What do you guys need me to do? I'm going to be on a long car ride tomorrow and so I was wondering if I could test the heavy walker rules, but I don't know what they are (or how to make them).

5 hours ago, BannerGuard said:

What do you guys need me to do? I'm going to be on a long car ride tomorrow and so I was wondering if I could test the heavy walker rules, but I don't know what they are (or how to make them).

Heavy Walker rules haven't been written yet. But basically heavy walkers will look a lot like the current walkers and be limited to a max speed of I think 2 (because i think the juggernaut has speed 3).

@EliasWindrider

I'm sure that I read it years ago, but I just happened to re-read a sidebar in the EotE CRB, pg. 266, entitled Capital Ship Capacity.

It indicates that most Cap ships could carry far more than their listed Encumbrance should the need arise. Not sure if it's relevant or not, but I thought that I should mention it.

7 hours ago, salamar_dree said:

@EliasWindrider

I'm sure that I read it years ago, but I just happened to re-read a sidebar in the EotE CRB, pg. 266, entitled Capital Ship Capacity.

It indicates that most Cap ships could carry far more than their listed Encumbrance should the need arise. Not sure if it's relevant or not, but I thought that I should mention it.

Regardless of this rule (which I actually was aware of) the rules should be designed to replicate the listed enc

I'm planning to change the patrol ship specific "unusually agile" crafting upgrade to cost 2 instead of 1 triumph and to read as "the number of and selection of pilot only maneuvers available to the vessel are determined as if it were one silhouette smaller than it's actual size. This impacts the eligibility for talents such as barrel roll. This crafting upgrade can only be selected once." And then making the crafting upgrade also available to air speeders... for the laat's.

I don't know if this will help at all, but this is what I use. It is a system I devised for calculating price of custom ships, and while when compared to ships that already have stats it trends a little high (5%-10%), (ignoring ships like the Y-Wing or YT-1300 which are super cheap cause they're old, very mass-produced, or whatever, which I have deemed acceptable for custom ships, because it would cost more to build a one-off ship or a prototype than to buy a mass-produced ship), it works pretty well. Note: For game mechanics purposes, use silhouette like normal, but for build purposes, continue to increase silhouette (i.e. ISD is silhouette 10, MC80 is silhouette 9, Praetor is silhouette 12, etc.). Just use your best judgement when applying silhouette, otherwise this system breaks down because it uses silhouette as a stand-in for size, so if the executor is silhouette 10, for example, its cost would be much lower than it should be, because this system multiplies costs by silhouette (size).

1. *Max Hull Trauma Threshold = (Silhouette) x X : (3-4)x7, (5)x11, (6-7)x12, (8)x15, (9)x16, (10+)x18. If working with anything bigger than a Praetor, I would suggest balancing the multiplier for the revised silhouette.
2. Hull Trauma cost is 500x1+500x2+500x3, etc. until you reach desired threshold. Then multiply by Silhouette. 500 is a variable, so if hull plating is harder to find, or more expensive, that is the number to change.
3. *Max System Strain Threshold = (Silhouette) x X : (3-4)x4, (5)x7, (6+)x9.
4. System Strain cost is the same as Hull Trauma, but the variable is 100. The GM can require a higher System Strain Threshold in order to reach the desired level if the ship has a lot of things that would overtax its systems (or reactor) (i.e. your B-Wing has a complicated gyroscopic system that makes its systems finicky, so in order to get a SS Threshold of 6, you have to buy a Threshold of 9).
5. *Max Armor is Silhouette+1.
6. Armor cost is the same as Hull Trauma, but the variable is 1,000.
7. *Hyperdrive rating must be .5 or more, but can't be more than 15.
8. *Backup hyperdrive rating must be 8 or more, but can't be more than 15.
9. Hyperdrive cost = 15 - rating x (Silhouette - 2[min. 1]) x 1,000 (variable). Use the same system for the backup hyperdrive.
10. Sensors cost = Range band (close=1, short=2, etc.) x 500 (variable) x (Silhouette - 2[min. 1])
11. *Max total Shields = (Silhouette) Max = X : (3-4)Max=4, (5-6)Max=10, (7-8)Max=14, (9+)Max=16. Note: not a multiplier!!!
12. Shields (defense, but only defense that comes from shields) = total defense x (Silhouette-2 [min. 1]) x 2,000 (variable).
13. Engine cost: for engines, I just use the ones from FO and ignore everything except for speed, using mods to increase speed to the desired level. Then, you take the cost of that and multiply it by Silhouette - 2 (min. 1).
14. Weapon cost = price of each individual weapon system. Remember, for linked weapons, the cost is half for each additional linked weapon. Another way to say that would be: Price ÷ 2 x (Linked+2) x identical weapons = cost. For entering the weapon fields in the spreadsheet take one type of weapon (i.e. light turbolasers) halve the cost, and for each linked weapon (i.e. quad light turbolasers [linked 3]) add the linked rating+2 to "quantity" (i.e. a quad light turbolaser would have a price of 6,000 and a quantity of 5 (linked 3+2), and a single light turbolaser would have a quantity of 2 (linked 0+2).
15. *Handling is entirely up to the GM.

