Hello everyone, I apologize if this has been asked already, or if its in the core book and I missed it, but its something that's bugging me.

I noticed that all ships have an encumbrance rating, and I believe this number rating is used to show how much cargo can be carried in your light freighter. If I'm wrong about this assumption please let me know. So my thought is this: A YT-1300 Light Freighter has an encumbrance rating of 165, now for the sake of picking a type of cargo, a Slug thrower rifle has an encumbrance of 5.

So 165 divided by 5 = 33. So are we to believe that a typical YT-1300 light freighter can only carry 33 slug thrower rifles in its cargo hold??? I mean, I know they are probably in cases, or placed in boxes with packing, but 33 seems too low, You could probably hold 33 rifles in just the passage ways.

Now, I know that armor, hull wound threshold, and range bands work on the planetary scale. So, does the ships encumbrance work on a planetary scale as well? Does the YT-1300 encumbrance actually equate to 1,650 personal scale number? So you could really load into storage, and transport 330 slug thrower rifles. That number seems much more likely to me.

Can anyone answer this for me?

Thanks,

Darthslash

The ship's encumbrance capacity would be of a different scale (vehicle versus personal) than a person's encumbrance; if it helps, consider the ships encumbrance capacity number as the number of tons of cargo it can carry.

The ship's encumbrance capacity would be of a different scale (vehicle versus personal) than a person's encumbrance; if it helps, consider the ships encumbrance capacity number as the number of tons of cargo it can carry.

Nope, the original poster has it right. What is missed is that the enumberance value of cargo can be reduced by "packing it away" as was suggested by Sam on an Order 66 podcast. Basically the blasters could be packed into a crate, reducing their encumberance to that of the crate, but then they aren't readily accessible for use due to how they are packed up.

So, a light freighter can only hold 33 blasters, unless they're in a box?

Or you just toss the Encumberance rules for ships and use common sense.

And the tonnages from other sources (WEG, Wookieepedia, etc).

Or you just toss the Encumberance rules for ships and use common sense.

And the tonnages from other sources (WEG, Wookieepedia, etc).

which is fine, provided that you have the weight of the items. Remember, encumberance isn't a measure of weight.

Or you just toss the Encumberance rules for ships and use common sense.

And the tonnages from other sources (WEG, Wookieepedia, etc).

which is fine, provided that you have the weight of the items. Remember, encumberance isn't a measure of weight.

Or more accurately not just a measure of weight,

which is fine, provided that you have the weight of the items. Remember, encumberance isn't a measure of weight.

that is not the issue. I hcan have a 50 ton item that a freighter that can transport 100 tons will not be able to carry because it won't fit. Encoumbrance is more then just measuring the mass that can be carried. Encumbrance in this system takes into account that some things may not weigh a lot but are too big to carry.

Simple answer the the OP's question is that vehicle Encumbrance requires some GM interpretation.

As others have noted, Encumbrance is not simply weight of the object, but also a mix of it's mass and size. A heavy blaster pistol is Encumbrance 2 in spite of most models not being all that bigger than a typical blaster pistol (with some models in fact being more compact than a typical blaster pistol) because it's bulkier, much as a Desert Eagle handgun is far bulkier, heavier to lug around and more difficult to draw and aim quickly; there was a special I caught on cable a few months back discussing the various sidearms used for special ops personnel, with the host running an obstacle course, once using the Desert Eagle and once using a more sensible semi-automatic sidearm in a smaller caliber (9mm I think); he did much better with the 9mm pistol, as it was quicker to draw and he didn't have to compensate as much for weight and recoil when aiming.

At least where this rule system is concerned, FFG is less about holding the GM's hand each step of the way, the way that systems such as D&D, Pathfinder, and GURPs do, and more about giving the GM freedom to interpret parts of the rules for themselves. Encumbrance on starships is one of those things, particularly as most Star Wars games aren't going to be about trading goods and determining precisely how much stuff your YT-1300 carry down to the last decimal point. The core rulebook is meant to be a "general use" book, with more detailed aspects of the game being covered in supplements, such as exploration (Enter the Unknown), pricing for mercenary work (Dangerous Covenants), and actually setting up colonies (Far Horizons), so it could very well be that the eventual Smuggler's sourcebook could have a section in the GM chapter that goes into more detail about how much stuff a ship can carry Encumbrance wise.

