So in EotE you get

YV-929 Armed Transport classified as a Gunship with Medium Sensor

In Dangerous Covenant it is

YV-929 Light Transport classified as a Freighter with Short Sensor

If I'm not mistaken, every other stats are the same....including the weapons

Is that like an errata that was fixed in DC, therefor the DC version is the good one??

Maybe. It could be an error in the latter book, an error on the core book, or both could be correct, as in two different variants of the model. It wouldn’t be the first ship with multiple variants. The Consular Cruiser has two versions, with differing stats in different specific attributes between AoR and F&D, for instance. Your best bet is to pose a question to the developers.

I asked this question a long time ago. The official answer was that both stat blocks are "correct as written."

In my AoR it's classified as an "Armed Transport" and in my DC it's a "Freighter"

You could write some interesting headcanon about BOSS refusing to classify it with the "noncombat" freighter identifier until CEC agreed to downgrade the sensors...

24 minutes ago, Ghostofman said:

In my AoR it's classified as an "Armed Transport" and in my DC it's a "Freighter"

You could write some interesting headcanon about BOSS refusing to classify it with the "noncombat" freighter identifier until CEC agreed to downgrade the sensors...

Yeah... and they just missed the part where it has three twin concussion missile launchers with huge magazines and double the fire rate of all other such weapons. The sensors are really the least likely thing to object to on that thing,

I could totally see a scenario where the company would find some regulatory loop hole that a government bureaucrat would rather pass off on than spend an entire year trying to make work as intended...

There's actually two different versions of the YV-929. That's why the two entries are so different.

40 minutes ago, Enjeryuu said:

There's actually two different versions of the YV-929. That's why the two entries are so different.

So different? There's barely any difference at all. One is referred to as an Armed Transport with Medium-range sensors while the other is called a Light Freighter with Short-ranged sensors. That's it. No other differences.

8 hours ago, HappyDaze said:

So different? There's barely any difference at all. One is referred to as an Armed Transport with Medium-range sensors while the other is called a Light Freighter with Short-ranged sensors. That's it. No other differences.

In this case it seems to be a mistake on FFG's end. The Armed Transport is supposed to have an additional concussion missile launcher and a pair of turbolasers.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/YV-929_armed_freighter

16 hours ago, DarthHammer said:

In this case it seems to be a mistake on FFG's end. The Armed Transport is supposed to have an additional concussion missile launcher and a pair of turbolasers.

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/YV-929_armed_freighter

how much would this impact the price and hard points? so that i can modify my card accordingly

12 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

how much would this impact the price and hard points? so that i can modify my card accordingly

Well, ironically enough, thanks to differing sources the Armed Transport/Freighter is 130,000 credits cheaper than the Light Freighter version.

Also part of the reason that the Armed Transport might not have the turbolasers is that they require a minimum silhouette of 5 to mount.

But as for modifying the FFG profile, I'd add two Linked 1 Light Turbolasers, fixed forward, a Linked 1 Concussion Missile Launcher fixed aft (for four in total), drop the consumables to 3 months and remove the hard point to represent the reduced space and to bring it in line with the SWG article, and increase the price to something like 550,000 credits.

1 hour ago, DarthHammer said:

Well, ironically enough, thanks to differing sources the Armed Transport/Freighter is 130,000 credits cheaper than the Light Freighter version.

Also part of the reason that the Armed Transport might not have the turbolasers is that they require a minimum silhouette of 5 to mount.

But as for modifying the FFG profile, I'd add two Linked 1 Light Turbolasers, fixed forward, a Linked 1 Concussion Missile Launcher fixed aft (for four in total), drop the consumables to 3 months and remove the hard point to represent the reduced space and to bring it in line with the SWG article, and increase the price to something like 550,000 credits.

The following then:

Two Triple Light Blaster Cannon

(Fire Arc Forward and Port; or Forward Starboard; Dam 4; Crit 4; Range Close; Linked 2)

Two Forward, One Aft and One Rear-Mounted Concussion Missile Launchers

(Fire Arc Forward or Rear; Dam 6; Crit 3; Range Short; Breach 4, Blast 4, Guided 3, Linked 1, Limited Ammo 10 each)

Turret-Mounted Twin Light Ion Cannon

(Fire Arc Forward; Port and Starboard; Dam 5; Crit 4; Range Close; Ion; Linked 1)

Two Forward-Mounted Light Turbolaser

(Fire Arc Forward; Dam 9 ; Crit 3; Range Medium; Breach 2, Slow-Firing 1)

36 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

Two Forward, One Aft and One Rear-Mounted Concussion Missile Launchers

(Fire Arc Forward or Rear; Dam 6; Crit 3; Range Short; Breach 4, Blast 4, Guided 3, Linked 1, Limited Ammo 10 each)

Probably just a typo style error, but " One Aft and One Rear" are the same thing, aft = rear basically.

