| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:15 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | Isn't this basically just RAW from P&P and H&S (see my post above), but with beefed up stats on the missiles? |
No. Those stats treat smart missiles as vehicles, complete with a Speed rating, without providing any real clear-cut rules for how that translates into an attack. This rule eliminates the Speed rating and treats the missile exclusively as a weapon, with the addition of the ability to make follow-up attacks if the first attack misses.
| Quote: | | It's pretty clear from the examples in those books that the Smart and Savant missiles roll only the value of their Fire Control when it is the missile itself making the attack. |
That's not my read. All other weapons function by adding Fire Control and Gunnery skill dice together to make the shot. If this were not the case for the smart missiles, then it would have been clearly stated.
| Quote: | | If you want to double the missile's capability by adding 4d Guidance onto 4d Fire Control, you would probably need to replace the standard droid brains in those missiles with more substantial droid brains (because having a "Guidance" of 4d is really the same as saying the onboard droid brain has Starship Gunnery at 4d). |
I'm not too concerned about that. If the idea is for smart missiles to be able to successfully track and home on targets, then they need to be able to match rolls against the pilot's reaction skills. Since defending pilots would be able to stack their Piloting skill with Maneuverability, the missile needs to have similar dice levels, or there will be little use in having smart missiles at all. As such, it's simply a matter of throwing out WEG's clunky rules for guided missiles and replacing them with this, then simply saying that the technology does what it does because that is what the plot requires.
| Quote: | | I do like the idea of a scatter effect (kind of like a grenade miss) determining the initial range for the missile's roll to follow a target. But this will vary depending on the type of missile. |
Agreed. As such, differing missiles would have differing stats, but IMO, the difference between Smart and Savant missiles would be primarily in the weapon stats for the initial shot, with maybe a bonus to Savant missiles for the surprise effect, although what form that would take, I don't know. As far as missiles homing on new targets, I may just rule that, apart from Wild Dice situations, missiles are equipped with safety cut-outs that cause the missile to self destruct if it loses target lock and can't reacquire it.
Granted, a rule like this isn't going to be a truly realistic representation of missile use in combat, but IMO, it will be a close enough amalgamation of the two for gaming purposes
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14359
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
You would also need to come up with rules for chaff/flares, and other means a ship can 'shake a lock' from a missile that has a clean lock on it.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 3:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | You would also need to come up with rules for chaff/flares, and other means a ship can 'shake a lock' from a missile that has a clean lock on it. |
The chaff/flares would just be a one-time bonus added to pilot's reaction roll to avoid the missile attack that round. Shaking a lock would be the result of a good piloting roll, a full dodge, liberal use of chaff/flares, and maybe a CP or FP if the situation merits it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 11:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | No. Those stats treat smart missiles as vehicles, complete with a Speed rating, without providing any real clear-cut rules for how that translates into an attack. This rule eliminates the Speed rating and treats the missile exclusively as a weapon, with the addition of the ability to make follow-up attacks if the first attack misses. |
Okay, I didn't catch before that you were eliminating the move speed. But is treating them as vehicles really that tough? I mean, everything else on the space map involved in the combat is a vehicle....
But the ability to make "follow-up attacks if the first attack misses" isn't an addition, that's RAW. A Smart missile can make follow up attacks against new targets if it loses its current target, but can only attempt a target lock once per target. H&S p. 10. Stalker missiles, in contrast, can make follow up attacks against the same target. Alternatively, you can also just shoot a Smart missile without a lock and let the missile itself acquire a target after firing. Again, this is already covered under RAW (described as firing "orphans" H&S p. 10).
| crmcneill wrote: | | That's not my read. All other weapons function by adding Fire Control and Gunnery skill dice together to make the shot. If this were not the case for the smart missiles, then it would have been clearly stated. |
There are two examples on H&S p. 10 alone. The Smart missile on that page has a Fire Control of 2d. If fired as an orphan, the missile "can then attempt to lock onto a target using its 2d targeting system." Also, the Stalker missile on the same page has a Fire Control of 3d and can "roll its 3d every round until it locks onto the target again." I haven't seen anything anywhere that indicates something else gets added to these values.
