16 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

The RAW (ECRB 242-243) already suggests that at the GM's discretion an NPC ship of silhouette 3 or smaller does not have to automatically blow up if it exceeds HTT, and the RAW specifically states that the "it blows up" doesn't apply to PC ships or ships of silhouette 4+. By RAW you have to really work at trying to blow up a silhouette 4+ ship as no amount of damage can destroy one, only critical hits can (eventually) do so.

So then the entire community debate and uproar about the "unfair lethality of space combat" for YEARS is completely fabricated by the players, and isn't actually how space combat is supposed to play out. Got it. Good to know that I can now ignore all the other threads that will continue to pop up on this subject, and categorize them in the "you didn't read the rules close enough" category of issues. Thank you for clarifying that.

You're welcome.

As far as "how combat is supposed to play out", that's entirely up to the GM. They can go by RAW, or they can do whatever the heck they want to, even if their rulings are vehemently "in violation" of the Word (which is advice that way too few GMs comprehend). My own two centicreds worth is that those whining about how "lethal" space combat is not only aren't doing it right (per RAW), they don't grasp that if anything, the FFG system isn't lethal enough. Heroes (PCs) have plenty of "get out of death" cards. NPCs not only don't have such scripted immunity, the deck should be even more slanted against them. It's what we see in canon and the game should reflect canon.

Yeaa, these two games don't really integrate all that well. It would probably be much easier to just write a whole new set of rules for miniature based SWRP space combat than to try and link the two together.

You'd ditch the movement rules from SWRP entirely, since all that range band stuff is only really useful for the narrative leading up to a dogfight, which happens entirely at close range anyways.

You'd have to get rid of things like "Gain the Advantage" or "Corellian Sendoff" that are entirely narrative based and can't take into account true positioning. All of that would have to just happen on the table.

The general stat block, attack mechanic and damage tracking would work great in a miniature game though.

49 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

So then the entire community debate and uproar about the "unfair lethality of space combat" for YEARS is completely fabricated by the players, and isn't actually how space combat is supposed to play out. Got it. Good to know that I can now ignore all the other threads that will continue to pop up on this subject, and categorize them in the "you didn't read the rules close enough" category of issues. Thank you for clarifying that.

I wouldn't go so far as to say "completely fabricated."

Starship combat, especially in smaller ships (Silhouette 3 or less), is still very dangerous, and in many cases it's a game of "rocket tag" in that the first side to score a hit will often win the fight. That doesn't mean the starfighter is destroyed, just that the player is a sitting duck and pretty much can't do anything once their fighter has exceeded it's Hull Trauma Threshold. If the player are flying Rebel-aligned fighters, it's a little better as most of the Alliance ships have shields and a better Hull Trauma Threshold than their Imperial counterparts (the A-Wing is the only real exception to this). About the only thing that mitigates this is if the GM uses very small minion groups of enemy fighters; you're much less likely to succeed with enough advantage to trigger the Linked quality if you're only rolling a single proficiency die with a couple of ability dice against a pool of 1 challenge, 1 difficulty, and 1 setback.

Ships of Silhouette 4+ tend to have much higher HTT, and such can take a hit or two from enemy ships before being knocked out of action, though if the ship's taken out of the fight then that means the entire party are sitting ducks, at least until somebody can do enough emergency repairs to get the ship going again.

So in that respect, it's not that much different from personal scale combat when facing off against enemies that are using weapons such as blaster rifles, vibroaxes, or lightsabers. While it takes a high-value critical result to kill/destroy you, you can still be taken down just from sheer damage. And with most starfighters having Linked 1 on their primary weapons, it usually doesn't take more than a couple of hits from a TIE Fighter to take your ship out the action.

2 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

I wouldn't go so far as to say "completely fabricated."

I think you might have fallen into the sar-chasm.

(Or I just did, one of the two!)

1 minute ago, Benjan Meruna said:

I think you might have fallen into the sar-chasm.

No, I saw the sarcasm in the ferret's response.

But it's still a valid concern for newer players and GMs of starship combat being viewed as "deadly" and the default assumption that a ship being pushed over it's Hull Trauma Threshold = blowing up, much as there's been incorrect assumptions that a PC being pushed over their Wound Threshold = dead.

Maybe "When does a character die" and "When is a ship destroyed" should be added to the FAQ.

