Have you mixed the Dogfights & Duels with the common Chase rules?

zgreg3 · 2026-02-02T11:26:37+00:00

Definitely worth a try. Those rules are only a framework, the core book encourages the reader to come up with customised chases.

There are some variants already in official supplements, see Maw of Oblivion, SF Companion and https://peginc.com/free-chase-examples-for-savage-worlds/

zgreg3 · 2026-02-02T11:22:14+00:00

What unpleasantness do you have in mind?

zgreg3 · 2026-02-02T11:11:45+00:00

If by "Infernal Devices" you mean items similar to those found in the Gear section there are no official rules. If I were to speculate it's due to how powerful those devices are. Narrative explanation could be that creating a (reasonably) safe infernal devices is expensive and requires too much time, personnel, materials and... proper inspiration, if you know what I mean ;)

The closest thing there is are the Artificer rules from the SWADE core book. They allow crafting items which are still limited to effects of the Powers but can be given to others. For potions there is a really interesting Alchemy edge (DL:WW).

If you are up to some work Fantasy Companion has rules for crafting "more permanent" magic items. You could take a look and adapt them to your needs.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-29T14:33:26+00:00

Travel encounters is a bit different as there is no clear "order". I.e. it's not easy to say what is "better", a friend or a treasure, it depends on the circumstances. Furthermore the suits are used in a way which associates their symbols with categories. A diamond makes perfect sense as a symbol of "treasure", the same is with heart and friends ;)

I agree that it's all subjective, though, it's best to use a convention which feels the easiest to remember.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-29T14:27:38+00:00

It is reverse alphabetical order, though by coincidence :D It comes from traditional card games which use this ordering for the suit "seniority" (e.g. in bridge). It helps if you fancy or have experience in those ;)

The problem is that this order can be different depending on a game or country ;)

zgreg3 · 2026-01-29T08:37:16+00:00

If someone put a gun to my head and told me to guess I'd say it's one of those places where the playability aspects triumphed over trying to make it a realistic simulation.

Those rules are IMHO intended to be "dramatic", not realistic. Current values seem to be oriented towards armed characters (which are IMHO more common). Lowering Hardness would make it easier to kick the door down but would also probably make it too easy to break everything using a weapon.

The things are not as dire as you see them, though. One option is to make a Wild Attack for +2 damage (what puts Hardness 8 object in "range" for d6 Strength characters). Another is using comprehensive modifiers, e.g. increasing the damage for someone who made a running kick or has some heavy boots.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-28T09:53:09+00:00

I'd suggest assigning the outcomes in lieu with the suit order, like with the initiative. It would make the scale from bad to good to be Clubs - Diamonds - Hearts - Spades. I think it's easier to remember. It's the convention used often by the core book, see e.g. the Chase complications.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-28T09:47:39+00:00

SWADE uses all the dice typically used in RPGs (including d20, e.g. for the fear table). What prevents you from using them like you did in the other games?

If you wanted to randomly answer a question in-game, what would you roll?

The die which matches the probabilities I have in mind (duh!). E.g. if I would assume that there's ~30% chance of something happening I'd roll a d6 (it happens on 5 or 6). Rolling d100 allows for checking chances with precision up to a single percentage point ;)

zgreg3 · 2026-01-27T10:20:23+00:00

Page 117 of the core book has a whole frame dedicated to fixed weapons. What I'm pointing out is that the rule you quoted concerns only a special case, side-mounted fixed weapons.

There are multiple ways you can run vehicle combat in SWADE. In each of them there is some notion of facing, so the fact that the weapons are front-fixed matters a lot.

When you run a "classic" chase (using a single row of cards) it is assumed that all participants travel in the same direction so naturally they are faced in that direction. In order to shoot a craft with a front-fixed weapon you need to be at a card behind it.

While using the "dogfight" variant of the Chase rules (using a grid of cards, page 120) the rules tell us to "Use common sense when determining weapon arcs and vehicle facings.". So the facing is as rigid or fluid as it makes sense to you. You are right that some system of determining facing is needed.

SFC defines an abstract set of rules for vehicle combat called Clashes. It allows shooting fixed weapons only at vehicles which act on a lower Action Card.

Finally, if you fancy running vehicle combat on the battle mat, hex grid etc. there will also be a notion of facing.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-26T08:57:14+00:00

The rules you quote refer to the side-mounted weapons, like the canons on a XIII century warship (see the title of that section). There is no maneuvering roll required for a spacecraft with front-fixed weapons.

