Jump to content

OverMatt

Members
  • Content Count

    190
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About OverMatt

  • Rank
    Member

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://-
  • ICQ
    -
  • Yahoo
    -
  • Skype
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Calgary, Alberta, Canada
  1. By the official rules, you do not gain this benefit. Officially, any ship can fire at any other ship using any of its weapons whenever it wants, regardless of the arc in which a weapon is mounted or the relative positions of the ships. This is often extremely "unrealistic" (it's one of many great abstractions/simplifications made by the rules), but it is the rule nonetheless. So even if you gain the advantage against a TIE fighter, it is still free to fire at you with its forward-facing weapons, just as it otherwise could.
  2. Most of the suggested ideas about extra pieces of information would only make sense if the character also succeeded on the roll. In this case, success or failure on the Knowledge check determines whether the character does or does not know anything of substance about the Imperial Reclaimation Service. If he succeeds and also rolls a triumph, the most straightforward ruling is that he both knows, roughly, what the IRS is and also happens to know something about them that is especially useful to the PCs in this scenario. But if he fails he doesn't really know anything about the IRS at all, so he can't know anything useful either (unless it's a very tangential sort of fact that's only vaguely related to the IRS, or something). Instead failure with a triumph should mean something like, "You don't know the answer to that question; but you do know of a person who definitely would..." Or, perhaps, as Dante suggested, "You don't really know anything about this organisation or what they do; but you remember your wife mentioning that her uncle works for them."
  3. I'm not aware off-hand of a regular supplement that contains an improved handling ship upgrade; but there is such an option in the adventure module The Jewel of Yavin (albeit one that, officially, is only applicable to small craft of Silhouette 2 or lower). Maneuvering Thrusters Base Modifiers: +1 Handling Modification Options: None Hard Points Required: 1 Price: 500 times Silhouette Special: May only be attached to vehicles of Silhouette 2 or lower. (At least according to the official rules; although I can't think of any reason to disallow such an upgrade on larger ships.)
  4. They want to commission the design and construction of an entirely new model of starship with the size and feature set of the Normandy SR-2? I hope your PCs have about 50 MILLION credits lying around. They'd also probably have to wait about 10 YEARS for delivery.
  5. I'm not clear what you mean by this. Do you mean that you want to allow ships to use the Shield incidental thing even if they have no shields in a given arc? e.g. A B-Wing has Shields of 3 Fore and 3 Aft. Each of these will block 3+2=5 damage when activated. If focused fully forward, the B-Wing would temporarily have Shields of 6 Fore and 0 Aft. This would allow it to block 6+2=8 damage from the front and 0+2=2 from the rear. In other words, do you mean that you chose the X+2 structure so that 2 damage could still be blocked even when Shields are 0 in the targeted arc?
  6. Some small questions: 1. The Blanket Barrage rules say that "until the end of the character’s next turn, all opposing vehicles with silhouette 4 or smaller upgrade the difficulty of any combat or pilot checks made at Short range from this vehicle within the Blanket Barrage’s arc." I assume the language "at Short range" is supposed to mean "up to and including Short range"? i.e. Ships at Close range are still affected? (Because your language technically means that targets at Close range are safe, which I'm guessing is unintended.) 2. When using the Shields incidental "the vehicle suffers 3 system strain and adds his 2+Shield rating in that arc to his Armor for the purposes of soak for one hit per attack." Does this mean that if a single attack inflicts multiple hits (e.g. two separate hits when using a weapon with the Linked 1 quality) the Shields only apply to the first hit of the attack (e.g. the second Linked hit ignores the Shields)? 3. Is there a reason for saying that a ship has Shields: X and then having those Shields increase Armor by X+2? Why not just say that it has Shields: (X+2) in the first place? For instance, why say that a B-Wing has Aft Shields: 3 and that these will block 3+2=5 damage when activated? Why not just say that it has Aft Shields: 5?
  7. I'm thinking of trying out your rules in my next session. Do you have a newer version than those from July?