I've never had heartburn after the squadron rules. Seems in line with the movies. Gotta have your Porkins, and Biggs, and Wedges, taking hits so you get your shot off.

I ran a lead-in to the latest play-test with my guys as Y-wing pilots each with 2 loyal wingmen. None of my PCs were lost, but they lost 8 or 9 wingmen, in return took out like 15 TIEs and a small cap ship. Seemed about right to me.

19 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

No, I saw the sarcasm in the ferret's response.

But it's still a valid concern for newer players and GMs of starship combat being viewed as "deadly" and the default assumption that a ship being pushed over it's Hull Trauma Threshold = blowing up, much as there's been incorrect assumptions that a PC being pushed over their Wound Threshold = dead.

I'm not sure it is a valid concern, based on your previous post. I mean, you say basically that space combat, is no more or less dangerous than personal scale combat. You say it's dangerous because when a ship goes to 0 HTT, the player can't do anything, and is helpless. Again, I don't see how this is any different from personal scale, when a player is knocked out either. I think, the fact that you are now floating in a hostile environment, and so many scifi movies/shows hammering home how utterly lethal space is, has clouded players assumptions about how the end result, mechanically is. If the stats and results are essentially the same as personal scale, then the very common, and long standing belief by players (as evidenced by the myriad of posts on the subject), is in fact, false.

In fact, you might say that space combat is less dangerous, because while the ship might be disabled when at 0 HTT, the character likely isn't. They would still be able to take actions to try and improve their situation. They could roll repair to get it running again, eject to get away from the hull, perhaps call an ally for help, assuming that the ship isn't completely, 100% out of commission, etc. And I think it's also fueled by the assumption that the enemy is going to take the time out of their day (and the dangerous space battle currently going on), to shoot them while they are helpless.

I can't speak for everyone, but if I'm in a massive dogfight, and I remove one enemy from the board, I don't really care if they are stranded or dead. They are no longer a threat, so now I can focus on the 4 other enemies actively trying to shoot me down right now. And it's also not without precedent in Star Wars, for the enemy to leave heroes alive and stranded, allowing for their inevitable escape and return later.

So again, I don't really see how the concerns of players about the "super lethal" nature of space combat, when compared to personal combat, is actually valid. Since the "lethal" nature of it, as presented by most people in these forums, is that "once you hit 0 HTT, you pop". And that's apparently not correct, based on the RAW. So, yeah, I stand by my statement that it's a false concern.

Now, if someone wants to argue the point of "they feel that the ships are too squishy" that's fine. To me, that's a separate issue. But I hear both points made in these threads usually, and they tend to get muddled together. But again, if the math of the stats actually boils down to them being roughly as tough as a PC in personal combat, then it really isn't that much of an issue. I do find it strange, that most players seem to be ok with the general squishiness and fast nature of personal combat, but in space, it's somehow unacceptable. *shrugs*

12 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

I'm not sure it is a valid concern, based on your previous post. I mean, you say basically that space combat, is no more or less dangerous than personal scale combat. You say it's dangerous because when a ship goes to 0 HTT, the player can't do anything, and is helpless. Again, I don't see how this is any different from personal scale, when a player is knocked out either. I think, the fact that you are now floating in a hostile environment, and so many scifi movies/shows hammering home how utterly lethal space is, has clouded players assumptions about how the end result, mechanically is. If the stats and results are essentially the same as personal scale, then the very common, and long standing belief by players (as evidenced by the myriad of posts on the subject), is in fact, false.

In fact, you might say that space combat is less dangerous, because while the ship might be disabled when at 0 HTT, the character likely isn't. They would still be able to take actions to try and improve their situation. They could roll repair to get it running again, eject to get away from the hull, perhaps call an ally for help, assuming that the ship isn't completely, 100% out of commission, etc. And I think it's also fueled by the assumption that the enemy is going to take the time out of their day (and the dangerous space battle currently going on), to shoot them while they are helpless.

I can't speak for everyone, but if I'm in a massive dogfight, and I remove one enemy from the board, I don't really care if they are stranded or dead. They are no longer a threat, so now I can focus on the 4 other enemies actively trying to shoot me down right now. And it's also not without precedent in Star Wars, for the enemy to leave heroes alive and stranded, allowing for their inevitable escape and return later.

