| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:04 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Very informative, but you missed my point. With a missile locked in at 15 units, and any ship with a Space of 4 or higher being able to exceed this by going to All-Out, the missile will get, at most, one or two attacks before falling too far behind to catch up, so long as the target ship merely flies in a straight line at maximum velocity. My point was not about the mechanics of the missile attack; it was about how ridiculously slow 15 SU's really is when compared to some of the ships a smart missile would potentially be used against.
On a related note, since you are arguing in defense of the RAW, where does it say that missiles are excluded from the varying Movement levels? Everything else that has a Move value is allowed to choose between Cautious, Cruise, Full or All-Out, so unless a missile with an official Space of 15 is specifically excluded (in writing), there is no reason for it not to be able to do the same.
_________________
"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: Thu Jul 10, 2014 2:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Very informative, but you missed my point. With a missile locked in at 15 units, and any ship with a Space of 4 or higher being able to exceed this by going to All-Out, the missile will get, at most, one or two attacks before falling too far behind to catch up, so long as the target ship merely flies in a straight line at maximum velocity. My point was not about the mechanics of the missile attack; it was about how ridiculously slow 15 SU's really is when compared to some of the ships a smart missile would potentially be used against. |
So you want a weapon that does more damage than almost any other weapon, with twice the FC of any other weapon, that can outrun most space vessels even at All-Out, that can make multiple repeated automated attacks against the same target, all for no more than the standard book cost of a regular missile? Oh, and you want to remove the +20 difficulty to hit a target moving faster than 6 space units in a round? You and I are just fundamentally at odds regarding how much of an "I win" button missiles ought to be, and it is clearly an irreconcilable difference.
Why shouldn't a ship be able to outrun a missile by moving at All-Out? By RAW, a Smart can't attack the same target more than once anyway. The only missile that gets multiple attempts against the same target is a Stalker, which I thought you wanted to throw out? Besides, if you're using missiles in combat, the target isn't likely to be flying at High Speed anyway, which means it wouldn't likely be able to accelerate to All-Out for two rounds. And even if it did, so what? A target that is running away from you at All-Out speed is usually as good as one that goes boom.
| crmcneill wrote: | | On a related note, since you are arguing in defense of the RAW, where does it say that missiles are excluded from the varying Movement levels? Everything else that has a Move value is allowed to choose between Cautious, Cruise, Full or All-Out, so unless a missile with an official Space of 15 is specifically excluded (in writing), there is no reason for it not to be able to do the same. |
Except that missiles don't have an official Space of 15. I already cited authority for this a few posts back. Instead, the description only says they can move 15 space units per round. Even if you want to squint and consider that an official move speed, the "per round" is your specific written exclusion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | So you want a weapon that does more damage than almost any other weapon, with twice the FC of any other weapon, that can outrun most space vessels even at All-Out, that can make multiple repeated automated attacks against the same target, all for no more than the standard book cost of a regular missile? Oh, and you want to remove the +20 difficulty to hit a target moving faster than 6 space units in a round? You and I are just fundamentally at odds regarding how much of an "I win" button missiles ought to be, and it is clearly an irreconcilable difference. |
No, what I want is a rule that makes missiles a credible one-on-one threat against a starfighter which will be rolling a minimum of 8D (per WEG, a typical TIE pilot has 6D Starfighter Piloting stacked with the TIE's 2D Maneuverability), not just when he is dealing with -3D or more in MAPs. I am also in favor of all ships getting a bonus to dodge based on their speed against all weapons, not just against missiles, and I proposed a house rule for that a few weeks back. As a trade-off, smart missiles should be expensive (minimum 3x more than standard missiles), hard to find outside of military circles, and carried only in limited quantities. Furthermore, I want a combat rule for missile on starfighter combat that is simple, streamlined, clearly stated, and as easy to use as possible, thereby facilitating fast-paced space combat in the game. A rule for combat was the only thing I proposed in this topic; I don't know where you got the rest of your assumptions.
| Quote: | | Why shouldn't a ship be able to outrun a missile by moving at All-Out? |
I never said it shouldn't; I just don't think it should be easy as the RAW makes it. The only smart missile seen in the films (AOTC) made multiple attacks on a starfighter traveling at high speed and was ultimately stopped by an improvised decoy.
