Looking at the movement rules for space/vehicle combat...

As worded, no ship ever crosses from extreme to long, and only starfighters change from medium to long.

Speed 1 ships can only move between close and short.

Speed 2-4 can only move between Close, Short and Medium.

Speed 5+ can move between Close, Short, Medium, and Long.

(p 165)

This means two speed 1 ships can not get out of each other's range...

It really should be allowed to move between the longer ranges, just as can be done in personal. I don't care if it's 2 or 3 (or even 4) maneuvers per shift, but sometimes, you need to play out the approach battle... Especially if there's an interdictor involved.

For example, B-Wings and Y wings are speed 4... and assaulting an Imperial SD, the battle should begin at long range (as the ISD has Long ranged weapons), but if it does, neither can close, and the battle is over with all the fighters dead, because they cannot close.

Likewise, two ISD's facing each other can't get out of range. One's gonna die.

Also, the range band issue is more of a problem given the groups can start with multiple ships...

Note: This is a carried over flaw from the EOTE rules.

Have you kept in mind the revised errata/beta update rules?

Per the Week #1 Beta Update:

Fly/Drive (page 165) : In the Fly/Drive entry, add the following sentence to the end of the paragraph: “ Moving between one range band and the next always takes two maneuvers regardless of speed, with the fol- lowing exceptions detailed below: ”

-EF

I'd missed that part of the update.

Got it to table.

My players opted for a Y-Wing squadron. (Really, they're a 3-ship flight. Squadron really equates to 10-18 birds, and nominally, 12 flying)

While I love the mechanics for a many-on-one, it's cumbersome for a 3-vs-2. Especially when the many are the PC's. It's the same issue that WEG 1E had... and that was cured in 2E by use of miniatures-style movement.

I hate to say it, but it desperately needs a map-option. Especially as it envisions squadron vs squadron.

Here's the problem. They started at long range to two flights of 3x Ties (using the Minion rules). Y-Wing 1 moves to Medium, TIE flight 2 moves to close...

Which brings the range band system into issue... Y-Wing 1 is at different range to both flights than are Y-Wings 2 & 3.

It's Medium and Close, vs Long and Short, if I figure it right, but it's cumbersome.

There has been made some fan-stuff that remedies this, if one needs it. A simpler "map" than a lot of square movement. Still, perhaps not perfect nor what you'd like, but it is possible to use to keep track of more agents of initiative, and requires less space than a battle map and minis.

I don't use it, but then I have no need for it as things are now.

I'd missed that part of the update.

Got it to table.

My players opted for a Y-Wing squadron. (Really, they're a 3-ship flight. Squadron really equates to 10-18 birds, and nominally, 12 flying)

While I love the mechanics for a many-on-one, it's cumbersome for a 3-vs-2. Especially when the many are the PC's. It's the same issue that WEG 1E had... and that was cured in 2E by use of miniatures-style movement.

I hate to say it, but it desperately needs a map-option. Especially as it envisions squadron vs squadron.

Here's the problem. They started at long range to two flights of 3x Ties (using the Minion rules). Y-Wing 1 moves to Medium, TIE flight 2 moves to close...

Which brings the range band system into issue... Y-Wing 1 is at different range to both flights than are Y-Wings 2 & 3.

It's Medium and Close, vs Long and Short, if I figure it right, but it's cumbersome.

Why not put them in a larger squadron with 9 NPCs to interact with and lose in battles?

I'd missed that part of the update.

Got it to table.

My players opted for a Y-Wing squadron. (Really, they're a 3-ship flight. Squadron really equates to 10-18 birds, and nominally, 12 flying)

While I love the mechanics for a many-on-one, it's cumbersome for a 3-vs-2. Especially when the many are the PC's. It's the same issue that WEG 1E had... and that was cured in 2E by use of miniatures-style movement.

I hate to say it, but it desperately needs a map-option. Especially as it envisions squadron vs squadron.

