I'm pretty sure it wasn't a balance issue since the Citadel class is less than half the length of the Wayfarer, has a much heavier armament, and kept its fighter capacity. And themewise given that VTOL capability is basically standard issue in Star Wars Fightercraft there is no reason I could see that a large transport couldn't support a pair of fighters.

Hmmm, interesting. I don't recall seeing the Citadel as an option for a starting PC ship. Maybe I just missed it...

Trust me I know that the Citadel can carry two fighters. I've captained two, and crewed on at least 3 in various campaigns. My problem with what FFG did is that the person who originally designed the Wayfarer intended for the design to have the option to carry pair of fighters and rather than respect that wish FFG decided they should include the Wayfarer but not include the fighter capacity or at least an option for it.

Wouldn't the hanger bay attachment be the exact option you are claiming doesn't exist?

Trust me I know that the Citadel can carry two fighters. I've captained two, and crewed on at least 3 in various campaigns. My problem with what FFG did is that the person who originally designed the Wayfarer intended for the design to have the option to carry pair of fighters and rather than respect that wish FFG decided they should include the Wayfarer but not include the fighter capacity or at least an option for it.

Wouldn't the hanger bay attachment be the exact option you are claiming doesn't exist?

I believe his hang-up is that the Wayfarer doesn't have that capability as the default .

And ccarlson101 has a very good point about "just because that's how it was done in the past" not being a valid reason to avoid changing things. As I noted previously, FFG has made quite a few changes to various ships in comparison to what prior RPG systems had listed for them.

For instance, in prior RPGs the stock YT-1300 only had a single dorsal light laser cannon, rather than the dorsal and ventral medium laser cannons the ship has under FFG's system. Also, the YT-2400 could carry 50% more cargo than the YT-1300 in both the WEG and d20 systems, yet under FFG's system it has less cargo capacity than the YT-1300. The stock Firespray in prior systems had a much beefier set of blaster cannons than the autoblasters that the FFG version is sporting. And those are just a few instances of FFG changing what came before to better suit their vision, and I'm sure there's plenty more, but the point pretty well stands... just because a prior license holder did one thing, doesn't mean FFG is beholden to do the exact same thing. RogueCorona may not like it, but there it stands.

Trust me I know that the Citadel can carry two fighters. I've captained two, and crewed on at least 3 in various campaigns. My problem with what FFG did is that the person who originally designed the Wayfarer intended for the design to have the option to carry pair of fighters and rather than respect that wish FFG decided they should include the Wayfarer but not include the fighter capacity or at least an option for it.

Wouldn't the hanger bay attachment be the exact option you are claiming doesn't exist?

I believe his hang-up is that the Wayfarer doesn't have that capability as the default .

And ccarlson101 has a very good point about "just because that's how it was done in the past" not being a valid reason to avoid changing things. As I noted previously, FFG has made quite a few changes to various ships in comparison to what prior RPG systems had listed for them.

For instance, in prior RPGs the stock YT-1300 only had a single dorsal light laser cannon, rather than the dorsal and ventral medium laser cannons the ship has under FFG's system. Also, the YT-2400 could carry 50% more cargo than the YT-1300 in both the WEG and d20 systems, yet under FFG's system it has less cargo capacity than the YT-1300. The stock Firespray in prior systems had a much beefier set of blaster cannons than the autoblasters that the FFG version is sporting. And those are just a few instances of FFG changing what came before to better suit their vision, and I'm sure there's plenty more, but the point pretty well stands... just because a prior license holder did one thing, doesn't mean FFG is beholden to do the exact same thing. RogueCorona may not like it, but there it stands.

But this is Star Wars, all previously established lore is immutable fact that can't be altered and must...oh wait...never mind...

Trust me I know that the Citadel can carry two fighters. I've captained two, and crewed on at least 3 in various campaigns. My problem with what FFG did is that the person who originally designed the Wayfarer intended for the design to have the option to carry pair of fighters and rather than respect that wish FFG decided they should include the Wayfarer but not include the fighter capacity or at least an option for it.

Wouldn't the hanger bay attachment be the exact option you are claiming doesn't exist?

I believe his hang-up is that the Wayfarer doesn't have that capability as the default .

And ccarlson101 has a very good point about "just because that's how it was done in the past" not being a valid reason to avoid changing things. As I noted previously, FFG has made quite a few changes to various ships in comparison to what prior RPG systems had listed for them.

For instance, in prior RPGs the stock YT-1300 only had a single dorsal light laser cannon, rather than the dorsal and ventral medium laser cannons the ship has under FFG's system. Also, the YT-2400 could carry 50% more cargo than the YT-1300 in both the WEG and d20 systems, yet under FFG's system it has less cargo capacity than the YT-1300. The stock Firespray in prior systems had a much beefier set of blaster cannons than the autoblasters that the FFG version is sporting. And those are just a few instances of FFG changing what came before to better suit their vision, and I'm sure there's plenty more, but the point pretty well stands... just because a prior license holder did one thing, doesn't mean FFG is beholden to do the exact same thing. RogueCorona may not like it, but there it stands.

