I have an encounter coming up in a few episodes where our heroes, who have swoops and a moderately armed airship, will be tasked with stopping an Imperial convoy consisting of four speeder bikes and a transport landspeeder. I'm not so worried about the landspeeder as they will have to disable it before trying to break in to free the person they've been hired/sent to save (protected by stormtroopers of course).

What I am worried about is that the during the vehicle portion of combat the heroes will try to take shots at the pilots on the Imperial speeder bikes instead of the bikes themselves. This will be so they can claim the bikes afterward and add them to their armory. I turn will simply have any speeder bike with its rider slain crash into something and blow up. So I have a solution to that.

My question is how to deal with heroes firing on the riders of speeder bikes instead of the bikes themselves. The rules are kind of nebulous on what kind of cover the vehicle troopers will get and what kinds of things the heroes will have to be on top of to shoot at their riders while trying to pilot their bikes.

Any thoughts on how the rules work on this situation?

Many thanks.

If they are ok with shooting the riders, then they should be ok when they are shot when riding as well.

I don't think there is anything special there, just roll the dice like you would in combat. Just apply Evasive Maneuvers/Stay on Target, if they shoot at the riders if you like and vice versa.

I'd say that the bikes are designed to provide improved cover to their riders. Combine that with any speed differential and that's several setbacks at least to any shots taken at them. If they miss a few times, they might reconsider their targeting.

As for the bikes running into things and blowing up, don't be too heavy handed about that. Speeder bikes (and other speeder craft, for that matter) are programmed to slowly coast to a stop in the event they are no longer receiving active commands. On Endor, they tended to run into trees, et al, before they completed the stopping part, but it's much less likely on defined roadways.

What should stop the players from looting them is the reinforcements that are already vectoring in to their position in combination with the TIE and Lambda air support. After all, it's a standing Imperial order that material is better destroyed than allowed to fall into Rebel hands.

Treat it as the Aiming maneuver with the 2 black dice modifier (for aiming at something specific) plus any cover if you deem it applicable.

Beyond Engaged, or possibly Short range hitting a driver is virtually impossible. 2 black component aiming, 1 for cover, 1 for speed, liberal use of Dpoints...I'd even consider just plain increasing the difficulty...

The official rule, as mouthymerc said, is covered by the Aim maneuver:

1. Declare you are aiming for a specific part of the target.

2. Spend a maneuver to add two setback dice to the pool.

3. (Optional) Spend a second maneuver to remove one of those setback dice (for a total of only one setback instead of two).

4. (Situational) The specific part of the target may be ruled to have Cover, even if the whole target itself does not. If so, apply setback dice for Cover as appropriate.

5. Spend an Action to attack.

6. On a net success you hit the designated part of the target (the effects of this are determined by the GM). Without a net success you miss completely as normal.

So officially, you can attack the driver instead of the speeder by spending a maneuver to add two setback, possibly spending a second to reduce this to one setback, probably adding an additional setback for the driver's cover, and then attacking as normal. Note that this means it is, by the standard rules, fairly easy to hit the driver if you wish.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Personally, though, I would be hesitant to permit this sort of thing at all. It's potentially game-breaking to allow drivers and pilots to be targeted directly, especially when you're probably shooting at them with vehicle-scale weapons. Mechanically speaking, there would be almost no reason not to do this since killing the driver is probably much easier than destroying the bike. Why not do it every time? Why not just shoot TIE Fighter pilots through their cockpit windows, and so forth? The answer: It's lame.

My personal rule is if you are using vehicle weaponry to specificly attack the pilot then use the aim rules, otherwise if you are using personal scale to attack the pilot, just roll it as normal. Maybe apply a setback just for a fast moving target and call it a day.

So they claim the bikes afterward and add them to their armory. Why not?

Why not just shoot TIE Fighter pilots through their cockpit windows, and so forth? The answer: It's lame.

"I know you are, but what am I?" - Kir Kanos.

Seriously though, lets run the numbers for a sec.

I'm on a speederbike going Speed 3 and at Medium Range from another speederbike also going Speed 3.

Base difficulty ♦♦

I get ■■ for trying to target the driver specifically.

I get ■ for the "cover" provided by limited cover of the speederbike.

I get ■ for the fact we're both speeding along at breakneck speeds through the streets of Mos Espa.

I Upgrade because the other guy is taking evasive action.

