"Star Wars: Silent Death battle report/thoughts" Topic

So after accumulating a pile of Star Wars Starship Battles fighters, and touching up the paint jobs with a bit of an ink/Future wash (worked v. nicely, thanks), I had "the boys" over last night for a bash with the free SW:SD rules available on the web.

The game pitted four TIE fighters and three TIE Interceptors against two X-Wings and three A-Wings in a free-wheeling dogfight. We used a starry skyfield cloth provided by one of the boys as the playing surface, and since there are no hexes printed on it, used my own turning key templates I came up with, and a scale of one hex = one inch. We also randomly generated pilot stats with a base of 3 + 1d6 for a range of 4-9.

In the result the Rebels swept the sky. The Imperials knocked down two of the A-Wings and damaged one X-Wing to almost half, but were all destroyed. Might have expected this, I guess, given that the points costs ran about 2:1 in favour of the Rebels, but it was a fun game.

BUT THE WARHEADS TOTALLY RULED. Almost all of the Rebel victories came from proton torps, with which their ships were liberally supplied. Myself, I'd always considered proton torps to be unguided weapons (viz. Luke at the first Death Star) to be used against capital ship or larger targets (ever see a torp launch in a Star Wars dogfight?), but SW:SD makes them guided missiles. They deal 3d12 damage as well, which may not sound like alot until you consider that a TIE fighter has only 10 damage points! The number of warheads flying around really slowed down play as well. I think when we play again we will limit or eliminate the use of proton torps/concussion missiles.

All in all, a fun game, and I think it will lend itself very well to "scenario" play – bouncing the convoy, evading the patrol, etc. I have some Imperial Shuttles and a nice little diecast Millennium Falcon for those purposes as well.

Cheers,

w.

W. – we might still be able to use the Concussion missiles, but make them "one shot" like a Laser shot (rather than 'driving' around the game surface for several turns). I think the Proton Torpedoes SHOULD just be used against Capital ships though…

KH

I concur.

You don't typically see them being used against fighters in any of the films, so maybe that would help redress some of the playbalance issues.

"given that the points costs ran about 2:1 in favour of the Rebels"

That might account for a lobsided victory :)

…………….Doug

That's a good idea Mr. C.

I also forgot that in the game, we limited warheads to three turns of "fuel" – they disappeared after the third turn if they failed to hit their target. I could see launching proton torps at something like the Falcon with 100 damage points, though.

w.

That's because the game is based on Silent Death. Torps tule in that game. 3D12 is a medium sized missile also. To balance this out, ships can be fitted with point-defense guns and better decoys. Might I suggest picking up the (very good) Silent Death rulebook and use the ship construction rules to modify the Star Wars ships? Even after that, go at least 3-1 odds against the rebs.

Instead of 2:1 in favour of the Rebels maybe even odds might produce a closer game.

…………..Doug

Sorry i can just ask a couple of questions? what rules are you using, and what figures'models? because i find its an absolute mission trying to find smallish star wars figures that arent action figure types etc. Also do you know where i can find any decent storm trooper figures and charatcers etc? coz me and a few mates would love to play some star wars games, but as yet we havent found suitable models (theyre all just collector series things, or attatched to key chains lol) Sorry to kind of divert the thread, but i am very interested in these games.

I actually wrote those rules so I can give you a little insight into why the torps work the way they do, but bear in mind, it was many years ago so I might have forgotten a thing or two.

The torpedoes in Silent Death do have a significant tactical impact on the game, however that was not the main reason why they function like they do. My main reasoning behind it was the X-Wing, Tie Fighter, X-Wing Alliance video games. In those, the missiles were used with as harasseing fire (the missiles) or heavy damage (the torpedoes).

The basic thought is if you fire off some concussion missiles, the target will need to dodge instead of lining you up in their sights. For the torpedoes, the faster ships should be able to outpace them fairly easily but if fired from close range, it will put the thumping on you.

