The marauder class is actually a quite huge corvette of nearly 200m length ^-^

You do need to assume a imperial star destroyer style panorama view windows on the bridge, instead of small fighter style window and it makes all sense. But you are not the only one who got this wrong, there are even some comics in which the size is off by a whole magnitude ^-^

@Aetrion Without limitations of hardpoints, you can keep modifying your ship for all eternity and only price and the sky is the limit. And furthermore, you can already rebuild a CR90 into the medical variant, all you need to do is to remove the turbolasers, add a workshop and tell the GM that the interior is either restructures for medical purposes. The is not even an addition of passenger capacity as the original CR90 distribution already mentioned that the CR90 can have hundreds of passengers, depending on configuration. Now you don't get two hardpoints back, unless your GM is nice too you which is basically the only problem with the current modification system: The system becomes crude when handling weapons and the devs decide to limit weapon replacement in form that you don't get hardpoints for removing weapons and can not replace weapons as easy. They acknowledged that problem even. So GM away that problem with allowing your players a little more freedom when replacing weapons. It's not always a good idea to allow players to get back hardpoints when removing weapons, as it is clearly not intended to replay a laser-cannon with a quad-turbolaser at no additional costs, but if you apply GM judgment you certainly can give players some lenient.

I'm not saying ships should have unlimited hardpoints, I'm just saying that the hardpoint system doesn't make a lot of sense in many ways. For example, it doesn't make any sense to me that you can replace a heavy turbolaser turret with a torpedo tube at no hardpoint cost whatsoever, but replacing it with a dual light laser would cost one. It also doesn't make any sense that putting luxury crew quarters in your ship takes away part of your ability to tune the engines and so forth.

I mean sure, you can always have your GM override everything FFG wrote, but that doesn't really excuse bad rules from my perspective. Bottom line is that they could have written a much more comprehensive customization system for ships that has multiple "resources" to spend and treats individual system like equipment you can replace with various specialized variants that modify the base stats of your vehicle. If they had done that everything in the game would be highly customizable, rather than just the few ships that were blessed with lots of hardpoints.

They could have had a "deck space" resource that you can allocate to facilities, quarters of different grades, cargo space, ammo stores and hangar space for example. That way installing a briefing room or a holotank on your ship doesn't somehow remove your ability to slap more armor on the outside and so on. It just doesn't make any sense that you can't just say "Ok, we're converting cargo bay 3 to a briefing room", it takes hardpoints to put a briefing room on the ship, even if it's a gargantuan vessel that literally houses thousands of people and probably has a pool, a cinema a food court and a laundromat somewhere.

They could have had a "weapons hardpoints" system that simply assigns a certain weight in weaponry the ship can carry, and given every weapon and mounting type a weight value. For example, a light laser has a weight of 2, a linked weapon always increases the weight by 1, a static mount has a weight of 0 but needs to be aimed by the pilot, a gunner's mount adds +1 for each facing it can cover, and can be operated by a gunner. (So a broadside cannon that can only fire left or right is +1, a turret that can fire all around would be a +4)

An X-wing has 4 linked medium lasers (Those would take 3 hardpoints, + 1 for each linked, forward mounted so a total of 6) and linked torpedo tubes (I'd say those are also 5 hardpoints, forward mounted, +1 for linked, so 6). So then you could say "Ok, the X-wing has 12 weapons hardpoints". So if you wanted to strip all the weapons off an X-wing and replace them with a single heavy turbolaser that's slung under the fuselage, hey, whatever. Not a practical ship, but why the hell not. In Rebels they had a B-wing with a mini deathstar laser.

Most of the customizations IMO should simply be replacable systems. For example, you simply have "Engines" as a piece of equipment, and you can buy whatever kind of engine you want for it. You can go with the base model for your ship, which delivers the listed stats, or you could buy something like a "Longhaul Engine" which increases the speed by 2 but decreases the handling by -2 because it's built for going in straight lines. Or you could put in a Whisperthrust engine, or any number of other cool engines they could publish. Same with all the other systems. Your Hull plating could be a system you can switch out for all kinds of things, like ultra heavy armor that reduces your speed and handling, or lightweight plating that reduces armor to gain better handling. Reflective armor, Nightshadow coating, what have you.

