Jump to content



Photo

Ships in Age of Rebellion Core Rulebook


  • Please log in to reply
58 replies to this topic

#41 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 01:38 AM

 

 

And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

Battleship/Carrier/Assault Transport actually. The key point was that a Star Destroyer is supposed to be able to independently cover all roles (excepting picket/skirmish duty). It's a jack-of-all-trades warship, and it does a really good job at all three of its assigned roles. For almost any problem, the question isn't whether a Star Destroyer is the right ship, it's how many are needed based on the scale of the job.

 

 

 

True but I still don't see what the big deal about one character feeling it is a cruiser, and a group feeling it is a battleship is a big deal. The classification says that in the short form the term battleship was used for ships whose mere presence could have a major influence on the battle. I would say an ISD qualifies.



#42 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 05:15 AM

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

 

Certainly  I'm not suggesting that players use the Silhouette numbers during in-character conversation, just stating that I don't see a point to forcing the use of an arbitrary classification system rather than just letting the GM decide what things are called. Especially since this particular classification system directly contradicts the primary source material.



#43 pathstrider

pathstrider

    Member

  • Members
  • 33 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 02:02 PM

I don't see the Edge rule that allows large ships mounting anti-starfighter weaponry to fire those weapons as if the vessel is one Silhouette smaller. Has this rule been abandoned in favor of the new firing actions available to Silhouette 5+ ships?

 

I noticed that too. At first I thought it was being replaced by individual weapon entries as the point defence lasers on the Vindicator have accurate - but that's not replicated on other ships.



#44 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 05:29 PM

 

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

 

Certainly  I'm not suggesting that players use the Silhouette numbers during in-character conversation, just stating that I don't see a point to forcing the use of an arbitrary classification system rather than just letting the GM decide what things are called. Especially since this particular classification system directly contradicts the primary source material.

 

 

 

IMO having a standardized system makes things easier on both players and GMs. If for example the GM says "There is a group of three cruisers closing in." instead of having to wonder just what the GM considers a cruiser the players have a rough idea what is coming their way, while the GM is saved from them asking if he means a Star Destroyer or a midsized warship.

 

As for why Han called them cruisers I have no clue but we never see them playing a cruiser role in the moves and battleship fits much better than cruiser for the roles we see them playing in the movies IMO. Not perfectly but better then the term cruiser does



#45 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,194 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 05:56 PM

 

 

Which do you think is easier and faster to say and process in a battle "Captain we have two battleships closing in." or "Captain we have one silhouette eight warship and one silhouette.nine warship closing in?":The latter is more precise but the extra few seconds to relay the data could be vital in a battle. That's the whole reason the short form of the Anaxes system was ICly created. And the role most Star Destroyers play on the battlefield is a hybrid of the roles of battleship and carrier.

 

Certainly  I'm not suggesting that players use the Silhouette numbers during in-character conversation, just stating that I don't see a point to forcing the use of an arbitrary classification system rather than just letting the GM decide what things are called. Especially since this particular classification system directly contradicts the primary source material.

 

 

 

IMO having a standardized system makes things easier on both players and GMs. If for example the GM says "There is a group of three cruisers closing in." instead of having to wonder just what the GM considers a cruiser the players have a rough idea what is coming their way, while the GM is saved from them asking if he means a Star Destroyer or a midsized warship.

 

As for why Han called them cruisers I have no clue but we never see them playing a cruiser role in the moves and battleship fits much better than cruiser for the roles we see them playing in the movies IMO. Not perfectly but better then the term cruiser does

 

Looking at the AoR book, the Cruiser category doesn't narrow things down much at all. A Gozanti-class, Nebulon-B, and Vindicator-class all fall under the Cruiser category.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#46 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:03 PM

I'm pretty sure that listing the Gozanti and Consulars as cruisers was a mistake given that the two have the word cruiser in their name but their size and role is that of Gunships

 

And the size difference between a Nebulon-B and a Vindicator is much less than the difference between a Venator class Star Destroyer and an Imperial Star Destroyer so I fail to see how listing both as cruisers is confusing. Also look at their armaments. Both carry point-defense lasers, turbolasers, and onboard fightercraft so I don't think grouping them together is as big of a stretch as some other ship types that arr grouped together like Lancers and Nebulons.



#47 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,194 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 08:55 PM

I'm pretty sure that listing the Gozanti and Consulars as cruisers was a mistake given that the two have the word cruiser in their name but their size and role is that of Gunships

 

And the size difference between a Nebulon-B and a Vindicator is much less than the difference between a Venator class Star Destroyer and an Imperial Star Destroyer so I fail to see how listing both as cruisers is confusing. Also look at their armaments. Both carry point-defense lasers, turbolasers, and onboard fightercraft so I don't think grouping them together is as big of a stretch as some other ship types that arr grouped together like Lancers and Nebulons.

