Winchester3
-
Content Count
51 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Winchester3
-
-
5 hours ago, sonovabith said:I guess the words "super laser" just make me a little jittery.
Remember that the stats for this ship were determined a very long time ago. The comic the ship comes from is literally almost 25 years old, and the Dark Empire Sourcebook where the hard numbers came from was published in 1993. If you want to blame someone for its silliness, blame the original creators...
4 hours ago, Jon D said:Assuming it's not accompanied by a support fleet and you can handle the obscene number of fighters, just sit behind the bugger and pound the engines.
You mean where the 100 aft heavy turbolaser batteries, 25 aft twin heavy laser cannons, and 5 aft tractor beams are still able to get at you?
Also, if anything 700 fighters is a tiny number for a ship this big. A hangar for 72 TIE fighters is not actually that big, to the point where it's essentially a greeble on ships above 5 km in length. Fractalsponge made one for the Assertor-class project (remember, he's the original designer of the thing, his art is what the ship really looks like and not fanart), and ended up putting 24 of them on the ship to make it look less bare inside the hangar bay cavities - plus other larger hangars with room for even more TIEs. Just through those, it has enough space to carry 1728 fighters, and it's probably actually more given that the ship has more and bigger hangars beyond the standard 72-fighter ones.
The Executor for example has much more room to stick hangar bays into than the Assertor class...
bradknowles reacted to this -
4 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:Well that answers that then...
But thanks for the thoughts on this, all were interesting. There are certainly a lot of perspectives on the Eclipse as a presence in-game. Perhaps it does make sense for it to solely appear as a narrative device, but it's also interesting to see it as it really would be. The question is now - what would it take to take it down?
At the level of health and armor I gave it, around 100 hits with heavy turbolasers would do the trick. 70 if they they're double success rolls. This was balanced for Assertor as printed in LBE, I made a different version that's based on actually counting the guns on the original model which is vastly more powerful, and if I was balancing it against *that*, I'd give it 900 HTT and 160 SST or something similar.
Oh, and I forgot to mention that like the Assertor, it has Massive 3: All weapons fired against this ship count as having a Critical rating 3 higher than the printed value (so basically Critical 6 for any laser or turbolaser, Critical 7 for Ion cannons and missiles).
-
The Eclipse isn't that hard to make stats for really, it's not substantially larger than the Assertor-class which we already have stats for, and the only special weapon system it has is the axial superlaser - and you know what? The Assertor was supposed to have one of those as well, according to its designer, FFG just omitted it. As well as two thirds of its other weapons. Go figure.
Silhouette 9, Speed 2, Handling -4
Defense 4/3/3/2, Armor 13
HTT 220, SST 120
Hull Type/Class: Dreadnought/Eclipse-class
Manufacturer: Kuat Drive Yards
Hyperdrive: Primary: Class 2, Backup: Class 6
Navicomputer: Yes
Sensor Range: Long
Crew: 708,470 officers, pilots and enlisted crew
Starfighter Complement: 696 starfighters (600 TIE Interceptors, 96 TIE Bombers)
Vehicle Complement: Numerous shuttles, landing craft, gunboats, assault craft, landing barges, ground combat vehicles, and AT-series walkers.
Encumbrance Capacity: 6,000,000 (no idea how to calculate this)
Passenger Capacity: 150,000 troops
Consumables: Ten years
Cost/Rarity: Not in your pricerange (R)/10
Customization Hardpoints: 2
Weapons:
1 axial superlaser (Fire Arc Forward; Damage ???; Crit ???; Range [Extreme]; Breach ???, Slow-Firing 11) (Basically this weapon is a one-hit, one kill anti-ship weapon or planetary shield buster. You sit in front of this thing, you get atomized)
150 forward, 125 port, 125 starboard and 100 aft quad heavy turbolaser batteries (Fire Arc Forward, Port, Starboard or Aft; Damage 11; Critical 3; Range [Long]; Breach 4, Linked 3, Slow-Firing 2)
25 forward, 25 port, and 25 starboard quad battleship ion cannons (Fire Arc Forward, Port or Starboard; Damage 9; Critical 4; Range [Medium]; Breach 3, Ion, Linked 3, Slow-Firing 2)
100 forward, 75 port, 75 starboard and 25 aft twin heavy laser cannons (Fire Arc Forward, Port, Starboard or Aft; Damage 6; Critical 3; Range [Short]; Linked 1)
55 forward, 20 port, 20 starboard and 5 aft heavy tractor beam emitters (Fire Arc Forward, Port, Starboard or Aft; Damage --; Critical --; Range >[Short]; Tractor 6)
(The Dark Empire Sourcebook says "500 Turbolaser batteries", and gives them a huge damage code; I'm assuming they're quad heavy turbolasers. It also says 550 heavy laser cannons, I've opted for 225 twin mounts instead. You may decide on singles and double the listed number if you want. I also only incremented the HTT and SST by a small number as it's not really a linear scale.)
