| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gry Sarth
Jedi
Joined: 25 May 2004
Posts: 5304
Location: Sao Paulo - Brazil
|
 Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:04 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Is this "Space Range" actually supposed to be "Space Blast Radius"? They are different things.
_________________
"He's Gry Sarth, of course he has the stats for them." |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Raven Redstar
Rear Admiral
Joined: 10 Mar 2009
Posts: 2648
Location: Salem, OR
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I assumed that it was blast radius. Anything gets within 3 spaces takes damage when it explodes. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 6:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Part of the problem is that I was trying to stay as consistent as I could to the only existing WEG stat that I could find on Mines. It's found in the Starships stats book, though I'm not sure where the original statblock from this one came from. I'm guessing one of the New Republic versions of the ship:
| Quote: |
Mine Layer (16 mines) (New Republic)
Fire Arc: Right
Skill: Starship gunnery
Fire Control: 0D (can be detonated by remote or timer)
Space Range: 1-3/7
Atmosphere Range: 50-100/300/700
Damage: 6D (each) |
It states that it has a space range, but not a blast radius. Of course, with the way it's statted out here, it really doesn't make all that much sense without any flavor text.
However, it would be more consistent with how explosives are generally described if I just gave it a blast radius.
I'll fix it.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfe
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 91
Location: earth-need a vacation
|
| Posted: Tue Sep 15, 2009 10:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That stat block came from Cracken's Threat Dossier, it was the mine launcher that the Millenium Falcon had during the Black Fleet crisis.
One of the modifications made by Chewbacca when he went to go rescue Solo.
I would remove the fire arc so people don't think it's limited to the right fire arc firing, as that is just where Chewie put it is all.
| Quote: | | I'd be scared of the Seismic charge mines, the ones that Jango uses... *eep* |
I wouldn't be, they are pretty much junk, good for only a brief distraction or for use in an asteroid belt where the explosion causes the asteroids to shift.
The blast "radius" is a flat plane has only width and no real height to it (giant expanding "circle" and not a "globe" as an explosion normally would be) you wouldn't need to be a Jedi to "dodge" that one.
I've never liked the multi hex "blast radius" for space combat, it is just way too easy to wipe out all the party members without even trying (been there, done that, not doing that again).
It would be even worse if your one of the people who likes using the rule where such things go right through shields (like a missile).
They make great plot devices to strand the players though.
There is also the EMP-ION mine found in the Wraith Squadron novel , I don't think those are found in ANY game book yet (don't have all the WOTC books so don't know), the book even tells you how to build one.
They not only act as Ion mines, they also wipe the memory of ALL the non-heavily protected computers, droids and what not on board as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ccatkins
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 08 Dec 2007
Posts: 107
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 9:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheshire wrote: | | It is. THough it seemst aht one emplacement point seems to occupy somewhere between 1 and 5 tons of cargo space by D6 standards, rather than they suggest in the early points of their chapter. |
I see tonnage as physical weight tsaken up with the new equipment, whereas emplacement points is for all of the wiring and strain on current systems. So the rules kind of complement each other? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ccatkins wrote: | | cheshire wrote: | | It is. THough it seemst aht one emplacement point seems to occupy somewhere between 1 and 5 tons of cargo space by D6 standards, rather than they suggest in the early points of their chapter. |
I see tonnage as physical weight tsaken up with the new equipment, whereas emplacement points is for all of the wiring and strain on current systems. So the rules kind of complement each other? |
They would seem to be a compliment if they weren't mutually exclusive based on system. *shrug*
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfe
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 91
Location: earth-need a vacation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 11:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
That is a pity isn't it.
Was hoping that the D6 space would have a decent ship construction rules set to use for star wars.
Unfortunately it was misplaced hope.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BreederofPuppets
Ensign
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 12:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| wolfe wrote: | That is a pity isn't it.
Was hoping that the D6 space would have a decent ship construction rules set to use for star wars.
