I too ran it with static difficulty for both ranged and melee/brawl and it worked really well so far.

I'm thinking Jedi/Sith combat will have lots of talents giving upgrades, increasing difficulty, etc. If I go opposed now that means I'm using purple/red for competent fighters not counting any possible talents.

The only real close combat spec we're seeing now is Marauder with high soak/wound and damage output. I'm sure we're gonna see more specs, e.g. a rebel agent trained in martial arts and finally force traditions combat specs.

The Forsaken Jedi in Adversaries is already using Dodge 2. If we go with opposed rolls anyone attacking him will get 5 red dice to the attack pool. Question is do we want that? I'm not sure, so I'm sticking with static + modifiers.

Wulfherr said:

Well, in a way there already is a means to do just that. Looking at the Sense power upgrades, if you're willing to put two dice worth of your Force Rating aside for the ongoing effects, at maximum benefit you can increase the attacker's difficulty by three dice and give yourself an upgrade to your own attack roll (possibly even more upgrades if the Sense tree is expanded further in later books). That alone mimics what Prequel Trilogy Swordmaster Nick Gillard said about lightsaber battles, that they are essentially chess played at 100 miles per hour and every move is check mate.

Tried with 2 (non force user) "combat characters" freshly made (against each other) and 2 (non force user) "combat characters" experienced (300 XP) against each other.

Fixed difficulty (2 for melee and derived from distance for ranged combat), modified by talents and equipment.

The "green" characters missed each other much more than the "experienced" characters.

Then we made experienced characters taking some levels of the Dodge talent.

Result: less overall maneuvers (Advantages were spent mainly to recover Stress), but the number of hits were reduced.

Naturally this talent looses much of his "punch" against more than one opponent (too much Stress!).

It's worth noting that with all the conversation about opposed checks, the ranged skills also advertise that they are opposed checks, so take that for what you will. It may denote the presence of defense die, but opposed rolls were previously defined as being derived from character stats.

On a different note, I found on pg 84 under the Ranged Heavy section, the part that says.

• Characters armed with a Ranged Heavy weapon are unable to parry a melee attack, unless the weapon has a melee attachment.

The Ranged Light section only mentions that the free hand can have a melee weapon for defense purposes. I am being led to assume, then, that a player being attacked gets some semblance of defense bonus if armed with a melee weapon.

I would like to know the significance of being able to parry. I feel like the simplest way to resolve this is the use of boost/setback dice. With little thought to balance, these are my initial suggestions:

If a melee PC attacks a ranged NPC the difficulty is base 2. If a melee PC attacks a brawling NPC it is an opposed check with one boost to reflect the PC's advantage. If a melee PC attacks an NPC with a melee weapon it is an opposed check.

The caveat is that, depending on the character, it might actually be harder to hit a ranged character than a brawling character. With my proposed rule, a 1 brawn/0 Brawl droid would get better defense just by pulling out a gun. Doesn't make much sense.

Regarding Melee and Brawl attacks; bear in mind game designer Jay Little said during the "Order 66 Podcast" live play session at GenCon that all Melee attacks have a Difficulty of 2, so I suspect the opposed roll mentioned earlier in the book is a holdover from an earlier edition. My group went with it as a static Difficulty of 2 with Boost and Setback die used accordingly, and the system appeared to work fine and we hand no issues with it. It was cinematic and quick with characters delivering a couple of quick strikes that would put mooks out of commission.

Thinking about it a little more I suspect that may have been the reason for the rule change. Using a Difficulty 2, both unarmed and melee combat moves fast and after two to three blows there is usually some resolution. While I'm sure opposed checks would work just fine my concern would be that melee and unarmed combat could take many, many rounds to resolve. Combat in Star Wars is fast and furious and with the exception of lightsaber duels most fights with hand held weapons or fists are settled quickly.

Yancy

There seems to be some confusion in the text about whether brawling deals damage as strain or wounds. In the skill desription, it states it deals damage as strain. However in other locations (e.g. the description of the pressure point talent) it seems to imply brawl deals wound damage, unless other factors are involved.

Lookin for confirmation its strain, and under what conditions a character can choose to deal wound damage with brawl.

Thanks!

