Deckplans and game stats for a stock version of the Ghost. I did my best to research anything I could get ahold of (see this thread ), but I'm sure there will be changes once the Rebels series is released.

Link to 3-page PDF:

The VCX-100

Update 1 - Roof access, stat block, missing panels in cockpit

Update 2 - Corrected Hard Points to 4 as originally intended. 8/30/2014.

Preview:

You've made it rather high-end. It's performance is equal to the YT-2400 while having greater cargo capacity than the YT-1300. There's no real negatives to this vessel compared to the YT-2400, so perhaps it should cost a bit more.

You've made it rather high-end. It's performance is equal to the YT-2400 while having greater cargo capacity than the YT-1300. There's no real negatives to this vessel compared to the YT-2400, so perhaps it should cost a bit more.

I was thinking of handling -1 due to the increased bulk, but dropped it. Perhaps putting that back in and a slight cost increase?

Edit: Ok dropped handling to -1. That makes the YT-2400 still the hot rod compared to this modern but bulky ship. I also dropped modifications to 4 from 5, which goes along better with the fluff text I added. I kept the price the same.

Thanks for the input.

I like it. Our group has one of the guys as our stock model and we're going to be using your schematic it looks like.

I like the idea of the attached fighter, but it seems a tad powerful to give to a starting out group. I'd like to do the modification as the story progresses though. So I like your layout without it, though maybe have a 3rd upper deck as a small cargo bay that would be where the Fighter takes up space if present.

I like it. Our group has one of the guys as our stock model and we're going to be using your schematic it looks like.

I like the idea of the attached fighter, but it seems a tad powerful to give to a starting out group. I'd like to do the modification as the story progresses though. So I like your layout without it, though maybe have a 3rd upper deck as a small cargo bay that would be where the Fighter takes up space if present.

Thanks!

Already planned ahead for that. If we are going by the Lego version of the Ghost, I figure the Phantom can lie on top of the deck above the engines. This way, the ladder that leads down to engineering in my sketch can also lead up and into the Phantom. Thus, little modification to the deckplan. Come to think of it, I should probably go ahead and add a top hatch in the stock version since we've seen such in past transports. There should be easy access to the roof! I will put it in the next update. DONE.

If the Phantom ends up stuck to one of the docking rings, well that works too.

Also for the Ghost, I've been predicting the "flood lamps" conceal some sort of weapon such as concussion missile launchers. I left room in the deckplans to show where these go also.

I like it. It's tougher than my own variant, but also less customisable and less manoeuvrable. A fair exchange I think. Yours is also more expensive. Nicely done.

Unless I'm mistaken here the YT-2400 is pretty much the cutting edge of light freighters in the classic trilogy era. And Rebels take place several years before the battle of Yavin. So while it certainly is possible that the actual Ghost might have better-than-average stats due to extensive modifications (much like the Falcon) I personally feel that the stock VC-100 should be substatially less awesome.

Unless I'm mistaken here the YT-2400 is pretty much the cutting edge of light freighters in the classic trilogy era. And Rebels take place several years before the battle of Yavin. So while it certainly is possible that the actual Ghost might have better-than-average stats due to extensive modifications (much like the Falcon) I personally feel that the stock VC-100 should be substatially less awesome.

Until we know more, I would assume it's newer then the YT-1300 but older then the YT-2400. Here are comparisons of the performance stats of the 1300, VCX-100, and 2400:

YT-1300 / VCX-100 / YT-2400

Speed: 3 / 3 / 3

Handling: -1 / -1 / +0

Shields: 1--1 for all three

HT: 22 / 25 / 25 (I tout the VC-100 as a bigger 2 deck ship dedicated to cargo)

SS: 15 / 15 / 18

Armor: 3 / 3 / 4 (hmm, typo there, my pencil notes say 3 armor, my PDF has 4, I will correct it)

Primary Hyper: 2 / 2 / 2

Backup Hyper: 12 / 15 / 12

Encumbrance: 165 / 180 / 140 (again, I designed the VC-100 as stressing cargo)

Hard Points: 6 / 4 / 5

Cost: 100k / 130k / 130k

Comparing to the YT-1300, it carrys more cargo and +2 HT but with a loss of 2 hard points.

