Lethality? Do you roll a lot of high crits on vehicles during space battles? If so, just choose to place the triumphs and advantages elsewhere. They don't have to all be critical hits.

Or did you mean easily removed from combat? That is an entirely different subject and there are quite a few optional systems people have devised to fix that issue. Where do you feel the system fails?

-Edited to include quote.

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.

I kinda like that vehicle combat is hard to make drag on. I like a good fighter battle as much as the next guy, but I hate excessive roll offs. Quick and deadly with "baby in a box" controlled lethality is ok by me. If I wanted to add length I'd at most add 5-10HT to some craft, but that's it.

Now, man portable anti vehicle weapons do need some work, I'll agree, Personally I'm for something that does only reasonable damage, has breach 3, but a crit of only 2. So it can punch through armor, do a point or two of Hull Trauma, but is really likely to generate a damage effect, and can kill if you spam enough of them.

Now, man portable anti vehicle weapons do need some work, I'll agree, Personally I'm for something that does only reasonable damage, has breach 3, but a crit of only 2. So it can punch through armor, do a point or two of Hull Trauma, but is really likely to generate a damage effect, and can kill if you spam enough of them.

That would make a pretty good Anti-vehicle weapon. Not too risky in Personal Combat but still effective. I think I would keep the critical rating at 3 though. Otherwise you do have a LOT more lethality.

Now, man portable anti vehicle weapons do need some work, I'll agree, Personally I'm for something that does only reasonable damage, has breach 3, but a crit of only 2. So it can punch through armor, do a point or two of Hull Trauma, but is really likely to generate a damage effect, and can kill if you spam enough of them.

That would make a pretty good Anti-vehicle weapon. Not too risky in Personal Combat but still effective. I think I would keep the critical rating at 3 though. Otherwise you do have a LOT more lethality.

May try that out in one of my campaigns. I'd like an end-game where it's far more likely this weapon will result in a "mobility kill" over an HT kill. You know, render the vehicle totally noneffective, but still "easily" repairable if you've got the time and parts.

I'm leaning toward ion damage to also make it near worthless against people...

Now, man portable anti vehicle weapons do need some work, I'll agree, Personally I'm for something that does only reasonable damage, has breach 3, but a crit of only 2. So it can punch through armor, do a point or two of Hull Trauma, but is really likely to generate a damage effect, and can kill if you spam enough of them.

That would make a pretty good Anti-vehicle weapon. Not too risky in Personal Combat but still effective. I think I would keep the critical rating at 3 though. Otherwise you do have a LOT more lethality.

May try that out in one of my campaigns. I'd like an end-game where it's far more likely this weapon will result in a "mobility kill" over an HT kill. You know, render the vehicle totally noneffective, but still "easily" repairable if you've got the time and parts.

I'm leaning toward ion damage to also make it near worthless against people...

I am just thinking about people finding ways to lower the crit rating by one more and then simply piling on the crits until there is a good chance for a "total disintegration" result. I like the idea of where you are coming from, I am just not sure that it will result the way you hope. Ion Damage may be exactly what you are looking for.

@corradus.... What happened with those quotes? I would like to answer you a bit more in depth and address your "points" but I am on my iPad and can't get really work out where my perfectly formed arguments and your evasive, misguided, hopeless rhetoric ends (I hope you see I am kidding here). I'll be on a desktop tomorrow...

Personal scale vs. Vehicle scale: seriously, try changing the conversion ration from 10-to-1 to 5-to-1. We've tested it in our game and it works wonders. I've run the maths in Excel spreadsheets, and it's fine at 5-to-1. Autoblasters become just a bit deadlier than E-Webs (if you count net successes), Missile Tubes can take down a TIE, Thermal Detonators can affect vehicles, etc. Vehicle vs. people fights I see when watching The Clone Wars, Rebels, PT and OT matches 80% of the time the results of 5-to-1 conversion.

I'm guessing they chose 10-to-1 for simplicity's sake (less math), but were tempted to go with 5-to-1 during beta.

As for the flimsiness of starfighters and the fact handling/skill levels are not taken enough into account, I must say I partially agree. I've read the debates and there are people on both sides arguing.

I'm waiting for the Soldier book for AoR, if we are going to get decent anti-vehicle weapons for infantry, it will likely be there. It was disappointing that personal scale weapon selection in Stay on Target was limited to carbines and pistols, ground based Gunners got the short end in that book.

@corradus.... What happened with those quotes? I would like to answer you a bit more in depth and address your "points" but I am on my iPad and can't get really work out where my perfectly formed arguments and your evasive, misguided, hopeless rhetoric ends (I hope you see I am kidding here). I'll be on a desktop tomorrow...

