12 minutes ago, WolfRider said:

Perhaps you could explain your players that the main advantage of a ranged weapon is its range, it can hit a target from short to extreme range. While a melee / brawl weapon can only hit a target from engaged range. That means the guy with the gun can inflict wounds to the guy with the sword while the guy with the sword is trying to get close enough the guy with the gun.

There's a scene in one of the Indiana Jones movie that illustrates it very well. In Cairo a guy with a big scimitar swirls it to show how badass he is. Then Indy pulls out his gun and shoot him dead. The Badass never had a chance to hit Indy.

As for aiming in melee / brawl it does make sense. It's just focusing on precision, exactly like aiming with a ranged weapon is.

It makes sense to me. Trust me, before GMing this session I researched it on these boards and found convincing arguments to incorporate melee + aim. Thankfully it did not come into the game as the melee user was mainly cutting down B-1 Droids and my Nemesis didn't get a change to attack them with the Light-saber.

At the end of the session: I asked what they thought. half of the party uses range weapons. Half the party uses melee weapons. The two members with the melee weapons agreed that it would be to much of an advantage and in fact made the statement first.

At the end of the day: As the GM, My main role/our main role is to ensure the PCs have fun. Sometimes it is at the expense of some of our own. (People may disagree but this is my GM philosophy.) So if the group doesn't want a certain rule that is not outlined in the books/official rulings. then i tend to go with them. Even if I am the one person who wants it to happen.

HOWEVER, an official ruling will change their minds.

In terms of mechanics: It makes a huge difference. I just ran a simulation between GG and Maul again. GG gains an additional free maneuver with multiple limbs. The one fight where I did not use aim as a maneuver with melee for both, the fight was somewhat close. With aim as a maneuver, GG blizted.

If you don't want to have Aiming for Brawl/Melee you could handle it similarly to Guarded Stance, but instead it adds 1 Boost to Brawl/Melee checks you make, but it also adds 1 Boost to all incoming Brawl/Melee checks until the end of your next turn. I would just stick with Aiming, but that's my suggestion if you don't want to use Aiming.

Revenge of the Sith, when the masters try to arrest Palpatine:

He jumps forward, aims then stabs Agen Kolar through or Mace Windu raising his saber to finish off Palpatine.

Both are perfect examples, how to "aim" your melee attack. It doesn't matter that you raise your pistol or sword.

E-CRB p201. There is nothing in the books that would not allow melee aiming. The rules say that it grants bonus on the next combat check. Nothing else. Brawl/Melee/Lightsaber checks are combat checks.

Star Wars Rebels (and countless samurai moves) have shown us what aiming in close combat looks like.

15 hours ago, Sincereagape said:

Is there an official ruling on being able to Aim as a maneuver prior to a Melee/Lightsaber attack? We outlawed it at our table at the end of our session yesterday, but if there is an official ruling then that would change.

The "official ruling" can be found on pages 201 and 204 of EotE CRB.

201, Aim manoeuvre: "Aiming provides…[boost die] on the next combat check."
204, Perform a combat check: "A player makes a combat check when he uses a combat skill to attack a target."

Because aiming provides a boost to the next combat check, and Melee, Lightsaber and Brawl are all combat skills you can aim with melee attacks.

15 hours ago, Sincereagape said:

It makes sense to me. Trust me, before GMing this session I researched it on these boards and found convincing arguments to incorporate melee + aim. Thankfully it did not come into the game as the melee user was mainly cutting down B-1 Droids and my Nemesis didn't get a change to attack them with the Light-saber.

At the end of the session: I asked what they thought. half of the party uses range weapons. Half the party uses melee weapons. The two members with the melee weapons agreed that it would be to much of an advantage and in fact made the statement first.

At the end of the day: As the GM, My main role/our main role is to ensure the PCs have fun. Sometimes it is at the expense of some of our own. (People may disagree but this is my GM philosophy.) So if the group doesn't want a certain rule that is not outlined in the books/official rulings. then i tend to go with them. Even if I am the one person who wants it to happen.

HOWEVER, an official ruling will change their minds.

In terms of mechanics: It makes a huge difference. I just ran a simulation between GG and Maul again. GG gains an additional free maneuver with multiple limbs. The one fight where I did not use aim as a maneuver with melee for both, the fight was somewhat close. With aim as a maneuver, GG blizted.