This sounds like a lot to calculate (because it is), but I made a spreadsheet for calculating the cost, which I will link down below.

I marked everything that isn't automatically calculated with an asterisk.

You will need to go to the "File" drop-down menu and select "Make a Copy" in order to use the spreadsheet. Warning: HT and SS only go up to 200, and Armor only goes up to 10 anything more and it won't work. (you can expand those fields as necessary though).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GFIDMcTTl5Ca3EBBYBIVBO6Tj5E8a59Cqk5s6Q9dvKA/edit?usp=sharing

34 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I don't know if this will help at all, but this is what I use. It is a system I devised for calculating price of custom ships, and while when compared to ships that already have stats it trends a little high (5%-10%), (ignoring ships like the Y-Wing or YT-1300 which are super cheap cause they're old, very mass-produced, or whatever, which I have deemed acceptable for custom ships, because it would cost more to build a one-off ship or a prototype than to buy a mass-produced ship), it works pretty well. Note: For game mechanics purposes, use silhouette like normal, but for build purposes, continue to increase silhouette (i.e. ISD is silhouette 10, MC80 is silhouette 9, Praetor is silhouette 12, etc.). Just use your best judgement when applying silhouette, otherwise this system breaks down because it uses silhouette as a stand-in for size, so if the executor is silhouette 10, for example, its cost would be much lower than it should be, because this system multiplies costs by silhouette (size).

1. *Max Hull Trauma Threshold = (Silhouette) x X : (3-4)x7, (5)x11, (6-7)x12, (8)x15, (9)x16, (10+)x18. If working with anything bigger than a Praetor, I would suggest balancing the multiplier for the revised silhouette.
2. Hull Trauma cost is 500x1+500x2+500x3, etc. until you reach desired threshold. Then multiply by Silhouette. 500 is a variable, so if hull plating is harder to find, or more expensive, that is the number to change.
3. *Max System Strain Threshold = (Silhouette) x X : (3-4)x4, (5)x7, (6+)x9.
4. System Strain cost is the same as Hull Trauma, but the variable is 100. The GM can require a higher System Strain Threshold in order to reach the desired level if the ship has a lot of things that would overtax its systems (or reactor) (i.e. your B-Wing has a complicated gyroscopic system that makes its systems finicky, so in order to get a SS Threshold of 6, you have to buy a Threshold of 9).
5. *Max Armor is Silhouette+1.
6. Armor cost is the same as Hull Trauma, but the variable is 1,000.
7. *Hyperdrive rating must be .5 or more, but can't be more than 15.
8. *Backup hyperdrive rating must be 8 or more, but can't be more than 15.
9. Hyperdrive cost = 15 - rating x (Silhouette - 2[min. 1]) x 1,000 (variable). Use the same system for the backup hyperdrive.
10. Sensors cost = Range band (close=1, short=2, etc.) x 500 (variable) x (Silhouette - 2[min. 1])
11. Shields (defense, but only defense that comes from shields) = total defense x (Silhouette-2 [min. 1]) x 2,000 (variable).
12. Engine cost: for engines, I just use the ones from FO and ignore everything except for speed, using mods to increase speed to the desired level. Then, you take the cost of that and multiply it by Silhouette - 2 (min. 1).
13. Weapon cost = price of each individual weapon system. Remember, for linked weapons, the cost is half for each additional linked weapon. Another way to say that would be: Price ÷ 2 x (Linked+2) x identical weapons = cost. For entering the weapon fields in the spreadsheet take one type of weapon (i.e. light turbolasers) halve the cost, and for each linked weapon (i.e. quad light turbolasers [linked 3]) add the linked rating+2 to "quantity" (i.e. a quad light turbolaser would have a price of 6,000 and a quantity of 5 (linked 3+2), and a single light turbolaser would have a quantity of 2 (linked 0+2).
14. *Handling is entirely up to the GM.

This sounds like a lot to calculate (because it is), but I made a spreadsheet for calculating the cost, which I will link down below.

I marked everything that isn't automatically calculated with an asterisk.

You will need to go to the "File" drop-down menu and select "Make a Copy" in order to use the spreadsheet. Warning: HT and SS only go up to 200, and Armor only goes up to 10 anything more and it won't work. (you can expand those fields as necessary though).

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1GFIDMcTTl5Ca3EBBYBIVBO6Tj5E8a59Cqk5s6Q9dvKA/edit?usp=sharing

Thanks. I'll digest it later. I noticed some similarities with the nubian design collective. I think that I'll be able to make a more definitive cost (less based on preference).

@EliasWindrider Reading back through some of the *VERY LONG* thread, I see that you were coming up with a lot of very particular rules. I would suggest that you basically sit down with the players, sketch out the ship (and if it is small enough [sil 4-5] and if you're like me, draw out a full interior) and then decide what makes sense. If they want to cover every inch of the ship in weapons, then maybe you let them, but lower the system strain threshold dramatically, lower the speed, lower handling, and add extra ways to spend Threat and Despair. I don't like the Hardpoint system FFG uses for ship crafting AT ALL because it is very limiting in how customized your ship can be (leaving aside for the moment that they didn't seem to take weapons into account). I would say that as long as a hangar bay would make sense space-wise, they can have it, but maybe it restricts where they can put weapons, etc. or if they want to have really good engines and lots of weapons, then you should require more space for reactors or even just more reactors.

I think that this way of doing it is much simpler and fits much more with the style of the system. As far as Hardpoints go, I would say that once you complete the design of the ship, the GM can assign a number of Hardpoints to it. If it is made to be modular and easily modified, than maybe it gets 6 Hardpoints, but if they covered every inch of the hull in weapons, then maybe they get 0 Hardpoints.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

@EliasWindrider Reading back through some of the *VERY LONG* thread, I see that you were coming up with a lot of very particular rules. I would suggest that you basically sit down with the players, sketch out the ship (and if it is small enough [sil 4-5] and you're like me, draw out a full interior) and then decide what make sense. If they want to cover every inch of the ship in weapons, then maybe you let them, but lower the system strain threshold dramatically, lower the speed, lower handling, and add extra ways to spend Threat and Despair. I don't like the Hardpoint system FFG uses for ship crafting AT ALL because it is very limiting in how customized your ship can be (leaving aside for the moment that they didn't seem to take weapons into account). I would say that as long as a hangar bay would make sense space-wise, they can have it, but maybe it restricts where they can put weapons, etc. or if they want to have really good engines and lots of weapons, then you should require more space for reactors or even just more reactors.

I think that this way of doing it is much simpler and fits much more with the style of the system. As far as Hardpoints go, I would say that once you complete the design of the ship, the GM can assign a number of Hardpoints to it. If it is made to be modular and easily modified, than maybe it gets 6 Hardpoints, but if they covered every inch of the hull in weapons, then maybe they get 0 Hardpoints.

Get the .pdf linked to in the initial post, read it and we'll talk. If you can find problems with it, I'd like to hear them. The point of the ruleset is the minimum neccessary departure from official vehicle crafting rules needed to replicate 95% of official ships. I.e. provide ships with power levels on par with official ships. I've made tables of the "complicated" math so the gamers don't need a calculator. So like I said, please read the .pdf and provide feedback.

