On 4/3/2019 at 11:48 AM, EliasWindrider said:

These are my short term to do list

The MC80 and MC80A should have the same frame, because the crew and passengers are the same, and a 1 silhouette difference means integrated improvements were used on the passengers on the MC80A and highly automated systems were used on the the crew. Since highly automated system has a mod to halve the crew a second time, leaving an integrated improvements for the MC80 to POTENTIALLY apply to crew, the destroyer crew is either about 5400 or 10800 (with some officers quarters games to play leading to the about), and base passengers is about 1200.

Sil 8:
Star Cruiser     (MC80 Liberty, AoR CRB 284)
crew 5400, passengers 1200, cargo 70000, hangar (Sil 108+ numerous shuttles, etc)
Star Destroyer (Victory, AoR CRB 284)
crew 6107, passengers 1600, cargo 6500, hangar (72+ numerous shuttles, etc)
Star Destroyer (Imperial I, AoR CRB 281)
crew 37085, passengers 9700, cargo 15000, hangar (Sil 216+ numerous shuttles, etc)
Battlecruiser (Maelstrom, LbE 57)
crew 45000, passengers 15000, cargo 12500, hangar (Sil 288+ numerous shuttles, etc)

Sil 9:
Star Cruiser (MC80A Home One, LbE 54)
crew 5480, passengers 1200, cargo 85000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)
Star Battlecruiser (Preator II, AoR CRB 283) 
crew 109000, passengers 14000, cargo 78000, hangar (Sil 360+ numerous shuttles, etc)
Dreadnought (Assertor, LbE 56)
crew 125000, passengers 20000, cargo 145000, hangar  (  Sil 360+ numerous  shuttles,  etc) 

Here was my initial thinking on crew and passengers for destroyers... I didn't finish running the numbers on them.

21 hours ago, Rozial said:

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?

After the nubian design collective rules are in a "finalized" state, I plan on asking ogg dude to put them in his generator as an option similar to the unofficial species menagerie but I estimate that to be a year or more out. I also plan to ask FFG to adopt them as errata (or as 2nd edition rules) and sign away any right I have to them in exchange for my name (along with other thread contributors, because this is a collective effort) in the credits. However, while the fully operational rules has some great core ideas they were rushed into production and are flawed because of it, before I try to make these rules official I want the bugs worked out, nothing is flawless but with enough time and effort you can get pretty close. I want this to be a one and done (except for new special features). I think FFG developers would benefit from using these rules to build official ships (to avoid monstrosities like the croc, though I'm not sure if we managed to shoehorn that one in)

The C-Roc is absolutely OP. I can't find a good reason to prevent players from buying it over basically anything else.

14 minutes ago, Rozial said:

The C-Roc is absolutely OP. I can't find a good reason to prevent players from buying it over basically anything else.

Large crew is basically it. Also my favorite sil 5 frame in the nubian rules is the patrol ship. I love base 4 speed sil 5 ships so I can add high output ion turbines and make them as fast a a tie fighter, I'll admit to selfishly departing from espoused design objectives/philosophy by adding the frame specific "unusually agile" crafting upgrade to the patrol ship. So at least I'm honest about my hypocrisy 😁

By the way you might want to point your players at the ir-3f in the FaD core book. Using the fully operational rules you can strip off the hull add on a tricked out sleek carapace gain a few hp and integrated systems and add a hyperdrive.

I talked to oggy and he agreed to make a change to the starship crafting rules in his generator, with I think the next release, when you strip the hull off a ship that violates the silhouette based speed restrictions and DON'T replace the engines it will keep the original speed.

Thanks, Elias. I forgot that you statted the Secutor up-thread.

😊

On 5/1/2019 at 6:46 AM, salamar_dree said:

Thanks, Elias. I forgot that you statted the Secutor up-thread.

😊

No worries

@EliasWindrider

I can make both the LAAT/i and the LAAT/c as Sil 4, as you suggested.