Incidentally, the different firing options for the multiple cannons (like the 4 X-Wing lasers) were also inspired by the video games.

Glad you had fun the rules, they were fun to write.

Hey Reader,

We played this game with models from the Star Wars Starship Battles collectible miniatures game. The rules we used were Star Wars Silent Death, you can find them free on the web.

As far as "ground combat" with stormtroopers, rebel soldiers, etc., we have had alot of fun with the Star Wars Miniature Battles figures (also a CMG). You can buy the figures "blind" in booster packs or as singles, the common ones are quite cheap. You can find them in comic/game shops or on eBay.

Hope this helps.

w.

This is why I love this place, you get to hear from the people who made the games! Thanks AyrKle! :)

wehrmacht: thanks mate i'll have a look for them, and im looking for the rules right now. anyway thanks very much and keep posting reports!

I've heard there was a follow on article that allowed attacks on capital ships. Did you write that as well?

Reader,
try the rules that come with the Star Wars collectable figures. They are basically D20 skirmish. We have played them, and they work well for small battles. The rules come with the starter set.

Don't bother doing blind pulls. Go to Ebay or the miniature market and buy what you want.

Here's a few pics from the game:

Photobucket picture

I was trying my camera on 'Manual' so as to not BLAST the picutes out with the flash. As a result, a couple are a bit 'soft' on the focus. Hope they show up OK – they should at least give you a sense of the game.

Cheers,
Kevin

FYI: "picutes" = pictures

The rules are here:
PDF link

They were originally published in the Star Wars Gamer magazine that Wizards of the Coast use to publish.

If you're interested in skirmish play I'd recommend the WOTC collectible minis as well – and my rules!
naxera.com/starwars

As a pilot on the rebel side, in said game I would have to add to our defence that the Silent Death movement mechanics forced us to use the photon torpedoes. Even though we had point advantage without the missiles we would have lost because the movement mechanics make it very easy to to move to your opponents rear.

One turn you can move at full speed, second turn you can elect not to move at all. Everyone can pretty much turn on a dime. So the only thing that really counts is numbers, because the extra ships on the larger side can always move onto your rear.

So as the Rebels we surmised that by firing missiles at the numerically superior TIE fighter force we would force some of them to have to manoeuvre to avoid the missiles and draw some of their fighters away from attacking us. (And WE are the ones that suggested that the missiles should have a three turn endurance)

In retrospect the only TIE fighters that were caught by missiles were those that were not trying to avoid them but trying to position themselves to shoot at our fighters.

The movement system in Silent Death just doesn't represent the movement seen in the Star wars movies. No acceleration/deceleration, you are not worried about your attack attitude or speed or turn rates (No AV:T jabs here). Anyone can move in any direction and speed. IT'S JUST NOT LIKE WWII AIR COMBAT! The only important tactic is to win the Initiative. This forces your opponent to move first, and this is death because no matter who he moves too, they will not be able to shoot because the target will move out of the front arc on their following move. Likewise once he has moved you immediately position yourself on his tale. And added to this the more fighters your opponent has the more fighters he will have after you move all your fighters to group on your tails.

Even when you win Initiative and get the to move the last fighter, if you are outnumbered, you are outmatched, even by inferior fighters.

Stat-wise the X-Wing is like two TIE fighters, it has twice the hit points, twice the firepower. but has the same turning and hit probability as the TIE fighter but COSTS 40 POINTS, to the TIE fighters 14 POINTS. So if fights like two TIE Fighters BUT COSTS THREE TIMES AS MUCH! Without the ability to fire photon torpedoes it's outmatched every time.

Now this is not to say that I think the Photon torpedoes are not too powerful. THEY ARE WAYYY TO POWERFUL! I think that fighters should only be able to fire one missile per turn and that Photon Torpedoes only do 1d12 damage as opposed to 3d12(!) Concussion Missiles likewise should only to 1d6 damage.