31 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Get the .pdf linked to in the initial post, read it and we'll talk. If you can find problems with it, I'd like to hear them. The point of the ruleset is the minimum neccessary departure from official vehicle crafting rules needed to replicate 95% of official ships. I.e. provide ships with power levels on par with official ships. I've made tables of the "complicated" math so the gamers don't need a calculator. So like I said, please read the .pdf and provide feedback.

I had no intention of dissing your set of rules, that was just my 2 cents on vehicle crafting. I'm sorry if I came across in the wrong way. I don't think I criticized complexity anywhere in my post, and when I said "style of the system" I was referring to the more narrative style of the overall system, not the vehicle crafting system.

The rules seem to be very good (and certainly quite a bit better than the RAW), I don't really have any quibbles with your system. My only problems with it are of a more conceptual nature. Given the nature of ship design, I think that this sort of system is not necessarily the best way of going about it (again, not dissing your system) as there is too much limitation in the choices of "how much HT will your ship have, vs. fragile hull to cut costs, but beefier armor to compensate" for example. I think that this system works very well for its objectives, but I don't think that that style is the best way of going about vehicle crafting. Another objection I have with the style of system is the limited number of components for customization. Having the System Strain (or reactor/circuitry whatever you think that is analogous to), Defense (or shield generator), and Engine all wrapped into one causes some problems for me because they are disparate components, so lumping them all into one means that things that are not directly related to each other suddenly are tied together and limit each other. You did a good job adding the Military Grade Shield Generator and I greatly appreciate you actually accounting for weapons, unlike the RAW.

Another general objection I have to this style of system is the difficulty/threat and advantage expenditures, because I think that they should be baked into the cake from the start and not something such as a flaw in the construction process, because on the big stuff, you can generally assume that the workers will do the job sufficiently, resulting in no Threat or Advantage. With small stuff (i.e. speeder bikes) it does make some sense to have to make crafting checks as you go, because one person (or a small team) is more likely to screw something up, and with a small thing the effect will be much more dramatic than with something very large. My solution to this would be to make a "design check" once you have finalized the design in order to see if the character "overlooked" anything that the GM can use against them, using the same difficulty table as frame crafting, but reduced by one (with appropriate modifiers based on the complexity of the design). This is because with large constructions (sil 5+), as stated earlier, the work is more compartmentalized and even when a mistake is made it is unlikely to effect the ship as a whole. A design check fixes this because it explains why a mistake would effect the ship to that extent. I also don't really like the idea of modding components to make the thing because it increases the difficulty to often absurd amounts, though I make an exception for my use of the engines because it uses just the speed mods.

In short, I think your system is about as good as it can get (which is pretty good), but I think that it has its limitations. My preferred way of going about it is much more free form, but this is a good system for general use. I had skimmed the PDF (and the thread) earlier, but I didn't have a lot of time to read the whole thing through, and I wanted to go ahead and give my 2 cents. Now I have read the entire thing and can give my opinion directly on the rule set at hand rather than just on the principle concepts.

I would appreciate it if you would take the time to critique my rule set, as I like nothing more than improving things (sort of runs in my family "My father dealt with this curse, as did his father before him and his father before him").

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I had no intention of dissing your set of rules, that was just my 2 cents on vehicle crafting. I'm sorry if I came across in the wrong way. I don't think I criticized complexity anywhere in my post, and when I said "style of the system" I was referring to the more narrative style of the overall system, not the vehicle crafting system.

The rules seem to be very good (and certainly quite a bit better than the RAW), I don't really have any quibbles with your system. My only problems with it are of a more conceptual nature. Given the nature of ship design, I think that this sort of system is not necessarily the best way of going about it (again, not dissing your system) as there is too much limitation in the choices of "how much HT will your ship have, vs. fragile hull to cut costs, but beefier armor to compensate" for example. I think that this system works very well for its objectives, but I don't think that that style is the best way of going about vehicle crafting. Another objection I have with the style of system is the limited number of components for customization. Having the System Strain (or reactor/circuitry whatever you think that is analogous to), Defense (or shield generator), and Engine all wrapped into one causes some problems for me because they are disparate components, so lumping them all into one means that things that are not directly related to each other suddenly are tied together and limit each other. You did a good job adding the Military Grade Shield Generator and I greatly appreciate you actually accounting for weapons, unlike the RAW.

