9 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

(snip)

Bastion got his numbers directly from the original sources . He didn't make them up whole cloth. They're not arbitrary.

Bastion uses a different design process than FFG.

Therefore, ships statted by Bastion aren't comparable to those statted by FFG.

Bastion's stats may be better, but it would be wrong to set them side by side with FFG stats. It would be like saying that a stick that is 10 centimeters long is longer than a stick that is 6 inches long, because 10 is more than 6.

16 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Bastion uses a different design process than FFG.

Therefore, ships statted by Bastion aren't comparable to those statted by FFG.

Bastion's stats may be better, but it would be wrong to set them side by side with FFG stats. It would be like saying that a stick that is 10 centimeters long is longer than a stick that is 6 inches long, because 10 is more than 6.

Btw for those not familiar with both systems of measurements, 6 inches is 15.24 cm. Metric being the superior system of measurement.

On 9/10/2019 at 11:50 PM, EliasWindrider said:

And by that statement you again conceed that they're not comparable to official ship stats. You can't logically criticize the RAW stats as being bonkers and have them be comparable to your preferred stats. But I've never accused you of being logical.

It's a pretty simple concept that @penpenpen gets, maybe his explanation makes more sense to you?

To further this line of thought and make it "concrete" for you

The Corellian Corvette, consular class light cruiser, yz-900, and YZ-775 are all sil 5 ships made by CEC, which have OCR stats (i.e. they are in the same category... same size category, same manufacturer, same edition of the rpg, the consular shows up unfer the name republic cruiser in ocr), in fact the original and only pre-ffg official stats for the yz-900 and YZ-775 are ocr stats. So whatever conversion from ocr stats is done to one (the yz-900 for example) to get them into an ffg form must be done to all of their ocr stats. If we were to apply Bastion's process to the ocr stats for the Corellian Corvette, republic/consular cruiser, and YZ-775 they would have dramatically higher than official hull trauma and system strain. So for Bastion's yz-900 to be used (and be comparable) we'd also Bastion-ize all the ocr era ships. Or we could just use a conversion of the yz-900 which is consistent with official ffg ships.

And for the record, Bastion's assumption that all classes of ships shoup be converted the same way, vs. a class specific conversion is highly dubious because weapons/armor in ffg have dramatically different statistical behavior than in d20.

Also I looked up patrol boats on wikipedia

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrol_boat

United States Coast Guard Edit

• 87-foot Marine Protector class coastal patrol boat – USCG
• 110-foot Island class patrol boat – USCG
• 154-foot Sentinel class cutter – USCG

Guess what, the sentinel class cutter I linked to, the closest analog (by mission profile) of the ir-3f, is a patrol boat not a cap ship. Now the sentinel is the largest of the u.s. COAST GUARD (so debatable whether it's paramilitary or military) patrol boats.

If you look at https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclone-class_patrol_ship which was listed as the current us navy (definitely military) patrol boat on the previous wikipedia link... it seriously outguns the sentinel... so yeah by comparison to the ir-3f/sentinel which is a patrol boat not a cap ship and is debatable whether it's military or only paramilitary... the yz-900 clocks in as having definitively paramilitary grade firepower.

But that's the largest of the debatably military/paramilitary patrol boats in the us coast guard. What does the smallest, the marine protector come armed with? 2 browning m2 .50 cal machine guns (the sentinel has 4 of those and a 25 mil auto cannon. if the 25 mil auto cannon accounts for the light turbolasers.... and the medium lasers (6 damage) are the m2 machine guns. Then the yz-900's weapon load out (which all do 6 damage) come over as m2 machine guns. So yeah the yz-900 is armed like an old outdated coast guard patrol boat. And it's debatable whether the coast-guard counts as military or paramilitary... I'd argue the coast guard has paramilitary grade firepower.

So if by "military grade firepower" you mean outdated, undergunned coast guard cast offs (which seems like the very definition of paramilitary grade firepower to me)... then, for that very peculiar definition, one could make the dubious arguement that the yz-900 has "military grade firepower."

The IR-35, Corellian Corvette, and Consular Class cruiser are all canonically listed as capital ships , even in the current rules. They are all at least twice to three times as long as the YZ-900, and the same with width and height. That puts them between eight to twenty-seven times the volume of the YZ-900. The VCX-100 is also Sil 5, but no oe would ever think that it is even remotely close to the size of a Corellian Corvette. Remember, Sil 5 covers a large range of ship sizes ranging from about 50 meters to well over 150 meters . The Ir-3F is longer than a football field . the YZ-900 is barely the size of a 747 airliner .