18 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

Two Forward-Mounted Light Turbolaser

(Fire Arc Forward; Dam 9 ; Crit 3; Range Medium; Breach 2, Slow-Firing 1)

These should both have Linked 1, since they're both twin mounts.

3 minutes ago, DarthHammer said:

These should both have Linked 1, since they're both twin mounts.

so one forward twin-mount with link 1?

Just now, Mefyrx said:

so on forward twin-mount with link 1?

Yes, they would be Forward-Mounted Twin Light Turbolasers.

great, thanks

Two Triple Light Blaster Cannon (Fire Arc Forward and Port; or Forward Starboard; Dam 4; Crit 4; Range Close; Linked 2)

Two Forward, Two Rear-Mounted Concussion Missile Launchers (Fire Arc Forward or Rear; Dam 6; Crit 3; Range Short; Breach 4, Blast 4, Guided 3, Linked 1, Limited Ammo 10 each)

Turret-Mounted Twin Light Ion Cannon (Fire Arc Forward; Port and Starboard; Dam 5; Crit 4; Range Close; Ion; Linked 1)

Forward-Mounted Twin Light Turbolaser (Fire Arc Forward; Dam 9 ; Crit 3; Range Medium; Breach 2, Linked 1, Slow-Firing 1)

Given it's size, I'd call the turbolasers heavy lasers as far as stats go.

So, should I change it to Forward-Mounted Twin Heavy Turbolaser? was waiting for someone else opinion....I guess if no one disagree, it mean it is better?

46 minutes ago, Mefyrx said:

So, should I change it to Forward-Mounted Twin Heavy Turbolaser? was waiting for someone else opinion....I guess if no one disagree, it mean it is better?

A twin light turbolaser is already a stretch, and a twin heavy turbolaser would be ridiculous. You could instead go with a set of heavy laser cannons ( not turbolasers), perhaps even with Linked 3 if there are two of them in each side cluster.

3 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

So, should I change it to Forward-Mounted Twin Heavy Turbolaser? was waiting for someone else opinion....I guess if no one disagree, it mean it is better?

If you were going to ignore the rules and just make it up, why didnt you do that in the first place? Full up heavy Turbos are Star Destroyer weapons.

Besides, penpenpen was saying to make the turbolasers into heavy lasers, not heavy turbolasers.

I would go a step farther than HappyDaze, and say that light turbolasers are a bit ridiculous. The -929 has always been wildly overgunned for a small sil 4 vehicle. The book stats are fine, just pick if it has short or medium sensors and go with that instead of making a wildly overgunned ship even more silly.

" ignore the rules  and just make it up " ; No

The game designer got it wrong....obviously as they made the armed version the same as the light version; there are some errata's from time to time and its fine.... on my end, i'll fix the errata's on the cards I make....

I was just asking from more experience players perspective what would they see the armed version to be using....and modify it accordingly....

I'm new to the game and my lore of star wars is better than the usual person but not as much as the geeks who've read it all....

So for now, I'm just taking some time to prepare the core to play our games.....we're playing D&D for now, so no rush and i'll probably take over as the Star Wars GM when i'm done making those cards....

Right now, I'm revising the whole list of cards that I've made.... making sure I got quality over quantity...

YV-929 Armed Freighter.

4 hours ago, Mefyrx said:

" ignore the rules  and just make it up " ; No

The game designer got it wrong....obviously as they made the armed version the same as the light version; there are some errata's from time to time and its fine.... on my end, i'll fix the errata's on the cards I make....

I was just asking from more experience players perspective what would they see the armed version to be using....and modify it accordingly....

I'm new to the game and my lore of star wars is better than the usual person but not as much as the geeks who've read it all....

So for now, I'm just taking some time to prepare the core to play our games.....we're playing D&D for now, so no rush and i'll probably take over as the Star Wars GM when i'm done making those cards....

Right now, I'm revising the whole list of cards that I've made.... making sure I got quality over quantity...

The error is not the stats of the ship (other than the sensors), the error is in the name of the ship type. The YV-929 has always been heavily armed.