So the biggest excitement I had over Genesys was that the rules were updated from Star Wars. After having read through the Genesys rulebook, here are the rules I plan to use in Star Wars from now on.

The Defense rules

The Vehicle rules

The Social Encounter rules (I'll have to modify the dice results table slightly to work with Star Wars, since I won't be including the 4 Motivations on top of the normal Star Wars Motivation/Morality/Obligation mechanics).

I'm very pleased with the new vehicle rules. I think they factor in things like speed and range that weren't really considered in the star wars ruleset and can actually make a star destroyer vs single fighter ship scenario more difficult for the star destroyer, if the fighter is flying smart. The only talents I can think of that are largely affected by porting over these rules are 1. Full Stop and 2. Tricky Target.

Full stop is effectively nerfed unless you are flying at a speed higher than 3. Still useful but only in some circumstances.

Tricky Target doesn't give you as large of a boost to defense since the Genesys rules for vehicle combat only increase the difficulty to hit a ship that is a silhouette 2+ smaller once but it will still allow you to gain that boost to your defense against other ships (say you're a sil 4 vs a sil 5, 1 copy of Tricky Target gives your opponent that additional difficulty but additional copies don't modify the roll further).

Are you porting over any rules from Genesys? If so, which ones, and why?

From Genesys? Not many. If I get around to it, to Genesys will be pretty much all of them

I'll use the new defense, vehicle, and social rules, as well. I like how the social rules make face characters more versatile; it's disheartening when the combat monkey gets to keep shooting at something until it falls, but the ambassador or politico gets one roll to convince the chancellor to sign the treaty or whatever. In addition, I like how Genesys made Vigilance a more useful skill (it is now the go-to for resisting Deception, as well as for all passive forms of detection—sorry Perception!).

5 hours ago, SavageBob said:

I'll use the new defense, vehicle, and social rules, as well. I like how the social rules make face characters more versatile; it's disheartening when the combat monkey gets to keep shooting at something until it falls, but the ambassador or politico gets one roll to convince the chancellor to sign the treaty or whatever.

Uhm, that's not the case. The ambassador has a whole career book with a complete rules section for social encounters. Now you don't have to like that those rules degenerate social encounters to social combat, but the rules are certainly already in SW.

The problem with the "rules" in the Diplomat sourcebook is that they aren't concrete. It talks about giving strain to opponents but doesn't explain how and in what amount, it doesn't cover additional dice results, it doesn't cover what happens with failure on said social checks, nor does it give you any goals other than outstraining the opponent. It's half-written really.

Much easier to use the Genesys social encounter rules because that's well defined and gives you multiple ways of handling such an encounter.

That is actually one of the strengths as it allows you as GM to build a scene completely as it's own mini-arc with goals, problems to overcome and a climax, perfectly based around the needs of your groups. It still basically social combat, but at least it is easily balanced and easily build around the scene you want to show your players. Social Encounters are build around the idea of being their own mini-adventure imho.

Though, editing could be better.

I actually find the Vehicular combat rules from Genesys to be a complete mess, and nearly impossible to understand. I personally do not find them to be an improvement over SW RPG vehicle rules at all.

1 hour ago, SEApocalypse said:

Uhm, that's not the case. The ambassador has a whole career book with a complete rules section for social encounters. Now you don't have to like that those rules degenerate social encounters to social combat, but the rules are certainly already in SW.

Yeah, but they're not in the core, so GMs can easily ignore them. I like how Genesys has made them standard. It makes faces just as fun to play as combat monsters.

8 hours ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

I actually find the Vehicular combat rules from Genesys to be a complete mess, and nearly impossible to understand. I personally do not find them to be an improvement over SW RPG vehicle rules at all.

I'm interested to know which parts are hard for you to understand.

I like the Genesys vehicle rules. Does away with the sil targeting. Does away with the close/short silliness. Adds the new range band. Facing matters. Brace for impact is cool. I intend to use them when I shift from my fantasy Genesys campaign to the space opera one, although I also intend to add in some stuff, more uses for Strain for one.

14 hours ago, SavageBob said:

Yeah, but they're not in the core, so GMs can easily ignore them. I like how Genesys has made them standard. It makes faces just as fun to play as combat monsters.

Not everyone likes extensive mechanical rules for social encounters, which is why most systems make them optional.

14 hours ago, SavageBob said:

Yeah, but they're not in the core, so GMs can easily ignore them. I like how Genesys has made them standard. It makes faces just as fun to play as combat monsters.

So, they are not core, but at least from the same game

11 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

I'm interested to know which parts are hard for you to understand.

All of them.

