While i love Edge of the Empire in general, i find the pilot options during a star ship duel a bit lacking. Evasive Maneuvers and Stay on Target both seem to have too little effect, and Gain the Advantage seems only usable by the few ships that have speed 4+ and multiple crew.

I am considering suggestion the following changes to these three maneuvers/actions to my group, but first I would like to hear other people's opinion? Could this be usable or am i way off?

Evasive Maneuvers (Maneuver, Pilot only, Silhouette 1-4, Speed 3+)

• Until the start of the pilot's next turn, upgrade difficulty twice of attacks made by the pilot's ship and against the pilot's ship.
• Cancels all Advantage by and against this ship (see Gain the Advantage).
• Cannot perform this maneuver if the pilot (or an ally in his ship) has already made an attack on the pilot's turn. I.e. Evasive Maneuvers must be performed before the attack so the pilot cannot skip the penalties.

Stay on Target (Maneuver, Pilot only, Silhouette 1-4, Speed 3+)

• Choose a target enemy ship that does not have Advantage against you (see Gain the Advantage)
• Until the start of the pilot's next turn, upgrade ability twice of attacks made against the pilot's ship or by the pilot's ship against the chosen target.
• Upgrade ability twice of any attempts to Gain the Advantage against the pilot's ship by any opponent except the target ship.

In case my rules are not clear, I will give an example of their use here:

Our heroes in their unmodified (say what?) YT-1300 are attacked by two wings of imperial Tie Fighters. All ships start the battle at full speed.

• YT-1300: Speed 3, Handling -1, Pilot ability/skill: 5/2
• Tie Fighter alpha and beta wings (2x3 minions): Speed 5, Handling 3, Pilot ability/skill: 3/2

PC 1: Our heroes win initiative, and the pilot attempts to Gain the Advantage against the Alpha wing. The dice pool is as follows:

• Pilot ability/skill: 2 Proficiency (yellow) + 3 Ability (green)
• YT-1300 handling: 1 Setback (black)
• Tie Fighter pilot skill upgraded twice (due to -2 speed difference): +3 Challenge (red), +1 Difficulty (purple)
• Tie Fighter handling: 3 Setback (black)

Total die pool: 2P + 3A + 3C + 1D + 4S

Result: 2 successes, 1 Triumph, 4 Threats

Effect: Two successes are more than enough to gain the advantage against the Tie Fighter alpha wing, and the heroes upgrade all their attacks against that wing. The triumph adds a Boost (blue) die to the free attack (see below). The Threats cause the YT-1300 1 point of system strain.

Feeling reckless, the pilot uses his maneuver to Stay on Target against the alpha wing.

Succeeding a Gain the Advantage allows a free attack on the pilot's turn. The pilot has no guns, but fortunately another PC is already seated in the YT-1300 dorsal turret. That PC chooses to make the attack now (in order to make the attack before the situation changes and bonuses are lost), though this causes him to loose his turn this round. The attack is upgraded three times (once for Advantage and twice for Stay in Target) and it has a Boost dice (from the triumph rolled before).

The attack is a success, and the gunner takes out one of the Tie Fighters.

GM 2: Now it's the Tie Fighter beta wing's turn. Seeing the YT-1300 is completely focused on the alpha wing, the three Tie Fighters in the beta wing has an easy target. They try to Gain the Advantage against the YT-1300. The dice pool would normally be the reverse of the pool used when the YT-1300 was making the attempt, i.e. 3P + 1A + 4B + 2C + 3D. Since the YT-1300 is using Stay on Target on another wing, the beta wing upgrades their ability twice more.

Total die pool: 4P + 1A + 4B + 2C + 3D

Result: 1 successes, 2 Triumphs, 3 Advantages

The Tie Fighter beta wing also chooses to Stay on Target before they make their free attack. The attack check is upgraded five times! (1 for Gain the Advantage, 2 for the YT-1300 exposing itself, 2 for the beta wing focusing everything on the kill) and gains +3 Boost dice to the roll. Not surprisingly the YT-1300 suffers a nasty hit and the pilot curses himself for being cocky.