On 9/11/2019 at 12:06 AM, EliasWindrider said:

Just because you don't understand or agree with the reasons doesn't make them arbitrary. It seems very much like the size of the ship and its mission profile were the deciding factor in ffg enc in an attempt to bring reason and consistency to various original source material that were all over the place).

Speed in ffg is an abstract measure of acceleration. Physics in air is not, but good aerodynamics can make up for a worse thrust to mass ratio to achieve the same speed. Btw what do you think thrust/mass is in the absence of other forces like drag and gravity? Answer: acceleration. Basically drag is the difference between acceleration and top speed, and drag is strongly influenced by aerodynamics. So yeah your arguments don't measure up in the face of physics.

No. The very fact that Sam Stewart has gone on record saying as much is what makes them arbitrary. He has gone on record saying that they make up their stats whole cloth and have no set formula for system for coming up with their stats. They simply use whatever they feel "looks" right at the time, o r whatever makes sense to them regardless of what the lore says . They don't have an actual system. It is all arbitrary by Sam Stewart's own admission.

On 9/11/2019 at 5:37 AM, penpenpen said:

Bastion uses a different design process than FFG.

Therefore, ships statted by Bastion aren't comparable to those statted by FFG.

Bastion's stats may be better, but it would be wrong to set them side by side with FFG stats. It would be like saying that a stick that is 10 centimeters long is longer than a stick that is 6 inches long, because 10 is more than 6.

No. Bastion uses the same design process . The difference is that he bases his stats off of what each ship's canonical technical specifications grant them whereas Sam Stewart and his team make them up whole cloth based on their own personal ideas , not the canon or lore. If a ship has a Heavy double laser cannon, that's what he lists and then gives it the official FFG stats for that weapon from the core rule books. If a ship is canonically listed with a certain passenger or cargo capacity, or crew requirement, etc. that's what he lists for that ship. Bastion then applies FFG mechanics to that. He doesn't arbitrarily change a ship's technical specifications . He researches each ship and bases his stats on that research i n order to make them as accurate to the source material as possible. Sam Stewart has gone on record stating that he and the other devs for FFG don't do that. They make their stats up from scratch based solely on what they think makes sense to them.

How else do you explain one ship having a cargo capacity of 150 tons getting an Encumbrance value of 165, but a ship with a cargo capacity of 180 having an encumbrance of 1800. Or a ship canonically listed as having a passenger capacity of fourteen in Staterooms, being given a passenger capacity of zero in the game.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

The IR-35, Corellian Corvette, and Consular Class cruiser are all canonically listed as capital ships , even in the current rules.

The ir-3f is dubiously capital, and dubiously military grade, it's mission profile is that of a coast-guard cutter/paramiltary patrol boat, so like it or not that's the reference point for judging/grading the fire power of other patrol boats like the yz-900.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. The very fact that Sam Stewart has gone on record saying as much is what makes them arbitrary. He has gone on record saying that they make up their stats whole cloth and have no set formula for system for coming up with their stats. They simply use whatever they feel "looks" right at the time, or whatever makes sense to them regardless of what the lore says . They don't have an actual system. It is all arbitrary by Sam Stewart's own admission.

Just because Sam Stewart, didn't (or even if he couldn't) explain his REASONS for WHY something makes sense to him does NOT make it arbitrary.

Most people have at least a gut logic behind what feels right ... it's WHY it makes sense to them . The presence of REASON and LOGIC does not imply or require strict adherence to a formula, although formula can frequently be backed out/reverse engineered from the observation of how that reason and logic was applied. Reverse engineering formulas that describe how the universe behaves is the whole of science . And I was able to do that for ffg official ships, it's called the nubian design collective"s whole vehicle crafting handbook. The very fact that the nubian design collective does as well as it does at reproducing RAW ships demonstrates that there is rhyme and reason behind the ffg RAW ship stats . And if you look at those formulas most of what a ship does in terms of speed, hull trauma threshold, system strain threshold, and encumbrance is strongly dependent upon the silhouette of the ship; They can also significantly depend on the role of the ship. even within ships of the same silhouette, enc, htt, and sst correlate rather well with the physical dimensions of the ship.

