In the base game the rules for the Tractor quality are basically this: If the attack is successful, the target must make a piloting check equal in difficulty to the Tractor rating in order to move.

I find this insufficient because that would mean that, for example, Slave I could hold a Star Destroyer in place (Tractor 2). Given power generation (Slave I), inertia (ISD), shear brute force engine power (ISD), levels of system strain (ISD), etc. I find this insufficient. I also think that the difficulty is insufficient for ships attempting to escape (more on this in the proposed solution). For example, an ISD trying to escape Slave I's Tractor beam (to follow the example from earlier) would face a difficulty of average, however, a Gozanti (same speed) would face a difficulty of average as well, even though it would fit inside one of the ISDs thrust nozzles (the smaller ones). Needless to say, I find this lacking.

My proposed solution is as follows: Tractor beams can grab onto a target of a silhouette equal to or less than its Tractor Value (see paragraph 3, line 4). The pilot must pass an appropriate Piloting check (or athletics if it's a person being targeted) at Average (2) difficulty increased once for every point of silhouette short the target is of the Tractor Value (see paragraph 3, line 4), upgraded once if the target's strain exceeds 1/4 threshold, twice if the strain exceeds 1/2 threshold, and cannot be attempted if the strain exceeds 3/4 threshold, but subtracted by max speed divided by 2 (difficulty=2+(Value-silhouette)-(max speed÷2 [round down). I would also change the Tractor values to: Value=Rating+(Silhouette÷3[round to nearest]). So an ISD targeting Slave I with a Heavy Tractor Beam (Tractor 6) would be 6+(8÷3[rounded])=9, leaving Slave I with a difficulty of 2+(9-4)-(4÷2)=5. This represents all the aforementioned variables: (1) Target: Inertia (silhouette), engine power (max speed), System Strain levels (die upgrades). and (2) Attacker: Power Generation (Silhouette). Also, any overflow in difficulty (anything greater than 5) would go into upgrades (6 difficulty=5 difficulty, 1 upgraded).

In conclusion, for everything I have calculated so far, this is balanced as it allows small ships (silhouette 4) to move cargo and starfighters (Light Tractor Beam [2]) medium ships to move cargo and small ships (silhouette 4 and smaller) and some ships of similar size (Medium Tractor Beam [4]), and large ships to move all of the above (Heavy Tractor Beam [6]).

I would welcome any suggestions or critiques.

P.S. The equations on their face may look daunting, but they are really rather simple, I just wanted to convey the information in the most precise and formulaic way possible.

Edit: P.P.S. You can't attempt to escape unless you are moving in the opposite direction of the pull of the Tractor beam or faster than the chasing ship (if they are trying to reel you in while moving toward you, you count the targeted ship's speed as 1 lower).

Here are the equations separate from the rest of the post so you can find them more easily:

Value=Rating+(Silhouette÷3[round to nearest])

Escape Difficulty=2+(Value-Silhouette)-(Max Speed÷2 [round down])

Upgrade once if the target's strain exceeds 1/4 threshold, twice if the target's strain exceeds 1/2 threshold, and target cannot attempt it if strain exceeds 3/4 threshold.

Edit(1): You can calculate the Tractor Value+2 and go ahead and put that on your ship sheet or GM notes or whatever and then you've only got to subtract the target's silhouette and half speed to get escape difficulty.

Edit(1): Also, if the firing vessel is smaller than the target vessel AND its Tractor Value is lower than the silhouette of the target vessel, but larger than the silhouette of the firing vessel, then the firing vessel is basically being towed (like a small boat harpooning a whale) and you use its silhouette instead of the target ship's for determining escape difficulty.

Personally, this seems unnecessarily complex, especially for this system. While I appreciate what your house rule attempts to do, and I do think the system regarding tractor beams, as it stands, is a little lacking, I think there must be a much simpler and more elegant solution to the problem.

I haven't given this a tremendous amount of thought, but from pondering it for a few minutes I have an initial idea.

