So can the Master Pilot talent for 2 strain.

I don't think anyone, at least not me, thought that you'd have to use this revised version of yours and normal attacks were no longer possible.

I understand that Master Pilot lets you shoot for 2 strain. This doesn't really nerf Master Pilot though, except slightly in a one on one. Master Pilot can be used to use GtA on one ship, shooting at it, then using the Attack action to shoot a second time. Or, he could (since he is a MASTER pilot after all) manage to GtA over two opponents in a single turn. Or, you can try to recover some strain, etc.

Master Pilot in a snub fighter right now seems like the most elite of talents required to do the most mundane action. It's silly, and makes a turreted ship the hands-down winner in any conflict. The snub fighter can evade, hose his accuracy, and if he wants to he can GtA so his accuracy is OK he can't shoot. That's pretty stupid. Only "master pilots" can actually shoot, and only if they strain? The "slow" freighter can Evade, GtA, aim and shoot every weapon all at once. It's stupid, frankly, how badly the rules treat snub fighters. They work fine if your group fits the assumption (player characters in the freighter, fighting off faceless mooks in snub fighters who need to die easy and not take much effort) but if you want fighter combat at ALL like the movies you need to alter them somewhere. The standard rules for fighters feel like a joke about hiring a carpenters union.

"To hammer nails, you need two guys. One guy runs the hammer, the other guy holds the nail. Unless you have a master carpenter, in which case he can use the hammer AND the nail at the same time. Of course, that is pretty exhausting so he can only hammer 4 nails before he needs to take a 15 minute break."

Master Pilot lets you perform an Action as a Manoeuvre, or two Actions in a round. That's not mundane, nor is a 25xp talent "the most elite of talents", signature abilities are elite talents.

I think you've simply misunderstood the idea behind dogfighting in this game, you wouldn't be the first. It's nothing stupid about manoeuvring and jockeying to position without getting a shot in (unless you're good and experienced - i.e. talents rather than just skill ranks).

You throw around "stupid" a lot, but you don't say anything new or add anything to this discussion that hasn't already been stated and rigorously researched and tested since the beta was dropped a few years back. It works and it works pretty well, that's at least the experience of most who've spent time learning it and leaving behind notions and assumptions from other games. In my experience, most (not all, but most) people who complain about the space combat system haven't actually tried it, or at most two or three times. Particularly when they supply these arguments. Sure there are some who still doesn't like it, want to learn it, which I guess is fine - and the smart ones of them understand it's not the system in and of itself that is "stupid" or "broken" or "wrong", because it isn't, it's based on preferences, experience and what one wants out of a system and a game. There is no "right" or "wrong" in such a case, there is only what one personally prefers, which can hardly apply to everyone as some objective truth ...

A turreted ship won't win every conflict that's just silly statement (turret or fixed position doesn't strictly matter), a ship with gunner positions will have an advantage sure, but that makes all kinds of sense! A dedicated gunner don't have to think about the dogfight and navigating the debris field and staying out of the gravity field of that collection of small black holes over there, the pilot must... and if the pilot is also in a fight, well, his attention needs to be split, there is nothing mundane in navigating a battlefield, even in space (and this is Star Wars space, not real space, so it's a lot more cluttered), avoiding collisions, and shooting at some other tiny tin can bumbling about the area...

It should however also be noted that the effects of GtA only strictly applies to the Pilot of a ship, not its gunners. GtA specifically calls our the pilot as gaining the advantage, as gaining the benefits. From Sam Stewart I was told this: "... RAW does state that the pilot is the one who benefits from Gain the Advantage, however the GM would be well within his bounds to rule that gunners (especially gunners in a two-seater Y-wing, for example) benefit from it as well." This could help at least somewhat to alleviate the problem of light freighters gaining the advantage not being too powerful.