Just a few thoughts.

<<As a pilot on the rebel side, in said game I would have to add to our defence that the Silent Death movement mechanics forced us to use the photon torpedoes. Even though we had point advantage without the missiles we would have lost because the movement mechanics make it very easy to to move to your opponents rear.>>

Erm, yes…and no…

<<One turn you can move at full speed, second turn you can elect not to move at all.>>

Yes, unless you use the optional *drift* rule…

<< Everyone can pretty much turn on a dime.>>

No. Turns cost movement points, and high-speed turns cost even more… turning reduces forward movement, as your movement rating is finite…

<< So the only thing that really counts is numbers, because the extra ships on the larger side can always move onto your rear.>>

OK. True to a point… but we'll cover this a little more when we start talking about tactics…

<<So as the Rebels we surmised that by firing missiles at the numerically superior TIE fighter force we would force some of them to have to manoeuvre to avoid the missiles and draw some of their fighters away from attacking us. (And WE are the ones that suggested that the missiles should have a three turn endurance)>>

Very good use of your missiles to break up an enemy formation. This is just good tactical thinking; cull some out and kill them in detail….

<<In retrospect the only TIE fighters that were caught by missiles were those that were not trying to avoid them but trying to position themselves to shoot at our fighters.>>

Fight or Flight. Even a modern jet jock will tell you that when a missile is locked on you standing your ground isn't a very bright idea…

<<The movement system in Silent Death just doesn't represent the movement seen in the Star wars movies.>>

Actually, am I seeing the playing area correctly? It doesn't appear to have a hex-map grid on it. SD:TNM uses a hex map… I'm confused… 8evil grin*

<< No acceleration/deceleration, you are not worried about your attack attitude or speed or turn rates (No AV:T jabs here). Anyone can move in any direction and speed. IT'S JUST NOT LIKE WWII AIR COMBAT!>>

This doesn't describe the game I've been playing for longer than I care to remember…

<< The only important tactic is to win the Initiative. This forces your opponent to move first, and this is death because no matter who he moves too, they will not be able to shoot because the target will move out of the front arc on their following move. Likewise once he has moved you immediately position yourself on his tale. And added to this the more fighters your opponent has the more fighters he will have after you move all your fighters to group on your tails.>>

And this perception is only partially true, and why Dr. Greaves and I wrote the SILENT DEATH: FIGHTER TACTICS MAUNAL all those years ago…

<<Even when you win Initiative and get the to move the last fighter, if you are outnumbered, you are outmatched, even by inferior fighters.>>

Negative. This is *precisely* where tactics come into play…

<<Stat-wise the X-Wing is like two TIE fighters, it has twice the hit points, twice the firepower. but has the same turning and hit probability as the TIE fighter but COSTS 40 POINTS, to the TIE fighters 14 POINTS. So if fights like two TIE Fighters BUT COSTS THREE TIMES AS MUCH! Without the ability to fire photon torpedoes it's outmatched every time.>>

Hmmm… somehow this doesn't mirror what I remember from the Star Wars films! I was always under the impression that the TIE fighter was faster and more agile than the X-Wing, which was a larger, more robust fighter than the dinky TIE.

<<Now this is not to say that I think the Photon torpedoes are not too powerful. THEY ARE WAYYY TO POWERFUL! I think that fighters should only be able to fire one missile per turn and that Photon Torpedoes only do 1d12 damage as opposed to 3d12(!) Concussion Missiles likewise should only to 1d6 damage.

Just a few thoughts.>>

And good thoughts in the context of the game you played. But it seems to me that some important aspects of the SD:TNM system were missing from this game! An your perception of the tactical issues of SD:TNM were therefore IMHo skewed accordingly, and in the wrong direction!

