Jump to content



Photo

Sensor Range is really odd.


  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#41 Rimmer1

Rimmer1

    Member

  • Members
  • 61 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:33 AM

I believe, communication range is different from sensor range, for one, communication range is far far longer, hence why a command ship can send data and info about targets the fighters have yet to even see.

 

Also, smaller ships have been used, abeit in the EU, to effectivley extend the range of a capital ships sensors by flying at the extream edge of the capitals sensors and relaying information back.


Lord Inquisitor - Sometimes a Bolter is not the only, nor best answer my Acolyte.

Acolyte - Yes my Lord, that is why I requisitioned a Melta Gun, Plasma Pistol and Vortex Grenades

Lord Inquisitor - Your not even listening are you?

Acolyte - How are you with Archeotech?


#42 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,766 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 08:01 AM

 

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

 

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

 

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat.  If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG.  Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story.  This game is story driven, story focused.  It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing.  That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

 

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable.  Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.


Edited by 2P51, 08 June 2014 - 08:02 AM.

  • Deve Sunstriker and edisung like this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#43 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,332 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:06 PM

I have to say that the game can be as abstract, cinematic, narrative, story driven, or what ever fancy term one wants to say, but that does not justify that written rules are unconsisten and conflictive. Sensor & Comm rules as writen don't have to be more complex, just consistent and avoid confusion to players and gms.
  • HappyDaze likes this

The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#44 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,766 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 12:23 PM

What's inconsistent?  It is perfectly plausible to be targeted by something you don't know is there and knows you are.  It's perfectly plausible to be able to fire farther than you can see.  I don't see any inconsistencies at all.  In war there is no winner that relies on their own ability to see what is going on, you fuse information collected from multiple sources.  Information is relayed.  

 

A task force would deploy ISR assets to look for enemy contact.  Those assets even if their sensors are short range, that means their direct search is medium, so tight beam comms would be medium, that ship's medium scan goes out, it beams a medium tight bean message back to a relay ship when it finds something.  That relay vessel has short range comms on passive which equals what in total comm range? Long, extreme? Seems like whatever works for you.  That receiving ship then disseminates that targeting information to a flag ship with another tight beam medium range comms message.  The flag ship sends that information out and you've essentially spanned a play field and then some.


  • Doc, the Weasel likes this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#45 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,332 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 01:04 PM

There are ships with sensor range close and weapons that can fire at short. How do you that?

The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#46 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,766 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 01:08 PM

There are ships with sensor range close and weapons that can fire at short. How do you that?

By having detected them with a tight beam, short sensor sweep, which per the rules you can do.  They're close on passive, short on direct.  That, or the targeting information was fed to you by some other source, narratively or mechanically.


  • Doc, the Weasel and edisung like this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#47 signoftheserpent

signoftheserpent

    Member

  • Members
  • 715 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 01:38 PM

 

 

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

 

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

 

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat.  If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG.  Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story.  This game is story driven, story focused.  It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing.  That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

 

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable.  Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

 

 

This is a bziarre response: who has said they want over complicated rules?



#48 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,622 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 02:55 PM

 

 

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

 

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

 

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat.  If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG.  Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story.  This game is story driven, story focused.  It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing.  That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

 

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable.  Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

 

They didn't give them ranges in kilometers, but they did give them ranges in terms of range bands (just like weapons). The issues I've mentioned come up when using the range bands they have given us, and could really use some cleaning up. Cleaning it up so the rules are written to allow what we see on screen would be ideal.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#49 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,766 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 03:26 PM

 

 

 

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

 

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

 

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat.  If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG.  Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story.  This game is story driven, story focused.  It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing.  That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

 

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable.  Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

 

 

This is a bziarre response: who has said they want over complicated rules?

 

Perfect, then you're happy because the rules are simple and fine with you.


My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#50 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,766 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:20 PM

 

 

 

Speaking for myself, I want the rules to actually work when they're put to the test. If they don't, then getting them changed (through errata or house rules) seems like a better answer than just ignoring them.

