Hello Forum.

So, the group are off to recover a crashed starship that will become the group's own ship (they didn't start with one as a group resource as it's actually a FaD campaign). I am considering allowing a YT-1930 and as there are no official stats I have blended together a YT-1300 and a YT-2000 for stats. Biggest issue is Encumbrance Capacity (and judging by LibrariaNPC's notes, I'm not the only one with this issue).

CEC YT-1930 Light Freighter

SIL: 4

SPEED: 3

HANDLING: -1 ( ??? Although I'm considering +0 due to the ship being a newer model than the YT-1300, but it still has a similar profile and slightly larger aft than the old 1300?)

HYPERDIVE: x2. x12 Backup

NAV COMPUTER?: Yes

CREW COMP: Pilot, Co-Pilot and Engineer

PASSENGERS: 6

ENCUMBRANCE CAP: 180 ( ??? Due to the nature of the cargo bays, the listing under Wookiepedia states it technically has double the capacity of YT-1300: 200 Tons. But obviously you don't just double the Enc, maybe 200+)

CONSUMABLES: 4 Months

RARITY: 6

HARD POINTS: 6

COST (NEW): 135,000 (according to Wookiepedia)

WEAPONS: One Ventral Turret Mounted Medium Laser Cannon (also includes Dorsal mount, but no weapon as standard)

I know the various YT freighters (not surprisingly) seem to all function pretty much the same, so stats aren't too much of a worry (except Enc Cap confusion and possible Handling).

Also, in case you wondering why the big ship, why not a smaller one like a HWK-290? Well that was the plan, but I went and allowed the PCs to gain a landspeeder that they would like to transport about with them (and it didn't look like a little ship like the HWK would have a hold wide enough to stow a landspeeder). Unless I'm mistaken about the HWK-290 hold?

Your thoughts?

Looks ok. Don't sweat enc capacity, it's not that important that it be numerically dead on because of how Enc works in relation to cargo.

Older systems used weight, but then had to provide weight for goods. FFG allows the reduction of enc when discussing properly packed goods, so 40 enc of loose items might be only 10 when crated up (though not really accessibl in the same way that the loose items are).

So from a cargo perspective, the GM can just assign an enc for mission cargo and allow the players to sort out any additional cargo they want or to just illustrate how full they currently are.

If you want stats for the YT 1930 until official ones come out, try these . They're from here . It's a great resource.

When I statted one of these for my game I took a basic 1300 and replaced the weapons with the single forward facing medium cannon, gave it -2 to handling (total, because of the extra bulk), +2 to Hull Trauma (more ship to hit), and 330 Enc. I read somewhere that the 1930 was basically just a modded 1300, so it seemed to make sense.

If you want stats for the YT 1930 until official ones come out, try these . They're from here . It's a great resource.

I like this, but why would it have a speed of 4? With the extra bulk that seems odd. Is the 1930 mentioned anywhere as being faster than a 1300? Just curious.

The HWK-290 has a pretty generous cargo capacity (in my opinion). The AT-AT is Silhouette 4 and carries five Silhouette 2 speeder bikes. I don't see any reason you couldn't get a two-person speeder or two into your Silhouette 4 Hawk.

If you want stats for the YT 1930 until official ones come out, try these . They're from here . It's a great resource.

Interesting. I have to agree with Achalon, Speed 4 seems high for the basic unmodified speed of a ship like this. After a bit more thought, -1 Handling does seem right and noted they went this way too, also noted that they did actually just double the 1300's Enc Cap (330), but Ghostofman is right about plot specific cargo and ship hold requirements.

Yeah, a good resource though, even just to get ideas.

The HWK-290 has a pretty generous cargo capacity (in my opinion). The AT-AT is Silhouette 4 and carries five Silhouette 2 speeder bikes. I don't see any reason you couldn't get a two-person speeder or two into your Silhouette 4 Hawk.

I still don't know. The HWK-290 cargo hold has length, but looks a little too narrow... (This is according to various deck plans I've looked at, not sure how accurate they are though).

But, of course if the party decide that it would be really cool to have a HWK-290 (and I would have to agree), then it will of course fit

The HWK-290 has a pretty generous cargo capacity (in my opinion). The AT-AT is Silhouette 4 and carries five Silhouette 2 speeder bikes. I don't see any reason you couldn't get a two-person speeder or two into your Silhouette 4 Hawk.

The problem with having a sil 4 Hawk fit 2 extra speeder bikes is that a Hawk has engines + hyperdrive + shield gen + life support + head + sleeping quarters (i think) + etc.... The AT-AT is a transport, so it is intentionally gutted for space to carry troops and speeders.

Although I would say you can strap it onto the Hawk like a bike rack or something. Take a hardpoint and a few credits and ta-da!

The HWK-290 is sil 3. The sil 4 one is the HWK-1000, which is an awesome ship but has R10. Here you can find the best interpretation of an HWK-290 deckplan i have seen, hope it helps with figuring out the hold dimensions. I think that a Z-4 speeder bike can fit in there fine (an x-34 like Luke's in ANH, might be too big though). In the following pages there is also the HWK-1000 deckplan.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/198471-new-hwk-290/?hl=deck%20plans

The HWK-290 is sil 3. The sil 4 one is the HWK-1000, which is an awesome ship but has R10. Here you can find the best interpretation of an HWK-290 deckplan i have seen, hope it helps with figuring out the hold dimensions. I think that a Z-4 speeder bike can fit in there fine (an x-34 like Luke's in ANH, might be too big though). In the following pages there is also the HWK-1000 deckplan.

https://community.fantasyflightgames.com/topic/198471-new-hwk-290/?hl=deck%20plans

The PCs aren't getting a HWK-1000 (not unless they really earn it, or can acquire the funds and find one to buy)! As a GM, I'm generous, but not THAT generous

Cheers for the link, I had spotted that deck plan, but hadn't looked closely at it until now. It is actually fairly different in layout than the other I had looked at.

Very helpful, cheers!