Jump to content



Photo

VC-100 Deckplans / Stats (aka "Ghost" from Rebels)


  • Please log in to reply
69 replies to this topic

#1 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:47 PM

Deckplans and game stats for a stock version of the Ghost. I did my best to research anything I could get ahold of (see this thread), but I'm sure there will be changes once the Rebels series is released.

 

Link to 3-page PDF:

 

The VCX-100           

Update 1 - Roof access, stat block, missing panels in cockpit

Update 2 - Corrected Hard Points to 4 as originally intended. 8/30/2014.

 

Preview:

 

VCX100prev.jpg


Edited by Sturn, 30 August 2014 - 05:45 AM.

  • Midnight_X2, Josep Maria, RLogue177 and 6 others like this

#2 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,194 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 06:57 PM

You've made it rather high-end. It's performance is equal to the YT-2400 while having greater cargo capacity than the YT-1300. There's no real negatives to this vessel compared to the YT-2400, so perhaps it should cost a bit more.
  • Kshatriya and RLogue177 like this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#3 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 08:29 PM

You've made it rather high-end. It's performance is equal to the YT-2400 while having greater cargo capacity than the YT-1300. There's no real negatives to this vessel compared to the YT-2400, so perhaps it should cost a bit more.

 

I was thinking of handling -1 due to the increased bulk, but dropped it. Perhaps putting that back in and a slight cost increase?

 

Edit: Ok dropped handling to -1. That makes the YT-2400 still the hot rod compared to this modern but bulky ship. I also dropped modifications to 4 from 5, which goes along better with the fluff text I added. I kept the price the same.

 

Thanks for the input.


Edited by Sturn, 26 May 2014 - 11:40 AM.


#4 ZachAttack

ZachAttack

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 25 May 2014 - 09:12 PM

I like it. Our group has one of the guys as our stock model and we're going to be using your schematic it looks like.

 

I like the idea of the attached fighter, but it seems a tad powerful to give to a starting out group. I'd like to do the modification as the story progresses though. So I like your layout without it, though maybe have a 3rd upper deck as a small cargo bay that would be where the Fighter takes up space if present.



#5 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:51 AM

I like it. Our group has one of the guys as our stock model and we're going to be using your schematic it looks like.

 

I like the idea of the attached fighter, but it seems a tad powerful to give to a starting out group. I'd like to do the modification as the story progresses though. So I like your layout without it, though maybe have a 3rd upper deck as a small cargo bay that would be where the Fighter takes up space if present.

 

Thanks!

 

Already planned ahead for that. If we are going by the Lego version of the Ghost, I figure the Phantom can lie on top of the deck above the engines. This way, the ladder that leads down to engineering in my sketch can also lead up and into the Phantom. Thus, little modification to the deckplan. Come to think of it, I should probably go ahead and add a top hatch in the stock version since we've seen such in past transports. There should be easy access to the roof! I will put it in the next update. DONE.

 

If the Phantom ends up stuck to one of the docking rings, well that works too.

 

Also for the Ghost, I've been predicting the "flood lamps" conceal some sort of weapon such as concussion missile launchers. I left room in the deckplans to show where these go also.


Edited by Sturn, 26 May 2014 - 11:39 AM.


#6 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 06:04 AM

I like it. It's tougher than my own variant, but also less customisable and less manoeuvrable. A fair exchange I think. Yours is also more expensive. Nicely done.


  • Sturn likes this

Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#7 Krieger22

Krieger22

    Member

  • Members
  • 758 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 04:28 PM

Unless I'm mistaken here the YT-2400 is pretty much the cutting edge of light freighters in the classic trilogy era. And Rebels take place several years before the battle of Yavin. So while it certainly is possible that the actual Ghost might have better-than-average stats due to extensive modifications (much like the Falcon) I personally feel that the stock VC-100 should be substatially less awesome.



#8 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:15 PM

Unless I'm mistaken here the YT-2400 is pretty much the cutting edge of light freighters in the classic trilogy era. And Rebels take place several years before the battle of Yavin. So while it certainly is possible that the actual Ghost might have better-than-average stats due to extensive modifications (much like the Falcon) I personally feel that the stock VC-100 should be substatially less awesome.

 

Until we know more, I would assume it's newer then the YT-1300 but older then the YT-2400.  Here are comparisons of the performance stats of the 1300, VCX-100, and 2400:

 

YT-1300 /  VCX-100  / YT-2400

 

Speed:  3 / 3 / 3

Handling:  -1 / -1 / +0

Shields: 1--1 for all three

HT: 22 / 25 / 25 (I tout the VC-100 as a bigger 2 deck ship dedicated to cargo)

SS: 15 / 15 / 18

Armor: 3 / 3 / 4  (hmm, typo there, my pencil notes say 3 armor, my PDF has 4, I will correct it)

Primary Hyper: 2 / 2 / 2

Backup Hyper: 12 / 15 / 12

Encumbrance: 165 / 180 / 140 (again, I designed the VC-100 as stressing cargo)

Hard Points: 6 / 4 / 5

Cost: 100k / 130k / 130k

 

Comparing to the YT-1300, it carrys more cargo and +2 HT but with a loss of 2 hard points.

 

Comparing to the newer YT-2400, it carrys more cargo, but has less hard points, less SS, less armor (with my correction), and poorer handling.

 

I think that is substantially less awesome then the YT-2400. Heck, compared to the YT-1300 I don't think it is the best choice unless cargo is important to you. That was my intention so that works for me.

 

After comparing these side by side, perhaps I should even drop the VCX-100's cost a bit? It is newer (until we are told differently) then the YT-1300 but older then the YT-2400. Drop price to 115k?


Edited by Sturn, 26 May 2014 - 05:16 PM.