RAW: To escape a tractor beam, the target of the tractor beam must succeed at a piloting check with a difficulty set equal to the rating of the tractor beam that is affecting them ( 2, 4, or 6 ). ( Difficulty = PP, PPPP, or RPPPP )

We may be able to do something as simple as increase/decrease the difficulty of the escape by the +/- difference in silhouette of the two ships in question. ( Heavy tractor beam has a rating of 6, leading me to believe you'd begin to upgrade difficulty dice past formidable task difficulty, otherwise you would stop the rating at 5. ) ( And you can, as always, add or remove boost/setback dice to the piloting check to escape depending on circumstances, such as giving boost dice to a faster ship trying to escape a slower one or setback dice to a slower ship trying to escape a faster one. )

For example, if a Victory-class Star Destroyer ( Sil: 8; Tractor beam rating: 6 ) was using a tractor beam on a CR90 Corvette ( Sil: 5 ), we would upgrade the escape difficulty by 3 because the Star Destroyer has a Silhouette of 3 higher, thusly, the Corvette could only escape by succeeding at a piloting check against a difficulty of RRRRP. That would be extremely challenging for even the best of pilots.

Lets hypothetically say the roles were reversed and the CR90 Corvette ( Sil: 5; and in this hypothetical example we'll say it has a heavy tractor beam with difficulty 6 ) was using a tractor beam on a Victory-class Star Destroyer ( Sil: 8 ). We would decrease the escape difficulty by 3 because the Star Destroyer has a Silhouette of 3 higher, thusly, the Star Destroyer could escape by succeeding at a piloting check against a difficulty of PPP. That would be much more manageable. Even someone with the skills of a lowly Tie Pilot would succeed about 1/3 of the time, so it wouldn't take long to shake the tractor beam off. Someone with the skills of a Tie Ace would succeed over 2/3 of the time, shaking the tractor beam off almost, if not, immediately.

Combine the above with logic/common sense and the narrative nature of this game system. I feel a simpler system like this one would be more in-line with the design goals of the FFG Star Wars Roleplaying system.

lol

I love the thought of Slave 1 using a tractor beam on an ISD. In reality though, it wouldn't stop the ISD...the ISD would just pull Slave 1 along with it.

I don't know the rules off hand as I've never used them. However...

The larger Sil vehicle would remain in control. If a smaller craft tractors a larger craft, the smaller one might be dragged, but the larger one doesn't lose power or ability to move (however I would increase the Sil of the tractored ship as it's now dragging something making it less maneuverable) A ship could tractor another ship of the same size, but they'd basically fight for control and likely in most cases basically prevent the other from doing anything. A ship could tractor a smaller ship, remain in control, but have it's Sil possibly changed accordingly.

I'd probably limit the Sil of the targetted craft based on the tractor rating of the weapon. I'd base difficulty of escaping on the tractor rating. A low rated tractor beam can't tractor an ISD.

16 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

If the attack is successful, the target must make a piloting check equal in difficulty to the Tractor rating in order to move.

I find this insufficient because that would mean that, for example, Slave I could hold a Star Destroyer in place (Tractor 2). Given power generation (Slave I), inertia (ISD), shear brute force engine power (ISD),

Looking at the best way to address this with minimal house-rules... wouldn't this be easily resolved with largely Narrative solutions?

I mean, "Movement" in this system is typically relative to something else over little models on a grid. A pair of Starfighters can be flying all over the place but just never putting any distance between them.

So in your example of a Firespray vs. a Star Destroyer, (odd and unlikely, but ok) the Frespray fires it's tractor beam and hits, locking onto the larger vessel. Since the Sil difference between the two is so huge, the GM rules that the SD is technically towing the Firespray, and not really the other way around. The Star Destroyer indeed "can't move" but that's only relative to the Firespray, the SD can still move relative to other things.

All you need to do for house-rules is make that distinction, (done) add a solid Sil difference where it sets in (say 2?) and define the exception (A ship that's powered down, willing, or disabled and not being acted upon by another force, like Gravity or something, can be towed by the smaller craft.) and you've got it.

So a couple examples:

The Firespray and SD are in open space. the Firespray goes around back and tractors the SD. The SD can still move (though it really doesn't matter since there's nothing else here) but the Firespray will still be locked onto the aft of the SD and the SD will have to shake it loose if the SD wants to bring it around to a different Arc.

The Firespray and SD are near an asteroid field. The Firespray locks on. The SD heads into the Asteroid Field, and tows the Firespray behind. (Not sure the tactical objective of the Firespray in this example, but there you have it).

This allows logic to work, the rules to largely go unmodified, and allows the action to take place when required.

