Jump to content
ShadoWarrior

Vehicles attacking stationary targets

Recommended Posts

Those trench run pilots were trying to thread a needle, with a missile that needed to make a 90-degree turn at the target location (which was a "hole in the ground"). Hitting a larger target than that, with lasers, is child's play by comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Those trench run pilots were trying to thread a needle, with a missile that needed to make a 90-degree turn at the target location (which was a "hole in the ground"). Hitting a larger target than that, with lasers, is child's play by comparison.

So there are no negative factors on their bombing run?....then why even roll?  Just have it be a set piece event of the scene and be done with it.  If calling in the bombers is some kind of single use asset of the party, then why even make it risk being failed?   You are making this more complicated than it needs to be.

 

Or....do what GM's have done for decades....fudge the roll behind your GM screen and just say it hits no matter what.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's nothing in the system preventing it either.  It's 100% within the GM's right, that is supported by the devs, to just say "X thing happens, I'm not going to make you roll that."    I mean, if a GM really made a player roll to hit a ship that is several kilometers long...that GM is doing it wrong.  There's just no point for that.

As to your specific situation, if the GM's going to have it be a roll, then I don't know what to tell you.  There is no specific rule to try and lawyer him with.  You can try and lawyer him anyway, but, yeah not much we say here will support it.  Because then he could start implying that rule about movement of target/shooter to everything else.   And do you really want that extra chance for failure/success on your shots across every and all rolls from that point forward?

'Cause you know, that does include enemies getting a boost to shoot you when you are stationary.  So you know, pros and cons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This all made me curious about  Blast effect on vehicle scale weapons and its relation to personal scale, as well as, applying it in ship combat.  It may be in the rules somewhere but I am stumped.  I emailed it in to try and get some direction from the devs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vehicle scale is 10x damage of personal, so vehicle scale weapons are devastating. But as far as the blast radius goes, I don't recall seeing any RAW on that. RAW states "engaged" at planetary scale for Blast, but on the personal scale that equivalent is enormous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, 2P51 said:

This all made me curious about  Blast effect on vehicle scale weapons and its relation to personal scale, as well as, applying it in ship combat.  It may be in the rules somewhere but I am stumped.  I emailed it in to try and get some direction from the devs.

Vehicle weapon Blast is Short personal instead of Engaged, I know that much...

AFAIK blast doesn't work in planetary scale, which makes sense for things like shooting a concussion missile at a group of Starfighters, but I'll agree it gets fuzzy when you look at things heavy flak cannons which at least feel like they should be able to hit several Starfighters or otherwise benefit from filling the air/space with shrapnel....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Vehicle scale is 10x damage of personal, so vehicle scale weapons are devastating. But as far as the blast radius goes, I don't recall seeing any RAW on that. RAW states "engaged" at planetary scale for Blast, but on the personal scale that equivalent is enormous.

It's in the same sidebar, last paragraph.

 

Also, looking at the FaD core, because that's just what happens to be handy for me ATM, the sidebar on PG 231 seems to suggest that allowing blast to hit multiple vehicles is just a gm call....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

Vehicle weapon Blast is Short personal instead of Engaged, I know that much...

AFAIK blast doesn't work in planetary scale, which makes sense for things like shooting a concussion missile at a group of Starfighters, but I'll agree it gets fuzzy when you look at things heavy flak cannons which at least feel like they should be able to hit several Starfighters or otherwise benefit from filling the air/space with shrapnel....

You are engaged with yourself, so even on a failed check you can trigger blast and still hit your original target. What is more ironic is the vicious quality on those things as vicious does not affect critical hits, just critical injuries. I would guess this is another case of bad editing. 

Furthermore, squadrons members are technical engaged with each other, which makes blast weapons super silly against them. Might be intentional or another oversight. 

 

Planetary scale blasts are indeed short range personal scale. 

Edited by SEApocalypse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

AFAIK, there's no such thing as a guaranteed hit in this system (even for a fighter hitting the broadside of a Star Destroyer at close range).

A fighter shooting the broad side of a Star Destroyer would most definitely be a guaranteed hit in my game. The only thing that's not guaranteed, is whether you actually do any damage, i.e. manage to target a weak spot in their defences.  So, a failure on a check to shoot at a SD  doesn't have to be interpreted as a miss, but rather their shields were or their hull was simply too strong for your weapons to penetrate. 

This is why shields in this system add setback dice. They reduce the chance for Success on a roll, therefore on a failure you can still hit the target but the hit was absorbed by the shields and failed to cause any damage. Interpreting the rolls is the most important thing in this game! Sometimes, of course, when everybody agrees there is no chance for failure, there is just no need for a roll.

Also, shooting at the broad side of a SD might actually not be that easy, when at the same time you have to dodge their turbo laser fire...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

You are engaged with yourself, so even on a failed check you can trigger blast and still hit your original target. What is more ironic is the vicious quality on those things as vicious does not affect critical hits, just critical injuries. I would guess this is another case of bad editing. 

Furthermore, squadrons members are technical engaged with each other, which makes blast weapons super silly against them. Might be intentional or another oversight. 

 

Planetary scale blasts are indeed short range personal scale. 

Agree on vicious and using blast to "hit in a miss."

 

But when at Planetary scale the smallest formally recognized range band is Close, not Engaged.

 

So I think the box on 231 is the cheat for that, basically saying "if the gm thinks blast should work, it works."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Ghostofman said:

But when at Planetary scale the smallest formally recognized range band is Close, not Engaged.