They could have published book after book with new ship equipment instead of having to publish book after book with new ships where only very few of them have enough hardpoints to actually be customizable. It would have been a much better system.

ok. I am out.

Where are these stats given?

18 hours ago, TalosX said:

I won't debate whether the Ghost is a Sil 4 or 5 ship. I will say though, that there's no reason it can't be considered to have a special hangar even if it is Sil 4. The Ghost is unique and modded beyond the standard norms, protagonists sometimes get special discrepancy on things.

On the off-hand though, has anyone seen images of the new shuttle the Ghost is using? You can't say it's enclosed as 80% of it sticks out above the docking alcove! I'd still call it a "special" hangar, but that just my way of dealing with it.

Well, the problem with that is that the Retrofitted Hangar requires the ship to be Sil 5. As for the Phantom 2, if your 80% is referring to the tail fin sticking up from its roof, then yes. However, I wouldn't classify that as 80% of the actual ship exposed.

You really need to read the description of the Retrofitted hangar to see how it really does fit what the Ghost has, and why the Ghost is a Sil 5 ship.

Quote

Some starships and large vehicles may be modified to carry smaller vehicles (with a maximum silhouette of two smaller than the carrier) in a converted cargo hold or other compartment. The hangar bay modification includes launch and recovery systems, as well as refueling, traffic control, and maintenance facilities. <snip>

<snip>May only be used on ships or vehicles with a silhouette of 5 or more.

What the Ghost has meets all of these requirements. It is a special compartment within the ship which is capable of launching and recovering the Phantom (and later Phantom 2 ), as well as traffic control (within the Ghost's bridge), and refueling and maintenance capabilities to keep the smaller ship running. That is a Retrofitted Hangar , not a docking clamp.

You keep using the word "within" but it's painfully obvious you don't know what it means.

15 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

You keep using the word "within" but it's painfully obvious you don't know what it means.

I know exactly what it means. It means inside of, and that is what the Phantom is when docked. It is inside of the Ghost , not on top of it, not clamped to its roof. It is inside of a special compartment within the Ghost.

On January 24, 2017 at 10:17 PM, Aetrion said:

They could have published book after book with new ship equipment instead of having to publish book after book with new ships where only very few of them have enough hardpoints to actually be customizable. It would have been a much better system.

Only for those people who want to play Starship Spreadsheet Wars.

For the rest of us, who want to play a more narrative game, the hard point system isn’t perfect, but it is a pretty decent compromise to allow a certain amount of ship customization, without getting bogged down into Starship Spreadsheet Wars.

20 minutes ago, bradknowles said:

Only for those people who want to play Starship Spreadsheet Wars.

For the rest of us, who want to play a more narrative game, the hard point system isn’t perfect, but it is a pretty decent compromise to allow a certain amount of ship customization, without getting bogged down into Starship Spreadsheet Wars.

That's a nonsense argument. If being able to equip individual systems would make the game too complicated for you then why aren't you bitching about the fact that there are dozens of different suits of armor in the game and you can only put one of them on your character or that there is a variety of different cybernetics that can only go in one particular place, or that there are dozens of different pistols and rifles to choose from?

Unless you're saying that the character system in this game is "spreadsheet wars" I think it's ridiculous to claim that if ships worked like much less complicated characters instead of working like absurdly overcomplicated weapons the game would somehow be too complicated to be fun.

You're just making assertions and throwing stupid buzzwords around to make something sound bad when in reality all it is is a call to make ships work more like characters, which are infinitely more customizable and complicated than any spaceship would ever be. Does the character system bog down your narrative game with spreadsheet wars?