However, the LAAT/i needs to use the Gunship Hull, and Automated Systems (plus Integrated Improvement and some Crew/Passenger juggling). It needs 23 HP, which is possible with the Gunship Hull mods for extra HP (plus the usual bonus HP).

The LAAT/c needs a different hull (like Transport), and needs 14 HP (Engine 2, Sensors 1, Weapons 2, Reinforced Frame 2, Highly Automated Systems 2, Sil 4 Modular Docking Clamp 4, Custom HP 1).

Note: I did a little research, and discovered some interesting things:

There are 2 × Sil 1 "Airspeeders" (one is a Hang Glider, max altitude 10km; the other is a Personal Watercraft, max altitude 20m). I hardly think either qualify as Airspeeders.

There are 15 × Sil 2 Airspeeders, 11 × Sil 3 Airspeeders, 2 × Sil 4 Airspeeders, 1 × Sil 5 Airspeeders.

It seems that the two Sil 1 craft would be better built using Landspeeder frames.

If Sil 3 was the base for Airspeeders, then allowing Larger Scope twice would cover Sil 2 to Sil 5.

Also, it would help with the LAAT's, by reducing the crew requirements.

6 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

I can make both the LAAT/i and the LAAT/c as Sil 4, as you suggested.

However, the LAAT/i needs to use the Gunship Hull, and Automated Systems (plus Integrated Improvement and some Crew/Passenger juggling). It needs 23 HP, which is possible with the Gunship Hull mods for extra HP (plus the usual bonus HP).

The LAAT/c needs a different hull (like Transport), and needs 14 HP (Engine 2, Sensors 1, Weapons 2, Reinforced Frame 2, Highly Automated Systems 2, Sil 4 Modular Docking Clamp 4, Custom HP 1).

Note: I did a little research, and discovered some interesting things:

There are 2 × Sil 1 "Airspeeders" (one is a Hang Glider, max altitude 10km; the other is a Personal Watercraft, max altitude 20m). I hardly think either qualify as Airspeeders.

There are 15 × Sil 2 Airspeeders, 11 × Sil 3 Airspeeders, 2 × Sil 4 Airspeeders, 1 × Sil 5 Airspeeders.

It seems that the two Sil 1 craft would be better built using Landspeeder frames.

If Sil 3 was the base for Airspeeders, then allowing Larger Scope twice would cover Sil 2 to Sil 5.

Also, it would help with the LAAT's, by reducing the crew requirements.

Is sil 5 needed or does sil 4 cover it?

Btw the hoops you had to jump through to make the laat's seem reasonable to me because they're pretty badass

@EliasWindrider

It's the Ubrikkian Skyclaw from Special Modifications.

I think it's another outlier. Low ceiling (1km), and has an Encumbrance of 1000.

24 minutes ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

It's the Ubrikkian Skyclaw from Special Modifications.

I think it's another outlier. Low ceiling (1km), and has an Encumbrance of 1000.

Maybe a rule where any crafting upgrade that doesn't require a triumph that is limited to a certain number of times you can get it one extra time for the cost of a triumph.

I really want to change the Silhouette and Frame dynamic to eliminate the need for Larger Scope/Elegant Design (Like having a Light, Medium and Heavy Frame for each Silhouette, and not having Airspeeder, Transport, etc. at all), but it pushes it too far from the source material...

😋

11 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

I really want to change the Silhouette and Frame dynamic to eliminate the need for Larger Scope/Elegant Design (Like having a Light, Medium and Heavy Frame for each Silhouette, and not having Airspeeder, Transport, etc. at all), but it pushes it too far from the source material...

😋

Actually I think we "need" a sil 5 ski hook frame, maybe it could get larger scope twice for cloud city. Or we could just skip sky hooks all together

Hmm...

It does seem to be the only one at Sil 5.