-
Why not play on the pants-wettingly terrifying nature of the Dark Lord of the Sith, as seen in Rebels and Rogue One?
There's a rule called "Inspiring Presence" in the Lead by Example book. It gives one Boost Die per rank to any Cool or Discipline checks to resist fear caused by combat for all allies, as a sort of "look who's here to help us, the odds don't look as bad anymore" thing. Invert the rule, and instead of providing Boost dice to allies, it provides Setback dice to enemies:
Terrifying Presence 3: When this character is engaged with the enemy, all enemies gain 3 Setback dice to any Cool or Discipline checks to resist fear caused by combat.
Then require a Cool or Discipline check every turn to do anything except run or hide from Vader, or maybe a Cool/Discipline check where every Failure translates to one Setback die for any combat action against Vader. Drown them in black dice if they're fool enough to face the Man in Black...
-
2 hours ago, Aetrion said:It's not that I resent the players being awesome, it's that I don't like situations where if the enemies ever started doing the same thing players would get annihilated left and right. If we simply count photon torpedoes vs. fighters to be a smart move then all enemies have to act dumb to stop the game from turning into literal rocket tag.
It also kind of invalidates a ton of vehicles, in a universe where proton torpedoes are a valid anti fighter weapon nobody would designate laser cannons as the mainstay armament for fighters/interceptors. Just like in real life, air to air missiles completely displaced on-board cannons and dogfighting.
This seems like a decent enough houserule, though it would still mean that if I invoke weapon swap rules to simply put a torpedo-tube on a TIE fighter it suddenly went from being a nuisance to being a threat that needs to be defeated in the initiative rolls, because it having a turn at all is disastrously lethal.
There are lots of ways to make torpedoes less attractive to use against fighters.
The first is to make them rarer. The players are shooting down lots of fighters with torpedoes? The Empire has noticed, and is clamping down on the sale of torpedoes in the region and are actively looking for anyone who's buying them. Asking the wrong person for where to get more torpedoes risks alerting the ISB.
The second is to introduce countermeasures. The local imperials have been chosen to test out a new countermeasure system devised by the egg-heads at Sienar Fleet Systems, the effect of which is to add a red die to all missile attacks against them. Or worse, they've come up with a wide-beam weapon that risks detonating the torpedoes in the magazines. Better unload the torps until the phenomenon can be studied and the missiles fixed.
The third is to add more enemies that require torpedoes to defeat. Oh crap, the Imperials have started to reinforce their fighter patrols with Silhouette 4 or 5 ships like the Decimator or (shudder) the Raider. All of a sudden you don't have the torpedoes to spare on fighters, because that Raider needs to die ASAP *and it outranges all your weapons*...
-
14 hours ago, DragonDust101 said:If I wanted, could I have the Vigil Carry a Sentinel-Class Landing Craft? That seems to be almost a better option for the Vigils if not for the DX-9's Copious amounts of missiles.
The Sentinel, due to the wings and the fin, is a much, much bigger craft (especially in height) than the DX-9 and wouldn't fit in the hangar space provided. You could possibly dock one on the outside, but it would look really clunky. Note how the Sentinel docks to the light cruisers in the Rebels show, there's no similar opportunities on the Vigil. (I build 3D models of my own on occasion, and I rather quickly discovered that the reason Imperial ships are so huge is because you can't stick the 25 meter tall hangars required to land a Lambda-class shuttle on anything much smaller than a Star Destroyer without turning the whole ship into a hangar with engines...)
To keep this from being just a content-less double post...
