Just gave my new group a Wayfarer and realized its silhouette 5. Is it game breaking to allow them an extra pilot maneuver for strain, and to allow that to be taken by the co-pilot? I have a pretty large group so most of the other actions will be already happening. The copilot also took some piloting skills and don't wan them lost in just the "co-pilot" action. Thanks

Just now, JskyWalker said:

The copilot also took some piloting skills and don't wan them lost in just the "co-pilot" action.

The funny thing is, most pilot only maneuvers don't require any Piloting skill at all, so opening up a second pilot only maneuver won't really make that character shine.

Fair enough, but it would give another player something else to do. The true pilot player is already the limelight guy who tries to steer the narrative. I just didn't want starship combat to be so seemingly focused on him.

I don't think it'd be that game-breaking. Heck, Genesys lets all vehicles perform 2 manoeuvres

So I say go for it!

If I understand this issue correctly . . .

First, the Co-Pilot is a Pilot so they will be able to perform "Pilot Only" maneuvers and actions per RAW.

The other thing to remember is that the vehicles don't take maneuvers. The people inside them take maneuvers and actions.

10 minutes ago, JskyWalker said:

Fair enough, but it would give another player something else to do. The true pilot player is already the limelight guy who tries to steer the narrative. I just didn't want starship combat to be so seemingly focused on him.

Under the RAW, a pilot in a Sil 5+ vehicle doesn't really have much to do. The gunners will be more involved than the pilot most of the time; if you want more players involved, install more guns.

That said, feel free to remove the limitation on a second pilot only maneuvers for Sil 5 ships. If anything, it avoids the RAW idiocy of a Sil 3, Speed 2 craft crossing range bands faster than a Sil 5, Speed 4 craft.

3 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

The other thing to remember is that the vehicles don't take maneuvers. The people inside them take maneuvers and actions.

That's not true. Vehicles can only perform 1 pilot maneuver per round and can take a second by suffering 2 system strain. The pilot uses their maneuver to use the vehicles maneuver.

18 minutes ago, ddbrown30 said:

That's not true. Vehicles can only perform 1 pilot maneuver per round and can take a second by suffering 2 system strain. The pilot uses their maneuver to use the vehicles maneuver.

Then you and I are playing this game very differently.

13 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

Then you and I are playing this game very differently.

Okay? I mean, if you want to house rule something, that's fine, but RAW vehicles only get, at most, 2 maneuvers.

I have at least 3 pages of house rules for this game. This would just be one more.

But intellectually I'd be interested in seeing a rule citation. If there is such a limitation, I'd definitely recommend making a house rule change.

@Mark Caliber EotE page 232, second paragraph of the second column (right above the header for "Accelerate/Decelerate"):

" A starship or vehicle with silhouette 5 or higher can only benefit from one Pilot Only maneuver in a round. "

I just rechecked the Wayfarer (I just had my crew run into one of those ships so I thought I knew what it was).

THAT is a SIL 5 ship? No way! That ship is smaller than a YT-1300!

So the other house rule that I'd recommend is changing the Wayfarer to a Sil 4 size.

BTW I also made the same judgement about the VCX-100.

Sil 5 has a massive range, running from the VCX-100 to the CR-90 and the Marauder (which carries a full squadron of 12 fighters and a few shuttles). I find some of the official ships on the lower end of Sil 5 (like the VCX-100 and the Wayfarer) would be better as Sil 4. IMO, the Gozanti should really be the smallest Sil 5 should go.

42 minutes ago, Mark Caliber said:

THAT is a SIL 5 ship? No way! That ship is smaller than a YT-1300!

So the other house rule that I'd recommend is changing the Wayfarer to a Sil 4 size.

I 'm sure they were overemphasizing the detachable cargo bay, but I agree, it feels in the four range.

Thanks all for the replies. I'm going to allow the second maneuver. If nothing else, it will add more strain, giving others more to repair.

2 hours ago, Mark Caliber said:

I just rechecked the Wayfarer (I just had my crew run into one of those ships so I thought I knew what it was).

THAT is a SIL 5 ship? No way! That ship is smaller than a YT-1300!

So the other house rule that I'd recommend is changing the Wayfarer to a Sil 4 size.

BTW I also made the same judgement about the VCX-100.

With Cargo Container, its definitely not smaller than a YT-1300.
The Wayfarer can fit a Snubfighter or a few smaller vehicles.

Wihtout the Cargo Container, I personally would temporarily reduce the Sil to 4 to reflect the massive size difference.
It would still be awkward because of the cargo clamps and the rather larger clamp bridge.

Quote

With Cargo Container, its definitely not smaller than a YT-1300.

My first impulse is to have you check with your optometrist, but spacial relations don't necessarily improve with corrective eye wear. Part of the problem is that the Wayfarer is a multi level ship, while most other CEC ships are single level.

One thing that might help you put both of these ships in proper perspective is to start by comparing the cockpits (which are of similar size). After that isometrically map out the rest of both ships and you'll see that the Wayfarer is a much smaller ship.

Quote

The Wayfarer can fit a Snubfighter or a few smaller vehicles.

So what? It's cargo space seems more spacious and the Wayfarer is designed so that its cargo hold can house small vessels, but the YT-1300 overall is still a bigger ship (by volume). I don't doubt that the 1300 has less cargo capacity, but she should have a much higher thrust to mass ratio.

Quote

Wihtout the Cargo Container, I personally would temporarily reduce the Sil to 4 to reflect the massive size difference.
It would still be awkward because of the cargo clamps and the rather larger clamp bridge.

Suit yourself. I don't think the cargo container alters the overall scale of this ship that much. I'll keep it firmly in the Sil 4 category regardless.

The Wayfarer is 82 meters long compared to 35 on a YT-1300. The Wayfarer also holds 220 metric tons vs 100 (maximum by configuration) on a YT-1300. I think silhouette 5 is appropriate since it's twice as big and holds more than twice as much.

You could add an extra SS cost to Sil 5 vehicles for the second maneuver. Takes 3 instead of 2 since you're forcing the ship to do something it may not be designed to do. Then your support crew really needs to work to keep things from bursting at the seams.

And what about the Hawk 290 being a Sil 3 ship ? with that much cargo and passenger capacity ?

Strange

3 hours ago, rogue_09 said:

You could add an extra SS cost to Sil 5 vehicles for the second maneuver. Takes 3 instead of 2 since you're forcing the ship to do something it may not be designed to do. Then your support crew really needs to work to keep things from bursting at the seams.

There's no risk to letting big ships take the second maneuver as long as the selection of those maneuvers are still bound by Sil (so no evasive maneuvers in big ships).