I've been building up for a game set on a moderately large freighter and the Gozanti -class Armed Transport had caught my eye. However, I've now taken a hard look at the C-ROC Cruiser from No Disintegrations and compared it to the standard Gozanti -clas s Armed Transport from Fly Casua l. I'm left baffled at how much better the C-ROC Cruiser is in almost every way. Here's a comparison (only areas of difference between the two ships will be noted):

• Speed: 2 (GAT) vs. 3 (C-ROC)
• Forward Defense: 2 (GAT) vs. 3 (C-ROC)
• HTT: 50 (GAT) vs. 55 (C-ROC)
• SST: 36 (GAT) vs. 40 (C-ROC)
• Sensor Range: Long (GAT) vs. Medium (C-ROC)
• Encumbrance Capacity: 1,000 (GAT) vs. 1,800 (C-ROC)
• Passenger Capacity: 12 (GAT) vs. 20 (C-ROC)
• Consumables: 1 month (GAT) vs. 2 months (C-ROC)
• Price/Rarity: 200,000/6 (GAT) vs. 190,000/8 (C-ROC)
• Customization Hard Points: 4 (GAT) vs. 6 (C-ROC)
• Weapons: The C-ROC has all of the same weapons as the GAT with the exception of the forward-mounted proton torpedo launcher.

So, the C-ROC Cruiser is better in every way except for the reduced Sensor Range and the absence of the proton torpedo launcher (the latter of which is easy enough to add with the C-ROC Cruiser's additional 2 CHPs) and it's cheaper too (although this is somewhat balanced out by a higher Rarity).

After looking it over, I'm not sure that these descriptions of the C-ROC Cruiser are accurate:

• "at the expense of the ship's noted combat and fleet support utility."
• "While it carries nowhere near the firepower of the original design,"

Apparently, the Sensor Range (fleet support utility?) and proton torpedo launcher are far more significant to the value of the Gozanti -class Armed Transport than I had realized. Still, for what I'm looking to do, the C-ROC Cruiser looks to be the clearly superior choice.

Kind of like the HWK-290 is a better Y-Wing than a Y-Wing?

I think the entire vehicle stat and structure should be redesigned from the ground up. It should almost be its own game.

1 minute ago, whafrog said:

Kind of like the HWK-290 is a better Y-Wing than a Y-Wing?

I think the entire vehicle stat and structure should be redesigned from the ground up. It should almost be its own game.

With miniatures?

Seriously though, why does the C-ROC Cruiser have better HTT and SST than the CR92a--a dedicated warship?

Armored by Plot

11 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

Seriously though, why does the C-ROC Cruiser have better HTT and SST than the CR92a--a dedicated warship?

Because whoever made the stats for it is an idiot, and cannot follow FFG's own continuity by comparing it to a dedicated warship as you did. You gave further proof of this when you posted the less-than-accurate description in the C-ROC's fluff text. And the author gets paid to write, as does the editor who should have caught these issues.

Harsh, but I felt similarly when I read the ridiculous stats on the Mandalorian shuttle in Friends Like These and before that when I discovered that escape pods have "Sensor Range: Long" in the adventure that comes with the AoR GM screen.

Yes, I was harsh. This sort of stuff offends me, as I've done editing for RPGs professionally and there's no excuse for sloppy work, and especially if one is getting paid for it.

Unfortunately, their ability to coordinate with what's already been written -- particularly when it comes to vehicles -- leaves much to be desired.

But I wonder how much of an effect the beta test phase has on the stats, if maybe the C-ROC was closer to the Gozanti at first, but they changed it to fit whatever vision they had in mind, regardless of whether it makes sense in comparison to what it's supposed to be or not.

16 minutes ago, Blackbird888 said:

Unfortunately, their ability to coordinate with what's already been written -- particularly when it comes to vehicles -- leaves much to be desired.

But I wonder how much of an effect the beta test phase has on the stats, if maybe the C-ROC was closer to the Gozanti at first, but they changed it to fit whatever vision they had in mind, regardless of whether it makes sense in comparison to what it's supposed to be or not.

I would have thought that it would have lost some HTT and SST rather than gained in both since the GAT is already high in those values compared to most Sil 5 transports. They could have even lowered the Armor to 4 and it would have still been tough for a transport. I just think that it's a little too good is so many ways compared to almost all other Sil 5 transports.

And let's be honest here: the GAT's stats have been set for a long time (since the AoR Beta), so not working with them to go away from combat capability seems like a deliberate fail.

1 hour ago, ShadoWarrior said:

Yes, I was harsh. This sort of stuff offends me, as I've done editing for RPGs professionally and there's no excuse for sloppy work, and especially if one is getting paid for it.

You say harsh, I say business model . Right when the X-Wing ROC has been announced as the next epic model. :-)

I if want to get harsh, talk about the poor TIE Defender stats

THough the ROC needs babysitting, medium sensor ranges are dread awful.