Mu-class Light Shuttle
Lambda-class shuttles are seriously huge pieces of hardware, and not all Imperial warships are big enough to land one even if you're really generous with the amount of hangar space. For those ships, there's the Mu-class shuttle, which was designed as a compact alternative to the Lambda with many of the same features. It is not as well armed (its main armament is similar to the Lambda's secondary armament), and it doesn't go as fast or as far in hyperspace, but it takes up less than a third of the vertical space and is smaller in both width and length. The wings of the Mu-class fold in the middle giving it an M-shaped cross section when landed, further reducing the amount of vertical space it takes up.
Silhouette 3, Speed 3, Handling +0
Defense 2/-/-/1, Armor 3
HTT 22, SST 12
Hull Type/Class: Shuttle/Mu-class
Manufacturer: Sienar Fleet Systems/Cygnus Spaceworks
Hyperdrive: Primary: Class 2, Backup: Class 16
Navicomputer: Yes
Sensor Range: Short
Crew: 2
Encumbrance Capacity: 150 (without passengers)
Passenger Capacity: 16
Consumables: Two weeks
Cost/Rarity: 100,000 (R)/7
Customization Hardpoints: 2
Weapons:
Two forward and one aft light blaster cannons (Fire Arc Forward or Aft; Damage 4; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Linked 1)
-
9 hours ago, Ghostofman said:Well all respect to Winchester, but his stats indicate he probably wasn't a stick jockey in the 90s when the DX-1 was THE transport of galactic choice for those not wanting a Lambda shuttle. (The fact the entire game had to fit on a dozen floppy disks I'm sure had nothing to do with the galaxy only having about 8 starships models total). So he probably doesn't had the first hand experience of dealing with these things. Over the years the artwork added extra bits and doodads that were interpreted as more weapons that were never actually added.
If you want something more in line with the original, increase the handling (they are stupid maneuverable), reduce the weapons to linked 1 light lasers and ion cannons, and drop the torpedo count to like limited ammo 10, linked 1.
I'd also add a price range around 140k with a rarity around 6. If it's restricted or not is up to you (I'd go with yes).
That would tone down that the torpedo count to make it more reasonable to piggyback on a Corvette/light frigate.
I *was* actually a stick jockey as you put it during the 1990s, and I've played X-wing and TIE fighter on a 386 with no CD-ROM. The reason why TRNs feel so maneuverable in the game is because you're overshooting them, if you match speeds you can stick on them like glue (until you're shot down by something else for being so slow...)
Note that pretty much every craft in the games other than the fighters were nerfed for gameplay or game engine reasons, and that the official statistics for them are different from what you see in game. For example, the DX-9 has four ion cannons and four laser cannons according to Wookieepedia (and so does Fractalsponge's model, I just screwed up while making the writeup). The missile count is thorny though. IIRC, the games themselves don't actually give the transports limited ammo, anything bigger than a fighter has unlimited ammo and the reasons why the ships don't spam missiles all over the place is because NPCs can only shoot warheads at specifically flagged targets, which tend to die rather quickly. I may be wrong on this though. The official Wookieepedia warhead count is five per side, but the screenshot from X-Wing Alliance that accompanies the article shows six warhead tubes per side.
I may just remove the "limited ammo" flag on the launchers to reflect both how it was used in game, and how the transport is unlikely to run out of missiles in any single combat engagement...
-
2 hours ago, Kallabecca said:Actually, the probability of getting just one Despair on two dice is 22/144, not 1/6 (which is 24/144). This is a common mistake in trying to do probabilities, heheh.
Getting 2 Despair is 1/144
Getting 0 Despair is 11/12 * 11/12 = 121/144
So, getting 1 Despair is what remains of the possible results or 144/144 - 1/144 - 121/144 = 22/144
or there are two ways to roll 1 Despair only, either the first die is a Despair and the second isn't, or the second is a Despair and the first isn't, making the formula be 1/12*11/12 + 11/12*1/12 = 22/144.
It's been 20 years since my last math class, so I'm a little rusty. but I remember the basics anyway, and the difference between 23/144 and 1/6 is basically nitpicking for any practical purpose.
Just like I'm going to say that there's a 1 in 4 chance of getting at least one despair on 3 red dice when it's really 397 in 1728, which works out to just under 23%. Closest simple fraction.
Richardbuxton reacted to this -
35 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:Don't base it off "what it looks like" on screen. If you do that everything will be amazing. Just figure out what effect is appropriate and how that fits.