So again, I don't really see how the concerns of players about the "super lethal" nature of space combat, when compared to personal combat, is actually valid. Since the "lethal" nature of it, as presented by most people in these forums, is that "once you hit 0 HTT, you pop". And that's apparently not correct, based on the RAW. So, yeah, I stand by my statement that it's a false concern.

Now, if someone wants to argue the point of "they feel that the ships are too squishy" that's fine. To me, that's a separate issue. But I hear both points made in these threads usually, and they tend to get muddled together. But again, if the math of the stats actually boils down to them being roughly as tough as a PC in personal combat, then it really isn't that much of an issue. I do find it strange, that most players seem to be ok with the general squishiness and fast nature of personal combat, but in space, it's somehow unacceptable. *shrugs*

I kinda agree with both you.

In personal scale combat applying a bunch of stims to bring a PC back into the fight can be much easier than repairing a disabled fighter.

Another factor is that Linked vehicle weapons are very common and that's very potent. Depending on how you run your personal scale combats it may be on par with this if NPCs regularly use Auto-fire or Linked weapons (or lightsabers or whatever). A standard Stormtrooper squad have good weapons that do "high" damage (blaster rifles) but they also have the option of being equipped with light-repeating blasters, Stormtrooper Seargant's come with heavy blaster rifles (Auto-fire). So depending on your groups XP and the GM's discretion the "standard" personal scale opposition at your table may regularly include Auto-fire weapons and in this way be similar to the standard vehicle combat. But a GM may only sparingly use Auto-fire weapons against their PCs so stepping into vehicle combat with Linked weapons in regular use seems like different tempo and danger level.

I'm looking forward to trying out this hypothesis of if being in an X-Wing is too deadly or not. My Tech, just for fun, picked up the Ace: B.A. Baracus tree and got an X-Wing for her Duty Ding. I'm only 5 points into the tree and 2 ranks in piloting, so she's not very good and I don't have a benchmark to work from yet. We've had one fight - her versus a freighter on the ground shooting back, and while hitting her was easy, damaging her was hella tough, thanks to my Turn Hull Damage Into Strain talent - well, at least as long as the destiny points hold out.

I've had players lose a fighter in space combat, two of them in a Y-wing. I simply said the ship broke apart and they were adrift in the cockpit portion with no power. They eventually bailed from their doomed fighter without space suits onto the hull of an imperial Star Galleon, found an access hatch, opened it up with a mechanics triumph, spaced a squad of stormtroopers in the room behind it with that, crawled inside and managed to seal it again.

I feel like the movies kind of created this idea that you instantly die if your ship is destroyed, because in the movies nobody wear a space suit or has an ejection system for some reason. In the game if you just put on a space suit you're basically fine.

KungFuFerret,
The 'concern' is that people mistakenly assume that once any starship, fighter or freighter, goes over it's Hull Trauma Threshold, it goes up in a ball of flame and any PCs aboard are instantly killed. This same 'concern' shows up with people that aren't fully familiar with the game rules and make the incorrect assumption that once a PC goes over their Wound Threshold, that character is dead, thus making people believe that combat in this game is deadly (i.e. characters die regularly) as opposed to dangerous (it's very hard to actually kill a character, but you can get dropped pretty fast if you're not careful).

7 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

KungFuFerret,
The 'concern' is that people mistakenly assume that once any starship, fighter or freighter, goes over it's Hull Trauma Threshold, it goes up in a ball of flame and any PCs aboard are instantly killed. This same 'concern' shows up with people that aren't fully familiar with the game rules and make the incorrect assumption that once a PC goes over their Wound Threshold, that character is dead, thus making people believe that combat in this game is deadly (i.e. characters die regularly) as opposed to dangerous (it's very hard to actually kill a character, but you can get dropped pretty fast if you're not careful).

Right, I understand it's a concern that people voice, like I said, it's been popping up on these forums for years. My point, is that's it's a false concern. In most of these threads, when I browse them (I admit I don't read all of them, or every post), the entire conversation seems to just orbit around the "OMG space battle is so deadly it sucks! I can't have fun if my PC dies!" kind of statements. Nobody, that I've seen, has ever made an effort to simply say "no, you are not playing it right. The ship doesn't blow up when at 0 HTT, it just goes dead, just like your PC goes unconscious."

My point that it seems to be unusually focused on space combat, is that I don't see an equal number of threads that say "OMG personal combat is so deadly! I can't have fun if my PC dies!". The amount of space hate is disproportionate, and apparently isn't being resolved by the discussion, because it keeps coming up, sometimes by the same people.