I have seen plenty of complains about the constant and fragmented stream of equipment which is only marginal different, especially ships (that was the one you complained about), but as well weapons and armor. Complains about the spreadsheet war of the splatbooks equipment sections are rarer common. Not as common as the complains about the lack of balance of those spreadsheets though. Autofire whining bingo totally should be a thing ;-)

The problem with ships is that ships have something like 20 different stats, and their own inventory of weapons which by the basic rules of the game is very inefficient to try and modify. On top of that they are extremely expensive, to the point where if you're buying a ship it's a major decision that will shape your whole campaign. So, given the huge number of variables on ships it's simply not possible to ever publish a ship for every conceivable configuration. That's why I'd prefer to see ships that operate more like characters, where you can mix and match different pieces to get a near infinite variety of possible builds.

When it comes to guns and armor it's simply not that big of a difference between one and the next. You don't have to obsess over every last detail on a lightsaber to wind up with a very strong weapon that does what it needs to do. With spaceships on the other hand, let alone the silhouette stat essentially mans that even if the thing you want exists, it might only exist in a size too big or too small for your needs, and then the hardpoint stat comes in and means that even if the thing you want exists in principle, it might not actually be a ship you can have some fun customizing and tricking out.

On 7/2/2016 at 2:22 AM, Decorus said:

HWK-2000 is the best super maneuverable speed demon freighter in the game.

Honestly my suggestion is if you want your players to use a VCX-100 and you don't like its Sil as GM it is within your power to just make it a SIL 4 craft.

Which book is the HWK-2000 in?

5 hours ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

Which book is the HWK-2000 in?

5 hours ago, Alderaan Crumbs said:

Which book is the HWK-2000 in?

There is no HWK-2000. The HWK-1000 is in Fly Casual and the HWK-290 is in Far Horizons.

3 hours ago, Dafydd said:

There is no HWK-2000. The HWK-1000 is in Fly Casual and the HWK-290 is in Far Horizons.

Ah! It was just a typo from the referenced post then. Got it. I know of the 290 and 1000. I thought they might just be adding to the HWK line until it goes over 9000...*drops the mic and pimp-walks away*

On 1/25/2017 at 2:50 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Well, the problem with that is that the Retrofitted Hangar requires the ship to be Sil 5. As for the Phantom 2, if your 80% is referring to the tail fin sticking up from its roof, then yes. However, I wouldn't classify that as 80% of the actual ship exposed.

You really need to read the description of the Retrofitted hangar to see how it really does fit what the Ghost has, and why the Ghost is a Sil 5 ship.

Actually I was not referring to the "tail fin". Rather more then half of the primary fuselage sits above the Ghost's fuselage. The sides of the shuttle that taper out and sweep back in, both sit high enough that theirs space between them and the Ghosts hull! So only about half to two-thirds of the Phantom II's lower half are actually in the Ghost.

I have read the description of the Retrofitted Hangar. The description states "some starships or vehicles can be converted to carry additional, smaller vehicles within retrofitted holds". It's pretty clear that the Phantom II is not "within" the Ghost when so much of it's hull is clearly exposed. Even the original Phantom, that sat rather snugly down into the docking alcove, was still exposed enough to be hit by a tracking device when it was fully docked.

As for the Sil 4 or 5 debate, people on both sides have made some good points. The Ghost clearly maneuvers like a Sil 4 ship, and several scenes have depicted what looks like "Gain the Advantage" and "Punch It". However the Ghost is also quite clearly larger then a YT-2400. I'm honestly not sure what I would rule if my group challenged the Sil 5 canon listing. However, my players currently run about in a YT-2000, so I don't really need to worry about it!

In either version of the Phantom's cases, it is only the tops of the individual ships which are exposed. The rest is encased within the alcove that forms the hangar. Neither were parked on top of the ship. Whether partially or fully , they were still inside of the Ghost , not on top of it. And certainly over 75% of each ship was within the Ghost .

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

In either version of the Phantom's cases, it is only the tops of the individual ships which are exposed. The rest is encased within the alcove that forms the hangar. Neither were parked on top of the ship. Whether partially or fully , they were still inside of the Ghost , not on top of it. And certainly over 75% of each ship was within the Ghost .