Result:☻♦■■■■ vs. my Ranged light. Also that expends both my action and maneuver this turn limiting what else I can do dramatically.

Lets assume I have ☺☺♦ in Ranged light. I'll typically end up with something like what? 30ish% success rate? Usually with maybe 1 success and some threat.

So assuming I've got a Heavy pistol (Damage 7) and I'm shooting at a Minion (5ish WT, 3ish Soak) I just did 5 wounds. Not enough to remove him from play, I'll have to hit him a second time to do that, which might take a while.

By comparison, lets look at just shooting the bike:

Base difficulty ♦♦

I get ■ for the fact we're both speeding along at breakneck speeds through the streets of Mos Espa.

I Upgrade because the other guy is taking evasive action.

Result:☻♦■ vs. my Ranged light. And that's just a single action, so I've still got a free maneuver.

My odds are now closer to 50% with most successful results generating 2-3 Success, and about 30% generating the needed results to crit.

So assuming I've got a Heavy pistol (Damage 7) and I'm shooting at a Minion on a Speederbike (0 Armor, 2HT) I'll still take probably more then one hit to take down the Bike, but that's much easier, and it's far more likely I'll just crit him and have him auto-removed.

Why not just shoot TIE Fighter pilots through their cockpit windows, and so forth? The answer: It's lame.

"I know you are, but what am I?" - Kir Kanos.

Seriously though, lets run the numbers for a sec.

I'm on a speederbike going Speed 3 and at Medium Range from another speederbike also going Speed 3.

Base difficulty ♦♦

I get ■■ for trying to target the driver specifically.

I get ■ for the "cover" provided by limited cover of the speederbike.

I get ■ for the fact we're both speeding along at breakneck speeds through the streets of Mos Espa.

I Upgrade because the other guy is taking evasive action.

Result:☻♦■■■■ vs. my Ranged light. Also that expends both my action and maneuver this turn limiting what else I can do dramatically.

Lets assume I have ☺☺♦ in Ranged light. I'll typically end up with something like what? 30ish% success rate? Usually with maybe 1 success and some threat.

So assuming I've got a Heavy pistol (Damage 7) and I'm shooting at a Minion (5ish WT, 3ish Soak) I just did 5 wounds. Not enough to remove him from play, I'll have to hit him a second time to do that, which might take a while.

By comparison, lets look at just shooting the bike:

Base difficulty ♦♦

I get ■ for the fact we're both speeding along at breakneck speeds through the streets of Mos Espa.

I Upgrade because the other guy is taking evasive action.

Result:☻♦■ vs. my Ranged light. And that's just a single action, so I've still got a free maneuver.

My odds are now closer to 50% with most successful results generating 2-3 Success, and about 30% generating the needed results to crit.

So assuming I've got a Heavy pistol (Damage 7) and I'm shooting at a Minion on a Speederbike (0 Armor, 2HT) I'll still take probably more then one hit to take down the Bike, but that's much easier, and it's far more likely I'll just crit him and have him auto-removed.

Thank you everyone for the feedback. I know how I'm going to handle this now.

Bear in mind you can work it.

Make a piloting check to move into Short Range (Base ♦♦☻ assuming the streets of Mos Espa are difficult terrain)

Take Aim once (maneuver)

Next turn (assuming the Speeder is still in short range, which it may not be) Second Aim (Maneuver)

Fire (Base ♦ + ■ for cover, ■ for speed, ■ for targeting a component, upgraded for Evasion = ☻■■■)

That's a lot easier to make happen, but of course by that point you're on your first shot, and the other guy has already had a whole turn to move, shoot, bail, call for an orbital strike, whatever...

Well you're focusing on the specific example of a speederbike (with Armour 0 and HT 2) and assuming that the attacker is using a mere pistol or something. In that specific scenario the two options more balanced.

But in many (I would guess most) of the cases where this hypothetical "shoot-the-driver" approach might be employed, you would be dealing with armoured vehicles (which are virtually immune to personal-scale weapons) and/or vehicle-scale weapons (which will annihilate most characters).

Why waste your time shooting your pistol at an armoured vehicle you can barely scratch? Just kill the driver instead.

Why waste your time shooting your heavy blaster cannon at a vehicle that is built to take such damage and will require multiple hits to bring down? Just shoot the driver once and vaporise him.