I mean heck, I would be kind of one of those people. I've never done space combat, when I GM'd this game, it was always personal scale stuff, but I always was under the impression, based on the player community, that space battle is just super lethal, in comparison to personal . Everyone seemed to agree on this, and nobody could seem to come up with a way to "fix" it. I even made a thread like a year ago, with ideas on how to fix it. And nobody in that thread said "it's not any more dangerous than personal, because the ships don't blow up when they go 0 HTT". All the responses were critiques of my ideas on fixing the assumed problem, or their own ideas on fixing it.

But this time, I actually asked if it was supported by the RAW, and the answer was apparently "no, it's not". Which doesn't seem to be getting out there in the community much. Hence, why we keep having these threads, that go on for page after page, of us chasing our own tails about something that is, apparently, a problem of our own making.

I get what you are saying, and I understand that there are always going to be new players, that have to be educated on the nuances of the rules, and the overlooked details. But it doesn't take 5+ pages to do that. These space battle threads should all be like 6 posts tops. We correct the error, and then it dies there. No reason to hash it out for weeks. If the thread mutates into a different discussion about space battle that's fine, threads morph, that's just a fact. But it shouldn't be a lengthy discussion about what is apparently, not actually an issue.

Now this thread is different, as it is talking about combining system rules, which is a different topic to the basic "space battle is super deadly" one we keep seeing. A thread which we kind of hijacked away from the original topic. Sorry angry penguin!

8 hours ago, KungFuFerret said:

Right, I understand it's a concern that people voice, like I said, it's been popping up on these forums for years. My point, is that's it's a false concern. In most of these threads, when I browse them (I admit I don't read all of them, or every post), the entire conversation seems to just orbit around the "OMG space battle is so deadly it sucks! I can't have fun if my PC dies!" kind of statements. Nobody, that I've seen, has ever made an effort to simply say "no, you are not playing it right. The ship doesn't blow up when at 0 HTT, it just goes dead, just like your PC goes unconscious."

The issue is a lot more in-depth than that, but I'll try to break down the main points.

1. Starfighter combat is inherently harsher than ground combat. There is no denying you get knocked out much more quickly in starfighter space combat than on the ground. Starfighter combat is essentially the equivalent of starting-level characters being sent up against small minion groups of enemies that are easy to kill but are carrying blaster rifles with at least Linked 1. Everything can kill you in a single hit because with two advantage, it's hitting you twice and two hits is enough to take down anything at that damage level. And unlike ground combat, the talents to increase your hull threshold and armor (the equivalent of increasing Wounds and Soak) are not common ones and not in the space combat-oriented trees. This harshness is a problem because...
2. No one likes being useless for a session. Obviously, stuff happens and players can expect to get knocked out in combat on occasion. The problem is that starfighter combat doesn't do it 'on occasion' but rather as a matter of course. If you're up against even remotely even odds, it's a game of rocket tag to see who wins the first action and hamstrings the other guy before he can act. Needless to say, this often leads to sessions where a player is left floating through space helplessly before he even got a chance to act, or act more than one turn. And while this is arguably not quite as bad as dying would be...
3. The consequences for failure in space combat are still severe. I mean, even if you assume that the overall space combat is a rousing success and that the player's fighter is salvageable, repairing fighters isn't cheap. If the players are self-employed (mercs, pirates, or a Rebel cell with no funds beyond their own means) the cost can get very high very quickly, especially for repeated space battles or cases where they safely ejected but lost the fighter entirely. If they have an NPC patron, it's still embarrassing to have to essentially be a constant credit sink for them. And if they LOST the space combat...what happens to the player? Are they captured? AGAIN? That the third time this campaign! At what point does the GM actually have the play the merciless cruel Empire true to form and assume they're not taking prisoners for the fourth time this campaign? And even if the player is always fortunate enough to have all their space battles won for them, eventually you'll have to address the question of...
4. It strains suspension of disbelief. Fighter combat is deadly in the movies. We don't see a single successful ejection in them, every time a fighter loses hull it goes boom and the pilot dies. Obviously this doesn't have to ALWAYS be the case, but players surviving the destruction of their fighters is far more noticeable when it happens constantly.

