Jump to content

Mark Caliber

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Mark Caliber

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

1,480 profile views
  1. Okay so I've sorted it all out. As a sample here are two of the grenades that I'll be making available for my campaign. Frag Grenades: Damage: 12, Blast: 9, Shrapnel 8, Limit 1 $50 R. Rarity cdd. Flash/Bang: Damage: 6 Stun, Blast: 2 Stun, Shrapnel 1, Concussive 1 (to all victims in short range), Disorient 3, Limit 1. $50. Rarity d. I get to run all of the grenade stats by the player this week (I have seven grenades available) and we'll see how the Kinrath clearing operation goes with the explosive new rules. <end>
  2. I'm coming to similar conclusions. This sounds like a good idea for me to snick. Another good idea for me to implement and it makes sense because throwing grenades IRL are an Athletic feat. IRL, I am an amazing shot with both pistols and rifles but can't throw a grenade to save my life! So from my perspective this adaptation makes a lot of sense! Thanks!
  3. Yes. I'm at 10 or 11 cannon changes now. I disagree. Extreme Range is, I shouldn't be able to hit this but let me try anyway . . . That also lets me convert Extreme Range into a six purple contested roll while permitting a Very Long range attempt at 4 purple (instead of 5 purple). You may also remember that I have some incredibly capable PC's running around and a 4 purple shot isn't that much of a challenge. First, I'm actually modelling the grenade rules from GURPS, which I mentioned at the table this week, and based on player feedback they're willing to give it a go. It also models real life better. Shrapnel damage is as I've already described and consistent with existing damage rules. Roll a bunch of green dice and all of the uncancelled successes yield 1 point of damage (less soak after the fact of course). So if you happen to be in the same square as a grenade, you'll take a lot of concussive damage but if you're further away, no worries. However IRL the real problem with frag grenades has always been the shrapnel. And while I've been 'content' with the grenade rules according to the RAW, the players all expressed sufficient displeasure and requested that grenades have a wider AOE. It's not a player complaint that I find unreasonable.
  4. So the team was fighting a swarm of Kinrath 'spiders' this week and two of the PC's felt (appropriately) compelled to deal with the swarms with grenades. The highight of the evening when one of the PC's deployed a 'Flash Bang' grenade and the player rolled up two Triumphs. I then informed the players that apparently that grenade had been "mislabled" and that it was actually a frag grenade. (Many spiders died). You know, sometimes these kinds of mistakes happen . . . Any rate the players made quite a few comments about how disappointing the Star Wars grenades were and my best answer (as the GM) was, "yeah, I know." Still the complaining persisted. SO! We're adding Shrapnel rules to the Grenades and I'm planning on boosting the listed Damage and Blast ratings for several grenades. We're working out the details as of this writing, but here are a couple of things that are coming up. First, the Range Bands for weapons are going to "change" to become fixed values. Short range will be 30 feet (or 6 combat squares/hexes) up to Medium Range will become Short Range will be up to 30 Feet (or 6 combat squares/hexes/inches). Medium Range will be up to 100 Feet (or 20 combat squares/hexes/inches). Long Range will be up to 300 Feet (or 60 combat squares/hexes/inches). And I'm thinking about adding a Very Long Range " dddd This also means that we'll be separating movement so that characters will have a base movement of 5 combat squares/hexes/inches per maneuver. Next: Grenades will have a Weapon Quality called "Shrapnel." In addition to the Base Damage and Blast quality, when explosives go off, everyone within Short Range of the grenade will have a chance to be damaged by Shrapnel. In short the grenade will have an attack dice pool number (say 5 green) and it will be opposed by purple dice equal to the distance from the grenade in squares/hexes/inches. So an NPC 3 inches from the grenade will have an attack with a dice pool of 5 Green and 3 Purple. I figure appropriate conditions like cover & being defensive would apply the appropriate number of black dice to the pool. But "Darkness" wouldn't. (I tend to throw in a darkness modifier quite often in my campaigns to an annoying level. But the PC's have recently done some Spelunking on Tatooine in a Krayt Dragon tunnel network and currently extricated themselves from the ruins of a Jedi stronghold on Dantooine with no lights)! Anyrate, someone left the ramp down on the PC's ship and a pod of Kinrath decided to set up a new hive in there. (Oh look! Lots of nice convenient nooks and crannies! And bonus! Free food too)! So this should give us a good opportunity to test out these new grenade rules next week. Cheers!
