1st sentence of 1st paragraph of page 235 of EotE Core book states, "When attacking a ship of silhouette 4 or lower, the defender chooses which defense zone the attack hits."

Wow, so... if you don't angle deflectors right away, you're dumb right? For instance if you have 1 def. assigned to each side of your ship, putting 0 def. into 1 side, and 2 def. into the other side is a no brainer correct?

So if you do have a side with 0 def., is there a situation where the attacker can ever hit that side?

Sil 4 or lower only need aft and fore shields due to size.. I think this applies if the attacking ship is attacking from above or below not straight in front or from behind I reckon.

Port & Starboard are covered by the Fore & Aft shields at the halfway crossover point, so on a YT-1300 the Lifepods/Docking Ring would roughly be where the shields cross

Yes, angling deflectors is a really good idea. The only way for an attacker to pick where his shots hit is if he first successfully uses the Gain the Advantage action.

1st sentence of 1st paragraph of page 235 of EotE Core book states, "When attacking a ship of silhouette 4 or lower, the defender chooses which defense zone the attack hits."

Wow, so... if you don't angle deflectors right away, you're dumb right? For instance if you have 1 def. assigned to each side of your ship, putting 0 def. into 1 side, and 2 def. into the other side is a no brainer correct?

So if you do have a side with 0 def., is there a situation where the attacker can ever hit that side?

It's a game/gamble. You angle deflectors (yes, usually a good idea), they Gain the Advantage allowing them to pick the arc they hit, but burning an action to do it.

Look at all the vehicle maneuvers and stats, theres a lot of little synergies and poker plays.

TIEs for example are practically built to swoop in, Take Evasive Action, GtA, and then shoot the following turn.

Also as a side note, that's for Sil 4 and lower. Sil 5 and above the arc you hit is determined by where you are in relation to the vehicle being targeted (hence the "moving within the close range band" option on fly/drive)

My own feeling is that TIEs are better off swooping in firing and then firing again the next turn. I have something of a hate/ignore relationship with GtA.

Yeah, the opportunity cost of wasting an action when ships are so fragile is huge. If GtA let you chose the relative positioning, so GtA on most fighters meant you were on their tail and out of arc of their front guns, then it might be worth it. As it stands, spending a round to bump a typical 50% shot up to a 70% one isn't worth it.

My own feeling is that TIEs are better off swooping in firing and then firing again the next turn. I have something of a hate/ignore relationship with GtA.

Why? I've always thought it felt like one of the most "dogfighty" of skills.

Part of it is simple tactical encounter design. TIEs swooping in and shooting and shooting is a thing, but it's also punishment for the player if the TIEs hit both times. TIEs GtAing helps with the pacing to allow the players to get a shot or two off if they aren't in a good position on the initiative list.

On the flipside a player may not want to GtA that often (against TIEs its not pointless, but it's close) but against some targets it can be worth it....

That's kinda the whole good thing though, while you can set up some baseline tactics based on the pilot's skills and talents and vehicle in question, there really is no "Here's what you do just about every time" when it comes to vehicle combat. It'll almost always vary dependent on the encounter.

My players and I just don't like the idea of balancing an encounter around the idea that the enemy has to select a sub-par option. We're generally more simulationist, and we generally think that anyone selecting to engage an opponent has no problem with "punishing" them and just don't like viewing it on the GM/player axis when we could instead view it from the perspectives of the characters involved.

Oddly, as dogfight as it might sound, gta works best when you're not I a fighter. When you have a dedicated pilot gta'ing for gunners, it's awesome.

The problem with GtA is that it costs an action and has negligible real benefit for a fighter (as said, when you have gunners its much more solid).

At most you downgrade a two red dice if they are doing evasive AND you are doing evasive and one black die if they have angled the shields.

In return, they can either try to GtA you back... or just fire. In most cases, with a decent gunner, they are better off just firing at you. ESPECIALLY if its a TIE doing the GtA in the beginning, as a single shot can easily remove a TIE from the board anyway.

There are very few situations where GtAing is better than firing twice, as the difference you gain in hitting them is easily made up by having two chances to hit them AND you get the chance to hit them twice, and there is very little incentive for someone to GtA someone back if they can either take the enemy out in one shot anyway or have no chance of succeeding the GtA roll anyway (which is the case very quickly because of speed difference and the escalating difficulty).

I actually have house rules for a lot of things in starship combat because I think its a little wonky in a lot of ways (Sensor ranges so short that faster ships can outrun their own sensor range is another weirdness)

Oddly, as dogfight as it might sound, gta works best when you're not I a fighter. When you have a dedicated pilot gta'ing for gunners, it's awesome.

Or multicrewed fighter. One of the reasons two seaters or PC astromechs are nice.

At most you downgrade a two red dice if they are doing evasive AND you are doing evasive and one black die if they have angled the shields.

It depends on the target and that's kinda the point. Something like a TIE fighter with no shields taking evasive action... yeah, not worth it under most circumstances.

A modified Firespray with 3 or 4 points of defense in a single direction in terrain that's tossing an additional setback on everything to boot.... might be worth it.

If you want a system where vehicle combat is always a "I should always do A, then B, then C" this isn't it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The system works, but it is a little unusual and can be difficult to "get" I will never say it isn't. Once you do "get it" it's really pretty slick how much FFG was able to squeeze into a pretty simple ruleset.

If you just don't "get it" by all means change it, you might find a way to make some real improvements. Just be prepared for some bumps because the system is really interconnected and it's easy to make a minor change with some far reaching repercussions.

Oddly, as dogfight as it might sound, gta works best when you're not I a fighter. When you have a dedicated pilot gta'ing for gunners, it's awesome.

Or multicrewed fighter. One of the reasons two seaters or PC astromechs are nice.

At most you downgrade a two red dice if they are doing evasive AND you are doing evasive and one black die if they have angled the shields.

It depends on the target and that's kinda the point. Something like a TIE fighter with no shields taking evasive action... yeah, not worth it under most circumstances.

A modified Firespray with 3 or 4 points of defense in a single direction in terrain that's tossing an additional setback on everything to boot.... might be worth it.

If you want a system where vehicle combat is always a "I should always do A, then B, then C" this isn't it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The system works, but it is a little unusual and can be difficult to "get" I will never say it isn't. Once you do "get it" it's really pretty slick how much FFG was able to squeeze into a pretty simple ruleset.

If you just don't "get it" by all means change it, you might find a way to make some real improvements. Just be prepared for some bumps because the system is really interconnected and it's easy to make a minor change with some far reaching repercussions.

Er no, that is *exactly* the problem. For fighters, there is an "I should always do A, then B, then C" because they have very few worthwhile options available. It'd be nice if the Gain the Advantage mechanics, which evoke fighters jostling for position, were actually meaningful for them.

Its not about "always" its about the fact that it is rarely ever useful. If the one maneuver that simulates dogfighting MIGHT be useful in a situation involving a highly modified ship in an asteroid field (your own words), then maybe its not that useful.

Even my house ruled version of the starship rules don't make GtA an auto thing to go for, its just significantly better than the rules as written where there is VERY VERY little reason to do it except in extremely niche situations.

But I'm honestly not surprised by the response. Last time I posted here, it was just the same: Any criticism of the rules is met with a "You just don't understand it" brigade to tell us how stupid we are.

In fighters, my first round is usually Angle and Boost. Then I'll start shooting. 'course that's usually 'cause I'm outnumbered and fighters are made of paper.

Its not about "always" its about the fact that it is rarely ever useful. If the one maneuver that simulates dogfighting MIGHT be useful in a situation involving a highly modified ship in an asteroid field (your own words), then maybe its not that useful.

Even my house ruled version of the starship rules don't make GtA an auto thing to go for, its just significantly better than the rules as written where there is VERY VERY little reason to do it except in extremely niche situations.

But I'm honestly not surprised by the response. Last time I posted here, it was just the same: Any criticism of the rules is met with a "You just don't understand it" brigade to tell us how stupid we are.

I just wanted to hop in to say that I'm sorry you feel as you do. I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you for certain that majority if not all of the long-time contributers on the board never want to just tell you how "stupid you are." Not saying you are even the slighteset bit, just quoting.

Everyone's responses are just reflecting the experience gained over being part of the beta, owning the material sice launch, and learning as a community through all the ups and downs. It's very easy for new players or experienced players that just haven't dealt with certain aspects enough to take a glance at a rule or two and instantly want to houserule it without knowing the full consequences.

Compared to other systems FFG's Star Wars is surprisingly streamlined and balanced with only a few hiccups here and there. Even the smallest change without knowing just how many things will be affected is I think why most new posters feel attacked when they propose houserules. I personally think it's important to not only know, but to have played using core rules exclusively before deciding to houesrule.

That said, once experienced in the system houseruling is a great part of the game.

I just wanted to hop in to say that I'm sorry you feel as you do. I can't speak for everyone, but I can tell you for certain that majority if not all of the long-time contributers on the board never want to just tell you how "stupid you are." Not saying you are even the slighteset bit, just quoting.

Everyone's responses are just reflecting the experience gained over being part of the beta, owning the material sice launch, and learning as a community through all the ups and downs. It's very easy for new players or experienced players that just haven't dealt with certain aspects enough to take a glance at a rule or two and instantly want to houserule it without knowing the full consequences.

Compared to other systems FFG's Star Wars is surprisingly streamlined and balanced with only a few hiccups here and there. Even the smallest change without knowing just how many things will be affected is I think why most new posters feel attacked when they propose houserules. I personally think it's important to not only know, but to have played using core rules exclusively before deciding to houesrule.

That said, once experienced in the system houseruling is a great part of the game.

The typical response to people suggesting rules changes here is to use the argument (as I'm afraid you've pretty much used) "Well we've been playing for X years, and we know the system very well, and we don't see any problems". Just to give you an idea of how terrible that stance is, it was a staple in discussion of D&D3.5e. Most posters don't critique the houserules, and show how mechanically flawed or counterproductive they are or use examples of play*. It all just comes across as "Well I'm sorry you don't know how to play the game properly".