Another way to think of it is that you actually are adding the Fire Control to a Gunnery skill. First, the initial shot adds the missile's Fire Control to the gunner's skill. On subsequent rounds, the missile's FC gets added to the "simple droid brain's" 0d+0 Gunnery skill.
| crmcneill wrote: | | If the idea is for smart missiles to be able to successfully track and home on targets, then they need to be able to match rolls against the pilot's reaction skills. Since defending pilots would be able to stack their Piloting skill with Maneuverability, the missile needs to have similar dice levels, or there will be little use in having smart missiles at all. |
I agree. The values of 2d and 3d given for the Smart and Stalker missiles in H&S seems too low to hit anything that actually dodges. But the problem with giving individual missiles a combined attack roll of 8d is that you completely by-pass the deterrent effect of multiple action penalties. Take a space transport with a 10-missile rack and a co-pilot with a Starship Gunnery of 6d (or 10d total with the missile's 4d Fire Control). This co-pilot could completely empty the 10-missile rack in a single round of combat for a total MAP of -9d. This MAP is completely meaningless if each of these orphans gets to roll 8d to hit their targets. Squadron of TIE fighters? What squadron of TIE fighters?
Second, while the point that a target gets to add maneuverability to piloting rolls is well-taken, you aren't taking into account that the target will also deduct any MAPs from that total or that the missile itself doesn't ever suffer from MAPs. Automated missiles probably shouldn't be taking out heroic (i.e. better than average) pilots on their own. Comparing a Smart missile's 4d against something more mundane like a TIE fighter, however, is most definitely in the realm of reasonable. A TIE involved in space combat can expect to have a MAP of -2d in any given round (fly, shoot, dodge). This would put the comparison at 4d v. 4d+1 to hit (statistically even), rather than 8d v. 4d+1 (very probable hit). So now our co-pilot is only destroying 5 TIEs in one round rather than 10. 
If you want better missiles there are two easy solutions ... improve the onboard droid brain's own Gunnery skill or improve the missile's Fire Control. The droid modification rules in Cynabar's Fantastic Technology Droids book seems to indicate it would cost about 875 credits per 1d of improvement of the droid's skill (assuming you treat a missile's onboard droid brain as a 4th degree droid). Alternatively, you could use Starship Weapon Repair to improve the Fire Control using the normal weapon improvement rules. This would cost more or less than improving the droid brain, depending on your interpretation of modification costs, but would have the added benefit of improving the gunner's initial attack roll as well. In either case, the improved missile is the exception, not the rule. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 06, 2014 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | Okay, I didn't catch before that you were eliminating the move speed. But is treating them as vehicles really that tough? I mean, everything else on the space map involved in the combat is a vehicle.... |
But not everyone uses a space map. I'm focusing on coming up with a rule for smart missiles that can be used in an RPG without resorting to miniatures on a map. As such, treating a smart missile like a weapon in all respects makes things simpler for resolving combat.
| Quote: | | But the ability to make "follow-up attacks if the first attack misses" isn't an addition, that's RAW. A Smart missile can make follow up attacks against new targets if it loses its current target, but can only attempt a target lock once per target. H&S p. 10. Stalker missiles, in contrast, can make follow up attacks against the same target. Alternatively, you can also just shoot a Smart missile without a lock and let the missile itself acquire a target after firing. Again, this is already covered under RAW (described as firing "orphans" H&S p. 10). |
The problem is that the rules are so poorly thought out that it is left to us to fill in the blanks. My point is that my rule treats smart missiles the same as every other weapon in the RAW (i.e. you shoot at a target with the Difficulty based on your range to the target), with the addition of a potential follow-up attack that treats the missiles as a weapon, not a vehicle. That is how it differs from the RAW.