| Quote: | | By RAW, a Smart can't attack the same target more than once anyway. The only missile that gets multiple attempts against the same target is a Stalker, which I thought you wanted to throw out? |
Actually, it was the Savant I wanted to throw out. From a rules standpoint, there is no mechanic for the surprise value of the missile going active in the second round, so all you are really doing is paying twice as much for a decreased chance of hitting on the first round. I'm working on a rules concept for both guided and smart missiles (where a smart missile is self contained and guided requires a constant sensor lock on from the launching craft), so I could see a savant as a guided weapon that turns into a smart weapon if the target shakes the guidance lock, but without some tangible benefit in the rules, a savant is just an interesting but useless concept.
| Quote: | | Besides, if you're using missiles in combat, the target isn't likely to be flying at High Speed anyway, which means it wouldn't likely be able to accelerate to All-Out for two rounds. |
And again we return to my X-Wing example. Even if the X-Wing is flying at Cruising Speed (Space 8), by the next round it can accelerate up to Space 16, at which speed it can automatically outrun a missile. Any starfighter with a Space of 8 or higher has the same advantage.
| Quote: | | Except that missiles don't have an official Space of 15. I already cited authority for this a few posts back. Instead, the description only says they can move 15 space units per round. Even if you want to squint and consider that an official move speed, the "per round" is your specific written exclusion. |
I concede the point; I didn't have access to my books when I wrote my reply last night. However, the sidebar doesn't change the fact that there are multiple holes in the smart missile RAW (slow relative speed over multiple rounds, transitioning between rounds for missile attacks, attack ranges and locations for missiles at the beginning of the round, low relative fire control dice, etc.), and that those rules do not accurately represent smart missile use as seen in the films or the EU. Defend at your leisure, but just because it's RAW doesn't make it right.
_________________
"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: Thu Jul 10, 2014 3:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | So you want a weapon that does more damage than almost any other weapon, with twice the FC of any other weapon, that can outrun most space vessels even at All-Out, that can make multiple repeated automated attacks against the same target, all for no more than the standard book cost of a regular missile? Oh, and you want to remove the +20 difficulty to hit a target moving faster than 6 space units in a round? You and I are just fundamentally at odds regarding how much of an "I win" button missiles ought to be, and it is clearly an irreconcilable difference. |
A rule for combat was the only thing I proposed in this topic; I don't know where you got the rest of your assumptions. |
A TIE pilot has 4d+1 piloting, standard, not 6d. So if he flies, shoots, and dodges in a round, he's only rolling 4d+1 on that dodge anyway (with only -2d MAP, not -3d).
But what assumptions? Concussion missiles do 8d damage, only proton torpedoes do more. You said "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." This is double the ion cannon's 4d FC, the next best that I've seen. Your last several posts have been about how missiles ought to be able to outrun ships at All-Out speed. Two posts ago you decried a missile only getting "at most, one or two attacks before falling too far behind," indicating you want the missile to get three or more attacks against the same target. Because the missile is making the rolls, and the gunner needs not do anything for these subsequent attacks, they are automated. Finally, you flat out said your rule would "not us[e] the Target Speed modifier; AFAIAC, missile weapons are penalized enough by short range and low fire control dice." And when I offered you a way to modify a missile to higher capability for additional cost early on in this discussion, you simply replied "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."
So like I said, a weapon with almost the highest damage, with double the FC of the next weapon down, that can outfly most ships moving at All-Out, that gets multiple (3+) automated attacks at the same target, with no penalty for target speed, without paying modification costs. [EDIT: To be clear, I mean only to show I wasn't making assumptions, not that I don't believe you now when you say you think the cost should be increased and that all ranged attacks should suffer a target movement penalty.]
| crmcneill wrote: | | Actually, it was the Savant I wanted to throw out. From a rules standpoint, there is no mechanic for the surprise value of the missile going active in the second round, so all you are really doing is paying twice as much for a decreased chance of hitting on the first round. I'm working on a rules concept for both guided and smart missiles (where a smart missile is self contained and guided requires a constant sensor lock on from the launching craft), so I could see a savant as a guided weapon that turns into a smart weapon if the target shakes the guidance lock, but without some tangible benefit in the rules, a savant is just an interesting but useless concept. |
My mistake. I agree, Savants are only situationally useful. It's just a surprise weapon. The only real use is if the target thinks he's safe after what appears to be a Dumb missile flies by. It would get to make an attack from close range the following round and, if the target was unaware of the missile (i.e. couldn't see behind him and declined to make a follow up Sensors check), he might not be able to dodge it.
