Thank you for these explanations.

They really should clear up that about the comm/sensors in the reprints of the core books. Maybe you could put a little note on it either in the beginning of the collective handbook or as a small bit in the sensor attachment.

As for the shield generators, I always thought they should have been a attachment instead of a function of the engines as FFG did in the base system. Because having your thrust provide defense made so much sense. But I get that you are going by KISS and that means keeping it as much to core as possible.

What If you made the Engineering Access from the crafting bonus options, 3 advantage or 1 triumph and it has no restriction from that option alone. It would also balance out the chart a little moving it to a section that only has one other choice. That way a engineer can have easier access to repair the vehicles that they themselves build, without having it be a larger vessel.

For the weapons the E-web wasn't big enough, and the the first one is in personal weapon scale just to big to be carried by a sil 1 or 2 character.

What is your opinion on the Master Artisan talent @EliasWindrider ?

1 hour ago, Gordian Naught said:

Thank you for these explanations.

They really should clear up that about the comm/sensors in the reprints of the core books. Maybe you could put a little note on it either in the beginning of the collective handbook or as a small bit in the sensor attachment.

As for the shield generators, I always thought they should have been a attachment instead of a function of the engines as FFG did in the base system. Because having your thrust provide defense made so much sense. But I get that you are going by KISS and that means keeping it as much to core as possible.

What If you made the Engineering Access from the crafting bonus options, 3 advantage or 1 triumph and it has no restriction from that option alone. It would also balance out the chart a little moving it to a section that only has one other choice. That way a engineer can have easier access to repair the vehicles that they themselves build, without having it be a larger vessel.

For the weapons the E-web wasn't big enough, and the the first one is in personal weapon scale just to big to be carried by a sil 1 or 2 character.

What is your opinion on the Master Artisan talent @EliasWindrider ?

The write up of the engineering access in the only place it appears is such that by default (unless specifically designed otherwise) the easiest possible way to get at a vehicle's systems is from the outside (exterior access panels are assumed by default). For sil 3 and smaller, getting at systems from the outside (through the default exterior access panels) is pretty much the only way to get at them.

Thus by the official fluff, sil3 and smaller vessels should not be able to get that attachment.

Now I very much disagree with the RAW that says engineering access should/does grant a boost. I can see why the game designer did it though, easier simpler just to give 1 ship a boost then all others a penalty (especially when you introduce 1 special ship with the special feature after the fact of RAW being introduced without the should have been default penalty) , but it's an annoying inconsistent/ sub-optimal bit of RAW that everyone that follows has to deal with. I'm not going to overrule the RAW in this case but I could add a "recommended optional rule" about repairing vehicles from the inside being 1 set back die more difficult than from the outside and in this case the engineering access attachment removes the setback die.

Btw an e-web is too big to be carried by a single character, it takes a team of at least 3 to transport it, assemble it and operate it. Traditionally the e-web was the king of the hill in character scale damage blaster weapons, and exceeding RAW maximums with house rules is the typical way to mess up game balance. Yes vehicle scale weapons deal more damage but the a sil 3 vehicle scale weapon firing at a sil 1 character has their difficulty increased by I think 2 purple dice.

17 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

The write up of the engineering access in the only place it appears is such that by default (unless specifically designed otherwise) the easiest possible way to get at a vehicle's systems is from the outside (exterior access panels are assumed by default). For sil 3 and smaller, getting at systems from the outside (through the default exterior access panels) is pretty much the only way to get at them.

Thus by the official fluff, sil3 and smaller vessels should not be able to get that attachment.

Now I very much disagree with the

@EliasWindrider

I figure the thing you were disagreeing with was my interpretation of the Master Artisan talent. Looks like you sent it without finishing the thought.

Any thoughts on the other items I brought up?

3 minutes ago, Gordian Naught said:

@EliasWindrider

I figure the thing you were disagreeing with was my interpretation of the Master Artisan talent. Looks like you sent it without finishing the thought.