So like the AT-ST mounts a double heavy Blaster cannon on its chin, and the repulsor tank mounts a single one as it's main gun, so a heavy blaster cannon dies fit the bill.
Keep the armor at 3, that appears to be the armor rating for a light combat walker. Just reduce the HT and ST. That will make it lighter than an AT-ST when talking Vehicle on vehicle, but when hitting it with man portable weapons it'll still be roughly as tough.
It's taller, but not as heavy. Remember you need to ask "why don't they just use this forever?" If the AT-DP is so awesome, why does the AT-ST exist? Making it a lighter, easier to maintain version works for Garrison and defensive duty. Add an extra 10 feet to it's height so it can get better clearance and visibility over buildings and terrain and you've got a good vehicle suited for it's role, but outclassed by the AT-ST in real combat.
And be careful with wookieepedia as a source. If we listened to everything wookieepedia said the AT-TE would be an invincible killing machine, and the original clone blaster rifle would be a planetary scale weapon. Wookieepedia editors use various sources that don't all agree with each other, and FFG made its own definition based on stats. So you can't translate it verbatim.
Yeah, I know the wookieepedia stats are sometimes bogus, given that the AT-ST has a cargo capacity of 500 metric tons (sic!). It's obviously a typo, but it was apparently the last printed statistic so it's the official one.
Regarding the other issue though, asking why didn't they keep using it is a useless question because the galaxy is so big there's all sorts of things out there that's in regular service that wasn't seen in the movies. Even Imperial hardware that's better in pretty much every way than what the original trilogy shows us.
-
16 hours ago, Ghostofman said:AT-DP's hull, strain, and weapons seem kinda high. Hull and strain are too close to an AT-ST, would cut then by around a half to a third. Medium laser is too powerful. A light or heavy blaster cannon would be more appropriate. I'd lean toward light myself, but I won't argue if you go with heavy...
The AT-DP is based on early concept art for the AT-ST, and is actually the bigger machine (it's 2.6 meters taller), so I don't know why you'd want to reduce the HTT and SST that much. Plus, the actual wookieepedia-given armament of the AT-DP is one *heavy* laser cannon...
Edit: Also, the AT-RCT was statted out in one of the books for either AOR or FAD, I just forgot to note which one.
-
8 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:Executioner. Hunter. Pathfinder. Probably something in the Warrior book when that comes out.
Hunter and Pathfinder are Seeker specializations, but where does Executioner come from?
4 minutes ago, Edgehawk said:In D&D, where my every arrow was accounted for, my bowstring would snap under similar circumstances. I used my bow as a melee weapon on more than a few occasions.
Thing is, a Nat 1 is a 1 in 20 chance on any roll. Despair is only possible in combat in EoE if you're fighting a rival or nemesis, or if your GM flips a fate point, and then it's a 1 in 12, or worse (1 in 6 for at least one despair on two red dice, 1 in 144 for two).
-
-
1 minute ago, SEApocalypse said:Long is not the issue, readability is when you are actually trying to shoot something. Listing just the weapons without arcs and afterwards listing for all 6 arcs what actually is avaible would be much better from a practical purpose. Though the fire arcs look like a typo on the MC80a Home One type
"Fire Arc Forward, Port or Starboard; Damage 11 …", they literally forget the AFT arc weapons in the writeup, and it looks like they meant "Forward and (Port or Starboard)", meaning that most weapons should be able to fire forward. If the mean separate arcs they always us OR, comma lists are for a list of arcs that those guns can use. So the port and starboard guns can both fire forward too.
Or not, as the scheme is completely broken with the ions
HEY FFG CAN WE HAVE SOME EDITING FOR OUR MONEY PLEASE! ;-)Another case for rules question.
Most of the time the "or" is only repeated for each group if there are multiple arcs per group of weapons. I don't think I've ever seen "Forward or Port or Starboard or Aft" anywhere. The "and" for the ion cannons is a definite typo though, as is the lack of an aft arc for the turbolasers. Very strange.
5 minutes ago, ColonelCommissar said:I'm about to start a game with the PCs as the bridge crew aboard Home One (set during the TFA era, so should be fun) and I must have read over the entry six or seven times trying to work out what FFG means here. My personal instinct is to say that the Forward Batteries can fire to either side, while the Port and Starboard Batteries can fire Forward, but not across the ship (mostly for narrative reasons).