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | Besides, if you're using missiles in combat, the target isn't likely to be flying at High Speed anyway, which means it wouldn't likely be able to accelerate to All-Out for two rounds. |
And again we return to my X-Wing example. Even if the X-Wing is flying at Cruising Speed Space 8, by the next round it can accelerate up to Space 16, at which speed it can automatically outrun a missile. Any starfighter with a Space of 8 or higher has the same advantage. |
We're not going to agree on this because fundamentally we don't agree on how many cracks an individual missile should get at the same target. The RAW says a Smart can't attempt a target lock more than once on the same target, so I see absolutely no problem in only giving the missile one or two rounds before the target moves out of range. Obviously, you have indicated you think the missile should get more attempts per target, so I understand why you are troubled with the X-Wing's ability to get out of danger. I hope we can at least agree that the adequacy of the RAW is entirely dependent on our individual expectations when it comes to missiles. If you want a missile that can chase down most ships, that gets multiple attempts to hit them, and that has enough FC to turn a near-sighted stormtrooper into an ace marksman, then of course you'll find the RAW inadequate. Ensign Ricky the redshirt doesn't make the money shots, it's guys like Luke and Wedge that are deadly with missiles ... because they are good. If Red Leader had one of your missiles in ANH, Luke would have never even had a chance to take out Death Star I.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 10, 2014 7:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | A TIE pilot has 4d+1 piloting, standard, not 6d. So if he flies, shoots, and dodges in a round, he's only rolling 4d+1 on that dodge anyway (with only -2d MAP, not -3d). |
Per the 2R&E rulebook, page 209, a "typical TIE Fighter Pilot" has a Starfighter Piloting of 6D.
| Quote: | | But what assumptions? Concussion missiles do 8d damage, only proton torpedoes do more. |
You assume I want to keep the damage the same, but you never actually asked. I have considered lowering the damage for smart / guided missiles, but I haven't made a decision on the matter yet.
| Quote: | | You said "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." This is double the ion cannon's 4d FC, the next best that I've seen. |
I believe my original assertion was that smart missiles needed to have some form of gunner equivalent that kicks in after the first round. If all other weapons get to stack Fire Control with the gunner's Gunnery skill, but the missile has no such equivalent for follow-up attacks, it is at an immediate disadvantage, unless it has its own guidance system to stack with its Fire Control dice. In short, the proposed 8D Fire Control was intended to represent the missile's 4D Fire Control stacked with the 4D guidance system (a droid brain or pilot equivalent) that kicks in if the first round misses.
| Quote: | | Your last several posts have been about how missiles ought to be able to outrun ships at All-Out speed. Two posts ago you decried a missile only getting "at most, one or two attacks before falling too far behind," indicating you want the missile to get three or more attacks against the same target. |
And missiles being faster than fighters is consistent with both the films and the EU, as well as real world missile combat. Modern air to air missiles run in the Mach 4 to Mach 5 range against fighters that can't even break Mach 3. Evading missiles is a game of maneuver and deception (decoys, jamming, etc), with speed playing a secondary role, as the missiles are just too fast to be beaten in a straight line race.
| Quote: | | Because the missile is making the rolls, and the gunner needs not do anything for these subsequent attacks, they are automated. |
And this is also consistent with the films and real life. In both AOTC and ROTS, smart missiles tracked their targets over the course of several rounds, and (in the case of ROTS) made at least two separate attacks on their targets after missing on the first attempt. Oddly enough, they were more successful on their follow-up attacks than they were with the initial shot by the gunner. In real life, a Sidewinder missile, the first true fire-and forget air to air missile, is lined up for a shot by the launching craft, but once it is launched, it operates independently of the launching fighter, homing on its target all by itself.