  8. Not to sound defeatist or unhelpful, but here's the hard truth: What you're describing is essentially impossible. The narrative dice system used in FFG's Star Wars games and the d20 system used in Dungeons & Dragons are utterly incompatible. The mechanical systems are completely different, they were designed to power very different sorts of games, and they are intended to produce very different sorts of experiences. There's no reason you can't run a D&D-esque fantasy game using the narrative system or a Star Wars-esque pulp space adventure using d20; but none of the existing rules material can "convert" from one source to the other. The best you can do is model material in one source by basing it on material from the other - i.e. examine the function something served and the feeling it produced in the original source material, and then try to "recreate" a thing that will function and feel similar in the new system. So if, for example, you wanted to introduce a Beholder (a classic D&D monster) into a game running on FFG's mechanics, then the best you could do would be to study how the Beholder functions and feels in d20, try to create a new creature in the narrative system that will function and feel similar, and then call your creation a "Beholder". Actually converting the original Beholder to the new system is essentially impossible - the two systems are utterly incompatible.
  9. Perhaps these particular PCs are classical heroes - the offspring of gods and their mortal conquests - and need not bother themselves with our contemporary puritanical morals.
  10. Someone asked a similar question a few months ago when his players were thinking of selling an Imperial officer into slavery. Here (slightly modified) is what I said then: ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Slaves are an extremely valuable commodity, especially those with specialised skills useful to the buyer. I can't quote you any specific references from the Star Wars universe; but based on what I do know of the Star Wars economy and the history of slavery in general (a hobby of mine), I would expect the market value of most slaves to be between 2,000 and 10,000 credits. Older, weaker, less skilled people useful only for menial tasks like cleaning might cost 2,000. Adults in their prime years would probably average around 5,000. Those with special skills (e.g. higher education, a useful trade, et cetera) or special qualities (e.g. great beauty, membership in a rare and exotic species, et cetera) might run 6,000 to 8,000. Prime slaves with exceptional skills (e.g. a master craftsman in his thirties) might fetch 10,000 or more. Young children tend to cost substantially less than adults since they're not particularly useful immediately. The long-term nature of the investment tends to mean a discount for the buyer - the younger the cheaper. Also, note that these estimated prices are intended to be final market prices. They are what I would expect the PCs to pay if they wanted to purchase a slave, or what they would probably get if they sold a slave directly to the new owner (and cut out the middle man). In practice, most people would probably sell to a professional slaver (the middle man) since it's much quicker and easier. He would only offer a "wholesale" price (say 40%-70% of the prices above) because he'll be looking to turn a profit when he resells to the final owner. And like any middle man, he'll probably offer less for something that's easy to acquire, that he already has in stock, and that's in lower demand. He'll offer more for slaves that are more unique, unlike anything he currently has in stock, or that are in particular demand. Imperial stormtroopers, specifically, should be worth a substantial amount provided they will cooperate. A pirate or mercenary band, for example, might easily pay 6,000-to-8,000 a head for stormtroopers if they can be convinced that the stormtroopers will do as they are told and not try to escape. As others have said, stormtroopers are likely to be well-disciplined and very resistant to life as slaves. And slaves who are not obedient aren't of much use. Also, as was mentioned, stormtroopers would constitute an extremely "hot" commodity. So even if they were obedient and cooperative, it might still be hard to find a willing buyer. Many buyers (who might otherwise be interested) would be unwilling to risk the trouble it could bring down on them.
  11. None of the options are in line with the core rulebook because the core rulebook neglects to draw a line on the subject. That's the point of the discussion. All of the suggestions are "house rules" since there is no official rule. That's the point of the discussion. And for the record, I never said that the option I described was my rule. It is merely one of several possible interpretations of what a "one round" duration could mean. No, that's a "turn". A "round" is the collection of individual turns taken by each participant in a structured time encounter. Each participant gets one turn per round. Once all participants have taken one turn, the round ends and a new round begins. The question, then, is what should be meant by a duration of "one round" when the effect in question might begin at any point during a round: - Does it expire at the end of the current round? - The end of the following round? - The end of the same initiative slot in the following round? - The end of the next turn taken by the character who initiated the effect? - The end of the next turn taken by the character affected by the effect? - Something else that no one has suggested yet? The answer to this question will have serious ramifications in this system, and yet the rulebook neglects to answer it. Hence the discussion.
  12. Possibly, depending on the nature of the effect. At least in a certain sense. Regardless, I get what you mean. However, the same issue applies to most of the approaches mentioned. The problem is the ability, in this system, to exercise a lot of choice when deciding the order in which characters act each round. The only way to avoid this or similar issues is to simply eliminate all talk of effects lasting for a number of "rounds". You would have to adopt a different sort of language. What Krieger mentioned would be one alternative - e.g. don't talk of "rounds", instead say that effects last for a number of "actions" (regardless of when those actions occur), or something like that.
  13. I'm surprised you left out interpretation number 4, since it is probably the most technically correct and problem-free option: 4. The effect persists until the end of the same action slot in the intiative order on the following round. In other words, an effect that is supposed to last for "one round" will actually last for one full round - no more, no less. For example, suppose you get the following initiative order for four PCs and four NPCs: PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC If the third PC to act in round 1 were to perform an action with an effect that lasts for one round, then he would act here: PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC As a result, the effect of his action would last until the end of that same action slot in round 2 (regardless of who acts in which slot). So the person who acts here in round 2: PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC would still be experiencing the effects of the original action. But the person who acts here in round 2: PC, NPC, PC, PC, NPC, NPC, PC, NPC would not, since the effect has just expired. This might be what JakStarr was suggesting, but I found his language a little confusing.
  14. Of course. I was only joking about the "floating away" bit (at least under normal circumstances). As to the question of easy-access "tubes", something like the CR-90 pictured above is not what I (and, I assume, most other people here) have been thinking of. That's a craft on the small end of the "capital ship" category - the sort of thing that allows lots of room for large-scale structural modifications. And a large-scale structural modification is what you're talking about when you suggest a sealed access ramp capable of accommodating a typical starfighter. In Edge of the Empire, this question would most often be in regards to, say, the PCs wanting to clamp an X-Wing onto the exterior of their Silhouette 4 medium freighter. [My personal example was a Z-95 bolted onto the hull of a YT-1000.] In this sort of case, an EVA would often be the only plausible approach. Anything else would be stretching credulity. Although whether "plausibility" is important is a matter of individual group taste, I suppose.
  15. Very carefully. I recently featured a freighter with an externally attached starfighter in my game. In my case the procedure was as follows: 1. The pilot-to-be would don a vacuum-tight flight suit. 2. He would go to the cargo bay where a ladder had been installed leading to a small hatch cut in the dorsal hull. 3. The hatch would open into a tiny, cramped airlock large enough for one person to kneel inside while he sealed the interior hatch and cycled the atmosphere. 4. He would then open the exterior hatch and climb out onto the hull of the freighter. 5. The starfighter was docked a few feet away, and the pilot could now walk over and climb inside (being careful not to float away into space). 6. Inside the starfighter was a switch to disengage the docking claw, separating the two ships. The details would obviously vary based on the ships in questions and how the docking clamp system had been set up. But what I described would be, more or less, the procedure for entering an externally attached ship. The only simpler procedure might be some sort of boarding-ramp-corridor-thing allowing people to walk/crawl/climb directly from one ship to the other without having to go outside. But such a setup probably isn't feasible for something as small as a starfighter. However, it might be feasible if you had two large freighters clamped together (for whatever reason). For starfighters, a physical trip out into the vacuum is likely to be necessary.
×
×
  • Create New...