Also, don't forget that for most starships, the max Encumbrance value also permits the crew to still move freely around the ship without tripping over things, as said cargo is in the designated cargo area. If your PCs really want to stuff their YT-1300 to the gills with cargo, you can let them, but I'd suggest assigning setback dice to any tasks undertaken or treat movement as going through difficult terrain due to having to navigate all the extra crap they've stowed aboard.

I've wondered about this myself and I agree with Donovan above. Now this aside if I where to come up with some sort of reasonable house rule (until or if we ever get expanded rules on this) something like crates that take up x Enc when in a cargo hold and that each crate can contain x space, more than they themselves take up. Think of it kind of like the backpack in the core rule book, it takes up almost no enc value itself while increasing what the player can carry. In this instance it wouldn't be increasing a ships end but rather converting held cargo down. After all part of the enc threshold of a ship would be how well the cargo is held down and I imagine piles of loot being more unwieldy and sliding all over the place if not held in a container because the shelves and lockers in board may only be able to hold a small amount without that type of situation occurring.

I've wondered about this myself and I agree with Donovan above. Now this aside if I where to come up with some sort of reasonable house rule (until or if we ever get expanded rules on this) something like crates that take up x Enc when in a cargo hold and that each crate can contain x space, more than they themselves take up. Think of it kind of like the backpack in the core rule book, it takes up almost no enc value itself while increasing what the player can carry. In this instance it wouldn't be increasing a ships end but rather converting held cargo down. After all part of the enc threshold of a ship would be how well the cargo is held down and I imagine piles of loot being more unwieldy and sliding all over the place if not held in a container because the shelves and lockers in board may only be able to hold a small amount without that type of situation occurring.

That is actually a brilliant idea. And you could have different sizes and they grant different bonuses to the encumbrance values. In fact i would be surprised if this is not what they do. it is elegant. And follows what they already do.

Treat them like spacer duffels.

Assuming you can turn off the gravity in your cargo holds, I would think cargo capacity would be more about volume, rather than weight. And while the term "encumbrance" means the same to both people and ships, what's encumbering for a person wouldn't necessarily be encumbering for a ship, and vice versa. For instance, strapping a blaster rifle to your back wouldn't be very encumbering to a person, but sticking it in a wooden crate on your back would be bulkier, more disruptive, and make you off-balance. But on a vehicle, strapping a bunch of individual blaster rifles around your bulkheads would take up a lot of space, not to mention getting in the way of the crew, while stacking them neatly in crates would take up much less room.

And not wanting to be pedantic or anything, but technically, it's mass you're worried about, not weight Weight is a measurement of the force on an object due to gravity, which is pounds (in Imperial) or newtons (in metric). In zero-G environments, the weight of anything is 0. But mass is mass. The more mass, the higher the inertia of an object, and the more energy it takes to change the object's velocity (speed or direction).

Which could be used as an interesting house rule for starships Since extra mass increases inertia (or the resistance of an object to change motion), the more cargo a ship is carrying, the worse it would handle. So, keeping in mind that a ship's encumbrance capacity incorporates both volume and mass, you could say that when a ship is carrying cargo over it's maximum encumbrance capacity, the ship's handling is reduced by 1, and for over twice encumbrance capacity, handling is reduced by 2, up to some max. If nothing else, it actually gives meaning to encumbrance and penalizes you for over-stuffing your starship.

Of course, it can also be argued that inertia doesn't exist in the Star Wars universe, so filling up your cargo bay with crates of lead, or dwarf star alloy, wouldn't slow you down at all

I've wondered about this myself and I agree with Donovan above. Now this aside if I where to come up with some sort of reasonable house rule (until or if we ever get expanded rules on this) something like crates that take up x Enc when in a cargo hold and that each crate can contain x space, more than they themselves take up. Think of it kind of like the backpack in the core rule book, it takes up almost no enc value itself while increasing what the player can carry. In this instance it wouldn't be increasing a ships end but rather converting held cargo down. After all part of the enc threshold of a ship would be how well the cargo is held down and I imagine piles of loot being more unwieldy and sliding all over the place if not held in a container because the shelves and lockers in board may only be able to hold a small amount without that type of situation occurring.