Make sure you really understand how space combat works before you monkey with it. There's a lot of suprising little nuances that people miss.

For example, Gain the Advantage. It's not intended to be used all the time every time. The idea is to give the pilot a list of tactical options and he then has to choose what makes the most sense at any given time. If you're in a YT-1300 going speed 4, and taking on an A-9 Vigilance going Speed 6, using GtA is probably going to be a waste of an action.

I also see you doing things like changing the minimum speed, and the first question I have to ask is: Why? If the problem is the players have a ship that's only speed 2.... then you're the GM, get them something with some get up and go!

Another thing I see is the opposed piloting check... If you want to try that go ahead, but I wouldn't. See something that people miss with some of the combat situations in EotE (like melee) is that the designers made combat work the way it does to keep it moving and relatively balanced. The opposed piloting check to do X is a glorious example of this. See using the fixedish difficulties of the existing system a TIE Fighter will always be about the same level of threat to the players even after they earn 1000XP. Likewise, that TIE Defender Ace Nemesis with Adversary 4 won't become an invincible ball of space ownage.

Not everyone likes the vehicle combat system, it is very different from the way other systems do it, and if you want to change it, by all means do so. But make sure you really grasp how everything works before you start changing things, usually things are the way they are for a reason, and minor changes have a way of snowballing into somethign more then expected.

We use http://triumphdespair.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/gain-the-advantage/

Gain The Advantage (CSR)

Pilot Only Maneuver

Requirement: Speed 1+

Target one starship or vehicle in Close range and make an opposed Piloting check against the starship or vehicle’s pilot.

Upgrade the check for each point of Speed your starship or vehicle is travelling faster than the target, and downgrade the check for each point of Speed your starship or vehicle is travelling slower than the target. Add Boost or Setback die as normally determined by the starship or vehicle’s Handling rating.

On a successful check, combat checks from your starship or vehicle against the target are upgraded and you may choose the defense zone targeted.

Thanks for the feedback guys. Comments to your comments below...

Make sure you really understand how space combat works before you monkey with it. There's a lot of suprising little nuances that people miss.

For example, Gain the Advantage. It's not intended to be used all the time every time. The idea is to give the pilot a list of tactical options and he then has to choose what makes the most sense at any given time. If you're in a YT-1300 going speed 4, and taking on an A-9 Vigilance going Speed 6, using GtA is probably going to be a waste of an action.

I also see you doing things like changing the minimum speed, and the first question I have to ask is: Why? If the problem is the players have a ship that's only speed 2.... then you're the GM, get them something with some get up and go!

I will try not to feel insulted by that first line...

I think that many people will agree with me that GtA needs a fix: No one-man fighter would ever consider using GtA since two attacks are so much better than one attack that might be slightly improved if he succeeds on GtA. Most multi crew crafts cannot use it since they are too slow, so that leaves only the speed 4+ multi crew crafts. For these select few craft, GtA is quite a strong option.

IMHO it is unfortunate that the only action that requires any form of pilot skill can be used by such a small fraction of the space ships out there.

The reason why I reduced the speed requirement is to allow the pilot to have some influence on a battle, even if the pilot is flying a speed 3 ship. NB that the lower speed will make the chance of success smaller.

Another thing I see is the opposed piloting check... If you want to try that go ahead, but I wouldn't. See something that people miss with some of the combat situations in EotE (like melee) is that the designers made combat work the way it does to keep it moving and relatively balanced. The opposed piloting check to do X is a glorious example of this. See using the fixedish difficulties of the existing system a TIE Fighter will always be about the same level of threat to the players even after they earn 1000XP. Likewise, that TIE Defender Ace Nemesis with Adversary 4 won't become an invincible ball of space ownage.

I agree that the opposed check adds an annoying level of complexity to the roll, but I do not agree on your statement that the fixed difficulty keeps the game relatively balanced while an opposed roll would not. While the base difficulty to hit in melee is fixed, a melee focused PC will gain talents and gear that will make hitting more difficult as he the game progresses. Likewise adversaries are per design more difficult to hit. I do not see the big difference between this and an opposed check (except the opposed check is more time consuming to make).