My problem, I guess, with this GtA change is that it represents an unnecessary power creep that diminishes the boost of Master Pilot and removes, or at least diminishes, the narrative function of the GtA action. The way it is represented in the rules opens for longer narrative, more tension and higher expectations, but it requires players interested in more than die rolls... this change makes it kind of pointless, except as a strictly game mechanical function.

My objection is simply that the RAW do not match the cinematic feel of the Star Wars movies. It is a purely subjective objection to be sure. The issue is that RAW fixed forward firing positions are inferior to gunner positions, which is completely opposite of the WW II dogfighting style that Star Wars in based upon. In that era, gunner positions were extremely unreliable, with gunners unable to fire with any semblance of accuracy unless the craft flew absolutely straight and level and even then they were terribly inaccurate compared to fixed forward fire. In fact, in most small craft with gunners (like the Dauntless for example), the gunner was unable to fire at ALL when the craft was taking evasive maneuvers much less fire with greater accuracy than the pilot could using fixed forward weaponry.

If you like the rules as written, my suggestion (or anyone's suggestion) is clearly not for you. The fact remains, however, that snub fighters are severely disadvantaged vs. turreted freighters RAW, so much so that even with a "Master Pilot" at the controls they are unable to equal the accuracy of the freighters guns. Also, you keep making the statement that this would somehow be a major nerf to Master Pilot, something which is not true. Being able to outmaneuver and shoot at two opposing ships in a single turn rather than one is a pretty big deal. My suggestion wouldn't nerf Master Pilot, it would just alter the circumstances in which it could come into play. Rather than be required for an effective one on one engagement but leave the Master Pilot severely disadvantaged when outnumbered, it would now allow a Master Pilot to effectively engage multiple opponents.

You make several statements suggesting that I must not understand the system as written because I object to something specific about it (and that others have objected to as well). It makes me believe that you didn't actually consider what I suggested from any angle other than attempting to raise superficial objections to it. I was specifically trying to address the disadvantage fixed gun fighters have vs. turrets (something that is the polar opposite of the dogfighting style Star Wars is based upon), without making dogfights completely dependent on initiative. This disadvantage is just math, one side must have Master Pilot, has to strain, and cannot aim. The other side does not need Master Pilot, does not have to strain, and can aim. If that works for you, go for it. I posted here because this thread is supposed to be dedicated to alternatives, and the alternative I suggested would be a way to eliminate the disadvantage without making wholesale changes to an otherwise healthy system.

1) If you simply object to the idea of making any changes whatsoever, why are you lurking in a thread about alternatives? On the other hand, you seem to know the rules very well. If you could (just for the sake of the discussion) assume for a moment that you wanted to erase the fixed vs. turrets disparity, would my suggestion be a decent one?

2) My objection is simply that the RAW do not match the cinematic feel of the Star Wars movies. It is a purely subjective objection to be sure. The issue is that RAW fixed forward firing positions are inferior to gunner positions, which is completely opposite of the WW II dogfighting style that Star Wars in based upon. In that era, gunner positions were extremely unreliable, with gunners unable to fire with any semblance of accuracy unless the craft flew absolutely straight and level and even then they were terribly inaccurate compared to fixed forward fire. In fact, in most small craft with gunners (like the Dauntless for example), the gunner was unable to fire at ALL when the craft was taking evasive maneuvers much less fire with greater accuracy than the pilot could using fixed forward weaponry.

3) If you like the rules as written, my suggestion (or anyone's suggestion) is clearly not for you. The fact remains, however, that snub fighters are severely disadvantaged vs. turreted freighters RAW, so much so that even with a "Master Pilot" at the controls they are unable to equal the accuracy of the freighters guns. Also, you keep making the statement that this would somehow be a major nerf to Master Pilot, something which is not true. Being able to outmaneuver and shoot at two opposing ships in a single turn rather than one is a pretty big deal. My suggestion wouldn't nerf Master Pilot, it would just alter the circumstances in which it could come into play. Rather than be required for an effective one on one engagement but leave the Master Pilot severely disadvantaged when outnumbered, it would now allow a Master Pilot to effectively engage multiple opponents.