People complaining about space fighter combat being deadly are just applying the universes own logic (you don't walk away from losing a starfighter) to their game. Even if you stop doing that and assume you always walk away from hitting 0 HTT, there is still a plethora of problems with starfighter combat that ground combat just doesn't have an equivalent for. The solutions people propose to fix the problem will vary, but it's not arising out of some silly mistake that everyone just happens to make; it's based off applying Star Wars movie experience to a Star Wars roleplaying game.

On 5.4.2017 at 5:28 AM, Edgookin said:

The RPG has fighters at least drop like flies too. A TIE with 2-3 successes and 2 advantages wipes an X-wing. You couldn't pay me enough to fly a fighter in this system on a regular basis.

Surprisingly enough, I am pretty sure 3 success and two advantages might wipe your character just as well as that X-Wing. ;-)
So do you avoid ground combat at all costs too or is your GM just avoiding military gear all together?

BTW, 2 success with 2 advantages from a TIE-Fighter is 2x8 - 2x3 hull trauma, so it's 10 Hull Trauma, an X-Wing has HT 10, so basically you are wrong on top. 10 ain't greater 10
On top have even 6 TIE-Fighter s in a minion group have a rather slim chance to hit that X-Wing for 3 success AND 2 advantages . How slim? 8.36% when they can aim and 3.07% if they spend their maneuver for something like moving in range.

++++RESULTS for Dice Pool: PPPAABSSSCC++++
Total Chance of Success: 69.77%
Total Chance of Advantage: 68.28%
Total Chance of Threat: 17.55%
Total Chance of Failure Symbol: 15.76%
Total Chance of Reaching Target (SSSAA): 8.36%
Total Triumph Chance: 22.97%
Total Despair Chance: 15.97%
+++++++++++++++

++++RESULTS for Dice Pool: PPPAACCSSS++++
Total Chance of Success: 64.34%
Total Chance of Advantage: 57.48%
Total Chance of Threat: 25.2%
Total Chance of Failure Symbol: 19.36%
Total Chance of Reaching Target (SSSAA): 3.07%
Total Triumph Chance: 22.97%
Total Despair Chance: 15.97%
+++++++++++++++

edit: Lets just say I am rather with my astromech in an X-Wing than with her in a VCX-100 or G9.

Just for reference, here the chance in X-Wing to get damage in an X-Wing from a TIE-Fighter shot.

1 hour ago, Benjan Meruna said:

It strains suspension of disbelief. Fighter combat is deadly in the movies. We don't see a single successful ejection in them, every time a fighter loses hull it goes boom and the pilot dies. Obviously this doesn't have to ALWAYS be the case, but players surviving the destruction of their fighters is far more noticeable when it happens constantly.

People complaining about space fighter combat being deadly are just applying the universes own logic (you don't walk away from losing a starfighter) to their game. Even if you stop doing that and assume you always walk away from hitting 0 HTT, there is still a plethora of problems with starfighter combat that ground combat just doesn't have an equivalent for. The solutions people propose to fix the problem will vary, but it's not arising out of some silly mistake that everyone just happens to make; it's based off applying Star Wars movie experience to a Star Wars roleplaying game.

It strains disbelief and goes against the canon? Sorry but I disagree. For one, there are only 2 instances in the movies, where the heroes ever get hit in combat. Despite the plethora of blaster bolts sailing past them, their handy dandy Plot Armor never even gets a scratch. Except for Luke and Leia in Return. They both get a hit, a single hit. So if you are going to cite the movies about the lethality of combat in general, you need to remember who the PCs are in this equation.

Also, this applies to space combat that we see too. You imply that it's a one shot thing and then the player is helpless for the rest of the encounter. I disagree as this implies the player can't try and restart the ship, or do a patch job on the fly to get it running again. The ship is disabled, not the player.

But about movie examples, again, all of the important people survive multiple hits to their ship. Luke takes 2 separate hits in New Hope, Wedge also gets hit and then bugs out of the combat. Vader gets hit by a freaking freighter cannon in a TIE, and survives. Luke gets shot down out of his speeder and survives, and then goes on to solo kill a Walker. The Falcon gets hit several times in Return and is ok.

And while I can't remember any of the fights in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they get hit at least a few times, and survive, and are left alive by the enemy, which you seem to think strains disbelief. And yet, in the movies you are citing for precedent, that's exactly what happens, when the helpless person in question is a main character .

Obi-Wan actually gets taunted by Anakin for crashing so often his ship.
You could would argue that Wedge is a rival in ANH and still gets away after his ships HT is exceeded.

