Some Y-Wings have both a pilot and a gunner, and all get an Astromech droid slot. This means that a Y-Wing pilot gets a maneuver or two plus an action, as does the gunner, as does the Astromech droid (who can do things like repair hull damage once per encounter or repair strain EACH ROUND).

JonahHex,

Right on. A big advantage for the Y-Wing for sure.

Sounds like you've run a few starship encounters so I wanted to ask you something. The main reason we abandoned RAW is becasue of the movement rules.

Once you get your ship to speed 5+ (not that difficult with a mod and/or full throttle) you can just double move and stay out of range of most weapons. My players figured this out in no time.

Pursuing TIEs that are minions can only double move (becasue they can't spend personal strain) and can never attack.

Pursuing TIEs that are not minions can double move and attack (but not with aim) for a few rounds before their personal strain is spent.

Both minions and non minions are taking system strain.

Meanwhile the PC gunners are double aiming and chewing them up or fixing the strain on their ship.

Oh, that made me wonder... since the YT-1300 is silhouette 4, and therefore can perform two pilot only manoeuvres per round (taking system strain), could it perform two evasive manoeuvres for two upgrades? Would you be ok with that? And how much "manoeuvring" would you allow in narrating evasive manoeuvre, or any other manoeuvre or action for that matter? like changing facing of dorsal and ventral? Thinking about turrets now.

I absolutely allow that. Just like any maneuver you can take twice (aim, move, etc.). And note you need zero pilot skill or talents to do these powerful things. Leaves the pilot PC wondering.

You say being the best pilot doesn't count for anything, but once again, this is a falsehood. By the number of skill dice you have, no you can't do anything. But a pilot with the 'Tricky Target' talent counts their ship as one silhouette smaller. There's your better skilled pilot. Also, the 'Brilliant Evasion' and 'Defensive Driving' talents contribute to your skill at avoiding a hit. Much of what you want to do with a pilot roll, is done through passive talents.

That's sort of the crux of it. At least for me.

And note you need zero pilot skill or talents to do these powerful things. Leaves the pilot PC wondering.

Well this is where I think a pilot check as part of a manoeuvre, given the right environmental conditions, can enhance either evasive manoeuvres by clever flying. Because, while a skill check is 95% of the time part of an Action, there are enough cases where it can be required as part of a manoeuvre, and in space combat I'd say it would work well. The results of that check can further enhance the effect of the manoeuvre - adding setback dice for pursuit (perhaps needed to keep line of sight and ability to target the PCs/NPCs), or even upgrade difficulties or future ability checks of the pilot...

Minions cannot take strain, but rivals can as wounds instead. So you could always try using rivals or even a nemesis here and there as pilots. Nemesis CHARACTERS as described in the Gamemaster's Kit need a full-on backstory, whereas a single nemesis can simply be used as a boss or even just a sub-boss... ESPECIALLY in vehicular combat, since no matter how high your Wound Threshold is you're generally pretty **** dead when your vehicle is destroyed (particularly in space).

Otherwise, I'd design encounters to include mission objectives like escorting a bulk freighter loaded with spice or defending the player's hideout from the forces of a vengeful Hutt. It's perfectly fine if players want to run away from enemies, particularly if they can push their ships to faster speeds than said enemies. However, stuff like that often comes with consequences.

Per the book, it's OK to have Rivals that have Strain tracks too if you like. Sometimes, particularly when they have Talents that cost Strain, it's the best way to do things. For pilots though, go ahead and let them take Wounds - it's not like that's what's going to take them out, since the fighter will fail well before the pilot will.

We like a lot of the starship combat, but there do seem to be certain issues.

Fighters are bad. Rather than being ship to ship superiority attack vessels they are less deadly than brick friegthers with turrets on them. Being forced to take strain just to move and take a manuever, then burn your action to shoot the gun, puts you at a huge disadvantage compared to a ship where the pilot can take deicated evasion while the gunners are all aiming and shooting you.

Piloting adding nothing to defense is weird. I know there are defensive Talents, but again Starfighters seem to die far to easily. Being fast and manueverable doesn't mean much when no matter how fast you move or dodge your signiture says you're easy to hit.

