5 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Jason marker is a dev and the guy who designs the ships. It dont [sic] get any more official. When he says armor is a combo of sheilds and hull he means that is how he does the official ships.

Official consists of what's in the books along with what's on the FAQ & Errata documents. That is all. The developer thread on these forums and the podcast you mention are not official, and they frequently contain contradictory material that appears to be hastily thrown together even if the one throwing it together should be someone that knows a great deal about the game.

1 hour ago, HappyDaze said:

Official consists of what's in the books along with what's on the FAQ & Errata documents. That is all. The developer thread on these forums and the podcast you mention are not official, and they frequently contain contradictory material that appears to be hastily thrown together even if the one throwing it together should be someone that knows a great deal about the game.

I would like to add that it is also irrelevant. How things work in the game is up to the GM and the players, not the developers. Even the published rules are a common ground for understanding, not a mandatory gospel. If I want to say that armor is actually a layer of midichlorians wielding tiny lightsabers, and my players agree, then that is what it is in my game. Heck, if I want to say that shields are a numeric rating that subtracts from damage and armor is a number of setback dice, I can.

And all of this is on top of the fact that until it is published, all it is is an opinion, like HappyDaze said.

13 minutes ago, korjik said:

If I want to say that armor is actually a layer of midichlorians wielding tiny lightsabers, and my players agree, then that is what it is in my game.

I want to adopt this as my new Canon !

Gah, misspelled.

I want to adopt this as my new Cannon, and fire them midichlorians into the Sun !

3 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Official consists of what's in the books along with what's on the FAQ & Errata documents. That is all. The developer thread on these forums and the podcast you mention are not official, and they frequently contain contradictory material that appears to be hastily thrown together even if the one throwing it together should be someone that knows a great deal about the game.

So the guy who wrote most of the ships in the game explaining how he makes the ships is not official. Right. Then i cant help you. Because it literally does not get more official than that.

27 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

Because it literally does not get more official than that.

It does, and I clearly explained how.

10 hours ago, Richardbuxton said:

The vehicle scale to personal scale interface of this system is unfortunately broken. The damage a blaster pistol does to a swoop bike is calculated the same as damage to a Star Destroyer, which honestly is ridiculous. This comes about from the fact that all vehicles are fixed to the x10 multiplier. Why should shooting a Swoop do 1/10th the damage as shooting a ronto of the same size?

Yeah, it's one of those calculations that's simple at the cost of flexible modeling.

Way back when, somebody on these forums worked out a formula: Armor value added to 3×Silhouette. It does pretty well.

The thing that everyone is forgetting: that Poe's ship getting blown up was a plot point, not actual combat. It could have been a 10 year old with a sling shot and Poe ship would have blow up just the same as if it was hit by turbolaser fire. If that was a scene in my game, I would have hand-waved it away narratively, not by the dice roll.

21 minutes ago, Desslok said:

The thing that everyone is forgetting: that Poe's ship getting blown up was a plot point, not actual combat. It could have been a 10 year old with a sling shot and Poe ship would have blow up just the same as if it was hit by turbolaser fire. If that was a scene in my game, I would have hand-waved it away narratively, not by the dice roll.

Exactly. And give them a Destiny flip for their pain.

The movies display a very uneven and inconsistent ballistic effect from blaster shots, from Han blowing out tombstone sized chunks of landing bay 94 in Star Wars, to Leia's sunburn shot in the arm in RotJ. The trick for devs is to thread that slalom course of cinematic gobbledeguk and lay out some mechanics that make it all possible, without making the system either smallpox bullets or all nerf ping pong. You look at a 2 Triumph effect on the vehicle combat chart and taking out an unmanned powered down Xwing on the ground becomes pretty doable if you just absolutely have to roll dice. Of course hitting a vehicle up close that isn't moving should be a simple task imo and that means a roll shouldn't be needed.

None of this requires any creative rules interpretation or an errata.

Also, blaster bolts travel faster at long range.

6 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

Exactly. And give them a Destiny flip for their pain.

Softy.

On 7/25/2018 at 6:33 AM, korjik said:

So HMS Glamorgan must have been a hero ship.

Seriously tho, I agree. Rebels is a 23 minute show made for little kids. They dont have the time to waste on pounding ships apart, and showing them crippled and holed by multiple attacks, and the good guys only lose due to plot.

*Puts on history nerd hat*

Where the two missiles hit was also a factor. Glamorgan had more warning of the incoming missile (it helped that it was the Argentines' third shot - the first failed to launch and the second didn't track) and was thus able to maneuver so the missile hit her in the stern near the hangar. The missile skidded across the deck and the warhead exploded outside the hull, blowing a hole in the deck starting a fire in the galley below, while the missile body penetrated the hangar door and struck the fully-fueled helicopter inside, destroying it and starting a hangar fire. Over a dozen men were killed and more wounded, but the fires were extinguished within three and a half hours and the ship never lost power.

On Sheffield , by contrast, the missile struck the ship in the port side at something close to 90 degrees, penetrated the hull and exploded inside. The impact knocked out the water main, leaving the crew to fight the fire with hand-held extinguishers. It's important to note here that Sheffield's captain didn't order the crew to abandon ship because she was sinking, but because the fire (much further forward in the ship than on Glamorgan ) was spreading forwards and getting dangerously close to the magazine for her Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles; if they exploded, they'd cut the ship in half. In the event, the fire burned itself out and the ship ultimately sank in bad weather while under tow.

On a side note, the US Navy took a great interest in the British experience in the Falklands, and the lessons learned from Sheffield's loss contributed significantly to the survival of the USS Stark when she was hit by two Exocets fired by an Iraqi fighter in 1987.

On 7/25/2018 at 8:28 AM, 2P51 said:

So lemme see if I have this right, the sci fi movie with the guy in the gorilla suit carrying a crossbow isn't realistic.....? Have I nailed the pertinent details??..... ?

If you're going to bring logic into this, I'll take my ball and go home. ?

On 7/25/2018 at 6:33 AM, korjik said:

On 7/25/2018 at 8:28 AM, 2P51 said:

?

?

4 hours ago, Dafydd said:

*Puts on history nerd hat*

Where the two missiles hit was also a factor. Glamorgan had more warning of the incoming missile (it helped that it was the Argentines' third shot - the first failed to launch and the second didn't track) and was thus able to maneuver so the missile hit her in the stern near the hangar. The missile skidded across the deck and the warhead exploded outside the hull, blowing a hole in the deck starting a fire in the galley below, while the missile body penetrated the hangar door and struck the fully-fueled helicopter inside, destroying it and starting a hangar fire. Over a dozen men were killed and more wounded, but the fires were extinguished within three and a half hours and the ship never lost power.

On Sheffield , by contrast, the missile struck the ship in the port side at something close to 90 degrees, penetrated the hull and exploded inside. The impact knocked out the water main, leaving the crew to fight the fire with hand-held extinguishers. It's important to note here that Sheffield's captain didn't order the crew to abandon ship because she was sinking, but because the fire (much further forward in the ship than on Glamorgan ) was spreading forwards and getting dangerously close to the magazine for her Sea Dart surface-to-air missiles; if they exploded, they'd cut the ship in half. In the event, the fire burned itself out and the ship ultimately sank in bad weather while under tow.

On a side note, the US Navy took a great interest in the British experience in the Falklands, and the lessons learned from Sheffield's loss contributed significantly to the survival of the USS Stark when she was hit by two Exocets fired by an Iraqi fighter in 1987.

If you're going to bring logic into this, I'll take my ball and go home. ?

Hey man, Dont get reality all over my joke.

9 hours ago, Dafydd said:

Where the two missiles hit was also a factor. Glamorgan  had more warning of the incoming missile

Wait - that's a real ship? I figured that it was some kind of David Bowie/Iggy Pop/Glam Rock joke that I wasn't getting.

1 hour ago, Desslok said:

Wait - that's a real ship? I figured that it was some kind of David Bowie/Iggy Pop/Glam Rock joke that I wasn't getting.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Glamorgan_(D19)

Quote

In the spring and early summer of 1982 Glamorgan was involved in the Falklands War during which she engaged Argentine land forces and protected shipping. In the last days of the war Argentine navy technicians fired a land-based MM-38 Exocet missile which struck the ship causing damage and killing 14 sailors.

There's been a lot of discussion on this thread in a short period of time, but I want to say two things:

The Star Wars movies have always been driven more by narrative demands rather than internal logic, or at least internal technical details. This basically means that "things are the way they are because it's what the writers want." In fact, FF's Star Wars RPG mimics that by allowing Destiny Points to change the game on the fly, and generally encouraging players and GMs to do what's cool or what would make a good story, rather than adhere by strict realism or rules. This of course means that any attempts by fans to make sense of it (ie. trying to figure out the maximum speed of an X-Wing in KPH) is basically them imposing a sense of consistency and detail onto a setting inspired by movies that simply do not have such logic. This is not a criticism of Star Wars or of the RPG (in fact I love the latter's ability to be flexible), but a lot of the times the answers to questions of "why" or "how" is "because the writers said so."

It's not the fact that there are unrealistic things in the setting like (as mentioned earlier) wookies firing crossbows - those can be explained internally by any writer willing to do so. The issue is that Star Wars as a whole simply does not care about realism itself.

Anyway, something else that was touched upon in this thread was that, essentially, the gulf between personal and vehicle scale is too big, a complaint I myself have. I've never liked how the largest personal-scale blaster in the core book deals 15 damage, and the weakest blaster on the vehicle scale deals 30 personal-scale damage. Meanwhile, given how poorly personal armor protects against blasters, I find it unlikely that an X-Wing could stand up to E-Web fire as well as the rules say it should. Meanwhile, if I want to throw an AT-ST at my players as a boss (like in the Star Wars Trilogy arcade game!), I'd like for them to have more options other than scramble around for a rocket launcher (which is still unlikely to do that much damage)... although I'd welcome creative terrain usage. If blasters are as powerful as the lore says they are, then you should be able to bring down an AT-ST with some heavy blasters, patience, and probably a lot of running for cover.

13 hours ago, Desslok said:

Wait - that's a real ship? I figured that it was some kind of David Bowie/Iggy Pop/Glam Rock joke that I wasn't getting.

Knowing the pronunciation helps - it's said Gla-morgan, no Glamor-gan. The modern county derives from an old Welsh kingdom called Gwlad Morgan, "the country of Morgan".