Exactly.

If FFG wants to create a new variant of an existing design I have no problem with that but they should state that its a new model not just stick the old name and model number on it. A little more work perhaps but also a gesture of respect to those whose work proceeded FFG.

The Neutron Star class was a bit different because the creators of the WEG and WOTC Neutron Stars made it clear that the stats in those books were for a common modification of the design rather than the stock variant, and I don't mind changes made due to differences in the system's rules, like the Nebulon-B which has the same base armament in all the systems but different weapon groupings and firing arcs in each. However distinctly altering the abilities of a design which wasn't specified as being a modified variant in the Lore and giving the new form the same name and model number is IMO disrespectful to those who created the original.

Its not like it would take much more to differentiate between the old and new versions than sticking an extra letter at the end say a YT1300A instead of YT-1300, or Wayfarer-B instead of Wayfarer. That way FFG gets the stats it wants while acknowledging the work of the designers who came before them.

Perhaps FFG's way of nodding to the orignal Wayfarer was to slightly alter it's backstory so that the fighter bay was not included in the stock version, instead of the other way around. They didn't change much else about it.

IIRC, Sam Stewart (or perhaps Andy Fisher?) talked a bit about the Wayfarer on the O66 podcast. And again IIRC, the jist was "it was an oversight to not allow the fighter bay attachment on the Wayfarer; it'll probably be fixed in a later errata." But that is totally going on months-old memory. I'll be listening to that episode again tonight so I'll see if I can find it.

No offence to you all, but what can and cant be put on a ship is entirely up to the players of that specific game. If I want to have a Consular cruiser that can carry 6 fighters, a Skipray, a Suronian Conqurer, a HWK-290, 2 steath pods and a quartet of Commando droids, then there is only one person here whos complaints have any weight, and that is cause he is playing in the game. So put your Z-95 in the Ghtroc 720, your fighters in a Wayfarer, heck, put an AT-AT in an escape pod if you want. The only people who's opinion matters in that case is the players. If they like it, more power to you. If they dont, then you have a problem

Thank you to a voice of reason in the bunch. I've never understood these sticklers for exact by the book it's only the way types. We're playing a narrative system where the story is more important than the technical. Heck I let my players fit a Jedi Interceptor inside of a YT-2400 today in our game. I say having fun is better than being super technical.

Okay, sorry for the confusion.

A Wayfarer (pg 263-264) is a Silhouette 5 starship, and so is totally eligible for the retrofitted hangar bay attachment (pg 271). With just one modification (Hard mechanics check) and an extra 1,000 credits, you can make enough room for two Z-95s. A few more modifications, complete with difficulty increases, net you room for 1 additional starfighter.

(The conversation I was remembering earlier actually had to do with the usefulness of the Retrofitted hangar bay's Mod options for Silhouette 6-7 vehicles. Again, sorry for any confusion...I misinterpreted an earlier post and assumed for some reason that the Wayfarer was somehow ineligible for the hangar bay attachment)

Anyway, all that to say...I don't understand what the problem is. A Wayfarer can carry ships just fine. I'd rule that it even has room to carry 2 starfighters without a hangar bay...they just can't be launched mid-flight, since they'd just be sitting in the wayfarer's massive cargo containers.

No offence to you all, but what can and cant be put on a ship is entirely up to the players of that specific game. If I want to have a Consular cruiser that can carry 6 fighters, a Skipray, a Suronian Conqurer, a HWK-290, 2 steath pods and a quartet of Commando droids, then there is only one person here whos complaints have any weight, and that is cause he is playing in the game. So put your Z-95 in the Ghtroc 720, your fighters in a Wayfarer, heck, put an AT-AT in an escape pod if you want. The only people who's opinion matters in that case is the players. If they like it, more power to you. If they dont, then you have a problem

Thank you to a voice of reason in the bunch. I've never understood these sticklers for exact by the book it's only the way types. We're playing a narrative system where the story is more important than the technical. Heck I let my players fit a Jedi Interceptor inside of a YT-2400 today in our game. I say having fun is better than being super technical.

Well...more like the voice of silliness. But I suppose the silliness was meant to be getting the point across.

"By the book" discussions do have their place, especially when one is asking rules questions. And appealing to common sense is hardly being a stickler. Further, "narrative" does not necessarily equate with "non-technical." Neither are "technical" and "fun" mutually exclusive. I would contend that, for some groups, a super-technical narrative IS fun.

However, I would agree that fun trumps anything. If your group is all about the silliness, then by all means have your clownship stuffed with all manner of vehicles. Blatant disregard for the rules can be fun, but be warned that it can also strain the credibility of your campaign and (I speak from experience) lead to shenanigans under the pretense of "but you let us do it LAST time..."