My point is that if you allow the driver to be targeted (especially using the very forgiving official rules for doing so) then in many cases shooting the driver is a far better strategy. Yet it's very contrary to theme, and you probably don't want such a thing to become standard practice at the table.

Targeting the driver only presupposes that you can actually target him. Such as in the case of a spederbike, open top landspeeder, or riding a beast. An enclosed vehicle would not allow such a maneuver. GMs are free to allow or disallow such actions as the situation permits.

Targeting the driver only presupposes that you can actually target him. Such as in the case of a spederbike, open top landspeeder, or riding a beast. An enclosed vehicle would not allow such a maneuver. GMs are free to allow or disallow such actions as the situation permits.

Reasonable acceptions of course. Id prolly allow you to target the driver of an unarmored civilian speeder truck if you've got the position with 2 Setback for cover possibly 3, but nothing really heavier.

If they take said vehicles, who's to say that the vehicles don't have gps tracking devices on them?

I know if I had vehicles escorting a prisoner I would want to know where they are during the route

in case something happened. Hopefully not too off topic here.

If they take said vehicles, who's to say that the vehicles don't have gps tracking devices on them?

I know if I had vehicles escorting a prisoner I would want to know where they are during the route

in case something happened. Hopefully not too off topic here.

I think it's more about getting them off the silliness of taking everything they can all the time. All that will happen if you track the vehicles is the players will insist on making mechanics check after mechanics check until they are sure they vehicles are safe to loot. That doesn't really enhance the game any beyond rewarding their unnecessary greed and it's bogging down of the game in pointless rolling.

It's better to just have the speeders explode and call it a day.

Depending on the distance between point A and B,,,, speeders and swoops travel at VERY HIGH speeds... each time they eliminate an opponent emphasise the distances between each 'crash site' and I agree with a previous post, Threats and Despairs should equal reinforcements or destroyed hardware...

but let them salvage a few bits to sell on if they get the chance... no more than C500 worth of parts etc

If they take said vehicles, who's to say that the vehicles don't have gps tracking devices on them?

I know if I had vehicles escorting a prisoner I would want to know where they are during the route

in case something happened. Hopefully not too off topic here.

I think it's more about getting them off the silliness of taking everything they can all the time. All that will happen if you track the vehicles is the players will insist on making mechanics check after mechanics check until they are sure they vehicles are safe to loot. That doesn't really enhance the game any beyond rewarding their unnecessary greed and it's bogging down of the game in pointless rolling.

It's better to just have the speeders explode and call it a day.

My group typically only allows one roll per subject unless things change or the outcome is more or less predictable (e.g. It automatically happens). Basically if they don't find it first time, they won't until they get to a garage or workshop to really check if over for a more lengthy maintainance. By then, if it did have a tracking device then they would have a good idea where it is.

That, and simply state "you can hear a lot more blaring sirens behind you, if you succeed on an athletics or coordination check with x setback, you can jump over to the unmanned speeder bike, dispair means you jump and miss."

I think it's more about getting them off the silliness of taking everything they can all the time. All that will happen if you track the vehicles is the players will insist on making mechanics check after mechanics check until they are sure they vehicles are safe to loot. That doesn't really enhance the game any beyond rewarding their unnecessary greed and it's bogging down of the game in pointless rolling.

It's better to just have the speeders explode and call it a day.

I'll be completely 100% honest here, and I know already it's going to be taken as quite harsh but...

This is only an issue in immature or inexperienced groups. Through all my years GM'ing I've learned that even veteran players will almost always try to take what they think is useful. Now, experience leads to what a player deems useful but for the most part... At first it's barbaric nab every weapon, every scrap of armor, and every item worth more than a loaf of bread but eventually it evolves into only high value targets, objectives, etc. In D&D, eventually even that Flaming Sword is just as interesting as a rusty dagger to the party and they won't touch anything but the most powerful of artifacts. Whether that comes from notoriety as everyone knows you leave your victims naked without possessions or roleplaying that the characters no longer care about the little stuff, or just players realizing that not everything is worth the time to nab, it doesn't truly matter.

