Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
LukeZZ

Various combat questions

25 posts in this topic

Can a starfighter in athmosfere hover in place?

Can a missile that has not activated the Guided quality be spoofed? 

Can a weapon set to stun activate a Critical?

A weapon with base damage 8 and the Linked (1) quality activated, that hits with 3 successes, how much damage does it do?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LukeZZ said:

Can a starfighter in athmosfere hover in place?

Can a missile that has not activated the Guided quality be spoofed? 

Can a weapon set to stun activate a Critical?

A weapon with base damage 8 and the Linked (1) quality activated, that hits with 3 successes, how much damage does it do?

  1. Yes.  Because repulsorlifts.
  2. No.  "Spoofing directly increases the defense of the target against attacks with the Guided quality." (pg 106 Beta text).  
  3. Yes.
  4. 11.  An additional hit may be scored by spending 2 Advantage, but was not mentioned in the question.

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

Yes.  Because repulsorlifts.

I think my own sense of aesthetics might lead me to rule not, on the grounds that I think I'd find it more pleasing if, like aeroplanes, they have to keep moving or fall out of the sky.

A possible explanation might be that the repulsors in a fighter are only good for short periods at low altitude - takeoff and landing, essentially. A harrier jump jet, frex, carries a quantity of water to cool the engine when it is hovering, and this supply will only last 90 seconds at maximum rate. 

I freely accept, however, that others may find it very cool to do a low speed fight with fighters hovering through a half completed skyscraper, shooting at each other while side strafing and dodging pillars, or whatnot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes many atmosphiric capable craft in SW can "Hover" using repulsorlifts.  But they are very SLOW while doing so.  Also you cannot really instantly stop in mid-flight using the repulsors.  A great example of thier use is with the M. Falcon and when it would "Hover" before kicking in the engines when taking off.  Not really practical as a method of locomotion, but enough to taxi so you can turn on your main engines

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ErikB said:

LethalDose said:

Yes.  Because repulsorlifts.

 

I think my own sense of aesthetics might lead me to rule not, on the grounds that I think I'd find it more pleasing if, like aeroplanes, they have to keep moving or fall out of the sky.

A possible explanation might be that the repulsors in a fighter are only good for short periods at low altitude - takeoff and landing, essentially. A harrier jump jet, frex, carries a quantity of water to cool the engine when it is hovering, and this supply will only last 90 seconds at maximum rate. 

I freely accept, however, that others may find it very cool to do a low speed fight with fighters hovering through a half completed skyscraper, shooting at each other while side strafing and dodging pillars, or whatnot.

Okay, I appreciate that you're willing to accept other people have their opinions about how things work in the universe, but I don't understand how you can support your opinion about how they work.  I'd like you to answer the following two questions to demonstrate my point:

#1:  A TIE fighter or Y-wing (neither of which have any lift surfaces/airfoils) uses it's repulsorlift for 90 sec (or whatever you call 'short-term') to lift off and then fly in the atmosphere of a planet for an hour.  What keeps either of these fighters aloft during atmospheric flight?  Its not aerodynamic lift (no airfoils), its not their ion drives (directed aft, not ventrally), and you claim it can't be their repulsorlifts, so wtf is it then!?

#2:  An X-wing, which does have airfoils, is flying along the surface of a barrent moon (no atmosphere) for several hours.  Without atmosphere to provide lift, what keeps it from falling into the planet and crashing?  Again, it can't be aerodynamic lift (no atmosphere to generate lift), it can't be their ion engines (again, directed aft, not ventrally), and accoring to you it can't be the repulsorlifts.  Again, how does the X-wing generate lift to counteract gravity to keep itself from plummeting to the moon's surface?

I'm not trying to be a ****, but I don't see how what you're saying makes any sense.

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Its more just that you can't hover a Eurofighter Typhoon/Spitfire/Sopwith Camel, so it offends my sense of aesthetics to see an X-Wing hanging in midair. Even in space. The only time a fighter should be stopped, I feel, is when it is on the ground (or the flight deck of a carrier).

Now, they quite clearly can hover because they do it when taking off in the movies, but I'm just not keen on it being something you do outside of that. (Although the Falcon hovers in ESB when it picks up Luke from the aerial on bespin. But that just means it has dropship grade repulsors that can hover for extended periods at altitude.).

