Hey, all. As a reminder, the cutoff for questions will be later today.

In regards to the questions about Starship Combat rules being imbalanced, we'll try to work this in, as we are discussing the Aces sourcebook, and there is relevance. But the focus of our questions will be on the book FFG has agreed to discuss with us, and the specifics of that book, itself. We want to be respectful of our FFG guests' time.

As far as suggesting an "alternate set of rules" or "rules tweaks" and asking the Devs to comment on that, or when/if there will be any kind of errata or update in a future product to address these things, or what that update may or may not be; I'll remind you that our guests have advised us that they cannot comment on ANY future endeavors that have not been officially announced by FFG.

The reason for the Jan. 26 cutoff is to GET all these questions to the FFG staffers in a timely fashion, so FFG can determine what can be discussed on the show. If they tell us in advance that a question response will be "no comment", then we're not going to bother wasting the air time to ask it on Saturday night.

However - we WILL be asking Andy and Jason for their suggestions on building fun, survivable, starship (and dogfighting) encounters. Both of them have also been directed to this thread - to get a play-by-play of folks' concerns.

Keep the questions coming, folks! We've got some really good ones, and some excellent discussion to be had!

This question is stolen from another thread, but I think it's worth asking.

The A/KT Shockrider Crash Suit and the A/KT Wing Commander Armored Flight Suit both reduce strain from vehicle criticals by one to a minimum of one. The only vehicle crit that causes strain on the crew only causes one. What are these good for?

There's a lot of relevance, yeah. Many of us kinda thought that some of the more pressing/obviously-clear issues would be covered by the aces book, given, well, Aces right?

Well we'll be listening

We may as well throw in the question of why a TIE Fighter with a cargo capacity of 65kg is; depending on one's interpretation of the RAW:

Either Incapable of stuffing 5 holdout pistols or just one rifle into the entire thing without an overload penalty

OR

Taking over-encumbrance penalties due to a non-jawa pilot being more than encumbrance 4 to begin with even if you don't count all his gear (like that armored flightsuit and life support system) in which case where and what ARE the penalties?

OR

Taking NO encumbrance penalties whatsoever because the penalties are for people in actions that a TIE fighter literally never has to worry-about/roll-for, thus making the entire encumbrance rating, well.. useless?

Can you clarify this for me? I'm not sure what the question is... Are you asking why the encumbrance capacity of a standard TIE is only 4?

I am certainly asking this (as have many others on the forums; I'm in no way the first to realize a problem here) but the root of the question is a lack of pretty much any information as to vehicle encumbrance. The only thing we have to work from is people's encumbrance capacity/limits.

What does a vehicle's Encumbrance Capacity indicate? It *appears* to be treated the same as a character's, but if that is the case, we have issues and confusion!

Does it apply-to or ignore pilot and crew? Is a TIE/LN really less capable of lifting things than someone with Brawn 2? What happens when its pilot gets in and overloads it to 1.5x capacity - because he's feeling suicidal and has nothing but his skivvies?

If it does not apply to pilot and crew, then how much can pilot/crew wear onto that ship before there's trouble? Is the only limitation the GM going "woah there, NOT the Dark Trooper II armor AND the E-Web"? We actually don't even have that much stated.

If it assumes/allows a reasonable set of characters/equipment (pilot, flightsuit, sidearm and the such) then how are the numbers reasonable? How is it that one can flat-out not dump even a fifth stun-grenade around the seat of a TIE - which as limited as it is for cargo was stated to be able to lug around about 65kg (one can assume volumetrically this much in water jugs or the like I guess)? After all, they weigh far less and would take up far less room as well, but the encumbrance limit is 4. Why is an Acton IV transport capable of carrying 10 000 encumbrance while another silhouette 5 medium transport can only take 800?

And what happens when over-capacity? Like say I took an encumbrance 5 rifle and shoved it next to the seat in the TIE? How do we work out an X-Wing towing another (they can do this)?

