Jump to content
Kilcannon

How do rules explain Poe's xwing getting damaged from the stormtroppers

Recommended Posts

A light repeater does 11 damage and has Pierce 1, a heavy 15 and 2 vicious 1.

 

So... If you don't want to go with Despair/dark d-point (both of which are valid solutions) then the trooper could also do it by rolling either 19 or 14 success and enough Advantage/Triumph to crit. 

Also possible that that specific x-wng was a different variant or something, having only an armor rating of 2, reducing the success number by 10 ( now very doable with the heavy repeater) or even armor 1 making it easily doable with a regular blaster rifle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Kilcannon said:

Wondering how Poe's xwing getting damaged is explained since the xwing has armor rating?

 

Simple answer: The script writers don't give a flying toss about RPG rules, and wrote the scene to move the overall story forward by having Poe be captured and BB-8 taking up the role of rolling macguffin that loops the Hero (Rey) into the larger story.

Apart from that, it's quite possible that some of those FO Troopers were carrying heavier firepower than the rank-and-file troopers (heavy blaster rifles at least, possibly light repeating blasters, maybe something even beefier), opted to use Aim to target a specific section of the X-Wing with the intent to disable it, and succeeded with a Triumph to disable the X-Wing and force Poe's player to come up with alternative plan of action.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The rules reflect individual troopers or small minion groups firing at a moving target under combat conditions. Massed fire at a stationary X-Wing from point-blank range isn't the same thing at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, themensch said:

It's the same reason a pistol can take out a speeder bike in RoTJ and an X-wing can take out a Death Star on multiple occasions. 

Not the same thing at all.  The pistol kills the pilot of the speeder bike, who has no protection.  The X-wing targets a specific weak point (provided in advance through plot).  

Personally, because of scenes like this is why people have proposed the alternate rule of vehicle damage being 5x personal instead of 10x.  That makes the heavy repeating blaster the equivalent of the mounted auto-blaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Edgookin said:

Not the same thing at all.  The pistol kills the pilot of the speeder bike, who has no protection. 

Blaster Pistol does 6 Damage. Speeder Bike has Armor 0. Rolling any successes at all and 3 Advantage or a Triumph would allow a Crit. If you apply "Crits remove Minions" to minion piloted vehicles like Speeder Bikes and TIE Fighters that would be enough. 

Even if you don't, a few crits on a light vehicle are usually enough to neutralize it even if you don't blow it to smithereens, so applying multiple crits, either from several attacks or from collisions cause by something like Knocked Off Course would accrue enough to make a destroyed Crit result possible fairly fast.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Poe is a back ground character. I imagine the entire first segment of the campaign was the GM giving the talk up all the way in, right until Finn is introduced.  He is the narrative crux that is needed to introduce the resistance to Finn's life, while setting the narrative that the empire here, if nothing is even worse then when it once was. Full blown Nazis, gone are the British and the calculated evil that system represented, of cruelty preformed for a particular function. in are the full blown Snoke worshiping fanatics that will purge the galaxy of the impure that is mostly blind fanatism, you could almost hear the glorious song of hate as Star Killer base fired and burned the heart of the filthy republic! It's this opening segment that cements the introduction to Finn who, right after setting foot on his assignment knows that deep down that nothing about this is right and decides to make a change.

Yeah, I honestly don't believe Poe becomes a PC character until episode 8. He's more a hero that Finn would aspire to be then something that is played by another player around the table. The lack of Poe's presence throughout most of the movie, where he disappeared for much of it kinda fits in that perspective.

Just my point of view.

Edited by LordBritish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I remember the trooper's used a heavy repeating blaster along with their rifles. Rules-wise, as other's have pointed out in the above posts if can be easily explained withe several criticals. It's unlikely to happen when rolling randomly in a game but it's not impossible. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Edgookin said:

Not the same thing at all.

 I'm not talking about codified RPG rules here, other than The Rule Of Cool.  But technically, you are correct, which is the best kind of correct. 

Edited by themensch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The writer of the screenplay decided to have Poe's X-Wing destroyed by a bunch of Stormtroopers without serious thought or reflection on physics, science, common sense, etc.

JJ Abrams has always been a weak Director when it comes to plausible or internally consistent story telling.  He's had this issue for a very VERY long time and, ergo, I don't (and will never) ascribe any actions from EP VII & VIII (and likely IX) to my current campaign.

And per an interview with Oscar Isaac; about the production of EP VII, the Poe Dameron character was originally supposed to die in that first exchange with Finn being the sole survivor of that crash.  Oscar Isaac, convinced J.J. to not kill off the character and apparently did a sufficient job to have Poe reappear later in the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I donno. I for one don't think aircraft are especially resistant to blaster fire, especially when grounded. Just most of the time, in real life and fantasy, the main problem is the craft just moves too quickly. Given an Xwings rear end is largely exposed wiring and engine components? Yeah, the craft just aren't as heavily armoured as this system makes out.