I can see what you mean, but I still feel that just separating Gunships from Capital Ships might have been sufficient. Capital Ships could cover all of the categories from corvette up, and any given ship's entry already has a space for "Hull Type" written in right before "Class". Otherwise we have, for example, non-cruisers listed in the cruiser category.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#48 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 06 July 2014 - 10:37 PM

Yeah I think I understand what you are saying.

 

I would have preferred either making the big transports Silhouette 4 or making them 5 than bumping the corvettes to 6. Make frigate size vessels one Silhouette higher than corvettes, cruisers one higher than frigates, heavy cruisers one higher than cruisers, and so forth until after Dreadnoughts. Make Death Stars Silhouette 100.

 

Group Transport size warships as Gunboats. Make everything Corvette and up Capital ships than divide those into Escorts (Corvettes and Frigates), Cruisers (Cruisers and Heavy Cruisers) and Battleships (Star Destroyers, Battlecruisers, and Dreadnoughts.). Grouping armed transport size vessels and corvettes makes much less sense to me than grouping Corvettes and Frigates but no one asked me.


  • HappyDaze, Sturn and FreeXenon like this

#49 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,194 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 02:52 AM

I don't consider Star Destroyer a class of ships. It is an added descriptor for cruisers, battlecruisers, and dreadnoughts that possess the ability to fulfill the roles of warship, carrier, and assault transport all in one package. In my game, the Vindicator-class cruiser would be considered a (small) Star Destroyer while the Immobilizer - based upon the same hull - is still a cruiser but is not a Star Destroyer.


Edited by HappyDaze, 07 July 2014 - 02:53 AM.

  • Sturn likes this

Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#50 Atraangelis

Atraangelis

    Member

  • Members
  • 310 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:36 AM

There is a large picture in the book of three star destroyers fighting a space battle and one of them (Left most ship) has no bridge super structure, What Ship is this???


Edited by Atraangelis, 07 July 2014 - 07:37 AM.

Obsidian Portal:Unforeseen Fates

#51 HappyDaze

HappyDaze

    Member

  • Members
  • 6,194 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 07:44 AM

There is a large picture in the book of three star destroyers fighting a space battle and one of them (Left most ship) has no bridge super structure, What Ship is this???

Praetor II battlecruiser.


Ignore, Ignore, you must learn Ignore!

 

Now Ignoring: Nobody.


#52 Yoshiyahu

Yoshiyahu

    Member

  • Members
  • 495 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 11:20 AM

 

There is a large picture in the book of three star destroyers fighting a space battle and one of them (Left most ship) has no bridge super structure, What Ship is this???

Praetor II battlecruiser.

 

 

Here's the Wookieepedia entry on it, and below is a better picture from a different angle.

 

640px-Pretor_mkII.jpg


CorellianCrafts.com is now live! Be sure to check it out for hand-made Star Wars dice bags and accessories!


#53 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 07 July 2014 - 12:25 PM

I don't consider Star Destroyer a class of ships. It is an added descriptor for cruisers, battlecruisers, and dreadnoughts that possess the ability to fulfill the roles of warship, carrier, and assault transport all in one package. In my game, the Vindicator-class cruiser would be considered a (small) Star Destroyer while the Immobilizer - based upon the same hull - is still a cruiser but is not a Star Destroyer.

 

I think there needed to be something in the classification system between Heavy Cruiser and Battlecruiser but yeah I'm not sure why they picked Star Destroyer. The majority of ship classes in that range are Star Destroyers or Destroyers though so that probably has something to do with it.



#54 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 07:11 PM

Edit: To clarify, of all the names that ship has been given, from CR90, to Corellian Corvette, to Rebel Blockade Runner... I think "Alderaan Cruiser" ranks among the worst. I suppose all of them could be "multiple names for the same thing," but why are they making up new names when it's just going to generate confusion? Or are they trying to divorce themselves from the names that previously existed in canon? 

 

 

I've been looking into this. Sculpting the Galaxy says that the original script referred to the Tantive IV as a "galactic cruiser". I can't confirm this but the novelization uses this term. That book also says that the production notes for Ep 3 calls the Tantive IV the "Alderaan Star Cruiser." I'm not defending the name, just saying that it wasn't some random dude making up a new name. 



#55 Yoshiyahu

Yoshiyahu

    Member

  • Members
  • 495 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 08:06 PM

 

Edit: To clarify, of all the names that ship has been given, from CR90, to Corellian Corvette, to Rebel Blockade Runner... I think "Alderaan Cruiser" ranks among the worst. I suppose all of them could be "multiple names for the same thing," but why are they making up new names when it's just going to generate confusion? Or are they trying to divorce themselves from the names that previously existed in canon? 

