They kinda do account for the size of the target vehicle. That is the handling stat does. And silhouette difference effect targetting.

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Maybe worth taking a look at Emperor Nortons starship house rules. They have sensor fixes

17 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Maybe worth taking a look at Emperor Nortons starship house rules. They have sensor fixes

Where can I find those?

44 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

They kinda do account for the size of the target vehicle. That is the handling stat does. And silhouette difference effect targetting.

I missed this cuz of your later comment.

Handling has little to nothing to do with size. The Gozanti has handling -3 and it's silhouette 5.

But the Gunnery check is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what comes after the gunnery check.

12 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I missed this cuz of your later comment.

Handling has little to nothing to do with size. The Gozanti has handling -3 and it's silhouette 5.

But the Gunnery check is not at all what I'm talking about. I'm talking about what comes after the gunnery check.

Size is a factor in handling.

Google emperor norton srarship house rules

Am I the only 1, who thinks Tractor beam is a Tow-cable / harpoon? Use it accordingly.

It doesn't "move" enemy ships, it ties them together. Only the user side can "roll it up or pull in the cable" if necessary

6 hours ago, Rimsen said:

Am I the only 1, who thinks Tractor beam is a Tow-cable / harpoon? Use it accordingly.

It doesn't "move" enemy ships, it ties them together. Only the user side can "roll it up or pull in the cable" if necessary

Well the tractor beam was used to place the Falcon in the hanger. I think of it more like a stiff wire. You can move something not fightimg around.

16 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Size is a factor in handling.

It is a factor, but Size and Handling do not have a direct correlation in much the same way that Speed and Handling do not have a direct correlation.

I said "little to nothing" because there is no direct correlation.

Thanks for pointing me towards the Emperor Norton House Rules, I found them to be very good.

Count me in on the "needlessly complex" club.

What's the matter with saying ships hit with a tractor beam "Can't move relative to the tractor beam " (ie change range bands or facing) and let the ship with the bigger silhouette determine absolute movement?

This way, Slave 1 can tractor an ISD: ISD can't move away from Slave 1, but because of the sil difference the ISD will drag Slave 1 along if it moves.

Clean, simple, and the only math is comparing silhouettes.

I'm AFB but that's how I've always interpreted the rule.

52 minutes ago, oneeyedmatt87 said:

What's the matter with saying ships hit with a tractor beam "Can't move relative to the tractor beam " (ie change range bands or facing) and let the ship with the bigger silhouette determine absolute movement?

This way, Slave 1 can tractor an ISD: ISD can't move away from Slave 1, but because of the sil difference the ISD will drag Slave 1 along if it moves.

That is something I actually account for, but I don't leave it just at that, because a lot of the problem I had was related to big ships having a hard time getting away from (or shaking off) small ships.

4 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That is something I actually account for, but I don't leave it just at that, because a lot of the problem I had was related to big ships having a hard time getting away from (or shaking off) small ships.

Why do you think a big ship would be able to shake off a small ship tractoring instead of dragging it along?

13 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Why do you think a big ship would be able to shake off a small ship tractoring instead of dragging it along?

Actually, that's a good point. Maybe it's that you can't get away from a tractor beam unless you are moving faster than the other ship, or moving in the opposite direction of the pulling ship. I will amend the first post likewise. If the small ship has powered down its engines or something, its speed would be lower than even an ISD though and could be shaken off. Thanks!

5 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Actually, that's a good point. Maybe it's that you can't get away from a tractor beam unless you are moving faster than the other ship, or moving in the opposite direction of the pulling ship. I will amend the first post likewise. If the small ship has powered down its engines or something, its speed would be lower than even an ISD though and could be shaken off. Thanks!

Your adaptation is increasing rather than decreasing the complexity. The rule should be something like you never have/get to dice-roll-tractor anything bigger than yourself, when you try you instead tractor your own ship and if successful you get dragged with the bigger ship at it's speed. Tractoring ships your own size works normally.

Note size equates to silhouette whether or not the other ship is bigger than you but the same silhouette

13 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

tractor anything bigger than yourself, when you try you instead tractor your own ship and if successful you get dragged with the bigger ship at it's speed. Tractoring ships your own size works normally.

Note size equates to silhouette whether or not the other ship is bigger than you but the same silhouette

That is more-or-less what I'm doing.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That is more-or-less what I'm doing.

Except ypu keep choosing the more complicated. Ise Keep I Simple Stupid. As your mantra.

2 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Except ypu keep choosing the more complicated. Ise Keep I Simple Stupid. As your mantra.