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

<<That's because the game is based on Silent Death. Torps tule in that game. 3D12 is a medium sized missile also. To balance this out, ships can be fitted with point-defense guns and better decoys.>>

I'd have to disagree with your assessment of torps in SD. Unless playing with gunboats or escorts, it is very rare for torps to hit a ship in SD unless it is heavily damaged (provided the target is actually trying to avoid the torps).

Point Defense is always iffy (with at least 20% chance of being hit unless it is a heavy escort). Decoys are an excellent tactic in SD for getting rid of torps (but they are very limited so you have to choose when to use them).

<<Now this is not to say that I think the Photon torpedoes are not too powerful. THEY ARE WAYYY TO POWERFUL! I think that fighters should only be able to fire one missile per turn and that Photon Torpedoes only do 1d12 damage as opposed to 3d12(!) Concussion Missiles likewise should only to 1d6 damage.>>

Nah. You just need to dodge better. ;)

In SD, the main point of torps is to break up formations and/or force the target to spend time dodging. Torps will rarely hit small fighters if the target is trying to dodge (unless using the maneuverable torp option and/or variable speed torp option with small torps).

Disclaimer: I have not read the Star Wars SD rules used. I just know SD:TNM very well.

Where does one get this "SD:FTM"?* I always find it amusing when an expert says that a newbie either isn't playing the game right or doesn't grasp the nuances (and BWP, you were much more eloquent and gentlemanly than I in my blunt phraseology. It's late, so please pardon me if I sound rude.). I wouldn't expect any new player of any new game to grasp all the nuances of a system. That said, there's something to be said for first impressions.

*It's a serious question. SD never did it for me, so I'd like to read the tactics manual to see if helps me grok what I've been missing. And my tastes in gaming have changed since I first saw SD, back in…'95…?

Maybe borrow a rule from "A Call to Arms" and make the proton torps "slow loading", thus they can fire but then have to wait a turn before firing again. Might help balance them out a little?

Chris

For the TIE pilots:

Assume you have twice the ships on the board that your opponent has, and you have guys to spare. Use one ship as the "target" (you don't get to choose which one, just go with the flow) and the other as his wingman. As soon as missiles lock, the target dodges like he'll die if he doesn't, and his wingman shoots at the incoming missiles.

If things get thick with missiles flying at everyone, and they often do, have Target A dodge away and Target B dodge away, but both should end their movements pretty much facing each other. The missiles home in, and now Target B can shoot at those missiles coming at Target A. Likewise, Target A can try to take out the missiles chasing Target B.

You spend one turn brushing off the missiles, maybe suffering a hit, but hey, you outnumber that poor X-Wing 2:1 and he just shot his wad.

"You don't typically see them being used against fighters in any of the films"

In Episode III, the sixth movie, Obi Wan got his fighter trashed by incoming missiles. Sure, they might be more complicated than concussion, but the idea was the same.

@BlackWidowPilot

Correct, your eyes do not deceive you… no hex grid for our game. Instead we used a "turning key" template to simulate a hex overlay (pics here: link with a notional scale of 1" = 1 hex.

Thanks for your comments!

w.

"Fight or Flight. Even a modern jet jock will tell you that when a missile is locked on you standing your ground isn't a very bright idea…"

"I'd have to disagree with your assessment of torps in SD. Unless playing with gunboats or escorts, it is very rare for torps to hit a ship in SD unless it is heavily damaged (provided the target is actually trying to avoid the torps)."

As one of the Imperial players, I can tell you there was not enough time to run from the warheads. Having to expend 3 drive points to change facing or 3+Dx to execute a tight turn invariably left you with not enough move to flee a warhead. Also, even a light hit from the 1d12 concussion missile will crit enough movement on the damage track to leave the Tie too slow to flee the next warhead.

Here was a typical turn. Tie closes to gun range to attack the following turn. New turn starts, and the Rebel launches a warhead (either the target ship, or the wingman). The Imp fighter is now 10" or closer (max gun range), and does not have the movement to turn and run. You could fly past the warhead, to get past it's turn radius, the Tie exposed to fire from the wingmen.