| Quote: | | The Smart missile on that page has a Fire Control of 2d. If fired as an orphan, the missile "can then attempt to lock onto a target using its 2d targeting system." Also, the Stalker missile on the same page has a Fire Control of 3d and can "roll its 3d every round until it locks onto the target again." I haven't seen anything anywhere that indicates something else gets added to these values. |
And that is an indicator of how poorly thought out the rules are. 2D or 3D is laughably low against even the most basic pilot who gets to stack his 4D-5D (at least) Piloting skill with his starfighter's Maneuverability to avoid the shot. Using the 2D=7 rule, a missile with a 2D guidance would have to roll straight 6's just to tie a poor roll by a starfighter pilot. That is why I'm making up my own rules instead of sticking with WEG's stats.
On top of that, the "roll 3D every round" makes no mention of range (i.e. whether or not the sensor package on the missile can detect the target, or what a pilot has to do to break a lock or get out of range of the shot. Again, poorly thought out.
IMO, to make smart missiles functional weapons in a gaming environment (and assuming that they don't get to continually stack with the gunner's Gunnery skill), they should have Fire Control in the 8D range to have a chance of being used successfully against a starfighter.
| Quote: | | But the problem with giving individual missiles a combined attack roll of 8d is that you completely by-pass the deterrent effect of multiple action penalties. Take a space transport with a 10-missile rack and a co-pilot with a Starship Gunnery of 6d (or 10d total with the missile's 4d Fire Control). This co-pilot could completely empty the 10-missile rack in a single round of combat for a total MAP of -9d. This MAP is completely meaningless if each of these orphans gets to roll 8d to hit their targets. Squadron of TIE fighters? What squadron of TIE fighters? |
Again, I'm throwing out most of the RAW regarding the use of smart missiles, including the rule for orphan missiles, so this isn't an issue. Any use of something like orphan missiles would still require a successful shot from the gunner to put the missile "in the basket", as it were, and that would still be subject to MAPs.
Plus, your example presupposes that a space transport will have access to 10 smart missiles, or that they would waste all 10 of them in these circumstances. A smart missile as it used in the EU is a silver bullet; you don't just throw them away unless you absolutely need them to hit an important target or to whittle down the odds so that you are a little less outnumbered.
| Quote: | | you aren't taking into account that the target will also deduct any MAPs from that total or that the missile itself doesn't ever suffer from MAPs. |
Actually, I am. In real life fighter combat (as well as in most media depicting it), a missile on your tail is the number-one threat, and the most likely course of action will be a full reaction (unless the pilot is in a situation where he can't dodge). Per the RAW, that means a pilot gets to stack his Piloting Skill and his ship's Maneuverability with the base difficulty of the shot. Depending on the range, even a mediocre pilot could potentially beat an 8D. It's not much of a silver bullet weapon if anybody with a modicum of piloting skill can beat it. I want it to be something that characters will have to work to avoid, not just blow them off as minimal threats.
| Quote: | | If you want better missiles there are two easy solutions ... improve the onboard droid brain's own Gunnery skill or improve the missile's Fire Control. |
For one thing, the official smart missile stats don't have a Gunnery Skill and a Fire Control skill; they just have Fire Control. For another, I don't see why I would need to go through all that when I can just write up stats that do what I want them to do and leave it at that.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 1:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | But not everyone uses a space map. |
Well if you're bothering to set ranges for your proposed missiles, presumably you have some system of tracking relative ranges between vessels. Using a map is beside the point. I'm saying that I don't understand what's so hard about tracking missiles (whatever your method) just like you track the distances between ships for purposes of using any other ranged weapon. If you don't track relative distances in some fashion, why put ranges on your missiles in the first place (and how do you determine range difficulties for any other weapon)?