Going first is hugely important. You want to win that die roll at all costs because there's a good chance the winner is going to blow the loser out of the sky, or at least severely mess them up.

So I'm hoping it gets fine tuned a bit for the Rebel book where people are expected to have more protracted fights.

We like a lot of the starship combat, but there do seem to be certain issues.

Fighters are bad. Rather than being ship to ship superiority attack vessels they are less deadly than brick friegthers with turrets on them. Being forced to take strain just to move and take a manuever, then burn your action to shoot the gun, puts you at a huge disadvantage compared to a ship where the pilot can take deicated evasion while the gunners are all aiming and shooting you.

Piloting adding nothing to defense is weird. I know there are defensive Talents, but again Starfighters seem to die far to easily. Being fast and manueverable doesn't mean much when no matter how fast you move or dodge your signiture says you're easy to hit.

Going first is hugely important. You want to win that die roll at all costs because there's a good chance the winner is going to blow the loser out of the sky, or at least severely mess them up.

So I'm hoping it gets fine tuned a bit for the Rebel book where people are expected to have more protracted fights.

Read some of my posts from this thread. I address the issue of starfighter maneuverability and how it can help keep attacks off of them. Also, keep in mind that starfighters have other advantages other than their size and maneuverability. For instance, whereas most proton torpedo cannons hold 3 torpedoes per tube, a Y-Wing has two tubes with 8 torpedoes each. Indeed, short of strapping a turbolaser to a Wayfarer-class medium freighter (which you can totally do), a Y-Wing is more capable of bringing down capital ships than any other non-capital ship in the game so far!

We like a lot of the starship combat, but there do seem to be certain issues.

Fighters are bad. Rather than being ship to ship superiority attack vessels they are less deadly than brick friegthers with turrets on them. Being forced to take strain just to move and take a manuever, then burn your action to shoot the gun, puts you at a huge disadvantage compared to a ship where the pilot can take deicated evasion while the gunners are all aiming and shooting you.

Piloting adding nothing to defense is weird. I know there are defensive Talents, but again Starfighters seem to die far to easily. Being fast and manueverable doesn't mean much when no matter how fast you move or dodge your signiture says you're easy to hit.

Going first is hugely important. You want to win that die roll at all costs because there's a good chance the winner is going to blow the loser out of the sky, or at least severely mess them up.

So I'm hoping it gets fine tuned a bit for the Rebel book where people are expected to have more protracted fights.

Read some of my posts from this thread. I address the issue of starfighter maneuverability and how it can help keep attacks off of them. Also, keep in mind that starfighters have other advantages other than their size and maneuverability. For instance, whereas most proton torpedo cannons hold 3 torpedoes per tube, a Y-Wing has two tubes with 8 torpedoes each. Indeed, short of strapping a turbolaser to a Wayfarer-class medium freighter (which you can totally do), a Y-Wing is more capable of bringing down capital ships than any other non-capital ship in the game so far!

Errata has it as a Linked 1 weapon with Limited Ammo 8. As I see it, that's enough for four shots.

Yup, I'm aware. I actually knew that Y-Wings carried 16 torpedoes each from reading the Essential Guide to Starships back when I was like 9 or 10 years old, and if you watch the films they usually shoot two at a time. That said, I see no reason why a player couldn't turn off the linked quality if they wanted to conserve torpedoes.

Errata has it as a Linked 1 weapon with Limited Ammo 8. As I see it, that's enough for four shots.

Yup, I'm aware. I actually knew that Y-Wings carried 16 torpedoes each from reading the Essential Guide to Starships back when I was like 9 or 10 years old, and if you watch the films they usually shoot two at a time. That said, I see no reason why a player couldn't turn off the linked quality if they wanted to conserve torpedoes.

This is true, and it makes sense given that both torpedo launchers use the same Hard Point. I may want to reconsider how I handle Y-Wings now that you mention it. They're pretty powerful on their own, they don't necessarily need 16 individual torpedoes.