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Given that the skill section seems to have been slightly outdated (and fixed per the Week One update), I'm thinking the skill description about unarmed attacks only dealing strain damage might be old data, and there is the intent that you can deal wound damage with unarmed attacks. After all, people have been beaten to death by unarmed assailants in real life, and most people would wind up with critical injuries as a result of being subjected to a single kick from a black-belt level Karate practitioner or a a punch from a heavyweight boxer.

Then again, there is the sidebar on page 137 that says an unarmed Brawl attack just deals strain damage.

As for the Pressure Point talent, I think the two main points there are 1) cannot be used with Brawl weapons, and 2) you add your ranks in Medicine to the damage total. It also adds the reminder that strain damage isn't reduced by soak, which if true makes unarmed attacks a viable option (surprisingly enough) against heavily armored or durable targets (i.e. have a high Soak value).

Hi Testers,

The week 1 update states that no combat checks are opposed. As for unarmed attacks, you should consult page 137. Just wanted to help clear things up.

Thanks!

FFG_Sam Stewart said:

Thank you for the response.

Though as a suggestion, the text on Pressure Point (pg97) in the Talents section should probably be updated to reflect that unarmed attacks never deal wound damage in the first place. Thinking it should revised to better jive with the text on page 45, which cites that you get to replace your Brawn with your ranks in Medicine when determining how much strain is dealt with an unarmed attack.

Donovan Morningfire said:

Thanks for the clarification, Sam. That was exactly what I was looking for.

@Donovan: You don't replace brawn with medicine, you simply deal strain equal to the damage plus ranks in medicine, and ignoring soak, and you can't use brawl weapons.

I just had questions for PG: 136 Two-Weapon Combat.

Reads: When attacking with two weapons, the character must have either two Ranged (light) weapons or two one-handed melee weapons. Having one of each ensures that the character could use either weapon as the need arises, but not both at once.

After reading that, my biggest question is why can't I use both types of weapons at once? One of the greatest parts of Deathwatch was that you could and I don't see why you can't in this instance. I understand that the second attack automatically succeeds based on an activation from the initial roll. I see no reason why it would be out of the realm of possibilities that a person with two-swords can have two-attacks, but if you replace that sword with a light ranged weapon it would be amazingly too difficult for him to achieve at point blank range.

My fix would be that when using two weapons of different skill types that you use the same rules as before (no heavy weapons or anything) but you use the lowest stat combination for your initial attack. This makes sure that characters are keeping these skills balanced since they are using them both kind of together. Example would be if you were attempting your attack with a hold out blaster and vibrosword and your character has characteristics that are even, you could use either one.

Though Star Wars isn't so big on sword & pistol fighting as 40k, where it's the assault standard, I don't particularly see any reason why a character shouldn't be able to use mixed weapon fighting. Green Lantern's idea of using the lowest skill, with all the usual difficulty increases, seems like a fair way to go about it, though I might also limit the ranged combat to 'Close' range, as if you are engaged in melee, your not going to have the time to line up a shot at any more distant of a target.

greenlantern92 said:

That's not a bad idea, and certainly lends itself to a swashbuckler type of feel, something not entirely out of place in Star Wars.

A heavy blaster pistol in one hand, a vibrosword in the other… I think I just came up with my next character build

I have a quick question generated by some of the early posts in this thread. When an engaged character wishes to move away from an engagement, he has to perform a disengage maneuver, after which he becomes "unengaged"

Does the disengage maneuver ALSO move the character to close range from the disengagement, or does the character need to spend ANOTHER maneuver to reach close range?

-WJL

LethalDose said:

The way I've come to understand it, rather than risking an "opportunity attack" like you did in the d20 versions, you have to take a maneuver to create the opening that lets you slip away before you actually move.

So in game terms, it'd be a maneuver to disengage, then another maneuver to move from Engaged to Close Range.

This might be covered somewhere else and might fit the proof reading section better, but to continue on the question about disengaging and moving.

IF this requires two manoeuvres, I wonder. The book says 1) that you can perform one manoeuvre per round and one action, correct? 2) You can perform an extra manoeuvre by taking on 1 strain. Right? 3) It says I can exchange an action for a manoeuvre. Correct?