So yeah, what is the rationale or system behind the numbers, and why were the values given chosen? Was it randomly rolled? The problem is that Encumbrance Capacity is only listed, never explained, approached or defined in any way. Not in the EotE core, not in the AoR one and not in the FoD beta.

This isn't a "request for future books info" or other NDA-breaking; there's basic rules that are *there* mechanically and yet not explained or covered, and they need to be. This is not rules-tweaking: errata is a "recall": the car's left the lot without some engine parts or defective ones that catch fire, and the product we already have requires them to *be* what we purchased.

Sorry if that gets a little long-winded

I think you are waiting for the new career book; The Rim of Desk. A sourcebook for the clerk career with new specialisations as bookkeeper, archivist and cassier. Any day now before it is announced!

Edit: Hope you can take a joke...

Well it's a better joke than the current state of the vehicular encumbrance system for sure....

Not that we need to turn things into ""There's .118 cubic meters between the conduits behind the panel in section 30b-914/L of the jefferies tubes, see if we can stick those twizzlers into there so we can fit that extra panel in the cargo-bay" the movie, the book, the movie, the game", either!*

We just, you know, need, not... none!

EDIT: *It would probably sell okay, but I don't think it really fits the general theme of even the most Imperially minded Star-Wars campaign. Also you know **** well someone will roll one of those up if they're available. Someone always does.........

Well, to be honest I have been playinh eote for a long while now but encumbrance just never reared its head....

Hey, all - questions have been submitted - by the way. "The polls are closed."

Thanks for the response, Kiton.

Now... that all that's out of the way...

We just, you know, need, not... none!

Not that I necessarily disagree with you... but now I'm just curious...

Why? Like... has the abstract encumbrance impacted your games? And if so, how? This is the kind of stuff I like hearing. Stories, please! (Like we gamers need excuses to give in-game stories, right?)

I've not bothered with ship encumbrance but I can see how it might be an issue- if you chase someone back to their hideout, then leap out to attack them... what weapons have you got with you?

I just assumed ship encumbrance was 'extra items beyond the pilot's personal encumbrance' but does that mean you're able to sling your heavy blaster rifle on your back whilst piloting if it's under your personal encumbrance, but can't fit it in the storage? It does seem kind of odd that a bigger, heavier character can fit *more* gear in a ship than a small, light one.

Actually by that interpretation a high Brawn character could carry a smaller character on their lap as part of their personal encumbrance (as characters weigh 5 + Brawn) whilst you can't fit 2 Jawas in a fighter? It's odd this hasn't been considered as the only ships for which encumbrance is a relevant stat are small ones, with personal-scale items in- whether a ship has 1000-10000 encumbrance isn't important as the trading rules are very narrative.

You guys... I can just imagine the fun at your tables!

You guys... I can just imagine the fun at your tables!

...I already mentioned I don't *use* the encumbrance rules. But by all means continue sniping at any attempt by people to make sure that the rules that exist do work, for people who would like to use them. There's no point in having rules that have the appearance of working but don't actually mean anything- that's just confusing and leads to system bloat.

I don't want a system filled with minutiae and pedantry as you seem to want to characterise- I want a sleek, functional system that contains only what it needs to work. No extraneous knobs and dials that serve no purpose.

We lightly use things like encumbrance and capacities in most games, but none and no-guidelines-whatsoever, well that's just no good. I took to just getting cargo capacities off ship pages on the star wars wiki, but that's flat out ignoring/houseruling the system after all.

But yeah, that first moment when someone goes "hey, does that mean I can't stuff my weapon *anywhere* at all in here?", that first flipping through the pages as everyone's certain endcumbrance was somewhere we just can't remember where; the realization that no, it's really just a number listed in a statblock... And then someone mentions strapping a backpack to your TIE will *double* its cargo capacity and everyone just loses a little bit of respect for the system they are in while picturing TIEs flying around with schoolbags on...

You can get by without it, and It's not to say abstracting doesn't help: I can tell you stories of games where inventory became the session... but you sorta get up after the session, realize what your last four hours were, and the "wait, I wasn't having fun I was working" just starts to sink right in. But that's still a seeping wound in the rules, another "except this doesn't work either" when describing or listing pros and cons of the system.