Here's the problem. They started at long range to two flights of 3x Ties (using the Minion rules). Y-Wing 1 moves to Medium, TIE flight 2 moves to close...

Which brings the range band system into issue... Y-Wing 1 is at different range to both flights than are Y-Wings 2 & 3.

It's Medium and Close, vs Long and Short, if I figure it right, but it's cumbersome.

Why not put them in a larger squadron with 9 NPCs to interact with and lose in battles?

Because I'm putting them right at the start of ANH for timeframe. The Emperor JUST dissolved the senate.

There has been made some fan-stuff that remedies this, if one needs it. A simpler "map" than a lot of square movement. Still, perhaps not perfect nor what you'd like, but it is possible to use to keep track of more agents of initiative, and requires less space than a battle map and minis.

I don't use it, but then I have no need for it as things are now.

The issue is one that's going to be present for a lot of people. A good, stable option would be better.

The other thing that my group felt odd about was that gunnery in space isn't affected by range, just Silhouettes.

There has been made some fan-stuff that remedies this, if one needs it. A simpler "map" than a lot of square movement. Still, perhaps not perfect nor what you'd like, but it is possible to use to keep track of more agents of initiative, and requires less space than a battle map and minis.

I don't use it, but then I have no need for it as things are now.

The issue is one that's going to be present for a lot of people. A good, stable option would be better.

The other thing that my group felt odd about was that gunnery in space isn't affected by range, just Silhouettes.

How about the fact that Barrage which is prominent in the Gunner tree doesn't apply to starship weaponry?

1) The issue is one that's going to be present for a lot of people. A good, stable option would be better.

2) The other thing that my group felt odd about was that gunnery in space isn't affected by range, just Silhouettes.

1) True. Agreed.

2) Well, the current rationale is targeting systems take care of the range business - remember the escape from the Death Star? The targeting systems for the turrets? It's more about hitting the target, smaller target harder to get in your line of fire... I don't know, but it does make some sense. Considering that the Close range band is much farther than all character scale range bands, as long as you're in space at least.

One other thought- If any core of the lines should have a gridded play or tabletop-play combat rules option, it should be Age of Rebellion, thematically.

Probably, but it goes slightly against their design, and seemingly their desires. I for one support them in this. Grid based tactical games removes itself from what I enjoy the most in RPGs, although I understand others prefer differently.

Probably, but it goes slightly against their design, and seemingly their desires. I for one support them in this. Grid based tactical games removes itself from what I enjoy the most in RPGs, although I understand others prefer differently.

The system as is doesn't support squadron play well at all - the talents do, but the combat mechanics require either fudge-factors galore, or breaking everything down to "1+ vs exactly 1."

It was a major problem in WEG 1E, as well, for exactly the same reason. Should FFG ignore the lessons learned with WEG's game?

Take the following case:

PC squadron (PC's all flying fighters) attacks a corvette with a squadron of its own. Mission is to kill the corvette.

Possible approaches I see:

• Players movements focused on corvette. Corvette's Fighters movements relative to corvette.

  but we don't know the ranges relative to the Player's fighters.

• Players movements focused upon enemy fighters as a group.

  We lose the references to the corvette.

  Nothing prevents the corvette from shooting, so it should be shooting at PC's too.

• Players movements focused upon corvette, Corvette's fighters movements based upon target PC.

  how do we account for the effects of PC movements towards the ship in re the fighters targeting it?

I agree that a squad-based mechanic could be cool, unless of course assists should suffice, plus any leadership talents and stuff like that. Of course some mechanic of how they morph and become a squadron would be nice, if it is really needed at all. I think a combination of skilled, or unskilled, assisting, synchronised movement and a considering the squadrone as one entity, so each pilot is a crew member instead, so you have designated leader/tactician, a pilot/navigator, gunners and so on, could be one way.

