YT-2400

[dpb1298 251]

What book are the stats for a YT-2400 in? I want to make that my teams ship.

[miishelle 377]

the eote core book

[dpb1298 251]

the eote core book

Thanks! I have just got the beginer game and its ship options are really limited. I am just about to buy the core.

[Doc, the Weasel 1,777]

This is the part where I show up and shamelessly promote my deck plans for the YT-2400.

 

... shamelessly.

 

 

As a side note, the ship is by RAW outside the range cost-wise for starting ships. I say either ignore RAW or (what I did) let them have it, but have the cost difference (20,000cr) worth of repairs before it is back to tip-top shape. My group's nav computer still argues with them.

[fatedtodie 452]

The lazy bantha deckplans are okay but i think it minimizes the available space in a yt-2400 too much compared to other deck plans i have seen for it.

[LibrariaNPC 649]

As a side note, the ship is by RAW outside the range cost-wise for starting ships. I say either ignore RAW or (what I did) let them have it, but have the cost difference (20,000cr) worth of repairs before it is back to tip-top shape. My group's nav computer still argues with them.

 

As another option: I let my groups take a more expensive ship at the cost of Obligation. I've also allowed them to choose a ship, "start" the game without a ship, and do a job or two "locally" to pay off the debt for the ship.

[Doc, the Weasel 1,777]

The lazy bantha deckplans are okay but i think it minimizes the available space in a yt-2400 too much compared to other deck plans i have seen for it.

 

I've never liked plans that use every inch of space as living/cargo space as if ship systems didn't exist and a thin wall were enough frame for support. These are starships, not apartments. 

 

It's the reason I created my own. The original Falcon plans had it right and I followed that model. 

Edited February 11, 2015 by Doc, the Weasel

[Skywalken 18]

This is the part where I show up and shamelessly promote my deck plans for the YT-2400.

 

... shamelessly.

 

 

As a side note, the ship is by RAW outside the range cost-wise for starting ships. I say either ignore RAW or (what I did) let them have it, but have the cost difference (20,000cr) worth of repairs before it is back to tip-top shape. My group's nav computer still argues with them.

 

 

The lazy bantha deckplans are okay but i think it minimizes the available space in a yt-2400 too much compared to other deck plans i have seen for it.

 

I've never liked plans that use every inch of space as living/cargo space as if ship systems didn't exist and a thin wall were enough frame for support. These are starships, not apartments. 

 

It's the reason I created my own. The original Falcon plans had it right and I followed that model. 

 

 

 

I like your deckplan. Too many of the YT-2400 plans seem to forget that at its core, it is a light transport. It needs cargo space, not room for every crew member to get their own private bath and lounge.

[fatedtodie 452]

Well to be fair there are 5 beds in the lazy bantha.

 

The stats for the vehicle state it should have 8

One Pilot (covered in the bantha)

1 Co-Pilot/Engineer (somehow "crew" quarters in the bantha has 3 beds)

6 Passengers. (1 bed for 6 passengers in the Bantha)

 

I just find giving crew ... actual living space makes them happier and you get more cargo =)

[bradknowles 4,449]

Well to be fair there are 5 beds in the lazy bantha.

 

The stats for the vehicle state it should have 8

As often as the CEC line of ships get modified, I doubt that there are too many left around that actually officially meet the original specs. Some will trade passenger space for more cargo space, some will trade cargo for passenger space, etc….

I’ve seen some YT-2400 designs that have only two cabins, period. I’ve seen some that don’t have any access path to the main docking ring, and only one escape pod. There’s all sorts of wackiness out there.

[Kallabecca 983]

Well to be fair there are 5 beds in the lazy bantha.

 

The stats for the vehicle state it should have 8

One Pilot (covered in the bantha)

1 Co-Pilot/Engineer (somehow "crew" quarters in the bantha has 3 beds)

6 Passengers. (1 bed for 6 passengers in the Bantha)

 

I just find giving crew ... actual living space makes them happier and you get more cargo =)

That's pretty easy. 3 double bunks instead of single beds. Kind of like the crew quarters in the Star Trek Defiant. Beds really don't need 6'+ of ceiling clearance if they're just for sleeping in.

[RLogue177 1,522]

In the Navy, we had triple rack coffin lockers.  The bottom rack was about 5 inches off the deck.  The one at the top was just a couple feet from the ceiling.  Not a lot of room, but efficient.

[cupajo 92]

In the Navy..

Yes, you can sail the seven seas?

[miishelle 377]

and we can set our minds at ease

amazingly, my group uses thelazy bantha deck plans. but I've found another that assumes that there's a second level that is used for cargo space. so we use the lazy bantha and the bottom level of that one

[Utsanomiko 171]

Doc takes a fair approach to factoring in space devoted to systems and an assumption for limited deck height at the saucer's edge (too many deck plans indeed assume a unified height and edge-to-edge space usage like a house plan). Though I do prefer designs that open the lounge and primary hold to the main hall and devote more of the aft towards drives and generators. It's got good cargo space for its size but it's still small.