The quote system in these new forums is something I'm getting used to. I guess it beats just copying and chopping up what you say whole cloth but it's hard to reply to your replies. In that regard I do apologize. For everything else you're just wrong

I don't actively participate in space combat. The other three in my party seem to like it a lot and I have a lot of focus during other parts of the game so I leave that to them. I leave most combat to them, actually. They're always battling their inner murderhobos so they need a bone tossed to them every now and then so they don't eat each other.

That said, I still enjoy it. I haven't gotten to where I need to be rolling the dice to be feeling the tension. I help where I can, add to the narrative drama when I can (sometimes making things worse for us, I have to admit)... but I don't really know the rules so I can't measure how good or bad they are.

No one claimed this. Ever.

Not outright, but it's heavily implied.

So, no one claimed this.

>>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.

Well, I don't know how to not make this a "Yes" / "No" game but the rules are all there, nothing is missing. They have a fixed answer to any possible situation and they are definte. No idea what it is that would not be there other than perhaps excrutiating detail but then again this isn't D&D 3.5...

>>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.

Actually, no one moved the goalposts. You made a statement that people put the burden of a good game with the customer and all I did was tell you that this pretty much goes for any game (you obviously haven't played monopoly with my parents)

Regarding you silk purse-thingy, this again is just a mater of taste and not a valid argument in the least.

>>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.

I'd say it is just as anecdotal as mine is.

Except your anecdote seems to find fault in a system for the lack of enjoyment and having arguments at the table and mine sees the rules facilitate a happy game with friends that are having a good time.

>>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.

So, again, no one really said this to you and, on top of that, here I am specifically not saying it and still you feel the need to attack the strawman. That just seems weird...

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.

Agreed.

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.

No idea what this means... But I'm pretty sure you are saying the rules are flawed. I happen to disagree vehemenently. So if you are not telling me what is flawed, missing, broken I cannot answer this.

>>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....

Actually, I recall you stating "IMO it's always better to have a clear, concise but comprehensive set of rules" which I thought meaned this game, in your opinion, does not. Again, I disagree and without you actually providing the things that are unclear, non-concise, missing, etc. this becomes a game of yes/no again.

>>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.

In that you use the same dice? In that you make rolls? Have range bands? In that you use skills to shoot, fly, etc.?

This is not having a discussion this is just you saying "no" a lot.

>>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..."

It has to do with you somehow only showing up in "space combat topics" and being negative. It is sort of a one-trick pony.

But hey, just curious, when you write at length about something, do you refer to what you've written as "having spouted off"?

Well, if all I would do was repeat "no, it isnt","No you are wrong", "you didn't say that but you implied it"... then, sure.

I'm leaning toward ion damage to also make it near worthless against people...

As an aside, I allow planetary scale ion weapons to do personal scale damage to organic targets. If you shoot a human with a light ion cannon, you'll do 5 + successes damage (to ST) along with any Ion effects on his gear. I just think that a high-power ion discharge should have some effect on fleshy bodies.

Question for folks who have switched from the 10-1 scale to a 5-1 scale: what do you do with Breach? Do you stick it by the rules so that it ignores 1 Armor? Because in that case it would mean that it only ignores 5 Soak, which means the Hired Gun in my group could probably shrug off a lightsaber...

Space combat has been the aspect of the rpg that the groups I've played with or GMed for have enjoyed the least. I think that could be because ground combat in a colourful environment has immediate opportunities for original narration, unexpected developments and input from the group. Space combat sometimes runs the risk of becoming tedious quickly, though that could just be us. To remedy this, I've started using space combat as a backdrop to something else, e.g. there's a boarding party on the ship during the space battle a la Faster Than Light. In other words, I'm a bit of a knobbish GM.

The problem with most space combats is that they take place in Space. Really, we never see this in the movies because it gets repetitive and boring, just like if six guys fought in an open salt plain. Battles should take place in asteroid fields, or upper atmosphere of planets, or in space traffic, or as part of a major space battle, or during a dramatic escape, or.. yeah.

On the subject of 5-1, my thought was to double all breach ratings, so Lightsabers become breach 2. Though to be honest, IIRC we see a couple of hired guns on Jabba's barge get hit by lukes lightsaber and get pushed off the skiff as a result, rather than bisected, so maybe pierce 5 eq. isn't entirely inappropriate.