 

I agree with this. I've never really understood just discarding what should otherwise be perfectly good rules.

 

Because the game in totality of circumstance is about story and not technical nit picking of a minor technical rule of space combat.  If that technical specificity is what some require, they should be playing a tabletop tactical game and not a narrative focused RPG.  Having very tight rules about sensors and comms adds extremely little to practically nothing to a story.  This game is story driven, story focused.  It's extremely abstract, it doesn't even use numeral dice, it's not meant to focus on this sort of thing.  That's part of why there is no "Sensor MkIII can scan and ID targets at 3000km while Sensor MK X can see out to 20,000 km", because the devs didn't want people focusing on that minutiae.

 

I also don't see how even if they publish some errata about changing the range descriptions of comms and sensors that suddenly makes the game all better whereas before it was unbearable.  Incidentally these two items occupy two whole paragraphs in a 440+ page rule book to give an idea how unimportant the devs thought they were to the game.

 

They didn't give them ranges in kilometers, but they did give them ranges in terms of range bands (just like weapons). The issues I've mentioned come up when using the range bands they have given us, and could really use some cleaning up. Cleaning it up so the rules are written to allow what we see on screen would be ideal.

 

There are no rules to clean up though.  There is no sensor step in ship combat.  The paragraph you're upset over is a fluff piece on the page proceeding where ship combat rules start.  There is no sensor check in combat/shooting.  They don't have anything to do with it.  There is no "Locate the Enemy" Action, Maneuver, Incidental.  So there is no rule to clean up.

 

p. 235 "Thanks to the advanced targeting computers installed in most starships, the range of the shot has no bearing on the attack's difficulty: If the target is within range, a starship can hit it."

 

The only portion of the rules where it would come into play might be some Actions like "Scan the Enemy" or "Slice the Enemy's systems"

 

If you want a better sensor range, grab one off a similar silhouette ship and install it as an upgrade on an existing one.  Dream up a price that makes sense, or just make an attachment called advanced sensors and have the players pay a decent price.  Maybe they will have some sort of attachment in one of the upcoming splat books.


  • edisung likes this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#51 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,622 posts

Posted 08 June 2014 - 04:24 PM

Sensor Range is a mechanic. It interacts with the game mechanically. It does not do so as well as it should. Why would addressing this issue be objectionable?


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#52 Yepesnopes

Yepesnopes

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,332 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:35 AM

 

There are ships with sensor range close and weapons that can fire at short. How do you that?

By having detected them with a tight beam, short sensor sweep, which per the rules you can do.  They're close on passive, short on direct.  That, or the targeting information was fed to you by some other source, narratively or mechanically.

 

You are right. Without commenting how good or bad they do, the fact is that the raw cover this situation. The only problem comes then with the advanced targeting array attachment, but this is minor I guess.


The Book of the Asur - High Elf fan supplement

The Dark Side - Witches, Warlocks, Dark Magic and more

Secrets of the Anvil - Advanced Dwarf careers and runes

Dice statistics calculator for SW EotE


#53 FreeXenon

FreeXenon

    Member

  • Members
  • 148 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 08:12 AM

I spent a week trying to aggregate comprehensive sensor rules, but there is basically nothing about it.

A lot of what I came up ended up being house rules. =(

 

 

Astrogation was easy enough over a week to come up with comprehensive rules since there was enough written and enough examples that it all worked.



#54 edisung

edisung

    Member

  • Members
  • 140 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 02:47 PM

The rules for Sensor Range seem pretty straightforward, but they create some really odd situations.

 

It's quite possible for weapons like turbolasers to take out fighters without the fighters even being able to detect what's firing at them. Further, they couldn't even communicate with the vessel firing on them - but it can communicate with them.