| crmcneill wrote: | | My point is that my rule treats smart missiles the same as every other weapon in the RAW (i.e. you shoot at a target with the Difficulty based on your range to the target), with the addition of a potential follow-up attack that treats the missiles as a weapon, not a vehicle. That is how it differs from the RAW. |
Missiles are already treated pretty much like every other weapon, you just have to look at the individual segments of the missile's life. Consider the concussion missile launcher in P&P p. 47. Max range is 15 and, coincidentally, the missile moves 15 space units each round. You aim, fire, and the missile immediately completes its journey to anything within its maximum range. Is that not exactly how things would play out if you were firing a laser cannon? The difference is that, the following round, the missile gets to make a follow up attack using its new frame of reference as a point of origin. The missile rolls an attack and, if it beats the difficulty, an enemy within its max range goes boom, just like any other ranged attack. To put it another way, a shot from a laser cannon is the functional equivalent of a missile that has a space speed of 25 but only 1 round of fuel.
So all we really mean by treating the missile like a "vehicle," in our context, is that the follow up attacks have a different point of origin than the initial attack (i.e. the range for the follow up attack is calculated from the missile's new position after having traveled 15 space units from the firing ship). But your proposal still tracks how much the initial shot missed by in order to calculate the range difficulty of the follow up attack. If you are keeping track of the magnitude of the missed initial shot and adding it to the range of the follow-up attack, how are you not still treating the missile as a vehicle? You're still tracking its position relative to the target, you're just not tracking it with respect to any other body.
| crmcneill wrote: | | the "roll 3D every round" makes no mention of range (i.e. whether or not the sensor package on the missile can detect the target, or what a pilot has to do to break a lock or get out of range of the shot. Again, poorly thought out. |
Why wouldn't you use the same ranges as the initial attack? 1-2/8/15 for a missile that has a space speed of 15 seems to work remarkably well. As for how to shake a missile lock, the difficulty is the target lock roll +5. H&S p. 10.
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | you aren't taking into account that the target will also deduct any MAPs from that total or that the missile itself doesn't ever suffer from MAPs. |
Actually, I am. In real life fighter combat (as well as in most media depicting it), a missile on your tail is the number-one threat, and the most likely course of action will be a full reaction (unless the pilot is in a situation where he can't dodge). Per the RAW, that means a pilot gets to stack his Piloting Skill and his ship's Maneuverability with the base difficulty of the shot. Depending on the range, even a mediocre pilot could potentially beat an 8D. It's not much of a silver bullet weapon if anybody with a modicum of piloting skill can beat it. I want it to be something that characters will have to work to avoid, not just blow them off as minimal threats. |
If the pilot knows the missile is there. But that's the whole point of Smarts and Savants, isn't it? At the point the pilot spends an action rolling sensors to figure out if the missile is coming back, he deprives himself of the opportunity to make a full dodge (because you can't do anything else in a round in which you full dodge). Alternatively, I guess he could just decide to roll full dodges every round for the rest of combat. Either way, kind of a successful missile.
| crmcneill wrote: | | For one thing, the official smart missile stats don't have a Gunnery Skill and a Fire Control skill; they just have Fire Control. For another, I don't see why I would need to go through all that when I can just write up stats that do what I want them to do and leave it at that. |
I know, that was my point two posts ago. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that missiles roll anything other than their FC. Adding 4d and calling it "Guidance" instead of Starship Gunnery doesn't really get around this (although it is eminently preferable to just increasing the FC to 8d). I was just suggesting that the RAW might support your idea in the sense that you could say these missiles just have 0d+0. This would allow you to modify them within RAW as I suggested, both as a droid and as a weapon.
If you want to scrap the existing rules, I wish you well! But you asked for the RAW in the Official Rules forum. I've supported every RAW assertion I've made by quoting from the two major sources on the subject and I've suggested a combination of two ways within the RAW to make missiles as capable as you'd like. If you don't want to pay the cost for the added capability, then by all means house rule it!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 07, 2014 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | If you don't track relative distances in some fashion, why put ranges on your missiles in the first place (and how do you determine range difficulties for any other weapon)? |
The idea is simplicity. If you treat the missile like a vehicle, the base speed of 15 means that it has a maximum speed of 60, because if 15 is its maximum velocity, a missile can be outrun by a stock YT-1300 going All-Out. However, to go All-Out requires some form of Piloting roll at increased difficulty, which the missile is not equipped to do.