  5. No, but it looks like an intriguing idea to run an Astromech PC. Not that I'll have the chance as I'm the GM. I have put together two astromech NPC's using the PC rules and it looks feasible.
  6. Yep, my players can't pick up Clone or Clone Pilot Talent trees. Heck we don't even have access to those talent trees. And to further disincentivize my players, they're already bogged down with (on average) 5-7 talent trees already AND (and?) none of them are pilots. (Okay we have one Duros . . . ). And this isn't a capability that I'm interested in permitting, with the exception of the B-Wing. Which (based on historical precedence) should be able to do an Alpha strike. And I've got no issues making up new rules. (I'm up to 9 major revisions already). So we're not quibbling over what 'can' I do, the question is 'how' to do this well. As I think about this, I'm planning on applying this as a "weapon" or "ship" quality specifically for the B-Wing (Which I can then adapt to other appropriate ships). So I don't have to let this be available outside a "new technology." As I see it, the issue with keeping all of the weapons for an Alpha Strike in a single dice pool is that each weapon has different qualities that affect the dice pool. I'm also using the Weapon Targeting Quality (I actually abbreviate it WTS, inexplicably) so the accuracy of an auto cannon is very different from Proton Torpedoes. Ergo, I don't think a single weapon attack dice pool works (for me). Sure it's 'simple' and if that works for you, awesome. (That said) one other weakness of FFG Vehicle Combat is that the more weapons that are grouped with a Linked or Autofire quality actually are less likely to have additional hits as that number increases. X-Wings (& Quad Cannons) with the Link 3 Quality will almost never hit because you need six advantages to spend to get those extra hits to count. And with most dice pools if you can get six advantage results from that dice pool, you've also yielded zero successes so . . . you still don't hit . So I like separate dice pools for that reason . . . That and I"m still used to GURPS where a single combat resolution could have as many as four dice rolls to resolve: Attacker Rolls Skill check To Hit. Defender Rolls Skill check to avoid Hit. Attacker Rolls hit location (Optional). Attacker Rolls damage. So three dice pools isn't a problem for me. Hmmmmm, Give the B-Wing the ability for the Pilot to perform a Alpha Strike Maneuver which allows pilot to attack with all weapons? And I think add a single P dice to each pool. I'm open to thoughts, suggestions, and comments.
  7. In reviewing the rebuttals to my latest post, I have to apologize. I used some pretty big words in there and it's obvious that I lost all of you. Merriam Webster's Dictionary might help you with that.
  8. Yeah, it makes sense for the B-Wing to be programmed with Alpha Strike capabilities due to it's role as and Anti Cap ship. And in the video game "X-Wing" you could cycle weapons quickly enough that you could almost emulate an Alpha Strike. But the B-Wing isn't a viable dog fighter. But at the same time the video game didn't try to emulate the Auto Cannon (which is a failing of that game, because the B-Wing OBVIOUSLY has the autocannon). Hrm. This is a good point of thought for me to check out. I think I'll need to rethink and redesign the B-Wing in my SWRPG. (But I have time to do that because the B-Wing is in the late design/early prototype phase in my campaign). Yeah, I think this makes this question relevant for me too as the B-Wing probably SHOULD have an Alpha-Strike capability . . . But to advance this topic. One of the rules that I picked up recently is that if you have a weapons system with a Link:3 quality I have the pilot/gunner add 2 advantages to their result which can be used to activate the linked quality. That said, I think I'd still roll each weapon system with a different dice pool for each weapon, but maybe add one or two purple for each additional weapon system fired during an Alpha Strike. Hmmm. I'm open to options. Thoughts?