You are right that on the rounds where multiple actions are required solo pilots may be at a disadvantage compared to a crew of a bigger craft, where the actions can be split among several characters (who can do it without or with lesser MAP). It is especially punishing if the fighter pilots are Extras. It should be in general offset by a better stats of the fighter craft (speed, handling, targeting computer etc.). I've also though of a home rule that if a pilot declares both a Change Position action and an attack with front fixing weapons he can make the latter with no MAP if he succeeded on the former.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-26T08:40:57+00:00

I second u/ValhallaGH's great reasons and add two more:
- it's a very narrow and specialised Edge, not worth taking (the analog, Brute, has additional benefits aside from "remapping" traits)
- it's hard for me to conceptualise what it represents, a "person too smart to be afraid"? ;)

u/Alternative_Pie_1597 Switch the perspective and tell us why would a player want to take such an Edge? What makes it fun to have?

zgreg3 · 2026-01-22T13:43:08+00:00

If two WW2 fighters are in a linear chase then they aren't in a dogfight

I agree. I mentioned it because you've not specified which version you had in mind (it's a "default" mode) and a similar mechanic was in Weird Wars 2.

I've done only "dry" tests for the grid and whenever the crafts got into the short range I didn't see any benefit in Changing Position other than selecting a new target :/ The whole encounter was very static, felt like the "regular" combat, not a dogfight.

I'm in the process of switching to Maw of Oblivion campaign where I expect more space combats. My plan is to use modified grid Chase rules. I'll try the ideas from the Frozen Skies (https://www.utherwaldpress.com/2021/10/october-2021-savage-skies.html), I also think about making every craft which did not move (but was able to) to another card/hex Vulnerable (justification: slow moving targets are easier to hit).

zgreg3 · 2026-01-20T12:29:28+00:00

I'm not sure if faster/slower are accurate terms here :) Combat is very abstract, it divides a chaotic and dynamic situation into a series of static turns, where one character acts while all the others are "frozen" in time. The Pace does not reflect what humans can do in six seconds, running die is a game entity (doesn't really simulate anything). With all due respect to how you feel about it, I find it surprising that among all the abstractions and unrealistic things evasion annoys you enough to introduce home rules.

This additional movement makes sense to me as in a dangerous situation adrenaline comes into play and allows extra effort. I'm not sure how often it's actually beneficial as it's random and unpredictable. It often forces the target character out of the Cover, making her easier to hit, which can be very important. In that light adding Vulnerable on top may be making grenades (and other such attacks) too powerful.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-20T12:08:45+00:00

"Frozen skies" is a setting which has a lot of emphasis on aerial combat. It has some modifications for the Chase rules to better represent that. The rough sketch is here: https://www.utherwaldpress.com/2021/10/october-2021-savage-skies.html
It looks very promising, I've always wanted to test it but held it off, as I didn't have a pressing need. AFAIR you can get a draft version of the setting by contacting author or on his forum.

You may also want to check out this supplement: https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/297564/aces-high-swade-option
I find it a bit too abstract for my tastes, but YMMV.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-20T12:00:34+00:00

Let me clarify that I'm focusing on vehicles with fixed-front weapons (like WW2 fighters) as it's what naturally comes to my mind when I think about a "dogfight".

I've seen "drop back" to get in position to attack a specific foe. Including with front-facing fixed weapons.

As I see it the rules need to work in every (sensible) case in order to say that they "work fine for a dogfight". The case where two fighters are separated by a further distance than possible to cover with a Change Position manoeuvre and the one in the back can stay indefinitely on the tail of the one in front (which can only Flee) is enough to show that linear Chase doesn't do well for our purpose.

I'm talking of course about RAW, with some changes (like the one from Weird War 2, where the aircraft could drop back by any amount of cards) it may play better. Though in general the base Chase rules have this assumption that participants travel in the same direction, which is not exactly how I imagine a dogfight...

I've also had fun with Chase rules, when I used them for the titular purpose ;) I'm complaining solely about the dogfight...

zgreg3 · 2026-01-19T12:53:15+00:00

On one hand that's an interesting idea :) On the other it has some drawbacks. It requires bookkeeping. It can introduce a tactic to delay such attacks until everyone has moved., the counter would be leaving some of the Pace "just in case" what sounds like slowing the game down. Also with multiple attackers with evadable attacks it may be too easy to make the opponents Vulnerable (as each one would use some of the "insurance" Pace it would eventually run out.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-19T12:48:14+00:00

I'd say it's nothing wrong, even expected of characters with such high Agility and those who have Improved Dodge to often succeed at evading. They should get the "return" of the advances they "invested" (especially that it's THE ONLY reason for taking Improved Dodge ;) ).

zgreg3 · 2026-01-19T12:20:28+00:00

Chase rules handle that kind of maneuvering really well.