 

 

I've been looking into this. Sculpting the Galaxy says that the original script referred to the Tantive IV as a "galactic cruiser". I can't confirm this but the novelization uses this term. That book also says that the production notes for Ep 3 calls the Tantive IV the "Alderaan Star Cruiser." I'm not defending the name, just saying that it wasn't some random dude making up a new name. 

 

 

Fair point, and my gripe is a very minor one regardless.

 

Thank you, by the way, for taking the time to explain the ship class controversies to me.


CorellianCrafts.com is now live! Be sure to check it out for hand-made Star Wars dice bags and accessories!


#56 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 08 July 2014 - 11:24 PM

I think part of the problem is they weren't thinking of ship classifications when they wrote the script or named the ship classes. The individual writers just stuck whatever classification they personally felt was correct or thought sounded cool at the end. Which is how we ended up with cruiser classes being anywhere between 50 and 1,200 meters long, and frigate classes that are anywhere between 35 and 825 meters in length. Than when the WEG people, and later the writer of the Essential Guide to Warfare needed to draw up standardized classification systems there was just no realistic way IMO to not be left with a lot of ship classes with the wrong classification for their size or role..They did they best they could with the job they were given though.


Edited by RogueCorona, 08 July 2014 - 11:27 PM.


#57 Hedgehobbit

Hedgehobbit

    Member

  • Members
  • 192 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 06:07 AM

I think part of the problem is they weren't thinking of ship classifications when they wrote the script or named the ship classes. The individual writers just stuck whatever classification they personally felt was correct or thought sounded cool at the end. Which is how we ended up with cruiser classes being anywhere between 50 and 1,200 meters long, and frigate classes that are anywhere between 35 and 825 meters in length. 

 

There's also the Malevolence which is a heavy cruiser despite being 4.8km long; bigger than the Separatist's battleships and dreadnoughts. The only way I can make sense of it is to assume the term "cruiser" applies to any capital ship that is fast regardless of size. Ships useful for pursuit and fast attacks. Things like battleships and dreadnought are much slower and useful for blockades. Before Interdictors, speed was essential in capital ship engagements as you needed to quickly close with your enemy before they jump to hyperspace. 

 

In SW and ESB, the Falcon was shown as incapable of simply outrunning star destroyers. I think that ISDs should have a speed of 3, reserving 1 and 2 for battleships and dreadnoughts, or civilian freighters.



#58 RogueCorona

RogueCorona

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,073 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 10:50 AM

Yeah technically Malevolence is a very large Battlecruiser while the Trade Federation Battleships are midsized Battlecruisers and the ships they call CIS Dreadnoughts are small BattleCruisers.(Battlecruisers are 2000 to 5000 meters. Malevolence is 4,845, the Trade Federation Battleships are 3,170, and the CIS Dreadnoughts are 2,177) The Seps don't have any real Dreadnoughts AFAIK. I believe that the Empire was the first to build those.

 

At the end of the WEG ship classification system they warned that some fleets used local classification systems while some shipwright's deliberately mislabel their craft, and the Anaxes system didn't change that. The CIS is really bad about this since the only ship models of theirs which we can confirm as being named with their proper classification are the Recusant-class Light Destroyer, and the smaller variant of the Providence-class Destroyer both of which fall in the Star Destroyer classification under the long form of the Anaxes system..

 

#59 Agatheron

Agatheron

    Member

  • Members
  • 557 posts

Posted 09 July 2014 - 02:56 PM


In SW and ESB, the Falcon was shown as incapable of simply outrunning star destroyers. I think that ISDs should have a speed of 3, reserving 1 and 2 for battleships and dreadnoughts, or civilian freighters.

 

 

Well... this was more that the Falcon couldn't outrun the projected power of star destroyers, namely the large numbers of very fast TIE Fighters it could throw at them to harass them while  the lumbering Star Destroyers got near enough to engage their tractor beams. Yes, in a straight line, the Falcon could outrun a Star Destroyer quite easily, but when dodging and jinking and taking evasive action versus a horde of fightercraft, they're not going to make a lot of headway to put distance between them and the craft.

 

As for the Star Destroyers in EpIV leaving Tattooine, they were in orbit already while the Falcon was transitioning between atmospheric and orbital speeds... which allowed them to lumber into intercept positions. While the film gives the impression that the Star Destroyers were chasing the falcon, they may have been moving on a perpendicular path moving to intercept it, which allowed them to get close enough to fire. 


Official Contributor: Age of Rebellion: Stay on Target; Edge of the Empire: Fly Casual





© 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