Accelerate/Decelerate & Move

[Lifer4700 396]

I know there have been several house rules created because of things like this, and I also know that I need to use common sense for these types of situations, but I just want to know what everyone else does.
 
SITUATION
Let's say a ship is at rest in a docking bay, perhaps #94.  The pilot sees a troublesome squad of troops with heavy weapons approaching, and uses the "Punch It" maneuver, changing the ship's speed to max (let's say 4).  Then, thinking all is safe, he goes on break to use the refresher and have a spot of tea.
 
However, since the pilot never used the "Move" maneuver, the ship never changes range bands to get away from the enemy.  It's just sitting there at speed 4, not getting any farther away.  Is it circling?
 

That's the justification I use in space.  Two ships at different speeds never change range bands because they're probably dog fighting, the faster ship circling the slower one making passes, or if they're the same speed, then they're chasing each other.  In both cases trying to "gain the advantage" on the other, perhaps.  The "move" maneuver is used to get away from or close the distance to something.

 
BACKGROUND
The situation above is obviously very simplified, but it illustrates the problem I had last session when one of my players stole a ship from a group of parked, ready-and-waiting snubfighters.  Using it to fly over and cripple another ship before it could take off.
 
WHAT I HAD RULED AT THE TIME
Character Maneuver: Accel/Decel - to go from 0 to 1 speed.
Character Maneuver (2 char strain): Move (2 ship strain) - to get over to other ship.
Character Action: Use ship weapons to make attack roll.
 
This seems perfectly fine, but that started my dark thoughts...

• "What if you accelerate but don't move?"
• picture two ships in space, flying toward each other at speed >0, firing at each other.  Neither takes a move maneuver.  They never close the distance.

Crazy things like that.

Edited September 15, 2015 by Lifer4700

[whafrog 10,384]

The space combat rules require you to assume various things, one of which is that the characters are acting in a way that doesn't contradict the basic abstract structure.  The minute you violate those assumptions the whole thing falls apart.  You could accelerate to high speed and simultaneously sit parked over a field of parked TIE fighters.  It's a classic quantum physics question, like Schrodinger's cat...are the TIEs destroyed or not?  Only when you check!  

 

Basically, the rules are easy to break unless everybody plays along.  So it becomes more of a social contract between the players and the GM that you agree not to break the facade.  There's really no other way around it if you want to use RAW.

[Chimpy 194]

Yeah it is a bit of a headache. I think vehicle combat is probably FFG Star Wars weakest point.

 

I wonder if it might have been a better idea to scrap trying to track distance, at least in space combat, and assume all parties are within range.

[Dbuntu 522]

Yeah it is a bit of a headache. I think vehicle combat is probably FFG Star Wars weakest point.

 

I wonder if it might have been a better idea to scrap trying to track distance, at least in space combat, and assume all parties are within range.

While I definitely agree with your first statement, I'm not sure I agree with the second. The design intention seems to be to make vehicle combat function identical to personal combat. I think that's a good goal because in other systems you needed a whole new set of rules to use mounted combat and that would kind of bog down the FFG "rules lite" approach to Star Wars. So I think the best and most elegant solution is the one whafrog suggested:

 

Basically, the rules are easy to break unless everybody plays along.  So it becomes more of a social contract between the players and the GM that you agree not to break the facade. 

This is my favorite way to deal with the issue. It's simple, it's quick, it's easy.

 

Now, should FFG have designed their system with a bit more meat around a pretty integral part of Star Wars? Probably, but it's done now and it doesn't fix the problem to type up a 10k word tangent about the one weak element to an otherwise excellent system.

[Chimpy 194]

I don't think vehicle combat can work the same as personal combat, because I think with vehicles, speed/acceleration is more important, and with characters, distance is more important.

[whafrog 10,384]

I have avoided space combat because of a lot of this.  The most I will do is a chase, and since in a chase the whole purpose is to "get away" or "hunt down", the use of the Fly maneuver is a given, therefore, the OP's problem is solved.  Terrain and a clock do wonders to avoid breaking the facade.