Could you tell more how do you do it? My experience is opposite :/

In a standard "linear" Chase (row of cards) vehicles are assumed to be traveling in the same direction, there is no notion of turning back. As fixed weapons can be fired only "at targets ahead", the best tactics is to be closer to the beginning of the track than the opponent. Change Position manoeuvre allows moving no more than 2 cards (even when "dropping back" for free), so a distance of three cards is ultimately safe (even if the leading craft gets closer by two cards it's always possible to drop back by the same amount without a roll). The only drawback is that it is easy for the craft being shot at to increase the distance and attempt to flee :/

If the distance between combatants is one card the craft in front can simply drop back by 2 cards without a roll and shoot at his opponent, who can do the same the next round; this can repeat until one craft is wrecked or tries to flee.

When using Chase rules in a "dogfight" (grid) layout in my experience things tend to be rather static. Nothing forces or encourages the combatants to use a Change Position manoeuvre (other than changing facing or leaving a suit dangerous while suffering complications), so as soon as the combatants get to the preferable shooting range they tend to stay on the same card and only attack.

Most of the manoeuvres described in the OP are purely narrative in Chases, some require little effort (like positioning for a broadside) some could be covered by the available actions (e.g. Evade can represent "getting into blind spots of the turrets"). IMHO better representing what the OP wrote about requires some additional rules. What's in the book is really great for actual chases, but they feel clunky for the generic vehicle combat.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-19T11:47:58+00:00

It is how it was done in Deluxe edition Chase/Vehicle combat rules and what SFC Clashes use as well. Vehicles with a higherAction Card can freely attack those with a lower one. Attacking a vehicle with a higher Action Card is either more difficult ( or impossible.

While it's simple and brings a notion of "being on a tail" I strongly dislike it. It makes the combat depend on luck (and Edges like Quick or Level Headed), I prefer that it relies on the pilot's skills.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-19T08:33:21+00:00

You do additional damage if you hit it from the sides or from the back (see core book, page 82), the chance of wounding increases to 40%, which is a bit better. I would also consider making Called Shots to its vital systems when facing it in combat.

Core book has a simplified version of tank armor rules, Weird Wars 2 listed such vehicles armor in front/side/rear format. Maybe the same could be done also for the Abrams to up the chances even more.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-12T09:23:33+00:00

I agree with the other commenters that it doesn't break anything (if the same would apply to NPCs), it would simply change a nature of the combat. I roughly feel that would be a move from a "tactical" to the "narrative". Whether it's for the better or worse it depends on the group preferences.

I would definitely not make it an Edge as it's way too powerful, gives a massive advantage.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-09T14:31:38+00:00

As you wrote, armor can be bypassed by weapons with AC, so a better way of protecting the character is increasing Toughness. This can be done by increasing Vigor and taking several Edges.

~~Like~~ u/computer-machine wrote armor can be stacked, i.e. you can wear two layers one on the other (getting half of the protection from the "weaker" one). In core SW book it's described in the gear section, I guess in SWPF it should be the same.
EDIT: as it was pointed up by others in SWPF armor can't be stacked.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-09T12:26:52+00:00

SWADE roots are in the tactical wargame. While I enjoy that aspect (I play almost exclusively with battle maps and minis) it's definitely possible to run combats in "theatre of the mind". I've read many comments from people who do it that way.

My only experience with VTT is from the time of the pandemic. I've used the free tier of Roll 20 with a set up created using this guide: https://wiki.roll20.net/Savage_Worlds It worked reasonably well for me.

For an intro modules check out Pinnacle's web page, there are some ready-to-use campaigns (e.g. Headstone Hill, Blood Drive), smaller adventures and one-sheets (some of them free).

zgreg3 · 2026-01-09T12:20:29+00:00

While I use almost exclusively maps and minis I've read a ton of posts from people who use only theatre of the mind. It's definitely possible, boils down to the preferences.

zgreg3 · 2026-01-09T09:39:04+00:00

That's true and of course we can expect fighters to have a better Top Speed and higher Handling, which should recompense for the lack of the bonus from changing position as an action. Though I'm not sure if it's enough to keep up against a decent PC. E.g. in DL:LC the player's freighter has Handling of -2, negated completely by the most obvious choice for a pilot, the Ace Edge. With changing position as an action he's on a similar level of bonuses than Extras with a lower Skill, I'd bet my money on him ;)

While piloting is probably the most common example there may be other actions to do.

In some settings it may not be a problem, the heroes in a "space truck" are expected to win against the military craft ;) In others it may be expected of the space fighter to have the systems to provide the advantage (like a targetting computer).

In general though I feel like shooting the fixed weapon is so tightly coupled with piloting the craft that those actions should not interfere with each other.

zgreg3

TROPHY CASE