Hi GMs,

There's been some discussion around changing the multiplier for vehicle and personal scale damage to 5x from the RAW of 10x. Has anyone actually done this? How did it go?

We can theorize until we're blue in the face, but I've already done that. I am hoping to hear some stories from where the rubber met the road and where it worked well as well as where it caused problems.

I use the 5x conversion factor. It really hasn't come up much, but I did like the results when it did. It does prevent autodeath of players during a strafing run, but will take them out of the fight. It also allowed a player to actually hurt a TIE with a rifle (not a kill, but the pilot pulled out based on it). The only thing I haven't seen yet, is the change in effects of breach from lightsabers. Having Breach 1 only eliminate 5 soak instead of 10 is a big change in power. I haven't had to deal with it yet, but am considering having lightsabers have Breach 2 instead.

Sorry for the slow response. x5 works well for me, BUT you might want to put a limit on what personal scale weapons may affect. Since you effectively are doubling the damage of personal scale weapons vs. vehicles (/5 instead of /10), you don't want PCs with max'd out personal weapons on great rolls having a chance to affect a capital ship, for example. You could simply say personal weapons at /5 may only affect up to Silh. 3 or perhaps 4. Or you could get more complex (I've got some notes, never tried) and say something like divide the personal scale damage by Silh+1 instead of a straight /5. So, Silh 2 = /3, Silh 3 = /4, Silh 4 = /5, with capital ships getting divided by increasing amounts. Never tried this last one which may be more realistic but adds an extra step of math in there.

Sorry for the slow response. x5 works well for me, BUT you might want to put a limit on what personal scale weapons may affect. Since you effectively are doubling the damage of personal scale weapons vs. vehicles (/5 instead of /10), you don't want PCs with max'd out personal weapons on great rolls having a chance to affect a capital ship, for example. You could simply say personal weapons at /5 may only affect up to Silh. 3 or perhaps 4. Or you could get more complex (I've got some notes, never tried) and say something like divide the personal scale damage by Silh+1 instead of a straight /5. So, Silh 2 = /3, Silh 3 = /4, Silh 4 = /5, with capital ships getting divided by increasing amounts. Never tried this last one which may be more realistic but adds an extra step of math in there.

No worries, Rome wasn't built in a day. I am intrigued by your silhouette-based damage scaling idea, that really makes sense to me. A carbine could seriously damage a swoop, a heavy repeating blaster can smack up a light freighter, and neither will do squat to a Star Destroyer. I hesitate to increase complexity but in my mind it's probably about as much a distraction as the ensuing argument about how a backpack full of grenades surely is enough to blow up a speeder BUT OH WAIT THEY'RE NOT VEHICLE-SCALE DAMAGE - TOUGH LUCK, WERMO!(*) Of course common sense and fun rule the day but a sensible guideline facilitates both.

* No, I didn't see this happen anywhere.

No worries, Rome wasn't built in a day. I am intrigued by your silhouette-based damage scaling idea, that really makes sense to me. A carbine could seriously damage a swoop, a heavy repeating blaster can smack up a light freighter, and neither will do squat to a Star Destroyer.

The Silhouette-base damage scaling also makes sense because Silhouette is kind of a logarithmic scale itself. I'm kind of a fan of these kinds of math additions, as long as they can be distilled to a simple guide during play. It's one thing I miss from WEG, which had a fairly simply way to scale damage by doubling or halving dice pools at each level. Can't really do that here, unless you simply increase difficulty at each Silhouette higher. Maybe any difference in Silhouette results in a +1 difficulty per increment: from larger to smaller means it's harder to hit, and from smaller to larger means it can do less damage.

Maybe any difference in Silhouette results in a +1 difficulty per increment: from larger to smaller means it's harder to hit, and from smaller to larger means it can do less damage.

I like how this plays out, it's just enough complexity to get the job done without complicating things so much as to slow down the action. You don't even need a table.

x5 for vehicle or light armored and x10 for starships and heavy armored is a pretty good pick too

I'll probably get hung up to dry for this but honestly, I'm part of the leave it at x10 party.

