On 3/14/2019 at 12:45 AM, warchild1x said:

Oh look, another thread derailed by Elias and Tramp arguing over minutiae. 🙄

Grand ain't it? It's not really a lore or rule based discussion until it happens. I worry though, they do seem a bit more agitated about it these days compared to when they started.

7 hours ago, Darth Revenant said:

Grand ain't it? It's not really a lore or rule based discussion until it happens. I worry though, they do seem a bit more agitated about it these days compared to when they started.

I can't speak for Tramp but I didn't get agitated in this discussion. I do admit to humoring him less than before.

15 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

“Official” or not, it does not match the lore, not merely the old game stats, but the lore. Cargo capacity, passenger capacity, these are technical specifications from lore, not game mechanics.

And , as for full RCR stats for the YZ-775 and YZ-900, the original FAQ put out back in 2006 specifically stated that, aside from all ships doubling their DR, the only changes made were how speed and movement was handled, and gave the table I emailed you to convert those over. Everything else remained the same unless specifically published later. Therefore, the stats in SW Gamer #2 are still accurate for RCR with the doubling of DR and new movement stats.

Read the technical specs on the YZ-775 from its Wookieepedia page. Note the cargo and passenger capacity.

PASSENGERS

14 [1]

CARGO CAPACITY

400 metric tons[1]

I just noticed something, although you claimed that passengers, and cargo were from lore, which struck me as odd because I can't recall reading any novel/short story that cited the number of crew or payload. And Wookieepedia listed the passengers and cargo as being from star wars gamer #2, in particular the "legacy of starships" article that's what the [1] on those stats cites. So I went and read star wars gamer 2 at

https://archive.org/details/Star_Wars_Gamer_2/page/n39

And the only mention of the passengers and cargo was in the rpg stat block. It seems very much like your claim that the cargo and passengers were from the lore rather than the rpg stat block is a falsehood.

1 hour ago, EliasWindrider said:

I just noticed something, although you claimed that passengers, and cargo were from lore, which struck me as odd because I can't recall reading any novel/short story that cited the number of crew or payload. And Wookieepedia listed the passengers and cargo as being from star wars gamer #2, in particular the "legacy of starships" article that's what the [1] on those stats cites. So I went and read star wars gamer 2 at

https://archive.org/details/Star_Wars_Gamer_2/page/n39

And the only mention of the passengers and cargo was in the rpg stat block. It seems very much like your claim that the cargo and passengers were from the lore rather than the rpg stat block is a falsehood.

No, it's not a falsehood. There are at least three YZ-775's in fiction. Two of them were owned by Talon Karrde, the third, was the No Luck Required , which was modified into a rescue ship. It appeared in Emmisary of the Void and was mentioned in Edge of Victory II: Rebirth . It's passenger capacity was reduced to 8, and its cargo capacity reduced to only 150 tons, because some of it was converted into an infirmary. It's stats come from the Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia , not any game source book. One of Karrde's YZ-775's was the Dawn Beat , and the other was the Amanda Fallow . Both of these ships appear in the novel The Last Command. Both of Karrde's YZ-775s have their passenger capacities reduced by two, capable of only carrying twelve passengers instead of 14.

Secondly, passenger capacity is a technical specification for a vehicle, not a game stat. This is also true of cargo capacity. It's a technical spec , not a game stat. Books, such as the New Essential Guide to Vehicles , also include such specs in their write-ups on ships and vehicles. Ergo, such stats are a part of the lore , not game mechanics. What's game mechanics is things like Hull Points or Hull Trauma Threshold, how many dice of damage (and what type) the weapons do, and the like. So no, these aren't game mechanics. They're technical specifications that are a part of the actual lore .

17 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

If ffg used OCR corellian cruiser as the basis for the consular you've got no leg to stand on, if they used rcr stats, then the consular might be "overpowered" relative to the ir-3f but it also has double the DR of the ir-3f, so calling the consular overpowered relative to the ir-35 isn't a forgone conclusion. But even if there is a power mismatch between the two ships, then it would be the consular that was mis-statted not the ir-3f, you can tell that by looking at the ffg ships I provided links for... it's got the most htt of any of them.

The accuracy with respect to lore claims may apply to things like passengers weapons and cargo but it doesn't apply to htt, stt, shields, etc, for which there are no stats, which means the author is making up those things whole cloth in your phrasing. Also 1 ton of cargo does not equate to 1 enc, the end is only what is readily accessible in flight and layout impacts that as much or more than volume, also weight does not say anything about the volume of a cargo hold, weight is opposed by thrust. So ships with more thrust but "smaller" cargo holds might have higher tonnage under previous systems.