| Quote: | | Finally, you flat out said your rule would "not us[e] the Target Speed modifier; AFAIAC, missile weapons are penalized enough by short range and low fire control dice." |
I have also said at least once that I feel speed should remain a factor in evading attacks by all weapons, not just missiles. To that end, I am working on a house rule that provides a dice bonus to dodge attacks based on the target's relative speed and aspect angle. Its not that I don't think speed should play a role; I just don't agree with how the RAW does it.
| Quote: | | And when I offered you a way to modify a missile to higher capability for additional cost early on in this discussion, you simply replied "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." |
My point being that a smart missile should already have a droid brain with a minimum skill of 4D, and the only reason it doesn't is because the RAW is flawed and poorly thought out. You suggested paying to improve a droid brain that doesn't exist in the RAW; I'm saying "why should I pay to improve something the missile should already have?"
| Quote: | | The RAW says a Smart can't attempt a target lock more than once on the same target, so I see absolutely no problem in only giving the missile one or two rounds before the target moves out of range. |
Considering the RAW contradicts itself on whether smart missiles can acquire new targets once the lock is lost (P&P says they can, H&S says only stalker missiles can), you will excuse me when I say that I'm not willing to take the RAW's word for it.
| Quote: | | Ensign Ricky the redshirt doesn't make the money shots, it's guys like Luke and Wedge that are deadly with missiles ... because they are good. If Red Leader had one of your missiles in ANH, Luke would have never even had a chance to take out Death Star I. |
See my above explanation for the high fire control.
And you still haven't answered my question from above regarding how my proposed rule is "the same as the RAW." Since my double check of the RAW for smart missiles doesn't reveal any kind of chart for setting up the difficulty for the next round's attack, I'm still going with "different" as opposed to same.
_________________
"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: Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
I assume at this point that everyone else has wandered off to leave us to our own madness, but just in case they haven't, sorry for the length here, folks.
| crmcneill wrote: | | nuclearwookiee wrote: | | A TIE pilot has 4d+1 piloting, standard, not 6d. So if he flies, shoots, and dodges in a round, he's only rolling 4d+1 on that dodge anyway (with only -2d MAP, not -3d). |
Per the 2R&E rulebook, page 209, a "typical TIE Fighter Pilot" has a Starfighter Piloting of 6D. |
Compared to the stats under the TIE itself on 2d Ed. R&E p. 250 of 4d+1. Guess it's a draw. 
| crmcneill wrote: | | the proposed 8D Fire Control was intended to represent the missile's 4D Fire Control stacked with the 4D guidance system (a droid brain or pilot equivalent) that kicks in if the first round misses. |
Okay, well then I guess that's my bad for not knowing that "Fire Control" meant something other than Fire Control. I'm just glad that you don't actually mean to make missiles that add 8d to everybody's gunnery skill. I hope you can understand how I found that alarming.
| crmcneill wrote: | | missiles being faster than fighters is consistent with both the films and the EU, as well as real world missile combat. Modern air to air missiles run in the Mach 4 to Mach 5 range against fighters that can't even break Mach 3. Evading missiles is a game of maneuver and deception (decoys, jamming, etc), with speed playing a secondary role, as the missiles are just too fast to be beaten in a straight line race. |
Anecdotes are anecdotes. Even if you know that a missile is faster than a fighter on screen, you don't know how fast the fighter is traveling. All your anecdote proves is that the missile is faster than the fighter when the fighter flies slower than the missile. Besides, it's just as easily explained as the cinematic representation of the mechanics playing out (because ships don't actually sit stationary waiting to be struck by a missile on screen).
| crmcneill wrote: | | You suggested paying to improve a droid brain that doesn't exist in the RAW |
"The smart missile's simple droid brain is clever enough to pick up on the nearest target, should the first target move out of range." P&P p. 47. I'm not really sure how that could be read as "the missile doesn't have a droid brain."
| crmcneill wrote: | | the RAW contradicts itself on whether smart missiles can acquire new targets once the lock is lost (P&P says they can, H&S says only stalker missiles can) |
No it doesn't. "Unlike smart missiles that can only attempt to acquire a target once, the Stalker can attempt to reacquire if the lock is lost. Stalker missiles can roll its 3d every round until it locks onto the target again." H&S p. 10. This is clearly talking about the missile making multiple attempts to lock onto the same target, not different targets. "Can attack other targets" does not conflict with "cannot attack the same target twice."
