The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Spinal / Axial Weapons
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules -> Spinal / Axial Weapons Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Jul 26, 2016 4:02 pm    Post subject: Spinal / Axial Weapons Reply with quote

While working on my ASC system, I came across a few minutiae that bothered me about starfighter combat. One thing in particular is that starship combat in the RAW makes no distinction between a axial or spinal mounted weapon (i.e. one that is fixed to fire forward along the ship's x-axis, as opposed to a partial turret that can target in the Front fire arc only). This includes pretty much all starfighter-mounted weaponry, all of which is aimed entirely by the flight path of the fighter itself.

Yet the RAW makes no connection between the ability of a pilot to steer his craft (and thus his weapons) into proper firing position to score a hit.

To represent this, I would suggest the following:
    -If a starfighter pilot wishes to fire axial weaponry, he makes a single Starfighter Piloting roll at +5 Difficulty. This is in addition to the MAP from both using both Piloting and Gunnery skills in the same round, and represents the inherent difficulty found in piloting a craft through a given maneuver and getting a target to line up with the gunsight.

    -On a successful Piloting roll, for every 3 points of success, the pilot may add +1 to his Gunnery roll to hit the target. On a failed roll, the suffers a penalty to Gunnery equal to the amount by which he failed the Piloting roll.
I deliberately unbalanced the failure penalty because, IMO, a bad piloting roll should make it much more difficult to hit the target, and a penalty of -1 for every 3 points of fail doesn't seem severe enough when measured against likely Gunnery dice totals.

Thoughts?
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 11:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'd almost be tempted to make axial blasters and mass drivers rely on the piloting roll alone, not any gunnery skill.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Wed Jul 27, 2016 4:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
I'd almost be tempted to make axial blasters and mass drivers rely on the piloting roll alone, not any gunnery skill.

I considered that early on, but there is still enough pure Gunnery going on to straddle the line between the two skills. Ultimately, IMO, I think the best fit is to keep it under Gunnery, but influenced by Piloting ability.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Thu Jul 28, 2016 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
MrNexx wrote:
I'd almost be tempted to make axial blasters and mass drivers rely on the piloting roll alone, not any gunnery skill.

I considered that early on, but there is still enough pure Gunnery going on to straddle the line between the two skills. Ultimately, IMO, I think the best fit is to keep it under Gunnery, but influenced by Piloting ability.


My simple solution would be to cap your gunnery skill with that weapon at your piloting ability, but allow the pilot to call a raise... basically say "I'm trying for better position" and roll piloting at an increased difficulty to get a bonus to Gunnery... essentially your "every 3 points of success adds 1 to gunnery". Or simply trade piloting dice for gunnery dice with an axial weapon.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
LegendaryExGamer
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Wed Sep 21, 2016 4:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I would say that the targeting method of the weapon systems relies heavily upon the platform on which it is mounted. If It's a running stem to stern on something like a Star Destroyer, then it can only attack craft in the forward arc (possibly on a narrow one requiring a piloting roll in tandem) and made at some level of difficulty +10 or more above the norm.

If we are talking a Death Star with a targeting dish, that can essentially direct a focused blast anywhere in it's forward arc... The weapon is hellishly accurate, you're paying for to be so. Starship Gunnery, the basic skill, like firing the guns on an X-Wing is about all that is required to hit a Capital Ship. Everything is automated with arrays of sensors for targeting. The Death Star never missed when firing on ships 600-1200 meters in length.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:55 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Under the rule I proposed, the targeting and accuracy of the platform would be a combination of the ship's Maneuver and Fire Control dice. Of course, it doesn't matter how good the platform is if the bumbling idiot at the controls can't steer onto target...
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
LegendaryExGamer
Ensign
Ensign


Joined: 21 Jun 2014
Posts: 34

PostPosted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Under the rule I proposed, the targeting and accuracy of the platform would be a combination of the ship's Maneuver and Fire Control dice. Of course, it doesn't matter how good the platform is if the bumbling idiot at the controls can't steer onto target...


True enough. I've generally made Axial weaponry kinda nasty if the platform is stable and the focusing mechanism allows for something like 180 degree arc of fire.

I, however, have used the spinal weaponry on things like Star Destroyers as an Ultra Heavy Turbolaser with Tandem barrels.

The last campaign I ran had a lot of spinal weaponry in the form of Axial/Spinal rail weaponry that could fire to maximum sensor range. It was quite the advantage until the insane group of enemy combatants started lobbing hundreds of dirty MIRV nukes their way Wink.

My notes on the campaign are in need to being cleaned up and tossed into its own sourcebook (started on it... but the 150+ hours I dumped into the 3rd edition this past month or so has mentally scarred me).

I can shoot you that, too, when it's solid.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 8:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

This light additional crunch is perfectly acceptable, or you could just more simply differentiate them by statting axial weapons to have lower fire control (or even no fire control) and be done with it.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 12:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
This light additional crunch is perfectly acceptable, or you could just more simply differentiate them by statting axial weapons to have lower fire control (or even no fire control) and be done with it.