34 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

You say harsh, I say business model . Right when the X-Wing ROC has been announced as the next epic model. :-)

I if want to get harsh, talk about the poor TIE Defender stats

THough the ROC needs babysitting, medium sensor ranges are dread awful.

I hope you're joking on the Sensor Range. Medium is pretty good for a transport, which is what the C-ROC Cruiser is supposed to be.

But long is so much better, because medium is pretty standard.

2 minutes ago, SEApocalypse said:

But long is so much better, because medium is pretty standard.

Considering how craptastic the sensor rules are, I doubt it will make much of a difference.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Considering how craptastic the sensor rules are, I doubt it will make much of a difference.

Agreed, same for anything hyperspace related.

edit: And don't get me wrong, it is super important for my group, so I still consider it a huge thing, but I can't deny that sensor range will be ignored in most groups.

House rules are your friend. Since FFG has dropped the ball on so many things, Google until you find some GM's additions that either suit you as is, or you can tweak to suit you. Works for me, and I'm rather picky. There are decent "alternative" rules for sensors, astrogation and hyperspace travel, starship modification, and many other things. FFG's system is a great base to work from, far better than anything that's come before it. But as a complete system it's sadly lacking.

This is rather nice of you, but I am rather happy with the FFG sensors, simple enough, very submarine-ish. As I said, it gets ignored by other groups, we are fine with it and use those checks more than combat or social checks.

The urge to develop new systems and mechanics had been satisfied for a while now too.

Odd thought: C-ROC Cruiser images make it look as though the cargo sits clamped onto the side fairings but extensions from the hull seem to reach out to attach to the medial ends of the cargo pods. This interests me because it would allow the cargo pods to be accessed while the ship is in flight and that the attachment would be able to hook the pods into the C-ROC Cruiser's life support and power supply (the latter is important for pods that have to maintain gravity, temperature, or stasis fields like those in specimen containers). It would also seem reasonable that, if no pods were carried on one of the side fairings, that small craft might be able to attach there (as with docking clamps).

I think the side racks of containers are auxiliary to larger internal cargo bays, certainly there seems to be plenty of internal space when Ezra, Hondo and "friends" are running around inside a C-Roc during the TV show.

As for whether the containers are accessible from inside, I don't believe so, they look to be the same containers we see strapped under other ships in the Rebels series, and similar to the ones from the old X-Wing and TIE Fighter games that are sealed and self contained. It would be a very interesting custom modification and I like the idea of the same areas being used as Firefly style landing/docking areas for smaller craft.

OK, just a dumb question:

What did we know about the C-ROC before now compared to the GAT? Did we really for sure know it's loadout?

I mean, it seems like a lot of the issue comes from the fact it's still just as armed as its predecessor. If the C-ROC packed lighter weapons (say a pair of medium laser cannons forward and back, and a single turret) and still only 4 HP would that make it feel more like a modernized merchant focused version of the GAT?

According to the Wook, all we know about the C-ROC is based on the Merchant One (possibly being a modified vessel) from Rebels, via the Databank. Of course, the canon Gozanti has a lighter loadout than what the books present as well, so, eh.

Interesting....

I'm wondering if the glitch is the presented GAT in the core is really supposed to be a military combat transport, with the civilian model packing far less weaponry, but that wasn't well communicated so the modernized version built off the combat model instead of the merchantman...

It's good headcanon if nothing else....

Well, I know the appearance in AoR/FC predates the appearance of the Gozanti in Rebels, the C-ROC, and any information on either from canon sources. The stats were based on other material, which I suspect is Saga's Starships of the Galaxy (as the Gozanti appeared in TPM originally). And the description contradicts what we see on screen, too.

Honestly, I'm not much a fan of the Gozanti as an Imperial ship, although I do like the new specs over the ones provided by Saga.

2 hours ago, Blackbird888 said:

According to the Wook, all we know about the C-ROC is based on the Merchant One (possibly being a modified vessel) from Rebels, via the Databank. Of course, the canon Gozanti has a lighter loadout than what the books present as well, so, eh.

The ship you refer to is not the one the book offers stats on. The one that appears in the game is based on the ship Black Sun used while working for Maul in the Clone Wars series. The one you are referring to is the Imperial freighter version which, among other things, carries four TIE fighters.

That's not to say that the Black Sun's version hasn't been modified to have all of that firepower, but the fluff in the AoR core indicates that the ship was constructed with all of these guns as standard.

6 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

The ship you refer to is not the one the book offers stats on. The one that appears in the game is based on the ship Black Sun used while working for Maul in the Clone Wars series. The one you are referring to is the Imperial freighter version which, among other things, carries four TIE fighters.

That's not to say that the Black Sun's version hasn't been modified to have all of that firepower, but the fluff in the AoR core indicates that the ship was constructed with all of these guns as standard.

Black Sun had the ability to construct starships from the ground up to fit their needs, which make it easy to circumvent the hardpoint system, so having the ship come out as stock with those weapons even makes sense.