Now, does this mean that I can perform two manoeuvres and one action for 1 strain? Or is it the exchange of one action to manoeuvre that costs you 1 strain?

To continue on the disengage question. I use my one manoeuvre to disengage, then take one strain and exchange my action for a manoeuvre and run away, turn over. Or can I do the same (disengage and run away), no strain gained? If the latter, could I disengage, run away and shoot from a "safe distance" for 1 strain?

Sorry different topic than disengaging…

I would like to see a bit of expansion of the rules when it comes to movement and range bands. The RAW seems like it was designed to work well with a melee heavy game, but, IMO, needs some tweaks for a ranged heavy game. In something like WHFRP, you are likely to have multiple different engagements going on within close range. You have the potential for a tank to engage with several opponents while a skirmisher moves in, engages and then retreats. Another player might run off to deal with a pair of archers while a fourth is an archer, dancing around the battlefield trying to stay one step ahead of pursuit.

In general those same dynamics are absent from a ranged skirmish combat. However, there are other dynamics in place that should make actual skirmish ranged combat just as exciting and strategic. Ranged combat uses a lot of angles, cover, fields of fire (and the ability to focus them). However, I don’t want to try to change the whole system to a grid system where we are tracking every characters precise position. However, I think within the current rules we can introduce some mechanics that take into account for the unique capabilities of firearms to cover/control areas, quickly kill those that lack cover/ concealment and prevent/allow maneuver.

Conditional and Situational Modifiers

Advantage

Under some conditions one opponent may have a sizable advantage over another. In this case, the opponent with Advantage gets to make attacks without them being opposed checks (+2 boost dice if not using opposed checks) and the attack gains +1 boost dice and a successful attack is considered to have generated +1 additional advantage symbol that may be used for the purposes of activating a weapon’s critical hit. Some typical examples of this would be if one opponent caught another completely out in the open in a gunfight, trying to fight unarmed against a lightsaber/gun wielding opponent or being unaware of the attack. One opponent can also gain advantage over another through using the Gain Advantage action (see below). Often it is much harder to gain Advantage then to negate it. For instance, it might take a character several maneuvers to get to a position where he can flank stormtroopers using some cargo crates as cover. However, the stormtroopers might be able to negate said Advantage simply by stepping back through the cargo bay door right behind them.

Engaging a gun fighter

Moving into melee with a gun wielding opponent is no easy matter. Any character that wishes to do so provokes an immediate free attack with Advantage for attempting to do this as long as the opponent they are trying to engage with is 1) aware and able to fire at them and 2) not already engaged with another opponent. Once engaged neither opponent can make opposed checks.

Weapon Qualities

Deflection : add the following. If the lightsaber wielder is proficient in lightsabers and has a Force rating of at least 1 than his opponents do not get Advantage for any free attacks they make against him when he is moving or engaging with them.

New Maneuvers

Cover Area/Opponent

This maneuver allows a character to cover an area/opponent in order to restrict opponents’ ability to maneuver

Requirement: The character must be wielding a semi-auto or auto capable firearm with available ammunition.

A character can only cover out to his/her weapon’s effective range band.

The benefit of covering is that it allows the character to take an immediate free action to attack any character that attempts to move within the covered area. This attack is considered to have Advantage. The cover quality remains in effect until the character’s next turn. Thus, if multiple opponents move through the covered area the character could potentially make multiple free attacks. The ability to make this attack is subject to GM discretion. For instance, even though a character is covering an area, an opponent may be able to move behind or through areas where he/she doesn’t present a viable target. Also, a character that is caught out in the open who dives for cover or retreats through a nearby door probably shouldn’t provoke a free attack.

A character can cover close range in a 360 degree arc.

A character can cover out to medium range in much smaller arc (~60 degree). The exact limitations of this arc are up to the GM and dictated by the system. This is akin to covering a corridor, part of a courtyard, a catwalk, etc.

A character can also cover a single opponent out to medium range. In this case, as long as the covering character can keep track of and has the ability to shoot at, the covered opponent, he/she can get the free attack whenever that opponent tries to move.

A character can cover a pinpoint area (ex. a single door or window) out to extreme range.

When rolling against a character that took the cover maneuver, 3 advantage symbols can be used to cancel the cover maneuver.

New Actions

Gain Advantage

A character may attempt to gain Advantage by making an opposed check against one or more opponents. The exact roll is dependent upon how the character intends to gain advantage. A typical example might be trying to move to an opponent’s uncovered flank in a gunfight. Upgrade the opponent’s opposing dice pool once for every opponent beyond the first that the character is trying to gain advantage on. Often this action will require the character to maneuver or take some other action as part of it and thus might provoke a free attack if one or more opponents took the cover maneuver.

Tactical Advance

This action allows a character to move within or between range bands and move to engage with opponents without provoking any free attacks.

New Incidental

Fire and Maneuver

The character can negate 1 boost dice from his next roll in order to cancel Advantage an opponent has for a single incoming ranged attack. The character must be wielding a semi-auto/auto gun with remaining ammo. The boost dice that he negates must have been gained either from advantage/despair symbols on previous rolls or from maneuvers the character or his allies performed.

@Jegergryte: As far as your questions about maneuvers, check the bottom of page 129. But we can paraphrase here:

First off, you may NEVER take more than 2 maneuvers on your turn, ever. Period.

Second, you (typically) get one for free [typically, because conditions like being encumbered may change this, but its rare.]

You may get an additional maneuver by:

• Taking 2 strain
• Exchanging you action (this does NOT cost any strain)
• Very advantageous skill checks (costs 2 advantages or a triumph)
• Activation of some special talents

So yes, to answer part of your question, you may…

perform a maneuver, spend 2 strain to perform a second maneuver, and then take an action

OR

perform a maneuver, then give up your action to perform a second maneuver (no strain cost here).

The last part of your question is kind of tricky, because there does not seem to be much consensus on it (Even on the WHFRPG forums, which I have to believe are relavant because the text describing range bands and maneuvers to move between them was practically cut and pasted and Little was the lead dev on both projects). See WHFRPG Player's Guide pg 66 and pages 129-131 and 135 in EotE-Beta). The source of the confusion is exactly where you are when you are "unengaged": Close range or still in the engaged band.

If unengaged = close range (where I actually think it is) you turn would look like this (starting engaged):

1. Maneuver to disengage (moves from engaged to close) from a stormtrooper (for example)
2. Spend 2 strain, spend maneuver to move from close to medium range from stormtrooper.
3. Action to make a ranged combat action to attack from medium range.

Now, if unenaged = still in the engaged band (Donovan Morningfire's interpretation, that I can't provide evidence to prove is wrong), then your turn looks like:

1. Maneuver to disengage from a stormtrooper
2. Spend 2 strain, spend maneuver to move from engaged to close range.
3. Action to make a ranged combat action to attack from close range.

The book is completely unclear on what 'unengaged' means, and because of its smiliarity to WHRPG, I strongly doubt that its a 'proofreading error'. I don't like second interpretation because it means that the for you were trying to disengage from, and had to spend strain to do so, is still at CLOSE range, and may simply spend a single maneuver to re-engage with you on their next turn (unless he becomes engaged with someone else). I think the purpose of saying disengage is somehow different from move is to prevent players from using one maneuver to move from one engagement to another engagement in the close range band.

The forum thread for WHFRPG 3rd Ed where I'm taking this interpretation from is here . It does not seem to have been corrected by any official source.

-WJL

Thanks for correction on strain cost and reply.

Now onto the vehicle questions. I assume that vehicle/ship combat is covered here too.

The whole system is abstract, yet they have included both fire arcs and defensive zones. I like it. But I was wondering about the "gain the advantage" action. It says that I can pick which defensive zone to hit, so I feel it fits more into a dog fight situation, but cannot a normal move manoeuvre change your relative position to the ship within a range band? Of course this does not give you the other bonuses of the "gta" action, but it can serve the same purpose yes? The reason I am wondering is because of chases and the purpose of the angle deflector shield manoeuvre.

If I am being chased by a Tie fighter, I would angle it all aft of course, better defence and all. And barring the Tie fighter pilot spending an action on gaining the advantage as per the action, could it not "move around" or "over" me to shoot at my front? Most likely its faster than my Ghtroc anyways… or would such a manoeuvre automatically involve using an action like this?

