So, I recently a acquired an Armos Modular Transport, which is a Sil 6 transport ship. No weapons, no great speed, really not a stand out vessel, except for having extreme sensor range and being somewhat affordable for that size.

So I set about modifying the ship to my needs. Was able to track down some nightshadow coating and whisperthrust engines for it, and installed a hangar bay.

Now I'm looking around for other cool things you can do with a stealthy but unarmed transport vessel, and I'm looking at things like the Holonet pirate array, or command and control center, or luxury passenger compartments. Turns out, all of those require hardpoints despite not actually changing the characteristics of your ship. They are just big pieces of equipment or special rooms that are installed on your ship.

Here is the thing though: I can put 20 silhouettes worth of Sil 4 vehicles in my hangar bay. A Jawa crawler is basically just a giant box on tracks, with a passenger capacity of 50 and 5 hardpoints. So essentially, for all of that equipment that doesn't need to be on my transport to actually work but that still takes hardpoints I could install it in a crawler, then just park it in the hangar bay and never move it, while still having full access to the equipment from my ship.

Anyone else think that's a silly system? It seems totally backwards to me that if I can gain all the benefits of a ship attachment from a vehicle that's parked in the hangar of my ship that I can't just install that attachment for free in my cargo space then. I mean, it makes perfect sense to say "Extra armor takes a hardpoint", because I can't just put extra armor on a speeder bike, park in in my cargo bay, and get the benefit on the ship it's parked in. But it doesn't make any sense to say "A holonet array takes a hardpoint", because I can in fact just install it on a random vehicle, park that in my cargo bay and get the benefit.

At that point I might as well just make a custom vehicle called "Room" that has no armor, no weapons, no means of locomotion but has a hardpoint or two and park that in my hangar bay. Apparently that would be fine. Actually just putting the equipment on your ship on the other hand, totally against the rules.

Except for two small stumbling blocks. First, and most important, is that few, if any, GMs will allow you to use equipment contained in a vehicle parked inside a cargo hold for starship-related actions (I'd tell any such player to quite trying to abuse the game system to gain an advantage). Second, many starship attachments explicitly mention starships as the target, not ground vehicles that just happen to be Sil-4. One such example is the Advanced Targeting Array. And while the ECM suite doesn't explicitly say so in the fluff text, it does give example models and the models installable in ground vehicles are not the same as those for starships, and do not have the same range. Oh, and that's assuming that such gear would even penetrate a starship's hull to have any effect outside.

A Jawa Sandcrawler isn't just a box, it's a rolling ore processing, reclamation, salvage factory. The point being HPs aren't just about space. A 747 and a B1 bomber are roughly the same size and weight, but they most certainly can't do the same things because of how they were put together. It's not just about space or size.

I bet someone gonna be happy once the engineering book is out

8 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

The point being HPs aren't just about space. A 747 and a B1 bomber are roughly the same size and weight, but they most certainly can't do the same things because of how they were put together. It's not just about space or size.

I remember a Dev statement somewhere (on Order 66 maybe?) that the Hard Points dont reflect space or volume, but how customizable a vehicle is. A Naboo ambassadors ship is hand built to each specific order, so there are very few (if any) hardpoints on those. A Yt1300 on the other hand, is flexible and designed to be compartmentalized and tailored to the job at hand. So it has 6 hard points.

Yes, the vehicle system in this game blows chunks. Toss it and just do what you think is fun

You could always ask the GM if you could remove other aspects of the ship to create new hard points, if you're that desperate for them. I'd love to tempt my players to remove the backup hyperdrive, the shields, escape pods, or some weapons to create space for some custom mods. There just has to be some trade offs, not to mention some really difficult mechanics checks or expensive paid professional services to make those special modifications.

I even had a droid once who decided to remove and sell the life-support system on his ship since he didn't require oxygen.

That would be awesome! A luxury sandcrawler with a mobile command center. Lol, I seriously want to do that in my game now.

1 minute ago, awayputurwpn said:

That would be awesome! A luxury sandcrawler with a mobile command center. Lol, I seriously want to do that in my game now.

And a pool.....and a pub.....

Just now, 2P51 said:

And a pool.....and a pub.....

Yes!! The pool would go on the top, with a water slide.

You'd need special vaporators to keep it from drying up, of course.

1 minute ago, awayputurwpn said:

Yes!! The pool would go on the top, with a water slide.

You'd need special vaporators to keep it from drying up, of course.

Recycle the pee from the pub....

37 minutes ago, 2P51 said:

Recycle the pee from the pub....

You're a genius!

Pool? Waterslide? Hell no:

(Subtitle: A Monster Truck Sandcrawler with a flame paintjob)

The scaling on that photoshop'd image is lousy. A sandcrawler is way bigger than that. The editor scaled the crawler to fit the undecarriage/tires, but then didn't enlarge the combined image to scale properly against the background.