Any thoughts on the other items I brought up?

I'd have to look at the master artisan talent closely which I haven't done.

@EliasWindrider

Master Artisan allows the character to suffer 2 Strain up to once per round to decrease the Difficulty of the next Mechanics check by 1 (to a minimum of Easy).

Thanks @salamar_dree ,

The talent makes no mention of a limit on the number of turns spent using it before attempting the Mechanics check.

4 hours ago, Gordian Naught said:

Thanks @salamar_dree ,

The talent makes no mention of a limit on the number of turns spent using it before attempting the Mechanics check.

My take is it lowers it by 1 and only 1 step to a minimum of 1 purple and you can make a mechanics check that is 1 step easier once per round. In this game talents that aren't ranked don't stack with themselves.

@Gordian Naught

Elias is right. It's not intended to work multiple times for a single check.

It is a one-time Difficulty reduction (min Easy).

It's intent is that you use it at the moment you're rolling the Mechanics check.

That's how my groups run it.

@EliasWindrider

LAAT/i (Sil 3)

Engine 2, Sensor 1, Cust HP 2, Weapons 9 (nine weapons!), Reinforced Frame (×3) 6, Hangar (4× Sil 2) 3+, Passengers (30) are maybe possible just through Advantages.

This breaks several rules at Sil 3 (base HP 8, +3 extra HP, how many Integrated Systems can you take? Maybe 3 Triumphs for Reinforced Frame? The Hangar can't hold 4× Sil 2 Speeders).

LAAT/c

Cust HP 1, Weapons 2, No "Hangar" (8 HP + "Hangar" HP less than the LAAT/i)

In place of these HP, the LAAT/c instead has 4 Magnetic Holding Clamps.

I agree with your opinion that these Airspeeders should be Sil 4. It's still rough, but more plausible. A single Hangar would support the speeder bikes (still 3 HP).

The Airspeeder either needs to be able to take Larger Scope twice, or perhaps add a Sil 4 Heavy Airspeeder Frame.

7 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

LAAT/i (Sil 3)

Engine 2, Sensor 1, Cust HP 2, Weapons 9 (nine weapons!), Reinforced Frame (×3) 6, Hangar (4× Sil 2) 3+, Passengers (30) are maybe possible just through Advantages.

This breaks several rules at Sil 3 (base HP 8, +3 extra HP, how many Integrated Systems can you take? Maybe 3 Triumphs for Reinforced Frame? The Hangar can't hold 4× Sil 2 Speeders).

LAAT/c

Cust HP 1, Weapons 2, No "Hangar" (8 HP + "Hangar" HP less than the LAAT/i)

In place of these HP, the LAAT/c instead has 4 Magnetic Holding Clamps.

I agree with your opinion that these Airspeeders should be Sil 4. It's still rough, but more plausible. A single Hangar would support the speeder bikes (still 3 HP).

The Airspeeder either needs to be able to take Larger Scope twice, or perhaps add a Sil 4 Heavy Airspeeder Frame.

I had decided on 2× larger scope for airspeeders to support the tempest.

Has there ever been an onscreen instance of a Laat/c carrying 4 speeder bikes in clamps? I'm asking because I don't remember seeing it in the cgi clone wars series. I never watched the traditional anime clone wars series though. I was thinking 4 hp for a mothership docking instead of 8 hp worth of hangers.

From the wiki:

"the LAAT/i could carry four military speeder bikes in an aft-deployable rack."

I think that you could opt to describe this as 4 Pods instead, but they are standard military speeder bikes, so I doubt that they would have docking clamps themselves.

Maybe "Speeder Bike Rack" as a specific Attachment, and "Magnetic Holding Clamps" as well (1 per Sil, max 4, reduce Handling by 1 and Armor by 1) that have specific requirements. (Separate from Docking Clamps, and only available during initial construction.)

