Hello, I am not playing a lot of starship encounters as we mostly play Jedi and the like, but I would like to introduce some space fight soon. I am a fan of the Order66 podcast and I use Genesis rules for space combat when I need to, along with their conversion small rules.
So, as in Genesis, there is no Close range and most weapons fire at medium of long range, etc.
I checked in Starwars and Genesis, but there is no maximum range indication for the use of “Gain the Advantage”. As with Genesis rules we don’t’ need to be in the no more “Close” range, my question is what is the usual use and range for the action “Gain the Advantage” ?
I suppose that according the description, it is a dogfight for small crafts, so I would say it is limited to short range. But as space combat is supposed to be like standard combat, would you say that a fighter X-Wing would need to engage (one maneuver to go from short to engaged) his opposant first ? That would mean it is just like a melee fight…
And if it is, would you increase the difficulty to shoot a starship that is engaged with another one if you are firing from a long distance, just like in normal combat ?
Yes, there is no range to perform Gain the Advantage. Though a more practical concern is a vehicle’s sensor range, which is often limited to close or short range on most snubfighters. However it wouldn’t be unreasonable to allow a base or command ship with longer range sensors to communicate the general location of an enemy to a friendly starfighter. So as long as a pilot is reasonably aware of the presence or location of another ship, they could use the Gain the Advantage action to narratively reposition for a more advantageous attack position.
I would also add that while Close range is analogous to Engaged range (so yes, starfighter combat does look an awful lot like a melee fight), Close range and Engaged are not the same. All the personal scale range bands still exist, just as a subset of Close and two starfighters at Close Range can still be anywhere from engaged (if they’re docked) all the way to Extreme range on the personal scale. So no, a player wouldn’t upgrade a combat check to shoot at a starfighter that is at Close range to another starfighter by default (but would if they were docked or other narrative factors come into play).
I have many issues with the RAW starship and vehicle rules, and even wrote a comprehensive houserule set to bring the system more in line with the stated goals of the RPG’s design. I will link this below if you are interested, as you may find it helpful. It is a more holistic and integrated system than many existing “fixes.” However, one of the things I did not change was the ability to Gain the Advantage at functionally any range.
“Gain the Advantage” allows you to choose which enemy defense zone you are in, which limits the enemy’s ability to target you. On its face, that seems absurd—I can’t get behind an opponent coming towards me from a long distance away. But when you boil it down to the effects, it makes sense. Here’s why:
Fighters have three primary ways to engage (as in, attack) an opponent: fixed guns, turrets, and missiles. Missiles are (usually) the only weapon that can reach out to Short range. The effect of Gain the Advantage is that the enemy cannot successfully engage you. That effect does not come into play until the enemy otherwise could engage you. This means that while you are beyond Short range, you are setting up a favorable geometric or energy state that allows you to take your opponent’s six when you get into range. The missiles that reach out to Short range are the tricky part, but as part of Gaining the Advantage, you’d be trying to minimize the kill-probability of enemy missiles. The enemy’s inability to target you with missiles reflects that you were able to minimize them to the point where it was not a viable option. Additionally, you will often move directly past Short range into Close range in a single Maneuver, bypassing this “gray zone” where you have to explain away the enemy’s inability to target you.
Ok thanks guyz, that’s why I don’t play around starship combat normally, but I need to give it a try for an encounter. Last time I read the space combat rules it was so abstract that it didn’t have any sense to me
Now I find Genesys rules a bit more “playable”. In those rules there is no more “face” to hit a starship, just a single defense value, so that get rid of the facing problem you talk, wich is good I think.
Second thing different, most weapons have longer firing range.
Lasers have all long range
Ions have long to extreme range
Torpedoes and missiles have extreme range
Turbolasers have strategic range
The combat check difficulties are based on range just like normal combat checks. For me it is easier with thoses Genesys rules because it is just like normal combat, that’s why I asked if you consider a dogfight like a melee fight. With “Gain the advantage” only possible while engaged.
And the last part was a about a guy in starship as well hehe, shooting at 2 starfighters in a dogfight from long range. Imagine Wedge Antilles in a dogfight with an Ace Imperial TIE Interceptor, and then Luke at long range trying to shoot this very TIE, would you increase difficulty just like normal combat.
As 95% of my games never included space combat, I tend to look at something familiar that makes sense to me.