  • Midnight_X2, RLogue177 and bradknowles like this

#9 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:25 PM

Keeping it at or below 120k would allow it to be a starting starship, which could be cool I think.

 

I agree, for obvious reasons, that the cargo should as is. :ph34r:

 

I gave it less HTT, but armour 4 as being larger doesn't mean it can take more trauma (it could be easier to cripple it), but perhaps it is slightly more armoured or solid... I might have this turned around though, it's been a while.

 

As for the amount of CHP, I gave it an equal amount to the YT-1300, but perhaps I should also give it -1 handling and reduce the CHP to 5. That way it wouldn't be a definite replacement for the YT-1300...


  • bradknowles likes this

Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#10 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:45 PM

Is the 4 hard points too much of a crippling? My thoughts were thus. The YT-2400 has 5. The YT-1300 is known for being highly modifiable, so has 6. In my fluff for my version of the VCX-100, I included some history that included past ships of the VCX line that had poor performance issues using typical thrusters on the bulkier cargo ship. The VCX-100 included factory upgrades with added secondary thrusters (above what perhaps the VCX-80 had). I interpreted this in-game as using up a modification HP on the factory floor. Staring with the YT default of 5, I dropped the VCX-100 to 4.

 

Is that too much? Should it remain at 5 with the stats I've given it?


Edited by Sturn, 26 May 2014 - 05:52 PM.


#11 Jegergryte

Jegergryte

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,835 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 05:58 PM

Well, that's hard to say. I think 4 is a bit low for a CEC ship, but then I'm probably too fond of CHPs and therefore biased and poor judge of these things... but CEC ships are supposed to be more customisable than other ships, or so some sources claim.

 

If going for the -1 handling, armour 3 and 25 HTT, I think you could supply it with 5 CHPs and drop the cost to 115 to 120k... it depends on how popular you want it to be with (your) players.


  • bradknowles likes this

Make sure your brain is engaged, before putting your mouth into gear.

"What about the future...? We can only hope, we cannot however account for the minutiae of the quanta, as all accidents in an infinite space are inevitable."

GMLovlie's/Jegergryte's Cubicle direct link to supplements here.


#12 Sturn

Sturn

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,268 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 06:33 PM

Ok finished with some updates. 115k price. 4 hard points.

 

Thanks everyone for the input!



#13 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 06:52 PM

The Phantom is listed as an "attack shuttle" so including an unarmed general purpose shuttle would be ideal. It wouldn't add too much starting firepower but would give the party additional options. 



#14 ZachAttack

ZachAttack

    Member

  • Members
  • 125 posts

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:39 PM

Well, that's hard to say. I think 4 is a bit low for a CEC ship, but then I'm probably too fond of CHPs and therefore biased and poor judge of these things... but CEC ships are supposed to be more customisable than other ships, or so some sources claim.

 

If going for the -1 handling, armour 3 and 25 HTT, I think you could supply it with 5 CHPs and drop the cost to 115 to 120k... it depends on how popular you want it to be with (your) players.

Well you can always rip out existing systems and replace them with newer ones.



#15 sonovabith

sonovabith

    Member

  • Members
  • 62 posts

Posted 27 August 2014 - 09:07 AM

*casts Raise the Thread*

OK, so I'm thinking about bestowing a non-functional version of this ship to the group I'm co-running for AOR, and on the PDF it still shows 5HP instead of 4. Did you decide not to change that or does the PDF not reflect the change? Either way I may keep it at 4 and have a hidden surprise on board they have to find. Just curious what your intention was.



#16 Daeglan

Daeglan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,569 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 03:28 PM

If you watch the latest preview chopper goes to another turret and shoots a tie fighter. So there is a tailgunner between the 2 top engines.



Also seems to have a central corridor from the nose to the tailgunner


Edited by Daeglan, 28 August 2014 - 03:38 PM.


#17 Kallabecca

Kallabecca

    Member

  • Members
  • 945 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 05:29 PM

If you watch the latest preview chopper goes to another turret and shoots a tie fighter. So there is a tailgunner between the 2 top engines.



Also seems to have a central corridor from the nose to the tailgunner

That isn't another cannon on the Ghost, that is the nose guns on the Phantom, a craft docked between the engines of the Ghost.

 

http://www.lego.com/...s/75053theghost



#18 Daeglan

Daeglan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,569 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 06:54 PM

what about the layout we see? seems different than what you created :)



#19 mouthymerc

mouthymerc

    Not the member you are looking for!

  • Members
  • 1,822 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 08:47 PM

In the Rebels Visual Guide, the Ghost's armament is said to be 1 dorsal laser turret, 2 forward laser cannons, an 2 rear laser cannons. Mind you the wookiepedia link for the Ghost only lists the dorsal and forward lasers.

 

The Phantom is also shown in the Guide to dock nose first into the ship at the back above the engine assembly. When docked its twin lasers are hidden but its single laser turret is exposed. Although it is possible that the ship may be able to dock (or should be) nose out as it is shown in the Lego model and the clip above.

 

It is possible that there was an error or multiple errors made. The colour text in the guide seems to imply only the two turrets in the Ghost (dorsal and forward). And there is also the implication that the twin laser cannons of the Phantom are usable even when docked even though it calls out the fact that it docks nose in. Some one could have thought the Phantom docked could have been a rear turret. And then forgot it faced out when describing its docked position.

 

All in all there are inconsistancies.


Edited by mouthymerc, 28 August 2014 - 09:04 PM.

People sleep peacefully in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.
George Orwell


#20 Daeglan

Daeglan

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,569 posts

Posted 28 August 2014 - 09:36 PM

well given that the book was probably started a year before the publish date and was several months before publish date that it went to lucas for sign off and then printing....details probably changed.






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS