1 hour ago, Ahrimon said:But the quad laser cannon and the cannons on the X-wing don't fire simultaneously . So how do you explain that? (*grabs popcorn* This aught to be good.)
They can . They can switch from cyclical individual fire, two at a time or all four at once. This has been stated in their technical specifications in multiple sources, including the previous game systems.
16 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:They can . They can switch from cyclical individual fire, two at a time or all four at once. This has been stated in their technical specifications in multiple sources, including the previous game systems.
So you're saying that it should have 3 modes then. Linked 3, Linked 1, and autofire?
1 hour ago, Ahrimon said:So you're saying that it should have 3 modes then. Linked 3, Linked 1, and autofire?
That’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply telling you what the technical specifications say. The game designers needed to set up the mechanics for those particular weapons, and Linked made the most sense, since, depending upon how many Advantages you have to spend, you can fire anywhere from one barrel, two barrels, or up to all four. Narratively, your character is switching between settings before pulling the trigger.
18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:That’s not what I’m saying. I’m simply telling you what the technical specifications say. The game designers needed to set up the mechanics for those particular weapons, and Linked made the most sense, since, depending upon how many Advantages you have to spend, you can fire anywhere from one barrel, two barrels, or up to all four. Narratively, your character is switching between settings before pulling the trigger.
Basically, you can say whatever it's set for as long as you don't trigger more Linked than makes sense.
But autofire comes with an increased difficulty, linked doesn't. It comes right back to linked having a bad precedent of being connected to the number of barrels on a weapon. The designers dropped the ball on this one.
50 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Basically, you can say whatever it's set for as long as you don't trigger more Linked than makes sense.
Exactly.
10 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:But autofire comes with an increased difficulty, linked doesn't. It comes right back to linked having a bad precedent of being connected to the number of barrels on a weapon. The designers dropped the ball on this one.
Yes, because Auto-fire works differently from a set of linked weapons mechanically, both in game and in reality. Linked weapons multiply the amount of fire going down range in a single shot, like a double-barreled shotgun. Auto-fire is a sequence of shots in rapid succession . This can have a very dramatic effect on a weapon’s accuracy resulting from the repeated recoil of the weapon as it fires, with each round fired throwing the accuracy off a little more for the next round fired in the sequence. This is why most fully automatic weapons, such as the venerable M-60 machine gun were used primarily for suppressing fire.
On 8/27/2020 at 8:30 AM, whafrog said:That seems to be only half the equation. In the very old X-Wing game, if you had the barrels cycling individually you could hold the trigger down and do the "spray and pray". Each barrel that hit would do minimal damage but would increase your odds of hitting and at least doing *something*. Or you could alternate doubles...less frequency, more effective; or you could fire all four in a single shot that made it hard to hit but was devastating.
I'd prefer mechanics more like that. But in this game, one hit is already devastating, two is nuts and Linked is far too easy to trigger. A TIE hitting with Linked can make for a really bad day for YT-1300, and it's far too easy to come by. Adding the extra die requirement for Autofire mitigates the issue somewhat.
But Linked is limited to the number of barrels or ends of the melee weapon you’re using. It’s usually just Linked 1, although sometimes you see higher levels of Linked.
Autofire has no limit to the number of times it can be activated, at least per RAW.
IMO, that’s why autofire deserves the extra difficulty die, and Linked doesn’t.
8 hours ago, bradknowles said:IMO, that’s why autofire deserves the extra difficulty die, and Linked doesn’t.
A fair point and I wasn't clear: I cap the auto fire to what the Linked value was. Yeah, that makes it worse, but also rewarding for a good gunner. And it somewhat mitigates the "2 hits and your dead" lethality of space combat.
The system is supposed to be narrative anyways, so # of barrels shouldn't matter. The X-Wing game doesn't count barrels , it's abstracted into the offensive dice of the ship...and that's a tactical game! That's exactly the kind of thing they should have done here.
1 hour ago, whafrog said:A fair point and I wasn't clear: I cap the auto fire to what the Linked value was. Yeah, that makes it worse, but also rewarding for a good gunner. And it somewhat mitigates the "2 hits and your dead" lethality of space combat.
The system is supposed to be narrative anyways, so # of barrels shouldn't matter. The X-Wing game doesn't count barrels , it's abstracted into the offensive dice of the ship...and that's a tactical game! That's exactly the kind of thing they should have done here.
That’s your problem right there. You’re nerfing Auto-fire. As such, it’s not working as it’s intended to, and you’re creating an artificial clash where the two qualities are doing the exact same thing when they don’t, nor are they intended to . Auto-fire and linked weapons are two completely different means of sending multiple shots down range. The physics are different, the mechanics are different, the limitations are different, and the end results are different. Leave Auto-fire alone and the problem is solved.
2 hours ago, whafrog said:A fair point and I wasn't clear: I cap the auto fire to what the Linked value was. Yeah, that makes it worse, but also rewarding for a good gunner. And it somewhat mitigates the "2 hits and your dead" lethality of space combat.
The system is supposed to be narrative anyways, so # of barrels shouldn't matter. The X-Wing game doesn't count barrels , it's abstracted into the offensive dice of the ship...and that's a tactical game! That's exactly the kind of thing they should have done here.
They should definitely have simplified Linked. X-Wing: TMG does it a lot more simply as you point out (e.g. 2 gun TIE has attack 2, 4 gun X-wing has attack 3) however porting that to SWRPG is non-trivial as X-Wing does attack - agility, whilst SWRPG does accuracy - defence then damage - armour. Increasing an X-wing's damage by 50% in line with the attack boost in X-Wing would make it better against heavily armoured targets, rather than better against agile targets.
SWRPG represents linked weapons improving accuracy for quad laser cannons (the capital ship point defence weapons) by giving them Accurate 1. This is why my simplification of Linked X as 'you may reroll X dice' is more about accuracy than base damage (though of course it does also increase damage a bit).
1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:That’s your problem right there. You’re nerfing Auto-fire.
That's not my problem...I have many other problems...
But yeah, that is a good point, and I'm countering my own logic and letting the mechanics outweigh the narrative. So un-nerfed auto-fire it is...wheeeee!
Maybe linked should just be added to the bonus damage for each success. That would still give linked weapons an advantage while getting rid of the arbitrary #barrels = #hits in a narrative system.
I guess if an X-Wing puts their cannons on serial fire it should be autofire according to TG.
18 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:Auto-fire is a sequence of shots in rapid succession .
21 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:Maybe linked should just be added to the bonus damage for each success. That would still give linked weapons an advantage while getting rid of the arbitrary #barrels = #hits in a narrative system.
I guess if an X-Wing puts their cannons on serial fire it should be autofire according to TG.
Nope. Linked works more realistically as a shot multiplier.
So a weapon system firing multiple barrels in serial is linked, but a weapon system firing multiple barrels in serial is auto-fire. Got it. You're not being consistent, but at least that is consistent.
1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:Nope. Linked works more realistically as a shot multiplier.
18 minutes ago, Ahrimon said:So a weapon system firing multiple barrels in serial is linked, but a weapon system firing multiple barrels in serial is auto-fire. Got it. You're not being consistent, but at least that is consistent.
A weapon firing multiple barrels simultaneously is linked. A weapon that fires multiple shots from a single barrel in rapid succession is auto-fire. A Gatling gun is autofire and not linked because the different barrels all rotate to fire from a single firing chamber.
I've been watching a series on Traveller, and thought the way it accounts for damage for "linked" weapons might be relevant for your consideration: Rather than having a second hit, it increases the damage by 1 point for each die of damage possessed by the secondary/tertiary/etc. "linked" weapon.
Those of you who actually play Traveller can provide more insight on this, but I think a good way to emulate that for this game might be to have Linked operate as a passive, adding half damage (rounded down) for the first extra barrel, then +1 for each additional weapon.
So a Quad Laser Cannon (5 damage, Linked 3) adds 4 damage (5/2=2, 2+2=4) to its base damage (optional clause: if the base damage is higher than the target's armor).
As a second example, an X-Wing's main weapons (7 damage, Linked 3) adds 5, and a TIE (5 damage, Linked 1) adds 2.
In personal scale with two-weapon combat, that's even simpler. You just add half (rounded down) the base damage of the second weapon.
Drawbacks:
Benefits:
Although I have talked myself into considering this, I still prefer Linked. I think this is a workable alternative though.
(As for book keeping, just change the Linked rating to the final amount of damage you add. So to take the X-Wing for example, it would have Linked 5)
Edited by P-47 ThunderboltI don’t see why it’s an issue. Two Advantage = apply Damage again. In the movies, during the first TIE fight involving the Falcon, there’s a couple instances of one shot from a 4-shot blast hitting and destroying a TIE while the other shots miss. If someone thinks it’s unrealistic, I invite them to watch gun cam footage from WWII fighters or AA fire from ships or the US half track with the quad .50 in the back. Not every round is going to hit even though the weapons are firing at the same time. Especially when targeting something (relatively) small and fast like a starfighter.
If Linked needs any kind of tomfoolery, IMO it should be a boost die since more shots out increases the chance of hitting the target. But I’m not GMing right now, thanks be to the mother of all that is evil and corrupt, so I’m not going to monkey with the system and see if I broke it.
Edited by the mercenaryOn 8/26/2020 at 11:04 PM, Tramp Graphics said:It’s because each additional barrel multiplies the number of shots fired, regardless of how many actual rounds each barrel fires. If there are two barrels, that’s twice as many rounds going down range. If there are three barrels, that triples the number of rounds; four barrels, quadruples the shots fired. That is why it does so much damage.
That's only if you assume a static rate of fire . The movies have quite clearly shown us that different fighters have different rates of fire. Two shots per second from one barrel is no different than one shot per second from two barrels. Both deliver the exact same number of potential hits over time .
8 hours ago, the mercenary said:I don’t see why it’s an issue. Two Advantage = apply Damage again. In the movies, during the first TIE fight involving the Falcon, there’s a couple instances of one shot from a 4-shot blast hitting and destroying a TIE while the other shots miss. If someone thinks it’s unrealistic, I invite them to watch gun cam footage from WWII fighters or AA fire from ships or the US half track with the quad .50 in the back. Not every round is going to hit even though the weapons are firing at the same time. Especially when targeting something (relatively) small and fast like a starfighter.
If Linked needs any kind of tomfoolery, IMO it should be a boost die since more shots out increases the chance of hitting the target. But I’m not GMing right now, thanks be to the mother of all that is evil and corrupt, so I’m not going to monkey with the system and see if I broke it.
I've watched a lot of gun cam footage growing up. WWII documentaries were one of my favorite shows. For me it's the narrative aspect of the game that gets slightly cracked by hard coding the linked value to the number of barrels (unless it's a rotary, which is apparently auto-fire).
If you are tinkering, I wonder how Increase for the first linked and a boost die for each linked after that would work? So linked 3 would be increase plus two boost. That would certainly capture the narrative aspect of more shots going downrange. I just don't know how balanced it would be.
1 hour ago, Ahrimon said:That's only if you assume a static rate of fire . The movies have quite clearly shown us that different fighters have different rates of fire. Two shots per second from one barrel is no different than one shot per second from two barrels. Both deliver the exact same number of potential hits over time .
Not true. The difference is with the first the rounds fired per shot are simultaneous and follow the same path while with the latter the rounds fired are individual sequential shots and will invariably drift in trajectory from one another to various degrees depending upon the rate of fire and how long the burst is. As a consequence, a shot from a linked weapon will result in multiple rounds striking the same target in the same place multiplying the damage, while with an auto-fire attack, individual rounds will hit multiple different locations or even entirely different targets. As such the damage is additive not multiplicative . Now, if there are only two rounds fired, there’s no difference in this regard. However, when you get into multiple barrels this difference becomes much more apparent, particularly if the multi-barrel weapons are themselves capable of automatic fire. This was the case with the T-65 X-Wing when alternating pairs of cannons.
In your original post, you said that you found Linked to be "immersion breaking". What about talents that allow re-rolls? That's pretty "immersion breaking". In fact virtually all the rules are "immersion breaking" (Soak, Wound Threshold, Pierce, Criticals, most Talents, dice in general, etc.), so I don't understand why Linked is any different.
Linked seems to represent automatic weapons as they are IRL. "Spray and Pray" (that you hit something)
I haven't played in a lot of games, but I have yet to see someone with a plethora of advantages left over, and most times it's all advantages with no success.
Maybe it's an issue at higher level of play when you get huge dice pools?
EDIT: If you want to change how Linked works, you might consider just adding boost dice on attack rolls equal to the Linked number.
Edited by SuperWookie10 minutes ago, SuperWookie said:Linked seems to represent automatic weapons as they are IRL. "Spray and Pray" (that you hit something)
Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would make it easier to hit rather than allowing additional hits.
When firing on fully automatic, it is harder to hit the target because you are dealing with jackhammer-like recoil (as in, the movement is comparable, not the force involved).
For vehicle-mounted weapons, it doesn't make much sense from a practical perspective to increase the difficulty when using auto-fire as vehicles are a whole different ball game.
Good thing we're talking about Star Wars and not real life...
The OP's objection is that Linked breaks his immersion in the game. In. The. GAME.
It doesn't have to represent "real life". It's a representation of a space opera. Where ships act like WWII fighters in the vacuum of space... where people wield swords made out of energy... and move objects with their mind.
The OP doesn't like Linked, but has no problem with Autofire.
Linked and Autofire are similar, but different ways of trying to represent what is seen in Star Wars... in a game.
Both mechanics were playtested, and been used in play by thousands of players across the world for something like 8 years.
And both qualities made the jump to Genesys. If there was something inherently wrong with either, it would've been addressed by now.
But to each their own. If a gaming group wants to change the rules for their home game, go for it. The gaming police aren't going to show up.
2 hours ago, SuperWookie said:Linked seems to represent automatic weapons as they are IRL. "Spray and Pray" (that you hit something)
I haven't played in a lot of games, but I have yet to see someone with a plethora of advantages left over, and most times it's all advantages with no success.
Maybe it's an issue at higher level of play when you get huge dice pools?
EDIT: If you want to change how Linked works, you might consider just adding boost dice on attack rolls equal to the Linked number.
2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:Actually, it doesn't. If it did, it would make it easier to hit rather than allowing additional hits.
When firing on fully automatic, it is harder to hit the target because you are dealing with jackhammer-like recoil (as in, the movement is comparable, not the force involved).
For vehicle-mounted weapons, it doesn't make much sense from a practical perspective to increase the difficulty when using auto-fire as vehicles are a whole different ball game.
@P-47 Thunderbolt is correct here. Linked covers weapons like the double-barreled shotgun or multi-tube rocket launcher, which can fire off multiple projectiles in a single massive volley . Auto-fire is what best represents “spray and pray”, automatic fire from machine guns.