Another problem is the LAAT/i's excessive amount of weaponry. It is described as a gunship, but I don't know if that's helpful. Maybe a variant Gunship hull that increases weapons HP instead of Oversize weapons?

I know, KISS. But these are problems.

@EliasWindrider

And the LAAT/v carries 16 speeder bikes...

Just thought of this: 3 of the weapons on the LAAT/i are antipersonnel (Damage 1, obviously smaller than normal vehicle weapons). Maybe these would take up fewer than 3 HP?

Some special rule for personal scale weapons and these antipersonnel weapons similar to Weapons Banks?

Just spitballing! 😊

Can it carry the bikes while carrying the at-te?

@EliasWindrider

Nope. The LAAT/c sacrifices a lot to carry that AT-TE.

The /i carries 4 bikes and 30 troops.

The /c carries 1 AT-TE and 2 passengers.

The /v isn't statted in-game yet, but carries 16 Bikes (and presumably 16 Troops).

So the laat/i is the only one that carries the 4 speeder bikes? Bike rack attachment, that can hold either 2 or sil or sil-2 speeder bikes seems the way to go. Probably 2 speeder bikes... which makes it very attractive for sil 3 and maybe sil 4 ships

@EliasWindrider

Yes, the LAAT/i carries 4 bikes

The LAAT/v carries 16 bikes.

On 4/20/2019 at 4:30 PM, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

Yes, the LAAT/i carries 4 bikes

The LAAT/v carries 16 bikes.

The laat/v sounds like it's sil 4 has 2 dedicated hanger bays and a repair bay. The last/I sounds like it needs a new bike rack attachment

@EliasWindrider

Meaning that all the LAATs should be Sil 4, like you initially suggested.

If I get time, I'll try to stat the "i" and "c" as Sil 4 and see how that works (using either the bike rack or hangar for the "i" to see which is a better fit).

😊

I've started to mess with the set of rules and really like them so far. I wish they were in Oggdudes character creator to make using them easier but Oh well. I was trying to mess with the Destroyer build and can't find the default Encumbrance, Passengers, or Consumables. Has there been discussion about these?

@Rozial

Howdy!

The Destroyer isn't fully statted yet.

Eliaswindrider does the lion's share of the work (as it's primarily his project), but I've been trying to help.

If you have some time to toy with it, try building a number of existing "Destroyers" to help figure out those values.

If not, we'll (eventually) get to them.

Cheers!

P.S.: It is my hope that once complete, Elias can get Oggdude to input it into his program as an option.

9 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

If you have some time to toy with it, try building a number of existing "Destroyers" to help figure out those values.

Well it's hard to say looking at the current known ones. A silhouette 9 Praetor II has 14,000 passengers while a silhouette 8 Secutor-Class Battlecarrier has 140,000 passengers. A silhouette 8 Imperial I has 9,700 passengers, a silhouette 9 MC80A has only 1,200, and a silhouette 9 Assertor-Class Command Dreadnought has 20,000. It seems all over the place. I can only guess the Secutor gets more because it's a carrier.

You could say the passengers for a destroyer starts at 1200 to account for the MC80A but I don't see them being able to reach the 140,000 passengers of the Secutor with the current selection.

Yeah, the Secutor is one that falls outside of the 95% replication that Elias is aiming for.

There's always going to be a few that just break any rules set.

40 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

Yeah, the Secutor is one that falls outside of the 95% replication that Elias is aiming for.

There's always going to be a few that just break any rules set.

Didn't we just do the secutor as a carrier frame larger scope x2 and a ship of the line hull?

On 4/2/2019 at 1:43 PM, EliasWindrider said:

preface this with modified carrier frame to remove the double crew and add silhouette hp mods (which forces the secutor to use the ship of the line hull), to have only VSL hp instead of 10+VSL, and have 100 base enc.

I also modified the weapon bank to impose a cumulative-1 to sst per weapons bank. But now I'm thinking that it should be a -2 to sst per bank but the frigate, heavy cruiser, destroyer, and space station frames would discount that by 1, as would the ship of the line and gunship hulls. Consider that eratta (not yet included in the link below), modified quasar fire build below to match.