10 hours ago, 2P51 said:

I like the Genesys vehicle rules. Does away with the sil targeting. Does away with the close/short silliness. Adds the new range band. Facing matters. Brace for impact is cool. I intend to use them when I shift from my fantasy Genesys campaign to the space opera one, although I also intend to add in some stuff, more uses for Strain for one.

Actually Sil targeting is still in there. Its confusing, but it is still there.

I am curious... where does it say facing matters? Did I miss this one?

I do agree, I like Brace for Impact as well.

I don't think silhouette is confusing, it just uses the personal combat rules, if you're attacking something 2 sil sizes or more bigger upgrade the chance to hit once, 2 or more sizes smaller upgrade the difficulty once. Makes difficulty the same for personal and vehicle combat, which for my money simplifies combat overall, instead of having 2 different ways to determine difficulty.

Facing is mentioned under " Perform a Combat Check with Vehicle Weapons : p.230 -Targets must be within the firing arc of the weapon, as determined by the relative position of the vehicles (and the GM's discretion."

26 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

All of them.

:/

The special maneuvers & actions are spelled out pretty clearly as to how they work, you are forced to move a number of range bands based on your speed every round, piloting checks in dangerous conditions have a difficulty equal to your ship's silhouette (modified further by setback and speed) and combat difficulty is the exact same as in personal scale. Could you be more specific about what makes these rules confusing?

1 hour ago, 2P51 said:

I don't think silhouette is confusing, it just uses the personal combat rules, if you're attacking something 2 sil sizes or more bigger upgrade the chance to hit once, 2 or more sizes smaller upgrade the difficulty once. Makes difficulty the same for personal and vehicle combat, which for my money simplifies combat overall, instead of having 2 different ways to determine difficulty.

Facing is mentioned under " Perform a Combat Check with Vehicle Weapons : p.230 -Targets must be within the firing arc of the weapon, as determined by the relative position of the vehicles (and the GM's discretion."

Yeah, I wasn't very clear. I've seen a number of posts saying "silhouette isn't used for vehicle combat." or some variation of that theme, and while it is buried in the rules, silhouette differences still do apply.

I did not see the comment about firing arc, glad you pointed that out.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

:/

The special maneuvers & actions are spelled out pretty clearly as to how they work, you are forced to move a number of range bands based on your speed every round, piloting checks in dangerous conditions have a difficulty equal to your ship's silhouette (modified further by setback and speed) and combat difficulty is the exact same as in personal scale. Could you be more specific about what makes these rules confusing?

My comment was off the cuff and more snarky that it should have been. So I apologize for that GG.

My "confusion" isn't so much with mechanics is with "What were the designers thinking?" There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Vehicle Combat rules, and when finally given an opportunity to do something about, I read the Geneysis ones and shook my head because they really changed nothing. The Force Movement is a major headscratcher to me because Sam has basically already said in the Gensys FAQ "You can ignore it, as players can fly where they want unless they are doing something really crazy." Which to me simply places even more of a burden on the GM to just make stuff up, and this system has too much of that already. I was also hoping Gain the Advantage would be re-written to be more useful, but its not. In fact, one could argue its less useful, but emphasis there is on the word "argue."

Out of curiosity, for those porting over these rules to SW: How are handling weapon ranges?

12 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

My comment was off the cuff and more snarky that it should have been. So I apologize for that GG.

My "confusion" isn't so much with mechanics is with "What were the designers thinking?" There has been a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth about the Vehicle Combat rules, and when finally given an opportunity to do something about, I read the Geneysis ones and shook my head because they really changed nothing. The Force Movement is a major headscratcher to me because Sam has basically already said in the Gensys FAQ "You can ignore it, as players can fly where they want unless they are doing something really crazy." Which to me simply places even more of a burden on the GM to just make stuff up, and this system has too much of that already. I was also hoping Gain the Advantage would be re-written to be more useful, but its not. In fact, one could argue its less useful, but emphasis there is on the word "argue."

Out of curiosity, for those porting over these rules to SW: How are handling weapon ranges?

No worries, I was just trying to understand your comment. Frustration makes a lot more sense than actual confusion about the rules.

Developer answers since Star Wars have always had a very "You can certainly do things this way if you like for your game table" feel. Which isn't much of an answer. While sometimes the developer answers are extremely informative of how some rule is supposed to function, a lot of it ends with the Developers basically saying "do whatever works best".

I'd personally take the range bands per round as hard-set rules but ignore them once you get into Engaged range. Basically, same deal as personal scale. You don't leave Engaged until you specifically Disengage from the dogfight. That way most smaller ships can keep up the dogfight without worrying about flying too far away every round.

