Jump to content
LadySkywalker

VCX-100 Light Freighter

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree. You can easily perform much of the maintenance on the Phantom in that hangar. Yes, some of it, such as hull repairs may be a bit trickier, but everything else is easy. The key, however, is that it does also allow the ship to be refueled, and we do see the Ghost provide other functions, including Flight Control for the Phantom as well. All of these are part and parcel to the Retrofitted Hangar. 

You can not even install most of the attachments onto the phantom … you know, the really simple stuff like adding a twin-laser turret on the top or installing an engine upgrade, not to speak of more complex stuff like hull repairs … not even looking the hull for microfractures and other signs of machine fatigue would be that easy as you don't have access to the outer hull. 

I would go with the GM option and call it an micro-hangar-docking-bay, charge 1 HP and allow the speeder bikes to be refuelled in the cargo bay for free. Storage still in a cargo room, locked and not ready for use. ;-) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The Phantom plugs into the ghost directly. It isn't simply clamped to it. Not only that, but where the fuel receptacle is located on the smaller ship is also fully encased within the socket, so that it gets plugged in directly when it docks. 

I agree, by the rules the ghost has a retrofitted hangar bay, and as this thing can basically look however the players want, it can look like the one from the ghost, though as GM I would give my players a discount for such a simple one. because it certainly is not the type of hangar bay which would you expect to do all your repairs and modifications on your snub fighters, tanks, at-sts and swoops.  Especially as the phantom II needed to be cut  and heavily modified to even fit and the nothing else than the phantom can dock with the system.

How anyone on his table wants to handle this, does it really matter? People play like they like and that is the best way to play RPGs. 

 

Edited by SEApocalypse
bay, buy, actually it would have been a good pun if intentional ;-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

I agree, by the rules the ghost has a retrofitted hangar bay, and as this thing can basically look however the players want, it can look like the one from the ghost, though as GM I would give my players a discount for such a simple one. because it certainly is not the type of hangar buy which would you expect to do all your repairs and modifications on your snub fighters, tanks, at-sts and swoops.  Especially as the phantom II needed to cut  and heavily modified to even fit and the nothing else than the phantom can dock with the system.

How anyone on his table wants to handle this, does it really matter? People play like they like and that is the best way to play RPGs. 

 

Pretty much. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The left and right winglets fold up flush against the tail. That is why they would be "exposed". IF you look more closely, however, you'll notice that the "hinge" upon which those winglets revolve (and thus divide the top and bottom portions of the ship) is not across the exact middle of the ship. It is two thirds to three quarters up from the bottom. Thus between 60% and 75% of the ship's main fuselage is fully enclosed within the Ghost. Yes, the nose sticks out the back, but that's a relatively small section, and the Phantom II was a somewhat longer ship than the Phantom I, so it makes sense that more of the nose would stick out. It doesn't change the fact that it is still inside of a specially built compartment built into the Ghost, not sitting on top of it on a landing platform, secured with a clamp. So it really doesn't matter if some of it is sticking out. It is still stored within an enclosure. That is what makes it a retrofitted Hangar, not a landing clamp. 

You're confusing the original Phantom with the Phantom II.  The Phantom II doesn't having folding winglets.  The only thing on the Phantom II that move at all is the landing struts.  Those winglets are clearly visible above the Ghosts hull even when docked.  The lower fuselage below the winglets and the tail are all that's enclosed in the Ghost.  So no, not even close to 60% to 75%.

Also, why are you mentioning "landing clamps"?  I've never once in this thread stated that's what I thought this was.  I merely said that the Ghost's particular docking bay is unique to it.  That because of it's rather unique setup, perhaps it could be mated to a Sil 4 ship (though I have also said I'm undecided if the Ghost is a Sil 4 or 5)!

Phantom_II_customized.jpg

Edited by TalosX

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, TalosX said:

You're confusing the original Phantom with the Phantom II.  The Phantom II doesn't having folding winglets.  The only thing on the Phantom II that move at all is the landing struts.  Those winglets are clearly visible above the Ghosts hull even when docked.  The lower fuselage below the winglets and the tail are all that's enclosed in the Ghost.  So no, not even close to 60% to 75%.

Also, why are you mentioning "landing clamps"?  I've never once in this thread stated that's what I thought this was.  I merely said that the Ghost's particular docking bay is unique to it.  That because of it's rather unique setup, perhaps it could be mated to a Sil 4 ship (though I have also said I'm undecided if the Ghost is a Sil 4 or 5)!

Phantom_II_customized.jpg

You haven't but Happy Daze has been repeatedly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not landing clamps (but the Phantom is said to have such in the form of a magnetic clamp on its underside) but "docking clamps" which allow for docking. Docking which includes exchange of consumables such as atmosphere and fuel in addition to the passage of beings from one vessel to another.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Not landing clamps (but the Phantom is said to have such in the form of a magnetic clamp on its underside) but "docking clamps" which allow for docking. Docking which includes exchange of consumables such as atmosphere and fuel in addition to the passage of beings from one vessel to another.

Except that isn't what Docking clamps do, Docking clamps allow two ships to link up at their airlocks. That's all. 

Edited by Tramp Graphics

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

If you can transfer goods, you can transfer fuel.