1 hour ago, Demigonis said:

Lets hypothetically say the roles were reversed and the CR90 Corvette ( Sil: 5; and in this hypothetical example we'll say it has a heavy tractor beam with difficulty 6 ) was using a tractor beam on a Victory-class Star Destroyer ( Sil: 8 ). We would downgrade the escape difficulty by 3 because the Star Destroyer has a Silhouette of 3 higher, thusly, the Star Destroyer could escape by succeeding at a piloting check against a difficulty of PPP.

That's not how downgrading works. Downgrading only affects challenge and proficiency dice. If you only have difficulty/ability dice downgrades are ignored.

With that being said, why not just adjust the difficulty by silhouette difference? Say ±1 difficulty die per 2 silhouette difference? Or even ±1 difficulty die per silhouette?

Even easier, however, is to just say you can't tractor a bigger ship.

17 minutes ago, c__beck said:

That's not how downgrading works. Downgrading o  nly affects challenge and proficiency dice. If you only have difficulty/ability dice downgrades are ignored.    

Yes, I misspoke. The verbiage should be increase difficulty or decrease difficulty.

8 hours ago, Demigonis said:

Personally, this seems unnecessarily complex, especially for this system. While I appreciate what your house rule attempts to do, and I do think the system regarding tractor beams, as it stands, is a little lacking, I think there must be a much simpler and more elegant solution to the problem.

I understand that it may seem overly complex, but I think it works well enough to warrant the complexity, especially given the circumstances under which tractor beams are likely to be used.

8 hours ago, Demigonis said:

To escape a tractor beam, the target of the tractor beam must succeed at a piloting check with a difficulty set equal to the rating of the tractor beam that is affecting them ( 2, 4, or 6 ). ( Difficulty = PP, PPPP, or RPPPP )

We may be able to do something as simple as increase/decrease the difficulty of the escape by the +/- difference in silhouette of the two ships in question. ( And you can, as always, add or remove boost/setback dice to the piloting check to escape depending on circumstances, such as giving boost dice to a faster ship trying to escape a slower one or setback dice to a slower ship trying to escape a faster one. )

I think that that might be able to work in some situations, but since it has almost no accounting for variables I would disagree. (example coming up shortly)

8 hours ago, Demigonis said:

For example, if a Victory-class Star Destroyer ( Sil: 8; Tractor beam rating: 6 ) was using a tractor beam on a CR90 Corvette ( Sil: 5 ), we would upgrade the escape difficulty by 3 because the Star Destroyer has a Silhouette of 3 higher, thusly, the Corvette could only escape by succeeding at a piloting check against a difficulty of RRRRP. That would be extremely challenging for even the best of pilots.

In my system, the difficulty would be set at Formidable, which I think makes sense for the speed of a CR-90. In short, I think that your proposal is only balanced in certain scenarios. One main objection being that it would be too difficult in many situations. And while not necessarily too difficult to succeed, more difficult than would make sense.

8 hours ago, Demigonis said:

Combine the above with logic/common sense and the narrative nature of this game system. I feel a simpler system like this one would be more in-line with the design goals of the FFG Star Wars Roleplaying system.

I think that your proposal is in line with the simpler style of the system, but I don't think that that is always a good thing.

7 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

So in your example of a Firespray vs. a Star Destroyer, (odd and unlikely, but ok) the Frespray fires it's tractor beam and hits, locking onto the larger vessel. Since the Sil difference between the two is so huge, the GM rules that the SD is technically towing the Firespray, and not really the other way around. The Star Destroyer indeed "can't move" but that's only relative to the Firespray, the SD can still move relative to other things.

All you need to do for house-rules is make that distinction, (done) add a solid Sil difference where it sets in (say 2?) and define the exception (A ship that's powered down, willing, or disabled and not being acted upon by another force, like Gravity or something, can be towed by the smaller craft.) and you've got it.This allows logic to work, the rules to largely go unmodified, and allows the action to take place when required.

I actually mostly agree with that! Thank you! I would still use my proposed system for determining difficulty with one change: the difficulty always uses the smaller ship for the target. In the case of the ISD vs. the Firespray, the Firespray's Tractor Value is 3 (rating [2]+Silhouette÷3) so it would not be able to grab onto a silhouette 4 ship, but for the sake of argument let's say that it can: the difficulty would be as follows: 2+3-4-2=-1 (this doesn't work because the rating is too low to grab onto the Firespray in the first place). If that was a positive number, that would be the ISD's difficulty to shake off the Firespray.