It's just that my group found that converting certain vehicles/ships or even all vehicles/ships to x5 lead to hilariously skewed results. Especially true if the modifier is applied to equivalent wounds of vehicles as well. x5 just makes already easily to disable low armored vehicles/ships even easier and has little noticeable effect on the more heavily armored ones. A missile tube vs an AT-ST is still going to only do 2 Hull Trama worth of damage at most. On the other end, a speeder bike with essentially 10 wounds easily goes down to small arms fire and a t-47 is going to get one shot by the missile tube. It may make the PCs feel like rockstars if they are the ground force, but they'll soon learn their lesson when they decide to hop in a vehicle themselves.

Also, I don't see how the x5 is going to stop auto-death since auto-death isn't a problem. 30 damage to a PC and 60 damage to a PC are still going to have the same result, knocked out and one critical injury roll. A GM could rule that a direct narrative hit to the chest from a laser turret is going to insta-gib the player character but that should then be true regardless of multiplier.


My group has never really had a problem with character vs vehicle weapons. The use of creative tactics, triumphs, and advantages to crit and destroy key components usually leads to their victory even if never easy. To quote GhostOfMan...

The catch is there's also the "narrative" aspect, and that's a big part of what I suspect part of the intent was. They didn't want you to just sit back and shoot at the repulsortank till it died. They want you to sneak around, hop on top, use your lock breaker to skulduggery open the hatch, and toss a thermal detonator inside.

Now, all that said... I do think that the FFG system is super flawed and I still find it hard to adjust to the lack of tactical movement, but the system is built for narrative simplicity and not realistic tactical battlefields. I don't think FFG's simplistic vehicle/ship combat isn't going to be magically fixed by equally simple solutions. It's going to require a whole reinventing. We've already seen some completely new or re-balanced combat actions on the board already.

I'll probably get hung up to dry for this but honestly, I'm part of the leave it at x10 party.

No, not at all. The reason some of us have gone with x5 is because we didn't like the x10 results. If you like the x10 results, why would you change RAW?

x5 just makes already easily to disable low armored vehicles/ships even easier and has little noticeable effect on the more heavily armored ones. A missile tube vs an AT-ST is still going to only do 2 Hull Trama worth of damage at most. On the other end, a speeder bike with essentially 10 wounds easily goes down to small arms fire and a t-47 is going to get one shot by the missile tube.

This is actually why I like the x5 results. I want small arms to easily take out a speeder bike since I think an AR-15 could cause considerable damage to a Harley. I want a T-47 to be able to be taken out by a single shot from a missile tube the same way an RPG can put down a helicopter with one good shot.

30 damage to a PC and 60 damage to a PC are still going to have the same result, knocked out and one critical injury roll.

I guess I hadn't noticed any problems here due to a house rule we used that addressed a different issue. We've tossed adding +10 to the critical table for each additional crit. Instead, the total current wounds is added to the critical roll when you receive a crit. So, a PC with 5 damage already gets hit for 30 from a laser cannon, thus goes over his WT and receives a crit of +35. Big guns do less less damage then RAW vs PCs (x5 instead of x10) but the critical result itself is going to be more deadly. Players fear the big guns shooting at them not due to GM fiat saying, "you're dead", but by the rules in place.

The only real issue I have with the personal/vehicle scale differentiation is the inability of handheld weapons to damage even small vehicles, RAW. Leia shoots a military speeder with her light blaster and hits it twice, enough to take it down. Pretty much every other scenario jives with me.

I like the x10 due to simplicity, as when you change to x5 or a tiered vehicles system then some talents and weapon qualities need to be re-written as well

Also when shooting at a PC/Nemesis I thought you stopped counting once they reached twice their Wound Threshold.

An alternate method is for players and GM's to get super creative with Triumphs when using hand held weapons on small vehicles. Normally a "hit" must cause damage after soak/armour to be able to crit, in some instances bend this rule. Then the maths doesn't need changing only the narrative.

Essentially the GM can say "although you didn't cause any significant damage to the speeder bike your shot shorted out the controls wiring, causing the bike to immediately slow to a stop. A couple hours in a workshop and that thing will run like new, but they are not going to be chasing you any more"

On a side note of relevance, can Jury Rigged give a weapon the quality Breach 1? Or can it only improve current qualities a weapon has?