Of course, if they're fired on from the rear, they're gonna have a bad day...
At some point I want to make my own system for writeups with more detail than the games in current production allows using the clock system. A Star Destroyers's big guns would have a fire arc of 12-4 (starboard) or 8-12 (port), and the cigar-shaped Indepencence or Home One types would have multiple broadside fire arcs (12-2, 1-3, 2-4, 3-6 to starboard, 6-9, 7-10, 8-11, 9-12 to port) to show that they're spread over a curved surface and not as flexible as the big turrets.
ColonelCommissar reacted to this -
2 hours ago, Spraug said:Yes, but Independence's guns can fire into three arcs, Home One's only into one.That means that Independence can concentrate fire and do way more damage, Home One can only use all her guns when surrounded. Which isn't necessarily the spot that you want your command ship in.
That has to be laziness on someone's part, damned near every other ship in every other book has multiple arcs listed for everything. It's one of the problems I have with the FFG format of writing ships up - putting all the turrets of a single type in one line means the fire arc listings get really damned long.
Of course, this sort of thing isn't exactly new in Star Wars RPGs either, I have books from the old WEG games which had similar issues...
-
2 hours ago, HappyDaze said:Then go with Limited Ammo 40. Or, better yet, use those multiple rocket salvo launchers from Dangerous Covenants.
Meh. 40 is not exactly limited ammo anyway, so how about I just remove the quality altogether and make them mini rockets/missiles?
Edit: Done, stat values adjusted
-
6 hours ago, HappyDaze said:" Forward-mounted rocket launchers (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 4; Critical 3; Range [Close]; Blast 2, Breach 1, Limited Ammo 10, Linked 3) "
If it has Linked 3 then it fires four rockets each time it's used, so I'd recommend you change the Limited Ammo to a multiple of 4 (either 12 or 16 should be fine).
It's actually supposed to be 40 rockets total (20 in each launcher), as that's the number of launch tubes visible in the picture, with Linked 3 representing that it would fire four rockets at a time, and Limited Ammo 10 being that it could do this ten times, in order for the ammo to actually feel like it was limited.
Inventing random numbers without looking closely at the pictures is pretty much exactly what I've been complaining about FFG doing and why I started posted alternative stats in the first place.
-
14 hours ago, RogueCorona said:I love the Velox. The Kontos is nice as well but IMO is a little too big for its combination of firepower and fighter capacity. I would have chopped it to 400 or even 375 meters personally.
Add some more fighters and other small craft then. I've already been told by Fractalsponge that my crew estimates were way off, as I was thinking way too small.
The Fulgor is supposed to be equivalent to the Vindicator, the Kontos is equivalent to the Strike-class cruiser, and the Velox is equivalent to the Carrack-class.
The thing with these designs is that Fractalsponge doesn't come up with a nice shape and then just says "there are so and so many of these weapons" like most of the older EU designs. He comes up with a nice shape, places as many weapons as he thinks the design calls for, and then counts them and says "this is how many there are". Sometimes he counts them wrong though.
-
3 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:The LbE version has added quad laser cannons, that is the canon type from the millennium falcon, 80 of them. I was not referring to the upgrade from twins to quad-heavy turbolaser batteries. Upgrading the turbolaser makes sense, adding 8 useless quad-laser cannons is super odd, especially as you could replace them all for turbolasers, which would increase the firepower of the ship by 30% to 50%. It is an oddball in the RPG stats.
And btw, heavies do 11 damage, breach 4, crit 3, slow firing 2 at long-range, while mediums do just 10 with breach 3 and slow firing 1. Meaning against armor 10 with two successes you do 7 damage per shot, instead of 5 damage per shot, that is 14 vs 15 damage in 6 rounds or 28 vs 30 damage if you alternate between ventrals and dorsals or port and starboard cannons. So whoever wrote those rules made the heavies to less damage than the mediums on armor 10, I would assume this is even intentionally to make heavies something which is only good against super capitals which go beyond armor 10.
With armor 11 it is 12 vs 12 damage. With armor 13 this changes to 4 and 2 damage per shot and 8 vs 6 damage in 6 rounds. With armor 14 it becomes 3 vs 1 damage. I am not aware of any ship which can go above armor 14, but I would not be surprised if one of those ultra-heavy super capitals go beyond that.