  9. I turned Phase III into a whole session! (Woot)! I was pretty sure we could wrap up Phase III quickly because there shouldn't have been any combat but there were enough obstacles to overcome. Though the crew of the Guardian surrendered, they didn't exactly turn over control of the ship, including an overly zealous engineer who had set up a dead man's switch (with the potential to destroy the whole ship). Taking over "The Crawler" was easy enough with a brilliant bluff, but . . . not without it's own complications. The crew was there to rescue approximately 35 Wookiees (easy enough, right)? But when the 40 Wookiees (on rest) asked about the other 40 Wookiees out on 'deployment' that set up a logistics problem . . . And one that turned into a time consuming issue! (12+ hours in game to locate and rescue all of the Wookiees. about 15 minutes IRL IIRC). But that was resolved successfully and what do you do after 12+ hours of gruelling piloting and coordinating the transport of 25 Prisoners and aproximately 80 Wookiees? You get VETTED by the Wookiees in a no holds barred celebration! I think the funniest line from the game last night was when one of the players asked, "Where did the Wookiees get a PIG?!?!?!?!" I (the GM) had to shrug in response. But after a bit of Cat and Mouse with three TIE teams and an ISD, the group successfully evaded the Empire and were able to exfil the Nkllon system, leaving little more than wreckage and destruction in their wake. It's a crying shame that the Empire won't have enough support struts needed to finish a completely spherical second Death Star in time for the Emperor's plans . . . But that should wrap up Mission 024 "Depending Basin" successfully enough. The Battle of Nkllon is OVER.
  10. In Mech Warrior/BattleTech there is the concept of an Alpha Strike! which is a cool concept in theory . . . But as a GM, I don't allow characters to use more than one weapon system at a time. (Also the Master Pilot talent isn't available to my players). In 'verse, I haven't seen any vehicles that were designed to do that. And for the same reason you shouldn't do an Alpha Strike in BattleTech you shouldn't do one in Star Wars. We basically have three types of weapons (bear with me here) in Star Wars: Lasers/Blasters, Ion Weapons, and Guided weapons (Missiles and Torpedoes). These three weapons behave differently. Missiles and Torpedoes (for practical purposes) require a target lock before releasing them effectively. While the other direct fire weapons don't need that. However the Direct Fire weapons need to be aimed, quite unlike the guided weapons. And the Ion Weapons and Lasers travel at different speeds (Ion Beams have historically been slower). So if you're aiming weapons for an Alpha Strike and you're leading for the Blasters, then you'll miss with the Ion Cannons, (and visa versa). So from a perspective of targeting, Alpha Strikes aren't viable. (Mech Warrior mechanically represents this well too as Alpha Strikes are rarely employed because each weapon system had a different drop and aim/lead points. In Mech Warrior the only time you should use an Alpha Strike is when you have a relatively close and immobile opponent). Star Wars has the same issue with it's three primary weapons too, IF Alpha Strikes were possible at all. The other issue is that the three weapons in Star Wars do different things. Blasters affect HT and Ion Weapons affect SS. If you want to capture a ship, firing blasters is risky, and you shouldn't fire them while employing Ion Cannons! And conversely if you're trying to blow up the opponent, adding Ion Damage won't help. So for very practical reasons, no. A single pilot can't Alpha Strike with all of their weapons.