Whether or not you want to call it a "formula" which I put in scare quotes and even gave a disclaimer that I was using the term loosely, FFG ships generally do follow certain patterns (at least approximately). Ship size (in meters) seems to have heavily influenced ffg's htt and enc, which is a very reasonable thing. Your preferred stats for the yz-900 do not follow all of the same patterns as official ffg ships. And that's the problem with that blogger making up certain stats (for which there is no lore) from whole cloth.

If you want to try to discern those patterns for yourself, I've made it easier for you by providing a list of comparable ships that bracket the yz-900. Based on the bracketing set, the htt of the YZ-775 is pretty close to where it should be.

And you don't have an excuse for not proclaiming your favorite yz-900 stats to be unofficial every time you promote them.

I don't need to proclaim it because it's specifically stated in the actual site where I got the ship, and I linked the site itself. Secondly, yes, I can say that the HTT for the YZ-775 and IR-3F are gimped. First off, Both the IR-3F and the YZ-900 have more Hull Points than the Consular Cruiser; twenty Hull Points more to be precise. and the RCR stats are the most recent , and therefore, most accurate stats for that system, based upon what we saw in the lore as well. The version of the Consular Cruiser in StoG was overpowered in terms of hull integrity. That's why they reduced it for the RCR.

15 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

@Tramp Graphics

If you look at these htt numbers for pretty similar ships, you'll see that neither the YZ-775 nor the ir-3f got shafted in terms of htt, sst, and ar (ir-3f went as low as reasonable for its ar)

Given that they both have more hull points than the Consular Cruiser , it stands to reason that their HTT would also be higher.Thus, yes, it did get gimped. LEt's compare their Hull Points ot Hull Trauma thresholds of the ships, and ratio them. 220:46=240=x 46 * 240=11,040/220= 50.18 round down to 50 HTT . Thus, 220:46 as 240:50. Now, let's look at the YZ-775 compared to the Consular Cruiser. 220:46 as 210:x . 47*210=9660/220= 43.9 , round up to 44 HTT. Thus, 220:46 as 210: 44. How's that for math? Who's closer, FFG or Bastion? The Consular Cruiser is a good comparison because its Hull Points are between those of the YZ-900 and YZ-775.

Secondly, Hull Points or Hull Trauma Threshold has little to nothing to do with the length of a ship. IT has to do with its durability; its structure . A big ship can be incredibly fragile, with little in the way of actual mass and structure, and a small ship can be built like a tank. For example. The Jedi Courier ship (the most famous one being the SunGem ) from the PtoJSB is 70 meters long, but it only has 120 Hull Points. That's the same as the YT-1300, a ship about one third its length . This is because the Jedi Courier ship is, aside from being ancient, a narrow ship with broad, flat wings and a lot of scaffolding. It doesn't have much hull, nor a very thick one. There's not much structure to it. By the same token, the Consular Cruiser may be longer than the YZ-900 or YZ-775, but the YZ-900 has more structure . It has more mass . The YZ-775 has a little less mass, but not by much. It's more compact and narrow, hence the slightly lower Hull Points. The YZ-900 is a very robust , ship. It may be shorter than the Consular Cruiser, but, with a wingspan of 32.5 meters, and topping out at over 10 meters at the top of the main engines, with an overall ceiling of between 5.5 and 6.5 meters throughout most of the vessel, including its wings. Given that they contain not only two weapons mounts, but also two full levels of cargo and passenger space as well as the engine room, there's nothing "flat" about it. Its "wings" equal at least 3/5 the total mass and volume of the ship. The YZ-900 has a lot of mass and volume. The Consular Cruiser may be longer, but it's narrow , with only two short, flat wings to broaden it out to any degree, and they are only there to mount two of the engines and potentially act as air foils in atmosphere. They certainly don't contain any living or cargo space. All of that is in the fuselage. As such, there isn't much mass or volume to it given its length. The IR-3F also may be longer than the YZ-900, but there isn't much mass to it comparatively. IT's long, slender, and aerodynamic, like a SST Concord jet. while it may have the same number of Hull Points as the YZ-900 under D20RCR, that structure is distributed differently.

10 hours ago, Rimsen said:

Isn't there a ship attachment in Special Modification which let's you convert Cargo Capacity to Passanger Capacity?

Just trade the encumbarance to seat.

The FFG version is clearly an armed cargo hauler, while the older version (or wiki version Tramp mentioned) is another version for paramilitary transport vessel

That's not the reason given for the discrepancy between the lore and the stats in DC. The reason given by Sam Stewart for why the version of the YZ-775 in Dangerous Covenants has no passenger space is strictly because he felt that the power systems for the turbolaser turret take up too much space to allow for passengers. It had nothing to do with its cargo capacity. The flaw in this argument is that, first, the turret is dorsally located, which is where the cargo holds are located . Passengers and crew is typically on the lower deck. And, secondly, based upon the renderings of the ship, the turbo-laser turret doesn't take up nearly that much space, and the power conduits wouldn't be running through living space anyway. They'd run through the walls, ceiling or floors. They wouldn't prohibit passenger space.