Anyway, gtg …
I was ignoring the quad laser cannons due to them being, as you say, mostly useless. And yeah, the design choices are really weird sometimes.
I did the math myself earlier, which is how I got the Armor 9 break even point (I was assuming 1 success on average). My numbers are otherwise mostly similar to yours. Armor 13 is the highest printed value so far, and since it's for one of the outright biggest and most massive ships available, I don't think anything will top it unless they finally stat out the Death Stars.
Interesting note: assuming an average of 2 successes (+1 weapon damage) and no advantage results, two Assertors firing broadside at each other would be dealing 30 hull trauma per turn with their turbolasers, and 5 system strain from ion damage. They'd reduce each other to wreckage in 7 rounds; 4 rounds if we add an average of two advantage. It'd take 21 combat rounds for one Assertor to disable another, due to the high armor value adding up to the damage + breach values of the battleship ion cannons.
Two Home Ones shooting at each other under the same conditions would be dealing 20 points of hull trauma and 8 points of system strain per turn, and would take 8 turns to kill each other, or 12 turns if attempting to disable.
-
42 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:There are some ships that have weapons that differ from the norm. Look at the turbolasers on the Dreadnought and the Bulk Cruiser for examples. While both of those present inferior models of the weapons, it's not impossible to have superior versions too.
Yeah, the Raider-class corvette has Accurate 2 on its twin heavy laser cannons, as an example of a stock improvement. The thing is though that the weapons I wrote the additional stat lines for are supposed to be to heavy turbolasers what heavy turbolasers are to light turbolasers, and after running the numbers I don't really get that idea out of them. (Basically, against armor 9 ships, all kinds of turbolaser except light turbolasers do an equal amount of damage per gun, per combat round. Above armor 9, the bigger the gun the more damage per combat round; below armor 9, the smaller the gun the more damage per combat round. This is mainly due to the reduction in rate of fire, if I dropped the extra Slow-Firing the damage for the big guns would skyrocket...)
-
1 minute ago, SEApocalypse said:Independence
As each Mon Cal cruiser is a unique ship, it becomes hard to determine the type and class by the look of it, they all look different even within the same class.
Still the whole LbE MC80a is an oddball, with those 80 Quad-Laser Cannons added to the 78 regular guns, that sil 9 size which assumed the non-canon 3200m length and using a rather heavy different profile from the Independence, while still maintaining the crew for the 1100m version, but not adding any heavy guns either, just rather useless anti-fighter guns which are best not touched at all.
The Home One *does* have more heavy guns than the Independence - the turbolasers are all quads, rather than twins. I realize that does not actually mean that the ships will do twice as much turbolaser damage due to how the Linked rule works, but it has the *potential* to do so. If you roll a godawful amount of Advantage results.
Also note that the game rules treat all heavy turbolasers equal, and that I had to invent my own stat lines for the seriously big guns on Fractalsponge's original creations, because under the game rules a quad super-heavy would have better potential damage output than a twin ultra-heavy. (They probably still do given that my rules basically just adds 1 point each in Damage, Breach and Slow-Firing without changing anything else.)
-
4 minutes ago, Rosco74 said:Old thread but I just read the book "Strongholds of Resistance", and I think I have your solution.
Page 60 it says the Independence heavy cruiser (same size as Hole One) is running a skeleton crew. Then you can find just below the rules for running a light crew, between 51 and 99% of normal crew. Then the rules for running a skeleton crew wich is the minimum, aka between 25 and 50% of norma crew number.
I won't spoil the rules but they are a good point and a good add for running Rebels lacking members.
That doesn't really work.
First of all, the Independence is *not* the same size, it's only Silhouette 8, which is the same size as the Imperial-class Star Destroyer or the MC80 Liberty type from the core rulebook. (I *think* Independence is supposed to be the wingless variant of the Liberty that was seen in RoTJ. Note that the other, non-MonCal, Silhouette 8 ships have crews in the tens of thousands, while the MC80 types have less than 5,000.
The Home One is Silhouette 9, and the only other ships that size are the Assertor-class and the Praetor II, which are Seriously Huge Investments in Personnel (100k+). Even allowing for all of the MonCal ships to be a little on the small side for their Silhouette rating, I would still expect any Silhouette 9 ship to have a bigger crew than a Silhouette 8 ship. A 5000-ish crew is ridiculous enough when the comparable ships are running on 37,000. It's beyond ludicrous when the other ships are running on 109,000 to 150,000.