  11. I'm reminded that the SJGames Forums had a similar discussion (probably about a decade ago) and if you want a truly in depth and thorough understanding of the issues in having Submersibles and Spaceships act like each other and have HOURS to spend following that in depth discussion, please check it out! (One of the cool things about the SJ Games forums is that the search function works VERY well and the participants are among the smartest and knowledgeable individuals that you would EVER interact with). I'll try to be brief and give a synopsis of why you won't see a lot of these ships. Medium: Vacuum, Air, and Water don't act like each other. Drives that are designed to work well in Water won't move air. And neither will work in vacuum. And an engine designed to work in a vacuum will blow up the ship if you activate it in water. Air itself can be prickly too. Take a look at a ram jet. It won't work in lower atmosphere and at low speed! If you want a ram jet you have to either build a hybrid engine that acts like a regular turbo jet at low speeds, then blocks off the air flow to the turbine and reroute the air to a ram jet chamber. OR you can mount multiple types of engines, half ram jets and half "slow" engines. And that's just for AIR. So a Submersible Starship will need multiple drive systems to motivate through multiple media. We CAN (and have) built trucks and cars that act like boats, but those vehicles travel over road and water not nearly as well as vehicles dedicated to only one mode of transport because . . . Mass(Weight): Submarines are heavy. They are built to be sturdy, because if they aren't, then they get crushed like an empty soda can under the tender mercies of a steam roller. Spaceships are generally built as lightly as possible because it's VERY HARD to move spaceships and the less mass that you can try to move with space engines, the more likely you are to be successful. However, the assumption of most Sci-Fi settings (including Star Wars) is that space drives get to a point where you can travel long distances without worrying too much about fuel or drive mass. And then we start loading weapons on ships and armor becomes a thing. In Star Wars we can move past the question of possibility and assume that vehicles like this are possible. However, they won't work as well as ships dedicated to a single task. (eg: X-Wings make GREAT fighter craft and wreak great havoc and destruction when needed but it's impossible to carry any meaningful cargo in them. A YT-1300 on the other hand isn't necessarily a great combat platform and on it's own is a death trap in a dog fight, but if you need to get a precious cargo somewhere fast, it's just what you're looking for). So any vessel that can act as both as spaceship and a submersible won't be breaking any speed or performance records in either category. Balance and Dynamics: The other thing that will make it harder (if not impossible) to build a submersible space ship is how vehicles are built for balance and how they are designed to move through the media that they are designed. Submarines are bottom heavy. Modern subs HAVE to be bottom heavy because if they tip over the whole system falls apart and they plunge to the depths of whatever body of water they are in. Yes you CAN engineer a sub to be able to roll and pitch over . . . but that means that you need to add components and weight. Next, lifting bodies (Air craft) need to be designed to balance their weight at the apex point of their lifting structure. Weirdly enough their drive systems are also angled to push the vehicle down which (conversely and paradoxically) promotes lift. A Space Ships on the other hand need to be balanced so that their drive systems are perfectly balanced to provide equal thrust along the total mass of the ship from the direction of the vector of intended travel. So for you to pull off this engineering feat, you're looking at a vehicle with at least three different drive systems and the need to reconfigure the mass configuration of a vehicle for three different design considerations. And that kind of engineered configuration a bit more likely in RoboTech than in Star Wars. Still not impossible? Contragrav It's a magical technology in Star Wars that would make this kind of vessel more likely. If you can modify how gravity affects a vessel, than these issues become easier to solve. But they're still going to add mass and components to the ship in question. Conclusion Yeah, I think it's plausible enough in Star Wars to have vehicles like this and it's certainly most likely that the Mon Cal are the group that would be best invested in pioneering this type of vehicle. BUT Any vehicle like this will be built for specific purposes to meet rare needs. These ships are likely to be rare and infrequently encountered because they have a isolated specialization. They're going to be heavier, slower, more massive, maybe better armored, but less armed. The obvious next logical question would be, who would want this kind of ship and why?
  12. Odd. I've never heard of this game and it mechanically sounds similar to Blackjack. This looks like a relatively recent addition to the 'verse? I can however recommend the recent version of Disney's Sabaac game. Mechanically it's a pretty good version of Poker.
  • Create New...