Actually, it just a smaller, more mobile hotrod design ;-)

I believe you're thinking about this way too hard. As pointed out above, the Hard Point ratings delineate how easy a vessel is to customize. To use an automotive analogy, it would be relatively easy to turn a Ural (a Russian-made motorcycle with permanently-attached drive-wheel sidecar) into a weapons platform. A competent welder and machinist could put a machine-gun on it in half an hour. It would be much more difficult, and less advisable, to do the same to a Suzuki Hayabusa.

To fit that analogy into the Star Wars setting, a YT-series freighter has modular fittings, extra power conduits, plenty of space to reroute things, and all of the fasteners use common-sized tools. Your Armos, on the other hand, doesn't have any of that ease-of-customization built in. Were I your GM, I would absolutely let you put in one or two of those things you mentioned, but it would be much more expensive and take longer, because they'd be rebuilding your ship in a new configuration to do something it wasn't designed for.

8 hours ago, awayputurwpn said:

You're a genius!

I have 5 ranks in Mechanics....

11 hours ago, 2P51 said:

A Jawa Sandcrawler isn't just a box, it's a rolling ore processing, reclamation, salvage factory. The point being HPs aren't just about space. A 747 and a B1 bomber are roughly the same size and weight, but they most certainly can't do the same things because of how they were put together. It's not just about space or size.

The point I'm making is that it doesn't make any sense for items that don't alter the vehicles characteristics to be bound by hardpoints. If someone said "I'm going to put a rebel command center in this ancient temple we found!" then the GM would be kind a **** to go "Does it have any hardpoints?", but if you go "I'm going to put a command center in this cargo bay!" the hardpoints would stop you. If you put the command center inside of a YT1300 though and then parked that inside the cargo bay suddenly it's all rules legal again.

It just bothers me that things that by all rights should just be furniture take hardpoints. The way you install workshops on ships in Special Modifications makes perfect sense. The way you install command centers on ships in Lead by Example on the other hand is ridiculous, especially when you start talking about a huge ship.

I mean, an example of where the Hardpoint system just absolute craps the bed:

Indulgent Class Luxury Starliner. It's literally a space going cruise ship, and it comes with 1 hardpoint. (Which makes perfect sense as long as hardpoints are used for engines, weapons, armor etc.)

Onboard Amenities Unit: 1 Hardpoint

Luxury Quarters: 1 Hardpoint

You literally have a luxury cruise liner that cannot gain the mechanical benefits of having a kitchen and luxury quarters on it at the same time.

So of course at that point you'd say "Well this is ridiculous, a cruise ship obviously has a variety of fancy restaurants, and the amenities unit is meant to be something you install in Sil4 ships to convert them to comfortable homes, not something that indicates whether or not a ship has an actual kitchen." But the way the system treats those objects still means you have to houserule them into the luxury liner in order to get the mechanical benefit from inviting people there for negotiations.

If those items were simply bound by encumbrance it wouldn't be any issue, but someone made them hardpoint items, so luxury liners have fewer mechanical benefits from being luxurious than a YT1300 can have.

11 hours ago, Desslok said:

I remember a Dev statement somewhere (on Order 66 maybe?) that the Hard Points dont reflect space or volume, but how customizable a vehicle is. A Naboo ambassadors ship is hand built to each specific order, so there are very few (if any) hardpoints on those. A Yt1300 on the other hand, is flexible and designed to be compartmentalized and tailored to the job at hand. So it has 6 hard points.

I believe that was Jason Marker. The guy who does most of the ships...

1 hour ago, Aetrion said:

The point I'm making is that it doesn't make any sense for items that don't alter the vehicles characteristics to be bound by hardpoints. If someone said "I'm going to put a rebel command center in this ancient temple we found!" then the GM would be kind a **** to go "Does it have any hardpoints?", but if you go "I'm going to put a command center in this cargo bay!" the hardpoints would stop you. If you put the command center inside of a YT1300 though and then parked that inside the cargo bay suddenly it's all rules legal again.

It just bothers me that things that by all rights should just be furniture take hardpoints. The way you install workshops on ships in Special Modifications makes perfect sense. The way you install command centers on ships in Lead by Example on the other hand is ridiculous, especially when you start talking about a huge ship.

I mean, an example of where the Hardpoint system just absolute craps the bed:

Indulgent Class Luxury Starliner. It's literally a space going cruise ship, and it comes with 1 hardpoint. (Which makes perfect sense as long as hardpoints are used for engines, weapons, armor etc.)

Onboard Amenities Unit: 1 Hardpoint

Luxury Quarters: 1 Hardpoint

You literally have a luxury cruise liner that cannot gain the mechanical benefits of having a kitchen and luxury quarters on it at the same time.

So of course at that point you'd say "Well this is ridiculous, a cruise ship obviously has a variety of fancy restaurants, and the amenities unit is meant to be something you install in Sil4 ships to convert them to comfortable homes, not something that indicates whether or not a ship has an actual kitchen." But the way the system treats those objects still means you have to houserule them into the luxury liner in order to get the mechanical benefit from inviting people there for negotiations.