| crmcneill wrote: | | And you still haven't answered my question from above regarding how my proposed rule is "the same as the RAW." Since my double check of the RAW for smart missiles doesn't reveal any kind of chart for setting up the difficulty for the next round's attack, I'm still going with "different" as opposed to same. |
Well, I haven't answered it since you last asked, anyway. This was the launching point of our disagreement:
| crmcneill wrote: | | Since we already have an established attack vs. dodge system, a smart missile could just be given stats like a normal weapon, but with a high fire control to represent the guidance system and an increased range to reflect the ability to maneuver and track. Then, if it misses, it is allowed to make a single attack the following round, with the degree of miss determining the range (and thus the base difficulty of its attack). |
| crmcneill wrote: | | 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. |
This all relates back to your initial conclusion that the RAW treats missiles like vehicles and your assertion that this "house rule" fixed everything by treating missiles like every other ranged weapon. My point this entire time has been that your underlying premise (i.e. that the RAW treats missiles like vehicles) was wrong and that the RAW already treats missiles like every other ranged weapon. Because you have finally conceded that a missile does not, in fact, have a "speed," all of the problems that you imagined flowing from that conclusion disappear as well (e.g. needing a pilot skill to accelerate between movement categories, needing to make bootleg turns to reengage a target after a miss, etc.) and you are left with RAW that already permits a missile to track without making any pilot rolls or turn checks. In other words, no move speed means the RAW doesn't actually treat missiles like vehicles. Missiles already do, in fact, have "stats like a normal weapon" under the RAW.
Your idea on "degree of miss" is really a collateral issue. As I indicated initially, I like the idea of incorporating deviation into the difficulty of a follow up attack. But, as I have explained before, your approach is just a different way of calculating the difficulty. It's merely a procedural change because there is already a ranged difficulty calculation inherent in the RAW. The range difficulty of any follow up attack would normally be determined by finding the distance between the attacker (i.e. the missile) and the target. The way a Savant or Stalker would work is that after the initial attack misses, the missile itself would roll an attack the following round, originating from its new position. Now the RAW is unclear about whether or not the missile's new position in the following round is the same space as the target, or if it would continue flying its full 15 space units (I suspect that a Stalker would begin the next round in the same space as the target but that a Savant would fly out to 15 space units and then activate, but I don't have strong feelings on this point yet). This means that, following standard targeting rules, we already have a way to calculate the difficulty of the follow up attack ... simply determine the distance between the missile and the target at the time the missile makes its target lock attempt, just like you would do with any other ranged attack. The rest plays out normally. If the target dodges, that's the difficulty for the follow up attack. If it doesn't, you just use the normal range difficulty. If the target full dodges, add these two values together.
Instead of determining the distance from the missile to the target, your approach is essentially to just determine the distance from the target to the missile. Tracking "degree of miss" is just quantifying the missile's position relative to its target rather than tracking its actual location and determining the range as you would do with any other ranged weapon. In other words, all that is different is your bookkeeping.
Thus,
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | 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. |
I know I paraphrased myself later in a way that could have sounded like I meant what you said was exactly like the RAW. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. This last quoted block is what I meant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
RAW missile rules are *********
If anyone is interested i created some of my own |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nuclearwookiee
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 28 Nov 2011
Posts: 171
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 11, 2014 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| denderan marajain wrote: | | RAW missile rules are ********* |
So I've heard... lol
| denderan marajain wrote: | | If anyone is interested i created some of my own |
Always interested in a new take on the issue. Fire away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
denderan marajain
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 13 May 2014
Posts: 213
Location: Vienna, Austria
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok When i am back from my holidays |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16173
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 2:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nuclearwookiee wrote: | | Guess it's a draw. |
Fair enough.
