Resolving the Lancer / Tartan Confusion

CRMcNeill · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:13 am Post subject:

I'm still not quite sure what any of you are talking about, and frankly, I'm not going to spend any more time trying to figure it out.

I use the x2 = +1D method to generate coordination and fire-linking bonuses. In this instance, a single Cataphract with two proton torpedo launchers fire-linked in the Front arc would receive a +1D bonus that could be applied to either Damage or Fire Control. A group of 4 Cataphracts combining fire at a single target would receive an additional +2D modifier, for a total of +3D (4 ships = 1 x 2 x 2 = 2 +1D bonuses), for a combined Damage total of 12D, which means they are a threat to most Star Destroyers and similar craft.
_________________
"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

denderan marajain · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 2:36 am Post subject:

CRMcNeill · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:32 am Post subject:

http://www.rancorpit.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=157825#157825
_________________
"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

denderan marajain · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:44 am Post subject:

CRMcNeill · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 10:57 am Post subject:

denderan marajain · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 11:30 am Post subject:

CRMcNeill · Posted: Fri Jan 27, 2017 3:04 pm Post subject:

Simpler, yes; better, no.

It's a passable system at low levels, but gets ridiculous as the numbers being linked or coordinated increase. For instance, using the 1E method when combining the fire of the 20 forward heavy turbolasers on an ISD II generates a bonus of +19D (20 - 1) for a combined total damage of 29D, 1D more than a full power shot from the Death Star's superlaser when adjusted for scale.

So, what's needed is a system that provides tangible bonuses at low level while preventing the bonuses from scaling up too rapidly as the number of persons / weapons being coordinated increases. The "x2 = +1D" method provides just that.

And since Fire Linking is just another term for Coordination, it makes sense to have a single rule that works for both.
_________________
"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

denderan marajain · Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2017 3:31 am Post subject:

CRMcNeill · Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2017 10:58 am Post subject:

I think you are more apt to find interest in your house rule if you post it as its own topic. I'm already pretty well committed to my own system, as it has been used as a baseline for the vast majority of the stats I've written. I'm in disagreement on both of your previous points: IMU, weapons can be fire-linked above quad, so long as one is willing to pay a much higher price for the added complexity; and the baseline for laser cannon does not support your version of fire-linking bonuses, as all Starfighter mounted laser cannon inflict 4D, dual laser cannon inflict 5D and Quad-cannon inflict 6D, whereas under your system, a quad-laser would be at +3D over a basic laser cannon.
_________________
"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

denderan marajain · Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 9:09 am Post subject:

CRMcNeill · Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2017 2:05 pm Post subject:

Then, since this discussion has gone entirely off-topic, I suggest you either make posts about the ship stats I posted, or go start your own conversation in the Official Rules section about your interpretation of the Fire Control rules, and then allow those who are interested to reply as they will.
_________________
"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

CRMcNeill · Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 3:25 pm Post subject:

EDIT: Added a new variant, the Outrider-Class Scout Frigate, to the stat post
_________________
"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

Sutehp · Posted: Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:30 pm Post subject:

Copied and pasted onto my Soldier-class docfile and uploaded the updated docfile to my Star Wars D6 Stats folder in my Google Docs linked in my signature.

A pleasure as always, CRM.
_________________
Sutehp's RPG Goodies
Only some of it is for D6 Star Wars.
Just repurchased the X-Wing and Tie Fighter flight sim games. I forgot how much I missed them.

Inquisitor1138 · Posted: Mon Jan 10, 2022 4:00 am Post subject: Good points!

I came searching for Corellian Star Destroyers, then spent 3-4 hrs devouring this thread.
Plenty of good points & neat ideas here!

I was reconciling the divergent stats for the Tartan as 3 different ships with similar design elements & mission profiles. Sadly my notes for them are MIA, and i'll be redoing from scratch.
I like what you did, expanding the Lancer into the Soldier-series; i am thinking i will adopt/adapt them for my new SWU.
Since my solution differs from CRMcNeill's, i'll be making a new thread for them so as not to clutter this one.

	The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech	All times are GMT - 4 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4
Page 4 of 4