If it's the improvement only then a Jury Rigged Light Sabre gets even more crazy!

With the correct crystal, I believe you can get to Breach 2 without something like Jury Rigged.

So Breach 3 is possible? That's nuts! Breach 1 on any personal weapon is powerful, I guess some of those armoured blast doors could have Armour 3 and they can be cut like butter.

It occurs to me that one could make the argument that armor is the delimiting factor here, with swoops and many non-military vehicles having 0 armor, possibly 1. Maybe a useful rule adjustment could be to state that vehicles with 0 armor take some or all of the damage of personal-scale weaponry. That kinda keeps it quick and easy.

Perhaps if the armour is zero or through breach its reduced to zero then a crit can be done without causing HT first?

In all actuality a stock AR-15 with standard rounds can't do much to destroy a Harley, but off topic haha.

An alternate method is for players and GM's to get super creative with Triumphs when using hand held weapons on small vehicles. Normally a "hit" must cause damage after soak/armour to be able to crit, in some instances bend this rule. Then the maths doesn't need changing only the narrative.

Perhaps if the armour is zero or through breach its reduced to zero then a crit can be done without causing HT first?

I actually wanted to bring this up. It's been pointed out numerous times on these forums that you don't actually need to "deal" damage to a vehicle to cause a critical failure, the damage just needs to be in excess of armor (core actually specifically calling out small arms fire vs Armor as an important reminder).

This means that even 1 damage from a light blaster getting through could result (with advantage or triumph) say...take the controls temporarily offline causing a collision, or shake the rider loose, etc even though it's not enough to deal actual hull trauma.

In all actuality a stock AR-15 with standard rounds can't do much to destroy a Harley, but off topic haha.

An alternate method is for players and GM's to get super creative with Triumphs when using hand held weapons on small vehicles. Normally a "hit" must cause damage after soak/armour to be able to crit, in some instances bend this rule. Then the maths doesn't need changing only the narrative.

Perhaps if the armour is zero or through breach its reduced to zero then a crit can be done without causing HT first?

I actually wanted to bring this up. It's been pointed out numerous times on these forums that you don't actually need to "deal" damage to a vehicle to cause a critical failure, the damage just needs to be in excess of armor (core actually specifically calling out small arms fire vs Armor as an important reminder).

This means that even 1 damage from a light blaster getting through could result (with advantage or triumph) say...take the controls temporarily offline causing a collision, or shake the rider loose, etc even though it's not enough to deal actual hull trauma.

Ahh. I had read that as 1 HT needs to be done, after armour, not 0.1. This led me to thinking personal weapons need to do 10 damage to a vehicle after the armour was deducted, not just 1. Thanks for making that clearer, do you know the pag# so I can check it out tonight at home?

The way I've always interpreted it is, if the damage exceeds the armor, damage of at least 1 HT is done. So if a vehicle has an armor of 1 and a pistol does 11 damage against it, it takes 1 off HT. 1 armor isn't a panacea and vehicles with only 1 armor are so lightly armored (again, IMHO) that small arms fire can do some real damage.

Ahh. I had read that as 1 HT needs to be done, after armour, not 0.1. This led me to thinking personal weapons need to do 10 damage to a vehicle after the armour was deducted, not just 1. Thanks for making that clearer, do you know the pag# so I can check it out tonight at home?

It very well could mean that as well, vehicle combat is very vague after all haha. There's just been countless topics about it since even beta and in every single one, someone brings up pg 235 EoTE:CR which reads, "For more information on starship and vehicle Critical Hits, see page 243. Remember, the attack must deal damage past armor to inflict a Critical Hit." and pg 243 EoTE:CR which reads, "Remember, an attack's damage also has to exceed a target's armor to deal a Critical Hit, which is important when firing small arms at something using armor instead of soak. "

Many agree that 11 wounds would exceed an armor value of 1 for the purpose of dealing criticals. Many, not all, not even most as far as I can tell. It's something that I have never seen official clarification on, which there could be, would be a nice surprise! I haven't had time to listen to order 66 much since Saga so there could very well be a whole lot of info on the topic I have missed out on.

