maneuver.

Craft handling works a little better, but since craft with high handling also tend to have very low HT there's only so far that'll work...

On the bright side, here's a new talent for 2nd Ed...

Also Minions typically don't have talents, so they'll rarely be able to perform this maneuver.

Minions could still do it without the talent, same as in GM Phil's calculation of Handling + Ranks.

Also Minions typically don't have talents, so they'll rarely be able to perform this maneuver.

Minions could still do it without the talent, same as in GM Phil's calculation of Handling + Ranks.

To clarify: Tying Vehicular Reflect to just a talent. You have to make it attached to at least two things right now because it's not an actual organic talent. But it still has issue because it's not an organic talent with a proper XP:Effect ratio.

Phil's Idea is interesting but I'm concerned about it in the long term and it's effect on character modeling...

I'd just like to point out that minions couldn't use perform the Snap-Roll incidental as they can't voluntarily suffer strain. My worry is with ships, such as light freighters with a mechanic, that could recover strain and perform this indefinitely.

That being said, I'm willing to give this house rule a try.

I'd just like to point out that minions couldn't use perform the Snap-Roll incidental as they can't voluntarily suffer strain. My worry is with ships, such as light freighters with a mechanic, that could recover strain and perform this indefinitely.

That being said, I'm willing to give this house rule a try.

I'm still not sure that's entirely broken. Since the Sil 4 freighters tend to have 0 handling, it comes down to the pilot skill alone which means for low level groups, an additional 2-3 soak at the cost of pilot strain and a crew member action.

Eventually the pilot will pass out... probably after about four incidentals. That doesn't seem terrible to me.

Unless you have a droid pilot. You might consider further houseruling that everyone on board takes the 3 strain, not just the pilot if it becomes an issue.

If a PC gets hit in fighter combat and survives, he should "Wedge out", err, leave the fight.

And please call it Sudden Dodge or something Snap Roll has a specific meaning already!

There are many more and easier ways to recover personal strain than system strain, though having everyone in the group suffer the strain as well as the fact that the handing might be zero or lower would help balance that out. It's more about the fact that an average fighter may be expected to be able to perform the incidental 2-3 times in an encounter based solely on system strain, whereas the average light freighter may do so 5-7 times and has the greater potential for repairs and further maneuvers.

I believe a change in mindset might help with some of the problems of squadron rules. What makes them more palatable for me is to view the rules described narratively as the PCs presence enhancing the capabilities of the pilots in the squadron and that the enemy is described as attacking the minion who is shot down.

It doesn't account for possible costs of losing squadron mates, but it's more acceptable to me for the story than PCs hiding behind or sacrificing comrades to survive.

Since reading the squad/squadron rules, I'll admit I'm impressed, they seem like a very good tool for increasing PC survivability while increasing the scope of the conflict (without overly complicating things), and building on the narrative. If I was going to use these with my PlayersI think I might make a couple of clarifications:

- Despite the wording, it is the player who decides if the leader or a follower takes the hit, not the PC, unless the narrative dictates otherwise (but again, that will likely be a player choice too).

- The player can often help to decide which follower takes the hit, and how. Maybe the rookie found himself out matched in a joust, or the PC's wingman bravely threw himself between a torpedo and his commander. Consider what might be meaningful or relevant to the story or PC.

- As GM, I would largely use the dice to determine the fate of any followers hit; a light hit likely means he is damaged or hindered and will withdraw as soon as an opening is found, a heavy hit means he is unconscious or disabled and can no longer act, and a critical hit usually means he is dead or destroyed.

I'd make these clarifications for two reasons, I don't want the players thinking it is an act of cowardice or malice to choose a follower to take the hit instead of their PC, but instead a means to influence the nature of the story. Also the fate of their followers isn't merely subject to GM whim, but a considered interpretation of a hit and means of enhancing the narrative.

Admittedly I left the the descriptions of the hits vague, mostly I'd just use the amount of damage, Critical Hits, and other qualities to determine the effects. If I wanted to be more precise I would factor in the follower's Armor/Soak, Hull/Wound Thresholds, and other qualities, but that seems like it would be over complicating things most of the time.

Anyone used this rule mechanic in-game and how did it work out for you?

I did, it keeps both players and decent NPCs (Minions can't use this because they can't suffer strain voluntarily) from being iced by a single proton torpedo. It does lengthen combat, but nothing longer than personal scale fights between characters with talents like Dodge. It really rewards though with high piloting skill, though agile fighters really help. Didn't do jack all for the Infiltrator and the Medic (zero piloting in -1 handling transport) during their escape, but they were saved by my inability to roll well when it matters.