4) You make several statements suggesting that I must not understand the system as written because I object to something specific about it (and that others have objected to as well). It makes me believe that you didn't actually consider what I suggested from any angle other than attempting to raise superficial objections to it. I was specifically trying to address the disadvantage fixed gun fighters have vs. turrets (something that is the polar opposite of the dogfighting style Star Wars is based upon), without making dogfights completely dependent on initiative. This disadvantage is just math, one side must have Master Pilot, has to strain, and cannot aim. The other side does not need Master Pilot, does not have to strain, and can aim. If that works for you, go for it. I posted here because this thread is supposed to be dedicated to alternatives, and the alternative I suggested would be a way to eliminate the disadvantage without making wholesale changes to an otherwise healthy system.

1) Well, to use the quote so many Americans seems to love "everyone's entitled their opinion, man!" (or "dude," depending on level of education.) If you're allowed to voice your opinions about how it should be changed, I should allowed to voice my opinions about why that is a bad idea. Of course, that's not very constructive in and of itself, and opinions are not facts or arguments, they're mostly ill informed and based on feelings and emotions about a certain subject, rather than knowledge, facts and almost never are opinions pragmatic.

Mechanically turrets are useful on Silhouette >5 starships, because that's when defensive zones and fire arcs start to matter in more ways than they do for silhouettes <4. Narratively (and arguably mechanically) fixed position cannons are dependant upon the pilots' narration and manoeuvring, regardless of silhouette. If I'm the pilot of a starship with a rear facing cannon and as part of my GtA I narrate that I put my ship behind my target, because I want to do a called shot on their engines next turn, my gunner in the rear facing cannon can't shoot the target I'm tailing - unless I narrated some manoeuvre as part of my GtA to allow for the rear gunner to shoot (which a GM could easily slap a setback die on the check for if you ask me - I would). If that was a turret my gunner manned, he would of course be able shoot any target not on the opposite side of the ship to his turret (ventral v dorsal for instance). These things are, or can be determined by creative uses GtA and/or opposed pilot checks (see the pilot skill about that and defensive zones/fire arcs) without changing anything in the game or system as such.

2) I would disagree strongly, the system as it is lets you have that cinematic feel, as long as you narrate and tell the story you imagine - so far no system has catered to this cinematic feel, this narration as good as this system. As for pilot controlled weapons versus gunner controlled weapons, remember RAW states that Evasive Manoeuvre adds an upgrade to attack checks from evading vehicle, an upgrade GtA can overcome but only for the pilot, not any other gunner, unless the GM house-rules that GtA also applies to gunners on the ship. So it's there already. This means that fixed guns, controlled by the pilot are more accurate than turrets or non-pilot controlled guns (or at least turrets if you like Sam Stewart's idea about letting fixed position guns, forward or rear, still gain the benefits of GtA), when combining Evasive Manoeuvres and GtA. That is RAW.

3) Of course they are at a disadvantage, that only makes sense, but I strongly disagree it's such a severe disadvantage as you seem to think it is. And with the facts presented above the accuracy of which you speak isn't necessarily that big of a problem. And why should snubfighters equal a bigger, slower ship with turrets? It cannot, it should not, it isn't the same. If the light freighter can't do evasive manoeuvres it's a just a big target, even if it can it may not be able to GtA ... that means any gunner, even the pilot on said freighter, will have penalties on gunnery checks (upgraded dificulty on combat checks).

The changes you've done to GtA basically gives anyone in a Silhouette <4 vehicle with speed >4 the Master Pilot talent when performing GtA. That is changing quite a lot - and no, I've never used the word "nerf" and it's not what I'm saying, I'm saying you're adding unnecessary power creep, increased lethality in an already quite lethal system and in effect you're also removing some of the oomph of Master Pilot by giving it to anyone in a fast enough and small enough vehicle (minions would benefit a lot from this, perhaps more so than players). You're in effect making the system less cinematic, tense and exciting by adding dice rolls, which takes the focus away from narration and the tension and story of the combat. You seem to think that letting someone GtA and shoot in one round is something anyone should be able to do, I disagree, because it is not a mundane action, it is not simple, and I don't think it improves anything at all.