For the Y-Wing stats, WEG gave the ion cannon a FC of 3D, but reduced it to 1D on the Longprobe where the cannon are fixed in one position. A -2D penalty to differentiate between fixed (axial) and steerable (turreted) weapons works for me.

Mounting axial weapons on capital ships is what I used for re-stating the Rebel Assault Cruiser, with the big, slow-firing Turbolaser Cannon being the next scale step up from the ship itself. The idea was that the ship would use its speed to run straight in at a target, then deliver a powerful attack at close range.

In the end, though, turreted weaponry ends up being more versatile. The main uses of axial weaponry are going to be adding punch to a light, maneuverable craft, or for a big ship for use against a tough target that can't dodge the shot (like a planet). Capital Ship grade axial weapons in the SWU are actually pretty rare, with only the Eclipse/Sovereign mounting axial superlasers, and an older battleship featured in one of the AJ's that was equipped with an axial rail gun.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Sep 30, 2016 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
or you could just more simply differentiate them by statting axial weapons to have lower fire control

For the Y-Wing stats, WEG gave the ion cannon a FC of 3D, but reduced it to 1D on the Longprobe where the cannon are fixed in one position. A -2D penalty to differentiate between fixed (axial) and steerable (turreted) weapons works for me.

Hey, a WEG precedent for a turreted weapon with an axial setting. (Maybe I was subconsciously citing that.) -2D works for me too, at least for fighter-scale ships.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral


Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio

PostPosted: Sat Oct 01, 2016 8:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Slightly unrelated: Am I the only one who tended to want the ion cannon fixed to cover the rear arc, instead of the front?
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Sep 10, 2020 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Giving this a bump because I have a thought on it.

I've been working with a theory that x2 = +1D w/r/t to Coordination, and this theory has gained precedence in discussions with a more technically-minded SWD6 aficionado off-Pit. Put simply, every +1D represents a doubling of input, effort, applied power, etc.

Now, MAPs are measured in 1D increments; a -1D MAP represents two tasks of equal difficulty being performed either at the same time or in close enough succession that they might as well be.

However, when piloting a ship with fixed-forward weaponry (as is common on most starfighters), there is a definite overlap between the two, as the pilot is, in effect, aiming the cannon by piloting the ship. As such, when a pilot is both flying his ship and firing his fixed forward weapons, he is performing two closely-related actions.

Under the RAW, these would count as two separate actions, which isn't an unfair argument. However, I've long felt that the two actions were sufficiently intertwined that a full MAP wasn't appropriate.

As such, I'm considering doing only a Partial MAP of -1 or -2, applied to both the Piloting and Gunnery rolls, but only for fixed-forward weaponry; the Y-Wing example cited above would only be able to take a partial MAP if the ion cannon was in fixed-forward mode, and if they steered the turret to take advantage of the extra 2D of Fire Control, it would count as an Action for MAP calculation.

I had considered starting a separate topic for Partial MAPs, but I honestly can't think of any other scenario where it would come into play, so I figured I'd tack it onto the end of this one.
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Sovereign Protector


Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14021
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 2:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
MrNexx wrote:
I'd almost be tempted to make axial blasters and mass drivers rely on the piloting roll alone, not any gunnery skill.

I considered that early on, but there is still enough pure Gunnery going on to straddle the line between the two skills. Ultimately, IMO, I think the best fit is to keep it under Gunnery, but influenced by Piloting ability.


My simple solution would be to cap your gunnery skill with that weapon at your piloting ability, but allow the pilot to call a raise... basically say "I'm trying for better position" and roll piloting at an increased difficulty to get a bonus to Gunnery... essentially your "every 3 points of success adds 1 to gunnery". Or simply trade piloting dice for gunnery dice with an axial weapon.


Now that i could get behind.

MrNexx wrote:
Slightly unrelated: Am I the only one who tended to want the ion cannon fixed to cover the rear arc, instead of the front?


Two of my PC pilots did that.. After upping it to a heavy twin ion turret.
However a third pilot, fixed it foward, changed it out to a twin heavy laser, and upped the fixed forwards, to also being twin heavy.. AND had a selector switch to lock both into a quad battery formation.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ray
Commodore
Commodore


Joined: 31 Oct 2003
Posts: 1743
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, North America, Western Hemisphere, Earth, Sol, Western Arm, Milky Way

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I wanted to, but for whatever reason my GM nixed it. I can't recall his reason why I couldn't have the ion cannons on the rear arc.

Might have just been the commanding officer going, "No, you need to see where you're shooting." as if we weren't using the targeting computers already. (I was not a Space Wizard.).
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Sep 11, 2020 11:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
Slightly unrelated: Am I the only one who tended to want the ion cannon fixed to cover the rear arc, instead of the front?

Rear-facing cannon have some precedent in the EU (the Adumari Blades in Starfighters of Adumar had fixed-aft laser cannon), but I'd increase all Difficulties by +5 due to having to shoot "over your shoulder".
_________________
"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
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> House Rules All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0