To summarize: regardless of the firing ship, the smaller of the two is the target *as it pertains to Silhouette only*, the escape check is still that of the attacked ship, and the bigger ship can tow the smaller one. (Unless the Tractor beam's Value is high enough to hold the larger ship, in which case it would be calculated like usual)

P.S. the reason I picked Firespray vs. ISD was because it is so absurd, it would do the best job of proving my point as to the error of the base rules.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

One main objection being that it would be too difficult in many situations. And  while not necessarily too difficult to succeed, more difficult than would make sense.      

In a vacuum, yes. ( Insert vacuum of space joke here.) I do think it should be difficult though. Tractor beams aren't used all that often in the films/shows but have we ever seen a ship outright escape a tractor beam without that tractor beam being deactivated by something?

My initial ruling might be too harsh though. You could make it less punishing by increasing or decreasing difficulty by 1 for every 2 silhouette's difference between the attacker and target (rounded down). And you could still grant boost/setback dice to reflect the difference in speed of the ships in question.

1 minute ago, Demigonis said:

In a vacuum, yes. ( Insert vacuum of space joke here.) I do think it should be difficult though. Tractor beams aren't used all that often in the films/shows but have we ever seen a ship outright escape a tractor beam without that tractor beam being deactivated by something?

You misunderstand me, I was not saying that it shouldn't be hard, I was simply saying that it was too proportionately hard for the bigger ships.

2 minutes ago, Demigonis said:

My initial ruling might be too harsh though. You could make it less punishing by increasing or decreasing difficulty by 1 for every 2 silhouette's difference between the attacker and target (rounded down). And you could still grant boost/setback dice to reflect the difference in speed of the ships in question.

I think that increasing or decreasing difficulty by 1 per 2 points of silhouette is certainly a viable house rule (and better than 1 per) but not when the target is larger than the attacker, as it makes it even more difficult, and my objection was that it is too hard on larger ships to begin with. Also as to speed, the point is not speed difference but max (maybe current?) speed of the target, as that accounts for engine breakaway power.

28 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Also as to speed, th  e point is not speed difference but max (maybe current?) speed of the target, as that accounts for engine breakaway power  .                                                   

I was using the difference in speed because I was assuming the attacker was still actively pursuing towards the target while drawing them in with the tractor beam, not necessarily sitting still and trying to reel them in like a fish.

I guess some of this depends on how you assume the science of the tractor beam would work.

9 minutes ago, Demigonis said:

I was using the difference in speed because I was assuming the attacker was still actively pursuing towards the target while drawing them in with the tractor beam, not necessarily sitting still and trying to reel them in like a fish.

I see what you are saying, but the target would be trying to break free of the tractor field, not the ship itself, so that's why I am saying that it would be based on the max. Though to your fishing analogy, maybe the max speed could be reduced by one (for purposes of reducing difficulty) if the attacker is playing out the line. That would result in 2+9-4-2=PPPPP (ISD vs. Firespray) becoming 2+9-4-1=RPPPP.

4 hours ago, kmanweiss said:

lol

I love the thought of Slave 1 using a tractor beam on an ISD. In reality though, it wouldn't stop the ISD...the ISD would just pull Slave 1 along with it.

I don't know the rules off hand as I've never used them. However...

The larger Sil vehicle would remain in control. If a smaller craft tractors a larger craft, the smaller one might be dragged, but the larger one doesn't lose power or ability to move (however I would increase the Sil of the tractored ship as it's now dragging something making it less maneuverable) A ship could tractor another ship of the same size, but they'd basically fight for control and likely in most cases basically prevent the other from doing anything. A ship could tractor a smaller ship, remain in control, but have it's Sil possibly changed accordingly.

I'd probably limit the Sil of the targetted craft based on the tractor rating of the weapon. I'd base difficulty of escaping on the tractor rating. A low rated tractor beam can't tractor an ISD.

Which is exactly what would happen. The point is that the ISD's relative position to the Slave-1 would be locked, if not decrease as the latter reeled its "prey" in.