The GM should reward creative thinking and not punish it. Does that mean reward with good things? Not always. If I steal a prize jewel instead of returning it as I was tasked to, I don't want the GM to go, "As you try to escape the jewel shatters because [insert plot reason here]." I want to be able to see the consequences come to life as the story evolves. As a player I love when a GM makes my choices, and the choices of my fellow party members, matter. If a GM just handwaived every choice I made because it didn't fit his idea of what he wanted to happen then I would leave that campaign. Of course, I'm not going to go out of my way to actively fight his/her narrative but there is a social agreement that needs to be understood between every member of any campaign. That is that it is the GM's world, but it is the players' story.

Lastly, and this comes up so often on these boards, if rolling is deemed pointless, then it shouldn't be rolled, period. Dice should only be rolled if there is going to be a downside that moves the narrative forward if failed. If the GM is going to allow a player to make a hundred rolls until they succeed then that's the GM's mistake. I see this all the time with GM's calling rolls for every little interaction, every clue hunt, every conversation, etc. If the rolling is going to stop the story, if the GM wants a particular result, or if it's a like scenario then it needs to be handled via narrative roleplaying.

Acquiring items in FFG Star Wars doesn't mean quite as much as it does in other RPGs. A pair of Triumphs on an NPC roll can theoretically ruin any item a PC is in contact with. My players have had to pay the full cost of some very expensive pieces of hardware in order to repair them no fewer than twice in my current campaign.

Acquiring items in FFG Star Wars doesn't mean quite as much as it does in other RPGs. A pair of Triumphs on an NPC roll can theoretically ruin any item a PC is in contact with. My players have had to pay the full cost of some very expensive pieces of hardware in order to repair them no fewer than twice in my current campaign.

And, in most of the campaigns I've played, with the low amount of had currency we get from playing, that's just plain mean. In the campaigns I've played, we get paid, maybe, 2 or 3k every 4 or 5 sessions (or more).... Most of the gear we wind up getting is stuff we steal.

Not really much of a problem. If a pilot loses control of a vehicle (i.e. dies in midair) that's going 200 km/h there isn't going to be much of it left to salvage afterwards.

Acquiring items in FFG Star Wars doesn't mean quite as much as it does in other RPGs. A pair of Triumphs on an NPC roll can theoretically ruin any item a PC is in contact with. My players have had to pay the full cost of some very expensive pieces of hardware in order to repair them no fewer than twice in my current campaign.

And, in most of the campaigns I've played, with the low amount of had currency we get from playing, that's just plain mean. In the campaigns I've played, we get paid, maybe, 2 or 3k every 4 or 5 sessions (or more).... Most of the gear we wind up getting is stuff we steal.

My two year party Has probably been the wealthiest mentioned here. We finished the jewel of yavin by taking the funds immediately out of shiens account to pay us, and we have a huge reputation of stealing ships (most of which gets cashed in at the alliance.). Most of our members still have 10k peice with a weekly salary of 600 per ingame week. We also own a small fleet of 6 shuttles, including an strategic asset of a yz with two ywings docked, a hawk-290, a lander shuttle we stole from an dead inquisitor and a hwk-1000, recently taken from a solo hiest on kathlos severt vault using Dai's backing. Due to that and then saving the planet from imperial razing (a ton of bombs on structural weak points) she gifted us most of the stuff stolen, with a retail value of roughly 400,000 credits. Most of that will be handed In for duty, but still plenty of stuff left for one of a kind upgrades to the Pred squads (named after that movie) efficiency.

So I hear you asking, isn't that kind of wealth unbaliencing? Depends on how one intends on using that wealth. If your looking to build enterpises, needing copious resources in a desperate war against the empire, which every resource could be destroyed? Sure. If your group doesn't have huge ambsion? Or a particular driving goal? Or if the campaign doesn't suit any kind of expansion? Not so much.

Acquiring items in FFG Star Wars doesn't mean quite as much as it does in other RPGs. A pair of Triumphs on an NPC roll can theoretically ruin any item a PC is in contact with. My players have had to pay the full cost of some very expensive pieces of hardware in order to repair them no fewer than twice in my current campaign.

And, in most of the campaigns I've played, with the low amount of had currency we get from playing, that's just plain mean. In the campaigns I've played, we get paid, maybe, 2 or 3k every 4 or 5 sessions (or more).... Most of the gear we wind up getting is stuff we steal.

The players at my table take on some pretty risky engagements and are well compensated for their efforts but they're also faced with other risks and hefty Obligations that could cost them everything. The risk of loss will keep players just as much on edge as fighting for scraps.