4) Oh, I think you understand the system as written, the mechanical part anyway. Most objections comes from that - and I did the same. I've looked through these same issues earlier, the community has. There's been some good suggestions in this thread, but they're still (in the end) just bloating the dice pool and/or increasing lethality (which most try to decrease for snubfighters). I looked at what you presented and I saw issue with it, I'm sure some would like it and use it (and I won't stop them), but I wouldn't, because it would interact with talents, minions and the game in ways I would find unnecessary and detrimental to the fun, the Star Wars-inspired cinematics and storytelling me and my players attempt. This change won't help in that.

Thank you for being specific, your most recent post was really what I was hoping for. You pointed out the increased lethality of my suggestion, and the more-or-less equivalent of Master PIlot given to anyone in a snub fighter. I agree that probably the single most significant oddity is the incredibly fragile nature of the small craft in this game, and that my suggestion could exacerbate that (though it should help them vs. turrets because they could consistently Evade and GtA vs. those ships). I'm just not sure how to address that without a complete overhaul, which is something I was trying to avoid.

I will keep the increased lethality in mind.

You guys seem to forget the squadron rules from the GM screen for aor. Which would allow you to have fighter combat be very deadly with out the worry to the pcs. It is plot armor. Also remember the rules actually say that important characters are disabled. They don't go boom. One trick I am doing is my astromech in my ship is a rigger and the ship is their signature vehicle. The pilot is an warrior ace. With the cool abilities and the ship being buffed.

Well, yes, if you're lucky enough to have a squadron of minions to use as ablative armour. Sure, that can be used to decrease lethality.

+2 armor to all vehicles and/or double hull points and/or non-minion vessels are not disabled at 0 hull points, but just take automatic critical hits when struck all do a lot to increase survivability of important peoples.

Well, yes, if you're lucky enough to have a squadron of minions to use as ablative armour. Sure, that can be used to decrease lethality.

if you are in starfighter combat why do you not have a squadron?

Well, yes, if you're lucky enough to have a squadron of minions to use as ablative armour. Sure, that can be used to decrease lethality.

if you are in starfighter combat why do you not have a squadron?

Because your PC doesn't have a GM that would just hand you a Starfighter Squadron because you want one.

Because your PC is not part of the Rebel Alliance, but part of an EotE group that doesn't naturally have Starfighter Squadron support at your beck and call.

Because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to easily pickup a Starfighter Squadron w/Supporting NPC Crew, but you could much more easily grab a single Starfigher.

Because you just stole that TIE fighter.

Because you are the only Ace in the party and you've slapped your Starfighter on the outside of the groups' transport and would like to actually use your primary career skills whenever space combat breaks out.

Because the minion Starfighter Squadron that was helping you suffered the fate of most cannon fodder.

Because you alone noticed the Rival escaping in his craft and pursued him away from the main battle.

Because you ARE able to call up Alliance Command when you expect you will be in a starfighter battle, but your GM has a strange tendency to do unexpected things to you.

........etc.

+2 armor to all vehicles and/or double hull points and/or non-minion vessels are not disabled at 0 hull points, but just take automatic critical hits when struck all do a lot to increase survivability of important peoples.

I had had the idea of allowing a pilot to add their rank of piloting to hull threshold. Most impact to star fighters and mostly unnoticed by larger ships. Yay? nay?

+2 armor to all vehicles and/or double hull points and/or non-minion vessels are not disabled at 0 hull points, but just take automatic critical hits when struck all do a lot to increase survivability of important peoples.

I had had the idea of allowing a pilot to add their rank of piloting to hull threshold. Most impact to star fighters and mostly unnoticed by larger ships. Yay? nay?