If those items were simply bound by encumbrance it wouldn't be any issue, but someone made them hardpoint items, so luxury liners have fewer mechanical benefits from being luxurious than a YT1300 can have.

OK Aetrion, this will come off as a bit rude, because the truth sometimes does that, but really the vast majority of your posts are complaining about just how terrible this game system is. If you dislike it so much, why do you use it? There are plenty of other RPG systems that can handle Star Wars just fine.

The ship hardpoint system is designed to be simple and abstract. My comment shouldn't be construed as support for the mechanic, just stating the facts. If you think you've found a loop hole to abuse it then you are playing it wrong.

Oh, and just because I think you should know how abtract that hard point system is:

1.) How many hard points would you get back if you remove the 30 dorsal turbolasers on a Star Destroyer?

The answer is 1 hardpoint, as they are a single weapon system.

2.) How many hard points would it cost to add 50 heavy turbolasers to a Star Destroyeer

The answer is 1 hardpoint, as they are a single weapon system.

Now of course, one could try to argue Rules as Written you could add 50 quad laser cannons to a YT-1300 for 1 hardpoint, but that would be ignoring the "Running the Game; Rules Adjudication" section on page 294 of the EoE Corebook, especially the last sentence of that section.

It's not just about how modifiable a ship is, it's also about game balance. Many stock ships (and weapons) are perfectly fine "off the shelf". Modding a vehicle makes it special...unique...yours. Heavily-modified ships should be rare, at least compared to the bulk of vessels in the galaxy. Even if you build a YT-1300 to mimic the Millenium Falcon, it's not the Millenium Falcon. It's your customized YT-1300. Give it its own legend, regardless of what's under the hood. My point? Don't just look at the numbers. While they matter in the mechanics, they don't reflect the fictional importance of customization, so go with what's truly important to you.

The example of a luxury liner vs a luxury suite in a YT-1300 is, from a purely mechanical standpoint, a sound complaint. However, a core strength of this system (I'd wager all RPGs) is to have the rules hold a baseline. When things come up that aren't covered or seem off, you use that baseline to fill in any gaps you feel there are. So if the mechanical benefits of a luxury liner matter, simply use the benefits from the Luxury Suite attachment. If it's an especially luxurious vessel, add Boost dice or upgrades. If there isn't a direct comparison you can draw from, think abstractly and think of how dice might be added, removed or modified. This is an especially solid system to use that way. It's highly flexible and easy to tinker with on-the-fly.

This system is fantastic at having enough crunch to satisfy most "fiddly" players, without drowning the group (especially the GM) in minutiae. Use it to your advantage.

54 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

1.) How many hard points would you get back if you remove the 30 dorsal turbolasers on a Star Destroyer?

The answer is 1 hardpoint, as they are a single weapon system.

Actually, the answer to that is zero.

When you remove stock weapons from a ship, you do not get Hard Points back.

Quote

Q: Is it permissible to gain a Customizable Hard Point by removing a weapon from a stock ship?

A: Hello ShadoWarrior,

If you remove a stock weapon from a ship, you do not get a hard point that you can replace with anything. So in effect, that hard point is lost.

Sam Stewart

RPG Manager

Fantasy Flight Games

I think the hard point system could use some refinement. Like ships having having systems that have hardpoints. like the engines have 1 or 2. one or 2 for weapons etc. and perhaps systems hard points. And it would be nice to sometimes swap encumbrance for hardpoints.. But overall I agree with you Alderaan Crumbs

The system leans heavily towards ease of play and simplicity over granularity. The simplified systems are naturally going to be a bit illogical sometimes because of that. It's a sacrifice the devs pretty clearly chose to make.

At the same time, it tries to avoid the mistakes of Star Wars RPGs of the past, which allowed you to convert cargo space to space for ship upgrades and had it end up a complete mess of freighters turning into terrifying war machines.

I think you're looking for the kind of granularity the system explicitly tries to avoid, honestly. But it's also the kind of thing that GM fiat can and should allow for. If my players asked if they could pay to get some of their cargo space turned into a command centre, I'd probably be cool with that. But the more you bake this stuff into the rules the more complex it gets, and it's already a 443 page book.

22 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

The system leans heavily towards ease of play and simplicity over granularity. The simplified systems are naturally going to be a bit illogical sometimes because of that. It's a sacrifice the devs pretty clearly chose to make.

At the same time, it tries to avoid the mistakes of Star Wars RPGs of the past, which allowed you to convert cargo space to space for ship upgrades and had it end up a complete mess of freighters turning into terrifying war machines.

I think you're looking for the kind of granularity the system explicitly tries to avoid, honestly. But it's also the kind of thing that GM fiat can and should allow for. If my players asked if they could pay to get some of their cargo space turned into a command centre, I'd probably be cool with that. But the more you bake this stuff into the rules the more complex it gets, and it's already a 443 page book.

I agree. but i think they went slightly too simple. What I suggested I think would be a little better...