Note: Even if an opponent is so crazy skilled that he will always have advantage against the PC's, this will only grant him a slight edge, and they might still easily be able to shoot him down.

Not everyone likes the vehicle combat system, it is very different from the way other systems do it, and if you want to change it, by all means do so. But make sure you really grasp how everything works before you start changing things, usually things are the way they are for a reason, and minor changes have a way of snowballing into somethign more then expected.

Thanks for the warning. This is exactly why I post the question here before introducing it to my group.

While i like the personal combat system very much, the designers do seem to have been in a bit of a hurry when they implemented the space ship combat system. In general it's okay, but there just seems to be a few critical things that they could have done so much better had they had the time and will to work the details through once more.

We use http://triumphdespair.wordpress.com/2013/01/13/gain-the-advantage/
...

Yes I have seen that house rule too (i am much inspired by it), but it breaks the general rule of a Maneuver never requiring a skill check (only actions may do this).

I'm one of the guys that has monkeyed around with Starship Combat coz I don't like what FFG has done.

While not perfect, we're currently using this set of House Rules for our Dogfights:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCo9WoSsZs1tOEa45_sEGI5BtyfPt_lAhPfgohc_d_I/edit?usp=sharing

I will try not to feel insulted by that first line...

Sorry, if I came off a little blunt, the vehicle combat rules are just suprisingly better and more complex then they appear. I've been gaming quite a while, and I've house ruled a lot of things, and one thing I learned is not to "fix" something until I am 100% sure I understand what it is, how it works, and can be sure it's actually broken. If not, then it's a really good bet it'll come back and bit me in the butt later, and I'm trying to help you avoid that.

I think that many people will agree with me that GtA needs a fix: No one-man fighter would ever consider using GtA since two attacks are so much better than one attack that might be slightly improved if he succeeds on GtA. Most multi crew crafts cannot use it since they are too slow, so that leaves only the speed 4+ multi crew crafts. For these select few craft, GtA is quite a strong option.

IMHO it is unfortunate that the only action that requires any form of pilot skill can be used by such a small fraction of the space ships out there.

The reason why I reduced the speed requirement is to allow the pilot to have some influence on a battle, even if the pilot is flying a speed 3 ship. NB that the lower speed will make the chance of success smaller.

The problems with your line of thought is it doesn't factor in all the possible combinations of stuff that's out there and what happens when all the options are being used by all parties and how that's supposed to balance the different ship types.

So for example, you are in a Z-95, I am in a Citadel frieghter (lets assume our skill rolls are both Agi3, Skill2). By your arguement, you would never use GtA on me because 2 shots over two rounds would be better then GtA on turn one, and a Shot on turn two...

Until...... I take evasive maneuvers and angle my deflectors. Your difficulty is now 3Blk, 1 P, 1R. Even aiming twice your odd of success aren't very good. If you GtA on me though... well now you can ignore those black dice and drop the red back down to a purple. Now your odds of doing damage are a lot better. My next turn all I can do reangle my deflectors to get at least one of those black dice back and try and come up with something creative, but I can't GtA back on you because I'm too big and slow.

In this case even your one-man craft is actually better off using GtA.You may not be able to shoot me first turn, but your second turn you're more likely to actually hit. And that's the deal with GtA, there's plenty of times that I wouldn't use it, but there's also times I would. That's one of the nifty things about what FFG has done here, they made playing the pilot about choices and options and tactical decision making, and not just a pile of opposed rolls. A good pilot player isn't just going to be a guy with a good skill and talent selection, it's going to be the guy that also knows which actions to take when to make those buffs and debuffs work for him.

This also shows how the game is supposed to balance out these different ship stats and maneuver options. Fighters are small and fast and maneuverable, so they get the full range of options but only one or two crew to handle them. Freighters are transport ships, they are big and tough and carry a full crew... but they don't have the full set of options. Capital ships are even bigger and tougher with dozens of crewers, but they get almost no options (and will usually find hitting those tiny little fighters rather tough to boot).