On top of that, if the missile misses on the first shot, it must make an immediate turn to reengage the target, and the only turn which would allow it to make the turn and attack the next round is a Bootleg. With no real measurement of the missile's maneuverability or piloting skill equivalent, what does the missile roll to make a bootleg turn?
However, if, as you mention below, you treat the missile as a laser cannon (i.e. has to use the existing range = difficulty system to make the initial attack), then use the degree of failure on the initial attack to calculate the difficulty of follow-up attacks in subsequent rounds, you don't have to worry about how the missile comes about, or how fast it is going. It is travelling at the speed of the plot, which is just as fast as it needs to.
You can quote the RAW all you want, but I long ago realized that I found the RAW inadequate and time consuming to represent guided missiles. I have experimented with multiple variations to reach this point, and your explanations haven't really done anything to convince me that the RAW is the best system to use. It's obvious you don't feel the same, so good luck with that.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | You can quote the RAW all you want, but I long ago realized that I found the RAW inadequate and time consuming to represent guided missiles. |
How can you possibly have a RAW discussion and not quote actual rules? Why would you bring a topic to the Official Rules forum and ask for a RAW response if you had already decided that the RAW was flawed and just wanted to float your "house rule?"
| crmcneill wrote: | The idea is simplicity. If you treat the missile like a vehicle, the base speed of 15 means that it has a maximum speed of 60, because if 15 is its maximum velocity, a missile can be outrun by a stock YT-1300 going All-Out. However, to go All-Out requires some form of Piloting roll at increased difficulty, which the missile is not equipped to do.
On top of that, if the missile misses on the first shot, it must make an immediate turn to reengage the target, and the only turn which would allow it to make the turn and attack the next round is a Bootleg. With no real measurement of the missile's maneuverability or piloting skill equivalent, what does the missile roll to make a bootleg turn? |
This just isn't RAW. Missiles can "move 15 spacial units per round," period. P&P p. 47. Missiles don't move at High Speed, they don't move at All-Out Speed, you don't track their facing, and they don't have to make piloting rolls. Like I said before, a missile should only be thought of as a vehicle in the sense that it maintains an existence separate from the firing ship. Once fired, a missile immediately travels out to its maximum range, just like any other ranged attack. If you can cite anything in the RAW that actually treats missiles like you say the RAW treats missiles, I'm all ears.
| crmcneill wrote: | | However, if, as you mention below, you treat the missile as a laser cannon (i.e. has to use the existing range = difficulty system to make the initial attack), then use the degree of failure on the initial attack to calculate the difficulty of follow-up attacks in subsequent rounds, you don't have to worry about how the missile comes about, or how fast it is going. It is travelling at the speed of the plot, which is just as fast as it needs to. |
I know ... because what I described is what the RAW actually says. Your over-treatment of missiles as vehicles (e.g. reading in a need for missiles to have a varying move speed and capacity to turn) means you are now arguing against a straw man. The RAW doesn't say what you say it says. But in concluding so, you have already essentially deviated from the RAW, interpreted the existing missile rules into something you think is unworkable, and now you are advocating "house rules" that are only a very slight modification of, and functionally equivalent to, the actual rules as written. Your "house rule" doesn't treat missiles in any way substantively different than the RAW. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | How can you possibly have a RAW discussion and not quote actual rules? Why would you bring a topic to the Official Rules forum and ask for a RAW response if you had already decided that the RAW was flawed and just wanted to float your "house rule?" |
How can I possibly? I started this topic back in March and it died out back in May. All the information I received pretty much just affirmed my commitment to pursue a house rule, which I posted here rather than somewhere else. Once you've been on the Pit for a while, you will come to realize that topics in the Official Rules section will often diverge into an optional house rule discussion when one or more participants reach the point where they don't feel the RAW is adequate.
