Hi gang, I'm trying to figure out where the hell does all the Weapon listed on the ships entry comes from. The turrets I can see, the torpedo tube I can also see, but the four twin heavy laser canon I just cannot picture, maybe two of them one on each side but even then that seams like a stretch. Anyone as any idea were did the designer got that many guns on such a small ship, especially since most info out there on the net have this ship seriously under armed, which isn't really better. The other problem I have with the default loadout is with making or choosing deck plan for it, no deck plan really account for the location of those twin laser canon.

I am probably going to make some change to the stats, well already added the four external tie fighters docking clamp and access port, I just want some outside opinion on what feels right for the weapon load on the ship, as I plan my player use the ship as a mobile base of operation for some time in my campaign and as such I want other people imputes before I finalise the design.

Depends: Are you comparing the Gozanti in Age of Rebellion with the ships we see in Rebels?

The Gozanti originally appeared in The Phantom Menace (way in the background on a scene on Tatooine). According to sources, Starships of the Galaxy Saga Edition gave it the heavy payload. Then they got used in Rebels, with what appears to be a much lighter payload.

Also worth mentioning there's several different models, with vastly different design concepts.

Personally I get the feeling the gozanti is the current "whatever we want it to be" ship. Like the CR90, but not a CR90 so as to allow the CR90 to remain a "Rebel ship" to avoid confusing the audience.

I would tailor the armament in part to the size of your group and their needs. In particular, though, I would make sure that the pilot's got some weapons under their control, as otherwise there isn't a whole lot for someone to do with their action when piloting a silhouette 5+ ship.

It's my opinion that the four retractable turrets for the twin heavy laser cannons occupy the space that the Imperial version uses for the four TIE fighter docking clamps.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9W-i287noLNWi1vT1FqVWZQTzg/view?usp=sharing

Photo shopped online Deck Plans we found. My Group Consists of ten players on and off and 2 npcs. and yeah we went with the pop Up/down side turrets, hence the gun control room

I'd like to know how they consider it Silhouette 5, when it's (at best) one-third the size of a CR-90.

I'd like to know how they consider it Silhouette 5, when it's (at best) one-third the size of a CR-90.

BTW, the VCX-100 is another size 5 freighter. Both just barely make it into size 5, but they do make it. Which gives them access to the hangar attachment.

I'd like to know how they consider it Silhouette 5, when it's (at best) one-third the size of a CR-90.

BTW, the VCX-100 is another size 5 freighter. Both just barely make it into size 5, but they do make it. Which gives them access to the hangar attachment.

I'd like to know how they consider it Silhouette 5, when it's (at best) one-third the size of a CR-90.

BTW, the VCX-100 is another size 5 freighter. Both just barely make it into size 5, but they do make it. Which gives them access to the hangar attachment.

That's looking on the bright side, considering the considerable drawbacks to Silhouette > 4.

Size 5 is the first size that offers the option of having a mobile base of operation in space. A hangar for 3 fighters is not big, but offers interesting options. And having large amounts of crew means that the crew stations can offer damage control, ECM support, shield boosting, plot course and co-pilot actions and the angle deflector shields maneuver. On top of all that pilot support you can get dedicated gunners for several shots each turn, fire discipline actions.

The standard Gozanti for example can shoot 8 times per turn and has a crew of 12.

And if you are really greedy you can go with an medium range turbolasers on a size 5 ship and pick fighters apart before they even can shoot at you or at least force a "Fly" maneuver out of them. Add a full throttle action/maneuver and you might force them to waste one maneuver to keep in range each turn, negating their ability to use the evasive maneuvers/gain advantage combo party. And that is if their ships have speed 4 naturally, which is not the case for most if not all silhouette 4 ships, if they are in the speed 2-4 band they either need to spend both of their maneuvers to catch up, use "Increase Power" (silhouette 1-3 only, requires astromech maneuver) or use full throttle themselves.

So having that size 5 comes with a lot more than just drawbacks. The action economy is excellent on large crew ships. And action econemy is king, which is one of the reasons why that Y-Wing with Pilot, Gunner and Astromech such an fantastic ship.

Yeah, there's a lot to like about bigger silhouette ships, they're just less interesting for the dedicated pilot-type, as there are fewer interesting things you can do with your action in terms of flying it around. The pilot ends up shooting or doing miscellaneous actions all the time instead of zipping around Gaining the Advantage.

Of course, that's why you have a hangar/clamps and a snubfighter for the dedicated pilot, and you stick someone who's just competent enough in the pilot-seat of your big ship.

