| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:11 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| ZzaphodD wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | ZzaphodD wrote: | I think you are overdoing this...  |
Oh, surely not?
Point taken though. I think I may have no more to contribute on this topic. |
It wasnt a you you but a general you.. |
Sokay. I took it that you were rightly pointing out the discussion had reached a point of diminishing returns and I assumed you were using "you" in the plural sense or as a southern American might say "you all." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jmanski wrote: | If we had more complete information from WEG  this would probably not be a discussion.... but here we are. |
Well some of us might still be discussing. It is the House Rules thread afterall.
| Quote: | | Maybe we're just at a "it's your game, do what you want" place? |
I think we probably are.
And I appreciated both your and ZzaphodD's recent comments. Thanks.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | Because sometimes it seems relevant. You do realize I was agreeing with your quote right? |
It was hard to tell from the way it was worded...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | Bren wrote: | | Because sometimes it seems relevant. You do realize I was agreeing with your quote right? |
It was hard to tell from the way it was worded... |
Fair point. As I was in the process of disagreeing with your overall conclusion I can see how my statement could be confusing.
You said, in reference to how ordnance works in the RW, "I'm not sure to what degree these rules apply in the SWU." That is what I was agreeing with. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 2:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | | You said, in reference to how ordnance works in the RW, "I'm not sure to what degree these rules apply in the SWU." That is what I was agreeing with. |
True. It's pretty clear that in the SWU, science is mostly applied where it is appropriate to the plot. Of course, that's true of Trek, too; they just do a better job of disguising it.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 4:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | It's pretty clear that in the SWU, science is mostly applied where it is appropriate to the plot. Of course, that's true of Trek, too; they just do a better job of disguising it. |
Star Wars movies mostly don't attempt to justify except for an occasional broad wave of the hand. Regarding Star Trek, I would say that they just wave their hands louder and faster. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
notmalcolypse
Cadet
Joined: 26 Sep 2010
Posts: 24
Location: Farthest from the bright center of the universe.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
:[/quote]
Sokay. I took it that you were rightly pointing out the discussion had reached a point of diminishing returns and I assumed you were using "you" in the plural sense or as a southern American might say "you all."[/quote]
This generalization about southern Americans is highly inaccurate. Only when we want to sound intelligent do we say "you all". The rest of the time the phrase is "y'all". Sad, but true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| notmalcolypse wrote: | | This generalization about southern Americans is highly inaccurate. Only when we want to sound intelligent do we say "you all". The rest of the time the phrase is "y'all". Sad, but true. |
On the other hand, my Spanish professor in college was Tex-Mex, and absolutely brilliant. He spoke nine languages (and was teaching himself #10) and played 20 musical instruments. One day in class, he gave us a very learned and insightful dissertation on the subject of "y'all" versus "you all", and he was supportive of the idea that y'all should be an official part of the English language. The basis of his argument is that most of other languages have a distinction between 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural, yet English does not. With English being a language in relative flux, the adoption of y'all as a distinct term for 2nd person plural is an easy step to make. I certainly started using y'all after hearing his reasoning.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | On the other hand, my Spanish professor in college...gave us a very learned and insightful dissertation on the subject of "y'all" versus "you all", and he was supportive of the idea that y'all should be an official part of the English language. The basis of his argument is that most of other languages have a distinction between 2nd person singular and 2nd person plural, yet English does not. With English being a language in relative flux, the adoption of y'all as a distinct term for 2nd person plural is an easy step to make. I certainly started using y'all after hearing his reasoning. |
I agree with your professor that a 2nd person plural would remove some language ambiguity.
But being from further north, "you all" works for me. After all isn't y'all just a contraction of "you all"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | I agree with your professor that a 2nd person plural would remove some language ambiguity.
But being from further north, "you all" works for me. After all isn't y'all just a contraction of "you all"? |
Indeed, but not all contractions are technically correct. I know my spellcheck lights up whenever I try to use "couldn't've" in a sentence. Plus, my grandmother is a former English teacher, so she is very quick to point out when I use English improperly, so "y'all" is a common point of contention between us
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 6:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I know my spellcheck lights up whenever I try to use "couldn't've" in a sentence. |
Interesting. That is not something that would have ever occurred to me to even attempt. However, just because spell checker doesn't like it doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. My spell checker is frequently wrong since my word list is somewhat larger than its. And it is frequently wrong on jargon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
While I'm not a big fan of the idea that a light freighter may be able to fire more than one or two capital scale torpedos without serious side effects I do like the idea that fighters could carry a single capital scale torpedo attached to their undercarrage at the cost of their maneuverability.
Much like some World War Two planes could carry torpedos rather than other ordinance the X-wing (or whatever) has the torpedo mag locked to it's hull and when it gives the signal the mag locks disengage and the torpedo shoots away. It'd have no targeting system just point and fire so the fighter could only really use it effectively against a captial scale ship which isn't going to maneuver out of the way but a squad of those could take care of almost any capital ships.
The downside to the tactic is that the fighters loose maneuverability before launching and there is the chance that the fighter (and perhaps entire squad) could be destroyed by a single lucky hit.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | I do like the idea that fighters could carry a single capital scale torpedo attached to their undercarrage at the cost of their maneuverability. |
I could see this as part of a special mission for a starfighter squadron. Perhaps they are issued specialized ordinance and are assigned to destroy a Star Destroyer that has lost maneuverability.
And I like the downsides. I'd also be tempted to disable the regular missiles/torps during the mission with the Cap scale weapon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Esoomian
High Admiral
Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 6207
Location: Auckland, New Zealand
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bren wrote: | I could see this as part of a special mission for a starfighter squadron. Perhaps they are issued specialized ordinance and are assigned to destroy a Star Destroyer that has lost maneuverability.
And I like the downsides. I'd also be tempted to disable the regular missiles/torps during the mission with the Cap scale weapon. |
Disabling the regular launchers makes sense but they probably wouldn't need to target only capital scale vessels that have lost maneuverability. I figure you'd aim them with your piloting roll (which represents lining up your fighter and then just hitting the release button) so you'd actually get to factor your scale bonus into your to-hit roll however you'd want to make sure you either had regular fighters acting as a screen or that you could make your hit and run attack before the capital ship could scramble any of it's own fighters.
_________________
Don't waste money on expensive binoculars.
Simply stand closer to the object you wish to view. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bren
Vice Admiral
Joined: 19 Aug 2010
Posts: 3868
Location: Maryland, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 24, 2011 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Esoomian wrote: | | ...they probably wouldn't need to target only capital scale vessels that have lost maneuverability. |
Maybe not lost, but I was assuming to be successful they would need a target with low speed, low maneuver, or both; I thought this was in line with your comment.
| Quote: | | It'd have no targeting system just point and fire so the fighter could only really use it effectively against a captial scale ship which isn't going to maneuver out of the way |
I was envisioning this an unusual weapons load jury-rigged just for a special mission with special circumstances so this wouldn't be something a fighter could or would normally carry in the movie time frame. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