Now dipping into legends, just like the RPG books do: The X-Wing comics show Rogue Squadron pilots constantly losing ships, I think the main cast is losing about 6 ships within the first 6 issues or so. And those guys all managed just fine to eject, meanwhile other not so lucky pilots die left and right.

edit: BTW, even some of the npc astromechs come with hold together talent

1 hour ago, Benjan Meruna said:

The consequences for failure in space combat are still severe. I mean, even if you assume that the overall space combat is a rousing success and that the player's fighter is salvageable, repairing fighters isn't cheap. If the players are self-employed (mercs, pirates, or a Rebel cell with no funds beyond their own means) the cost can get very high very quickly, especially for repeated space battles or cases where they safely ejected but lost the fighter entirely. If they have an NPC patron, it's still embarrassing to have to essentially be a constant credit sink for them. And if they LOST the space combat...what happens to the player? Are they captured? AGAIN? That the third time this campaign! At what point does the GM actually have the play the merciless cruel Empire true to form and assume they're not taking prisoners for the fourth time this campaign? And even if the player is always fortunate enough to have all their space battles won for them, eventually you'll have to address the question of...

And another point about this that I just thought of. If you are going to be playing that space centric of a campaign, then a good GM would account for attrition of equipment. If they're not, then they're not running it right. In the movies, again, a source you cite for the rules of space combat, the characters never really worry about ships. If they lose a fighter, they get another, because they are part of an army, the Rebellion. There is no reason the PC's couldn't have the same support. Forget the rules about this, just have them have some backing by some organization. Somebody who is bankrolling them, because they see the potential of this crew to accomplish amazing things, above and beyond what his regular employees (minions) are capable of. The cost of a few fighter now and then, or repairing them is negligible, compared to the lucrative opportunities that they provide this person by removing a threat.

Or heck, they are just simply backed by the Rebellion, if you are playing an Age campaign. And again, citing the movies, just have them provide them with new ships. Not once, in the movies, is availability of fighters ever an issue. They have plenty to go around, and a crack crew of mechanics to keep them running smooth. And it's never expected that the players pay up for this service. Why? Because they are out there, risking their lives for the cause. Same reason that active military aren't expected to bankroll their own equipment in combat, that's the military's job.

So yeah, while I agree that an unprepared, and uncreative GM might run into these problems, they are far from insurmountable. And regardless, they are not what people are complaining about in the majority of the threads about space combat. They are talking about the lethality of space combat. THAT is the point I am addressing. The other points you bring up, while a valid concern overall, are not relevant to the question that most players bring up in these threads. If you want to debate the other aspects of space combat, and how to address them, fine, go ahead, by all means. Just like debating an attempt to merge two gamelines into one is also fine. But I think the point about it being more lethal is still a false concern, and should be addressed as such. Because it's simply not as instantly lethal as most players (myself included simply based on public opinion) seem to think it is.

Also when setting up the space combats (as ground combats), setting up hazards such that you are throwing in a couple of setback dice leads to less lethality again. As well as having the cinematic fight whilst other stuff is happening feeling.

Literally all space combat environments, even open space, allow to make getting shot harder via spending advantages.

Open space needs a Triumph for for an upgrade of the check,
Asteroids and Debris Fields give everyone a free evasive maneuvers, and adds weave which upgrades all gunnery check against your ship by one for just two advantages and allows you to gain a free GtA for a Triumph ( Showboat is really awesome)
Nebulas call Weave instead One with the Fog , but mechanically it is literally the same, upgrades, has The Clouds are my Allies which again is a free GtA for a triumph and allows do downright remove an enemy from the encounter for a Triumph as well.
And in larger space battles, it is again the same, 2 advantages upgrade incoming attacks, you can now even take cover for a single advantage, and this cover actually explicitly stacks with defense, unlike regular cover. ;-)

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

It strains disbelief and goes against the canon? Sorry but I disagree. For one, there are only 2 instances in the movies, where the heroes ever get hit in combat. Despite the plethora of blaster bolts sailing past them, their handy dandy Plot Armor never even gets a scratch. Except for Luke and Leia in Return. They both get a hit, a single hit. So if you are going to cite the movies about the lethality of combat in general, you need to remember who the PCs are in this equation.