Please realize that with the fighters used, Ties and Interceptors, the Imperials did not have any warheads to respond with. Also note that Brian, as the winning Rebel player, found the warheads overpowering.

"Hmmm… somehow this doesn't mirror what I remember from the Star Wars films! I was always under the impression that the TIE fighter was faster and more agile than the X-Wing, which was a larger, more robust fighter than the dinky TIE."

In this game, while an X-wing has twice the hits, twice the weapons, warheads, higher DR and an astromech (higher dam con), it is only one drive point slower (14 vs 15). As "agility" is driven by drive rating, X-wings, especially with a higher piloting skill, are as agile or more agile than Ties. Otherwise, every class of ship that the Rebels have are more agile than the Imperial counterpart; A-wings vs Interceptors, B-wing vs Bomber. Bombers are slightly faster than Y-wings, but Y-wings have 360 degree weapons and higher dam con and DR.

"And good thoughts in the context of the game you played. But it seems to me that some important aspects of the SD:TNM system were missing from this game! An your perception of the tactical issues of SD:TNM were therefore IMHo skewed accordingly, and in the wrong direction! "

This is true, we were playing an adaptation, not the full blown Silent Death. As such, some of your commentary was not applicable to the situation. After all, the game we played was a 10 page .pdf, not a full rule set!

However, as the losing player, I still enjoyed the game. The base set of rules is very playable, it's just the adaptation of a movie that sets off some inequities. It was like MiG-17 vs F-14, missiles vs guns.

SMc.

Here was a typical turn. Tie closes to gun range to attack the following turn. New turn starts, and the Rebel launches a warhead (either the target ship, or the wingman). The Imp fighter is now 10" or closer (max gun range), and does not have the movement to turn and run. You could fly past the warhead, to get past it's turn radius, the Tie exposed to fire from the wingmen.

How fast were the torps in question? If you're at ten hexes/inches away and you snap turn for 3+d6 or d8, on average a 15 movement TIE should be able to get 16+ hexes away. If the torps are moving faster than 15, that may be the problem.

Standard Silent Death assumes a fair number of torps on each side, allowing you to neutralize many of the enemy launches by firing your own as interceptors…arguably the best use for Type 1 torps. Trying to fly all-gun fighters against torp users is a tricky prospect.

If this Star Wars port is only giving torps to the Rebels and a few Imp fighters, they probably need to be slower than normal. Dropping them to speeds in the 8-10 bracket should allow a nearly-all-gun Imp force to avoid them even after closing for shots…and that would make them most useful for whacking large, slow targets, which probably models the SW universe better anyway.

Alternately or additionally, you could try giving bonuses to dodge torps to certain fighters, like the zippy TIEs and A-Wings. That's one aspect SD has always ignored, the fact that some craft should just be more agile than others because they're built that way, rather than tying dodges solely to piloting skill.

Rich

There was nothing wrong with the game that they played, in the very first post the author stated that the Rebels had a
2:1 point advantage in favor of the Rebels. If the points were even the Imperial players would have had a chance. There is nothing wrong with the torps or the game it's the simple fact you played a lopsided battle the Imperial players did not have a chance.

4 TIE fighters 11pts ea. = 44pts
3 TIE Interceptors 14pts ea. = 28pts
Total 72pts

2 X-Wings 40pts ea. = 80pts
3 A-Wings 19pts ea. = 57pts
Total 137pts

The Imperial players could/should have had 5 more TIE fighters in the battle.

That would have made it a closer game, not limiting the torps or anything else.

The reason why the Imperial players did so badly was not the powerful Torpedoes but the imbalance of your scenario. I suggest a more balanced scenario.

"The Imperial players could/should have had 5 more TIE fighters in the battle."

Not quite, since each of the TIEs you add needs skill points also, which increase each ship's point total. You should be able to add 2 or 3 TIEs.