I'm not sure what you mean by those three points in the end, range is range... its relative, three-dimensional and broken into bands rather than squares. Not sure what the issue is. To make it easier for the players, use them as the measuring point to which the other vehicles move. I remember when reading Ender's Game that the whole three-dimensional space movement thingy was made a point of, something a tactical map and grid cannot represent, but an abstract movement/positioning/range band system can, it just takes a bit more imagination, and of course some book keeping. So far I haven't had an issue with it... but I can easily see that some of my players would if they were all flying about being fighter pilots. That's when I'd introduce a range table.

Either way, most combat will happen within close, sometimes short, as fighters don't have range beyond that. You don't have to spend a manoeuvre on Fly each round, you don't have to change range band each round - you probably wouldn't want to...

Fighters crewed by PC's are not a "Squadron" in the same sense as minion groups are, and treating them as one robs them of opportunities to shine.

It's really simple - you need to know the range to both the guy you're shooting at, and from every guy who is shooting at you. You also need to know the range to the next guy you will shoot at after you kill the guy you're shooting at.

The system only tracks range from a SINGLE target. Works fine when one side is a single ship.

It is an UTTER FAILURE to be useful when you have multiple units on both sides.

I am not sure if I understand the sentence "tracks range from a single target." What I agree is that this range system (from my experience from Warhammer 3) becomes increasingly complicated up to the madness the more combatants are involved in a fight.

I'm toying with the idea of getting some range band and facing sheets printed up on transparencies so that you can overlap them for multiple ships.

THe best way to compare is to compare to Classic Traveller's range band system.

In CT 2.2 (Starter Traveller):

• range bands were 1 G-burn (a distance equalling he magnitude of the vector from 1 G accel for 1 turn duration) apart for ships (1.5m for characters)
• movement was a fixed rate to or from some eventual destination, adjusted by acceleration
• sideways movement was ignored
• Range for to hit mods was a number of bands wide (25 and 50 for the negative modifiers - insanely long)

Because all the bands were equal width, it made it easy to calculate.

But note that ships in AoR apparently cross different width range bands; they aren't consistent. If we ignore close - Speed 1 can make 1 band per two maneuvers

Speed 2-4 can cross 2 bands if they're not long in one maneuevr, 1/2 if they're long+

Speed 5+ can cross 3 bands if they're not extreme

But further bands are 2 maneuvers each...

If I had to create a movement system to not be too different....

Speed is spaces per maneuver

close is in same space and spend a maneuver to get in close

Short is 0-1 space away

Medium is 2-4 spaces away

Long is 5 to 9 spaces away

Extreme would be 10-16 spaces.

The other thing that my group felt odd about was that gunnery in space isn't affected by range, just Silhouettes.

The other thing that my group felt odd about was that gunnery in space isn't affected by range, just Silhouettes.

I have to agree somewhat here. I read on the range bands again, for space/planets... It points out that capital ships avoid close range and short range... But there is no reason to really... Is there? If range doesn't affect combat checks, and the most powerful cannons have medium to long range, and the smaller cannons don't really pose a large threat against capital ships. I mean sure missiles and torpedoes are short range, but is that the only reason?

Medium and Heavy Laser Cannons are Damage 6. Against many capital ships (most have Armor 5 to 7) these can still do damage, especially in numbers. At Medium and Long range, you're safe from the gnat swarms.

I would love to see an option where vehicular weaponry (excluding missiles and torpedoes) does greater damage at closer ranges. Perhaps +1 per range band under max. That would make Medium and Heavy Turbolasers nasty at Close Range even against Star Destroyers and it would be a punch unique to the heavier ships. Even better, give these weapons automatic Advantage for each range band under max. This would be used either for Critical Hits (good for overcoming Massive in a capital ship vs. capital ship fight) or to activate Linked, either way allowing for greater punch from the biggest guns.

I'd like turbolasers to perhaps get a damage boost in close and short range, but perhaps also additional penalties to hit at close and short range... If additional penalties are at all necessary... Don't really think so...