 

If the PCs have a ship with Sensor Range Medium, they should always detect incoming fighters before the fighters can see them. At this point, they should almost always be able to evade the fighters if they wish since movement (Fly/Drive) is relative to another unit. If they can't detect you, then moving toward you in space is pretty damn unlikely unless you can't maneuver or you let it happen.

 

 

I really hope that sensor feeds can be shared (like a Star Destroyer keeping its TIEs aware of a target outside of the fighters' own Sensor Range) but this depends on Comms functioning so long as either unit has the range (otherwise the TIEs could only receive or only transmit - still not sure which one the Comms range covers).

to get this back to the OP, it's just asking that FFG clarify by stating specifically the fact that sensor feeds can be shared between allied ships via comm relays.  i don't think it's unwarranted to assume that they would be and don't feel that it's going as far as "house rules" to believe so.  info can be transmitted and received through comms.  info can be shared between sources that are allied (read: actively sharing and coordinating maneuvers/attacks).  i don't think it requires an errata or FAQ update to make it so as you can figure out how that mechanically works yourself.  again, this would only cause you to have to do some range math and tracking while playing in a very small percentage of games and don't see the big deal to nitpick that the "mechanics" are not clearly stated enough.



#55 bradknowles

bradknowles

    Member

  • Members
  • 262 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:00 PM

i don't think it requires an errata or FAQ update to make it so as you can figure out how that mechanically works yourself.  again, this would only cause you to have to do some range math and tracking while playing in a very small percentage of games and don't see the big deal to nitpick that the "mechanics" are not clearly stated enough.

 

Look at the Chedak Mark 6 Combat Scanner.  It explicitly says that this information can be shared with anyone else within communications range that also has a similar device.

 

I see no reason why ship-based communications & sensor systems should be any less capable than the 1 Encumbrance man-portable units costing only 2k credits.


Unless stated otherwise, these are just my personal opinions about how I feel things should work.  Even if I quote chapter and verse of a particular rulebook, only the part that's quoted is likely to actually be official.  Each GM will have to decide for themselves what rules they will use and which ones they won't, and how they will interpret the rules they do use.  That is their right -- and their responsibility.

"A FFG Star Wars Index" by Aahzmandius_Karrde: <http://community.fan...ar-wars-index/> | Github project at <https://github.com/k...rde/ffg_swrpg/>

"Dice Probability Generator" by Litheon: http://community.fan...lity-generator/


#56 2P51

2P51

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,766 posts

Posted 09 June 2014 - 05:03 PM

 

i don't think it requires an errata or FAQ update to make it so as you can figure out how that mechanically works yourself.  again, this would only cause you to have to do some range math and tracking while playing in a very small percentage of games and don't see the big deal to nitpick that the "mechanics" are not clearly stated enough.

 

Look at the Chedak Mark 6 Combat Scanner.  It explicitly says that this information can be shared with anyone else within communications range that also has a similar device.

 

I see no reason why ship-based communications & sensor systems should be any less capable than the 1 Encumbrance man-portable units costing only 2k credits.

 

Yes, and common sense is also available, and it is lighter and cheaper still...... ;)


  • Deve Sunstriker and iandimitri like this

My group's Obsidian Portal campaign site: It's All in the Trigger Squeeze


#57 ZachAttack

ZachAttack

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 10 June 2014 - 10:22 PM

 

 

i don't think it requires an errata or FAQ update to make it so as you can figure out how that mechanically works yourself.  again, this would only cause you to have to do some range math and tracking while playing in a very small percentage of games and don't see the big deal to nitpick that the "mechanics" are not clearly stated enough.

 

Look at the Chedak Mark 6 Combat Scanner.  It explicitly says that this information can be shared with anyone else within communications range that also has a similar device.

 

I see no reason why ship-based communications & sensor systems should be any less capable than the 1 Encumbrance man-portable units costing only 2k credits.

 

Yes, and common sense is also available, and it is lighter and cheaper still...... ;)

 

I don't know man. Around here Common sense is rarity 10


  • Doc, the Weasel and 2P51 like this




© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS