Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Kiton2

  • Rank

Contact Methods

  • AIM
  • MSN
  • Website URL
  • ICQ
  • Yahoo
  • Skype

Profile Information

  • Location
    , Quebec, Canada
  1. Actually, if you wanna spot the problem, it would be that unlike characters levelling, and some equipment being "for later" or "higher tiered"; (you know, the stuff rookies want to one day be assigned to) all starfighters were put on in the same "mooks in x-wings and mooks in TIEs have to be on the same level" pile. So rather than Z-95s and TIE/LNs being starter crap you wanna trade up from, entire generations of obsoleted replacements and next-gen-barely-out-yet models were all put together on the same level, leading to the pathetic stats on things like the Defender, and the excessively upgrade-incompatible tendency in everything smaller than a transport. However their rarity and cost did not change, leading to some very, very obvious "trap" choices here and there. Combat system issues aside, the numbers would have been spread far more smoothly if -rather than all clumped at the bottom- some models had been something your character builds towards and hopes to get when it's time to play with the big boys; exactly the same idea for pilots and other vehicle users as making your way up to finally having that lightsaber when playing the force user classes. Of course, that would require a rather fat errata table redefining all their stats...
  2. Actually, the Missile Boat runs at 125MGLT, and the A-Wing at 120. If you wanna go purely by the game stats, its shields were 120 (compare to B-Wing at 100), and hull 20 (compare to X-Wing at 21, TIE/Adv or Defender at 15, A-Wing at 16). Hard to respect the FFG handling stats though. -2? You know what has -1? a Vindicator carrying 2500 people and 24 frickin starfighters!
  3. Or maybe just reduce the strain inflicted by the incidental if the defense is that much better? I've rather been wondering about what happens to a Star Destroyer. Technically fighter shots should be bouncing off the shields, but if you do that under these rules, the generators are going to blow quite fast. You could choose not to use the incidental and let them bounce harmlessly off the armor, but that doesn't really make much sense.
  4. Speaking of more agile; the Missile Boat had average ('round the same as an X-Wing) maneuverability so should probably be at +1, and was easily as fast as the A-Wing (a competent pilot left it in the dust with careful careful SLAM/Energy management). Given the energy systems, SLAM was probably best portrayed as expending the laser while inflicting slow-loading on it. Use SLAM, no cannon this turn... or the next. Of course it's also about as hard to get your hands on as palpatine's personal holocrons... Any plans to do the TIE/D? FFG kinda copypasta'd a Y-Wing and called it a day...
  5. Recently tested out the rules thanks to a pair of battles between a few fighters and a freighter. Overall there's a lot of good changes, makes space combat actually a thing(sensors actually doing something now was a huge upgrade), but a few points did remain: -Piloting still does very little for survivability if not using specific maneuvers. -Shields still work at 0 despite what you say: X+2 = 0+2 = 2 extra armor. This is just a thought but, in order not to wreck the delicate balance of the speed/silhouette/gunnery affairs, what if piloting skill doubled as a pool to reduce system strain? A number of times per encounter/battle equal to your piloting skill, whenever your would suffer hull or strain, as an incidental you may suffer one point of the hull or strain suffered as pilot strain instead.
  6. Additionally, there's functionally very little difference in starfighter combat between an ace and anybody else, particularly early on. It doesn't matter which party member it is, if the GM sets them up to lose by having two rookie TIE fighters fire/fly individually and they win initiative, whomever they decide to aim at will be most likely down for the count.
  7. I've recommended that myself in a few places as well, although it's also worth noting that handling 3 speed 1 and most systems offline is rarely any better than "dead in the water", and an extremely bad idea in combat - not because the handling and speed mean anything by RAW, but because if you're not a drifting hulk you're far more likely to get 'finished off' again. Of course, That entire 'drifting and disabled' bit brings on yet another hole in the rules: The fact that Ion weapons are TERRIBLE at disabling many ships in comparison to lasers because of how disabling a ship works/requires. In regards to not having space empty, there's limits to that. Not EVERY battle is a capital-battering asteroid field, not EVERY capital ship is constant cover for every nearby fighter from all angles and directions, and not every planet or moon is going to involve peek-a-boo. A lot of space is empty, a lot of hyperspace routes involve not being too close to gravity-wells, and not every fight can be a convenient space warehouse with convenient space barrels in convenient space shelves for convenient space dogfighting as though this were a cheapo action film. More importantly perhaps though, by the rules combat just doesn't last anywhere near long enough for people to reliably get into defensive terrain when there is any.
  8. I was referring to "a round can be up to a minute" being used as an explanation for shields being worthless sometimes-dodge-a-little dice. My point was that you can't just use that variable length to wave away the system errors we're dealing with here. The example I gave was exactly the kind of ridiculous borderline-railroading situation one's forced to explain away at a player when a simple gunnery check - unaffected by things like the target's speed, handling or pilot-skill - annihilates that A-Wing, X-Wing, Headhunter or anything you want because it apparently was actually multiple volleys that downed its shields and tore it apart with no actual effect or chance to try to disengage/avoid the situation, until the fatal hit. I can't imagine anyone using minute long rounds for a dogfight, since it simplifies the entire battle down to just that unbelievable a degree; potentially a *SINGLE* gunnery roll! I'm well aware of the disparity in sensors there (and comms, by the way. Don't forget a starfighter with [close] sensors can't talk to his friends in [short]. Not to mention that, yes, the A-Wing would vaporize the entire formation with a linked pair of AoE concussion missiles. (edit: BEFORE they know he's there, most likely.) A-Wing was just an example of something that outspeeds TIEs, is just as maneuverable, and by all means should not have been sticking around for an entire minute of never being able to get the bead despite the massive swivel on its guns (some were modified to have even 360 arcs) against that TIE Ace (the kid with 2 agi, 1 piloting 1 gunnery who can ignnore all of that A-Wing's advantages if he somehow did get close). Don't forget, though, that if linked triggers you never needed TWO successes to blow it up.