4 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No. Bastion uses the same design process . The difference is that he bases his stats off of what each ship's canonical technical specifications grant them whereas Sam Stewart and his team make them up whole cloth based on their own personal ideas , not the canon or lore. If a ship has a Heavy double laser cannon, that's what he lists and then gives it the official FFG stats for that weapon from the core rule books. If a ship is canonically listed with a certain passenger or cargo capacity, or crew requirement, etc. that's what he lists for that ship. Bastion then applies FFG mechanics to that. He doesn't arbitrarily change a ship's technical specifications . He researches each ship and bases his stats on that research i n order to make them as accurate to the source material as possible. Sam Stewart has gone on record stating that he and the other devs for FFG don't do that. They make their stats up from scratch based solely on what they think makes sense to them.

How else do you explain one ship having a cargo capacity of 150 tons getting an Encumbrance value of 165, but a ship with a cargo capacity of 180 having an encumbrance of 1800. Or a ship canonically listed as having a passenger capacity of fourteen in Staterooms, being given a passenger capacity of zero in the game.

1) none of that contradicts the iron clad argument that you have to Bastionize everything if you Bastionize anything, because otherwise you run into the issue analogous to saying 10 cm is longer than 6 inches because 10 is greater than 6.

2) the argument for Bastionizing all ships rests on the assumption that all ships across the various editions of the star wars rpg were generated from the same logical though implicit ruleset. That assumption is blatantly false, there is very little logical consistency in the ship stats of previous games, those stats are all over the place. You're now claiming that the volume of the ir-3f is at least 8 times greater than a yz-900 but are adamant the ir-3f should have about one third instead of 3.6 times the enc of a yz-900? Where's the geometric consistency in that logic? The answer is nowhere because it didn't exist in the arbitrary crap original source materials. You're claiming that the conversion is arbitrary because it's not linear one for one. You're right that what's on one side of the conversion is arbitrary crap but you're wrong about which side it is. The ffg ship stats are the most consistent/least arbitrary of any edition of the star wars rpg to date.

3) the legends crap that you're holding up as canon, isn't canon and hasn't been for several years, it's time for you to move on. The house of mouse deep-sixed it except for line item exceptions. Like it or not that's the current reality. You need to adapt, and deal with the fact that the yz-900 and YZ-775 are no longer canon. Although arguably the new YZ-775 ship stats, one of those line item exceptions, could be considered canon because that's their first appearance in a "new canon era" rpg and it made it past/through Lucasfilm oversight. Like it or not, it got the Lucasfilm stamp of approval and that's the final word. Get used to it, otherwise you can get used to disappointment. Either way Lucasfilm said you and Bastion are wrong.

https://getyarn.io/yarn-clip/9e9b657d-32bd-49f2-8fbf-adbcc170050e

53 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

The ir-3f is dubiously capital, and dubiously military grade, it's mission profile is that of a coast-guard cutter/patamiltary patrol boat, so like it or not that's the reference point for judging/grading the fire power of other patrol boats like the yz-900.

Just because Sam Stewart, didn't (or even if he couldn't) explain his REASONS for WHY something makes sense to him does NOT make it arbitrary.

First, the IR-3F is officially classified as a Capital ship , as is the Correllian Corvette and Consular Cruiser. All three are officially classified as capital ships, even under FFG stats. The YZ-900 and YZ-775 are not Capital ships, nor is the VCX-100, nor a number of the other smaller Sil 5 ships. The IR-3F, Corellian Corvette and Consular Cruiser are all on the larger end of the Sil 5 spectrum. The VCX-100, YZ-900, and YZ-775 are all barely Sil 5. they're all at the very bottom of the Sil 5 range. They're l ight and Medium transports , not capital ships. The YZ series were specifically designed for military and paramilitary purposes. But they are not capital ships. Thus, they would not be expected to have capital ship capabilities.

Secondly, Sam Stewart has specifically stated that t here is no formula, no system that they use when statting things out. They make it up as they go along.

Quote

ar·bi·trar·y

/ ˈärbəˌtrerē /

Learn to pronounce

adjective

adjective: arbitrary

1. based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system.

   "his mealtimes were entirely arbitrary"

   synonyms:

   capricious , whimsical , random , chance , erratic , unpredictable , inconsistent , wild , hit-or-miss, haphazard , casual ; More unmotivated , motiveless, unreasoned , unreasonable , unsupported , irrational , illogical , groundless , unjustifiable , unjustified , wanton ; discretionary , personal , subjective ; rare discretional "an arbitrary decision from the top"

   antonyms:

   rational , reasoned

   • (of power or a ruling body) unrestrained and autocratic in the use of authority.

