| 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: Wed Dec 30, 2015 12:11 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
And yet the definition of Scale is entirely about size. Sorry, but a Starfighter-Scale ship in the same size rating as a Strike Cruiser is just too implausible for me to take seriously.
_________________
"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 |
|
 |
jmanski
Arbiter-General (Moderator)
Joined: 06 Mar 2005
Posts: 2065
Location: Kansas
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 5:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | Mojomoe wrote: | | Only 185,000? Does that seem a bit low? |
Keep in mind this is just the cargo bay that doubles as hangar bay. I figured it was probably big enough 4-6 Millennium Falcons stacked on one another. So I came up with an arbitrary number for what I thought would fit for a "flying warehouse".
I have also added the "lattice cargo array" which could hold another 2,020 metric tons. Giving the ship a total of 3,850,20 metric tons. That's a BUNCH!
| garhkal wrote: | | Also at that size i don't see it being a starfighter scale ship. I see it as a cap ship. |
I had thought about this and to me "capital" means more than just "big". To me that means a ship armored up and ready to rumble. A large ship like this and the Action IV in my mind are nothing more than BIG. That doesn't make them tough. To me a single TIE should be able to blow an Action IV out of the sky by itself. That is my justification for not giving this a scale of capital but making it starfighter. |
But the Action IV is Capital scale. And it's only 125m long.
/argumentativeness
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2690
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Welp guys you can make it Capital scale in your game, but to me it makes little sense. It has been one of my longstanding issues with scale in the game.
To me a capital ship is more than just its size. To me, as I have already stated is a ship specifically stated as being made for battle. There is no way a large merchant ship is the same difficulty to damage than say even the smallest "war" ship. A merchant ship is not designed the same, nor does it have the same "armor".
I pointed this out previously as well, a made for war fighter should be able to blow just about any size merchant ship out of the water. Or at the very least damage it do badly it would be a sitting duck in open water. That is my rationale for this ship to be considered starfighter scale and not capital. It has nothing to do with size and everything to do with durability.
Addendum: looking through the main rules there is no description defining size to a scale. In fact under scale description for starships it states the scale is either starfighter or capital. That is all it says. Nothing is ever said about length of a vehicle. I think this is real-world ideas creeping into a game meant to be fast, loose and mechanically light.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| 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: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, page 95:"The game uses 'scales' to show the difference between different sizes and types of objects.""
Real World definition: "the relative size or extent of something."
I fail to see why it has to be Starfighter-Scale. Why can't it be Capital (big, slow and clumsy) with a 1D Hull and either no shields or 1D shields? That still puts it in threat range for proton torpedo armed starfighters, and makes it even less capable of dodging.
And if it were just some random posting stats, I probably would blow it off, but if you follow pattern, this will eventually be included in Womp Rat Press' The Force Awakens Sourcebook, which means (IMO) it should be held to a higher standard. And when multiple long-time members of this forum are telling you it is a problem, that is something you should take into consideration.
_________________
"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: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | I had thought about this and to me "capital" means more than just "big". To me that means a ship armored up and ready to rumble. A large ship like this and the Action IV in my mind are nothing more than BIG. That doesn't make them tough. To me a single TIE should be able to blow an Action IV out of the sky by itself. That is my justification for not giving this a scale of capital but making it starfighter. |
But then, isn't a starfighter by definition something that is small, fast and nimble, with minimal crew and heavily armed for its size? If you are going strictly by what something sounds like, then this ship isn't really Starfighter Scale, either. WEG made plenty of large Transports Capital Scale, even though they would be dead meat in a fight with actual warships.
_________________
"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: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | And yet the definition of Scale is entirely about size. Sorry, but a Starfighter-Scale ship in the same size rating as a Strike Cruiser is just too implausible for me to take seriously. |
IMO its a mix of size AND power...
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2690
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| crmcneill wrote: | | I fail to see why it has to be Starfighter-Scale. Why can't it be Capital (big, slow and clumsy) with a 1D Hull and either no shields or 1D shields? That still puts it in threat range for proton torpedo armed starfighters, and makes it even less capable of dodging. |
Capital is +6D to Starfighter, so a freighter with 1D would actually be 7D vs a starfighter. Meaning the only time in which is may be threatened would be with a proton torpedo. This seems silly to me. I would think laser cannons would tear apart. That is my contention. Now give it 1D hull and 1D shields then your looking at a 8D soak. Now even proton torpedoes will have a tough time hurting it (9D) and those are the MOST powerful weapons a starfighter can really use. Again, this is my issue.
| crmcneill wrote: | | And if it were just some random posting stats, I probably would blow it off, but if you follow pattern, this will eventually be included in Womp Rat Press' The Force Awakens Sourcebook, which means (IMO) it should be held to a higher standard. And when multiple long-time members of this forum are telling you it is a problem, that is something you should take into consideration. |
Higher standard? Not to take exception to this, but I always strive to hold my work to a high standard. I understand you may feel strongly about this, even to the point of creating your own custom scale system because you also saw fault in the WEG mechanics, but let us keep this friendly and constructive.