| crmcneill wrote: | | This just isn't RAW. Missiles can "move 15 spacial units per round," period. P&P p. 47. Missiles don't move at High Speed, they don't move at All-Out Speed, you don't track their facing, and they don't have to make piloting rolls. |
As such, you have a missile that can be outrun by a stock light freighter traveling All Out (Space 4 times 4 = 16). Not particularly realistic.
| Quote: | | Like I said before, a missile should only be thought of as a vehicle in the sense that it maintains an existence separate from the firing ship. Once fired, a missile immediately travels out to its maximum range, just like any other ranged attack. |
So it instantly travels out to 15 Space Units on the first attack, but then slows down to an approximate rate of 3 units per second? If a round is 5 seconds (or so), and a missile's fixed Space is 15, then that is an awfully large drop in speed. Again, not very realistic.
| Quote: | | If you can cite anything in the RAW that actually treats missiles like you say the RAW treats missiles, I'm all ears. |
As I have said repeatedly, I have already discarded most of the RAW regarding smart missiles, as the RAW for smart missiles is poorly thought out. I am more interested in a rule that simplifies the use of smart missiles as much as possible. I am sacrificing a degree of realism in the interests of playability.
| Quote: | | Your "house rule" doesn't treat missiles in any way substantively different than the RAW. |
Whatever.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4866
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 3:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | crmcneill wrote: | | You can quote the RAW all you want, but I long ago realized that I found the RAW inadequate and time consuming to represent guided missiles. |
How can you possibly have a RAW discussion and not quote actual rules? Why would you bring a topic to the Official Rules forum and ask for a RAW response if you had already decided that the RAW was flawed and just wanted to float your "house rule?"
|
Though things start off as questions of official rules, the often mutate into discussions of house rules after a few months, if the threads ever go that far. It's not uncommon. We mods just let it go without moving posts, as all we'd ever do is move posts if we decided to split threads. Though it isn't uncommon for users to make new threads in House Rules once they see the RAW isn't up to the task.
| Quote: |
| crmcneill wrote: | The idea is simplicity. If you treat the missile like a vehicle, the base speed of 15 means that it has a maximum speed of 60, because if 15 is its maximum velocity, a missile can be outrun by a stock YT-1300 going All-Out. However, to go All-Out requires some form of Piloting roll at increased difficulty, which the missile is not equipped to do.
On top of that, if the missile misses on the first shot, it must make an immediate turn to reengage the target, and the only turn which would allow it to make the turn and attack the next round is a Bootleg. With no real measurement of the missile's maneuverability or piloting skill equivalent, what does the missile roll to make a bootleg turn? |
This just isn't RAW. Missiles can "move 15 spacial units per round," period. P&P p. 47. Missiles don't move at High Speed, they don't move at All-Out Speed, you don't track their facing, and they don't have to make piloting rolls. Like I said before, a missile should only be thought of as a vehicle in the sense that it maintains an existence separate from the firing ship. Once fired, a missile immediately travels out to its maximum range, just like any other ranged attack. If you can cite anything in the RAW that actually treats missiles like you say the RAW treats missiles, I'm all ears.
|
Well... they CAN be a vehicle if you go this route:
Though seriously... yeah, it's not RAW. I think crm knows it's not RAW. You, me, and whatever percentage of the board may dislike the idea on the basis that it isn't RAW, but I don't think you're going to successfully talk crm out of the idea on that basis. I'm not necessarily defending the house rule, just saving you a bit of potential frustration in the process of trying to talk him out of the idea on those grounds.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | Like I said before, a missile should only be thought of as a vehicle in the sense that it maintains an existence separate from the firing ship. Once fired, a missile immediately travels out to its maximum range, just like any other ranged attack. |
So it instantly travels out to 15 Space Units on the first attack, but then slows down to an approximate rate of 3 units per second? If a round is 5 seconds (or so), and a missile's fixed Space is 15, then that is an awfully large drop in speed. Again, not very realistic. |
Yes, because that's how ranged weapons work. The attack action fully completes before the next action occurs. It's the same way that starships move. "Moving is an action, just like firing a blaster or dodging." 2d ed. R&E. p. 123. "Each action occurs as it is rolled - a split-second after any actions that have already been rolled and a split-second before the next action that's rolled." 2d ed. R&E p. 78. An action completes before the next action occurs. From a mechanics perspective, starships only move when the pilot makes the action to move. There's no more speed reduction involved with missile movement than there is starship movement. Be careful not to conflate the cinematic presentation of combat with the actual mechanics.