I also played with the Star Wars SD rules and thought that torpedoes dominated too much. With some work, the TIEs can avoid them, but you end up spending most of the time avoiding torps and not firing guns at opponents. My friends who played had never played the old X-wing computer games and they thought torps were out of place in a Star Wars (original movie) game. For new players it might be best to play without torps at all, then add them in later for more variety.

To remove torps: I believe the Star Wars ships are approximately based on the SD ship design system, so you can reduce the point cost of the ship by 3 for each proton torpedo removed, and by 1 for each concussion missile removed. (The TIE bomber is different, and doesnt seem to be based on the SD design system. My own variant: reduce its DV to 13 (since it is slow), and give it a base cost of 15, plus any torps you want to add.)

>3 TIE Interceptors 14pts ea. = 28pts

I reckon that would be 42, not 28 points. And yes, you have to add the pilot and gunner skills to the total. That would be an average 20 extra points for the Empire as they had two more ships than the Rebels.

w.

<<Where does one get this "SD:FTM"?*>>

Metal Express. Go to the website (click on link below) and follow the links. As a substantial protion of its contents is based upon real world fighter tactics, (both individual and group), and as my co-author and I included actual input from real fighter pilots including a few decorated combat veterans (aka "fighter aces"), we do delude ourselves that there might actually be *some* limited value to be gained from reading the silly thing…

<< I always find it amusing when an expert says that a newbie either isn't playing the game right or doesn't grasp the nuances (and BWP, you were much more eloquent and gentlemanly than I in my blunt phraseology. It's late, so please pardon me if I sound rude.).>>

Actually, your rudeness -unintentional IMHO- is due to your presumption that I'd be ever so condecending to ANY newbie! I wouldn't expect any new player of any new game to grasp all the nuances of a system. That said, there's something to be said for first impressions; the descriptions of the actual game posted here demonstrated to *moi* that there was a definite disconnect between the game played and the SD:TNM we fanatical few who play it know and revere as a sacred tome of universal wisdom and truth!

<<*It's a serious question. SD never did it for me, so I'd like to read the tactics manual to see if helps me grok what I've been missing. And my tastes in gaming have changed since I first saw SD, back in…'95…?>>

SILENT DEATH: THE NEXT MILLENNIUM is the current incarnation; was this the version you played? Or was it the earlier, much thinner 1st edition? SD:TNM is also filled with all sorts of optional rules, so one can tweak it to their heart's content…

Either way, the game we discovered -somewhat by accident (see MX article by Dr. Sheldon Greaves at MX website for details)- was that SD:TNM lent itself to classic fighter group tactics with a lethal vengeance. While I suspect that the original designers had no idea that this would happen, it did.

Certain weapon systems add their own spin to things (torpedoes, missile salvoes, and Night Brood technology), but overall things still boil down to the better tactician and a dash of luck – or just less enough bad luck than your opponent!- will carry the day.

One tactic BTW that I see not clearly articulated in this narrative was what we call *evasion.* One doesn't dodge torps or shoot them down. If your ship has a sufficient speed advantage over the torps tracking you, then you take evasive action; cut and run in a straight burn away from the torp, and ideally, attacking an enemy ship that you otherwise weren't originally targeting!

Torps have a standard Drive of 12 in the basic game. This means that anything with a higher Drive rating can evade them pretty easily, and it only gets better the higher the Drive. Caveat: never, never, never, never fire standard Torps at a Dart (Drive 19). They'll NEVER connect unless the pilot is clinically dead.

On a side note here, the DEFENSIVE VALUE of ships in SD:TNM is defined as an abstraction of the ship's relative agility (ie., difficulty in actually hitting the silly thing) and passive electronic screening (ie., defensive electromagnetic shielding and EW defenses).

Overall it is refreshing to see SD:TNM being played by people new to this classic game system. It warms my evil, old gamer's heart to no end…well, at least as much as one can heat the void of space…. BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAAAAAAA!!!