Upping the difficulty by 2 at long would also make fighters immune to the "Big Thudd" effect of a capital ship main battery. Remembering, of course, that damage is based upon successes remaining... and that 6 Purple is a fiat of "You may not roll 6 purple tasks."

But it's already hard to hit fighters with big guns, because big guns are on size 6+ vessels, and fighters are size 3. (I don't recall if that's 3 or 4 purple for 3 sizes smaller.) But, if a battery of 6 guns fires using the minion rules, you're looking at 3 yellow and a green for the dice pool (assumes Stat 2 Skill as Minion)

Also, as for the "The computers handle it" - if that's the case, then gunnery skill should not matter.

But gunnery skill is shown to matter in the movies.

And further, the required precision is 1/2 the required accuracy for twice the range. 1mm per kilometer is about the needed accuracy to not be firing blind vs fighters at 1000km - you're likely to deviate right off the body... that is, by the way, 0° 0' 0.2" arc accuracy - on par with the pointing accuracy of Hubble. And yet, we see Vader miss with several shots at well under a km. Maybe 250m...

Also, we probably shouldn't advocate for a medium range penalty, as medium range has no penalty in EOTE, and there are medium range weapons in EOTE.

Upping the difficulty by 2 at long would also make fighters immune to the "Big Thudd" effect of a capital ship main battery. Remembering, of course, that damage is based upon successes remaining... and that 6 Purple is a fiat of "You may not roll 6 purple tasks."

But it's already hard to hit fighters with big guns, because big guns are on size 6+ vessels, and fighters are size 3. (I don't recall if that's 3 or 4 purple for 3 sizes smaller.) But, if a battery of 6 guns fires using the minion rules, you're looking at 3 yellow and a green for the dice pool (assumes Stat 2 Skill as Minion)

Also, as for the "The computers handle it" - if that's the case, then gunnery skill should not matter.

But gunnery skill is shown to matter in the movies.

And further, the required precision is 1/2 the required accuracy for twice the range. 1mm per kilometer is about the needed accuracy to not be firing blind vs fighters at 1000km - you're likely to deviate right off the body... that is, by the way, 0° 0' 0.2" arc accuracy - on par with the pointing accuracy of Hubble. And yet, we see Vader miss with several shots at well under a km. Maybe 250m...

Also, we probably shouldn't advocate for a medium range penalty, as medium range has no penalty in EOTE, and there are medium range weapons in EOTE.

Medium Range starship weapons are only really going to show up at Silhouette 5+, so again we're looking at (at least) the low end of capital ships.

Upping the difficulty by 2 at long would also make fighters immune to the "Big Thudd" effect of a capital ship main battery. Remembering, of course, that damage is based upon successes remaining... and that 6 Purple is a fiat of "You may not roll 6 purple tasks."

But it's already hard to hit fighters with big guns, because big guns are on size 6+ vessels, and fighters are size 3. (I don't recall if that's 3 or 4 purple for 3 sizes smaller.) But, if a battery of 6 guns fires using the minion rules, you're looking at 3 yellow and a green for the dice pool (assumes Stat 2 Skill as Minion)

Also, as for the "The computers handle it" - if that's the case, then gunnery skill should not matter.

But gunnery skill is shown to matter in the movies.

And further, the required precision is 1/2 the required accuracy for twice the range. 1mm per kilometer is about the needed accuracy to not be firing blind vs fighters at 1000km - you're likely to deviate right off the body... that is, by the way, 0° 0' 0.2" arc accuracy - on par with the pointing accuracy of Hubble. And yet, we see Vader miss with several shots at well under a km. Maybe 250m...

Also, we probably shouldn't advocate for a medium range penalty, as medium range has no penalty in EOTE, and there are medium range weapons in EOTE.

Medium Range starship weapons are only really going to show up at Silhouette 5+, so again we're looking at (at least) the low end of capital ships.

The rules for which are already established in Edge.

Personally, I'd add +1 purple at medium, but it wasn't present for the ship in Edge that needed it.