Gain the Advantage is stronger than in Star Wars, providing double the previous benefit. I'm curious to know what you think would have worked better for GtA?

Weapon ranges should be pretty unchanged I think. Close range is Engaged range, average difficulty to hit.

The rest are as normal. No statblock for a Star Wars ship has weapons that reach beyond Extreme range to Strategic since it was just introduced. I would keep Strategic range for plot-important superweapons or weapons with modified ranges.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

:/

The special maneuvers & actions are spelled out pretty clearly as to how they work, you are forced to move a number of range bands based on your speed every round, piloting checks in dangerous conditions have a difficulty equal to your ship's silhouette (modified further by setback and speed) and combat difficulty is the exact same as in personal scale. Could you be more specific about what makes these rules confusing?

What happens when you move beyond strategic in a single turn, simply based on your speed?
That was the first thing that was unclear for me at least. (edit) So for me there is real confusion and irritation about what they trying to achieve with the genesys rules. They seem to have added a few things to replace extensive pilot talents, but overall it is the hold system with personal combat style weapon ranges and combat difficulties.

And btw, instead of gain the advantage, you may now consider dangerous driving as the "go to his six" position action. So in that regard I actually think there are improvements to backport into star wars.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Gain the Advantage is stronger than in Star Wars, providing double the previous benefit. I'm curious to know what you think would have worked better for GtA?

The main issue I have with GtA is that you are giving up an attack to gain a small benefit on a future attack. You are almost always better off making two attacks over the course of two rounds than you are giving up one attack to benefit a second attack. Further, I was hoping the margin of success would actually matter; whether it giving a larger bonus, or extending the duration or whatever other creative ideas people smarter than me could devise.

Just now, SEApocalypse said:

What happens when you move beyond strategic in a single turn, simply based on your speed?
That was the first thing that was unclear for me at least.

I mean, probably the same thing with going beyond Extreme range in personal scale... The other party can't really catch up, you get the chance to book it far away, duck behind some cover and hide, etc.

Just now, Magnus Arcanus said:

The main issue I have with GtA is that you are giving up an attack to gain a small benefit on a future attack. You are almost always better off making two attacks over the course of two rounds than you are giving up one attack to benefit a second attack. Further, I was hoping the margin of success would actually matter; whether it giving a larger bonus, or extending the duration or whatever other creative ideas people smarter than me could devise.

I think GtA is more of a defensive action than an offensive one. Yes, attacking twice a round is more powerful if you are trying to blow up that target. If you're trying to escape or have other reasons to not fire upon the other target, then it's the better option. Also, couldn't advantage on a GtA roll be spent to boost your defense for a round or throw some setback the other guy's way?

1 minute ago, GroggyGolem said:

I think GtA is more of a defensive action than an offensive one. Yes, attacking twice a round is more powerful if you are trying to blow up that target. If you're trying to escape or have other reasons to not fire upon the other target, then it's the better option. Also, couldn't advantage on a GtA roll be spent to boost your defense for a round or throw some setback the other guy's way?

I've always thought GtA was supposed to be sort of the "dogfight" type action, yet I agree with you: it is really more of an action you use when you can't or don't want to make an attack. Unless of course you're flying a multi-crewed ship and have gunners. But that is a different story.

Yes, you can spend advantage from the GtA roll to increase defenses or de-buff your enemies, but you can do the same thing with a weapon attack too.

Just now, Magnus Arcanus said:

I've always thought GtA was supposed to be sort of the "dogfight" type action, yet I agree with you: it is really more of an action you use when you can't or don't want to make an attack. Unless of course you're flying a multi-crewed ship and have gunners. But that is a different story.

Yes, you can spend advantage from the GtA roll to increase defenses or de-buff your enemies, but you can do the same thing with a weapon attack too.

For sure I think GtA is great for dogfighting if it includes choosing where you are in relation to the other ship (whichever firing arc can't fire of course!) but RAW it's better to just pew pew the other guy first (unless you are in a ship with multiple crew, as you said).

I do enjoy that there are other defensive options in Genesys now, like Brace for Impact & Evasive Maneuvers (I think that was the name). GtA isn't the one-and-only option anymore.

1 minute ago, GroggyGolem said:

I mean, probably the same thing with going beyond Extreme range in personal scale... The other party can't really catch up, you get the chance to book it far away, duck behind some cover and hide, etc.

So in most vehicle encounters which involve fast vehicles basically everyone not only can, but has to end the encounter after the first turn of combat, because the speeds drive them beyond strategic anyway? It's such an odd thing considering that the system offers speed 5 vehicles, which need to move 5 range bands per turn.