How about this?

Hmm. That looks a little like a Westar-35.

Okay... so I just looked at the Westar-35, and I have to say, that almost looks like an old Nintendo Entertainment System gun. *chuckles*

Correct. And, as written, Encumbrance 1 is the same as a Holdhout Blaster.

Well, sure, but I'd say it's more a problem of the Encumbrance being wrong than it is my picture being wrong, since the description of the weapon states that it is a long barreled blaster pistol. Not a holdout blaster.

And the damage is on-par with heavy blaster pistols.

The picture you posted didn’t show any evidence of a detachable stock, a stock that could be used as a holster, or any evidence of a detachable barrel extension. And it certainly didn’t look to me like it would qualify as being as small as a Holdout Blaster.

Did I miss something?

I think you did. You detach both the stock and grip and attach a pistol grip. And the barrel certainly looks like an extention. The front sight is in the same place on both weapons.

In fact, in real life, you can convert one to the other with a few simple maneuvers. (despite them being sold as two different weapons, the core is the same. They just have different barrels and stocks.)

As for being small as a holdout blaster, like I said, encumbrance shouldn't be used to make those judgements.

This is also supposed to be small enough to be a holdout blaster if you go by that reference:

And if you read the writeup at http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/Star_Wars#BlasTech_DH-17_Blaster_Pistol then you will note that they are both based on the Sterling SMG.

So, yeah — that’s a little weird.

I know they're based on the Sterling.

My point was that the games encumbrance ratings are way off and often seem arbitrary.

Another example is the SE-14C and SE-14R. Two nearly identical blaster pistols. One is encumbrance 1 and the other is encumbrance 2.

In fact, the enc. 1 model actually looks bulkier and heavier than the enc. 2 one.

So basing the size of a weapon on the encumbrance is doomed to fail.

Fair enough, I just didn’t think that what you posted looked that much like what is described in the Dragoon writeup — no detachable stock, no detachable barrel, and considerably larger than a Holdout Blaster.

Well, like I said, A: It's not supposed to be the size of a holdout blaster. The description states "long barreled blaster pistol".

B: the weapon in real life actually has a detachable barrel and stock, although you replace the stock and barrel, you don't just snap them on like you would the stock of a mauser pistol for example. But this is sci-fi and I'm going to pretend that you can just replace them with a few clicks.

(also, the description never mentions the stock being used as a holster)

But as you can see from the following pictures, the stock (and trigger) is detachable. The barrel is replacable. It's a very modular system.

Well, sure, but I'd say it's more a problem of the Encumbrance being wrong than it is my picture being wrong, since the description of the weapon states that it is a long barreled blaster pistol. Not a holdout blaster.

And the damage is on-par with heavy blaster pistols.

I agree that the stats definitely don’t match the fluff. However, in this game, according to the designers, the stats always win if the stats and fluff disagree.

So, I’ve certainly had my share of problems with the stats on some of the weapons — and probably more with the Dragoon than anything else I’ve seen. And I’ve said as much.

In this matter, I think what confused me was that you asked for a picture of a weapon that could correspond to the description, but you did not specifically state whether or not you agreed with the official stats for the weapon. Speaking only for myself, it would have helped if you had said explicitly that we should ignore the official stats (because they’re garbage) and instead pay attention only to the description.

Well, since I listed the description, but not the stats, I'd think that bit was obvious

Also, as for the encumbrance value, I find it highly unlikely that a long-barreled blaster pistol that can be converted into a blaster carbine only has an encumbrance value of 1.

So, while the designers might state that the value always wins out over the fluff, I'd say in this case, the value is simply wrong. Either the designers weren't thinking straight, or it's a misprint.

There is no way that a carbine can have an encumbrance value of 1 when several standard blaster pistols have an encumbrance value of 2 and the lowest encumbrance value I've seen for a carbine is 3.