That is actually a brilliant idea. And you could have different sizes and they grant different bonuses to the encumbrance values. In fact i would be surprised if this is not what they do. it is elegant. And follows what they already do.

Treat them like spacer duffels.

Thanks, I'm not sure the exact amount but I'm sure it wouldn't be to hard to look at the ship profiles and work out a reasonable number per crate.

Assuming you can turn off the gravity in your cargo holds, I would think cargo capacity would be more about volume, rather than weight. And while the term "encumbrance" means the same to both people and ships, what's encumbering for a person wouldn't necessarily be encumbering for a ship, and vice versa. For instance, strapping a blaster rifle to your back wouldn't be very encumbering to a person, but sticking it in a wooden crate on your back would be bulkier, more disruptive, and make you off-balance. But on a vehicle, strapping a bunch of individual blaster rifles around your bulkheads would take up a lot of space, not to mention getting in the way of the crew, while stacking them neatly in crates would take up much less room.

And not wanting to be pedantic or anything, but technically, it's mass you're worried about, not weight Weight is a measurement of the force on an object due to gravity, which is pounds (in Imperial) or newtons (in metric). In zero-G environments, the weight of anything is 0. But mass is mass. The more mass, the higher the inertia of an object, and the more energy it takes to change the object's velocity (speed or direction).

Which could be used as an interesting house rule for starships Since extra mass increases inertia (or the resistance of an object to change motion), the more cargo a ship is carrying, the worse it would handle. So, keeping in mind that a ship's encumbrance capacity incorporates both volume and mass, you could say that when a ship is carrying cargo over it's maximum encumbrance capacity, the ship's handling is reduced by 1, and for over twice encumbrance capacity, handling is reduced by 2, up to some max. If nothing else, it actually gives meaning to encumbrance and penalizes you for over-stuffing your starship.

Of course, it can also be argued that inertia doesn't exist in the Star Wars universe, so filling up your cargo bay with crates of lead, or dwarf star alloy, wouldn't slow you down at all

Inertia does exist in Star Wars... Except on ships with Inertial Compensators that take it away as an issue. Cargo mass and volume are both issues for a ship since it will run out of one or the other. Loading it down with mass will tax the engines to get it out of a gravity well. Running out of volume means, well, you have no where to go. The old joke about which weighs more, a ton of bricks or a ton of feathers... They weigh the same, but the feathers would actually have a higher encumberance value over the bricks when it comes to being cargo.

I thought they'd covered shipping crates in the CRB, but I might just have mistaken it for the episode with Sam Stewart. I had a similar idea myself as presented in Cartol's Emporium of Useful Shinies ...

I remember there was a thread like this around here and after some discussion (followed by calculations and drawing, this comes with two PH.Ds in the group *, my group decided that YT-1300 size freighers have storage areas more or less like in a delivery van, wheras for example a Wayfarer is more like a TIR truck, or a big shipping container.

*and before you think we're real life big bang theory dudes, we're all married, with kids ;D

I thought they'd covered shipping crates in the CRB, but I might just have mistaken it for the episode with Sam Stewart. I had a similar idea myself as presented in Cartol's Emporium of Useful Shinies ...

Nope none in the CRB that I'm aware of.

I thought they'd covered shipping crates in the CRB, but I might just have mistaken it for the episode with Sam Stewart. I had a similar idea myself as presented in Cartol's Emporium of Useful Shinies ...

Nope none in the CRB that I'm aware of.

I've checked and I see that you're right. Which confuses me a lot, but there you are. Still, a shipping crate should be around 5-7 encumbrance I think, and be able to contain more than that. For instance, if you've seen the Rebels trailers, there are some crates there, I'd think those are somewhere between 5-7, perhaps 8 at most, while they contain a lot more than 8 encumbrance worth of neatly packed rifles.