I guess I am finding my self somewhere between the RCR (and perhaps Saga) board game-like rules for starship combat and the more open-ended and abstract WEG rules… and I'm loosing myself to the logic and implications of this system's workings compared to a conglomerate of those previous systems'.

@Jegergryte

There actually is a a thread for vehicle combat, but it's not big deal.

Refer to EotE- Beta Pg 156: "When attacking a ship of silhouette 4 or smaller, the defender chooses which defense zone the attacks hits." The justification is in the following sentences. The purpose of the "gain the advantage" action allows the attacker to decide where to score the hit, instead of the defender (in addition to ignoring the effect of evasive maneuvers). Due to the abstract system, the relative positioning of the two vehicles is (counter-intuitively) immaterial for determining where the hit lands. Your shield location and the TIE's advantage has no bearing on where the TIE can move. So even if the TIE is able to position itself in front of you, if he doesn't "have the advantage", you as the defender can still determine where the hit lands.

With larger ships (5 and greater), relative positioning IS important to determining WHERE the hit lands. But we're gonna have to wait until Age of Rebellion to get really deep nitty-gritty details on that.

-WJL

Darl_Loh

Personally, I'd rather be a sidebar, if even mentioned at all. One of the things I really like about this game is the defined lack of tactical "realism."

Having played a plethora of d20 Star Wars (with RCR and Saga Edition combat being almost reliant upon combat maps), not having those as requirements is a welcome change of pace, as it speeds up combats significantly because players aren't obsessing over which squares they move through to avoid opportunity acts. It was something that had to be grudgingly accepted. And by combat fairly "freeform" it opens players up to be a lot more creative and heroic about what they do during their combat turn, something that tactical combat systems tend to be fairly restrictive of.

Like I said, put them in a sidebar as a "optional rule." For those of us that really enjoy the fact that this game's combat is much more narrative, we can gleefly ignore the sidebar, while those that want a more tactical style of gameplay have something to run with. And even then, keep them simple and fun, not make an constrictive attempt at tactical "realism" that you're suggesting. After all, Star Wars and Realism rarely see eye-to-eye (energy swords and noise in space are just two instances where realism gets kicked aside).

Donovan Morningfire said:

This. Well put sir.

Tactical realism is great if that's what the entire party wants, and you're welcome to have it in your games. But I've never been in a group like that, and I don't think I would. The endless fretting (especially in new players) about where the 'optimal' move is (my friend calls this 'analysis paralysis') slows the game way to much. Adding in so many more options for 'tactical realism' would have the same effect: Too many options making it much more difficult for players to feel they chose the 'right' one.

-WJL

I do hope that a future iteration does at the very least have an optional section for tactical combat rules, so that those of us who do like to use miniatures and maps or terrain can still enjoy the combat aspect of the game without having to muddle through narrating some abstract idea of what is going on in a battle.

WFRP has a similar system in regards to range bands. I use maps and minis in that game as written (well…I use coins, beads, push pins or whatever works but they serve the same purpose). You just have to decide with each map, what distances are what range. You can then have the information on the map to use for keeping track of things like line-of-sight, available cover, relative positioning, etc. But instead of counting squares or hexes you just decide that the length of an iPhone is close range…or some other off the cuff measurement that makes sense for the encounter.

Just because there's no grid doesn't mean you can't use a map to determine where everyone is. You just free yourself from " oh sorry Dave you are one square too far to act this round ." And instead go with *squint and hold up thumb* " yeah Dave you can slap the countess right in the c---- if you'd like since you are well within close range ." And sometimes, a combat just works better in everyone's head when it's a chase or some other type of engagement where a map would be a hindrance.

Thanks Callidon, many of our players are also miniature wargamers, and so we tend to like pushing figures around on a table.

If abstracting a tabletop representation of the combat system works for WFRP (which I have no experience with), then it should be okay… we'll just have to muddle through it as a group and figure out what works best for us.

I just hoped there would be something we could point to and go, AHA that's how we should represent this on the table.

I can tell you, we definitely plan to use X Wing for space combat in our games.