The problem with most space combats is that they take place in Space. Really, we never see this in the movies because it gets repetitive and boring, just like if six guys fought in an open salt plain. Battles should take place in asteroid fields, or upper atmosphere of planets, or in space traffic, or as part of a major space battle, or during a dramatic escape, or.. yeah.

On the subject of 5-1, my thought was to double all breach ratings, so Lightsabers become breach 2. Though to be honest, IIRC we see a couple of hired guns on Jabba's barge get hit by lukes lightsaber and get pushed off the skiff as a result, rather than bisected, so maybe pierce 5 eq. isn't entirely inappropriate.

I agree people vs vehicles are a booger, and sabers double so.

While I'm ok with home ruling for now, I wouldn't mind some official guidance on how to handle special attacks and effects, like using a saber or heavy blaster to cut/blow open a hatch on a vehicle.

As Film-focused as the system seems to be I'm a little surprised there isn't already some guidance on this as we see stormtrooper do it in ANH...

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.

Lethality? Do you roll a lot of high crits on vehicles during space battles? If so, just choose to place the triumphs and advantages elsewhere. They don't have to all be critical hits.

Or did you mean easily removed from combat? That is an entirely different subject and there are quite a few optional systems people have devised to fix that issue. Where do you feel the system fails?

-Edited to include quote.

Hm. What I mean is more how much easier it is to "KO" a ship than it is a character (destroyed or no). Characters, on their scale, are much more durable than the majority of non-capital ships on their scale.

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.

Lethality? Do you roll a lot of high crits on vehicles during space battles? If so, just choose to place the triumphs and advantages elsewhere. They don't have to all be critical hits.

Or did you mean easily removed from combat? That is an entirely different subject and there are quite a few optional systems people have devised to fix that issue. Where do you feel the system fails?

-Edited to include quote.

Hm. What I mean is more how much easier it is to "KO" a ship than it is a character (destroyed or no). Characters, on their scale, are much more durable than the majority of non-capital ships on their scale.

I had a feeling. You may like to take a peek at some of the other threads on this issue. There have been a lot of ideas thrown out there to increase vehicle durability.

I'll take a glance around but I guess I generally feel that this is a thing the baseline system should have gotten right versus needing a home-brew patch. Considering how often space combat happens in the media.

I am thinking of having competitive piloting checks at the beginning of the turn for dog fights (silhouette 1-4) to determine who is tailing who and replacing evasive maneuver's upgraded range difficulty with the pilot's skill as the difficulty.

Lose the competitive check and you'll probably spend the turn performing evasive maneuvers as your action, win and you can get a shot off at your targets rear arc.

I'll take a glance around but I guess I generally feel that this is a thing the baseline system should have gotten right versus needing a home-brew patch. Considering how often space combat happens in the media.

As far as the developers are concerned, they pretty much perfectly achieved their goals — space combat should be short, deadly, and ugly. That actually matches what we see in the movies pretty well, it’s just not what we want to play when we’re sitting at the table.

Speaking only for myself, of course. YMMV.

I like the rules as is. Use the squad rules to keep the deadly but keep the players safe.

I'll take a glance around but I guess I generally feel that this is a thing the baseline system should have gotten right versus needing a home-brew patch. Considering how often space combat happens in the media.

As far as the developers are concerned, they pretty much perfectly achieved their goals — space combat should be short, deadly, and ugly. That actually matches what we see in the movies pretty well, it’s just not what we want to play when we’re sitting at the table.

Speaking only for myself, of course. YMMV.

I can agree with that for fighters. I think larger ships, including the Falcon, take a number more hits from TIEs than they reasonably could under the rules without just going dead in the water.

I get the lethality, particularly for fighters. I just don't know that that is particularly fun to play...which to me should be one of the top things if not the top thing informing how rules are crafted.

I'll take a glance around but I guess I generally feel that this is a thing the baseline system should have gotten right versus needing a home-brew patch. Considering how often space combat happens in the media.

As far as the developers are concerned, they pretty much perfectly achieved their goals — space combat should be short, deadly, and ugly. That actually matches what we see in the movies pretty well, it’s just not what we want to play when we’re sitting at the table.

Speaking only for myself, of course. YMMV.

I can agree with that for fighters. I think larger ships, including the Falcon, take a number more hits from TIEs than they reasonably could under the rules without just going dead in the water.

I get the lethality, particularly for fighters. I just don't know that that is particularly fun to play...which to me should be one of the top things if not the top thing informing how rules are crafted.

Well for fighters that is what the squad rules are for. and remember important characters ships are disabled when they run out of hull trauma. Unimportant go boom at GMs discretion. That is what we see in Episode 4. the NPCs all get hit and go boom instead of Luke.