Why not just implement a rule based on Silhouette, that if the target being tractored is of a higher silhouette than the strength rating of the tractor beam, it will be very hard, neigh impossible, to actually trap them.

Thus, you don't have to go through your ridiculously over-complicated rules for a system that is meant to be number crunching light. Just have it be something like "For each silhouette above the attacker's silhouette, increase the difficulty of the tractor beam check. For each silhouette below the attacker's silhouette, reduce the difficulty of the tractor beam check." Have the base difficulty be something like a Hard (3 dice) difficulty, adjusted based on attacker/target factors. That way, a Sil 4 ship trying to tractor a sil 6+ is looking at a 5+ difficulty dice check, baseline. Not counting other factors that would make it harder, setback dice, upgraded dice, etc. And it would make the reply tractor from said Star Destroyer at the cocky little Slave 1, to be REALLY easy by comparison. They would have a power source so strong, that a tiny ship just would have little to no chance to escape it. Thus, the Falcon (sil 4 ship) trying to escape the beam from the Death Star (Sil 9000? I mean it's a freaking moon), was basically just SOL.

Seriously man, you are throwing up equations to do a roleplaying game....just...no....stop that. Right now. I get it, Star Wars fans are math junkies, but that doesn't mean you should spread your disease to your players, and force them to get out a calculator just to roll some dice.

THIS kind of gaming thinking, is exactly why FFG made their system very simple and direct. They wanted to NOT have people doing crap like that just to play a game.

17 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Why not just implement a rule based on Silhouette, that if the target being tractored is of a higher silhouette than the strength rating of the tractor beam, it will be very hard, neigh impossible, to actually trap them.

That is what I did. I did more as well, but that was pretty much the base of it.

17 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Thus, you don't have to go through your ridiculously over-complicated rules for a system that is meant to be number crunching light.

They aren't ridiculously over complicated, just somewhat complicated. And while I appreciate that the game is number crunching light, sometimes it is too light.

17 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Just have it be something like "For each silhouette above the attacker's silhouette, increase the difficulty of the tractor beam check. For each silhouette below the attacker's silhouette, reduce the difficulty of the tractor beam check." Have the base difficulty be something like a Hard (3 dice) difficulty, adjusted based on attacker/target factors. That way, a Sil 4 ship trying to tractor a sil 6+ is looking at a 5+ difficulty dice check, baseline. Not counting other factors that would make it harder, setback dice, upgraded dice, etc. And it would make the reply tractor from said Star Destroyer at the cocky little Slave 1, to be REALLY easy by comparison. They would have a power source so strong, that a tiny ship just would have little to no chance to escape it. Thus, the Falcon (sil 4 ship) trying to escape the beam from the Death Star (Sil 9000? I mean it's a freaking moon), was basically just SOL.

The dice roll difficulty for the attack check should still be based on the normal rules for gunnery, the question is as regards escape difficulty. As a result your proposed solution answers the wrong question entirely and defeats the purpose of what I'm trying to accomplish.

17 minutes ago, KungFuFerret said:

Seriously man, you are throwing up equations to do a roleplaying game....just...no....stop that. Right now. I get it, Star Wars fans are math junkies, but that doesn't mean you should spread your disease to your players, and force them to get out a calculator just to roll some dice.

THIS kind of gaming thinking, is exactly why FFG made their system very simple and direct. They wanted to NOT have people doing crap like that just to play a game.

Okay, your attack check hits, calculate total wounds for the target: Wounds=Base Damage+Success-Soak+Current wounds. I.e. 9+3-5+6=13. That's pretty much what I'm doing, and if you can't calculate 8÷3 (rounded) in your head, then you need to practice more.

Also, since I'm the GM I'm the one doing the math in my head, and the players won't even know what I'm doing unless they ask. I do appreciate that the game is fairly simple (math wise), but sometimes it is too simple (like their rules for starship crafting :P). Plus Tractor beams are not necessarily going to be used all that often, so it isn't like I'm calculating damage drop-offs and varying armor strengths for different parts of the target (which would slow down combat).

On the math junkie accusation, I'm guilty as charged. I made a system for calculating price for starship crafting that takes into account weapons, hyperdrive, shield generator, engines, system strain, armor, hull trauma, etc. and then put it into a spreadsheet that automatically calculates the price including proper scaling and multipliers. It puts the price a tad high when I've calculated for stated ships (that don't have variables like excessive commonality or cheap mass production), but I forgive it this flaw, because it is a custom ship so you don't have the mass production capability that would normally lower the price.