     "arbitrary rule by King and bishops has been made impossible"

     synonyms:

     despotic , tyrannical , tyrannous, peremptory , summary , autocratic , dictatorial , authoritarian , draconian , autarchic, antidemocratic ; More oppressive , repressive , undemocratic , illiberal ; imperious , domineering, high-handed ; absolute , uncontrolled , unlimited , unrestrained "the arbitrary power of a prince"

     antonyms:

     democratic , accountable

   • Mathematics

     (of a constant or other quantity) of unspecified value.

That is exactly how Sam Stewart and the devs come up with stats. He's explicitly admitted as much. They don't base their stats on the existing lore. They make it up whole cloth based upon only their persona preferences . That is the very definition of Arbitrary . The YZ-775 in Dangerous Covenants is a prime example of this. The very fact that ship encumbrances in FFG have no corellation to a given ship's official cargo capacities listed in any ship's technical specification from any other of numerous canon and legends sources also shows just how arbitrary these choices are. They are all determined by pure personal discretion and subjective whim . That is the text book definition of Arbitrary. IF these were ships he or the devs had been the iriginal designers of, and that there were no existing technical specifications for, then that wouldn't be a problem. But when they blatantly ignore previously established technical specifications and arbitrarily decide to change them based solely upon their own personal discretion, that's a problem . That I take issue with. The very fact that they don't even bother to research the existing technical specifications of these ships , and instead make it up whole cloth based upon only what they think is how it "should" be, is what labels those stats as arbitrary.

Bastion's stats are not arbitrary. He actually uses a proper system, and researches the official lore from previously published official Star Wars material, to determine what the actual technical specs are for these various ships, and then works out the game stats from that material . There is nothing arbitrary about it. As such, his stats are far more accurate to the original canon and Legends sources from which these ships came from that many of the official FFG stats for the same ships .

The various stats for these ships in previous RPGs were all based upon the official technical specifications the people at Lucasfilm, and other authors and creators, hired by Lucasfilm for the movies, novels, comics, and non-RPG sourcebooks and encyclopedias determined, they didn't make them up out of whim. There was nothing arbitrary about their choices. For those ships that were designed explicitly for the games as the original source, those were based upon what the ship's function and concept was. It wasn't "all ships of this size should have similar specs" because not all vehicles of any type of similar sizes necessarily have similar technical specifications. And, for the record, D20 OCRB/RCRB rules did have a specific technical construction system for designing ships. There is supposed to be variety in ships even of similar size . And that is all based upon what a given ship designer decided was the main priorities of function, cost, durability, firepower , etc. to focus on.

Quote

Most people have at least a gut logic behind what feels right ... it's WHY it makes sense to them . The presence of REASON and LOGIC does not imply or require adherence to a formula, although formula can frequently be backed out/reverse engineered from the observation of how that reason and logic was applied. Reverse engineering formulas that describe how the universe behaves is the whole of science . And I was able to do that for ffg official ships, it's called the nubian design collective"s whole vehicle crafting handbook. The very fact that the nubian design collective does as well as it does at reproducing RAW ships demonstrates that there is rhyme and reason behind the ffg RAW ship stats . And if you look at those formulas most of what a ship does in terms of speed, hull trauma threshold, system strain threshold, and encumbrance is strongly dependent upon the silhouette of the ship; They can also significantly depend on the role of the ship. even within ships of the same silhouette, enc, htt, and sst correlate rather well with the physical dimensions of the ship.

A ship's size does not inherently tie into a ship's other characteristics. There are numerous examples in canon, in Legends, even in reality, of large ships or vehicles that have very fragile hulls and small ships or vehicles built like a tank . so just because two ships have the same silhouette does not mean that they should have similar hull trauma thresholds, similar strain thresholds, similar cargo capacities, etc. Does a naval ship of the line have the same or even similar capabilities as a large passenger liner? Does a passenger liner have the same or similar capabilities as a freighter. No. Not even close. So, no, those should not be tied so heavily into Silhouette, especially since Silhouette itself covers a wide variety of sizes. Not every ship of a given silhouette is the same size.

Quote

1) none of that contradicts the iron clad argument that you have to Bastionize everything if you Bastionize anything, because otherwise you run into the issue analogous to saying 10 cm is longer than 6 inches because 10 is greater than 6.