And this leads to what I meant about that snowballing. If you do something like make a speed 3 frieghter with a full crew able to dogfight, why should starfighters even exist? The frieghter gets a full crew, a pile of weapons, equal or better armor and shields, and more hull and strain. And this is also why engine upgrades are such a big deal when player start modding ships.

Another thing I see is the opposed piloting check... If you want to try that go ahead, but I wouldn't. See something that people miss with some of the combat situations in EotE (like melee) is that the designers made combat work the way it does to keep it moving and relatively balanced. The opposed piloting check to do X is a glorious example of this. See using the fixedish difficulties of the existing system a TIE Fighter will always be about the same level of threat to the players even after they earn 1000XP. Likewise, that TIE Defender Ace Nemesis with Adversary 4 won't become an invincible ball of space ownage.

I agree that the opposed check adds an annoying level of complexity to the roll, but I do not agree on your statement that the fixed difficulty keeps the game relatively balanced while an opposed roll would not. While the base difficulty to hit in melee is fixed, a melee focused PC will gain talents and gear that will make hitting more difficult as he the game progresses. Likewise adversaries are per design more difficult to hit. I do not see the big difference between this and an opposed check (except the opposed check is more time consuming to make).

Note: Even if an opponent is so crazy skilled that he will always have advantage against the PC's, this will only grant him a slight edge, and they might still easily be able to shoot him down.

Run the numbers and you'll see why opposed checks aren't used very often in EotE.

You in a Z-95 are dogfighting a lone minion TIE Fighter.

By RAW for him to GtA on you (and negate your shields and evasive maneuvers) his difficulty is a base of 1P vs. his skill of 3G 3Blu. He's usually going to have a good chance of succeeding. This will be true on the first day you fly a Z-95, and in 20 years after you have maxed out your piloting skill check.

With an opposed roll, the TIE's difficulty will be based on your skill. So if you have say... 3Y 1G, that lone TIE is going to be up against 3R 1P 1Blk... his odds of ever gaining the advantage have plummeted. So have yours, but at least unlike him you won't be rolling any Despairs.

Now... you take on TIE Avenger piloted by an Ace, with 3Y 1G, and Adversary 3... so for you to GtA that'll be.... 5R 3Blk... I hope you like Despair results because you'll be seeing them a lot... Of course you can always just not GtA... but now you're looking at an already difficult gunnery check getting even tougher, combat lasting longer, and players getting bored (or killed).

See the problem now?

Sorry, if I came off a little blunt, the vehicle combat rules are just suprisingly better and more complex then they appear. I've been gaming quite a while, and I've house ruled a lot of things, and one thing I learned is not to "fix" something until I am 100% sure I understand what it is, how it works, and can be sure it's actually broken. If not, then it's a really good bet it'll come back and bit me in the butt later, and I'm trying to help you avoid that.

Glad we got that worked out. Too often the intention behind the written language is misunderstood in the other end.

Regarding the fix thing, then I admit that I in general might be a bit too fast to try "fixing" rules :-). A restricting hand is greatly appreciated, especially if i can agree on the arguments behind.

The problems with your line of thought is it doesn't factor in all the possible combinations of stuff that's out there and what happens when all the options are being used by all parties and how that's supposed to balance the different ship types.

So for example, you are in a Z-95, I am in a Citadel frieghter (lets assume our skill rolls are both Agi3, Skill2). By your arguement, you would never use GtA on me because 2 shots over two rounds would be better then GtA on turn one, and a Shot on turn two...

Until...... I take evasive maneuvers and angle my deflectors. Your difficulty is now 3Blk, 1 P, 1R. Even aiming twice your odd of success aren't very good. If you GtA on me though... well now you can ignore those black dice and drop the red back down to a purple. Now your odds of doing damage are a lot better. My next turn all I can do reangle my deflectors to get at least one of those black dice back and try and come up with something creative, but I can't GtA back on you because I'm too big and slow.

