1 minute ago, SEApocalypse said:

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.

It looks like the intent is that "if you need to change range bands, your speed dictates how many you can change" but "if you intend to stay and fight then ignore that". Unfortunately, the terminology of "Forced Maneuvers" makes it look like you have to change range bands, regardless of your intent.

I will say it makes a significant difference to me that the rules for vehicle combat factor in speed & range. In Star Wars, you could be a sil 5 vs a sil 3 and regardless of range or speed, the difficulty was always the same to hit. Same goes for two ships of the same silhouette.

2 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

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.

Technical evade does nearly the same thing as evasive maneuvers in SW, it just does not hinder your own shots, which means opponents who use evade will have an easier time as well (4x evasive maneuvers do stack to a solid amount of upgrades and SW-GtA does remove all those upgrades ). So we had this before. The new GtA combines now the double Stay on target effect with a double evasive maneuvers, that's actually good, especially as it does not TIME-OUT! You can now this way outmaneuver multiple slower vehicles and maintain the GtA advantage on them. So maintaining 3 upgrades for shots against you seems reasonable easy in the new system while keeping up brace for impact on top. Naturally this requires a gunner and assumes that the opposition can not just dealt with by alpha striking.

Noteable as well is the lack of a master pilot talent in genesys, at least iirc, so no double action spam for the hotshot joystick jockeys.

20 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

I will say it makes a significant difference to me that the rules for vehicle combat factor in speed & range. In Star Wars, you could be a sil 5 vs a sil 3 and regardless of range or speed, the difficulty was always the same to hit. Same goes for two ships of the same silhouette.

That is technical not true. Evasive maneuvers requires speed 3+, the amount of range bands which you can move per maneuver depends on your speed as well and certain maneuvers like K-Turn require high speed as well. Furthermore when you use GtA as tool for positioning speed becomes dramatically important.

Lastly the sense of large ships not being able to get into firing position against more agile ships is a fitting one. Hitting a fast target is easy when your firing position is good, meanwhile it it night impossible to hit a close target which can outmaneuver your guns and denies you any good firing position. Lastly basing the difficulty on the silhouette difference is setting appropitated in context of this whole trench disease that capital ships in star wars have.

What they missed is imo to add setback dice based on speed. Similar how genesys now is modifying the dice pool based on silhouette differences. It would have made TIE-Fighters a lot more deadly in skilled hands, just like it should be. No shields, all guts, 4 setbacks on speed 5, 6 setbacks with supreme full throttle going to full speed and up to 10 with fully skilled defensive driving. Man, those imperial fighters would have been SCARY as ****.

I should clarify when I say that speed & range are now a factor. I mean aside from maneuvers/actions/talents, the faster you are going, the harder you are to hit in Genesys, which isn't a thing in Star Wars. Additionally, in Star Wars, range only factors in when it comes to "is the target in range? if so you can shoot at them" but does not vary in difficulty.

Yes certain talents/actions/maneuvers require certain speeds or gain effectivenes at certain speeds but not every round will consist of using GtA and not everyone has access to specific talents, therefore range & speed are only relevant in the Star Wars ruleset when those things are in play and are ignored otherwise.

Capital ships specifically have the blanket barrage and concentrated barrage actions, which, while effective, are a huge nerf. In the rules, a capital ship is allowed to fire every weapon once, meaning you could obliterate a squadron of x-wings in 1 round of combat (and also take like 2 hours to resolve that 1 round). The reason they have these special actions is because pitting a capital ship against starfighters is unbalanced combat. Even so, with Genesys, if you are flying smart in a starfighter, you are harder to hit than in Star Wars.

1 minute ago, GroggyGolem said:

I should clarify when I say that speed & range are now a factor. I mean aside from maneuvers/actions/talents, the faster you are going, the harder you are to hit in Genesys, which isn't a thing in Star Wars. Additionally, in Star Wars, range only factors in when it comes to "is the target in range? if so you can shoot at them" but does not vary in difficulty.