  9. That forces one to have to explain that that single TIE that just vaped your A-Wing in a single attack roll through your angled double-front because both dice ended up blank though. You were apparently just THAT bad with your 4agi 4 piloting, compared to the 2 agi 1 piloting rookie, that he managed to batter down your shields over that entire minute (seriously who came up with a minute for starfighter combat turns) until somehow exactly only two shots out of all that time ever got through where none did before, and are instantly fatal, as nothing in between happened; no partial bleedthrough, no damage in between volleys, just 59 seconds of plink plink plink plink plink plink plink plink boom.
  10. I forgot the once per encounter was trauma-only, my bad. As for shields: They're shown to take a beating outright in several instances. Most visible example would be the Gungan shield bubbles which acted outright as barriers. Small transports like the Millenium Falcon also take direct hits a few times with the shields letting some of the energy through - but not all, and Star Destroyers also take a beating, not have the shots 'bounce off' the shields. Droidekas are another example, I think, though my memory on their shielding is pretty sketchy (not my favorite movie). There's of course also the games where they act this way, if you don't mind leaving 'canon' a little. Overall, regenerating ablative damage-soak (aka "temp-HP") would seem to be the most appropriate way I can think of portraying the shields, certainly not the "1/3 nothing, 1/3 an advantage, 1/3 a success, never a triumph" negation mechanic that makes you less likely to be hit but does nothing for your hull when actually struck by incoming fire. As an example, if defense rating were temporary HT/ST per round (multiply by 1+Massive Rating perhaps for bigger ship values), you would add significant survivability over time to all ships, despite just reducing a TIE's linked lasers by a measly one (two if angled-front) total per turn!
  11. Nice but I wouldn't call it "the solution" on its own. One problem I see with it though is the strain on the ship. Assuming no ion weapons are incoming and average gunnery results by rookies one can pull this off perhaps twice in a combat, with a solid couple of days (or an entire week just 'resting') to repair the strain. Some starfighters might even scrapped by the second use of it outright as well, depending on the model. It likely doubles the survivability of the ship, for sure, but doubling "virtually nothing" has a rather high cost in this case, as you're going to have to use it whether being shot at by greenhorns in a TIE or by IG-88's aggressor. I like it, don't get me wrong, but it's definitely a last-ditch mechanic; the inherent systemic problems to starship combat at this moment still require some more 'passive' improvements too. We still require modifications to shields to actually protect the ship rather than make starfighters worse at dodging than the Executor, and some measure of the setback mechanic driven by piloting and handling as opposed to what's supposed to be defensive shielding.
  12. You use the opposed roll that is "specifically not Gain the Advantage" to determine whether or not you have Gained the Advantage when you use Gain the Advantage? WAT.
  13. Page 127 is kept (intentionally) vague, and if used in this fashion would wreck "fast and deadly" in a far worse fashion than any of the changes that have been proposed. You would require opposed piloting checks in addition to actual taken turns, followed by the occasional slowdown caused by having to recalculate alternative actions and dice pools. Chances are it's just a reference to the ill-executed "Gain the Advantage" maneuver system. Starships are, additionally, far more likely to encounter "empty space" situations than characters, and their effective blindness to anything beyond sensor range makes preparatory evasives quite unlikely; as long as 'limited ammo' weapons are involved, numerous starfighters can and *will* be wiped out before they even know they need to roll initiative. Missiles and torpedoes, having the range and power that they have compared to regular starfighter guns, are not only extremely decisive, but their actual power versus Sil 5+ vessels actually makes their 'intended' use far less likely: Unless you truly have a wall of projectiles to sling at a given ship before it vaporises your squadron, attacking capital or supercapital vessels is a poor use of your extremely limited resource indeed. Thus this use becomes a "those 30 NPCs" deal, and completely disjointed from the 'life' of a PC starship. Also in regards to 'toning it down', actually my edit was the addition of the parentheses section and the bit about speed and hazardous terrain (for the sake of accuracy). I'm not sure that really toned much down. Being told "we're playing it wrong" when the problem shows up in the most simple and generic/universal situations, and that we should just houserule it is pretty much saying "play something else" outright: what are we if not playing something else entirely once we've rewritten massive chunks of system?
  14. "Fast and deadly" Except, you know, for speed, shields, handling and piloting having absolutely nothing to do with survivability. It's initiative-rush rocket-tag. Well, except for speed increasing the danger of hazardous terrain and thus lowering it. Dropped the bloody ball on that one. Expected as much (what with the vehicular and equipment history here), but hoped I'd be proven wrong for once.
  15. Agreed, but there's also no rule that says much of anything about the encumbrance rating of a ship at all. We don't even know if that's in addition to the pilot, or if it's just "space in the glovebox", or even what happens when you go over the ratings. We also don't have anything covering towing and precious little when it comes to hangar space either...
  • Create New...