Wrong. That is a very poor analogy. I'm not talking about simply the difference between types of measurements. I know Encumbrance is not siply a measure of tonnage. However, the problem is much deeper than that. As I said, there is no consistancy there either. When you have two vessels with canonically very similar cargo capacities in tonnage having widely different encumbrance values, or two ships where a ship with a much lower cargo capacity in tonnage than another ship having a vastly larger Encumbrance than the other ship, that's a huge inconsistency. Even if Tonnage and Encumbrance are not exactly the same, if one vessel has a greater tonnage capacity than anonther vessel, then it stands to reason that it should also have a larger Encumbrance capacity than that other vessel. Similarly, if two ships have similar cargo capacities in tonnage , then, logically, they should have similar encumbrances as well . We don't see that in FFG's stats. We see ships with officially similar tonnage capacities having widely different encumbrance values. We see ships with much smaller tonnage capacities than other ships having vastly larger encumbrances than that other ship. That is a huge inconsistency. That shows just how arbitrary many of these stats are.

Quote

2) the argument for Bastionizing all ships rests on the assumption that all ships across the various editions of the star wars rpg were generated from the same logical though implicit ruleset. That assumption is blatantly false, there is very little logical consistency in the ship stats of previous games, those stats are all over the place. You're now claiming that the volume of the ir-3f is at least 27 times greater than a yz-900 but are adamant the ir-3f should have about one third instead of 3.5 times the enc of a yz-900? Where's the geometric consistency in that logic? The answer is nowhere because it didn't exist in the crap original source materials.

There doesn't need to be "geometric consistency". There are a huge number of factors that go into a ships (or other vehicle's) capabilities than its size. Secondly, I'm not adamant that the IR-3F " should " have one third the cargo capacity than the YZ-900. I'm saying that the original canon and Legends sources created by Lucasfilm Licensing gave the Ir-3F a cargo capacity one third that of the YZ-900. The official original sources gave the IR-3F a very small cargo capacity. And they gave the YZ-900 a relatively larger cargo and passenger capacity. That's because the Ir3F is not a cargo ship . It isn't designed to haul cargo. It's designed for systems patrol . Why would it have a larger cargo hold? It wouldn't . It has no need for a large cargo hold. It only needs a hold large enough to hold the occasional confiscated contraband. That's why the original creator of that ship gave it a small cargo hold that can only hold 180 metric tons. Thta's all it needs since it is not a cargo ship. By contrast, the YZ-900 is a medium transport . It is designed specifically to haul a large amount of cargo as well as a fairly large number of passengers for a ship of its size. The IR-3F is not a transport, it is a dedicated customs patrol ship. It's the difference between a Coast Guard Cutter and a large crab fishing boat of even half the length of the Cutter. The fishing boat is mostly cargo hold. The Cutter is mostly engine, weapons, ammunition, and crew.

Quote

3) the legends crap you're holding up as canon, isn't canon and hasn't been for several years, it's time for you to move on. The house of mouse deep-sixed it except for line item exceptions. Like it or not that's the current reality. You need to adapt, and deal with the fact that the yz-900 and YZ-775 are no longer canon. Although arguably the new YZ-775 ship stats, one of those line item exceptions, could be considered canon because that's their first appearance in a "new canon era" rpg and it made it past/through Lucasfilm oversight. Like it or not, it got the Lucasfilm stamp of approval and that's the final word. Get used to it, otherwise you can get used to disappointment. Either way Lucasfilm said you're wrong.

A good portion of the material in this game stems from Legends material. In fact, most of the EotE line's material in particular comes from Legends. So that argument doesn't hold water. LIke itor not, but a lot of the FFG ship stats are inconsistent with , if not contraditctory to official Lucasfilm technical specifications for the same vessels. Bastion's stats are completely in line with official Lucasfilm technical specifications for all of those same ships.

The ir-3f is a borderline/dubious case because it is in the middle of the sil 5 spectrum, which would make it a very small, and very undergunned, cap ship if it was one at all, but it's mission is that of a paramilitary patrol boat and it's underwhelming weapons load out is appropriate to it's paramilitary mission . Since the FAD core book doesn't have a separate section for custom enforcement patrol boats/ships, ffg may have lumped it in with cap ships for convenience rather than create a new section for a single entry. Regarding the ir-3f's underwhelming weapons load out it should be compared to the cr-90 ( 2 twin medium turbolasers and 4 twin light turbolasers) which can be legally purchased by civilians so it's something the ir-3f actually has to interdict. If you look at the DP-20 and marauder (the other sil 5 cap ship from the eote core) I think both have 8 twin light turbolasers. So like I said, the ir-3f would be very undergunned for a cap ship.

