It is worthless as written.

You can spend one strain to remove one black per rank as an maneuver.

I rule that it works along the lines of true aim where you still get the regular aim bonus for the maneuver. It may even be a mistake that it wasn't written in Precise Aim too.

This is actually a good talent. Take a good look at the complete wording on page 141 of the core book.

It is worthless as written.

You can spend one strain to remove one black per rank as an maneuver.

I rule that it works along the lines of true aim where you still get the regular aim bonus for the maneuver. It may even be a mistake that it wasn't written in Precise Aim too.

Seems like a "clarification/errata" thing, and you might want to post it to that thread.

Still, the ability to flat-out remove bad dice is very powerful. True Aim doesn't guarantee a succesfull roll - you might roll a double advantage on your upgrade and fail because of that. Precise Aim on the other hand betters your chances of hitting right off the bat.

It is worthless as written.

You can spend one strain to remove one black per rank as an maneuver.

I rule that it works along the lines of true aim where you still get the regular aim bonus for the maneuver. It may even be a mistake that it wasn't written in Precise Aim too.

Seems like a "clarification/errata" thing, and you might want to post it to that thread.

Still, the ability to flat-out remove bad dice is very powerful. True Aim doesn't guarantee a succesfull roll - you might roll a double advantage on your upgrade and fail because of that. Precise Aim on the other hand betters your chances of hitting right off the bat.

With one rank in the talent you're better off saving one strain and just add a blue by normal aim instead. The benefit is very very slight and it costs one strain.

But considering true aims wording, I think they just forgot adding the benefit of normal aim to Precise Aim.

Precise aim page 141 reads

Once per round on the character's turn, the character may perform a precise aim maneuver before attempting a combat check and suffer a number of strain. The number of strain cannot exceed his ranks in precise aim. He then decreases the targets defense (ranged and melee) by one per strain suffered for that combat check.

There is nothing here about removing setback dice and I don't see how this can be mor explanatory than it is.

If you decrease his defense by two for one attack you remove two setback dice. But you'd be better off just aiming if you have rank 1 and with rank 2 it's slightly better but still costing two strain.

True aim is better AND you benefit from regular aim while using true aim, so it's upgrading plus a blue.

For that reason I believe they forgot explaining that in precise aim, so I rule it's removal og defense/setback plus a blue for using the precise aim maneuver.

As a GM I would suggest ruling against that. The spirit of the talent is to build up your PC to where they can be a bad a__. Not start off as one. All this is done for the cost of one maneuver and the strain, then you take your aim maneuver and add boost die. Do you really want to make it easy for the PC's, or help them challenge up the ladder of being a bad a__.

They are just better off spending their exp elsewhere then. It's not about badassery, but about making the talent worth using. With one rank you're simply way better off aiming normally and saving the strain for defense. There is no reason to use it. At rank 2 which is max, it's only slightly better, but since defenses are important I'd still save those two strain for dodge or something else and then get two blue on my attack instead of one blue and minus two black.

But yeah, players really don't need more dice in their pools, but the talent is annoying me, because it's a bit pointless. Maybe instead rule that it removes those two black dice and then adds the same number to the targets next action. That's worth considering.

But as written it's a very poor talent to use, because there are far better options for use of a maneuver.

Decreasing defence is not = removing setback dice, although you do negate setback dice derived from defence; there is a difference. However pedantic I may seem just saying that

I'd say it's pretty good, and, if I'm not mistaken it can be used with vehicle weapons too, which makes it even better. Take 3 strain and you can negate 1 defence and add 1 boost die, that's pretty good in my opinion. It's almost a must have for non-pilot gunners as these will always hit the defenders chosen defence zone (since Gain the Advantage specifies that it applies to Pilots only from what I understand).

The problem is that the talent Precise Aim specifies melee or range defence as reduced by 1, which could mean it only applies to personal combat. I'd let it apply to gunnery and vehicle weapons too though, even if that is a house-rule.

Adding the normal aim benefits to it might make it even more worthwhile, it might be that this is the intention, but I don't know.

Personally I don't see a problem with this talent. also it may also show up in future talent trees as well. making it oh so much worth it. remember this only the first of three core books out that will all be compatible with each other.

Removing a purple die sounds pretty good to me.

Decreasing defence is not = removing setback dice, although you do negate setback dice derived from defence; there is a difference. However pedantic I may seem just saying that

I'd say it's pretty good, and, if I'm not mistaken it can be used with vehicle weapons too, which makes it even better. Take 3 strain and you can negate 1 defence and add 1 boost die, that's pretty good in my opinion. It's almost a must have for non-pilot gunners as these will always hit the defenders chosen defence zone (since Gain the Advantage specifies that it applies to Pilots only from what I understand).

The problem is that the talent Precise Aim specifies melee or range defence as reduced by 1, which could mean it only applies to personal combat. I'd let it apply to gunnery and vehicle weapons too though, even if that is a house-rule.