Yes certain talents/actions/maneuvers require certain speeds or gain effectivenes at certain speeds but not every round will consist of using GtA and not everyone has access to specific talents, therefore range & speed are only relevant in the Star Wars ruleset when those things are in play and are ignored otherwise.

Capital ships specifically have the blanket barrage and concentrated barrage actions, which, while effective, are a huge nerf. In the rules, a capital ship is allowed to fire every weapon once, meaning you could obliterate a squadron of x-wings in 1 round of combat (and also take like 2 hours to resolve that 1 round). The reason they have these is specifically because pitting a capital ship against starfighters is unbalanced combat. Even so, with Genesys, if you are flying smart in a starfighter, you are harder to hit than in Star Wars.

All academic really, if the Devs felt the vehicle RAW from SW were a good fit for a generic vehicle system I'd imagine they would have just ported them to Genesys, but they changed them so I assume they didn't....

One of the biggest complaints, not the only one but one, from people was that in order to truly shine in ship combat, especially for fighters, you have to be in a piloting spec with piloting Talents. I like that Genesys shoves survivability down to the 'commoner' level a bit more.

7 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

I should clarify when I say that speed & range are now a factor. I mean aside from maneuvers/actions/talents, the faster you are going, the harder you are to hit in Genesys, which isn't a thing in Star Wars. Additionally, in Star Wars, range only factors in when it comes to "is the target in range? if so you can shoot at them" but does not vary in difficulty.

Yes certain talents/actions/maneuvers require certain speeds or gain effectivenes at certain speeds but not every round will consist of using GtA and not everyone has access to specific talents, therefore range & speed are only relevant in the Star Wars ruleset when those things are in play and are ignored otherwise.

Capital ships specifically have the blanket barrage and concentrated barrage actions, which, while effective, are a huge nerf. In the rules, a capital ship is allowed to fire every weapon once, meaning you could obliterate a squadron of x-wings in 1 round of combat (and also take like 2 hours to resolve that 1 round). The reason they have these special actions is because pitting a capital ship against starfighters is unbalanced combat. Even so, with Genesys, if you are flying smart in a starfighter, you are harder to hit than in Star Wars.

Actually … a capital ship firing all it's weapon individually just explodes from all the despairs it rolls. The rules are silly as this
Instead of obliterating that squadron the squadron is obliterating the capital ship based on the narrative dice descriptions.

Remember, the silhouette difference makes the check formidable with 4 setbacks (defense cap) and additional upgrades based on the fighters actions and talents. The system allows for re-creation of scenes like this based on the narrative dice:

Sure you can narratively describe that the falcon is causing all the malfunctions on the star destroyer but with 120 weapon systems on a star destroyer that millennium falcon is dead in 1 round. You might strain the heck out of the star destroyer in the process but that yt-1300 is going to blow up. Or you just use blanket barrage so that you don't kill off your players easily.

Has anyone actually seriously thought about converting SW to Genesys instead of Genesys to SW?

I think some people are working on that. I think the majority of the Star Wars rules work fine but the few areas I thought needed updated got updated with Genesys. I'd hate to try and convert Force Powers to Genesys since you have to somehow merge the Force Dice mechanics into the Narrative Dice System.

1 minute ago, GroggyGolem said:

I think some people are working on that. I think the majority of the Star Wars rules work fine but the few areas I thought needed updated got updated with Genesys. I'd hate to try and convert Force Powers to Genesys since you have to somehow merge the Force Dice mechanics into the Narrative Dice System.

I've only skimmed the Genesys rules, but I was under the impression that you could just import the force powers directly.

If you want to keep using the Force Dice, sure.

1 hour ago, GroggyGolem said:

Sure you can narratively describe that the falcon is causing all the malfunctions on the star destroyer but with 120 weapon systems on a star destroyer that millennium falcon is dead in 1 round. You might strain the heck out of the star destroyer in the process but that yt-1300 is going to blow up. Or you just use blanket barrage so that you don't kill off your players easily.