I will read your Overhaul Guide tonight P47, thank you, and will come back to tell you if it make the space combat less abstract to me
P47 I have read the first part of your document. I just have a single question before I make any more comment.
You say that difficulty to hit a target is based on speed, but I cannot see anywhere how to do that ?
Could you give me more explanation on this please?
Otherwise some modifications are really good… I will develop more when i really understand how you setup the base difficulty to hit. Is it just as simple as your target goes speed 3 so difficulty is hard (PPP) ?
I amended the wording to “equal to” rather than “based on.” The underlying assumption was that “based on” meant a 1:1 speed to difficulty ratio.
So if the target is moving at Speed 3, the base difficulty is Hard. If the target is moving at Speed 6, the base difficulty is Formidable because the base difficulty is capped at Formidable.
Ok thanks,
That seems a lot, I will look in more details, but first come to my mind that a TIE has a speed of 5 as a maximum. Assuming that a TIE can reach speed 5, and assuming that I consider a TIE like a minion Stormtrooper, that makes them Formidable difficulty to hit them. I may have missed something so I will study your homerules in detail tonight ;)
Nope, you didn’t miss anything. That’s right. However…
That’s intended. Fighters are so easy to destroy, basing difficulty-to-hit on Speed makes them more survivable. Further, the dogfight check will often force fast targets to slow down, making them easier targets. This rewards high Piloting skill, because the pilot can maintain a faster speed, maintaining a higher difficulty-to-hit.
Capital ships without fighter cover can’t force enemy fighters to slow down, but Blanket Barrage can inflict damage regardless of the fighters’ speed, and larger ships will often have numerous weapon systems, giving them several chances to hit the fighters, making success likely even at high difficulties. However, the point remains that said capital ships would be at a disadvantage without fighter cover. That’s also intended behavior, as it fits the WWII carrier combat style of Star Wars.
Ok thanks I see the point, I just have no experience on space combat. I will have my first space combat session next game, on saturday. I will give you some feedback if you want, but I will keep it simple, that’s just a medium freighter and a fighter against a squadron of TIEs, no rival or nemesis, just minions.
All players are in the freighter but I might have them play the Npc that fly the fighter, to lower my workload. No capital ship, I start easy for my first space encounter
Thank you
Thank you, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Please give the feedback in the topic for the houserules, since it’s more on-topic there than here, and would be a helpful reference in that topic.
Hello there. I finally had a session with a space combat. I must say it ran pretty well, probably easier than I expected finally. As said I will give my feedback.
First this new statistic, the Targeting Silhouette is really a good addition. I like it. And next the new ability “Shielded” is great as well, it really help starfighters to survive the space combat, at least for those who have shields. I have to admit that I didn’t use the dogfight rule because it seems a bit too heavy for me. So mainly I used core rules and the rest of the space combat overhaul rules.
The third big change is the combat check difficulty based on speed. This one I am not really conviced about it. The difficulty rise pretty often to Hard (PPP) checks as the speed of the ships were around 3.
For the context, the party had a YT2000, and ended up beoing chased by 3 minion groups of 3 TIE fighter, 12 total then, with 3 initiative slot. They were just outside of atmosphere when the encounter started. Pretty close to the stellar ring of the small moon. This stellar ring is artificial, the moon is small, but nonetheless the traffic was really dense around, ships and automated shuttles traveling from the surface (mining facilites) and around the ring itself. All that to say that of course after quickly assessing the Imperial forces, the party went for a quick run in middle of the dense traffic. And that is where I had a problem with rules, something I did not expect when I prepared the encounter.
The dense traffic itself, wich is supposed to be “Stellar phenomenon or Terrain”. Each round the party in their YT2000 had a pilot to focus on the flying so the Piloting check was not a problem. I mean it was, because he failed his checks 2 times, but ok it was his only action. This freighter has turrets and PC gunners… My issue was with the TIE minion groups. I suddenly wondered… how can I make a Piloting check every round to navigate the dense traffic and make a Gunnery check to fire at the YT at the same time?
So what I did… I just did a Piloting check the first round, then the next round I didn’t not… assuming the test failed and that a collision occured… that means a critical hit. So one TIE just exploded automatically because they are minions, but at least the 2 remaining TIE of each group had the opportunity to fire at the YT2000.
That was my only problem, and I am not sure if I did well or if I missed something.