So getting the details on the laat/i (with the rule updates that I'll post)

airspeeder frame passenger quarters => 1 crew, 3 passengers, 2x larger scope => 4 crew, 12 passengers, officer's quarters => 6 crew and 10 passengers, integrated improvements=> 6 crew, 20 passengers; 15 htt, 5 enc, 10 hp, get an extra hp from crafting => 11 hp, reinforced construction => 16 htt

single ion coil, speed 1, 8 sst, no defense, mod twice to increase strain to 16 sst, mod twice for speed, and a enhanced output crafting result gets you to 4 speed, 9 hp left

gunship hull: 3 armor, -2 handling, 1x modded for +1 defense in all arcs, 2x (double crew and add sil hp) => 17 hp, 24 crew, modded or 1x maneuvering fins => -1 handling, crafting for +1 hp and integrated systems spent on highly automated systems, modded for an extra halving => 6 crew and 18 hp, 1x cargo pod crafting upgrade => 35 enc.

1x dedicated passenger berth. 30 passengers, 15 hp

9x weapons => 6 hp remaining

lifesupport => 5 hp remaining

sensors => 4 hp remaining

reinforced frame => 20 htt and 2 hp remaining

bike rack (modded twice) => 1 or 0 hp remaining

2 customization hard points => -1 or -2 remaining

extra hp from assembly therefore 0 or -1 remaining

1 sst too much 5 enc too much... that's a 95% quality match... bike rack should cost 1 hp instead of 2.

On 4/13/2019 at 9:14 PM, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

Thanks! I looked it up in my Errata file. It has a different stat block from the CRB.

BTW: Using the Transport Frame, I can get the Zeta close if we're shooting for both the full cargo and passengers (20 passengers instead of 50).

However, I think that I discovered a new option for the Assembly table (I'm thinking 3 Advantage) :

Modular Capacity (The Passenger capacity of the ship may be reduced on an as-needed basis to provide more cargo space, at a ratio of 10 Encumbrance per Passenger capacity sacrificed.)

I feel it needs to be Passenger capacity being used to provide more cargo, and not vice versa.

This would account for the Zeta's strange entry. It would also mean that it would only need 250 base Encumbrance and 50 passengers.

What do you think?

On 4/13/2019 at 9:35 PM, EliasWindrider said:

I'm thinking the name "folding seats" might be more descriptive, seems like a very reasonable thing to add though, my brain is a little fried at the moment. Thursday night I pulled something trying to get the cat out from under the futon to force feed him a pill

So should folding seats cost a hard point and be limited between sil2 and sil5 inclusive or were you thinking a hull crafting upgrade? Or both (a crafting upgrade that gets you the attachment at zero hp and credit cost),

@EliasWindrider

My original thought was just as a crafting upgrade. However, having it as both would allow more flexibility.

😁

@EliasWindrider

Just got Rise of the Separatists yesterday.

There is a sidebar on pg. 73:

Modular Cargo Pod

"Some Nu-class ships are fitted with a factory-built modular cargo pod slung beneath the hull."

The Nu-class shuttle is Sil 4, Spd 3, Handl +0.

With the MCP, it's Spd is 2, and Handl is -1. However, it can carry either 400 Encumbrance or 75 troops.

3 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

Just got Rise of the Separatists yesterday.

There is a sidebar on pg. 73:

Modular Cargo Pod

"Some Nu-class ships are fitted with a factory-built modular cargo pod slung beneath the hull."

The Nu-class shuttle is Sil 4, Spd 3, Handl +0.

With the MCP, it's Spd is 2, and Handl is -1. However, it can carry either 400 Encumbrance or 75 troops.

Yeah I got mine on Friday and it was one of the things that I noticed right off the back.

Updated the pdf: now has folding seats, a bike rack, and the speed and handling penality for a modular pod the same size as the mothership now matches the nu shuttle from rise of the separatists. other miscellany changes too.

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

3 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Updated the pdf: now has folding seats, a bike rack, and the speed and handling penality for a modular pod the same size as the mothership now matches the nu shuttle from rise of the separatists. other miscellany changes too.

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

I can't complement the work you, Salamar_dree and others have been doing on this. Looks great so far. Since my Star Wars game is back from hiatus (FINALLY) I will have to try and put it through it's paces.