Grab the dice and try for yourself. Each despair is a critical hit to the star destroyer. ;-)
Here the dice pool if you shoot all those 120 weapon individually and Han is flying the Falcon:
http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#ability=2&boost=1&challenge=2&difficulty=3&setback=4

And here is Anakin making his attack run:
http://game2.ca/eote/?montecarlo=100000#ability=2&boost=1&challenge=5&setback=4

And this is conservative because I did not spend any advantage from Han shooting first and did not add extra setbacks on that check against Anakin either. Yes, there is a chance that the Falcon gets damaged heavily and Han needs to trigger narrow escape to get away and repair his ship, but that star destroyer has a good chance to blow himself up, maybe by hitting some asteroid or something …

or Ignites some gas

Despairs =/= Critical Hits or Critical Injuries in the game rules, not sure where you're getting that.

24 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Despairs =/= Critical Hits or Critical Injuries in the game rules, not sure where you're getting that.

Agreed, it's a component critical hit, not a vehicle critical hit. They're different things. It just means the weapon system in particular is offline, and it's still only part of interpreting the dice pool. Even with the Despair if the dice pool hits the consequences vs the target are still resolved. Point being a ship will be shot to pieces long before you run out of turbo lasers....

15 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Despairs =/= Critical Hits or Critical Injuries in the game rules, not sure where you're getting that.

Stay on Target, a source book for Aces
Hold on, Heavy Blast, System Damage, Ouch, Strap-in, etc
Table 3-1, 3-2 and 3-3, , Page 78 and following.
Plenty of suggestions how to spend a despair or even triumph to apply critical hits or provoke collisions with threads "Watch your Vector!"

And getting those sweet despairs on enemy checks becomes rather easy, considering that "weave", "elusive", "tuck and roll", "one with the fog", etc exist. Too close is super fun as well, though I would substitute the piloting with a gunnery check to destroy such debris instead.

The narrative dice are extremely powerful to manipulate a scene and make something which started as a fair fight into something which gives you all the advantages in the world. Literally because there is a snowball effect included … or steep hill to climb once you are in the trap of rolling 8 instead of just 4 setback dice. ;-)

11 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Agreed, it's a component critical hit, not a vehicle critical hit. They're different things. It just means the weapon system in particular is offline, and it's still only part of interpreting the dice pool. Even with the Despair if the dice pool hits the consequences vs the target are still resolved. Point being a ship will be shot to pieces long before you run out of turbo lasers....

Quote

Despair on a failed check Hold on: Vehicle smashes into the side of an asteroid or large piece of debirs, suffers a major collision (which causes a critical hit), and careens out of control. The craft immediately suffers the "Knocked Off Course" Critical Hit.

Asteroid fields are especially deadly if you just start shooting around, causing explosions and blast waves and stuff and getting asteroids moving in unpredictable ways. ;-)

Ah, the additional rules for terrain. I didn't recall them since they weren't core rules. So the despair results only apply if terrain is a factor. Terrain should usually be a factor though so I guess that's fair. Still, if one never bought into the supplement that wouldn't really be relevant to them.

Just now, GroggyGolem said:

Ah, the additional rules for terrain. I didn't recall them since they weren't core rules. So the despair results only apply if terrain is a factor. Terrain should usually be a factor though so I guess that's fair. Still, if one never bought into the supplement that wouldn't really be relevant to them.

The result also needs to make sense to the roll. I'm not going to have a collision when a weapon Despair comes up because that makes zero sense. Those options are clearly meant in most cases for when an active player is rolling something applicable. Requiring a Pilot check when in debris or whatever is completely acceptable and Despairs resulting from that make sense. Every time someone pulls the trigger on a gun or other unrelated check? Not so much.