| crmcneill wrote: | | Okay, well then I guess that's my bad for not knowing that "Fire Control" meant something other than Fire Control. I'm just glad that you don't actually mean to make missiles that add 8d to everybody's gunnery skill. I hope you can understand how I found that alarming. |
On occasion, I use word choices that, while making perfect sense to me, can confuse others. In this case, seeing as there RAW term in common usage for the combined sum of Gunnery skill and Fire Control, I defaulted to Fire Control as the term most closely resembling the ability to accurately fire at a target.
| Quote: | | Even if you know that a missile is faster than a fighter on screen, you don't know how fast the fighter is traveling. All your anecdote proves is that the missile is faster than the fighter when the fighter flies slower than the missile. Besides, it's just as easily explained as the cinematic representation of the mechanics playing out (because ships don't actually sit stationary waiting to be struck by a missile on screen). |
A fellow forum member once told me that we all have moments of nerd rage over some things. One of my biggest is when people try to redefine the SWU by WEG's rules, which are riddled with flaws. I can't help but feel that is what is happening here. It's almost as if you are saying that the pilots in the film were deliberately flying more slowly than a missile that they are more than capable of outrunning, all so that the films will comply to an incomplete and poorly thought out RAW, yet that premise seems absurd in the extreme. Please explain.
| Quote: | | "The smart missile's simple droid brain is clever enough to pick up on the nearest target, should the first target move out of range." P&P p. 47. I'm not really sure how that could be read as "the missile doesn't have a droid brain." |
Much like with the Savant missile, if WEG says something exists, yet fails to provide a stat for it, does it really exist? My point was not so much that the droid brain did not exist, but that since there was no stat provided for it, there was nothing there to pay to improve. Adding a 4D skill equivalent droid brain is not a costly improvement so much as it is the insertion of something WEG mentioned but neglected to include in the stat.
| Quote: | | "Unlike smart missiles that can only attempt to acquire a target once, the Stalker can attempt to reacquire if the lock is lost. Stalker missiles can roll its 3d every round until it locks onto the target again." H&S p. 10. This is clearly talking about the missile making multiple attempts to lock onto the same target, not different targets. "Can attack other targets" does not conflict with "cannot attack the same target twice." |
On top of the confusing wording, that seems a rather silly rule. I don't see why a missile would be discriminating and merciful enough to give a pass to a ship that was foolish enough to wander back into lock on range. There are certain circumstances where a ship could deliberately allow a missile to reestablish lock, such as luring a missile away from a more vulnerable target.
| Quote: | | Because you have finally conceded that a missile does not, in fact, have a "speed," all of the problems that you imagined flowing from that conclusion disappear as well |
I wouldn't say that. While the missile may not have a true Speed rating, it does still have a fixed number of units moved per round, and since a round is not instantaneous (generally agreed to be about 5 seconds long), this places the missile in a gray area somewhere between vehicle and weapon, as it has attributes of both. My house rule would move the missile entirely into the weapon realm by removing the units per round and treating the missile as a continual effect attached to the targeted ship until such time as the missile runs out of fuel or loses its lock. I don't really even see the need for a missile to have a units per round value, save for Stalker missiles running a search pattern.
| Quote: | | The range difficulty of any follow up attack would normally be determined by finding the distance between the attacker (i.e. the missile) and the target. The way a Savant or Stalker would work is that after the initial attack misses, the missile itself would roll an attack the following round, originating from its new position. |
The problem there is that calculating the new position would require a house rule of its own since the RAW makes no statement on the matter. Using a hex map might simplify things, but as I originally mentioned, not everyone does. Applying the grenade scatter diagram might be helpful to generate relative position, but again, that would also be a house rule. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that, to use the RAW's missile rules, you must look beyond the scope of the RAW, or at least apply it in some way not explicitly stated. That, by definition, is a House Rule. While your approach seems to be applying house rules only so far as to make the RAW a functional rule, my feel is that that is only a half measure, and that since we are already deviating the RAW, why not just throw it out completely and replace it with something simpler, faster and clearer?
| Quote: | | I know I paraphrased myself later in a way that could have sounded like I meant what you said was exactly like the RAW. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. This last quoted block is what I meant. |
Fair enough. At this point, I think the general consensus here is that the RAW for smart missiles is flawed at best. Even with house rules applied to make it functional, it still ends up rather clunky.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
|