That said, I tend to rule in favor of the spirit of the Star Wars universe rather than the spirit of the rules, where possible... although to be perfectly fair the universe isn't always consistent. The Essential Guide to Starships, X-Wing vs. TIE Fighter, and the Rogue Squadron series all had their own interpretation on how many torpedoes a Y-Wing can carry, but all listed them as having either 8 or 16.

THAT said, I tend to rule in favor of the most recent source, and as far as I know the most recent source with specs on Y-Wings is the Core Rulebook + Errata.

I really hate it. It sucks.

What I did was replace the entire starships mechanics to the FF X-Wing game.
that means ships availible to buy, upgrades for the ship, how turns work. Everything.
And the pilot of the ship selects the moves. Gunners are responsible for rolling attack dice, and defense dice.

Wow. Hell of a thread necro.

We base our space combat on that one post of *alternate rules for space combat* or some such.

Speed = number of difficulty dice when making an attack.

^ that simple thing there has made space combat MUCH more enjoyable vs the whole silouette = difficulty of hitting. It actually making small fighter based craft with good speed a viable option to fly vs feeling like your in a floating death trap.

**did not notice the epic necro**

I really hate it. It sucks.

What I did was replace the entire starships mechanics to the FF X-Wing game.

that means ships availible to buy, upgrades for the ship, how turns work. Everything.

And the pilot of the ship selects the moves. Gunners are responsible for rolling attack dice, and defense dice.

Wow,that seems way too lethal in my opinion...

Wow. Hell of a thread necro.

Grr...aaargh...

Ultimately tossing my hat in as not a fan.

This could be a matter of 'we're doing it wrong', and could be related to my players having more money than they ought to have for reasons I cannot go into, but space battles were never cinematically interesting, regardless of number of ships, terrain, or other factors.

Fights were short, brutal, and heavily lopsided. With minute long rounds, weapon facing was nearly useless trivia unless there was a specific chase scenario going on (keeping a ship in a specific arc). Nothing I tried succeeded in having a space battle actually function as a memorable or cinematic moment in a game. It just didn't work for the group, so after quite a few attempts I found myself ignoring the possibility and focusing on the things that kept everyone really pumped up rather than going through the motions.

The problem with saying "this is primarily a narrative game and we should be careful how much crunch we mix in with our fluff because doing so will almost invariably limit how much freedom GM's and Players have in creating games" is that it breaks down on a couple of levels.

First, GM's don't need permission to inject narrative into games - it can be done with any game. It is a fallacy to assert that a more crunchy game is somehow resistant to narration compared to a less crunchy one. I really don't know why game developers seem to think if they don't write down some version of the gamer's golden rule in their books that somehow nobody's gonna figure that out on their own. It's just not the case.

IMO it's always better to have a clear, concise but comprehensive set of rules. You can modify them if you want or just use-em stock but the option is up to you. It's really not a good idea to introduce a set of rules that sorta works "if you do it right" and then very gently suggest that the magic ingredient is the right attitude and more narration/imagination on the part of the Game Official and the players. To me, that's a lot like shifting the burden of a quality product onto the customer.

I understand a lot of people (certainly the majority who come here) look at the system and say "Hey, works for me." But if you read carefully, it's almost never "works for me right out of the box, as is." It's almost always "Well, it works, you just have to work harder to make it work." or "It's okay that it doesn't work the same way other rulesets do because that would harsh the narrative groove." If you're intent on having a narration, the thickest, heaviest ruleset on earth wouldn't get in the way of that. It is a myth to say they do.

What clear, concise and comprehensive rules do accomplish at the table is they reduce the number of arguments you're likely to have. Game play is slowed down by many factors, but arguments are a big one.

And again, the burden of a smooth game is often shifted from the ruleset to the gamers themselves. And I know why that happens - because it is a reality that no single ruleset can cover off every rule, but there's a difference between demanding that every single solitary event and issue have a rule that works and making sure that most of them do, and I think what happens sometimes is that primarily narrative games will periodically collide with people who want a little less subjectivity in their games and when that happens, the narrative game's makers will often use the "this is a narrative game" as boilerplate rather than actually looking again at their ruleset, using the fresh eyes provided by the differing opinion.