5 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

Ah, the additional rules for terrain. I didn't recall them since they weren't core rules. So the despair results only apply if terrain is a factor. Terrain should usually be a factor though so I guess that's fair. Still, if one never bought into the supplement that wouldn't really be relevant to them.

In addition proposing 120 critical hits based on these rolls is precisely why players by default are not in charge of spending negative results....

On 12.1.2018 at 1:59 AM, GroggyGolem said:

Ah, the additional rules for terrain. I didn't recall them since they weren't core rules. So the despair results only apply if terrain is a factor. Terrain should usually be a factor though so I guess that's fair. Still, if one never bought into the supplement that wouldn't really be relevant to them.

I am complaining since years of the way FFG edits their material. A lot of stuff that looks like core mechanics is distributed around the career books AND hidden there usually behind a wall of useless stuff. Game effects hidden in fluff text, a giant chapter 3 which is boring to read, mostly redundant, but full with additional advantage and success effects for basically all skills, etc

Did you know for example that SW already has basically the dangerous driving action as part of the description of the piloting skill, etc ;-)


Anyway, getting back to the topic:
No, technical despair for critical hits against vehicles can be used in empty space as well. Remember, those tables are not a definite or complete list. Those tables are suggestions. Got a good idea how this could lead to something like a collision and then go for it. Hitting your own ships critical systems seems like a good plan, makes the iconic trench disease even more pronounced when a fighter goes so close to provoke hits against parts of the super structure of the star destroyer … and is a good reason to bring up those difficult terrain rules and piloting checks.
This means naturally as well that a GM may decide as well that this star destroyer is not just killing itself on one turn with imperial stormtrooper precision, but the system does account for that and gives you a pretty good reason to bundle your efforts into shots less dangerous for yourself and with an higher chance to hit. But I will totally admit that it does look like they added this stuff realizing some of the problems in the corebooks.

And btw, you are not going to shoot 120 times per turn with weapons which would fire afterwards not a single shot for 2 turns. Nor do you even have arc with all those weapons. ;-)

Considering adding the hacking rules from Genesys as I prefer them to the SWFFG Slicing rules

Are you talking about defense rules for something other than personal combat Golem? I looked in my Genesys book and it looks like defense is the same as in SWRPG from what I can tell.

20 minutes ago, Archlyte said:

Are you talking about defense rules for something other than personal combat Golem? I looked in my Genesys book and it looks like defense is the same as in SWRPG from what I can tell.

It's more clearly defined regarding what does and doesn't stack and capped just like space combat, to a max of 4 defense. That's why I prefer it over the Star Wars rules for Defense.

That said I'm still adding a bit of a houserule on top of it since cover still grants Defense instead of Adds it. Having armor and being behind cover doesn't stack and makes no sense. Narratively it means if you have armor that grants Defense, you might as well be out in the open with no cover around. Makes cover entirely useless once you have armor that grants Defense.

So I just changed cover to add Defense instead of grant it so that it stacks on top of armor.

19 minutes ago, GroggyGolem said:

It's more clearly defined regarding what does and doesn't stack and capped just like space combat, to a max of 4 defense. That's why I prefer it over the Star Wars rules for Defense.

That said I'm still adding a bit of a houserule on top of it since cover still grants Defense instead of Adds it. Having armor and being behind cover doesn't stack and makes no sense. Narratively it means if you have armor that grants Defense, you might as well be out in the open with no cover around. Makes cover entirely useless once you have armor that grants Defense.

So I just changed cover to add Defense instead of grant it so that it stacks on top of armor.

Ah ok I see, and thank you for explaining it to me. I was worried I had missed something really dramatic lol. I do think the Genesys stuff is great so I agree with you.

14 hours ago, GroggyGolem said:

It's more clearly defined regarding what does and doesn't stack and capped just like space combat, to a max of 4 defense. That's why I prefer it over the Star Wars rules for Defense.

I remember that cap from the previews. But I can't find the cap in the book anymore. Have they removed it or is my whole group just blind?