I am thinking of the harrier bits at the end of True Lies for some hovering coolness though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ErikB said:

I am thinking of the harrier bits at the end of True Lies for some hovering coolness though.

*sarcasum* Oh yes, that was accurate representation of the AV-8B Harrier, and should be used as an example

Strap enough engines to a brick, and it can fly.    The same concept applies to SW ships.  Yes I could see the craft having it repulsors set to "atmospheric mode" to aid in lift.  But when you are going certain speeds, the lack of airfoils, and lift caused by the Bernoulli's principle is rather moot.  All you need is a sligtly higher angle of attack to counter the effect of gravity and atmospheric drag

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I had thought (maybe from my Saga d20 days) that there were "speeders" and "air speeders".  Speeders could hover, but only a limited distance from the ground.  Air speeders could fly using sophisticated repulsors (rather than aerodynamics).  In both cases, repulsors directly manipulated all movement in x, y, and z axes (ie:  acceleration, braking, turning, and altitude).

X-Wings and Ties had very basic repulsors, able to taxi and not much else, and not really able to hover… unless they pointed straight up and used normal engine thrust.  This seems to come through in the Rogue Squadron books, where Wedge uses his repulsor to make tiny micro-adjustments that take a lot of skill to pull off, but aren't part of the normal pilot repertoire.

Back to the OP, I wouldn't mind an answer to #4, if 2 Advantages are used to trigger the additional hit that had 3 successes, is the total:

8 + 3 + 8 = 19

8 + 3 + 8 + 3:  22

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, ErikB didn't say no repulsors for lift, he said no hovering. The difference is in cooling. If you're hovering, there's no airflow to cool the hovering mechanism, so there's a time limit. If you're flying, you can use the repulsors for lift and the ion engines for thrust, which causes airflow, which cools the repulsors mechanism.

However, landspeeders can clearly hover indefinitely.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lunatic Pathos said:

Also, ErikB didn't say no repulsors for lift, he said no hovering. The difference is in cooling. If you're hovering, there's no airflow to cool the hovering mechanism, so there's a time limit. If you're flying, you can use the repulsors for lift and the ion engines for thrust, which causes airflow, which cools the repulsors mechanism. However, landspeeders can clearly hover indefinitely.

That makes total sense and rationalizes the PoV.  Thank You, Lunatic Pathos, for a brief and well-thought out response to something that wasn't even your original post.  I wish most post here were so intelligent.

 

 

whafrog said:

Back to the OP, I wouldn't mind an answer to #4, if 2 Advantages are used to trigger the additional hit that had 3 successes, is the total:

8 + 3 + 8 = 19

8 + 3 + 8 + 3:  22

THe second part of your answer is more correct, but doesn't account for soak.  The concept of a "hit" is key here, since attacks with weapons with the linked or autofire qualities and two-weapon attacks may score multiple hits from a single attack.  A single hit represents a single projectile or bolt striking a target.  Soak is substract from each hit separately (final week beta notes, pg 7, Performing a Combat Check, Step 6: Reduce Damage, Check Wound Threshold, and Apply Critical Injuries (pg 133).  

How uncancelled successes are added to damage in the case of multiple hits per attack also differ based on how the extra hits were generated.  For the Linked and Autofire qualities (relevant to this example), damage equal to the number of uncanceled successes is added to each hit generated by the attack. (final week beta notes, pg 6, Autofire (pg 133), and original listing for Linked quality (p106)).  For Two Weapon Combat, Each uncancelled success form the attack roll deals +1 damage to the attack, distributed as the attacker sees fit (final week beta notes, pg 8, Two Weapon Combat).

SO, in the original example from the OP, if linked were triggered, the attack would deal 2 hits, worth 11 points of damage each, and each subject to reduction by the target's soak.

I don't like saying "22 damage" because that could be misconstrued as only being subject to soak once, instead of once per hit.

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LukeZZ said:

Can a starfighter in athmosfere hover in place?

Based on the movies and information from WEG books, Yes. They can't move very fast on repulsors, but that isn't the purpose of repulsorlifts. Repulsorlifts just provide the necessary ummph to counter gravity. It still takes something more to go fast. In the case of a starfighter, airspeeder, etc… that is engines providing forward thrust. Repulsors are great for getting out of the hanger (whether on a planet or in a starship) and then orienting the craft to engage the main engines while not doing a ton of damage to nearby objects (So, you over off the ground, then kick in the main engines so you don't cook things on the ground that were behind you).