I think we just disagree on what the acceptable degree of complexity is. My mantra would be: "Does it work well? If not, fix it (but don't die from the improvement)." Long I know, but accurate.

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think we just disagree on what the acceptable degree of complexity is. My mantra would be: "Does it work well? If not, fix it (but don't die from the improvement)." Long I know, but accurate.

I think your approach results in overly complicated systems that simpler systems manage story better. The question should be does your complication add to the fun? Does it slow down the story for little gain in fun? So far all of your suggestions will add a little slowness to the game. Each little slowness to the game means less gets done as you fiddle with little bits that dont really add fun. They just add complication. The question shouldnt be does it work well. The question should be does it work well enough? will making it more complicated make things more fun? None of you "Fixes" add fun. They add fiddly minutia. And the important question is do the fixes add fun for your players? You might find the fiddly bits fun. But the question is does everyone else at the table find your fixes fun? Because this is a game. not a reality simulation. And it is a CINEMATIC game. Star Wars doesnt worry about the fiddly bits you are obsessing over. Star Wars should be very fly by the seat of your pants fun. It should be epic. And the narrative dice give you all you need to tell a good story.

I think what people are trying to tell you is that "The game should be a movie simulator not a universe simulator."

20 hours ago, Daeglan said:

I think your approach results in overly complicated systems that simpler systems manage story better. The question should be does your complication add to the fun? Does it slow down the story for little gain in fun? So far all of your suggestions will add a little slowness to the game. Each little slowness to the game means less gets done as you fiddle with little bits that dont really add fun. They just add complication. The question shouldnt be does it work well. The question should be does it work well enough? will making it more complicated make things more fun? None of you "Fixes" add fun. They add fiddly minutia. And the important question is do the fixes add fun for your players? You might find the fiddly bits fun. But the question is does everyone else at the table find your fixes fun? Because this is a game. not a reality simulation. And it is a CINEMATIC game. Star Wars doesnt worry about the fiddly bits you are obsessing over. Star Wars should be very fly by the seat of your pants fun. It should be epic. And the narrative dice give you all you need to tell a good story.

One thing I think you are overlooking is that these are rules for Tractor Beams (which are seldom used) so I think that any slow down is more than acceptable (especially considering how much of it can be done well ahead of time) since I think it adds a lot, but any delay doesn't really stack up like it would if I was making more complicated rules for calculating combat checks. For me at least, it breaks the immersion dramatically if something really doesn't make sense.

If I have the Value written down, I can calculate the difficulty in about 5 seconds (literally).

10 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

I think what people are trying to tell you is that "The game should be a movie simulator not a universe simulator."

I agree mostly, but the universe needs to make some sense.

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

One thing I think you are overlooking is that these are rules for Tractor Beams (which are seldom used) so I think that any slow down is more than acceptable (especially considering how much of it can be done well ahead of time) since I think it adds a lot, but any delay doesn't really stack up like it would if I was making more complicated rules for calculating combat checks. For me at least, it breaks the immersion dramatically if something really doesn't make sense.

If I have the Value written down, I can calculate the difficulty in about 5 seconds (literally).

I agree mostly, but the universe needs to make some sense.

But does adding that 5 seconds add fun for your players? Or does it delay the fun for your players 5 seconds?

10 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I agree mostly, but the universe needs to make some sense.

Even the best Star Wars films don't really do that terribly well. Mostly because it's not really a science fiction universe but a fantasy western samurai WWII movie mashup that uses a sci-fi skin .

1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

But does adding that 5 seconds add fun for your players? Or does it delay the fun for your players 5 seconds?

It takes about the time it takes to calculate damage (possibly less depending on the damage roll) so it doesn't make a difference.

Just now, micheldebruyn said:

Even the best Star Wars films don't really do that terribly well. Mostly because it's not really a science fiction universe but a fantasy western samurai WWII movie mashup that uses a sci-fi skin .

True, but I can ignore some of the more general flaws (like sound in space), its just the things that don't make sense in universe that I take issue with.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It takes about the time it takes to calculate damage (possibly less depending on the damage roll) so it doesn't make a difference.

Except it does matter. It is the most important question. Does your tinkering add fun for your players. You seem to keep ignoring that question in your desire to tinker with something . Im telling you play it as written first.

8 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

True, but I can ignore some of the more general flaws (like sound in space), its just the things that don't make sense in universe that I take issue with.

We are playing in a universe that can manipulate gravity and you are worried about making sense? Tractor beams use handwavium particles to cause the effect. There fixed. We dont know how any of the tech works so it really doesnt need to make sense.