Also, the listed crew is *not* the skeleton crew, it's the crew you need to run the ship without any penalties. Running a silhouette 9 warship that's more powerful and harder to kill than a Star Destroyer on about one tenth the crew with no penalties is really OP.
-
9 hours ago, The Grand Falloon said:I would feel alright saying that the TIE Fighter bay doesn't have to be standard. Some models have it, some don't. If a particular Vigil is part of a standing fleet, it probably wouldn't need to carry fighters, since it isn't that great at it, and the Destroyers have plenty. On the other hand, if its primary duty is patrolling a few backwater systems, carrying fighters might be a good idea. They would have a primary base for maintenance, but they could also deploy fairly quickly to deal with smugglers, pirates, and planetside agitatiors without the expense of large, dedicated carriers.
As for the lack of ventral armaments, that's just silly, and I space the cannons out more evenly.The problem is that the Vigil without the fighters is basically a terrible warship for just about any purpose, as it's not very fast (Speed 3), it's not very heavily armed, it doesn't have much armor, and it doesn't have all that much health. It brings basically nothing to a fleet engagement, as it has less anti-fighter guns than a Raider, and less anti-ship guns than a CR90, while outmassing both of them put together. In fact, if you look just slightly beyond the printed rules, you have the Arquitens-class cruiser, which is the same size, but better armed (four twin turbolasers, four twin heavy laser cannons, plus a warhead launcher), but lacks the fighter capacity. (The version with the three TIE Fighters/Interceptors or two TIE Bombers shown in Rebels is a command version that lacks turbolasers; official word is that the other version is still in service in large numbers though.)
The one thing the Vigil class *can* do that none of the others can is carry a squadron of TIE fighters, which allows it to project striking and sensor power over a much larger volume of space; and its DX-9 Stormtrooper Transport which has heavy ion cannons and warhead launchers for disabling suspicious cargo transports. Taking that away results in a ship without a niche, that's worse in every objective way than two ships half its size would be.
-
On 1/31/2017 at 9:09 PM, The Grand Falloon said:Or B-Wing pilots who would like to be able to fire their Heavy Lasers, Autoblasters and Ion Cannons. Seriously, what is even the point of the autoblaster on that thing? I know it has Autofire, but the damage is so piddly you would likely need to hit 3 or 4 times to match the damage of the Heavy Laser. I can think of much better things to do with 6-8 Advantage.
It's mentioned in the very old fluff that the auto-blasters were installed because the B-Wing's original targeting system was temperamental and hard to use - the pilots would use the autoblasters to walk their fire onto the targets and then fire the heavier guns similar to how many WW2 fighters would use .30 caliber machine guns until they'd start hitting then switch to their 20 mm cannon. (The original system, which only worked half the time, involved using one of the laser cannons as a rangefinder IIRC.)
I think I'd treat that as something along the lines of "if you attack using the auto-blasters, get one boost die for each success or two advantage scored when firing the ion- or laser cannons at the same target next round".
-
To populate the beast above:
(Edit 3/6 2017: changed the stats of the missile- and rocket launchers)
Light Atmospheric Assault Vehicle/infantry
An Imperial-era development of the LAAT series that served in the Clone Wars, designed as an armed troop lander and ground support craft. The LAAV/i is space capable, but it is not intended as a space combat craft, similar to the LAAT series. It is lower, wider and somewhat sturdier than the LAAT/i that it's designed to replace, and features a slightly different weapons suite.
Silhouette 3, Speed 4, Handling -1
Defense 1/-/-/1, Armor 3
HTT 25, SST 17
Hull Type/Class: Heavy Assault Airspeeder/LAAV
Manufacturer: Rothana Heavy Engineering
Maximum Altitude: 100 kilometers
Sensor Range: Medium
Crew: One pilot, two gunners
Encumbrance Capacity: 30
Vehicle Complement: Four speeder bikes
Passenger Capacity: 30 troops
Cost/Rarity: 100,000 (R)/8
Customization Hardpoints: 2
Weapons:
2 turret-mounted twin anti-personnel blaster cannons (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 3; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Linked 1)
4 wing-mounted light laser cannons (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 5; Critical 3: Range [Close]; Linked 3)
Forward-mounted mini concussion missile launchers (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 4; Critical 4; Range [Short]; Blast 2, Breach 2, Guided 3, Limited Ammo 3, Linked 1, Salvo, Slow-Firing 1)
Additional rules:
Salvo: Add 2 Boost to all combat checks; each success adds 2 damage instead of one.
