Hi all

What happens if a PC shoots at an NPC who is mounted on a beast (or using some sort of open vehicle, such as a swoop)? I can't find any rules about this - would you let the PC choose whether they hit the NPC or the mount, would you randomise hits somehow, would you modify the aim manoeuvre, would you use Advantage/Threat to determine which they hit, or something else I've not thought of?

On a related note, how would you deal with mounted minions? Or is that just not viable?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm looking at including dewback-riding stormtroopers in my game. Dewbacks are obviously harder to kill than stormtroopers, so it's advantageous for PCs to target the stormtroopers, rather than the dewbacks. Also, stormtroopers (even sandtroopers) count as minions, but dewbacks are rivals, so I'm not really sure how to work that out.

Thanks in advance.

Ed

The simplest is to require the shooter to use the Aim maneuver to "aim for a specific part of a target" it adds 2 Setback to the dice pool when someone does this, aiming again reduces that to 1 setback.

You could require an Advantage cost to hit the rider, say 2 advantage, otherwise it hits the much bigger mount.

Or you could completely allow them to shoot at what ever they want, but add setback to the pool for shooting a moving target.

Edit: personally I like the 3rd option, but the first is probably more in line with RAW.

I agree with RichardBuxton.

You could add extra setback dice if the vehicle/mount is moving at speed (though probably not with a dewback - those things look slow ).

I would just say the Storm trooper riding the Dewback has cover. Nothing else.

And maybe not even that.

Technically the Stormtrooper is engaged with the Dewback, you could follow those rules and auto-upgrade the check and cause despairs to hit the mount instead.

Technically the Stormtrooper is engaged with the Dewback, you could follow those rules and auto-upgrade the check and cause despairs to hit the mount instead.

I like that idea a lot! Creative use of the actual rules

Technically the Stormtrooper is engaged with the Dewback, you could follow those rules and auto-upgrade the check and cause despairs to hit the mount instead.

Are the two going to get married or that's not the type of engaged you're referring to?

Technically the Stormtrooper is engaged with the Dewback, you could follow those rules and auto-upgrade the check and cause despairs to hit the mount instead.

Are the two going to get married or that's not the type of engaged you're referring to?

Don't forget to take your coat on the way out.

The AoR beginner game had rules to address whether you hit a speeder bike or the rider. From memory I think it required an upgraded check to target the rider, but don't have the rules with me.

Technically the Stormtrooper is engaged with the Dewback, you could follow those rules and auto-upgrade the check and cause despairs to hit the mount instead.

Are the two going to get married or that's not the type of engaged you're referring to?

Don't forget to take your coat on the way out.

What if I don't wear a coat? Can I take someone else's?

Technically the Stormtrooper is engaged with the Dewback, you could follow those rules and auto-upgrade the check and cause despairs to hit the mount instead.

I do like this...although I kind of feel that a Despair should do more. Still, that could be a good use of Threat. Thanks.

The AoR beginner game had rules to address whether you hit a speeder bike or the rider. From memory I think it required an upgraded check to target the rider, but don't have the rules with me.

Do you have a page reference for this? I couldn't find it anywhere.

Just thought I'd mention that this was actually addressed in the most recent episode of Order 66 (ep 72). In essence, Sam Stewart and GM Dave concluded that shots hit the vehicle unless you aim for them not to. I guess that makes sense, although I would probably remove the Setback for aiming if firing at someone on a swoop bike.

Just thought I'd mention that this was actually addressed in the most recent episode of Order 66 (ep 72). In essence, Sam Stewart and GM Dave concluded that shots hit the vehicle unless you aim for them not to. I guess that makes sense, although I would probably remove the Setback for aiming if firing at someone on a swoop bike.

But I would throw more setback at them for the speed of the swoop, so the 2 setback probably works for slow and covered or fast and uncovered targets. Shooting a Tie Pilot through the window is going to be a whole lot harder though.

It was a good episode again though. I just would have liked more talk about being a Dark Sider Grey Jedi, along the lines of struggling to NOT get to 70 and suffer through a redemption, ick who would want that. It's all about doing the right things all for the wrong reasons!

But seriously that PC sounds like an awesome asset to have in a game, I love the antihero story this system let's a PC tell.

It was a good episode again though. I just would have liked more talk about being a Dark Sider Grey Jedi, along the lines of struggling to NOT get to 70 and suffer through a redemption, ick who would want that. It's all about doing the right things all for the wrong reasons!

But seriously that PC sounds like an awesome asset to have in a game, I love the antihero story this system let's a PC tell.

To be honest it was an incredibly useful episode. I've been struggling with Morality (in-game, not in my life, just so we're clear) and how to use it, and it was really useful to have it spelled out like that.

When Squadron 66 did the playtesting for the beast riding rules in Stay on Target, we agreed to simply treat the rider as having cover. It was the simplest solution, and worked out pretty well.

That said, I could certainly see making use of the Aim rules to hit a specific target, especially if the mount in question is particularly big.

We could revise the damage scale and then target the easier to hit vehicles, which would be more in line with what we see in the movie and television shows.