In this case even your one-man craft is actually better off using GtA.You may not be able to shoot me first turn, but your second turn you're more likely to actually hit. And that's the deal with GtA, there's plenty of times that I wouldn't use it, but there's also times I would...

The beauty of EotE is the complexity of the dice roll, which makes it extremely difficult to calculate odds. Still it is possible at least as long as you only look on one axis. In order to verify your argument, i have taken the time to do so. Note i only look at successes vs failures here (I ignore advantages/threats, and treat triumph/despair as simple success/failure).

The task is to figure out which of the following options has the highest chance of success:

A) 2 attacks: GYY vs BBBRR (I have upgraded the second P to R assuming the Z-95 also does evasive maneuvers)

B) GtA + 1 Attack: GYY vs BPR

A) Each attack has: 42.4% chance of 1+ success (23.5% of 2+, 10.3% of 3+, 3.3% of 4+, ...)

We have two attacks, so this becomes 66.8% chance of hitting at least once, and 18.0% chance of hitting twice.

B) The attack has: 62.3% chance of 1+ success (40.1% of 2+, 20.5% of 3+, 7.8% of 4+, ...)

Summary (2 attacks vs GtA + 1 attack)

- Hitting in the first round: 42.4% vs 0%

- Hitting in the second round: 42.4% vs 62.3%

- Hitting twice before end of round 2: 18% vs 0%

The statistic says that in this case you have better odds at hitting your opponent if you skip GtA and simply attack twice. And you might hit in the first round, causing an early crit that might make things even better in round two, or you might even hit twice. I know this analysis does not factor in the other dice symbols, but I am quite certain the result but be quite similar.

I am certain that we can think up some scenario where the odds favor GtA + attack, but I fear such a case would be an extremely rare occurrence.

That's one of the nifty things about what FFG has done here, they made playing the pilot about choices and options and tactical decision making, and not just a pile of opposed rolls. A good pilot player isn't just going to be a guy with a good skill and talent selection, it's going to be the guy that also knows which actions to take when to make those buffs and debuffs work for him.

This also shows how the game is supposed to balance out these different ship stats and maneuver options. Fighters are small and fast and maneuverable, so they get the full range of options but only one or two crew to handle them. Freighters are transport ships, they are big and tough and carry a full crew... but they don't have the full set of options. Capital ships are even bigger and tougher with dozens of crewers, but they get almost no options (and will usually find hitting those tiny little fighters rather tough to boot).

I would truly love it if that was so. I too want choices instead of dice rolls, but i just don't see those options in the core rules. The only options as I recall are Evasive Maneuver or Stay on Target (which affects following attacks, but only in a minor way), and then GtA, which I still am not convinced has any validity except for a fast (speed 4+ freighter/patrol boat).

That leaves all the fighters and the normal speed light freighters, where the pilot wonders why he spend time (i.e. XP) training the flying skill, when an untrained droid could do just as well. Of cause a skilled pilot comes in handy when the evil GM places obstacles in the ship's path, but it just seems strange to me that pilot skill has no relevance whatsoever in a normal free space ship battle. The Gunner, mechanic, hacker (computers), scout (perception), etc. all have valuable tasks they can do in a ship combat, where their expertise come in handy, but the ace pilot has no use for his imba skill. Doesn't this rub you the wrong way?

And this leads to what I meant about that snowballing. If you do something like make a speed 3 frieghter with a full crew able to dogfight, why should starfighters even exist? The frieghter gets a full crew, a pile of weapons, equal or better armor and shields, and more hull and strain. And this is also why engine upgrades are such a big deal when player start modding ships.

I'm one of the guys that has monkeyed around with Starship Combat coz I don't like what FFG has done.

While not perfect, we're currently using this set of House Rules for our Dogfights:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1aCo9WoSsZs1tOEa45_sEGI5BtyfPt_lAhPfgohc_d_I/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks for sharing. It looks quite exciting!

Though it is a huge step, it might be the way for my group to go... it will require some thinking and discussion :-)