This makes some sense and it would be great if crits were a more reliable way to attack larger ships. But don't larger ships have a much better chance of having 1 or in the case of a Nebulon-B multiple engineers so they are much more likely to be able to use actions on mechanics to get rid of the crits and so the crits are not likely to "stack" or stick? The number of crew that can take an action increases, but so too should the number of crew needed to take that action at all. Twenty engineers on a frigate shouldn't be ten times as effective as two engineers on a light freighter, as they are likely to be spread even thinner than the pair on the smaller ship. However, if every crewman is able to take actions, then bigger crews make ion weapons fairly useless as large ships can shed hundreds of SS per turn. Obviously an extreme example, but I've seen a PC and NPC crew on a Gozanti shedding 4-6 strain per turn and making me wonder why the bad guys (pirates) would even bother with ion weapons. Even though its not really implied, I could see limiting a ship to one mechanics check a round that represents the combined efforts of a full complement of engineers. Big ships have more SS to represent their ability to take more punishment. Could make it too easy to take out bigger ships though. But that's why they need their fighter escorts... Speaking of Ion Weapons, they are another thing that doesn't really make sense mechanically to me. The fluff always talks about Ion weapons creating all this trouble with systems, shorting out shields, etc. but that type of damage is represented by critical hits. Ion weapons have basically the same base damage and WORSE critical hit ratings than laser cannons. Sure, they do target SS but that doesn't really do anything until SS = 0. Also Ion weapons seem pretty rare on stock ships. So I'm not sure they are very effective. Even though SS is much lower for most bigger ships, SS can be repaired every turn. Plus, on your average Sil 4 ship that is armed heavily, you tend to have 1 Ion turrent and 3-4 other types of HT targeting weapons. So you can't even "focus fire" on SS with 3-4 weapons. Given the rarity of Ion weapons and their fluff, shouldn't Ion weapons have a crit rating of 1 or 2 to represent their system damage capabilities (and maybe laser cannons go up to 4)? That would at least differentiate them more from Laser weapons. They basically become the crit weapons. With a crit rating of 1 you might even get crits with +20-30 added to the roll on a more regular basis. This makes them more effective against bigger ships as well, which is also part of the Ion weapon reputation.

The GM could make some special ruling, but I think the default (p.234 EOTE) is that crits can be repaired using a single action and Mechanics check AND can be attempted multiple times until repaired. Unless you are in a single seat fighter, the mechanic can get rid of crits pretty easily assuming a halfway decent ability/skill combo.

This makes some sense and it would be great if crits were a more reliable way to attack larger ships. But don't larger ships have a much better chance of having 1 or in the case of a Nebulon-B multiple engineers so they are much more likely to be able to use actions on mechanics to get rid of the crits and so the crits are not likely to "stack" or stick?

Yeah, I guess I can see this. If crits are really meant as a GM tool to add drama and lesson the lethality of space combat then it works ok I guess. I still think it's a piece of pretty sloppy design on FFG part. For instance you have * the general "uses for advantages" in space combat table that tells you that you can use three advantages to pick a component and by its example do something like outright reduce all shields to 0 until the crit is removed by a mechanics check (just as good as a 118-126 Major System Failure on the crit table) * the Easy component hit on the crit table which only lasts one round but says "knocked offline". Does that mean all shields reduced to 0 for 1 round? * The component tables themselves which list more minor effects (shields are only reduced by 1 in all facings) *Effects on the crit table that are higher numbers but seem less onerous than lower numbered effects If FFG is going to go into such specific detail than I just wish it was a bit better thought out.

Was wondering what folks with a lot of actual play experience think about critical hits in starship combat? I haven't gotten to actually play often but on paper critical hits seem problematic given: 1) lots of starships have linked weapons and the 2 advantage cost for another hit seems better and more reliably positive than a roll on the critical hit table 2) critical hit thresholds are all fairly high for most ship weapons (3-4 advantages). 3) the critical hit table itself seems to have a huge variance in effects, with many of the effects very weak. There is a good chance of rolling some effect that doesn't really impact the combat much. Am I missing something? How often to people get 3-4 advantages and how often are they spent on critical hits vs. linked, adding boost die, or other effects?