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

P.S. If you do get a copy of SD:FTM, you may also discover where my TMP handle originated…. not that such knowledge will do you much good when I line yer ship up in my sights… MWAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!

<<There was nothing wrong with the game that they played, in the very first post the author stated that the Rebels had a
2:1 point advantage in favor of the Rebels. If the points were even the Imperial players would have had a chance. There is nothing wrong with the torps or the game it's the simple fact you played a lopsided battle the Imperial players did not have a chance.

4 TIE fighters 11pts ea. = 44pts
3 TIE Interceptors 14pts ea. = 28pts
Total 72pts

2 X-Wings 40pts ea. = 80pts
3 A-Wings 19pts ea. = 57pts
Total 137pts

The Imperial players could/should have had 5 more TIE fighters in the battle.

That would have made it a closer game, not limiting the torps or anything else.

The reason why the Imperial players did so badly was not the powerful Torpedoes but the imbalance of your scenario. I suggest a more balanced scenario.>>

I concur here; IIRC the Rebs were always *substantially* outnumbered by the Imperial forces, hence why the ostensibly professional officer corps of the Galactic Empire was always so taken aback when they got handed their heads by a bunch of farmboys and space pirates..

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Buck Gordon

Yes, there were two follow up articles that I wrote. One dealt with Episode I ships (such as there were) and large ships like the Falcon and the Queen's Transport.

The third dealt with those New Jedi Order bad guys (the Yug Vohn or something like that) and dealt with attacking capital ships (although it is fairly abstract).

Sorry about the bum multiplication; but you still see my point, the empire was down about 2 or so ships and that could have made a difference.

AyrkLe – any chance of a link to those two follow-ups?

Thanks,

w.

The two follow up articles were published in Star Wars Gamer magazine and were not made available as PDF downloads, as far as I know.

I've finally had a chance to sit down and skim through this topic. What no-one seems to have "cottoned on" to, is the fact that (as one of the Imperial players) it was one thing to have to fight head-to-head with the other Rebel fighters. But as soon as they launch missiles, it's like a whole new squadron of fighters have suddenly appeared on the board looking to ram YOUR fighters.

As someone mentioned earlier, you (Imperial player) either have to decide to attack the opposing fighters (risky as it brings you that much closer to the missiles!), or try to dodge/evade/outrun the missiles. This however, means you aren't usually bringing your guns to bear on the opposing fighters as you're too busy jinking around the table! :(

It was still a fun game, despite the missiles! I managed 1/2 a "kill" on one X-wing. I think with a few tweaks on the Missile rules this could be a great game!

Cheers,
Kevin

I would suggest chucking the Torps altogether, maybe post on the Silent Death forums, and see if you can get a point values for the Reble fighters without missiles. That would be a more intresting and movie-like.

…………….Doug

Something else is missing here from SD:TNM, namely no use of *jamming* of torpedoes. Was this option left out of this Star Wars variant?

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

P.S. Nevermind *decoys* found on most ships in SD:TNM…

Something else is missing here from SD:TNM, namely no use of *jamming* of torpedoes. Was this option left out of this Star Wars variant?

No, we had 'jamming' – only it was a 1-2 roll on a d10 for the TIE fighters I was running (same for the Interceptors, I think). You'd think for an EMPIRE that can build DEATHSTARS, they'd be able to manage better than a 1-2 on a d10 to jam attacking missiles!

…and what was worse for "jamming" – you don't get to try to jam the missile until AFTER the "Missile Resolution Phase!" This is fine when the missile is still 'at distance' and you actually have a chance to try to jam after the missile moves, but not much good when the warhead is about to hit your fighter.