 

I would love to see a completely revamped and more tactical space combat system though.  I don't think the X-Wing rules translate so well, but it would be fun to be able to use the X-Wing models as a kind of "mini-game" in a campaign.

[Braendig 831]

The way I've always thought of it is unless a maneuver is spent to change the range, the combatants are maintaining distance from one another, but the higher speed vehicle is orbiting the target (in an abbreviated orbit at the designated range band).

 

Imagine a fly buzzing and flying around at a window in the house.  It's zooming back and forth, up and down and basically moving all over the place.  However, it's still staying in the window because it doesn't understand it can't fly through it.  Say the fly has a speed of 3 currently.  You, on the other hand, are walking to the fridge from the couch.  Say you have a speed of 1.  Neither of you is changing range bands from one another, and you're both moving at different speeds, but the fly is moving a lot faster than you are, even if it's not going anywhere.

[Ghostofman 8,319]

In the scenario given, wouldn't it be RAW to say that by "Punching it" the combat scale could change? You hop in the vehicle, punch and the scale changes from personal to vehicle. The troopers that were at Medium range a moment ago are now at Close range.

 

Still leaves some odds and ends (something something speederbikes at personal scale) but at least it resolves the issue presented...

[Warl 247]

In the case of Ship to ship maneuvering, in a dog fight, I would have opposing Piloting skill checks to get advantage over the opposing pilot, with advantages allowing you to choose what area of the ship you are able to target or to get behind your opponent if you were in the lead before....

 

Adding set back or Boost Dice based on the difference in speeds between the ships. 

 

in a Chase the lead ship might be able to use Advantages to increase the distance between them where the chasing ship could us them to close the distance. 

Edited September 15, 2015 by SnowDragon

[LethalDose 628]

SITUATION

Let's say a ship is at rest in a docking bay, perhaps #94.  The pilot sees a troublesome squad of troops with heavy weapons approaching, and uses the "Punch It" maneuver, changing the ship's speed to max (let's say 4).  Then, thinking all is safe, he goes on break to use the refresher and have a spot of tea.

 

However, since the pilot never used the "Move" maneuver, the ship never changes range bands to get away from the enemy.  It's just sitting there at speed 4, not getting any farther away.  Is it circling?

 

Basically, yes.  This is how I've always interpreted the RAW: if you're moving at any speed, but not using maneuvers to change range bands, you're basically circling.  Using the maneuver to change range bands is basically just saying "I want to go there".  Not using a maneuver to move means you're maintaining your general position relative to where you started.

 

However, in the situation you've described (approaching troopers) this hardly matters since flying off in the ship basically ends the combat encounter.  It would matter more if there was pursuit.

[Emperor Norton 397]

I rolled changing speed, including punch it, into the fly/drive maneuver specifically because it didn't make good sense to me.

 

My house rule: before, after, or instead of changing range bands (once per maneuver), a vehicle can change their speed by 1 (2 if a speed 5 or 6 vehicle, or any amount if they take system strain = to sillhoutte).

 

I've done a lot of edits to vehicle combat just because I think there are several wonky bits about it. you can check my house rules here.

[Dbuntu 522]

In the case of Ship to ship maneuvering, in a dog fight, I would have opposing Piloting skill checks to get advantage over the opposing pilot, with advantages allowing you to choose what area of the ship you are able to target or to get behind your opponent if you were in the lead before....

What you are describing is roughly Gain the Advantage.

[Lifer4700 396]

Great suggestions everyone, thank you for your input!

I also have one more point to make, and I know this has been covered elsewhere, but I cannot find the thread...

One of the biggest problems for me is the "whoever shoots first, wins" problem. Especially, in my BACKGROUND section above.

...one of my players stole a ship from a group of parked, ready-and-waiting snubfighters.  Using it to fly over and cripple another ship before it could take off.

Since it's so (almost ridiculously) easy to hit a ship while flying around, let alone while it's just sitting there on the ground, this really was a case of "whichever side won initiative won the battle".