The crate in that episode are 4 across in and I am guessing 4 deep. so 16 riffles. So 48 encumbrance.

The crate in that episode are 4 across in and I am guessing 4 deep. so 16 riffles. So 48 encumbrance.

So let's do the math on that for ships (which I think is the most important so we can kind of determine what's a reasonable amount to pack away in a vessels cargo hold).

We'll go with the old standard, the YT-1300 light freighter. It can hold 165 Enc, assuming you filled its holding bay to the brim that would be 165 / 4 = 41 Crates. 41 x 48 = 1968 Enc. 1968 / 4 = 492 Rifles. I think that's reasonable, and as mentioned in an earlier post if a player wants to carry more they can just start putting boxes in the hallways, living area, etc but this would cause penalties to checks while trying to operate the ship as the players are hindered moving around it, maybe like being unable to recover all strain while on the ship, or setback dice while making checks during ship travel/combat, or requiring extra maneuvers during combat to get from a gun turret to a place to repair or the cockpit, etc.

What our GM did briefly was go with the Crate idea: Each crate was 5 Enc and held 50 Enc worth of goods.

It worked as a "quickie" way of doing it. For some items that were more fragile he'd charge double Enc to pack it.

Something else to remember is that Encumbrance Capacity is also the limit by which one can move around (on foot) or fly (in space) without any penalty to movement. One is capable of carrying more than their encumbrance capacity, but at risk of exhaustion or awkwardness, usually represented by setback dice. In the case of a cargo ship, say the YT-1300 at 165, it can carry 165 worth of encumbrance without incurring further setback dice to its maneuverability.

Having driven the odd (small) cargo truck, I know that a truck bearing a heavy load is much more difficult to maneuver than one that has a box or two in the back. As such, I think the 165 represents the unencumbered limit for a given ship... or at least I would play it this way.

While I was in the Air Force I was not a Load Master, but I was a certified load planner, If you threw a bunch of rifles on the cargo deck, you would have no where to put your pallets of cargo and lock them down. So I can logically see how throwing 20 blasters on the floor can eat up all your "cargo allotment" of encumbrance. So I think you guys are dead on with the cargo container thing.

@ Dark Bunny lord, I would go even further and say that you could put at least four if not 8 to a pallet. For our real world Air Force aircraft a pallet can't be over 96 inches high. That is pretty tall, and the pallets are 88" X 108". You can pack a lot in to that area. They are rated at 10,000 lbs. They can not be moved by one person, but two people can move an empty one, it is best with 4 people though. I would give a pallet an encumbrance of maybe 7, a full pallet would be 15 and I would say it could hold about 700 encumbrance. You also have the ISU-90 Shipping container. It is like a 463L pallet, but it has sides and four doors. These things are great. I would give them about the same values as I would a pallet except it's base encumbrance would be 15. They can also hold 10,000 pounds. The ISU-90 is 91.35 inches tall.

While I was in the Air Force I was not a Load Master, but I was a certified load planner, If you threw a bunch of rifles on the cargo deck, you would have no where to put your pallets of cargo and lock them down. So I can logically see how throwing 20 blasters on the floor can eat up all your "cargo allotment" of encumbrance. So I think you guys are dead on with the cargo container thing.

@ Dark Bunny lord, I would go even further and say that you could put at least four if not 8 to a pallet. For our real world Air Force aircraft a pallet can't be over 96 inches high. That is pretty tall, and the pallets are 88" X 108". You can pack a lot in to that area. They are rated at 10,000 lbs. They can not be moved by one person, but two people can move one, it is best with 4 people though. I would give a pallet an encumbrance of maybe 7, a full pallet would be 15 and I would say it could hold about 700 encumbrance. You also have the ISU-90 Shipping container. It is like a 463L pallet, but it has sides and four doors. These things are great. I would give them about the same values as I would a pallet except it's base encumbrance would be 15. They can also hold 10,000 pounds. The ISU-90 is 91.35 inches tall.

those are cool....what about the pallets designed for airdropping? as I recall they have a parachute and a cushioning cardboard layer.