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | This just isn't RAW. Missiles can "move 15 spacial units per round," period. P&P p. 47. Missiles don't move at High Speed, they don't move at All-Out Speed, you don't track their facing, and they don't have to make piloting rolls. |
As such, you have a missile that can be outrun by a stock light freighter traveling All Out (Space 4 times 4 = 16). Not particularly realistic. |
Right ... you shoot a lot of missiles at ships already moving All-Out speed, do you? You know such an attack has an increased difficulty of +20, right? Besides, because of the way actions work (as explained above), all that matters is that the target is within range. The target's speed is usually irrelevant. If the ship is within 15 units, the missile completes its journey before the ship can move again. If the ship is more than 15 units away, you can't target it anyway. The only way your concern is ever valid is if, for some reason, the distance the missile is capable of traveling is less than its maximum range category (or if you fire it as an orphan out to max range and then let it do its own targeting, but that offers you no help because you've already said you discarded the orphan option).
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | If you can cite anything in the RAW that actually treats missiles like you say the RAW treats missiles, I'm all ears. |
As I have said repeatedly, I have already discarded most of the RAW regarding smart missiles, as the RAW for smart missiles is poorly thought out. I am more interested in a rule that simplifies the use of smart missiles as much as possible. I am sacrificing a degree of realism in the interests of playability. |
Everyone is well aware that you have said repeatedly that you've discarded RAW. What you haven't done is justify your interpretation of the RAW. You say it's wrong, and something different than your "house rule," but not once have you offered any actual written rules justifying this premise. Saying "smart missile rules are poorly thought out" over and over is just a conclusion, it's not an argument. Our disagreement isn't over how missiles should be run. You and I would run them almost the exact same way. Our disagreement is over the validity of your initial interpretation of the RAW and, consequently, your assertion that you've come up with a new "house rule."
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | Your "house rule" doesn't treat missiles in any way substantively different than the RAW. |
Whatever. |
Compelling. Look, there's a simple logic to this issue. In order for something to be a house rule, it has to be different from the actual rules as written. If you can't, or won't, justify your view of the rules as written, then you necessarily can't establish that your proposed rule is different than the RAW (i.e. a "house rule"). That's it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| cheshire wrote: | | Though things start off as questions of official rules, the often mutate into discussions of house rules after a few months, if the threads ever go that far. It's not uncommon. We mods just let it go without moving posts, as all we'd ever do is move posts if we decided to split threads. Though it isn't uncommon for users to make new threads in House Rules once they see the RAW isn't up to the task. |
It's totally understandable that a thread would evolve and completely reasonable for you moderators to leave it alone. My question was just one of timing. I took his language of "long ago" to mean that he had already made up his mind that he wanted to "house rule" this prior to initially posting. I was only questioning why somebody would start a thread in the Official Rules forum after having already decided to throw out the RAW. But the real bulk of my incredulity was aimed at the notion that someone would claim to make a RAW argument without ever actually citing any written rules.
I'm not trying to talk him out of the substance of his "house rule," I'm just trying to talk him out of believing that he's come up with something new, i.e. something other than what the RAW already says. But I hear you, cheshire. Unless there are any new points of mechanics to clear up, I'll leave it to the reader to decide for him- or herself. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2014 11:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
?