Ranged weapons usually have quite a advantage over Melee. They will in most cases do more damage than melee, especially if using ranged heavy. If engaged they can move out to short so they're only firing against 1 purple in difficulty, melee always have at least 2 purple. Since there are no drawbacks to disengaging for the ranged fighters, they're pretty much always going to do so. If starting at Medium range then the melee character has to use both maneuvers to even get into melee range, eating 2 strain to do so. If not they're just stod at short range, eat a range attack and then the opponent moves out again to medium and they're stuck there. If they start at long range then they may very well spend two to three rounds just eating shots before they can start putting the hurt in.

It's very simple indeed: you can mount a better assault (spending your maneuver on Aim) when you aren't distracted by other concerns (spending your maneuver on something else).

16 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

Star Wars Rebels (and countless samurai moves) have shown us what aiming in close combat looks like.

Love this scene. Perfect explanation.

But I'll also quote myself from Page 1 of this thread and ask for more real-life examples if people have them. I know the simulationists have to get some validation, too!

"

Aiming with Brawl is being either Samart Payakaroon or Giorgio Petrosyan.

Aiming with Melee is being Duke Lucan or Sir Cullen.

"

Aiming with melee is a definite possibility.

Aiming is totally a thing in melee/brawl, it's just our common usage of the term "aim" confuses the more pedantic people in the world, since it's mostly used in ranged combat. Aiming at it's core, is simply taking a few moments of mental effort to calculate and analyze the situation, to try and maximize your strike for full damage/effect. That's it. In ranged combat, it's "aiming", but what that actually equates to, is the person shooting, thinking about the various factors of the moment, incorporating them into the attack, and compensating for them to place the hit where they want it.

And in melee, a very dramatic, and cinematic way to describe that is.....

TL:DR

GURPS describes this with the words: "All out attack: Determined. +4 to hit roll."

as opposed to "All out attack: Fierce. +2 to damage roll."

No an aimed attack is the complete opposite of an all out attack. Aiming your brawl / melee attack means you focus on precision to raise your chance of hitting your opponent. That's exactly the same meaning than for a ranged attack. Why is it so difficult to understand such a simple thing ?

2 hours ago, WolfRider said:

No an aimed attack is the complete opposite of an all out attack. Aiming your brawl / melee attack means you focus on precision to raise your chance of hitting your opponent. That's exactly the same meaning than for a ranged attack. Why is it so difficult to understand such a simple thing ?

Exactly. I've seen that people tend to take maneuver and talent labels too literally and impose restrictions on them that they don't need. Maybe people would be happier if there was a Maneuver called "Feint" that did the same thing as Aim but it's not needed since Aim works for all attacks

2 hours ago, Varlie said:

Exactly. I've seen that people tend to take maneuver and talent labels too literally and impose restrictions on them that they don't need. Maybe people would be happier if there was a Maneuver called "Feint" that did the same thing as Aim but it's not needed since Aim works for all attacks

Yeppers. I've even seen someone say, "I can't describe my character dodging an attack because they don't have the Dodge talent! This games sucks!" 🙄

How I describe aiming a melee combat check (little m, so Brawl/Melee/Lightsaber covered in the one word): I aim my attack.

I don't think it needs anything fancier than a ranged attack aim. You can definitely go for more flowery descriptions if you like but it's not necessary at my table.

If you don't believe aiming plays a role in melee attacks, you've never seen drunk people fight.

aw man, Stan. Now I have to develop Drunken Lightsaber style

9 minutes ago, Varlie said:

aw man, Stan. Now I have to develop Drunken Lightsaber style

...so Jar-Jar Jitsu?

I have often wanted to become a muay TIE Fighter.

4 minutes ago, BrickSteelhead said:

I have often wanted to become a muay TIE Fighter.

I'd rather be a Mai Tai fighter.

15 hours ago, WolfRider said:

Aiming your brawl / melee attack means you focus on precision to raise your chance of hitting your opponent. That's exactly the same meaning than for a ranged attack. Why is it so difficult to understand such a simple thing ?

It occurs to me that Aim actually does more to increase the odds that Something Special Happens (tm) than it does to increase the odds of hitting, given the greater number of Advantage symbols across the faces of a Boost die. Successes in this system also increase damage, so it isn't just about hitting with those, either.

That applies to ranged attacks too - and for that matter, attacks that potentially affect targets in an area - so the problem is partly that 'Aim' is kind of a misleading name given the effect.

Calling it something like 'Focus' sounds too Force-y though.

It does potentially add Success though, and while it isn't likely to make the difference between success and failure, it can give you additional Advantage which can be used to trigger crits or weapon qualities, as opposed to just narrative benefits.