Comparing to the newer YT-2400, it carrys more cargo, but has less hard points, less SS, less armor (with my correction), and poorer handling.

I think that is substantially less awesome then the YT-2400. Heck, compared to the YT-1300 I don't think it is the best choice unless cargo is important to you. That was my intention so that works for me.

After comparing these side by side, perhaps I should even drop the VCX-100's cost a bit? It is newer (until we are told differently) then the YT-1300 but older then the YT-2400. Drop price to 115k?

Keeping it at or below 120k would allow it to be a starting starship, which could be cool I think.

I agree, for obvious reasons, that the cargo should as is.

I gave it less HTT, but armour 4 as being larger doesn't mean it can take more trauma (it could be easier to cripple it), but perhaps it is slightly more armoured or solid... I might have this turned around though, it's been a while.

As for the amount of CHP, I gave it an equal amount to the YT-1300, but perhaps I should also give it -1 handling and reduce the CHP to 5. That way it wouldn't be a definite replacement for the YT-1300...

Is the 4 hard points too much of a crippling? My thoughts were thus. The YT-2400 has 5. The YT-1300 is known for being highly modifiable, so has 6. In my fluff for my version of the VCX-100, I included some history that included past ships of the VCX line that had poor performance issues using typical thrusters on the bulkier cargo ship. The VCX-100 included factory upgrades with added secondary thrusters (above what perhaps the VCX-80 had). I interpreted this in-game as using up a modification HP on the factory floor. Staring with the YT default of 5, I dropped the VCX-100 to 4.

Is that too much? Should it remain at 5 with the stats I've given it?

Well, that's hard to say. I think 4 is a bit low for a CEC ship, but then I'm probably too fond of CHPs and therefore biased and poor judge of these things... but CEC ships are supposed to be more customisable than other ships, or so some sources claim.

If going for the -1 handling, armour 3 and 25 HTT, I think you could supply it with 5 CHPs and drop the cost to 115 to 120k... it depends on how popular you want it to be with (your) players.

Ok finished with some updates. 115k price. 4 hard points.

Thanks everyone for the input!

The Phantom is listed as an "attack shuttle" so including an unarmed general purpose shuttle would be ideal. It wouldn't add too much starting firepower but would give the party additional options.

Well, that's hard to say. I think 4 is a bit low for a CEC ship, but then I'm probably too fond of CHPs and therefore biased and poor judge of these things... but CEC ships are supposed to be more customisable than other ships, or so some sources claim.

If going for the -1 handling, armour 3 and 25 HTT, I think you could supply it with 5 CHPs and drop the cost to 115 to 120k... it depends on how popular you want it to be with (your) players.

Well you can always rip out existing systems and replace them with newer ones.

*casts Raise the Thread*

OK, so I'm thinking about bestowing a non-functional version of this ship to the group I'm co-running for AOR, and on the PDF it still shows 5HP instead of 4. Did you decide not to change that or does the PDF not reflect the change? Either way I may keep it at 4 and have a hidden surprise on board they have to find. Just curious what your intention was.

If you watch the latest preview chopper goes to another turret and shoots a tie fighter. So there is a tailgunner between the 2 top engines.

If you watch the latest preview chopper goes to another turret and shoots a tie fighter. So there is a tailgunner between the 2 top engines.

Also seems to have a central corridor from the nose to the tailgunner

That isn't another cannon on the Ghost, that is the nose guns on the Phantom, a craft docked between the engines of the Ghost.

http://www.lego.com/en-us/starwars/products/rebels/75053theghost

what about the layout we see? seems different than what you created

In the Rebels Visual Guide , the Ghost's armament is said to be 1 dorsal laser turret, 2 forward laser cannons, an 2 rear laser cannons. Mind you the wookiepedia link for the Ghost only lists the dorsal and forward lasers.