Unfortunately it was misplaced hope. |
What are some complaints about the d6 Space system? I'm familiar with a few (ship size/scale doesn't effect cost/mass of engines, limited weapons, can purchase a better computer for piloting and sensor stations, and can purchase better maneuverability, but not better sensors), but I am guessing there is something more to it?
d6 Space looks descent, and slightly better organized, but I've heard a lot of complaints without specifics. anyone got anything about it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I could tell you my beefs, but it's probably worth a new thread to talk about it. BTW, you can get the sourcebook as a (legal) free download.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfe
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 91
Location: earth-need a vacation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 16, 2009 2:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| You can get all the core books free now that they went open gaming license. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BreederofPuppets
Ensign
Joined: 23 Aug 2009
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 2:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| cheshire wrote: | | I could tell you my beefs, but it's probably worth a new thread to talk about it. BTW, you can get the sourcebook as a (legal) free download. |
Right, I'll do a search first, then maybe post a thread.
Got the pdf already. Also got the actual book.
So, what looks easier to yawl? Converting Starships of the galaxy or updating/fixing the d6 Space rules? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I had someone asking about Cargo Pods. They're here. Comments welcome.
| Quote: |
Light Cargo Pod
Model: Starfire Inc. Eyu’muv 389 Cargopod
Type: External cargo carrier
Scale: Starfighter
Cost: 500
Weight: 0 metric tons
Availability: 1
Game Notes: A light cargo pod is an external cargo carrying container. Each light cargo pod provides an additional 50 tons of cargo space, though these tons may not be used for further upgrades. Each time a cargo pod is added, it removes -2 from a ship’s maneuverability. A ship is limited to the amount of cargo containers it may attach to the hull, insofar as a ship cannot reduce its maneuverability below 0D. Cargo pods may be made detachable and reattach-able for five times the cost.
Source: Starships of the Galaxy (page 48, 49)
|
| Quote: |
Medium Cargo Pod
Model: Garadian Industries Hauler-81g
Type: External cargo carrier
Scale: Starfighter
Cost: 1,000
Weight: 3 metric tons (for heavy attachment hard points)
Availability: 1
Game Notes: A cargo pod is an external cargo carrying container. Each medium cargo pod provides an additional 250 tons of cargo space, though these tons may not be used for further upgrades. Each time a cargo pod is added, it removes -1D+1 from a ship’s maneuverability. A ship is limited to the amount of cargo containers it may attach to the hull, insofar as a ship cannot reduce its maneuverability below 0D. Cargo pods may be made detachable and reattach-able for five times the cost.
Source: Starships of the Galaxy (page 48, 49)
|
| Quote: |
HeavyCargo Pod
Model: Xenostar Engineering Corporation Massmover-60
Type: External cargo carrier
Scale: Capital
Cost: 1,500
Weight: 10 metric tons
Availability: 1
Game Notes: A cargo pod is an external cargo carrying container. Each heavy cargo pod provides an additional 500 tons of cargo space, though these tons may not be used for further upgrades. Each time a cargo pod is added, it removes -2 from a ship’s maneuverability. A ship is limited to the amount of cargo containers it may attach to the hull, insofar as a ship cannot reduce its maneuverability below 0D. Cargo pods may be made detachable and reattach-able for five times the cost.
Source: Starships of the Galaxy (page 48, 49)
|
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 17, 2009 11:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeeeahh.. they made a cloaking device. I didn't invent it... I'm just converting it (with a strong warning of my own).
| Quote: |
Cloaking Device
Model: Pygidium Industries Vanisher 7
Type: Stygium crystal cloaking device
Scale: Starfighter
Cost: 100,000,000
Weight: 5 metric tons
Availability: 4, X
Game Notes: Any ship hidden by a stygium crystal cloaking device can only be detected by a Heroic Sensors roll. However, if the presence of the ship is known, the ship may be attacked normally. Stygium crystal cloaking devices were in use during the Old Republic, however the diminishing supply of stygium crystals made them effectively non-existent during the Empire.