 

 I mean, Thrawn shot a Tie Defender down with a blaster pistol and a blind man shot down a tie fighter by being a mystical Asian man torn right out of the 70s/err the force- errr being blind! Did I mention I wasn't a huge fan of rogue 1? I really disliked its "core plot". But yeah, apparently fighters aren't tough at all. All you need is enough blaster bolts into the right section, or enough guts to repress your survival instinct and shoot back.

Edited by LordBritish

Share this post


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

 Oscar Isaac, convinced J.J. to not kill off the character

... because he's an actor and doesn't want to work in a 'normal' job like the rest of us... like paramedics in the UK, ****hours, ****pay... and saving lives everyday.

Edited by ExpandingUniverse

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was an easy stationary target, its shields were inactive, and fighter's aren't tanks. Armored or no, they have ducts, canopies, exhaust ports, drives, etc that will be weak points. This is true of real world armored fighter craft, too. If you take an M4 and open up on an F-16 sitting on the tarmac you won't do much damage to the hull itself and probably won't disable it. If you walk around to the back and fire into the engine? You will screw that plane up royally. The cockpit, exhaust ports, exposed hydraulics where the landing gear is down, etc, are all weak points. A squad of marines opening up on a sitting duck fighter at infantry engagement range? Odds are they will hit something.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Vondy said:

It was an easy stationary target, its shields were inactive, and fighter's aren't tanks. Armored or no, they have ducts, canopies, exhaust ports, drives, etc that will be weak points. This is true of real world armored fighter craft, too. If you take an M4 and open up on an F-16 sitting on the tarmac you won't do much damage to the hull itself and probably won't disable it. If you walk around to the back and fire into the engine? You will screw that plane up royally. The cockpit, exhaust ports, exposed hydraulics where the landing gear is down, etc, are all weak points. A squad of marines opening up on a sitting duck fighter at infantry engagement range? Odds are they will hit something.  

They also used a crew served weapon. Probably a heavy repeater

Edited by Daeglan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Vondy said:

It was an easy stationary target, its shields were inactive, and fighter's aren't tanks. Armored or no, they have ducts, canopies, exhaust ports, drives, etc that will be weak points. This is true of real world armored fighter craft, too. If you take an M4 and open up on an F-16 sitting on the tarmac you won't do much damage to the hull itself and probably won't disable it. If you walk around to the back and fire into the engine? You will screw that plane up royally. The cockpit, exhaust ports, exposed hydraulics where the landing gear is down, etc, are all weak points. A squad of marines opening up on a sitting duck fighter at infantry engagement range? Odds are they will hit something.  

Except that, at Armor 3, an X-wing is a lot closer to an infantry fighting vehicle or "light" tank than it is to an F-16 (which might be Armor 1 or 2 at best).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Except that, at Armor 3, an X-wing is a lot closer to an infantry fighting vehicle or "light" tank than it is to an F-16 (which might be Armor 1 or 2 at best).

Oh, exiting! An X-Wing has "Armor 3"? You saw that in the movie somewhere? This is a giant contextonomy. The screen writers don't consult game books to check stats before writing nor are rules even remotely relevant to evaluating what we see on screen. The rules system emulates the movie, not the other way around. So, if the rules don't line up to what we see on screen its the rules that are wrong, not the movie. In this case I would suggest the issue is a lack of granularity in the system. Its simplified and uses a small range of integers to cover a lot of ground. So, no, an X-Wing is not closer to an infantry fighting vehicle because, on screen, we clearly see its not. It gets shot up just as easy as a modern fighter jet sitting on the tarmac would, which is probably what the writers had in mind. "Hey, Frankie, What is a space fighter analogous too?" "Gosh, Billy, an aerospace fighter!"  Armor 3? Bah!

Edited by Vondy

Share this post


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

Except that, at Armor 3, an X-wing is a lot closer to an infantry fighting vehicle or "light" tank than it is to an F-16 (which might be Armor 1 or 2 at best).

To confirm, an F-16 will go down in with a stiff breeze.  The Falcon wasn't armored well enough to resist damage and was designed to evade all incoming fire.

The F-14s & F-15s however, was designed to take a couple of hits and keep flying (and have proven themselves capable of such).

I AM willing to concede that the T-70 was a stripped down, underarmored vehicle that is only capable of matching the capabilities of a T-65 with it's smaller engines, because they stripped all of the armor & guided armaments off so that the "Resistance" could have a vehicle that was just as flight capable, but effectively just a lightweight Interceptor variant to the venerable, capable, and more durable T-65.

 

My original point . . . Dang you Vondy! You stole my point!

 

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...