The space combat in this game is a perfect example of it. I have read several "you just have to do it right." replies to the OP's question and numerous testimonials of how - once you inject the magic of increased narration into the game - it's really not all that bad. But there's a difference between narration and hand-wavium. One can enhance a comprehensive ruleset, the other just masks a bad one.

Traditionally the problem with Star Wars TT RPG's and the way they handle vehicles is that at its core (and as much as many game writers would desperately wish otherwise) you're dealing with two very different modes of combat. Vehicular combat is not just "people plus". Vehicles don't move like people, they don't behave like people, they can't think like people and they sure as hell mount better weapons than most people. So treating them as slightly modified people in combat is just head-scratching. This is one of the reasons why all the iterations of the D20 system Star Wars failed. Because a 10th level star wars character should never ever have more physical resilience tan a TiE Fighter. Never. Ever. Period. And that's just one example.

FFG hasn't done it right, and nobody else has either. Maybe in the future someone will. But so far, no. We're still waiting.

It is a fallacy to assert that a more crunchy game is somehow resistant to narration compared to a less crunchy one.

No one claimed this. Ever.

IMO it's always better to have a clear, concise but comprehensive set of rules. You can modify them if you want or just use-em stock but the option is up to you. It's really not a good idea to introduce a set of rules that sorta works "if you do it right" and then very gently suggest that the magic ingredient is the right attitude and more narration/imagination on the part of the Game Official and the players. To me, that's a lot like shifting the burden of a quality product onto the customer.

The rules are clear and concise. You just don't appreciate them.

No harm, no foul but stating they are not clear or concise is just not the case.

However, the quality of an RPG is at all times the burden of the customer... No matter how clear, concise or comprehensive the rules are.

I understand a lot of people (certainly the majority who come here) look at the system and say "Hey, works for me." But if you read carefully, it's almost never "works for me right out of the box, as is." It's almost always "Well, it works, you just have to work harder to make it work." or "It's okay that it doesn't work the same way other rulesets do because that would harsh the narrative groove." If you're intent on having a narration, the thickest, heaviest ruleset on earth wouldn't get in the way of that. It is a myth to say they do.

Again, no one said they did. Saying that this system focusses on narration does not mean you say other games can not be narrative.

What clear, concise and comprehensive rules do accomplish at the table is they reduce the number of arguments you're likely to have. Game play is slowed down by many factors, but arguments are a big one.

Well, this is just anecdotal but we have never had any argument at our table. On no part of the game...

And again, the burden of a smooth game is often shifted from the ruleset to the gamers themselves.

You are aware you are using a lot of strawman arguments here?

But again, the system operates best if you have a good system where people know what they are doing and do so in a way fitting in an RPG. Basically you could play a game of RISK and if someone at table wouldn't play by the rules (and in an RPG that means going along with certain things) he would mess up the entire game.

The space combat in this game is a perfect example of it. I have read several "you just have to do it right." replies to the OP's question and numerous testimonials of how - once you inject the magic of increased narration into the game - it's really not all that bad. But there's a difference between narration and hand-wavium. One can enhance a comprehensive ruleset, the other just masks a bad one.

The rules are there. No need for hand waving. They are in the books...

Traditionally the problem with Star Wars TT RPG's and the way they handle vehicles is that at its core (and as much as many game writers would desperately wish otherwise) you're dealing with two very different modes of combat. Vehicular combat is not just "people plus". Vehicles don't move like people, they don't behave like people, they can't think like people and they sure as hell mount better weapons than most people. So treating them as slightly modified people in combat is just head-scratching.

And this is why you fail (to put it bluntly) the system isn't "slightly modified people in combat" it plays out quite differently and has major differences with the personal combat rules.

I am impressed with you radar for noticing there is another space combat topic to spout your retoric in again! How do you do that?

@corradus

The term narrative game simply helps describe it on a spectrum of narrative (less specific rules with more group interpretation needed) and crunchy (more specific rules for every situation) types of role playing games.