On Top of that is Silhouette 5 small enough to be still a **** hard target for the real large ships in the game. Tricky Target and a electronic countermeasures suit can bring down your silhouette down to 3. Giving even corvettes a daunting task when shooting at you.

Fly that VCX-100 into a an asteroid field and suddenly having that hotshot pilot on the controls makes all the difference. Big ships create a lot of challenge / difficulty dice in such situation. That mentioned VCX-100 at speed 4 gets 3 challenge dice and one difficulty die into its pool for the piloting check. Failed checks have options for critical hits, minor and major collisions.

The Gozanti is the lower end of Silhouette 5, certainly. But it's over 60m long... so that clocks in at about half the length of a Corellian corvette (or 2/5ths, by the old measurement). That's almost twice the size of the Falcon.

As for the guns, it does have pop-up turrets specifically. They're on the bottom of the ship there.

It would be nice to get official stats for the Imperial or C-Roc variants, since they seem like they would vary somewhat significantly.

The Gozanti is the lower end of Silhouette 5, certainly. But it's over 60m long... so that clocks in at about half the length of a Corellian corvette (or 2/5ths, by the old measurement). That's almost twice the size of the Falcon.

Ah, my mistake. I was using the Legends 42m length as my reference point.

FFG is probably using the 42m size. Using that measurement, the thing that puts it into sil5 is probably its height. Remember, silhouette is an abstraction using its overall profile, not just length.

FFG is probably using the 42m size. Using that measurement, the thing that puts it into sil5 is probably its height. Remember, silhouette is an abstraction using its overall profile, not just length.

I'd argue that. Have you seen the Imperial Gozanti miniature from the X-wing miniatures game? 42m would only be a bit bigger than the YT-1300, and that "mini" is massive.

Edit: If you haven't, here's a shot with it and the 150m Raider for reference.

...though, now that I look at that, it seems a bit large for the ~64m it's supposed to be. I'm guessing the Raider is actually a bit small for the 150m it's quoted to be.

Finally I felt the same way as hapydaze did and If it's the Tie support version it will have sacrificed the four laser canon turrets for the 4 docking clamps as I figure that's the only meaningful place they could be. This also leave the 4 HP for the players to thinker with it, and i'll use the generic one for the cargo transport version as it make sens to be able to protect said cargo, here are the sheet I made for both version of the ship.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0B8TQypuP_bBfNi1HMjZZai1qZTA&usp=sharing

and here is a link to the deck plan I,ll use for now for the Tie carrier variant that my player will be using as a mobile base for now.

http://tattooedhobbit.deviantart.com/art/Imperial-Gozanti-Cruiser-467604063

Thanks everyone for the comment and input I really appreciated it

You might consider to give the imperial TIE support less hard points as it is technical equipped with a "12 point" hangar, which would cost 4 hard points over the regular variant. If you give the ship the ability to install another two retrofitted hangar bays it can a carrier for4 TIE and another 6 silhouette 3 fighters, bringing 10 fighters per Gozanti sounds a little exzessive. Bringing 4 TIE-Bombers, 2 AT-AT and 4 AT-ST sounds like a single of those ships is already an assault force on its own. And it would make the Y-85 Titan Dropship a little obsolete as well, which can bring four AT-AT and four AT-ST. Not that the Dropships might not be really obsolete in Disney canon as we see Gozanti delivering packs of 2 AT-ATs in Rebels several times. Zero, One or Two hardpoints should all work imho better for the imperial version. Personally I would give 1 to allow for one cheap attachment and not for further hangar abilities, but that is just me.

I'd argue that. Have you seen the Imperial Gozanti miniature from the X-wing miniatures game? 42m would only be a bit bigger than the YT-1300, and that "mini" is massive.

Edit: If you haven't, here's a shot with it and the 150m Raider for reference.

...though, now that I look at that, it seems a bit large for the ~64m it's supposed to be. I'm guessing the Raider is actually a bit small for the 150m it's quoted to be.

If you'll recall, the standard X-Wing minis (including the Gozanti) are 1:270 scale. The larger minis (GR-75, CR 90, and Raider) are 1:350 scale (or so) to keep them affordable and suitable for tabletop use. This was the topic of considerable debate when it was released. At X-Wing's 1:270 scale, a 150m CR 90/Raider would be around 22 inches long - a bit big for a 36 x 36" or 36 x 72" play area, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

I don't own a Gozanti, so I can't say how the scale translates to in-game measurements, but I suspect they went with the larger measurements. At 64m, it would be about 5 times longer than the 12.5m X-Wing.

The X-Wing models are based on the ship we see in Rebels.