It's also easier to side with this way if you are like me and track wounds done to ships/vehicles instead of rounding them off. If my players hit a swoop bike with personal scale weapons for 6 damage 4 times, the swoop is out of commission.

The way I've always interpreted it is, if the damage exceeds the armor, damage of at least 1 HT is done. So if a vehicle has an armor of 1 and a pistol does 11 damage against it, it takes 1 off HT. 1 armor isn't a panacea and vehicles with only 1 armor are so lightly armored (again, IMHO) that small arms fire can do some real damage.

Keep in mind that 1 HT equals 10 wounds. So, a vehicle with a HT Threshold of 2 and an armor of 1 is really the same as an individual with 20 wounds and 10 soak. The pistol would do 1 of 2 things depending on how you interpret the rules,

1. Vehicle is at 1 of 20 wounds or .1 of 2 HT

2. The pistol didn't deal enough damage to harm the hull, no HT taken.

The way I've always interpreted it is, if the damage exceeds the armor, damage of at least 1 HT is done. So if a vehicle has an armor of 1 and a pistol does 11 damage against it, it takes 1 off HT. 1 armor isn't a panacea and vehicles with only 1 armor are so lightly armored (again, IMHO) that small arms fire can do some real damage.

Keep in mind that 1 HT equals 10 wounds. So, a vehicle with a HT Threshold of 2 and an armor of 1 is really the same as an individual with 20 wounds and 10 soak. The pistol would do 1 of 2 things depending on how you interpret the rules,

1. Vehicle is at 1 of 20 wounds or .1 of 2 HT

2. The pistol didn't deal enough damage to harm the hull, no HT taken.

I prefer to round up on small arms damaging vehicles since a) it's rather tough to get past even 1 armor, let alone 2, b) I don't really like dealing with bookkeeping a the level of .1 HT and c) I feel that players should have -some- BASIC method of fighting back against vehicles in personal combat for those times when it's late in the session, they're tired and we're just about done with the combat.

There have definitely been countless threads on this topic, which is why I was trying to get everyone's actual live play results instead of everyone's interpretation of the rules. We're all in the same boat here insofar as seeing the problem, but finding an elegant solution seems to evade the playtesting round.

What I think I will try at my table is to let vehicles with Armor 0 to take personal-scale weapons damage at a reduced effectiveness (probably not 10% per RAW, most likely the 20% (x5) solution that's been proposed. I can see how one's semi-automatic slugthrower might not take out a 2-wheeled chariot of freedom, but conversely, I don't think said chariot would fare as well against a pair of blaster shots, even from a holdout blaster.

In all actuality a stock AR-15 with standard rounds can't do much to destroy a Harley, but off topic haha.

What I actually said: "AR-15 could cause considerable damage to a Harley"

What you said: "can't do much to destroy a Harley".

Apples and oranges. I never said "destroy". I never said you pull the trigger and the Harley goes kaboom, but said "could cause considerable damage".

Sorry, this is one of the few topics in life I believe I know something about so I get a little irked when I get corrected especially when what I said was twisted.

EDIT: WARNING - Explaining why I think I know something about a certain topic is apparently offensive to some. If this is you, don't read further.

My thought process went along the lines of a rifle fired at a car doesn't do much until it hits a critical component. Why track all the tiny bullet holes in sheet metal when it's the shot that takes out the radiator that matters

There is also the "Called Shot" under the aim manoeuvre that's an option as well. I'm AFB but IIRC you upgrade the roll (may be increase difficulty) to target a specific part of the vehicle, combined with a lot of Advantages or a Triumph then the PC could pick which part of the vehicle is disabled (obviously silhouette and armour needs to be depth with as well)

There is also the "Called Shot" under the aim manoeuvre that's an option as well. I'm AFB but IIRC you upgrade the roll (may be increase difficulty) to target a specific part of the vehicle, combined with a lot of Advantages or a Triumph then the PC could pick which part of the vehicle is disabled (obviously silhouette and armour needs to be depth with as well)

With a “called shot”, what you get is two [setback] dice if you “Aim” only once, but if you aim for two successive Maneuvers, you can reduce that to just one [setback] die.

As to exactly what happens if you make the called shot, that’s between you and the GM.