Another general objection I have to this style of system is the difficulty/threat and advantage expenditures, because I think that they should be baked into the cake from the start and not something such as a flaw in the construction process, because on the big stuff, you can generally assume that the workers will do the job sufficiently, resulting in no Threat or Advantage. With small stuff (i.e. speeder bikes) it does make some sense to have to make crafting checks as you go, because one person (or a small team) is more likely to screw something up, and with a small thing the effect will be much more dramatic than with something very large. My solution to this would be to make a "design check" once you have finalized the design in order to see if the character "overlooked" anything that the GM can use against them, using the same difficulty table as frame crafting, but reduced by one (with appropriate modifiers based on the complexity of the design). This is because with large constructions (sil 5+), as stated earlier, the work is more compartmentalized and even when a mistake is made it is unlikely to effect the ship as a whole. A design check fixes this because it explains why a mistake would effect the ship to that extent. I also don't really like the idea of modding components to make the thing because it increases the difficulty to often absurd amounts, though I make an exception for my use of the engines because it uses just the speed mods.

In short, I think your system is about as good as it can get (which is pretty good), but I think that it has its limitations. My preferred way of going about it is much more free form, but this is a good system for general use. I had skimmed the PDF (and the thread) earlier, but I didn't have a lot of time to read the whole thing through, and I wanted to go ahead and give my 2 cents. Now I have read the entire thing and can give my opinion directly on the rule set at hand rather than just on the principle concepts.

I would appreciate it if you would take the time to critique my rule set, as I like nothing more than improving things (sort of runs in my family "My father dealt with this curse, as did his father before him and his father before him").

I'm not trying to be antagonistic and didn't think you were either, I just thought that you hadn't fully read the ruleset before venturing an opinion on it. If I had a blank slate, I would have done a few things differently, but the primary goals were the minimum neccessary departure from RAW and keep it as simple as possible and balanced.

My criticism is that your system is too free form for general use. It's fine for your table but it's too subjective for the masses as a GM if he was so inclined could do almost anything with it. It doesn't enforce balance strongly enough. If you rely on Joe Gamer using common sense and exercising restraint to avoid breaking the system, it generally isn't suited for mass consumption. The point of offering enough mods to reach impossible difficulties is so they can choose which limited subset the most want, they can have any but not all of the offered options. In the last few pages (maybe 5), there was discussion where I said I was going to add a 2 triumph crafting check on assembly to gain the "mass production ready" trait. That fixes a design where simple success at base difficulties is enough to replicate it.

24 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

I'm not trying to be antagonistic and didn't think you were either, I just thought that you hadn't fully read the ruleset before venturing an opinion on it.

My opinion was on the general concept, not on your ruleset specifically, so I didn't read them fully (for my 2nd post).

25 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

If I had a blank slate, I would have done a few things differently, but the primary goals were the minimum neccessary departure from RAW and keep it as simple as possible and balanced.

You succeeded! I haven't done a lot of testing, but from what I can tell you did a good job.

26 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

My criticism is that your system is too free form for general use. It's fine for your table but it's too subjective for the masses as a GM if he was so inclined could do almost anything with it. It doesn't enforce balance strongly enough. If you rely on Joe Gamer using common sense and exercising restraint to avoid breaking the system, it generally isn't suited for mass consumption.

I agree with you that it isn't great for general consumption (I sort of said so in my previous post, but not explicitly).

28 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

The point of offering enough mods to reach impossible difficulties is so they can choose which limited subset the most want, they can have any but not all of the offered options.

Yeah, I understand, but in many cases I don't think it should be mutually exclusive.

33 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

In the last few pages (maybe 5), there was discussion where I said I was going to add a 2 triumph crafting check on assembly to gain the "mass production ready" trait. That fixes a design where simple success at base difficulties is enough to replicate it.