As a guy who tends to complexity more than I should... in a game meant for mass consumption you generally (as in limited exceptions would require rigorous justification) shouldn't be multiplying/dividing an arbitrary number by something other than 2, 5, 10, or 100 and the number of operations should be limited to 1 or MAYBE 2 in limited circumstances. The other example of limited exceptions is one off calculations for numbers that occur on character sheets/stat blocks but don't vary within a session.

3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

As a guy who tends to complexity more than I should... in a game meant for mass consumption you generally (as in limited exceptions would require rigorous justification) shouldn't be multiplying/dividing an arbitrary number by something other than 2, 5, 10, or 100 and the number of operations should be limited to 1 or MAYBE 2 in limited circumstances. The other example of limited exceptions is one off calculations for numbers that occur on character sheets/stat blocks but don't vary within a session.

I have calculated it out, and 3 is the most balanced number to use in this situation, I get what you are saying and agree with you, but this is the exception. A way to understand it is that 3,6, and 9 can all be divided by 3, leaving a space of 2 between the increments. The higher of the 2 rounds up and the lower of the 2 rounds down.

As to one off calculations, you can calculate the Tractor Beam's Value on the Ship Sheet and then you don't have to worry about dividing by 3. For example, a Firespray with a light tractor beam has a rating of 2+(Silhouette 4÷3)=a Value of 3. You can then write it down on the Ship Sheet and then you have it for quick reference.

Seems needlessly complex. And most ships already have their size calculated into their pilot checks. Namely handling. I would just throw more setpack for circumstances rather than add a bunch of math. That math is a very d20 mentality.

5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Seems needlessly complex. And most ships already have their size calculated into their pilot checks. Namely handling. I would just throw more setpack for circumstances rather than add a bunch of math. That math is a very d20 mentality.

I guess it really depends on the style of the participants, I don't think it is really all that much, if you write down the Tractor Value ahead of time, you just have to subtract silhouette and half max speed to get the difficulty.

I don't know what the relevance of "most ships already have their size calculated into their piloting checks" is, Handling is not based entirely on silhouette and doesn't really add that much difficulty. Plus, if you have handling +1 it makes a reverse difference, making the check easier.

I have not played any D20 systems, but I prefer the narrative qualities of the custom dice, however, that doesn't mean that math should be entirely excised from the playing experience. I think that in this situation it is fairly necessary considering the minimalist rules on this subject that we get in the book. I think that my solution does a good job of accounting for all the variables in a fairly simple way. For a Gunnery check you have to determine the silhouette difference in order to determine difficulty. This isn't much more complex.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I guess it really depends on the style of the participants, I don't think it is really all that much, if you write down the Tractor Value ahead of time, you just have to subtract silhouette and half max speed to get the difficulty.

I don't know what the relevance of "most ships already have their size calculated into their piloting checks" is, Handling is not based entirely on silhouette and doesn't really add that much difficulty. Plus, if you have handling +1 it makes a reverse difference, making the check easier.

I have not played any D20 systems, but I prefer the narrative qualities of the custom dice, however, that doesn't mean that math should be entirely excised from the playing experience. I think that in this situation it is fairly necessary considering the minimalist rules on this subject that we get in the book. I think that my solution does a good job of accounting for all the variables in a fairly simple way. For a Gunnery check you have to determine the silhouette difference in order to determine difficulty. This isn't much more complex.

Yes it does factor in more than size. Which it should. And what are you trying.to accomplish? Make it so your players cant get away?

6 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Yes it does factor in more than size. Which it should. And what are you trying.to accomplish? Make it so your players cant get away?

No, but in the example of a generic light freighter (sil 4, speed 3, handling 0) if an ISD tries to reel them in, the difficulty is RPPPP (which is actually the same difficulty as the base game by the way). Quite hard, but not impossible. Especially since they can have several tries as the ISD tries to reel them in. Also, that is something of a worse case scenario. they are more likely to be pursued by a customs corvette or something which would put difficulty at PPP, which is not exceptionally difficult. Another point is that if I have an ISD trying to reel them in, there is a good chance that I have a very good reason for wanting them to be on that ISD. Not that I would railroad them, but I would prefer it not to be a given that they would escape. Remember, since it scales based on silhouette (and by extension power generation), an ISD's Tractor beam is (and should be) much scarier than a customs corvette.