But imagining that this were taking place in space, where both ships were already moving, going first still has the huge advantage of being able to blast huge holes into the other ship before it can react. I'm almost tempted to put in a single round of "the weapons aren't ready to fire yet" for everyone, just so everyone has a chance to punch it, or duck behind an asteroid, or something to make combat more interesting.

I'm also a little disappointed with shields. Each shield rating, on average, can help avoid 1/3 of a point of damage, and 1/3 of an advantage - maybe. So if you buy your shields up to 3, you have a good chance of reducing the incoming damage by around 1. Considering that incoming damage from light lasers is typically 6-9 points at minimum, that's not a lot. If shields were to fail, one might not even notice. In my example above, the HWK-290 was hit with 14 points of its 18 total in the opening shot. (4 success & 2 advantage = 9 dmg + another 9 for linked, minus 2 for armor from each hit, equals 14)

P.S. Can you tell I just ran my first real ship combat? I'd heard it was deadly, but I still wasn't prepared for it.

[Braendig 831]

Great suggestions everyone, thank you for your input!

I also have one more point to make, and I know this has been covered elsewhere, but I cannot find the thread...

One of the biggest problems for me is the "whoever shoots first, wins" problem. Especially, in my BACKGROUND section above.

 

...one of my players stole a ship from a group of parked, ready-and-waiting snubfighters.  Using it to fly over and cripple another ship before it could take off.

Since it's so (almost ridiculously) easy to hit a ship while flying around, let alone while it's just sitting there on the ground, this really was a case of "whichever side won initiative won the battle".

But imagining that this were taking place in space, where both ships were already moving, going first still has the huge advantage of being able to blast huge holes into the other ship before it can react. I'm almost tempted to put in a single round of "the weapons aren't ready to fire yet" for everyone, just so everyone has a chance to punch it, or duck behind an asteroid, or something to make combat more interesting.

I'm also a little disappointed with shields. Each shield rating, on average, can help avoid 1/3 of a point of damage, and 1/3 of an advantage - maybe. So if you buy your shields up to 3, you have a good chance of reducing the incoming damage by around 1. Considering that incoming damage from light lasers is typically 6-9 points at minimum, that's not a lot. If shields were to fail, one might not even notice. In my example above, the HWK-290 was hit with 14 points of its 18 total in the opening shot. (4 success & 2 advantage = 9 dmg + another 9 for linked, minus 2 for armor from each hit, equals 14)

P.S. Can you tell I just ran my first real ship combat? I'd heard it was deadly, but I still wasn't prepared for it.

 

 

This situation sits clearly in the "Make it long" Order 66 recommendation.  If the two sides -start- the engagement out of range of one another, they'll be forced to maneuver that first round.  At that point, it's less about who shoots first than who thinks more strategically.  As most non-capital weaponry has a maximum range of Short, have the engagement begin at Long or Extreme range and then see where it goes.  This will give the pilots on both sides the ability to use 'terrain' to their advantage.

[rowdyoctopus 1,412]

What I forgot to do in my first ship combat was make sure the larger ships had setback increased difficulty when firing on smaller ships due to difference in silhouette.  I also gave the Imperial gunners an attack pool of YYYG or something silly like that.  I had to GM hand wave it and say the players got away once I realized how flubbed up it got.

Edited September 17, 2015 by rowdyoctopus

[Braendig 831]

What I forgot to do in my first ship combat was make sure the larger ships had setback when firing on smaller ships due to difference in silhouette.  I also gave the Imperial gunners an attack pool of YYYG or something silly like that.  I had to GM hand wave it and say the players got away once I realized how flubbed up it got.

 

It's not setbacks, it's a difference in difficulty.  I know it's pedantic, but the distinction is important.

[rowdyoctopus 1,412]

 

What I forgot to do in my first ship combat was make sure the larger ships had setback when firing on smaller ships due to difference in silhouette.  I also gave the Imperial gunners an attack pool of YYYG or something silly like that.  I had to GM hand wave it and say the players got away once I realized how flubbed up it got.

 

It's not setbacks, it's a difference in difficulty.  I know it's pedantic, but the distinction is important.

 

It is important!

 

Can you tell I have yet to run another ship encounter?