--
All Terrain Storm Walker (AT-SW)
This fifteen-meter tall walker is based on another one-panel wonder from the comics, this time from the assault on Byss in Dark Empire II. It is a pure combat machine, with no troop carrying capacity and the same main armament as an AT-AT, with the addition of rocket launchers for extra punch.
Silhouette 3, Speed 2, Handling -2
Defense 0/-/-/0, Armor 4
HTT 25, SST 20
Vehicle Type/Model: Medium Assault Walker/AT-SW
Manufacturer: Kuat Drive Yards.
Sensor Range: Short
Crew: One pilot, one co-pilot/gunner, one vehicle commander, one engineer
Encumbrance Capacity: 20
Passenger Capacity: None
Price/Rarity: 125,000 credits (R)/7
Customization Hardpoint: 2
Weapons:
Forward-mounted twin heavy laser cannons (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 6; Critical 3; Range [Short]; Linked 1)
Forward-mounted twin heavy blaster cannons (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 4; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Linked 1)
Two forward-mounted mini rocket launchers (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 3; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Blast 3, Breach 3, Limited Ammo 4, Salvo, Slow-Firing 1, Unguided)
Turret-mounted twin light blaster cannon (Fire Arc Forward, Port and Starboard; Damage 4; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Linked 1)
Additional rules:
Salvo: Add 2 Boost to all combat checks; each success adds 2 damage instead of one.
Unguided: Add 1 Setback to Gunnery Skill checks.
--
MAVr A7 Broadsword-class Repulsorlift Tank
Fractalsponge designed this thing as an infantry fighting vehicle, capable of carrying and supporting a squad into battle with integrated weaponry. The weapons are the same models used as the heavy guns and rockets on the AT-SW, and the turret-mounted weapons on the LAAV/i. He didn't give it an explicit size in the forum thread where it was first posted, but it is probably similar in size to a real-world IFV.
Silhouette 3, Speed 3, Handling -1
Defense 0/-/-/0, Armor 4
HTT 20, SST 17
Vehicle Type/Model: Medium Assault Vehicle/Broadsword
Manufacturer: Kuat Drive Yards.
Sensor Range: Short
Crew: One pilot, one co-pilot/gunner, one vehicle commander
Encumbrance Capacity: 20
Passenger Capacity: 8 troops
Price/Rarity: 65,000 credits (R)/5
Customization Hardpoints: 2
Weapons:
Turret-mounted heavy laser cannon (Fire Arc All; Damage 6; Critical 3; Range [Short])
Turret-mounted twin anti-personnel blaster cannons (Fire Arc All; Damage 3; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Linked 1)
Turret-mounted mini rocket launcher (Fire Arc All; Damage 3; Critical 4; Range [Close]; Blast 3, Breach 3, Limited Ammo 4, Salvo, Slow-Firing 1, Unguided)
Additional rules:
Salvo: Add 2 Boost to all combat checks; each success adds 2 damage instead of one.
Unguided: Add 1 Setback to Gunnery Skill checks.
Proton torpedos vs fighters, working as intended?
in Star Wars: Age of Rebellion RPG
Posted
That depended entirely on the range and the speed of the launching craft though. As far as I remember, the speeds listed for the warheads in TIE Fighter are relative to the launching craft - they *add* the speed listed in the weapon selection screen to the speed you're at when firing them. So if you're in a TIE Defender pushing the limit with all power to the engines, your Heavy Bombs would be doing your own speed plus 10 MGLT, and the Advanced Concussion Missiles would be doing your speed plus 160 MGLT. You can shoot down A-Wings with heavy bombs if you get close enough to their six, because the bombs are always faster than you. It's a waste of ammo, but you can.
(there was a "trainer" for the DOS game, basically a live memory editor, that let you, among other things, use the "boost speed" that you got when entering hyperspace at will by tapping a key, and if you used your missiles, rockets or even bombs while sped up like that and then disengaged the boost, your missiles would streak away at 1000+ MGLT and become essentially guided laserbolts of doom, because nothing in the game could dodge them if aimed properly. )