Adding the normal aim benefits to it might make it even more worthwhile, it might be that this is the intention, but I don't know.

Yeah I know it decrease defense and not remove setback dice, but if his defense is 2 and you have rank two the end result is the same. It effectively removes two setback dice from your pool.

It is for all kinds of combat, since I think starship defense should be considered ranged defense, since in starship combat they refer back to regular defense and I don't think melee defense will ever apply. But the same applies here - It's better to get two blue than one blue and remove one black.

Gain the advantage has a benefit for all since it negates the evasive maneuver penalty for both the opponent and himself, meaning no one gets an upgrade on difficulty and the opponent doesn't upgrade difficulty either. This is based on the fact that evasive maneuver says "attacks made by the ship". I'd say the pilot picks the defense zone hit by all attacks made by the ship although this isn't worded very well, considering the pilot of a light freighter will not very often make any attacks.

Removing a purple die sounds pretty good to me.

It's only a black die.

I disagree with your assessment entirely. Adding a Bonus die is not equivalent to removing setback dice. Sure, the Bonus die and Setback die are equivalents, but that does not mean that adding a bonus is at all the same. Removing Setbacks is MUCH more powerful.

Example:

Aim with 1 setback

Normal Dice pool result

Bonus Die comes up blank but setback giving a failure and a threat.

That nets you negative results to the die roll in question. Sure it possible the setback came up blank as well, but thats the BEST case scenario, with all other being worse, since it will either basically cancel out with the bonus or add either a failure or threat to the result.

Versus:

True Aim removing the setback with no bonus:

Normal Dice pool + Nothing

In this case there was no chance that the setback dice added negatively to the pool. No chance of threat, failure being added with the drawback that you had to give up the potential bonus for aiming normally and suffer a strain.

I guess you could say Aim is the more risky, but potentially more rewarding outcome. and True Aim is the safer option. You would be more likely to aim for harder checks since the bonus could put you over the edge to success and use True Aim on more average/mundane ones where the dice pool is lopsided in your favor to begin with, thus mitigating the possibility of failure/negative effects.

1) Yeah I know it decrease defense and not remove setback dice, but if his defense is 2 and you have rank two the end result is the same. It effectively removes two setback dice from your pool.

2) It is for all kinds of combat, since I think starship defense should be considered ranged defense. But the same applies here - It's better to get two blue than one blue and remove one black.

3) Gain the advantage has a benefit for all since it negates the evasive maneuver penalty for both the opponent and himself, meaning no one gets an upgrade on difficulty and the opponent doesn't upgrade difficulty either. This is based on the fact that evasive maneuver says "attacks made by the ship". I'd say the pilot picks the defense zone hit by all attacks made by the ship although this isn't worded very well, considering the pilot of a light freighter will not very often make any attacks.

1) Only as long as they are from armour or cover, but yeah, I just had to point it out because concealment from darkness, smoke and the like will not be negated by this talent afaik.

2) Removing a die is removing a variable. Adding another die adds a variable, removing a variable is better I'd say. Doing both is better than just adding a new variable or two to the equation.

3) This Action is intended for starfighters I'd assume, it also says quite precisely that the "pilot ignores all penalties imposed by his own or his opponent's use of Evasive Maneuvers starship maneuver ... In addition, the pilot also chooses which defense zone he hits with his attack" (page 234; my emphasis). This clearly says that these benefits applies to the pilot, not his ship or crew. I originally thought as you did, but on further reflection this makes a bit more sense if you consider the dogfighting starfighter as the intended user of this Action. Most freighters will be speed 3, and therefore use the Stay On Target manoeuvre instead I'd think.

I disagree with your assessment entirely. Adding a Bonus die is not equivalent to removing setback dice. Sure, the Bonus die and Setback die are equivalents, but that does not mean that adding a bonus is at all the same. Removing Setbacks is MUCH more powerful.

Example:

Aim with 1 setback

Normal Dice pool result

Bonus Die comes up blank but setback giving a failure and a threat.

That nets you negative results to the die roll in question. Sure it possible the setback came up blank as well, but thats the BEST case scenario, with all other being worse, since it will either basically cancel out with the bonus or add either a failure or threat to the result.

Versus:

True Aim removing the setback with no bonus:

Normal Dice pool + Nothing

In this case there was no chance that the setback dice added negatively to the pool. No chance of threat, failure being added with the drawback that you had to give up the potential bonus for aiming normally and suffer a strain.

I guess you could say Aim is the more risky, but potentially more rewarding outcome. and True Aim is the safer option. You would be more likely to aim for harder checks since the bonus could put you over the edge to success and use True Aim on more average/mundane ones where the dice pool is lopsided in your favor to begin with, thus mitigating the possibility of failure/negative effects.