For the combat difficulty, it was always Hard (PPP) because everyone was running at speed 3, the max speed of the freighter. It was really hard to land a shot and I think the encounter was taking a bit too much time… most of the TIE died because they were not making Piloting checks for flying is dense traffic each turn, but on the other side not sure if I was right to add the dense traffic modifier (2 setback dice) to Gunnery checks…
I’m glad you enjoyed it! Your feedback is very much appreciated.
I’m glad you like Targeting Silhouette and Shielded. The Dogfight check would have been redundant here, given that everyone was already navigating Difficult Terrain, but it is important, and I will explain below.
As for the speed of the targets, that is intentional. It increases the survivability of starfighters, and accurately represents the real challenge in gunnery. However, Dogfight compensates for this increased Difficulty, rewarding good pilots by allowing them to maintain a high speed. Dogfight requires a Difficult-Terrain-like check, with Failure forcing the acting character to decelerate. This not only means that they lose a point of Speed, but that they can’t recover it until they succeed at a Dogfight check the next round. In this situation, I would have foregone the Dogfight check, because Difficult Terrain already serves the same purpose, and the freighter was simply flying directly away from the TIEs, rather than “dogfighting.” The primary effect of Dogfight is forcing targets to slow on Failure, which Difficult Terrain (which even has the same Difficulty) already does. This is something I should perhaps clarify in the houserules.
You made a small, but very important mistake: Navigating Difficult Terrain is a Maneuver.
“When a ship passes near or through one of these treacherous obstacles, the pilot might need to make an appropriate Piloting check, even if he is attempting a starship maneuver that typically wouldn’t require one. This starship maneuver’s difficulty is based on the ship’s speed […] and silhouette[.]”
It’s easy to miss that small detail, particularly because checks are so commonly Actions. In this case, however, it operates like a Dogfight check, being only a Maneuver (more accurately, a Dogfight check operates like a Difficult Terrain check).
As for how you ran it, that’s a clever way to improvise. If the DT rules worked how you thought they did, I’d run it almost identically, with the only difference being the TIEs wouldn’t necessarily die, but break off and leave the pursuit, left in the proverbial space dust. Failure only forces the acting character to slow by one speed. Collisions only happen with Despair.
Difficult Terrain Setback are only added to Piloting checks, but adding Setback to Gunnery as well is a reasonable GM fiat. If the encounter had been run without the Maneuver/Action mistake, it would have gone by faster and the TIEs might well have won.
What you’re describing could also be run as a chase: In a chase, everyone makes a Piloting check, and the faster vehicle automatically closes by a certain margin (before resolving roll results). While that would be Pilot vs. Pilots, when the TIEs caught up (getting to Close), you would have standard combat. If the YT-2000’s weapons reached out to Short, you could have the gunners attacking the chasing TIEs between chase checks as long as they were in range.
Ok thank for your reply, and fast reply on top of that. I understand the community is low a the moment but I really appreciate.
Thanks for pointing me out the mistake about the maneuver for navigating difficult terrain. If now I understand correctly that is one very few maneuver that would require a skill check, wich is not common in this system. Two checks in a round is usually avoided in this narrative system but yes I understand, the opposite would seriously limit the option with mono pilot snubfighters.
I thought about running it as a chase, but finally I was not sure about the player inention, usually they go for a head fight, so I assumed they would not try to escape in the first place.
I need to read again the rules for dogfighting, that was my first space combat encounter and I kept it close to the raw rules. I might try some solo tests to see how it works before giving a try.
When I prepared the encounter I planned my TIE to maneuver in the traffic to get cover and defense like in normal combat, that’s why came the idea about adding setback dice to combat checks as well, because they did not have that opportunity by themself
And again I missed the part about collision that would occur only on a despair. Again I need to read it, I thought it was a minor collision on a failure and a major collision in case of despair. Slowing the guy that fail his check by one point of speed is adequat yes, that let me think that as you mentionned the party would have had a harder time against those TIE. Let’s say this first space combat was a lucky one for them.
Finally I really enjoyed and I really want to try another one soon.
Thanks again really
I’m so happy to help. It’s nice to see my efforts being helpful and appreciated. If it makes your gaming more enjoyable, that’s it’s own reward. :)
That’s a clever idea. Remember: You as the GM have the right to add Setback to any roll as you consider appropriate. You don’t have to have something specifically called out in the rulebook. It is important that you rule them evenly (e.g., if the TIEs can take cover, so can the PCs) and balance them with what the game writes in, but otherwise you have free rein to add whatever Setback and Boosts you think are appropriate.
