In our games (EotE) it has not appear yet because we have not faced capital ships, so it is rather a theoretical question for me.

From the critical hit "Component Hit" description, it states that the attacker chooses which component to damage. Against capital ships, why an attacker would choose something else than the Bridge? If the Bridge is damaged the ship cannot take maneuvers neither actions, therefore it is totally disabled...

Am I reading something wrong?

Cheers,

Yepes

Unsure, I'm AFB, but I'd only allow a Bridge hit - if the consequences are as you say - if it narratively made sense, if the pilot had moved the ship in a position to actually hit the Bridge. A gunner would not be able to pick that location in my opinion, as he has no control over starship movement, a pilot-gunner would.

Most warships should have secondary control centers. Taking out the bridge shouldn't put them out of the fight for long. Beyond that, weapons emplacements appear to be locally controlled rather than centrally controlled. Fire coordination might suffer, but all the turrets are still going to be firing at any obvious hostiles.

Most warships should have secondary control centers. Taking out the bridge shouldn't put them out of the fight for long. Beyond that, weapons emplacements appear to be locally controlled rather than centrally controlled. Fire coordination might suffer, but all the turrets are still going to be firing at any obvious hostiles.

I agree in theory...Still the rules per RAW are clear about it. No starship maneuvers no starship actions.

I just was sharing this worry to know if people also feel it needs some correction/update. Now with the AoR beta, and being a game presumably where capital ships will play a more prominent role as compared to EotE, it may be a good opportunity to do so.

The wording is poor, but I the intent appears to be "no pilot maneuvers nor pilot actions" rather than "no starship maneuvers nor actions" - since it allows for damage control to fix it. Unfortunately, it's just sloppy terminology.

The wording is poor, but I the intent appears to be "no pilot maneuvers nor pilot actions" rather than "no starship maneuvers nor actions" - since it allows for damage control to fix it. Unfortunately, it's just sloppy terminology.

That would make sense I guess