Why would wearing imperial uniforms make the check hard vs. adding say 2 setback dice (assuming the PCs tried to convince them that they weren't really imperials as part of the conversation)? This seems like a good example of circumstances specific to the PCs and the approach. The GM decides that due to the geopolitical climate any neutral outsider approaching the tribe for help has a Average check. If actual imperials approch the tribe for an alliance, the check would be Daunting or Impossible. [these are the macro level difficulty] The PCs, however, are not really imperials so because they are wearing imperial uniform disguises when they were caught by the beastroders, this is a complication. It really wouldn't matter too much if the GM increases difficulty or adds setbacks except for the many Talents that remove setbacks. I think you have to give that Lando type character the chance to shine by rolling his high Charm and removing the two setbacks from the imperial uniforms by his Talents.

Since this adventure is written for the AoR Beginner Game, I'm guessing that there are some guidelines as to when to add Boost/Setback or increase Difficulties. Quickly though: Increase difficulty when the task at hand is HARDER (shooting farther away, looking for a rarer piece of equipment, running faster) Add setback dice when the task at hand becomes COMPLICATED by extraneous factors (shooting into fog, bad info on that piece of equipment, running with a heavy/awkward item tucked under your arm). There are some guidlines are adjusting difficulty but they all sounds much more like COMPLICATIONS than anything else.

Seems like most people agree that: Difficulty = how hard the task/core opposition is independent of who is doing the task, unusual circumstances, approach, etc. In other words, independent of the current situation the PCs find themselves in, the skill and background of the PC, environmental circumstances, etc. The difficulty is also only based on the core task/opposition associated with the specific skill. So for a Medicine check to heal it is about the difficulty of the wound. Anything else should be dealt with boosts/setbacks. Another way to think about it is that difficulty is set "off screen" before the current scene starts. Boosts/Setbacks = specific circumstances that effect the outcome that do not have to do directly with the level of the task/core opposition. Better or worse tools than normal, environmental factors, specific approaches and tactics that PCs take, etc. Boosts/Setbacks are added "in scene". It's annoying that the beginner game adventures deviate from this structure in some of the examples. IMO it seems important to keep the Boosts/Setbacks flowing so that the many Talents that effect them can have value. In the case of getting aid from the beastriders on Onderan in Shadowpoint, the difficulty should be set based on the larger geopolitical climate. Boosts/Setbacks should added based on the specific approach the PCs take, manners, etc.

Hey, I am new to the game and noticed something in Operation Shadowpoint that has me confused. Spoilers ahead. On p.18 when the PCs are supposed to gain the respect of the Beast Riders, the adventure suggests Easy, Average, or Hard difficulty based on the approach and roleplaying of the PCs. It also says to add boost dice and setback dice “as appropriate for specific roleplaying elements arguments”. From this description, I’m really not sure in what circumstances you would change difficulty vs. add boost/setback. Also, from reading through EotE Core, I thought you were suppose to base the difficulty on the task independent of the specific circumstances and then add boost/setbacks based on the current situation (e.g., approach, affiliations, etc.). This makes more sense to me and helps make the setback removal talents more worthwhile as well. For example, crime lord Xo is a pretty uncaring guy not prone to listen to people so approaching him with Charm is going to be a Hard check. Now if you mention your interest in show dogs (one of Xo’s hobbies) you will get a boost die. If you fail to take off your shoes at the door you get a set back die. The only reason the GM would change the difficulty is if there was a universal reason why it would be harder for anyone to Charm Xo. So if Xo’s daughter was just kidnapped, then perhaps the difficulty to Charm goes up to Daunting or a challenge die replaces a difficulty die. But the key is that this is true for anyone approaching Xo and the circumstances that created the change in difficulty was not the PCs themselves. Is this the right way to think about it? Has there been any more clarification on when (if at all) to change difficulty vs. add boost/setback die? Thanks.