I will not be bullied sir. I am not ignoring peoples suggestions. I have just made it clear of why I have made the current ruling. Other than, "this is how we have always done it" I have not been given a reasonable explanation of why it should not be starfighter scale even though I have explained my decision twice.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| 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 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | Again, this is my issue. |
I get that, but there are other solutions in the RAW that are more realistic than giving a 426-meter bulk freighter the same basic performance and Hull stats as a 26.7-meter stock YT-1300. Don't forget, the +6D scale modifier is also added to the Baleen's Maneuverability, which gives it a default Maneuverability of 6D when dodging attacks from Capital Ships, even smaller ones like the Corellian Corvette or Nebulon B. That makes this barge the cargo-ship equivalent of an A-Wing against capital ships. No ship of this size and design could realistically be that maneuverable.
A more workable solution would be the Optional Damage Rules from RoE (whichever version of that you prefer), since a starfighter attacking a capital ship would get a +6D bonus to Fire Control, which would then convert to a damage bonus based on how well they shoot. In-universe, this can be expressed as starfighters targeting gaps in shield coverage, or shooting at particular weak points of the ship to inflict far greater damage than they would do just by making a random strafing run. The Ship Location Targeting Rules from Pirates & Privateers are also an option, if a somewhat less workable one than the RoE Optional Damage Rules.
And don't forget that, when using the RAW for starship shields, that 1D can only be put in one arc, or split into a maximum of +1 covering 3 separate arcs. Shifting the shields to cover attacks from multiple arcs by multiple craft result in gaps which multiple attacking starfighters can capitalize on.
Also, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that a TIE fighter should be able to blow this thing apart. There is nothing in the films to show that this is the case, so I'm at a loss to understand why you feel so insistent that a ship this size should be that fragile. The above rules allow TIEs to at least damage ships this size (if properly coordinated), but where is the precedent (either in the SWU or the real world) for a fighter taking out a ship this size with just its machineguns? Even in WWII, fighters could only hope to damage most transports with rockets, bombs or torpedoes.
| Quote: | | I will not be bullied sir. I am not ignoring peoples suggestions. I have just made it clear of why I have made the current ruling. Other than, "this is how we have always done it" I have not been given a reasonable explanation of why it should not be starfighter scale even though I have explained my decision twice. |
It's not about bullying. garhkal, Mojomoe, jmanski and myself have all expressed reservations with this decision, and we bring a lot of years of combined experience with SW D6 to the table. The fact that multiple, experienced gamers are questioning the same extreme and unorthodox choice you made for this stat should give you at least some pause.
If the ship were much smaller (like in the 125 meter range, rather than ~425), I would be far less inclined to quibble, but making a 426 meter long bulk freighter Starfighter scale exceeds even WEG's most blatant scale system failures (like putting the tiny AT-PT into the Walker Scale class just because it was a Walker, or making a 200-meter submersible aircraft carrier Walker-Scale, even though that made it 1 scale step lower than the dozen starfighters it can carry).
_________________
"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: Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
"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: Thu Dec 31, 2015 1:06 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | I understand you may feel strongly about this, even to the point of creating your own custom scale system because you also saw fault in the WEG mechanics... |
As an aside, the 6D split was a big part of why I started looking at adjusting the scale chart in the first place. Under my system, moving most of the smaller Capital Ships down to +4D moves them a lot closer to the threat range for starfighters, and makes it a lot easier to straddle the gap between Starfighter and Capital Ship when making stats for ships in that size range.