So how, exactly, are they reasoning when this blaster pistol (note, it's specifically called a blaster pistol. Not light blaster pistol or holdout blaster, but blaster pistol with a long barrel) that can be turned into a carbine, has an encumbrance value of 1.

Like I said, while the designers might think they're dead-on for the stats, I think they're simply way way off on the encumbrance values of many weapons.

Also, as for the encumbrance value, I find it highly unlikely that a long-barreled blaster pistol that can be converted into a blaster carbine only has an encumbrance value of 1.

So, while the designers might state that the value always wins out over the fluff, I'd say in this case, the value is simply wrong. Either the designers weren't thinking straight, or it's a misprint.

There is no way that a carbine can have an encumbrance value of 1 when several standard blaster pistols have an encumbrance value of 2 and the lowest encumbrance value I've seen for a carbine is 3.

So how, exactly, are they reasoning when this blaster pistol (note, it's specifically called a blaster pistol. Not light blaster pistol or holdout blaster, but blaster pistol with a long barrel) that can be turned into a carbine, has an encumbrance value of 1.

Like I said, while the designers might think they're dead-on for the stats, I think they're simply way way off on the encumbrance values of many weapons.

I'm pretty sure that once you add the stock and the barrel, it would no longer by Encumbrance 1. That's just the base value for the gun, as a pistol.

Also, as for the encumbrance value, I find it highly unlikely that a long-barreled blaster pistol that can be converted into a blaster carbine only has an encumbrance value of 1.

So, while the designers might state that the value always wins out over the fluff, I'd say in this case, the value is simply wrong. Either the designers weren't thinking straight, or it's a misprint.

There is no way that a carbine can have an encumbrance value of 1 when several standard blaster pistols have an encumbrance value of 2 and the lowest encumbrance value I've seen for a carbine is 3.

So how, exactly, are they reasoning when this blaster pistol (note, it's specifically called a blaster pistol. Not light blaster pistol or holdout blaster, but blaster pistol with a long barrel) that can be turned into a carbine, has an encumbrance value of 1.

Like I said, while the designers might think they're dead-on for the stats, I think they're simply way way off on the encumbrance values of many weapons.

I'm pretty sure that once you add the stock and the barrel, it would no longer by Encumbrance 1. That's just the base value for the gun, as a pistol.

Sure, I fully agree.

But , that's not in the rules, and the person I was replying to was very focused on the encumbrance rating of 1 (and, curiously, continually comparing that to a holdout blaster, despite both light and standard blaster pistols having an encumbrance of 1).

EDIT: Besides, the barrel extention and the stock has to take up room even if you remove them, right?

EDIT: Besides, the barrel extention and the stock has to take up room even if you remove them, right?

Reasonable. However, does it say it actually includes them in the purchase price, or just that it's made to use them?

Consider this a threadjack...

SPACE REVOLVER!

EDIT: Besides, the barrel extention and the stock has to take up room even if you remove them, right?

Reasonable. However, does it say it actually includes them in the purchase price, or just that it's made to use them?

Well, the description doesn't mention that they are included, but there is no way to buy them otherwise (as in there is no listing for it anywhere), so I'm assuming that they are included in the price. Especially since it is the "selling point" of the weapon.

Here is the full description (I hope this doesn't violate any rules):

"The DR-45 cavalry blaster by Merr-Sonn is one of a line of convertible blaster carbines marketed to vehicle crews and beast riders. Based on Merr-Sonn's popular DD6 blaster pistol, the DR-45, also called the Dragoon, is marketed as an all-in-one weapon providing the portability of a blaster pistol with the range and stopping power of a blaster carbine. To accomplish this, the base weapon, which is a long-barreled blaster pistol, can be fitted with a detachable polycarbonate shoulder stock and a range-extending augmented spin barrel to turn it into a respectably effective blaster carbine. The stock and barrel are fixed to the base weapon with sturdy quick-release mounts that allow an experienced user to mount or dismount the attachments quickly and easily. While not particularly common, Dragoon cavalry blasters are slowly finding a following among members of the Rebel Alliance who value their versatility, reliability, and stopping power.