It's odd this hasn't been considered as the only ships for which encumbrance is a relevant stat are small ones, with personal-scale items in- whether a ship has 1000-10000 encumbrance isn't important as the trading rules are very narrative.

That's a very valid point as well: In fact larger ships more than anything would do better with a qualitative for cargo. "This model can carry a disassembled TIE Fighter", "This YT's cargo bay is a single huge section that could be used as a makeshift A-Wing hangar though there's no safe or reliable recovery method after you chuck it out the rear ramp", "Immense cargo capacity for the size class; up to 5000 encumbrance, but due to multiple small compartments primarily meant for grain or smuggling nothing bigger than speeder bike can get loaded into it", "Six lambda docking pads internally, and racks for 40 TIEs - the clamps can fold back though so avengers, bombers, Assault Gunboats and Missile Boats are easily loaded as well although they do take up two slots"

Stuff like that. Adds nice flavor too.

Of course I was sniping but it must have been clear it was in jest, right?

How else am I to respond to someone making a 'point' that "it should fit two Jawa's" or someone else who states "what if they bring an extra grenade in?"

If I read stuff like that, then I make a joke. And then I am happy I never had a game where 2 Jawa's wanted to steal a Tie, because it would just gribd to a halt since there is nothing in the book to tell me what to do!

Interesting responses. I really do want to hear an in-game example of how this has impacted a group in real-life... (please, anyone!). It'd be great for the show.

I honestly am not sure whether "rules for rules sake" is my opinion or not. I can see where some things are nice to have, but the converse of "why clog book space" has merit, too. If it's never going to feasibly impact a group... y'know?

That's part of an ongoing debate about RPG design, in general - truthfully. There's some camps of designers out there that think you should only take rules-space in the book for things that are going to impact a group more than 50% of the time, and leave the rest entirely up the common sense of the GM (Jay Little - the creator or this system - specifically, has mentioned his belief in this viewpoint in a lengthy design discussion panel we had with him at GamerNationCON, last spring). Others feel that you should get into as much detail as possible.

On one hand - you got GURPs. LOL... (Okay - or just D&D 3.5.) Rules heavy, lots of detail on every situation, regardless of how often the party may/may not need those rules. On the other hand, you've got FATE. Rules light, leaves anything not expressly call out to the GM. Both good systems (IMHO) - but obviously radically different on the design philosophy.

As for the starship encumbrance in FFGs Star Wars... I guess it's just never impacted me. Honestly, I never even noticed there weren't cut-and-dry rules for it, because... well... I've never had cause to look for them. (And I've been playing/running this system since the literal day-after the release of the EotE beta at GenCon 2012.) I always assumed (because it made sense) that if a character can carry stuff - then that stuff can go with them in a ship. No player's ever tried to tell me they're carrying an obscene amount of stuff... but perhaps because they know that I'd tell them "no."

[shrug]

Well the backpacks comment was actually from experience. Someone asked why he could carry twice as much as his TIE with his 3 brawl, we realized we couldn't find any conversion rates of "people carry to vehicle carry" or even any explanation or definition of "vehicle carrying" in any way, then one of us mentioned a backpack adds 4 to capacity, and things got kinda stupid, because, well, we'd just run into some.

Thing is, there HAS been a rule put in: Ships HAVE been given an encumbrance capacity.

The book says "Here is a rule. You have numbers to follow here. Follow them". But how/where/what/when/why the numbers, it does not exist. Follow this: Four. Four what? Four where? Why Four?

It would have been actually less of an issue if absolutely nothing was ever said mechanically about encumbrance and vehicles. That would say "Just abstract it, it's not worth detailing". That is not what has been done. You're handed a key, told to drive that car, and you figure the car's in that big parking lot outside, but it turns out it was never even built, you're just some suspicious person trying every door outside a mall.

My players do care about ship encumbrance too. In my last AoR session the players stole a YV-929 light freighter (their first spaceship in this game and system). I showed them the picture and their question was: what could we carry with this? I told them they could bring 6 passenger and... 20 blaster rifles?