_________________
"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 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | Capital is +6D to Starfighter, so a freighter with 1D would actually be 7D vs a starfighter. Meaning the only time in which is may be threatened would be with a proton torpedo. This seems silly to me. I would think laser cannons would tear apart. That is my contention. |
Where are you getting the idea that laser canons would easily tear this ship apart? I don't think Han and Chewie would fly around in something that would so easily get them killed. That's pure and utter pirate bait. Just because the Falcon got stolen, doesn't mean they would fly any piece of bantha poodu for their smuggling enterprises. That concept seems silly to me. Is your contention that Han Solo is stupid? I vehemently disagree.
| crmcneill wrote: | | And if it were just some random posting stats, I probably would blow it off, but if you follow pattern, this will eventually be included in Womp Rat Press' The Force Awakens Sourcebook, which means (IMO) it should be held to a higher standard. |
Is "Womp Rat Press" pumping out a TFA Sourcebook?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2690
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 12:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First off 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 those who wished to express opinions that I mistook as "bullying".
Moving along.
You make a good point about the +6D to dodge which I had forgotten about. You are right in that this specific ship and some others, does seem to straddle the line that the rules cannot take into account except with special rules, which is annoying.
So, suggestions? My thoughts on this are there is just no way that the freighter should be afforded the +6D to its hull soak as it is not designed as a "fighting ships" or my definition of a capital ship. As pointed out, its flies "like a concussed bantha" (quoted in the Visual Dictionary and I think Ep VII) and should be an easy target for both starfighters and capital ships alike.
A straightforward suggestion would be to make it starfighter scale and give it a maneuverability of -6D. This seems wonky to me.
The other option is to make it capital scale (making it even easier for starfighter scale to hit) but adding in under Game Notes something to the effect "do to its construction as a civilian craft it does not get the sale bonus to hull soak". This seems to work best for me.
As an aside. If some starfighter scale weapons are added to a capital scale and it is firing at a starfighter scale, there is no bonus to damage or target's dodge? Only if capital scale weapons are being fired at a starfighter scale target? This is how I do it in my games. The reason I bring it up, if a captain decided to place weapons the ship how would you run it. Also, and this could be important, would you as a GM allow the captain to put capital scale weapons on the vehicle? Thoughts anyone?
Me I think I would allow capital scale weapons only because of the vast amount of space it has available, but I would perhaps in increase the difficulty and cost because of the need to run additional powers lines, install relays and additional upgrades. Even with that I would probably give the ship some sort of quirk related to the weapon(s) and/or lower the weapons damage value.
| Whill wrote: | | Where are you getting the idea that laser canons would easily tear this ship apart? I don't think Han and Chewie would fly around in something that would so easily get them killed. That's pure and utter pirate bait. Just because the Falcon got stolen, doesn't mean they would fly any piece of bantha poodu for their smuggling enterprises. That concept seems silly to me. Is your contention that Han Solo is stupid? I vehemently disagree. |
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. I will point out you're making some assumptions as to Han's current ship. 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.
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 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.
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.
| Whill wrote: | | Is "Womp Rat Press" pumping out a TFA Sourcebook? |
I have been in the process of giving stats to anything that has a reasonable amount of information about it to feasibly do so. I have been approached by another person who wishes to collaborate with the idea of eventually producing GG19: The Force Awakens, which would fall under the WRP offerings.
As I have pointed out to others, the biggest issue with doing this is not the large amount of material but a lack of information about things. I am sure this information will slowly come out, but for us who want it now? Well, we will just have to wait.
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| 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 3:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| shootingwomprats wrote: | | First off 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 those who wished to express opinions that I mistook as "bullying". |
Think nothing of it; I've been there myself.
| Quote: | | The other option is to make it capital scale (making it even easier for starfighter scale to hit) but adding in under Game Notes something to the effect "do to its construction as a civilian craft it does not get the sale bonus to hull soak". This seems to work best for me. |
First, some perspective. While WEG's stats are best viewed with a critical eye, the Millenium Falcon (as of the Classic Era) has a Hull of 6D, with 3D Shields for a total soak of 9D Starfighter Scale. If you were to give the Baleen Capital Scale with 1D Hull and 1D Shields, that comes to a combined soak of 8D Starfighter Scale. If you take the Shields out of the equation, the Baleen beats the much smaller Falcon by only 1D (1D Hull + 6D Scale = 7D Hull vs. 6D Hull). Considering the vast difference in size, the relative similarity in soak capacity indicates a very fragile ship.
Also, it would help a lot if you could explain why it is so important that a ship this size be so vulnerable to attack from a tiny fighter. There is no reference I can find in any official descriptions of the Baleen-Class to justify this extreme fragility. You seem insistent that this thing should be as fragile as a soap bubble in addition to maneuvering like a concussed bantha, with no apparent basis other than that you feel it should be that way, which is, IMO, a very dubious basis for such an extreme stat choice. Quite frankly, with numbers this crappy, I would only take one of these ships in an emergency and get rid of it at the earliest opportunity. There is nothing here stat-wise that would make me want to keep this thing, especially when there are more durable and capable ships on the market.