First, where did I ever say that combat in general was lethal? I'm only making the case that PCs get incapacitated much more often in space than they do on the ground, and that this is a bad thing.

Second, those two instances are more more instances than we get of Luke or anyone else in a starfighter surviving their starfighter's demise. Hence, space combat in the movies is portrayed as more deadly.

1 hour ago, KungFuFerret said:

Also, this applies to space combat that we see too. You imply that it's a one shot thing and then the player is helpless for the rest of the encounter. I disagree as this implies the player can't try and restart the ship, or do a patch job on the fly to get it running again. The ship is disabled, not the player.

And get immediately disabled again. Being able to restart the ship doesn't erase the problem that made it easy to take out the first time around, and it still eats up an action for the player (assuming the action is even successful) leading to a situation where they're likely to just be taken out again.

Quote

But about movie examples, again, all of the important people survive multiple hits to their ship. Luke takes 2 separate hits in New Hope, Wedge also gets hit and then bugs out of the combat. Vader gets hit by a freaking freighter cannon in a TIE, and survives.

The system is narrative, not simulationist. Each "hit" in the movie doesn't necessarily represent one "hit" in the game. Also, the TIE that got hit by the freighter got vaporized, Vader had a collision.

Quote

Luke gets shot down out of his speeder and survives, and then goes on to solo kill a Walker. The Falcon gets hit several times in Return and is ok.

The concern here is about starfighters, not ground vehicles (which may have the same problem but I haven't had enough experience with to judge) or light freighters (which are pretty well balanced).

Quote

And while I can't remember any of the fights in the prequels, I'm pretty sure they get hit at least a few times, and survive, and are left alive by the enemy, which you seem to think strains disbelief.

Again, it's not that they get hit , it's that they get knocked out of the fight (without ion cannons) without being destroyed. Can you name a single instance of that in all the movies?

Quote

And another point about this that I just thought of. If you are going to be playing that space centric of a campaign, then a good GM would account for attrition of equipment. If they're not, then they're not running it right. In the movies, again, a source you cite for the rules of space combat, the characters never really worry about ships. If they lose a fighter, they get another, because they are part of an army, the Rebellion. There is no reason the PC's couldn't have the same support. Forget the rules about this, just have them have some backing by some organization. Somebody who is bankrolling them, because they see the potential of this crew to accomplish amazing things, above and beyond what his regular employees (minions) are capable of. The cost of a few fighter now and then, or repairing them is negligible, compared to the lucrative opportunities that they provide this person by removing a threat.

Running the Rebellion with bottomless resources completely destroys the narrative that the Rebellion is tight on resources and manpower. In the movie we never see these logistics problems arise because it's left to other people to deal with. In the game, the PCs may very well BE those 'other people.' RPGs are not movies, characters have to deal with the day-to-day troubles that movies gloss over because they're on a two-hour time limit.

And for someone to bankroll them, they have to be able to make a profit. Fighters getting wrecked whenever someone so much as sneezes on them makes that difficult.

51 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Or heck, they are just simply backed by the Rebellion, if you are playing an Age campaign. And again, citing the movies, just have them provide them with new ships. Not once, in the movies, is availability of fighters ever an issue. They have plenty to go around, and a crack crew of mechanics to keep them running smooth. And it's never expected that the players pay up for this service. Why? Because they are out there, risking their lives for the cause. Same reason that active military aren't expected to bankroll their own equipment in combat, that's the military's job.

The PCs may not have the luxury of being linked to the greater Rebellion. They may be an independant cell, under seige, or in hiding with no method of resupply. Rebels are by definition the underdogs in this story, and underdogs with limitless resources doesn't work.

Quote

So yeah, while I agree that an unprepared, and uncreative GM might run into these problems, they are far from insurmountable.

On the contrary, it's an unprepared and uncreative GM that will just handwave important issues like this one instead of taking a few moments to go "Hmmm, how can I make it so that the fighter attrition rate is a little more sane?"

44 minutes ago, Darzil said:

Also when setting up the space combats (as ground combats), setting up hazards such that you are throwing in a couple of setback dice leads to less lethality again. As well as having the cinematic fight whilst other stuff is happening feeling.

Setback dice are capped at 4. It's trivially easy to overcome this with Talents, Minion swarms, or even a halfways competent Ace.

14 minutes ago, Benjan Meruna said:

Setback dice are capped at 4.

Please show me where in the rules, or in a dev Q&A response, this is.