The Phantom is also shown in the Guide to dock nose first into the ship at the back above the engine assembly. When docked its twin lasers are hidden but its single laser turret is exposed. Although it is possible that the ship may be able to dock (or should be) nose out as it is shown in the Lego model and the clip above.

It is possible that there was an error or multiple errors made. The colour text in the guide seems to imply only the two turrets in the Ghost (dorsal and forward). And there is also the implication that the twin laser cannons of the Phantom are usable even when docked even though it calls out the fact that it docks nose in. Some one could have thought the Phantom docked could have been a rear turret. And then forgot it faced out when describing its docked position.

All in all there are inconsistancies.

well given that the book was probably started a year before the publish date and was several months before publish date that it went to lucas for sign off and then printing....details probably changed.

well given that the book was probably started a year before the publish date and was several months before publish date that it went to lucas for sign off and then printing....details probably changed.

Oh absolutely. The Lego model is more in line with how it is portrayed in the clips. But those are small clips. It may be more versatile and we just haven't seen so.

*casts Raise the Thread*

OK, so I'm thinking about bestowing a non-functional version of this ship to the group I'm co-running for AOR, and on the PDF it still shows 5HP instead of 4. Did you decide not to change that or does the PDF not reflect the change? Either way I may keep it at 4 and have a hidden surprise on board they have to find. Just curious what your intention was.

It should be 4. I tried to correct it, but for some reason it keeps leaving the old version online. Apparently there was some sort of bug back in May that I never noticed. I will try to correct it when I get more time. I may have to delete the old copy completely and re-upload, my updater is failing. I will try to get to it this weekend. - Done.

what about the layout we see? seems different than what you created

I based my deckplan upon every image I could find at the time I did it BACK IN MAY. I even stated from the start there would be changes (making what I did obsolete) as more information is obtained. If you wish, please do the reasearch yourself and post a new layout that is consistent with the newer information we now have. I'll try not to kick you in the balls if it turns out to not be correct once Season 3 of Rebels is released.

Deckplans and game stats for a stock version of the Ghost. I did my best to research anything I could get ahold of (see this thread ), but I'm sure there will be changes once the Rebels series is released.

I, for one, thought it was an admiral job for the information at hand at the time.

*casts Raise the Thread*

OK, so I'm thinking about bestowing a non-functional version of this ship to the group I'm co-running for AOR, and on the PDF it still shows 5HP instead of 4. Did you decide not to change that or does the PDF not reflect the change? Either way I may keep it at 4 and have a hidden surprise on board they have to find. Just curious what your intention was.

It should be 4. I tried to correct it, but for some reason it keeps leaving the old version online. Apparently there was some sort of bug back in May that I never noticed. I will try to correct it when I get more time. I may have to delete the old copy completely and re-upload, my updater is failing. I will try to get to it this weekend.

what about the layout we see? seems different than what you created

I based my deckplan upon every image I could find at the time I did it BACK IN MAY. I even stated from the start there would be changes (making what I did obsolete) as more information is obtained. If you wish, please do the reasearch yourself and post a new layout that is consistent with the newer information we now have. I'll try not to kick you in the balls if it turns out to not be correct once Season 3 of Rebels is released.

Deckplans and game stats for a stock version of the Ghost. I did my best to research anything I could get ahold of (see this thread ), but I'm sure there will be changes once the Rebels series is released.

what your behind? sacralidge you should be up to date instantly

Corrected the Hard Points to 4 as originally intended. Thanks Sonofabith. Updated link in the OP, find it in my signature, or directly here .

I do hope to update the deckplan as we get more views of its interior. I should probably wait until we are well into Season 1 though since we will obviously be getting much more information leading to even more updates. I'm still hoping there will be an official layout given to use at some point. If the writers and artists don't have a layout to go by, we could possibly end up with images that are impossible to rectify into a deckplan.