How long can something hover. Indefinitely as long as they have the fuel for it. Since the typical ship has at least a few days supply of stuff (food, fuel, etc…) they can stay up for at least that long. Might not be fun to be stuck in a cockpit for several days with barely any room to move, but, well… them's the breaks for flying such a beast.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kinnison said:

But when you are going certain speeds, the lack of airfoils, and lift caused by the Bernoulli's principle is rather moot.  All you need is a sligtly higher angle of attack to counter the effect of gravity and atmospheric drag

I agree, it's all thrust vectors to stay aloft.  But if you're relying on your propulsion and a slightly higher angle of attack for lift, dog-fighting and aiming at moving targets just became massive headaches.  

I just don't think it's reasonable to believe snubfighters have to rely on thrust vectors from their ion drives to stay aloft in the atmosphere when its abundantly clear that all ships already have repulsorlifts to keep them up.

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

I don't like saying "22 damage" because that could be misconstrued as only being subject to soak once, instead of once per hit.

Thanks for clarifying

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

I just don't think it's reasonable to believe snubfighters have to rely on thrust vectors from their ion drives to stay aloft in the atmosphere when its abundantly clear that all ships already have repulsorlifts to keep them up.

Or needing the repulsors because they lack any kind of landing structures (think every TIE the Empire has ever built).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kallabecca said:

LethalDose said:

 

I just don't think it's reasonable to believe snubfighters have to rely on thrust vectors from their ion drives to stay aloft in the atmosphere when its abundantly clear that all ships already have repulsorlifts to keep them up.

 

 

Or needing the repulsors because they lack any kind of landing structures (think every TIE the Empire has ever built).

Good point.  It makes sense they'd have repulsors strong enough to keep them aloft when landing "in the field".  I never really thought about it because I always just assumed anywhere TIEs were supposed to land had those storage and deployment racks seen in the TIE Fighter games and Jedi Outcast, but in retrospect, it seems like a pretty spectacular design flaw.

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

I never really thought about it because I always just assumed anywhere TIEs were supposed to land had those storage and deployment racks seen in the TIE Fighter games and Jedi Outcast, but in retrospect, it seems like a pretty spectacular design flaw.

-WJL

To dip into the EU, it was an actual design intent to have TIE fighters reliant upon other ships/bases in terms of landing.  They were short-range fighters, designed to be cheap to produce, easily replacable, and to overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers (sheer quantity over quality), but also just one more facet of the Imperial War Machine, small cogs in a greater inter-connected whole.  Most of the Imperial upper brass had a pretty low regard for human life that wasn't their own, and saw no problem with sacrificing a bunch of fighter pilots if it meant victory; after all, the vast Imperial military typically meant they had reserves, both in terms of equipment and manpower.  Forced conscription does wonders to bolster the ranks of one's military, though said conscripts aren't necessarily the most motivated of soldiers, but that's a different matter/topic.

It probably also cut down the chances that a pilot might turn tail and flee, as they'd either have to find someplace that'd be willing to let a rogue TIE land (not likely) or crash their fighter (carrying a significant likelihood of the pilot's death).  If the only way to get out of those flying deathtraps is to safely land at an Imperial-controlled starship or base, the pilot's probably more inclined to stay loyal to the Empire as long as they're at the controls of said TIE fighter, while making said fighter pilot reliant upon the greater Imperial war machine.

So TIEs not being able to land on their own isn't a design flaw from the view of Imperial command but rather a design feature.  Granted, the Rebel Alliance would generally agree with you that it's a flaw, but the Alliance tends to put a much higher premium on sentient life, particularly those of it's soldiers and pilots that have chosen to go up against the seemingly monolithic Imperial military.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LethalDose said:

LukeZZ said:

A weapon with base damage 8 and the Linked (1) quality activated, that hits with 3 successes, how much damage does it do?

11.  An additional hit may be scored by spending 2 Advantage, but was not mentioned in the question.

-WJL

Seeing as you specified "with the Linked (1) quality activated", that means you would generate an additional hit, which would also deal 11 damage (8 base plus the three successes), for a total of 22 damage.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donovan Morningfire said:

 

LethalDose said:

 

I never really thought about it because I always just assumed anywhere TIEs were supposed to land had those storage and deployment racks seen in the TIE Fighter games and Jedi Outcast, but in retrospect, it seems like a pretty spectacular design flaw.