Actually, the top, the left and right winglets both sit above the Ghosts hull, and the entire front section are all clearly visible. We could have a discussion on surface area, but at a minimum 50% of the Phantom II is clearly exposed.

The left and right winglets fold up flush against the tail. That is why they would be "exposed". IF you look more closely, however, you'll notice that the "hinge" upon which those winglets revolve (and thus divide the top and bottom portions of the ship) is not across the exact middle of the ship. It is two thirds to three quarters up from the bottom. Thus between 60% and 75% of the ship's main fuselage is fully enclosed within the Ghost . Yes, the nose sticks out the back, but that's a relatively small section, and the Phantom II was a somewhat longer ship than the Phantom I , so it makes sense that more of the nose would stick out. It doesn't change the fact that it is still inside of a specially built compartment built into the Ghost , not sitting on top of it on a landing platform, secured with a clamp. So it really doesn't matter if some of it is sticking out. It is still stored within an enclosure . That is what makes it a retrofitted Hangar, not a landing clamp.

My main issue with declaring the shuttle dock to be a hangar is the requirement of a hangar to be able to perform maintenance.

In my reading of the attachment a hangar is a space where a character would be able to perform repairs, service, and perform limited modifications, this isn't really possible with the Ghost's socket as A) Most of the hull is inaccessible, and B) The rest of the hull is exposed to vacuum.

If you needed to replace the cockpit canopy or repair damage to the tail fin you'd have to leave the Ghost in a spacesuit, so it doesn't really fit the description of "Hangar" to me.

Conversely it does provide more protection than a normal docking clamp, and likely has connections for refuelling, as well as functioning as the rear turret for the ship.

I think the best explanation is that the GM of Rebels created a custom modification along the lines of "Shuttle Docking and Integration Port" for his players.

I disagree. You can easily perform much of the maintenance on the Phantom in that hangar. Yes, some of it, such as hull repairs may be a bit trickier, but everything else is easy. The key, however, is that it does also allow the ship to be refueled, and we do see the Ghost provide other functions, including Flight Control for the Phantom as well. All of these are part and parcel to the Retrofitted Hangar.

7 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I disagree. You can easily perform much of the maintenance on the Phantom in that hangar. Yes, some of it, such as hull repairs may be a bit trickier, but everything else is easy. The key, however, is that it does also allow the ship to be refueled, and we do see the Ghost provide other functions, including Flight Control for the Phantom as well. All of these are part and parcel to the Retrofitted Hangar.

There is nothing that says docking clamps cannot facilitate refueling. I'm fairly certain the docking clamps on the Gozanti are intended to allow the TIEs to be refueled. As far as coordination of flight control, exactly what are you talking about?

Just now, HappyDaze said:

There is nothing that says docking clamps cannot facilitate refueling. I'm fairly certain the docking clamps on the Gozanti are intended to allow the TIEs to be refueled. As far as coordination of flight control, exactly what are you talking about?

A docking clamp, by itself is just that. It's a clamp that locks a smaller ship to a larger one. It does not allow refueling. the Tie Fighter clamps on the Gozanti also don't have refueling lines either. They simply allow access to the cockpits by the pilots, so, no, they don't allow refueling.

28 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

A docking clamp, by itself is just that. It's a clamp that locks a smaller ship to a larger one. It does not allow refueling. the Tie Fighter clamps on the Gozanti also don't have refueling lines either. They simply allow access to the cockpits by the pilots, so, no, they don't allow refueling.

I'm sure you have more of your astounding "because you say so" evidence to support your argument, right?

5 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

I'm sure you have more of your astounding "because you say so" evidence to support your argument, right?

Actually, I could tel from looking at the images and diagrams as seen in the images below. The clamps used only connect to the cockpit entrance, and don't show any fuel lines down to where Tie Fighters refuel in the center hub of the wing panels (as seen in TFA when Poe and Finn steal one, for example). So visually we can see that those clamps don't allow refueling.

And you can show a fuel line between the Ghost and Phantoms?

BTW, your first drawing doesn't even get the spelling of "turret" correct, so I'd question just how accurate it is.