Converting the DR-45 from a pistol to a carbine takes one maneuver and changes the weapon's combat skill from Ranged (Light) to Ranged (Heavy). Similarly, it takes one maneuver to convert the weapon back, restoring its combat skill to Ranged (Light)."

Also, as for the encumbrance value, I find it highly unlikely that a long-barreled blaster pistol that can be converted into a blaster carbine only has an encumbrance value of 1.

Agreed.

So, while the designers might state that the value always wins out over the fluff, I'd say in this case, the value is simply wrong. Either the designers weren't thinking straight, or it's a misprint.

I asked about this, and got the official response back from Sam Stewart that the stats as printed are correct.

There is no way that a carbine can have an encumbrance value of 1 when several standard blaster pistols have an encumbrance value of 2 and the lowest encumbrance value I've seen for a carbine is 3.

Agreed.

So how, exactly, are they reasoning when this blaster pistol (note, it's specifically called a blaster pistol. Not light blaster pistol or holdout blaster, but blaster pistol with a long barrel) that can be turned into a carbine, has an encumbrance value of 1.

Yeah, that boggles my mind, too.

Feel free to ask the question again, if you like.

Like I said, while the designers might think they're dead-on for the stats, I think they're simply way way off on the encumbrance values of many weapons.

I think they’re certainly off for the Dragoon. I’d have to look more closely to see if there are any others for which I think they’re off.

After reading the thread linked, and seeing the conversations about the peculiarities of the Dragoon, and not having a major opinion on the matter myself, I have a theory:

What if, maybe, the developers just wanted to add a really cool gun that you could duel-wield from on top of a dragon lizard?

They are game developers, yes, but they are people first. Sometimes people do things for silly of reasons.

After reading the thread linked, and seeing the conversations about the peculiarities of the Dragoon, and not having a major opinion on the matter myself, I have a theory:

What if, maybe, the developers just wanted to add a really cool gun that you could duel-wield from on top of a dragon lizard?

They are game developers, yes, but they are people first. Sometimes people do things for silly of reasons.

Sounds very possible.

And I personally think that the Devs are choosing the "easy way out" by just stating blankly that all the stats are correct, no matter the fluff.

Especially since things like the DH 17 blaster pistol (enc 1) and the E-11 blaster carbine (enc 3) are physically the same size and weight, yet they are vastly different in encumbrance.

There are more examples, like the SE-14r and the SE-14C, are virtually identical (in this case just a different scope, but same gun) and yet have different encumbrance values.

No, I've come to the conclusion (after going through all the weapons released so far and finding their in-movie images) that the encumbrance values are more or less added on a whim, or at best based on some balancing need (although, I doubt it, since the dragoon is a blaster pistol that does more damage then a heavy blaster pistol and yet has less encumbrance and no other disadvantages (that I can see).

I'm going to have to add my own houserules for the gun, I think.

Enc 1 without the stock and barrel extention, +1 per addon (since I just KNOW my characters will want to use one without the other).

Damage lowered by 2 when not using barrel extention.

Range extended to long when using both barrel extention and stock.

Something like that.

Of course, all that is on the back burner until a PC decides to get the weapon (if they ever do) or they meet someone that has one.

I think they’re certainly off for the Dragoon. I’d have to look more closely to see if there are any others for which I think they’re off.

Start with these two:

Top one: Encumbrance 3, bottom one Encumbrance 1.

Or these:

SE-14 (encumbrance 1)

SE-14C (same gun with a hefty scope, or rather three of the same, encumbrance 1)

SE-14r (same gun, with a smaller scope, encumbrance 2)

EDIT:

Also, for comparison... here's an encumbrance 2 heavy blaster:

So, that's the same encumbrance as the SE-14r, but lower than the E-11.

Makes no sense to me.