What about letting Pilots use their personal Strain as sort of an ablative armor. When their ship is hit they can transfer as much of the hits to personal strain up to their ranks in piloting.

Well, yes, if you're lucky enough to have a squadron of minions to use as ablative armour. Sure, that can be used to decrease lethality.

if you are in starfighter combat why do you not have a squadron?

Because your PC doesn't have a GM that would just hand you a Starfighter Squadron because you want one.

Because your PC is not part of the Rebel Alliance, but part of an EotE group that doesn't naturally have Starfighter Squadron support at your beck and call.

Because there is nothing in the rules that allows you to easily pickup a Starfighter Squadron w/Supporting NPC Crew, but you could much more easily grab a single Starfigher.

Because you just stole that TIE fighter.

Because you are the only Ace in the party and you've slapped your Starfighter on the outside of the groups' transport and would like to actually use your primary career skills whenever space combat breaks out.

Because the minion Starfighter Squadron that was helping you suffered the fate of most cannon fodder.

Because you alone noticed the Rival escaping in his craft and pursued him away from the main battle.

Because you ARE able to call up Alliance Command when you expect you will be in a starfighter battle, but your GM has a strange tendency to do unexpected things to you.

........etc.

And starfighters by themselves are extremely fragile. We fly our fighters in real life with wingman for a reason.

And starfighters by themselves are extremely fragile. We fly our fighters in real life with wingman for a reason.

You were arguing you must have a "Squadron", not a Wingman. That's 12 supporting starfighters versus 1. One is feasible. And I completely agree that having friends in fighter combat increases your chances of survival. I don't think anyone is arguing differently.

This is the statement I answered above:

if you are in starfighter combat why do you not have a squadron?

What about letting Pilots use their personal Strain as sort of an ablative armor. When their ship is hit they can transfer as much of the hits to personal strain up to their ranks in piloting.

There is a new talent from "Stay on target" that is "High-G Training" :

When a starship or vehicle the character is currently piloting would suffer system strain, the character may suffer a number of strain up to his ranks in High-G Training. If he does, the amount of system strain the starship or vehicle suffers is reduced by that amount.

FFG has beaten you to it...

Nice try.

I still don't get what all you guys see in Starship combat has broken... Your GM should be able to balance this out just by numbers (of minions, rivals, etc.) and opponent skill ranks.

I've got a game next saturday with a big space combat, I might just take notes of everything and "replay" it here...

I still don't get what all you guys see in Starship combat has broken...

I don't think it is so much "broken" as much as it is skewed. The system was first designed on the idea of a small crew in a freighter. The fragility of starfighters is understandable from the perspective of them being a threat to the "Small crew in a freighter" but for anyone who wants to play as the pilot of one of those starfighters, you end up being reduced to "Hit then first or else". One average hit and your starfighter can be removed from combat. It doesn't feel like the movies (regarding the main characters at least) and it makes for a pass/fail game style. Something that is not very fun from my perspective, and apparently from others perspectives as well.

And starfighters by themselves are extremely fragile. We fly our fighters in real life with wingman for a reason.

You were arguing you must have a "Squadron", not a Wingman. That's 12 supporting starfighters versus 1. One is feasible. And I completely agree that having friends in fighter combat increases your chances of survival. I don't think anyone is arguing differently.

This is the statement I answered above:

if you are in starfighter combat why do you not have a squadron?

No I was arguing using the squadron rules. Which if you Read them does not require 12 minions to use.

I still don't get what all you guys see in Starship combat has broken...

I don't think it is so much "broken" as much as it is skewed. The system was first designed on the idea of a small crew in a freighter. The fragility of starfighters is understandable from the perspective of them being a threat to the "Small crew in a freighter" but for anyone who wants to play as the pilot of one of those starfighters, you end up being reduced to "Hit then first or else". One average hit and your starfighter can be removed from combat. It doesn't feel like the movies (regarding the main characters at least) and it makes for a pass/fail game style. Something that is not very fun from my perspective, and apparently from others perspectives as well.