-WJL

 

 

To dip into the EU, it was an actual design intent to have TIE fighters reliant upon other ships/bases in terms of landing.  They were short-range fighters, designed to be cheap to produce, easily replacable, and to overwhelm the enemy with sheer numbers (sheer quantity over quality), but also just one more facet of the Imperial War Machine, small cogs in a greater inter-connected whole.  Most of the Imperial upper brass had a pretty low regard for human life that wasn't their own, and saw no problem with sacrificing a bunch of fighter pilots if it meant victory; after all, the vast Imperial military typically meant they had reserves, both in terms of equipment and manpower.  Forced conscription does wonders to bolster the ranks of one's military, though said conscripts aren't necessarily the most motivated of soldiers, but that's a different matter/topic.

It probably also cut down the chances that a pilot might turn tail and flee, as they'd either have to find someplace that'd be willing to let a rogue TIE land (not likely) or crash their fighter (carrying a significant likelihood of the pilot's death).  If the only way to get out of those flying deathtraps is to safely land at an Imperial-controlled starship or base, the pilot's probably more inclined to stay loyal to the Empire as long as they're at the controls of said TIE fighter, while making said fighter pilot reliant upon the greater Imperial war machine.

So TIEs not being able to land on their own isn't a design flaw from the view of Imperial command but rather a design feature.  Granted, the Rebel Alliance would generally agree with you that it's a flaw, but the Alliance tends to put a much higher premium on sentient life, particularly those of it's soldiers and pilots that have chosen to go up against the seemingly monolithic Imperial military.

 

 

Now that you mention it, I remember a line from somewhere that stated that the Empire wanted to "psychologically reinforce that pilots were dependent on the Empire for a place to land", or something to that effect.  Wish I could remember the source (Imperial sourcebook, maybe?  I'll check it after this cat gets off my lap).  

So, yeah, you're absolutely right, the Empire did that by design.

A little off topic though, since doesn't change the fact there's still nothing to indicate they need to stay moving to stay aloft.

-WJL

PS I totally missed that the OP qualified that Linked 1 had been activated in the question.  I feel like an idiot for reiterating that at least twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I might postulate that fighters get their lift from the Etheric Rudder, the device that allows them to turn and bank in space like an aeroplane in atmosphere,   acting on the underlying structure of the universe. And, like a common aerofoil, this requires relative movement to the local aether to function.

Truth is though, like tie fighters making a screeching noise as they fly past in vacuum, I'd prefer it to be Just Something That Happens In Star Wars, Yknow?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are definitely times when you can go too far with realism.

Sometimes fun is better.

"Because." can be a perfectly good reason, especially in fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Leechman said:

There are definitely times when you can go too far with realism.

Sometimes fun is better.

"Because." can be a perfectly good reason, especially in fiction.

Agreed.  After all, the majority of Star Wars, particularly the films, already runs on "Rule of Cool," so why should the RPG be any different?

If it'd make for a cool scene to have a starfighter hovering in place in atmosphere just before laying down a barrage of laser fire at a bad guy base or vehicle, then do it, psuedo-science explanations be damned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donovan Morningfire said:

 

If it'd make for a cool scene to have a starfighter hovering in place in atmosphere just before laying down a barrage of laser fire at a bad guy base or vehicle, then do it, psuedo-science explanations be damned.

 

 

BINGO!

Why limit yourself to what a starfighter can do (Or anything else, for that matter) because someone else thinks its cool.

And if a GM can give, y'know, reasons to explain their rulings, beyond "Because I said so, deal with it," all the better.

-WJL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason is that I think it might be cool to have a bit where someone has to nurse their damaed fighter back to the (space) carrier, followed by an exciting landing on a pitching (space) deck in a (space) storm (Maveric has the ball!), and I think being able to just stop outside the hanger and have someone throw you a rope takes some of the fun out of it.

Similarly, you have to get someone to manually rotate the turbines on your X-Wing in order to get them to start in order to evoke scenes where Biggles gets in his Camel and someone spins the prop and the motor coughs in to life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ErikB said:

The reason is that I think it might be cool to have a bit where someone has to nurse their damaed fighter back to the (space) carrier, followed by an exciting landing on a pitching (space) deck in a (space) storm (Maveric has the ball!), and I think being able to just stop outside the hanger and have someone throw you a rope takes some of the fun out of it.

Uh, then go watch the Wing Commander movie?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0