Let's remember that encumbrance encompasses a wide variety of factors. Even though the E-11 and DH-17 props were based on the Sterling here in the real world, there is nothing to say that in the imaginary world of Star Wars they are not made of different materials and such. The E-11 could be a much more solid and heavier weapon even though it is roughly the same size as the DH-17. The DH-17 could be made of cheaper materials thus allowing it to have a lesser encumbrance. Two items could weigh the same but one could be more encumbering due to size. There are a lot of factors in an imaginary science fantasy world that could account for such things.

Let's remember that encumbrance encompasses a wide variety of factors. Even though the E-11 and DH-17 props were based on the Sterling here in the real world, there is nothing to say that in the imaginary world of Star Wars they are not made of different materials and such. The E-11 could be a much more solid and heavier weapon even though it is roughly the same size as the DH-17. The DH-17 could be made of cheaper materials thus allowing it to have a lesser encumbrance. Two items could weigh the same but one could be more encumbering due to size. There are a lot of factors in an imaginary science fantasy world that could account for such things.

Oh, I know, but they'd have to weigh ALOT more to get enc 3 instead of 1 for the same size.

Also, that still doesn't really explain the SE-14's... where one is visually larger than the other two, and yet that's not the one that's got more encumbrance (and you can't really explain it by different weights and materials, since they're just different versions of the same weapon).

I'm still in firmly in the camp of "the designers lacked overview" when it comes to this.

I'm still in firmly in the camp of "the designers lacked overview" when it comes to this.

For ST:TNG, Rick Sternbach found that he had to maintain an exhaustive database for each and every thing that ever got shown or referenced, and even then a whole ton of stuff slipped through.

IMO, FFG could use a new hire or two whose sole purpose is to do this same kind of thing for them.

I nominate Oggdude and GM Hooly

Such a man already exists. Pablo Hidalgo, known to Star Wars fans as the Keeper of the Holocron, the guy who's job it is to catalogue every piece of canon, and guess where he started? As a writer for West End Games Star Wars Roleplaying System.

Such a man already exists. Pablo Hidalgo, known to Star Wars fans as the Keeper of the Holocron, the guy who's job it is to catalogue every piece of canon, and guess where he started? As a writer for West End Games Star Wars Roleplaying System.

He does that for all the stuff that matters to Disney/Lucasfilm. And I’m sure he has a whole team of people helping in that regard.

But FFG needs to have their own guy that does that for all the things PH doesn’t care about, but which FFG does — or should.

So, I spent some time mucking about with PMG, and here’s my first rough draft of what I think a Dragoon might look like:

does it have a barrel extension?

So, I spent some time mucking about with PMG, and here’s my first rough draft of what I think a Dragoon might look like:

Looks nice! Needs a longer barrel, though, since the description specifically states "long barreled blaster pistol".

If I had not already shown the image I used to my players, I'd possibly go with yours.

dont just count the stuff beyond the shroud. the barrel would be everything beyond the trigger. it just might be inside the other workings.

dont just count the stuff beyond the shroud. the barrel would be everything beyond the trigger. it just might be inside the other workings.

Doesn't really matter since the weapon is too short to accomodate a long barrel inside the casing.

But since the description specifically states "a long-barreled blaster pistol", I'd say they mean on the outside of the casing, not inside.

dont just count the stuff beyond the shroud. the barrel would be everything beyond the trigger. it just might be inside the other workings.

Doesn't really matter since the weapon is too short to accomodate a long barrel inside the casing.

But since the description specifically states "a long-barreled blaster pistol", I'd say they mean on the outside of the casing, not inside.

uhhhh being a gunny long barrel refers to the length of the barrel. One does not say a colt long slide has a short barrel even though the barrel is entirely inside the slide. So I don't find your logic solid. Also based on what I am looking at above that gun is a foot long. Which is really long for a pistol. For comparison the DL-44 is much shorter at around 7 inches.