Where exactly in the RAW does it say that the base degree of difficulty for the missile in one round is based on the degree of failure in the previous round? The only listed rule is the target lock +5, and that doesn't take into account the degree to which the missile got outfoxed by the target the previous round. What I proposed was this:Round 1 - Fire a smart missile at a target using RAW for a ranged attack (not using the Target Speed modifier; AFAIAC, missile weapons are penalized enough by short range and low fire control dice). If the missile hits, roll damage as per the RAW. If the missile misses, apply the degree of miss to the following table: Missile Missed By = Missile Attack Range for Next Round
0-5 = Short
6-10 = Medium
11-15 = Long
16+ = Missile loses lock Round 2 - Roll missile attack as per the RAW for ranged attacks, using the range generated by the table above to generate a base difficulty for the shot. If the missile hits, roll damage as per the RAW. If the missile misses, apply the degree of miss to the above table and repeat as necessary. If there is anything like this in the RAW, please provide a page reference.
Granted, the above rule doesn't account for relative speed increasing the chance of evading the missile, but a rule could be designed for that as well.
If you don't like my stock light freighter example, how about an X-Wing (or any starfighter with a Speed of 8 or higher). At Full Speed (Space x 2), it will automatically outrun any missile fired at it, even without going to All-Out. The missile won't have the speed to keep up; all the pilot has to do is not slow down for 10 rounds. This doesn't match with missiles / torps in the X-Wing books being able to catch TIE Interceptors.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16406
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
As an aside, the RAW for smart missile fire control contradicts itself (4D in P&P, 2D/3D in H&H). I would consider combining the two so that one value is the pilot skill equivalent for the droid brain while the other is the fire control value. That way, the smart missile would be rolling 6D or 7D and would actually be competitive against most pilots.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2014 3:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
crmcneill, I'll try to get to the other stuff tonight when I have time. But to answer the quicker questions:
1) It doesn't matter if you are talking about the slowest of space transports or the fastest of interceptors, the target's speed just doesn't matter when the missile's flight range is equal to or greater than its targeting range. Because the stats we've been kicking around from P&P set both the max targeting range and the max flight range of a concussion missile to 15 space units, the missile will immediately fly the entire distance to any target you are capable of attacking. So, because one action fully completes before the next occurs, all that matters is that the target ship is within this range at the time the gunner makes his attack with the missile. Even if an X-Wing moved 32 space units in the prior round, in mechanics terms it is stationary when the missile attack is made, and it patiently waits for the missile to fly its 15 space units. Pretty much the only way that the speed of the target matters (aside from the modifier in difficulty to hit) is if you happen to be using a missile with a max flight range that is less than its max targeting range, because then the target would have an opportunity to move again before the missile reached its mark. But as long as the max flight range of the missile is equal to or greater than the max targeting range, it will functionally resolve as if it were a laser canon.
Ex. 1 - Max targeting range of 15, max flight range of 15. If the target is outside of 15 units, the gunner can't attack it. If it is within 15 units, the gunner attacks and the missile immediately flies up to 15 space units, traveling the entire distance to the target.
Ex. 2 - Max targeting range of 15, max flight range of 10. If the target is outside of 15 units, the gunner can't attack it. If it is within 10 units, the gunner attacks and the missile immediately flies up to 10 space units, traveling the entire distance to the target. However, if the target is 15 space units away and the gunner attacks it, the missile flies 10 units toward the target and stops. At the beginning of the next round, the missile is 5 units away from the target, which now has an opportunity to flee. If the target is an X-Wing that increases its speed to High Speed to get away, it ends its turn 21 units away from the missile ((8 x 2) + 5). The X-Wing would now be out of the missile's max targeting range and the missile would have to find a new target.
2) As for the inconsistent stats you mentioned ... I'd just point out again that they are all different types of missiles. If I remember correctly, the 2d and 3d from H&S are actually atmospheric missiles (Smart and Stalker, respectively). The missiles in P&P are starfighter scale. So maybe not so much contradictory as just different. Now that I think about it, it maybe makes sense that atmospheric missiles would have less fire control than space missiles (relatively speaking, obviously we disagree on the actual amount of FC that is appropriate ) because most ground and air targets don't have as much added maneuverability as a lot of spacecraft do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