That being said, if you are adamant that the ship should be as fragile as the Hindenburg on a landing approach, I would suggest making the ship Capital Scale with a 1D Hull, then including a special rule along the lines of:Special: Fragile
The Baleen-Class is designed as a commercial vessel, not a combatant. As such, it suffers a -2D penalty to all Hull rolls vs. weapon attacks. This penalty does not apply to collisions or environmental damage. This way, anyone who disagrees with you on the ship being so fragile can ignore the Special rule and still make use of the stat.
| Quote: | | As an aside. If some starfighter scale weapons are added to a capital scale and it is firing at a starfighter scale, there is no bonus to damage or target's dodge? Only if capital scale weapons are being fired at a starfighter scale target? This is how I do it in my games. The reason I bring it up, if a captain decided to place weapons the ship how would you run it. Also, and this could be important, would you as a GM allow the captain to put capital scale weapons on the vehicle? Thoughts anyone? |
In most stats, if starfighter-scale weapons are mounted on a capital-scale ship, they are noted as being of a different 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: Thu Dec 31, 2015 3:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 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. |
TIE Fighter = 9 meters
F18 = 17.1 meters
C5 Galaxy = 75.3 meters
Gerald R. Ford-Class Aircraft Carrier = 337 meters
TI-Class Supertanker = 380 meters
Maersk Triple E-Class Container Ship = 400 meters
Baleen-Class Heavy Freighter = 425.99 meters
Perhaps you should adjust your scale comparisons...
An F18 limited to using only its cannon could do some damage to a supertanker or a container ship, but would have to place its shots very well to do so, by targeting the ship's bridge or by trying to breach a fuel or oil tank. To really have a chance, it would have to be carrying ordnance, such as bombs or anti-ship missiles.
Same principle for a TIE fighter.
_________________
"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 |
|
|
shootingwomprats
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Sep 2013
Posts: 2690
Location: Online
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Those are some great ideas, I especially like the "environmental effects" inclusion. Keep in mind this vessel currently has a 4D hull, that is a far cry from a "soap bubble". In fact a typical TIE/ln does 5D.
Lets say it hits the freighter on an unshielded side (a probability with on 1D shields). A typical roll would look like this: TIE 18 damage, freighter 14, barely a lightly damaged result. Using the damage progression (Light, hit by light again, go to Heavy and so on) the freighter would be able to take 3 hits before being to Severely damaged and a 50/50 chance it will be destroyed.
If we decided to go with the 1D hull +6D scale = 7D then we are looking at an average hull soak of 25 vs the TIE's 18 average damage, making it extremely unlikely a TIE/ln would be be to any significant damage to it.
This is indeed a dilemma. The reason I have been so adamant to go with the capital scale bonus to hull soak is to address what I see as a fairly significant hole in the mechanics.
On the flips side of this. If you made the ship 1D hull and capital scale it could last a considerable amount of time vs even 2 or more TIE/ln's but it would be dog food against a capital ship: 1D hull averages 4 and a turbolaser averages 15-18 (4-5D), placing average damage at Heavily or Severely damaged, with the average being in the Severe range. Basically if hit by a capital scale weapon there is a fair chance it will be utterly destroyed 50% of the time from single shot.
Hmmm would it be any better with what I am suggesting though? 4D averages 15, the capital scale weapons (+6D) would average 36-39 placing it essentially in the same range. Yes there is a difference, but not a huge one. I am comfortable is saying they are comparable.
So the difference really falls into the sturdiness versus starfighter scale weapons. Keeping it starfighter scale it would be damaged with every shot. Whereas if it was capital scale it has a very good chance of taking mostly Lightly damaged with a good chance of Heavily damaged but unlikely to be Severely damage unless there are some really crappy rolls for the freighter pilot or outstanding rolls by the TIE pilot.
Well wait a minute. Once a ship is Lightly damaged if it ever gets hit for Light damage again it goes directly to Heavily and if hit again for a Light it will go to Severely. I forgot how deadly space combat is. Okay this could possibly change things a touch.
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.
Ugh ....
_________________
Don Diestler
Host, Shooting Womp Rats
The D6 Podcast
http://d6holocron.com/shootingwomprats
@swd6podcast, Twitter |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
