| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:43 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | The TIE would have to roll 4 over the average hull soak roll of 25 to lightly damage the freighter. So it would have to average 29 on 5D. I also made an error. A ship can be Lightly damaged any number of times, its when it has been Heavily damaged that any further damage takes it to the next damage category. So this makes the 1D capital scale even more improbably of being able to stop the ship. |
What about lost Moves? If you have the fighters consistently hitting the ship's engines for Light Damage, it will eventually stack up to the point where the ship will be disabled or destroyed regardless of whether or not it ever takes damage heavier than Light.
Also, don't forget to add in the RoE optional damage bonus. The versions in RoE give you the option of either +1 to damage for every 5 points of success or +1 to damage for every 1 point of success. Personally I think 1/5 is too little and 1/1 is too much, so I go with +1 to damage for every 3 points of success. Using that formula, combined with the 2D=7 rule of thumb, a starfighter pilot attacking a capital scale target has a likely result of +21 to Hit when rolling an additional 6D from the scale modifier. Applying the three different options above, that results in either +4, +7 or +21 added to the damage roll.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
Mojomoe
Commander
Joined: 10 Apr 2010
Posts: 442
Location: Seattle, WA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ok, I'll raise my hand and be the stupid one. What is RoE? |
|
| 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 Dec 31, 2015 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the RAW Lightly Damaged Chart, the ship suffers a Lost Move on a 6 result, but it also suffers a Lost Move on a 1 result if the ship's Maneuverability is reduced to 0D. Since this ship already has 0D Maneuverability, that means a 1 in 3 chance of hitting for a Lost Move on a Lightly Damaged result.
Then, on the Lost Moves chart, the results stack, with 4 Lost Move results leaving the ship disabled and 5 destroying it completely.
EDIT: This, in turn, does not take into account any house rules you might use for allowing smaller scale targets to make surgical strikes to inflict a specific kind of damage: a "called shot", as it were.
_________________
"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
Last edited by CRMcNeill on Thu Dec 31, 2015 5:06 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| 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 Dec 31, 2015 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mojomoe wrote: | | Ok, I'll raise my hand and be the stupid one. What is RoE? |
Sorry. RoE is Rules of Engagement: The SpecForce Handbook. On page 58, the book lists a few optional rules for allowing a good To Hit roll to increase damage. I'm proposing applying that rule to Starfighter attacks.
EDIT: It would be nice if there were a clearer short-hand to use when referring to it, but RoE is all I have at the moment.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10435
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 8:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I knew what you were referring to by RoE. There is an abbreviations reference thread that this can be added to if not already there.
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | I would like to apologize. I have been dealing with quite a bit of physical pain and some family issues which has left me a tad grumpy. |
Sorry to hear that! Been there. That sucks. I hope your pain lessens and the family issues improve.
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | Whill wrote: | | Is your contention that Han Solo is stupid? |
Okay to start off, no I am not saying that Han Solo is stupid. I never even insinuated it. So at least we can both agree on that. |
If you say so. I was just asking.
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | We don't know how long he has it had it, no mention is made it has any upgrades of any type. The only description given it is "it maneuvers like a concussed bantha" which should be telling in and of itself. |
Poor maneuverability is even more reason for the ship not being easily destroyed by starfighter-scale laser canons.
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | I don't think he has the ship for very long, maybe a few months to a year tops. As you pointed out, Solo would not fly around a crate without good reason. In this case, the Falcon has been stolen and this was the quickest, easiest ship he could lay his hands on given what credits he had on hand |
Your supposition of this bulk freighter being a quick and easy solution to the Falcon being stolen doesn't work because it was clearly established in the film that the Falcon has been parked on Jakku for years. That means it was stolen from Han years ago before it changed hands several times before ending up on Jakku for years. True that we don't know how long Han has had the bulk freighter, but if this was his only ship since the Falcon got stolen, he would have had years to deal with inadequacies.
| shootingwomprats wrote: | Why do I think a starfighter should be able to blow the snot out of this vehicle? Because its not constructed as a vessel of war. It does not have armored plating, high energy shields or constructed internally to operate as a vessel of war. What it does have is size. A starfighter is designed specifically to destroy things, mostly other combat designed vehicles. So I don't feel its a stretch to assume that a standard starfighter would have no issues either destroying or rendering a civilian vehicle inoperable.
I hate to make a real world comparison to Star Wars, but there isn't a large civilian transport that would remain operable or in the air if attacked even by a single F18. |
I also hate inapplicable real world comparisons. Earth airplanes do not have floating asteroids or flying air pirates that could swoop in and attack them. Air plane collisions are avoided by flight plans being filed and traffic control procedures, all here on one little planet. Your real world analogy is completely irrelevant to big ships flying throughout a galaxy.
| shootingwomprats wrote: | I also made an error. A ship can be Lightly damaged any number of times, its when it has been Heavily damaged that any further damage takes it to the next damage category. So this makes the 1D capital scale even more improbably of being able to stop the ship.
Ugh .... |
That sounds about right to me. I agree that this ship was not designed for combat with capital ships (or any ships), but I feel it would still be able to take some starfighter-scale damage regardless of how long Han has had it. But I'm not one to argue over stats which is why my comments were more general. Please carry on.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 1:10 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | IMO its a mix of size AND power... |
But in every instance where a vehicle is given a Scale out of proportion to its actual size (see the Skipray Blastboat and Gamma Assault Shuttle), there is a notation as to why. Scale based on power output is the exception, not the rule. |
True, those are the only 2 expressly listed as being bigger AND more powerful, but i feel some of the 'bulk freighters' qualify, cause of how much tonnage they haul.
| Shootingwamprats wrote: | don't think he has the ship for very long, maybe a few months to a year tops. As you pointed out, Solo would not fly around a crate without good reason. In this case, the Falcon has been stolen and this was the quickest, easiest ship he could lay his hands on given what credits he had on hand or he got this tub of crap specifically to haul the Rathtars. Heck we don't even know he owns the ship, he could be contracted to someone else or it could flat out be stolen.
Why do I think a starfighter should be able to blow the snot out of this vehicle? Because its not constructed as a vessel of war. It does not have armored plating, high energy shields or constructed internally to operate as a vessel of war. What it does have is size. A starfighter is designed specifically to destroy things, mostly other combat designed vehicles. So I don't feel its a stretch to assume that a standard starfighter would have no issues either destroying or rendering a civilian vehicle inoperable. |
So to your mindset, no freighter should have 3d or more in hull, to make it so any star fighter (combat designed aircraft) should be able to tear them apart? If that's the case, what of all the WEG presented freighters with 4d+2 and up hulls, such as the Surronian L-19 freighter which has a 6d hull?
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | True, those are the only 2 expressly listed as being bigger AND more powerful, but i feel some of the 'bulk freighters' qualify, cause of how much tonnage they haul. |
And as such, most Bulk Freighters in the RAW are actually Capital Scale.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16320
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 01, 2016 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
So, would you say that the containers carried on the external racks are the same size as the standard containers described in the Star Wars Sourcebook?
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 12:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | garhkal wrote: | | True, those are the only 2 expressly listed as being bigger AND more powerful, but i feel some of the 'bulk freighters' qualify, cause of how much tonnage they haul. |
And as such, most Bulk Freighters in the RAW are actually Capital Scale. |
Which is why i feel/see this as also a cap scale ship.
As to your latter question, i would think that would depend on what a standard container size is..
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| 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: Sat Jan 02, 2016 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| garhkal wrote: | | As to your latter question, i would think that would depend on what a standard container size is.. |
See pg. 45 & 47 of the Star Wars Sourcebook.
The smallest container size listed has a volume of 500 cubic meters, with no maximum weight capacity listed. Based on the standard size containers listed on page 47, the smallest would have dimensions of 5m x 10m x 10m. Probably the closest thing to this size in-universe is the containers in the Dark Forces II game, around 10 meters on a side and 5 meters high.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
garhkal
Sovereign Protector
Joined: 17 Jul 2005
Posts: 14213
Location: Reynoldsburg, Columbus, Ohio.
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 02, 2016 3:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
Ahh.. been a while since i even looked in the SW sourcebook.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Forceally
Commodore
Joined: 20 Feb 2007
Posts: 1060
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 20, 2016 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think you forgot to list the crew skills necessary to fly this craft. |
|
| 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: Sat May 21, 2016 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The cargo capacity for shipping containers on this stat seems awfully low. The standard containers listed in the Star Wars Sourcebook (combined with WEG's own formulas for cargo volume / cargo weight conversion) would result in the following:10 x 10 x 10 = 1,000 cubic meters (2,000 metric tons)
20 x 10 x 10 = 2,000 cubic meters (4,000 metric tons)
40 x 20 x 10 = 8,000 cubic meters (16,000 metric tons) Compared to that, 10 tons per container is practically nothing.
I'm curious what size the gaps are in the latticework, as in how big of a container could be fit in the gaps? 20x20? 40x40? Containers that are too large could be secured on either side of the lattice work, as well.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 607
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 22, 2024 3:19 pm Post subject: Flying Cinderblock/Office Building |
|
|
ATM, i'm recovering from another headache, but i've recently begun tackling this XXL Bantha in the room. This writeup is a good start, & not too far off.
I think in my version i'll have 2-4 Tractor Beams standard, & separate CC listings for the forward hold & the docked modules.
| Quote: | | Length 425.99 vs. 426 meters |
Since it's been a few years, how do you all feel about this odd little detail?
My 2ยข is the 1 cm is the acceptable margin for error when they're built. YMMV...
ERA. These are not new. These were & are "essential" to galactic commerce/trade, & have been for some time. Possibly predating the Clone Wars & being among the many ships the GR-75 was competing against.
When i have my writeups ready, should i post them here or start a new thread?
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
 
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