Consider the following dice pool: 2 green + 2 yellow + 2 purple + 2 black (defense)

Using that dice pool would result in the following chances for success:

1 success: 66,2%

3+ successes: 24,8%

at least 2 advantages: 27,5%

Add a blue die:

1 success: 71,9%

3+ successes: 31,5%

at least 2 advantages: 41,0%

3) This Action is intended for starfighters I'd assume, it also says quite precisely that the "pilot ignores all penalties imposed by his own or his opponent's use of Evasive Maneuvers starship maneuver ... In addition, the pilot also chooses which defense zone he hits with his attack" (page 234; my emphasis). This clearly says that these benefits applies to the pilot, not his ship or crew. I originally thought as you did, but on further reflection this makes a bit more sense if you consider the dogfighting starfighter as the intended user of this Action. Most freighters will be speed 3, and therefore use the Stay On Target manoeuvre instead I'd think.

Evasive maneuver imposes the bonus on ALL attacks made against and from the attacks. Gain the advantage removes the penalty by the pilots evasive maneuver and the opponents evasive maneuver. Thus, everyone in the ship making an attack at that opponent will benefit from gain the advantage.

But as it is worded I can see what you mean and only the pilot can pick defense zones, but since gain the advantage isn't that great an action I'll house rule that.

But if played as you propose, then it's pointless for anything but starfighters.

Why don't you try playing a game AS written in the rules and see how pointless it is. You wont know for sure until you do. If you are the GM then let the players make their characters the way they want, don't alter the rules to suit them or to give you an upper hand on them just throw more npc's at them.

Removing a purple die sounds pretty good to me.

It's only a black die.

Why don't you try playing a game AS written in the rules and see how pointless it is. You wont know for sure until you do. If you are the GM then let the players make their characters the way they want, don't alter the rules to suit them or to give you an upper hand on them just throw more npc's at them.

We do play and have played since beta. It's also math and propability that makes me conclude that the talent at rank one just doesn't work well.

3) This Action is intended for starfighters I'd assume, it also says quite precisely that the "pilot ignores all penalties imposed by his own or his opponent's use of Evasive Maneuvers starship maneuver ... In addition, the pilot also chooses which defense zone he hits with his attack" (page 234; my emphasis). This clearly says that these benefits applies to the pilot, not his ship or crew. I originally thought as you did, but on further reflection this makes a bit more sense if you consider the dogfighting starfighter as the intended user of this Action. Most freighters will be speed 3, and therefore use the Stay On Target manoeuvre instead I'd think.

1) Thus, everyone in the ship making an attack at that opponent will benefit from gain the advantage.

2) But as it is worded I can see what you mean and only the pilot can pick defense zones, but since gain the advantage isn't that great an action I'll house rule that.

3) But if played as you propose, then it's pointless for anything but starfighters.

1) This is a fallacy, it is not what the rule states and there is no support for your conclusion. I'd say you're wrong, both by RAW and RAI.

2) Sure, house-rule away... it gives starfighters an edge over larger, better armed and armoured freighters. I'd say it's definitely a good advantage. Not for the freighter, but for the starfighter sure, but then again this is a dogfighting action as I understand it, it is there to illustrate just that kind of manoeuvring, which means benefits should apply to the pilot only really.

3) Not pointless if the pilot also has access to and can control a weapon, not at all useless. Also: above.

It makes more sense this way.

I find it makes sense that if the pilot has the advantage he doesn't have to toss the ship around to fly defensively which benefits everyone in the ship firing. Also since he's in an advantageous position the enemys evasive maneuver is ineffective, benefitting everyone shooting from said ship.

That makes sense for me. Especially considering players mostly fly a ship where they would not get a benefit from the action otherwise. It is an action after all.

That could be used very effectively against the players, thereby making them more respectful of starfighters and the advantage those vehicle may have over them. I don't see the gunners in the turrets of a yt-1300 gaining much bonus from their pilot manoeuvring as a madman in a dogfight.

I'd perhaps let cannons fired from the cockpit, like Firespray, benefit from this, perhaps.

Oh well. from a gameplay perspective I like my way better. More options for players in their light freighter :-)

On top of that fighters are already deadly as it is and excluding the players from benefitting more from gain the advantage removes a huge chunk of the fun of starship combat, especially for the pilot.

Well, I think this manoeuvre is good enough to benefit the pilot, who would otherwise not really get to do stuff in space combat except manoeuvres and escaping, perhaps plot a course... the gunners can always have Precise and/or True Aim to negate any defensive measures still pointing their way.

Anyway, we obviously disagree on this, I think its better from a gameplay perspective to have it benefit the Pilot and not everyone on the ship, perhaps that is the RAI, perhaps it isn't.

My question then is: if the Pilot succeeds a Gains the advantage check, can the gunners on his ship benefit from that during their turn, the same turn that is (depending on what sort of initiative order you decide to use: per ship or per individual agent in the combat), or must they - like the pilot - wait until the following round to get their shots lined up? If yes: then its no longer very good for starfighters is it?