Editor’s Note: Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters has the following to say on page 41: “To date, there is no working cloaking device known in Imperial space. The discovery of a working cloaking shield would be worth hundreds of millions of credits for the sentient lucky enough to find or construct one. Of course, for that kind of money, just about every major crimelord, smuggler, bounty hunter, government and scientist would kill to obtain it…” It is highly advisable that the gamemaster think carefully before making such technology available to players.
Source: Starships of the Galaxy (page 48, 49), Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters (page 41)
|
| Quote: |
Cloaking Device
Model: Vlastdros Engineering Blackstar Cloaking Device
Type: Hibridium ore cloaking device
Scale: Capital
Cost: 50,000
Weight: 15 metric tons
Availability: 4, X
Game Notes: Any ship hidden by a hibridium ore cloaking device renders a starship double-blind. No sensors or visual perception can penetrate the inside or outside of the cloaking field.
Editor’s Note: Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters has the following to say on page 41: “To date, there is no working cloaking device known in Imperial space. The discovery of a working cloaking shield would be worth hundreds of millions of credits for the sentient lucky enough to find or construct one. Of course, for that kind of money, just about every major crimelord, smuggler, bounty hunter, government and scientist would kill to obtain it…” It is highly advisable that the gamemaster think carefully before making such technology available to players.
Source: Starships of the Galaxy (page 48, 49), Galaxy Guide 6: Tramp Freighters (page 41)
|
I made the second kind Capital scale to try to keep some continuity to the line, "No ship that small has a cloaking device." However, it should be consistent with the way that Thrawn had used it in the Zahn Trilogy.
I'm not thrilled with their existence, but comments are still welcome. [/quote]
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wolfe
Lieutenant
Joined: 03 Mar 2004
Posts: 91
Location: earth-need a vacation
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Pods are an interesting idea but doesn't work from direct conversion from Saga.
Some how a capital scale container ship that can carry a great many various capacity containers/pods with the smallest of the containers/pods capable of holding 1000 tons, yet just one of Saga converted pods will cause it to lose maneuverability?
Many civilian capital ships don't even have a maneuverability rating so it couldn't even carry one of these pods.
There are 8 external pods for the YT1300 that holds a total of 100 tons (roughly 12.5 tons each) no effect to handling, in fact the only effect seen on template is hyperspace increased to x3.
(Rebel Alliance source book)
yet, It couldn't carry even one of those little pods as it has no maneuver rating.
BD-27 transport carries a cargo container/pod that holds 75,000 tons, (without a pod there's no handling change), yet it is incapable of carrying one light cargo pod as it doesn't have maneuverability rating.
The Suwantek TL-1800 has two cargo pods that carries 145 tons each (ship total cargo 400 tons) with no loss to maneuverability, it just can't enter atmosphere with them on.
You also don't have an explanation listed as to why anyone would bother even using the smaller pods at all if the 500 ton cargo pod makes the ship lose just as much maneuverability as a 50 ton pod.
The pods were very badly thought out (if at all) for Saga by WOTC to begin with.
Example with the smallest possible pods.
A one ton cargo capacity pod makes a ship lose the same amount of handling as a 10 ton cargo pod and these make a ship lose as much handling as a 50,000 ton capacity pod (largest possible pod).
The direct conversion makes it so that an A-wing could carry more pods then most other fighters and freighters.
The tiny Z-10 Seeker can carry far more pods then the much larger CE-2 transport (which was designed to carry pods) and the even smaller A-wing could carry more pods than both of them.
This is only the beginning of problems see with it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheshire
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 04 Jan 2004
Posts: 4855
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
So do you think we should do a re-design from the ground up, or skip them entirely?
If it's the former, what kind of mechanic do you suggest?
| Quote: |
You also don't have an explanation listed as to why anyone would bother even using the smaller pods at all if the 500 ton cargo pod makes the ship lose just as much maneuverability as a 50 ton pod. |
That means I should have been more explicit in my intent that a starfighter class ship could not carry a Capital class cargo pod.
_________________
__________________________________
Before we take any of this too seriously, just remember that in the middle episode a little rubber puppet moves a spaceship with his mind. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