Also thinking of making engine crafting upgrade: fine tuned circuits cost 1 adv instead of 2, not sure that's a sufficient price though.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/2w9oicv7s63dhmg/TheNubianDesignCollectivesWholeVehicleCraftingHandbook.pdf/file

Assault Corvette (Marauder, EotE CRB 267)
crew 177, passengers 80, cargo 175, hangar (minimum of 2 bays, Sil 44)

Carrier Frame: Elegant design => 50 htt, 25 hp, 400 crew, 125 passengers; integrated improvements, => 250 passengers; officer's quarters => 432 crew, 218 passengers; integrated improvements => 216 crew, 218 passengers; officer's quarters => 354 crew, 80 passengers

Ion Turbine Engine: 22 hp, speed 1; 25 sst; def 1/0/0/0; 2x strain threshold => 35 sst, 1 speed mod => speed 2; crafting upgrade enhanced output => speed 3

Transport hull 1 armor, -2 handling; mods: halve crew => 177, increase defense in all arcs by 1 => 2/1/1/1, 2x armor=> 3, 1x handling=> -1; crafting upgrades 2x layered plating => armor 5, 1x maneuvering fins => handling=0, 1x cargo pods => 180 enc

life support, 3x modded => 21 hp, 100 days of consumables

11 weapons => 10 hp left

hyperdrive => 9 hp left

navicomputer (still 9 hp)

2x dedicated hanger bays => 7 hp left

sensors => 6 hp left

3x reinforced frame => 65 htt, 0 hp left

1 customization hp (needed to get +1 hp from a frame, hull, or assembly crafting check)

so also 10 too many days of consumables and 5 too many enc

Carrier (Quasar Fire, SoT 61)
crew 250, passengers 150, cargo 5000, hangar (Sil 144+ numerous shuttles, etc)

carrier frame: 60 htt, 35 hp, 800 crew, 250 passengers, integrated improvements => 400 crew, officer's quarters => 500 crew, 150 passengers, integrated improvements => 250 crew

Ion turbine engine: 32 hp, speed 1, 35 sst, 1/0/0/0 defense; mods: 2x strain threshold => 47 sst, 2x defense => 1/1/1/0, 1x speed=> 2

transport hull: 1 armor, -2 handling; mods 1 increase defense in all arcs by 1 => defense 2/2/2/1, 1 increased armor => 2, crafting mods 3x layered plating => 5 armor, 2x cargo pods => 590 enc (assuming starting from a base of 100)

either too big to hurt on frame crafting or too tough to hurt on hull crafting to gain massive 1

3x life support=> 29 hp

6x dedicated hanger bays => 23 hp

6x dedicated cargo bays => 11 hp, 4970 enc

sensors => 10 hp

hyperdrive => 9 hp

navicomputer (still 9 hp)

4x weapons (1 weapon bank) => 7 hp, 45 sst

4 customization hp

=> 3 too many hp (but it could have been done less efficiently, i.e. mounting 4 weapons instead of 1 weapon bank which would have made it 1 too many hp and if they did 4x fine tuned circuits it'd still come out with the right sst) 30 too little enc, 350 or 385 day of consumables vs 365 or so, close enough to call a 95% quality match.

Assault Carrier (Starbolt, DC 70)
crew 800, passengers 250, cargo 4000, hangar (Sil 116)

Carrier frame 60 htt, 35 hp, 800 crew, 250 passengers, 100 enc, 3x reinforced construction, extra hp => 63 htt, 36 hp (could have gotten the hp from assembly)

Ion turbines 33 hp, speed 1, 35 sst, defense 1/0/0/0, mods 2x defense => 1/1/1/0, 3x system strain => 53 sst. Crafting upgrades 2x enhanced output => speed 3, enhanced power to deflectors => 1/1/1/1