Neither is bad in and of themselves, people tend to prefer one over the other. FFG is fairly balanced on this scale with tilt to the narrative side, hence it is a narrative game. It falls roughly into the same broad category as World of Darkness, FATE, and a bunch of other games. It is simply a descriptive short hand.

Narration is the key to all role playing games as you correctly point out, but that has very little bearing on whether or not you enjoy their version of space combat. You obviously do not, so why not suggest some improvements or a new system? I have seen quite a few bandied about, some are good and some less so.

Personally I like the vehicle/starship combat as it is. Lethal and something to avoid at all costs unless you are extremely skilled. Especially when you are driving what amounts to a heavy truck. You are not going to be dancing with sports cars or jeeps. And the dogfighting is just fine for me too when you do have x-wings and ties going at it. Players are the heroes. Even if their craft is taken out they are not automatically dead. Just as they do not automatically die in personal scale combat. I like that it can be much shorter than personal combat, or that it can take other forms like chases and battles of sensors instead as the crew tries to escape. So in the end it works well for me.

No one claimed this. Ever.

Not outright, but it's heavily implied.

>>The rules are clear and concise. You just don't appreciate them.<<

I'm sorry, but you're just wrong.

>>No harm, no foul but stating they are not clear or concise is just not the case.<<

See above.

>>However, the quality of an RPG is at all times the burden of the customer... No matter how clear, concise or comprehensive the rules are.<<

That's a slight movement of the goalposts there, and not precisely what I claimed. Yes, in the end it's always up to the players what kind of game they have - up to a point. But you cannot as they say make a silk purse out of a sow's ear so there are limits to your above mentioned attempted axiom. And before anyone says that the limits I speak of are a matter of pure subjectivity, lemme say IMO that only goes so far too.

>>Well, this is just anecdotal but we have never had any argument at our table. On no part of the game...<<

I will accept your anecdote because I have no way of refuting it and frankly this whole forum (and most like it) are often home to anecdote and speculation. I will however say that while you and I am sure others have been blessed, I don't think that modifies nor invalidates my statement.

>>You are aware you are using a lot of strawman arguments here?<<

What I am aware of is that people can say "I am going to release my bodily wastes in a toilet" without actually using those words - and that applies to other conversational topics as well. You don't need to spell stuff out to say them, and again, while those words aren't literally typed here, it is often heavily implied.

>>But again, the system operates best if you have a good system where people know what they are doing and do so in a way fitting in an RPG. Basically you could play a game of RISK and if someone at table wouldn't play by the rules (and in an RPG that means going along with certain things) he would mess up the entire game.<<

Sure, I will easily grant that if you mess up a game, the game is messed up. But that has as much to do with the ruleset as who's playing. Really good gamers have to struggle with flawed rulesets, and I don't think that gets waved away just because a bigger truth can be slotted behind it.

>>The rules are there. No need for hand waving. They are in the books...<<

Yes dear, there are rules. How well they work is the topic of the thread you may or may not have noticed....

>>And this is why you fail (to put it bluntly) the system isn't "slightly modified people in combat" it plays out quite differently and has major differences with the personal combat rules.<<

Not fundamentally, no.

>>I am impressed with you radar for noticing there is another space combat topic to spout your retoric in again! How do you do that?<<

Well, first of all, I use a little known skill I like to call "reading the topic headers". It's right up there with "applying milk to cereal by pouring" and "walking and chewing gum at the same time..."

But hey, just curious, when you write at length about something, do you refer to what you've written as "having spouted off"? Why is it that if something's written at length you like, well, that's just something written at length, but if it's something you don't like, the person is "spouting off"?

And rhetoric? Really?

I really do not like the level of lethality in vehicle vs vehicle combat. On the other end of the spectrum I really don't like how hard it is to damage vehicles on the personal scale, even with purportedly anti-vehicle weapons.

It's been a pain and not represented cinematically by the rules. Really it's a shame since characters like Han and Wedge are archetypal in the universe, but the rules don't bear out their skill very well when you get down to it. That and so many groups avoid this stuff if possible so the vehicle-oriented specs seem to me to be too specialized to be that useful in typical play.