The profile for the Gozanti featured in Age of Rebellion and Fly Casual I believe is based on information from Legends sources.

I'd argue that. Have you seen the Imperial Gozanti miniature from the X-wing miniatures game? 42m would only be a bit bigger than the YT-1300, and that "mini" is massive.

Edit: If you haven't, here's a shot with it and the 150m Raider for reference.

...though, now that I look at that, it seems a bit large for the ~64m it's supposed to be. I'm guessing the Raider is actually a bit small for the 150m it's quoted to be.

If you'll recall, the standard X-Wing minis (including the Gozanti) are 1:270 scale. The larger minis (GR-75, CR 90, and Raider) are 1:350 scale (or so) to keep them affordable and suitable for tabletop use. This was the topic of considerable debate when it was released. At X-Wing's 1:270 scale, a 150m CR 90/Raider would be around 22 inches long - a bit big for a 36 x 36" or 36 x 72" play area, not to mention prohibitively expensive.

I don't own a Gozanti, so I can't say how the scale translates to in-game measurements, but I suspect they went with the larger measurements. At 64m, it would be about 5 times longer than the 12.5m X-Wing.

Ah, fair enough. I hadn't heard of a scale difference with the larger ships. Sounds right though.

Also I have no problem with the External carrier clamp being a equivalent points coast of the laser canon, and here is why: the hangar modification in the book is internal which mean both protection and space for external repair and maintenance of the daughter craft, which the external docking clamp system doesn't really allow for easy repair while out in space or resupply of weapon like torpedo to occur, it also leave the fighters exposed to damage before they can take off from battle or environmental condition. Those are all complication not present in the enclosed hangar described by the modification, hence why I kept it point neutral.

Also as far as transporting additional craft or even AT-AT there are a couple of things to keep in mind, that first the AT-AT are compatible with the same docking system as the TIE instead of them being carried by yet a different Gozanti variant, and if not, most importantly that the player can actually steal two AT-AT a somewhat dubious proposition. Also carrying those will definitely have a negative impact on the handling stat of the ship if you ask me.

That and there is always the fact that they would need to sacrifice their cargo space and possibly other living space to be able to carry a couple of internal fighter, and that is also always subject to GM approval. but for now they are more insulted that they where outrunned by a lambda shuttle then anything else, so I feel they will try to boost their speed output before they think of adding more fighter space. Tho I could see sacrificing the rear cargo old for a small internal hangar to be able to make some of the maintenance they are not currently able to perform while operating in space. Also they need to parts, credits, facility and time to make those modification to begin with, which might just happen if they are ready to work for it.

For the AT-ATs: I made a mistake, actually the rules for the retrofitted hangar stat that the maximum silhouette of anything carried can not be bigger than carrier - 2, which makes the max 3 for the gozanti. AT-ATs are silhouette 4. So 4 hard points are less problematic than I thought. And I totally would give the imperial assault carrier gozanti in that case even specialist docking system which allow to carry two at-at instead of the 4 TIEs.

The retrofitted hangar bay attachment never stats that those starships are necessary stored inside. Outside docking clamps with re-fuelling and maintaince options should be qualifying as retrofitted hangar. This is in line as well with rebels which used docking clamps as hangar not only for the Gozanti, but as well for phoenix squadrons CR90 motherships. As long as you make room for fuel-storage and re-fueling systems, maintenance equipment, 'traffic' control systems I don't see an issue with using docking clamps as hangar space. In case of the Gozanti external and internal storage should be both options. Our VCX-100 has currently storage for one internal fighter and one external. Complete with re-fueling and maintenance options for the externals. Storing 3 complete X-Wings inside a single VCX-100 together which launch mechanism would require to rebuild large parts of the hull, so we did not went with that, mainly to keep a lower profile and not have a really outstanding freighter. It bad enough that the imperials keep controlling VCX-100 much more than others thanks to the Ghost, we do not need a sign announcing that we are the other Rebels they are looking for.

Somewhere (not sure if a developer question, or Order 66) they asked about mounting ships and vehicles externally, and the answer was to keep it narrative.

Somewhere (not sure if a developer question, or Order 66) they asked about mounting ships and vehicles externally, and the answer was to keep it narrative.

Which totally makes sense, I mean you buy minimum 25 thousand credits for that attachment, that is sometimes 25% of the price of the whole ship, you bet that you can get huge and custom modifications for that price. Changing the hull form in significant ways should be an option to integrate those attachments, but players will not always want this. And as we are talking about modifications and customization for ship keeping it narrative is the best advice you can give for something like this.