Not into the fuel tank. Docking clamps allow for the transfer of goods into the cargo hold. They connect airlocks together. They don't connect to the fuel receptacle. A docking clamp conncts two airlocks allowing for people and/or goods to be unloaded from one ship into another ship. They don't allow refueling. For that you need to land in a hangar or space port. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Not into the fuel tank. Docking clamps allow for the transfer of goods into the cargo hold. They connect airlocks together. They don't connect to the fuel receptacle. A docking clamp conncts two airlocks allowing for people and/or goods to be unloaded from one ship into another ship. They don't allow refueling. For that you need to land in a hangar or space port. 

Your method of repeating the same thing over and over with an annoying splattering of bolded type will not convince me. It is not hard to imagine multiple ports and connections being located alongside docking clamps for fuel, atmosphere, power, and waste transfers. It certainly makes more sense to me than a "hangar" that doesn't enclose the craft embarked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Your method of repeating the same thing over and over with an annoying splattering of bolded type will not convince me. It is not hard to imagine multiple ports and connections being located alongside docking clamps for fuel, atmosphere, power, and waste transfers. It certainly makes more sense to me than a "hangar" that doesn't enclose the craft embarked.

Except that is not what we see in canon regarding Docking clamps. Dockinc clamps are simply clamps that link the airlocks together. 

 

See this image of the Citidel Cruiser?

 

Citadel_Cruiser.JPG

 

That is a docking clamp. It simply connects the air lock of the ship to the airlock of the station. 

 

HEre is another picture of a docking clamp:

YmPsedQl.jpg

 

Once again, all it does is link the airlock to another ship to allow for transfer of the pilot of the smaller ship to the larger ship. No connections to the fuel receptacle. 

A docking clamp is what Han Solo used to latch onto the Star Destroyer in ESB. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Except that is not what we see in canon regarding Docking clamps. Dockinc clamps are simply clamps that link the airlocks together. 

 

See this image of the Citidel Cruiser?

 

Citadel_Cruiser.JPG

 

That is a docking clamp. It simply connects the air lock of the ship to the airlock of the station. 

 

HEre is another picture of a docking clamp:

YmPsedQl.jpg

 

Once again, all it does is link the airlock to another ship to allow for transfer of the pilot of the smaller ship to the larger ship. No connections to the fuel receptacle. 

A docking clamp is what Han Solo used to latch onto the Star Destroyer in ESB. 

Actually, I believe Han asked Chewie to stand by the manual release of the "landing claw". This means another sticky mess to sort out. The Falcon was not actually "docked" with the ISD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Old Stormtrooper said:

Actually, I believe Han asked Chewie to stand by the manual release of the "landing claw". This means another sticky mess to sort out. The Falcon was not actually "docked" with the ISD.

The wiki article I linked to states that those are the same thing. It's just another name for them. Docking Clamp, Docking Claw, Landing Claw. It's the same thing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The wiki article I linked to states that those are the same thing. It's just another name for them. Docking Clamp, Docking Claw, Landing Claw. It's the same thing. 

Ok, that's fine by me. From watching ESB all these years, I guess I just figured the landing claw would have been used to "land" in zero-G situations like large asteroids and such for getting out and mining maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Old Stormtrooper said:

Ok, that's fine by me. From watching ESB all these years, I guess I just figured the landing claw would have been used to "land" in zero-G situations like large asteroids and such for getting out and mining maybe.

I would assume that it can do this as well, multi-functional and all ^-^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repulsor technology can also be used to create a strong attraction to another object. You can see this in clone wars when the walkers go up a cliff face or walk around on the outside of ships or asteroids. Landing gears probably contain that kind of technology so you can attach your ship to things that don't have enough of a gravitational field to hold it down by gravity alone. Cargo grapples also use that kind of technology to securely hold containers of any shape.

Edited by Aetrion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

With the release of stats for the C-ROC, the VCX-100 ends up looking even more pathetic.

But it still basically looking pathetic for 2/3s the price or in other words a Headhunters or a repulsor tank in the hangar. ;-)

Now if the group has the money, it certainly is worth upgrading to the slower, but sturdier Gozanti. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, SEApocalypse said:

But it still basically looking pathetic for 2/3s the price or in other words a Headhunters or a repulsor tank in the hangar. ;-)

Now if the group has the money, it certainly is worth upgrading to the slower, but sturdier Gozanti. 

155k vs 190k is more than 2/3 the price. Besides, there is a hidden advantage to the C-ROC: As an Edge-statted (this rule only appears in the Edge core book) Capital Ship, it's heavy and quad lasers all benefit from the point defense weapon rules and can target as if the C-ROC is Sil 4. The VCX-100 does not have this ability.

Also, the C-ROC is Speed 3, Handling -3...the same as the VCX-100.

Edited by HappyDaze

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I stand corrected, I had the VCX with a little over 100k in mind. 

Though hyperspeed is still incredible slow, which was combined with one missing hardpoint our reason for picking the cheaper VCX early and ignoring the gozanti. 

The ROC resolves this issue with having 6 Oo hardpoints. Though, what is preventing the VCX-100 from using quad-lasers and get the same bonus? Both should be capital ships or is there some special rule for capital classification that I have overlooked? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Edge, to get the bonus, the ship must be classified as a Capitla Ship. Silhouette isn't the deciding factor, instead it's based off of what header the ship falls under. The basic Gozanti-class Armed Transport is not a Capital Ship because it falls under the "Freighters and Transports" header, and so does the VCX-100.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×