Transport hull 1 armor, -2 handling, modded for defense => 2/2/2/2, armor=>2, handling => -1, 35 days of life support. Crafting upgrades 4x layered plating => 6 armor, 1x cargo pods => 345 enc, integrated systems reinforced frame => 69 htt

5x life support => 28 hp

2x weapon banks, 24 hp, 49 sst,

2x auxiliary generators, 20hp, 61 sst

Sensors 19 hp,

Hyper drive 18 hp,

Navicomputer (still 18 hp)

5× cargo bays => 3,995 enc 8 hp,

4x hanger bays => 4 hp

Reinforced frame => 2 hp, 75 htt

2 customization hp.

=> so 1 too many sst, off by 5 enc.

Carrier (Ton-Falk, SoT 61)
crew 4000, passengers 800, cargo 9000, hangar (Sil 216+ numerous shuttles, etc)

carrier frame with larger scope: 75 htt, 50 hp, 1600 crew, 500 passengers, 2xintegrated improvements => 3200 crew, 1000 passengers, officers quarters => 4000 crew, 200 passengers

ion turbine engines=> 47 hp, speed 1, 50 sst, defense 1/0/0/0, mods: 2x strain threshold => 64 sst, 2x increase defense in 1 arc => 1/1/1/0, increase speed => speed=2; enhanced power to deflectors => defense is 1/1/1/1

transport hull: 1 armor, -2 handling, crafting: flies like a brick => -3 handling +2 advantage (via shipwright talent) 2x layered plating=>armor=3 , mods: add 1 defense to all arcs => 2/2/2/2, 1x armor => 4,

either too big to hurt on frame crafting or too tough to hurt on hull crafting to gain massive 1

2x life support=> 45 hp

6x dedicated hanger bays => 39 hp

4x dedicated cargo bays => 31 hp, 8900 enc

1x dedicated passenger berths => 29 hp, 725 passengers (vs 800)

sensors => 28 hp

hyperdrive => 27 hp

navicomputer (still 27 hp)

1 reinforced frame attachment => 25 hp, 82 htt

15 weapons (2 weapon banks and a loose weapon)=> 20 hp, 62 sst

3 customization hp

=> 17 too many hp and this seems to be part of the 5% we can't replicate with a 95% quality match... this is a incredibly weak design compared to other carriers. Maybe someone could check my math on this one.

Carrier (Secutor, SoT 62)
crew 40000, passengers 14000, cargo 28000, hangar (Sil 432+ numerous shuttles, etc)

carrier frame with 2x larger scope => 90 htt, 65 hp, 3,200 crew, 1,000 passengers, integrated improvements => 2,000 passengers, officer's quaters => 5,000 crew, 200 passengers, integrated improvments => 10,000 crew

ion turbine engines: 62 hp, 1 speed, 65 sst, defense 1/0/0/0, modded for speed=>2 and 2x defense => 1/1/1/0

ship of the line hull: massive 1, 5 armor, -2 handling, 2x modified to double crew and add Silhouette hp => 78 hp, 2x modified to increase defense in all arcs by 1 => defense 3/3/3/2, crafting: 2x flies like a brick => -4 handling, +4 advantage, 3x layered plating => armor=8, 1 cargo pod => 2,300 enc

either too big to hurt on frame crafting or too tough to hurt on hull crafting to get to massive 2

5x reinforced frame attachments => 130 htt, 68 hp

7x passenger bays => 54 hp, 14,200 passengers

9x weapon banks => 36 hp & 56 sst

3x life support => 33 hp

4x cargo bays => 21 hp, 28,700 enc

8 hanger bays => 5 hp

sensors => 4 hp

hyperdrive => 3 hp

navicomputer (still 3 hp)

2 customization hp

=> 1 hp too many, 700 enc too many, 1 sst too many, and these were some very easy crafting checks (other than needing the triumph on the frame or hull to get to massive 2). so i'll call that a 95% quality match

Here's the Secutor