*In this thread we do have a rare exception, though one that as Norton points plays into his side of the argument and still comes served with a side of "I, personally, know that the system is too complicated for you to meddle with".

Yeah, thanks. Sorry about the saltiness. I've been playing since the Edge beta myself, and was on these forums a while back but got a bit tired of the attitude from people. I'm trying to get back to using the forums because some friends wanted to play the system, and I LIKE being involved with communities when I can, so starting with being a bit annoyed is not the best way to go in.

Anyway, on the thoughts of house rules, if someone actually wants to look at what I've done, and discuss some ideas on it, I'll make a separate thread for it. It addresses most of the issues I have with starship combat. (And I guarantee its a lot less changes than most people think. it fits on one page and I could fit it in less, I was just trying to make it as clear as possible how things work.)

I've never been made to feel stupid... and lord knows I've provided plenty of reasons that I could have been. I don't think it should be surprising that, on the FFG forums for their own game, the overwhelming sentiment is going to lean toward, "Don't mess with it." Belittling people by calling them the You Don't Understand It Brigade for disagreeing with you doesn't really make you seem all that better than the people you're upset with. It really demeans yourself and probably devalues your ideas... and that's very unfair to yourself because, seeing as I don't remember seeing your gta post, I was hoping you'd be posting your version when you mentioned making house rules.

I still would like to, fwiw.

Also fwiw, and speaking from lots of experience, there's a lot of fun to be found in doing something everyone told you that you couldn't do and making it work. Even if there was a Brigade out there looking to make you feel stupid, they should inspire you. The only thing better than telling those people, "Ha! I told you!" is not even wasting the energy to do so once you've already made sure they knew you could.

Yeah, I'll go ahead and make a thread for my house rules. And also, the reason for the reaction is that I quit using these forums nearly a year ago because of the reaction to any suggested house rules or that anything in the game wasn't perfect. (Topic is going to take a while, because I'm going to also write a thing on the reasons for each rule and what it is intended to fix, so its going to be editorial as well.)

House rules thread

Gain The Advantage is not an automatic choice, but it does have its uses. As noted, it's a very big deal for multi-crew fighters and ships, because the pilot can use it and the gunners can benefit from it.

However, even in a fighter duel it can be useful.

In a faster, agile fighter a Gain The Advantage check is pretty much a formality: the real secret weapon of Gain The Advantage is that that nets an average of three Advantage; Gain The Advantage is a way to leverage your piloting (space) skill and handling into lots of lovely uncancelled advantages.

When you're looking at a classic 'fighter ace' type character - Agility 4, Piloting (Space) 2, for example, in something like a TIE, then the gain the advantage test is a faintly ridiculous dice pool of 2 ability, 2 proficiency and three boost dice versus a single difficulty. Plus, it's especially effective (as noted) against stuff like a Z-95 which only has one point of defense in one zone.

I would still rather shoot that Z-95 twice in the face rather than spending a turn not shooting before trying for the one perfect shot. Hitting a target isn't very hard in this game, but taking them out usually requires multiple hits. The best way to get that is to keep your thumb jammed down on the firing stud.

It does and it doesn't. You won't one-shot a Z-95 with a single medium laser cannon hit without a ridiculous roll (6 uncancelled successes, and if you can roll like that who the hell cares what your tactics are?), but you can easily take it out with one salvo.

But the difference with getting uncancelled advantage through or not makes the difference between triggering linked (which most fighters have on their main armament) and not doing so, and it's arguably better to get a good solid hit (lots of successes) plus a free hit at the same power from linked [1] every other turn than a less solid hit once a turn.

It's certainly not always better; if it's not a single-duel engagement, for example, you're under fire from the other ships in the fight for longer. But there are reasons to want to do it.

Aim + Fire with 4/2 skill rank vs an evasive z-95 is going to give you YYGGBRPK

With that, you are going to hit 70% of the time, and have 2+ advantage something like 40% of the time. Double aim ups that to about 78% hit, 60% 2+ advantage.

With two 70% chance of hitting, even WITHOUT linked you will take down the z-95 in about 50% of cases in two turns. With the linked, you have a decent probability of taking it out on the first turn, and a very high probability of taking it out by the end of the second turn.

GtA doesn't really change the situation enough to where taking two shots isn't the better option.

It does and it doesn't. You won't one-shot a Z-95 with a single medium laser cannon hit without a ridiculous roll (6 uncancelled successes, and if you can roll like that who the hell cares what your tactics are?), but you can easily take it out with one salvo.

But the difference with getting uncancelled advantage through or not makes the difference between triggering linked (which most fighters have on their main armament) and not doing so, and it's arguably better to get a good solid hit (lots of successes) plus a free hit at the same power from linked [1] every other turn than a less solid hit once a turn.

It's certainly not always better; if it's not a single-duel engagement, for example, you're under fire from the other ships in the fight for longer. But there are reasons to want to do it.

I'd really try using the dice roller tool here to check your suppositions. It's very easy to speak in breezy abstracts about how it's totally useful, but once you actually look at the numbers you'll see that's only true in very edge cases.