Personally, I think you should be able to get one last try against the missile BEFORE it slams into you – but that's just me…

<<No, we had 'jamming' – only it was a 1-2 roll on a d10 for the TIE fighters I was running (same for the Interceptors, I think). You'd think for an EMPIRE that can build DEATHSTARS, they'd be able to manage better than a 1-2 on a d10 to jam attacking missiles! >>

So…jamming was less effective in this variant; normal SD:TNM jamming rules call for a *1* on a D4. One in four vs. one in five. Again, *decoys* also seem conspicuous by their absence; they spoof *all* inbound torps heading for your ship on a 1-2 on a D4. *Point Defense* can also help reduce the number of torps -and missiles- in SD:TNM.

This sounded like an overall OUCH!! for the Imperial players…

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

*decoys* & *Point Defense*

I don't think 'decoys' would be in the flavour of STAR WARS, so I can see them being left out. And as for Point Defense, I can see that on the larger Frigates, Capital ships, etc. but not on Fighters of this size – functionally, they really aren't much bigger than WWII fighters.

This sounded like an overall OUCH!! for the Imperial players…

I'd just call it 'growing pains' – it was still a fun game, but I think it's in need of a few tweaks to bring it more in line with the STAR WARS "universe." Just thinking about it now, you never saw missiles used in any Fighter combat – at least in the 'first' three movies (I haven't seen the latest two movies yet, so I can't comment on them). This would certainly lead me to remove missiles from Fighter combat. Or perhaps slow their movement, or restrict them in some other way (more expensive turning penalties?) to make them less usable against Fighters, and still have them available for use against Capital ships.

AyrkLe,
Any way to get these articles online, or emailed?

Also, I believe the intent of the limited amount of pieces on the board was to not bog down our first introduction by literally moving squadrons about the board. Having never experienced the warhead rules before (in action), we basically didn't "know any better". Next time, we could even the score with some Tie Bombers (16 protons a piece).

One thing I think gets lost here is, i believe, we all enjoyed the game, and we all wanted to play it again.

Now that we "know better"…

SMc.

"I don't think 'decoys' would be in the flavour of STAR WARS, so I can see them being left out."

The designer, AyrkLe, said in a post above that the X-wing video games were his main reason for including torpedoes (as well as the linking / unlinking of weapons). But those video games also had "chaff" and "flares" used as missile countermeasures by fighters, so I'm not sure why Decoys were left out of the SW version of SD. Probably for simplicity's sake?

I tried giving one Decoy to every SW fighter (for free), and it does help out against torpedoes.

Even Point Defense systems could be included on fighters. You could explain it as a last ditch attempt by the fighter to shoot the incoming torpedo. In the video games, it was usually possible to turn your ship and fire at a close torpedo, but it is more difficult to do that in Silent Death since the torpedo resolution phase is before the firing phase.

<<The designer, AyrkLe, said in a post above that the X-wing video games were his main reason for including torpedoes (as well as the linking / unlinking of weapons). But those video games also had "chaff" and "flares" used as missile countermeasures by fighters, so I'm not sure why Decoys were left out of the SW version of SD. Probably for simplicity's sake?

I tried giving one Decoy to every SW fighter (for free), and it does help out against torpedoes.

Even Point Defense systems could be included on fighters. You could explain it as a last ditch attempt by the fighter to shoot the incoming torpedo. In the video games, it was usually possible to turn your ship and fire at a close torpedo, but it is more difficult to do that in Silent Death since the torpedo resolution phase is before the firing phase.>>

Chaff? Flares?! <cough><cough>decoys<cough><cough>!

Growing pains indeed! Do share your developments with our ravening SD:TNM fans on the Metal Express Forums! Nothing like throwing chunks of raw meat into a pit full of rabid hyenas… Mwaahahahahaaaa!!!

Leland R. Erickson
Metal Express
metal-express.net

Maybe the whole "Chaff/Flares/Decoys/Point Defense" thing fits in with the SILENT DEATH universe, but it just doesn't feel right for STAR WARS – but that's just my opinion…

Kevin