As for attachments to exchange cargo capacity for cargo space (or vice/versa) no. There isn't. The vehicle crafting section does include a Hull type which increases both cargo and passenger capacity beyond what a particular frame provides, and that hull type is the Expanded-Capacity Holds. This hull provides a ship with an additional 25 encumbrance to its cargo capacity and an increased passenger capacity of 25. IF you get an Advantage or Triumph on your crafting check for building the hull, you could potentially increase the cargo capacity by its silhouette (double if a freighter, and doubled again if a Triumph is used). The Frame crafting table also allows you to increase or decrease the passenger capacity or cargo capacity by half if you roll two Advantages or a Triumph on the frame crafting check.

That being said, there are other ships which specifically state their passenger capacity and cargo capacity is interchangeable to a certain degree, depending upon its configuration. The CR-90 (F&D page 267)is a prime example of this. Its encumbrance capacity is listed as "up to 25,000 depending upon configuration", and, likewise, its passenger capacity is listed as, "up to 600, depending upon configuration". So, yes, some ships can be configured differently for passengers or cargo. But FFG's stats for the YZ-775 do not give it this capability, even though it should have it, or should simply have a lower encumbrance capacity and higher passenger capacity, as per the lore.

The ship names Dawn Beat and Amanda Fallow are mentioned in “The Last Command”. That’s all. Nowhere does it say that those two are YZ-775’s.

Same goes for the No Luck Required. It is never stated in “Emissary of the Void” that it is a YZ-775.

Maybe some guy later said: “Those three are now defined as YZ-775 freighters, because we need more YZ-775 freighters in the SW universe, so that in 10 years from now two guys have more arguments for senseless discussions and can plague others on a SW forum for eternity ”, but it was never in the book itself.

So yeah, definitely you could prove that there are at least three in fiction…

This is probably a silly thing to point, since both Tramp and Elias should be very well aware of this fact:

Lore extrapolated from statblocks are subject to change at the whim of RPG designers.

IIRC, in WEG, the X-wing was slower, but more maneuverable than a TIE. In FFG, they are equally fast, but the TIE is more maneuverable.

Also, if a ship happened to be stupidly overpowered in one system, it's perfectly fine to nerf it in the next. Even the stats called "design specs" have been subject to change due to game balance.

23 hours ago, Rogues Rule said:

The ship names Dawn Beat and Amanda Fallow are mentioned in “The Last Command”. That’s all. Nowhere does it say that those two are YZ-775’s.

Same goes for the No Luck Required. It is never stated in “Emissary of the Void” that it is a YZ-775.

Maybe some guy later said: “Those three are now defined as YZ-775 freighters, because we need more YZ-775 freighters in the SW universe, so that in 10 years from now two guys have more arguments for senseless discussions and can plague others on a SW forum for eternity ”, but it was never in the book itself.

So yeah, definitely you could prove that there are at least three in fiction…

But it is stated in the Complete Star Wars Encyclopedia , which is where the No Luck Required 's technical specs are found. Not only that, but the No Luck Required doesn't have game stats . Thus, its lore is not derived from game mechanics . Rather, its specifications are derived from the lore .

16 hours ago, penpenpen said:

This is probably a silly thing to point, since both Tramp and Elias should be very well aware of this fact:

Lore extrapolated from statblocks are subject to change at the whim of RPG designers.

IIRC, in WEG, the X-wing was slower, but more maneuverable than a TIE. In FFG, they are equally fast, but the TIE is more maneuverable.

Also, if a ship happened to be stupidly overpowered in one system, it's perfectly fine to nerf it in the next. Even the stats called "design specs" have been subject to change due to game balance.

That's part of the problem . It's not a solution . And, in most cases, the game stats were based upon the lore, not the other way around . If the changes are done because the previous stats didn't appropriately reflect what we see in the lore, that's not a problem. However, when new stats are arbitrarily created whole-cloth, without regard to the previous lore or technical specifications , that is a problem. This is what we see with the YZ-775 and a number of other ships . This is what was done with the Consular Cruiser between OCR and RCR, and to a lesser degree to the CR-90. However, what FFG did in this case is wrong. TIE fighters are by the lore , faster than the X-wing, significantly faster. From its Wookieepedia page:

Quote

Maximum acceleration

4,100 G

Maximum atmospheric speed

1,200 kph

from the T-65 Wookieepedia page:

Quote

Maximum acceleration

3,700 G[7]

16 MGLT/s[2]

MGLT

100 MGLT[8][9][10][11][12][13]

Maximum atmospheric speed

1,050 km/h (higher speeds possible with deflector shields on)[6]

This is because the TIE Fighter is much smaller, and lighter than the T-65. It's stripped down to save on weight, in order to make it much faster and more maneuverable. This is what we see on screen too. So, FFG making them the same is backwards. To be fair, however, is FFG's movement rates aren't exact speeds . They're abstractions covering a range of speeds.

Now, let's look at some other examples. The YV-929 is a prime example of "overpowering" a ship in one area while gimping it elsewhere, compared to its' previous incarnation. In D20, the YV-929 had a cargo capacity of 150 metric tons, yet its Encumbrance in FFG is only 80. By contrast, it only had 30 Hull Points in D20-- half the number as a TIE Fighter-- yet in FFG it has a Hull Trauma Threshold of 23 , which is more than the YT-1300, a ship that had 120 Hull Points in D20, four times what the YV-929 had . The lore for that ship even specifically states that the YV-929 is extremely fragile . Specifically, the hull was essentially gutted in order to fit several powerful weapons and a large cargo capacity for its small size (22 meters). to quote SW Gamer #2:

Quote

The 929 may not look much like other YV ships on the surface, but it's built on the same basic keel. However, large external bays have been added to the design, allowing the 929 to mount heavy shields, carry a fair sized payload, and still bristle with guns. To entice independent ship buyers, the designers added a roomy parlor to the domed section below the bridge, although this is often turned into passenger space by YV-929 owners, Unfortunately. this approach does little for the ships's sturdiness, and 929s were infamous for coming apart after just a few hits after losing their shields,

The YV-929 is essentially made of tissue paper . It's a glass cannon ; lots of fire power, but no structure.

FFG did not base their ship stats on a ship's size. They based them almost purely on their function . Is it a fighter, a freighter, a shuttle, a corvette, a Frigate, a Heavy Cruiser, a Destroyer, a space station? That alone is what determined their stats. And even then, they're not entirely consistent.

Going by the ship crafting rules in Fully Operational , All Freighters, regardless of silhouette are "supposed" to have a base HTT of 35, Corvettes all get a base of 45, Frigates get 80, Heavy Cruisers get 95, and Destroyers get 125. HTTs can then go up from there through Advantages/Triumphs, or mods. These are arbitrary standards. They don't necessarily reflect the lore or what has been previously established. Not only that, but FFG often breaks their own "rules" with several ships, including iconic ones like the YT-1300 , which have significantly lower HTTs than their class dictates they should have . BY FFG "rules", the Freighter class of ship is "supposed" to have a minimum HTT of 35. The YT_1300 only has a HTT of 22 . They break their own rules. Some ships which have been established with extremely strong hulls, get gimped, while others with fragile hulls get supercharged simply to "level the playing field" among a given "class" of ship, regardless of what the existing lore, technical specs, and/or previous game systems have established. The same goes for passenger capacities, weapons, cargo capacities, etc. It's all done arbitrarily . There's no research done into the existing lore for many of these ships. This is a problem . Another classic example of gimping, is the Firespray-31 Patrol and Attack Craft ( Slave-1 ). In RCR, a stock Firespray-31 had 150 Hull Points (the Slave-1 had 180). This is 30 more than the YT_1300. In FFG, it has a HTT of 15 . This is 7 less than the YT-1300. Why? Because it's classified as a Patrol and attack craft, a fighter, not a freighter.

This is the problem. They don't follow the lore, they don't look at the established technical specifications previously established and extrapolate from there. They make up their own stats whole-cloth arbitrarily, without regard to the existing lore or previously established technical specifications.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

This is the problem. They don't follow the  lore, they don't   look at the established techni  cal  specifications  previously       established  and extrapolate from there. The  y make up their own stats whole-cloth arbitrarily  , without regard to the existing lore or  previously established technical specifications.  

Never has a point been missed by such a wide margin.

It's like aiming for the death star and hitting Minas Tirith.

41 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

Never has a point been missed by such a wide margin.

It's like aiming for the death star and hitting Minas Tirith.

You're still following this thread? I've gotten to the point where I see Tramp's name and scroll right by.

2 hours ago, Vek Baustrade said:

You're still following this thread? I've gotten to the point where I see Tramp's name and scroll right by.

Ignore makes that even easier.

16 hours ago, Vek Baustrade said:

You're still following this thread? I've gotten to the point where I see Tramp's name and scroll right by.

I find these arguments pretty amusing, although it helps having an appropriate soundtrack when reading them.