Just playing around with this, liking so far.

Question though. How would you handle Reverse Engineering (spend T on a Mechanics check to add 1 HP)? Would this only be allowable during assembly or per phase? I have my thoughts but am hoping to get the groups first.

14 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

Just playing around with this, liking so far.

Question though. How would you handle Reverse Engineering (spend T on a Mechanics check to add 1 HP)? Would this only be allowable during assembly or per phase? I have my thoughts but am hoping to get the groups first.

Reverse engineering happens to the ship as a whole after it's been assembled because before that you're building not repairing/modifying it.

31 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Reverse engineering happens to the ship as a whole after it's been assembled because before that you're building not repairing/modifying it.

My thoughts too. Just was curious on others thoughts. Thanks.

Still making things and I ran into something. I noticed Larger Scope can only be taken once, but Special Modifications has 2 Landspeeders that are Sil 4 (2 Larger Scope) and a Airspeeder that is Sil 5 (3 Larger Scope). Unless I'm missing something somewhere.

Hey there,

I've been part of this community since the early days of Edge, and though I haven't posted anything for a long time, I've still lurked around here from time to time, and I've had my eye on this project. I have a love-hate relationship with the crafting rules as a whole, and I appreciate what you're doing. I thought I would contribute some thoughts.

1) Since you're using the VSL mechanic and Silhouette for most things, why not use it for frame templates as well? Unless I'm missing something, under the existing rules, using Elegant Design to make a Silhouette 4 Patrol Ship/Boat with the Gun Ship Hull costs about twice as much as using Larger Scope to make a Silhouette 5 Transport (Frame) with the Gunship Hull. This doesn't really make any sense, because the cost of the frame should largely reflect the size of the vehicle (I realize that Hull and Final Assembly do this, but this would be true of frame as well), yet is unaffected by Silhouette mechanically.

2) Related to the above: do away with Elegant Design and Larger Scope. A vehicle would be designed from the outset to be a certain size, and it doesn't make much sense for the vehicle's size to be changed as a kind of improvement in the midst of construction. Vehicles that are variable in size (likely anything but speeder bikes) could have a Silhouette Range that represents the available silhouettes that can be chosen for that frame. Crew Requirements, Passenger Capacity, and Encumbrance Capacity for all templates would need to be adjusted to be variable based on size.

3) The Single Ion Coil and Electron Baffled Engine seem too good. The former is so cheap in terms of both cost and hard points that if you allow swapping engines, there's not much reason not to do this on a party landspeeder, provided you've got someone good at mechanics. The latter Engine, though it costs 4 HP, seems like to obvious choice for any ship that is likely to see combat. Though it's more expensive in hard points, it's cheap in credits, but more importantly, when fully modded it can provide up to Speed 6, 4 Aft Defense, and 6xSil System Strain Threshold. I'd pick it for basically any kind of starship, and that should be a warning sign.

4) Rename either the Transport frame or the Transport hull. Having the same name for two different things has a lot of potential for confusion. Rename the Patrol Ship frame to Patrol Craft. Not only would this be a more generic term for starships of this role of varying sizes, but it also would help avoid confusion due the fact that the Patrol Ship is the only frame with the word 'ship' in its name, whereas 4 out of the 7 hull templates use the word 'ship.'

5) It seems like the modular pod system rules are still in the works, but I would recommend adding more clarification as to the distinction between the Modular Pod Docking Clamp and the Mothership Docking clamp. I had to read that section at least three times before I understood the difference.

6) Though the Enhanced Prisoner Lockup attachment already allows for this, I think it would be worthwhile to add an option for adding something comparable during ship construction. It could be done several different ways, but one idea I had was to allow the conversion of Silhouette # of Passenger Capacity into secure holding for that number of prisoners at the cost of 1 hp (0 HP for the patrol ship frame or the gunship or ship of the line hull, but only once) and an appropriate number of credits. Such an attachment could have modifications to allow for additional conversion, probably at the rate of 1 passenger to prisoner per mod.

Hope you find something I suggested helpful.