I have not read all 29 pages of the thread (for obvious reasons) so I did not come across that, but looking back for it I found it (the last post on page 26) (copied and pasted):

"I disagree that it's beyond the scope of the document, would think that there should be a two triumph "mass production ready" crafting upgrade on assembly, that sets the difficulty at the standard difficulty (not reduced by schematic) of each component, and simple success with no threat or despair is needed to duplicate it one of the components, the only thing advantageor triumph can be used for during mass production is lessons learned... and it just there to increase likelihood of success. "

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here, but I think you're saying that during normal crafting, on assembly, you can spend 2 Triumph to allow mass production, where you can only spend Advantage and Triumph for "Lessons Learned" but the difficulty is reduced in some way (what way?). I'm not sure if it's phrased weirdly or if I'm just brainlocking, but if I misunderstood, please explain it to me.

8 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

My opinion was on the general concept, not on your ruleset specifically, so I didn't read them fully (for my 2nd post).

You succeeded! I haven't done a lot of testing, but from what I can tell you did a good job.

I agree with you that it isn't great for general consumption (I sort of said so in my previous post, but not explicitly).

Yeah, I understand, but in many cases I don't think it should be mutually exclusive.

I have not read all 29 pages of the thread (for obvious reasons) so I did not come across that, but looking back for it I found it (the last post on page 26) (copied and pasted):

"I disagree that it's beyond the scope of the document, would think that there should be a two triumph "mass production ready" crafting upgrade on assembly, that sets the difficulty at the standard difficulty (not reduced by schematic) of each component, and simple success with no threat or despair is needed to duplicate it one of the components, the only thing advantageor triumph can be used for during mass production is lessons learned... and it just there to increase likelihood of success. "

I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here, but I think you're saying that during normal crafting, on assembly, you can spend 2 Triumph to allow mass production, where you can only spend Advantage and Triumph for "Lessons Learned" but the difficulty is reduced in some way (what way?). I'm not sure if it's phrased weirdly or if I'm just brainlocking, but if I misunderstood, please explain it to me.

Standard difficulty. Difficulty is not reduced by schematic (or assembly plans) crafting upgrades.

Btw, I don't know if you caught this about mods, but for core components (frame, engine, hull) the modification difficulty us reduced by schematic, if you reduce it all the way to simple you could conceivably have 6 mods before you get to impossible difficulties. I think that allowing 6 mods (or maybe 7 with master artisan) is more than sufficient. All non core components can be modded 3 times (or 4 if you have the master artisan talent from the shipwright spec). Even more than 4 mods is excessive.

6 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Standard difficulty. Difficulty is not reduced by schematic (or assembly plans) crafting upgrades.

Okay, thanks.

6 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Btw, I don't know if you caught this about mods, but for core components (frame, engine, hull) the modification difficulty us reduced by schematic, if you reduce it all the way to simple you could conceivably have 6 mods before you get to impossible difficulties. I think that allowing 6 mods (or maybe 7 with master artisan) is more than sufficient. All non core components can be modded 3 times (or 4 if you have the master artisan talent from the shipwright spec). Even more than 4 mods is excessive.

But Schematic only applies to future frame crafting, and you can only select it once. Are you referring to something else other than the expenditure of Triumphs?

With the caveat that it is likely that the Engineer will fail at least one of the checks, I agree with you that you don't need a ton of mods.

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Okay, thanks.

But Schematic only applies to future frame crafting, and you can only select it once. Are you referring to something else other than the expenditure of Triumphs?

With the caveat that it is likely that the Engineer will fail at least one of the checks, I agree with you that you don't need a ton of mods.

You can only select schematic once per check. Different instances of the craft same type of frame, for example, check can each get schematic which can over the course of time can permanently reduce the difficulty for that type of frame to simple (no purple dice, all positive dice). This says for the purpose of mass production, you don't get to use previously earned schematics to reduce the difficulty to construct THAT MODEL OF SHIP but all you have to do is get 1 success with no threat or despair, and you replicate the frame/engine/hull/assembly with all the mods and crafting upgrades from the prototype ship (the one for which you spent the 2 triumph on the assembly check to score the mass production ready upgrade).