If you have a mid-game pilot there is a pretty good chance your roll will be at least YYYG plus if you have an odd number speed, the Full Throttle action would reduce the difficulty by one since it increases max speed by one.

9 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

No, but in the example of a generic light freighter (sil 4, speed 3, handling 0) if an ISD tries to reel them in, the difficulty is RPPPP (which is actually the same difficulty as the base game by the way). Quite hard, but not impossible. Especially since they can have several tries as the ISD tries to reel them in. Also, that is something of a worse case scenario. they are more likely to be pursued by a customs corvette or something which would put difficulty at PPP, which is not exceptionally difficult. Another point is that if I have an ISD trying to reel them in, there is a good chance that I have a very good reason for wanting them to be on that ISD. Not that I would railroad them, but I would prefer it not to be a given that they would escape. Remember, since it scales based on silhouette (and by extension power generation), an ISD's Tractor beam is (and should be) much scarier than a customs corvette.

If you have a mid-game pilot there is a pretty good chance your roll will be at least YYYG plus if you have an odd number speed, the Full Throttle action would reduce the difficulty by one since it increases max speed by one.

You sysyem is not kiss. Is likely going to cause needles delay. As non mathe junkies have too look up you rule then do math. Instead of whats the rating? And grabbing that number of dice adding handling and any other adjustments. And going. Also yoy still havent defined your goal?

My goal is to make the rules more precise and proportionate. And as far as delay goes, if you write down the Tractor Beam Values on the ship sheet or GM notes, it takes about as much time as calculating damage normally would. Possibly less. Even without being a math junkie. It seriously only takes a few seconds.

7 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

My goal is to make the rules more precise and proportionate. And as far as delay goes, if you write down the Tractor Beam Values on the ship sheet or GM notes, it takes about as much time as calculating damage normally would. Possibly less. Even without being a math junkie. It seriously only takes a few seconds.

The target side of the equation will take longer. I personally don't think it's worth the complexity increase but if it enhances YOUR game, more power to you.

The official tractor beam rating can be argued to already account for the size of the source vessel because stronger tractor beams are restricted to larger vessels. Speed and silhouette of the target vessel also largely cancel out (larger vessels are restricted to slower max speeds). Which would render the RAW implementation approximately correct without modification.

You're rule would primarily effect slow small ship (which could be argued as a motivation for the rule) but there is this thing called the 80/20 rule. You can usually get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost (complexity) and paying the other 80% of the cost to get a 20% improvement generally isn't worth it. If you want to write a house rule people would use start by looking at sensors and coms which are largely agreed to be dramatically sub par.

13 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

The target side of the equation will take longer. I personally don't think it's worth the complexity increase but if it enhances YOUR game, more power to you.

I'm not sure what you mean by "target side of the equation will take longer" and yes, it does enhance my game, but I understand if other people don't like the complexity.

15 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

The official tractor beam rating can be argued to already account for the size of the source vessel because stronger tractor beams are restricted to larger vessels.

The official rules do sort of account for the size of the source vessel, but they don't account for the size of the target vessel.

17 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Speed and silhouette of the target vessel also largely cancel out (larger vessels are restricted to slower max speeds). Which would render the RAW implementation approximately correct without modification.

No, actually, because the difference in silhouette between the ISD and said generic light freighter is 5, but the difference in speed (remember it is divided by 2 in my equation) is just .5.

20 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You're rule would primarily effect slow small ship (which could be argued as a motivation for the rule) but there is this thing called the 80/20 rule. You can usually get 80% of the benefit for 20% of the cost (complexity) and paying the other 80% of the cost to get a 20% improvement generally isn't worth it.

Thanks for the tip, but in this case, I think that the benefit outweighs the cost because of how much of the equation can be done in prep work and then be applied to any targets.

24 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

If you want to write a house rule people would use start by looking at sensors and coms which are largely agreed to be dramatically sub par.

I know that there are probably a couple people in this thread who would groan at this ;D, but I'll get right on that. I've been unsatisfied with those rules for a while. Also distance perception checks.