 

My group just recently lost their YT-2400 to the Empire when we escaped in a stolen shuttle. I miss it already.

[miishelle 377]

we lost ours too. crashed into a planet. I miss it as well. got a yz something, found in dangerous covenants, more cargo and better guns, but its not the same

I need a hug :`(

Edited February 11, 2015 by miishelle

[Doc, the Weasel 1,777]

 

Well to be fair there are 5 beds in the lazy bantha.

 

The stats for the vehicle state it should have 8

One Pilot (covered in the bantha)

1 Co-Pilot/Engineer (somehow "crew" quarters in the bantha has 3 beds)

6 Passengers. (1 bed for 6 passengers in the Bantha)

 

I just find giving crew ... actual living space makes them happier and you get more cargo =)

That's pretty easy. 3 double bunks instead of single beds. Kind of like the crew quarters in the Star Trek Defiant. Beds really don't need 6'+ of ceiling clearance if they're just for sleeping in.

 

 

That's how we run it. The crew quarters are double bunks. 

[Vixen Icaza 317]

we lost ours too. crashed into a planet. I miss it as well. got a yz something, found in dangerous covenants, more cargo and better guns, but its not the same

I need a hug :`(

Zen hugs

[fatedtodie 452]

My Players lost their YT-2400 because nobody locked the ship or secured it in any way for 3 session in a row. It was stolen with some quest items on it... was quite a mess.

 

They just got through last weekend playing the part of the team that stole their ship (figured they should see why it was stolen) and it was even more fun the second time. =)

[miishelle 377]

we lost ours too. crashed into a planet. I miss it as well. got a yz something, found in dangerous covenants, more cargo and better guns, but its not the same

I need a hug :`(

Zen hugs

thanks. I needed that

[Sturn 3,000]

The stats for the vehicle state it should have 8

One Pilot (covered in the bantha)

1 Co-Pilot/Engineer (somehow "crew" quarters in the bantha has 3 beds)

6 Passengers. (1 bed for 6 passengers in the Bantha)

 

The graphics of the beds could be symbols for double bunks, like the creator mentioned above. Plus you need to consider this is a deckplan of the "Lazy Bantha". It's not titled, "Stock YT-2400".  So, I'm imagining the Captain's Quarters and Crew Quarters as marked on the Bantha aren't how it was set up off the shelf. In fact, you don't even see a Passenger Quarters even though stats show 6 Passengers and 2 Crew. So, the stock YT-2400 had the Captain's Quarters as the Crew Quarters and that single bunk shown on the deckplan is a double one. The stock ship had the Crew Quarters as the Passenger Quarters and those three bunks shown on the deckplans are all doubles.

 

To me, the Captain of the Bantha took over the entire Crew Quarters, moved other Crew (normally 1 more, but this is a PC ship so there's more) to the Passenger Quarters, and doesn't plan on picking up many long trip passengers unless there is room to bunk with the PCs in the 6-bunk room.

 

If you want to use the same plans for a stock ship, simply change the titles of those two quarters and it matches RAW.

Edited February 14, 2015 by Sturn

[fatedtodie 452]

 

The stats for the vehicle state it should have 8

One Pilot (covered in the bantha)

1 Co-Pilot/Engineer (somehow "crew" quarters in the bantha has 3 beds)

6 Passengers. (1 bed for 6 passengers in the Bantha)

 

The graphics of the beds could be symbols for double bunks, like the creator mentioned above. Plus you need to consider this is a deckplan of the "Lazy Bantha". It's not titled, "Stock YT-2400".  

My comment if you follow it to the beginning was me saying i prefer other than that layout. I get there is a way to "explain away" things but the bed (single not bunk) in the captain's quarters is the same as the crew, which means it is a single. If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck it is not a penguin regardless if the designer wanted a penguin or not later.

 

The Lazy Bantha says that the passengers get to stack on top of each other like sardines. That is a way to go. I prefer a spot so they can sleep and maybe even feel like they are not in the way of each other. I get that people disagree that I feel differently than them... not sure why people have to spend pages to try to justify their opinion to me as if that will magically change mine, it won't. 

Edited February 14, 2015 by fatedtodie

[Sturn 3,000]

I'm pretty sure I was just offering a solution to be able to use the map with the stock stats.

[Icosiel 233]

I like Doc's layout. Inhand drew a deckplan for my crew's YT-2400, and I ended up making the walls paper thin. I utilized every inch of space for cargo and crew quarters, forgetting to leave room for the actual ship components. It's something I really regret, but I haven't actually changed it yet. I'm pretty sure my crew loves it exactly as is, and I'd hate to change it for something that only bothers me.

[HappyDaze 10,143]

In my Star Wars, light freighters are general not comfortable to use for lodging for any length of time. While you might have a few months of consumables aboard, just about everybody will want to grab lodging on any civilized world rather than the double or triple bunks crammed into their ship.

 

OTOH, yachts tend to have much more comfortable accommodations, but so far no one in my games really wants a yacht.