19 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

You can only select schematic once per check. Different instances of the craft same type of frame, for example, check can each get schematic which can over the course of time can permanently reduce the difficulty for that type of frame to simple (no purple dice, all positive dice). This says for the purpose of mass production, you don't get to use previously earned schematics to reduce the difficulty to construct THAT MODEL OF SHIP but all you have to do is get 1 success with no threat or despair, and you replicate the frame/engine/hull/assembly with all the mods and crafting upgrades from the prototype ship (the one for which you spent the 2 triumph on the assembly check to score the mass production ready upgrade).

Ah! Okay I get it now.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Ah! Okay I get it now.

Any attachments OTHER THAN core components still have to be modded. Attachments gained by crafting upgrades (e.g. integrated systems, engineering access) come with any mods in the prototype ship (they "get filed" under crafting upgrades rather than attachments)

I've read through this entire thread (took a while lol) and I've also built several ships using the crafting rules. All I can say is you guys did a superb job making this. Me and my GM have been having fun with this new rule system.

6 hours ago, Aggressor97 said:

I've read through this entire thread (took a while lol) and I've also built several ships using the crafting rules. All I can say is you guys did a superb job making this. Me and my GM have been having fun with this new rule system.

I was a community effort, I did "most" of the "design" part (I have a PhD in mechanical engineering heavy on the computational side of things, so this is in my wheelhouse), but design is an inherently iterative process, and the key step in iterative design is fault finding. There have been a lot of people finding problems in these rules and pointing them out to me so that I could fix them and there were even a few people who suggested mechanics that made it into the rules (e.g. weapon banks/folding seats). If you want to help, try replicating starships (walkers and speeders aren't ready yet) and when you find things that aren't quite right post them in this thread. While all input is welcome and appreciated, I'm not going to promise to make all suggested changes.

Just a quick question, if I take a starfighter hull and use larger scope on it. I would use the sil 4 VSL along with the maximum speed for that sil, correct? The end result being a fighter that is a little slower then average but with more HT and HPs. Same thing with elegant design, only your getting faster speed and a smaller sil at the cost of HT and HPs.

Thought of another question I had. How do quads work with weapon banks? Can you have say 3 in a bank and have them all fire, or is it 1 by 1?

15 hours ago, Aggressor97 said:

Just a quick question, if I take a starfighter hull and use larger scope on it. I would use the sil 4 VSL along with the maximum speed for that sil, correct? The end result being a fighter that is a little slower then average but with more HT and HPs. Same thing with elegant design, only your getting faster speed and a smaller sil at the cost of HT and HPs.

Thought of another question I had. How do quads work with weapon banks? Can you have say 3 in a bank and have them all fire, or is it 1 by 1?

Sil 3 has the highest possible max speed but achieving that speed requires having an appropriate engine. It is possible to have a speed 3 sil 3 which is slower than a speed 4 sil 4. But a sil4 patrol ship with a race ship hull could potentially have speed 6 before adding high output ion turbine attachment which could increase it to 7. Whereas a maxed out engine on a sil5 patrolship with raceship hull would be speed 5 (adding high output ion turbines would increase that to 6). Note sil 2 has a lower max speed than sil 3, but the max speed is silhouette dependent. Weapon banks are normally restricted to sil 6+ ships but a sil 5 with the ship of the line talent could also mount weapon banks. Each weapon in a weapon bank normally fires independently rather than all together, but a GM can handwave that for convenience.

@EliasWindrider thanks for clarifying all that

You're welcome

I hate to keep bothering you with questions but regarding the weapon bank attachment. When it says it provides 0 hp mounts for sil number of weapons. Does that mean when you mount weapons in the bank, they don't cost hp? Or does 0 hp literally mean 0 hps and you've got to use customization hps to add weapons?

2 minutes ago, Aggressor97 said:

I hate to keep bothering you with questions but regarding the weapon bank attachment. When it says it provides 0 hp mounts for sil number of weapons. Does that mean when you mount weapons in the bank, they don't cost hp ? Or does 0 hp literally mean 0 hps and you've got to use customization hps to add weapons?

The bolded text is the correct interpretation, and no worries, I'm happy to answer questions.