All personal scale range bands are a sub-set of the planetary scale range band close. The squadron rules explicitly call for engaged when forming a squadron. :)

Though I strongly would suggest to ignore raw here too and just go along with whatever feels right for the GM. The rules are so badly written, edited, developed and contracted even on direct developer answers that I would consider them less as rules and more like vague guidelines. *scnr*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The gunnery rules in this game don't take the target's movement into account at all unless it's performing Evasive Maneuvers. That makes perfect sense too, because imagine firing out of a moving car on the highway, it would be much easier to shoot at the car in front of you that's going the same speed as it would be firing at a car that's parked on the side of the road. With a targeting computer it isn't difficult at all to hit anything that's moving at a constant speed by simply calculating an interception point. It's only when something is rapidly altering it's path that it becomes harder to hit, and that's taking Evasive Maneuvers.

The way this game works makes the biggest weakness of stationary defenses that you can simply move into range, fire and move back out of range before they get a turn. The lack of held actions or a proper suppressing fire rule makes it impossible to make entering the range of a weapon perilous if there is any way to get back out of its range before it gets a turn. 

Edited by Aetrion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/16/2017 at 1:55 PM, SEApocalypse said:

Muzzle velocity during the world wars was several times higher. Dodging a bullet is hard, dodging a medium laser cannon is easy, simply based on the difference of projectile velocities.

You’re not dodging a laser beam, you’re dodging their aim.  Same principle works with arrows, guns, etc….

The difference with lasers in the real world is that you get much faster feedback on when you’re on target, and therefore you can correct your aim a lot faster.  Same with projectile weapons with high rates of fire and tracer rounds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Star Wars weapon tech isn't really comparable to real life. Almost everything in Star Wars imitates the military technology of the 60s in terms of how it is tactically applied. Realistic space based weapon systems would be oodles more powerful than anything they have in Star Wars. Like destroying a planet is ridiculously easy once you're talking about relativistic projectiles. Every ship with a hyperdrive is technically a planet killing projectile, because something with actual mass going at light speed has ludicrous amounts of energy. Basically a relativistic projectile is so powerful that strapping a nuke to it would increase it's power the same way that strapping a firecracker to a nuke would. Star Wars just simply ignores that realistically anyone with a junky old spaceship could blow up a planet because it's a futuristic fantasy world, not a hard science fiction world. 

Edited by Aetrion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, bradknowles said:

You’re not dodging a laser beam, you’re dodging their aim.  Same principle works with arrows, guns, etc….

The difference with lasers in the real world is that you get much faster feedback on when you’re on target, and therefore you can correct your aim a lot faster.  Same with projectile weapons with high rates of fire and tracer rounds.

As mentioned, weapon projectiles are slow enough in star wars that you can dodge them, they are highly visible, with speeds around 300 to 1000 m/s and leave you up to 2 seconds time to react to incoming enemy fire. You literally can dodge them as you merely need to change your vector slightly at normal engagement ranges. Once you are getting into super close ranges, only that you need to dodge the aim instead of projectile itself. 

 

@Aetrion thing is, star wars ships seem incable to reaching relativistic speeds, the hyperspace acceleration is called pseudo-motion for a reason and everything in practical use points to the fact that those ships are not really accelerating to relativistic speeds. Else the u-wing jumping within an atmosphere would create nuclear fusion. And we clearly have seen that no giant explosion when the u-wing jumped into hyperspace on jedda. Now in principle you are still correct, it would be trivial to create black hole engines with star wars technology and destroying whole systems should be easier achievable than building death stars. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

 

@Aetrion thing is, star wars ships seem incable to reaching relativistic speeds, the hyperspace acceleration is called pseudo-motion for a reason and everything in practical use points to the fact that those ships are not really accelerating to relativistic speeds. Else the u-wing jumping within an atmosphere would create nuclear fusion. And we clearly have seen that no giant explosion when the u-wing jumped into hyperspace on jedda. Now in principle you are still correct, it would be trivial to create black hole engines with star wars technology and destroying whole systems should be easier achievable than building death stars. :)

Good observation. This actually fixes a lot of problems with lightspeed that other media tend to ignore unless called out (and even then kinda handwave with a magic device). Big obvious, why Han isn't mashed into jelly by the acceleration. Answer: because the falcon isn't accelerating much, if at all. Just the process of making the jump generates a visual effect that looks like acceleration, in much the same way the Enterprise doesn't actually stretch out when it jumps to warp.

 

So what, jumping to hyperspace only requires a speed of around 88 mph?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Trek deals with acceleration with a (fantasy) concoction called an "inertial compensator". Oddly enough, it prevents becoming a thin paste on the wall, but seems to be of little help in falling out of chairs from minor lurches. Probably only works when the acceleration or deceleration is predicted. When it's not it fails to adjust. This could explain how Han & friends keep from becoming paste when "punching it" but still allows droids and other tools to go sailing in all directions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

@Aetrion thing is, star wars ships seem incable to reaching relativistic speeds, the hyperspace acceleration is called pseudo-motion for a reason and everything in practical use points to the fact that those ships are not really accelerating to relativistic speeds. 

Fair enough, hyperspace kind of negates the need to actually go that fast. However, the book says you can travel to the outer edge of a solar system in roughly 12-72 hours depending on the size of it, and the distance between Pluto and the Sun is roughly 5 light hours, so the ships are still insanely fast. It's not quite relativistic speed, but meteoric speed is achievable, and at that speed a crashing YT-1300 would still wipe out some dinosaurs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...