This felt off since the ship looks huge on the picture. Also, since we are all new to the system, the Silhouette thing didn't help us imagine its scale much (thanks wookiepedia for saving us).

Saying it ruined the game would be a lie; in the end I told them they could carry a few crates of stuff with it but not a speeder or another ship. But still some players could rightly argue that it should be able to carry much more than what is hinted with its "80" encumbrance limit.

I always considered vehicle encumbrance to be different to personal scale.

More like you can fit 80 cargo boxes of stuff in something like a ship with 80 encumbrance, so you can arbitrarily fit 100 blocks of spice, 5-6 rifes or 20 pistols in a single 'cargo box' roughly a 1m sq in dimensions.

My understanding of Encumbrance values is they exist on a non-linear relative scale, where multiple factors like weight, volume, and dimensions are taken into account but have diminishing significance at larger scales.

In which case twenty blaster rifles lying around would have more encumbrance than a crate packed with twenty blaster rifles. The crate may have the same value as another crate holding items whose unpackaged encumbrance value would be totally different than the rifles.

I use it as a guideline to suggest how much stuff can be carried by volume vs weight but let common sense settle the details when they arise. My car might have space to hold a lot more stuff than a single surfboard, but how am I going to fit it in there?

Actually by that interpretation a high Brawn character could carry a smaller character on their lap as part of their personal encumbrance (as characters weigh 5 + Brawn) whilst you can't fit 2 Jawas in a fighter? It's odd this hasn't been considered as the only ships for which encumbrance is a relevant stat are small ones, with personal-scale items in- whether a ship has 1000-10000 encumbrance isn't important as the trading rules are very narrative.

And we do have the example from Rebels of an adult plus Ezra being able to easily fit into a TIE fighter — either the first episode where Ezra gets into the TIE and steals the guys helmet, or a later episode where Zeb steals a TIE and then picks up Ezra and they fly off somewhere else.

So, clearly a TIE fighter has enough encumbrance to carry a full adult with gear plus a smaller human.

In my game we had several containers of disruptor rifles to store in our freighter. Problem was RAW meant we could only fit about ten of them in the ship... Considering a freighter has more cargo space than a pantry we just started to ignore the encumbrance rules.

Enter the Unknown gives us specimen containers that can hold more Encumbrance than they occupy (while still having room for stasis and life support systems).

Encumbrance came up often in my game; my crew kept a landspeeder and a swoop in the hold of their yt-1300, which didn't leave much room for cargo. While I'm generally not up for a game of Edge of the Spreadsheet I think it's important to keep a loose number in one's notes.

It's important, in my mind, to point out encumbrance represents not only mass, but could also represent volume, or even awkwardness. If I think about encumbrance capacity with these factors in mind, it makes sense that some ships might not be able to carry certain items, like a TIE with a stack of 3 meter boards.

May I direct your attention to the packaging and boxing rules, which use a rule of thumb of 1/5 to 1/10 encumbrance. Thus, by packing everything in a nice survival bag, the 10 encumbrance in a X-wing could carry up to 100 encumbrance worth of cargo. More than enough for the survival gear we see Luke take out, plus extra.

Page 149 EotE: Encumbrance and Vehicles. So I've found something... and it ain't good or very helpful.

Ship cargo holds can house a certain amount of encumbrance, as well. A standard cargo hold can house a wide variety of encumbrance, listed in the vehicle's profile.

So apparently we're to believe that 4 is, indeed, the encumbrance limit of a TIE Fighter. We also don't know what happens when you're over the limit other than the TIE being much less good at athletics. We also don't know if the pilot counts, or if it's literally just a glove box. All we've been told is that cargo could be a wide variety of things, and that there's a limit, a limit apparently lower than what you can stuff in your pockets... which I doubt blew too many minds.

1/10th with good packing makes things more confusing given that means a well-packed rocket launcher would fit, and 40 well packed thermal detonators would fit, but 5 not carefully boxed won't fit. The packing makes sense when you get to a pallet scale for things of certain densities... but overall?