The yz series is "explicitly" paramilitary not military in the legends lore, as per wookieepedia https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/YZ_series

"The CEC denied that the ships of the YZ series were originally intended to be converted to be combat vessels and sold to paramilitary organizations, despite them being used regularly for just that purpose"

I put "explicitly" in quotes because 1) CEC denied it and 2) the yz series ships had to be CONVERTED before being fit for even PARAMILITARY use. So as per usual the FORMERLY canon now legends lore does NOT say what you claimed it did. As per the legends lore the stock yz ship firepower might have been paramilitary grade but was certainly not military grade. For all we know the typical paramilitary conversion for these ships could involve replacing the heavy laser cannons with light turbolasers and the concussion missile launchers with proton torpedo launchers.

The definition of arbitrary you quoted says " rather than any reason or system" and I've demonstrated that there was reason and, at least, an implicit process/system behind ffg ship stats by coming up with a ruleset to reproduce them. That you don't like the strongly dependent on both silhouette and role reason/system does not make it arbitrary.

You like using bs strawman arguments. It is not SOLEY based on size, I explicitly said role had a significant effect and the nubian design collective rules reflect that. For example enc of a dedicated cargo bay for a bulk freighter scales as the 4th power while for all other ships it scales as the third power plus dedicated cargo bays cost fewer hp for bulk freighter hulls and certain frame types. So role has a very significant impact like I ORIGINALLY SAID IT DID.

A dedicated sil 5 cargo ship can hold approx 10K enc, so only 1800 for a sil 5 ship that's not a dedicated cargo ship isn't outright unbelievable especially when it has to interdict Action IV's with their 10K enc (so potentially a lot of contraband) and when the consular assault cruiser (an actual cap ship like you like to claim the ir-3f is) which is approximately the same size as the ir-3f can carry 3200 enc, and the non military version of the consular can carry 4000 enc. so ffg did significantly REDUCE the ir-3f's cargo capacity compared to a similarly sized cap ship as might be appropriate for a patrol boat.

Also, because the ir-3f is going to be away from port for a month at a time and it doesn't have a hyperdrive it could potentially need to store contraband seized from multiple dedicated cargo ships, and beyond that it needs to store supplies for the crew for a month so considering the mission profile 1800 enc is VERY reasonable. Also the yz-900 is a multi role transport rather than a dedicated cargo vessel, so it's definitely not the top of its class in terms of cargo hauling ability. There's even at least 1 sil 4 that surpasses 500 enc.

However, size is a pretty good predictor of the total amount of stuff you can cram into a space, whether that be armor or cargo or passengers or what have you.

You're right that what's on one side of the conversion ffg did is arbitrary crap but you're wrong about which side it is. The ffg ship stats are the most consistent/least arbitrary of any of the star wars rpg editions to date. The original non canon source materials is the arbitrary crap side of the equation, and I'm sure you've heard the expression " garbage in, garbage out ". The problem is largely not with Bastion's methods but the inconsistent/arbitrary crap input he's feeding into it. There's also the fact that the weapons, armor, hull trauma etc. mechanics interact differently in ffg than in previous iterations of the game which he should have accounted for.

There is no ORIGINAL CANON star wars rpg material that predates the ffg rpg. The house of mouse deep sixed it.

The argument that legends is crap EXCEPT FOR LINE ITEM EXCEPTIONS specifically allows for line item gems to be pulled out of the rest of the crap. That's exactly what eote did. So your supposed counter argument by example is complete bull, and the proof that your argument is bull is that eote explicitly did not pull in all of legends. Also, and this is key, ffg fixed issues with the stuff they did pull in by CREATING NEW STATS FOR and altering the lore for everything that they did pull in. They weren't using the very inconsistent/arbitrary stats from the original non-canon source rpgs.

If your claiming ffg ship stats contradict legends lore that that was officially deep sixed, that's officially irrelevant . If you're claiming that ffg ship stats contradict the current canon show me the current canon they contradict, where you can (which I think that is nowhere) you would have an argument for a line item change to official ffg ship stats, when and where you can't use the current canon to contradict ffg ship stats Lucasfilm has already said you and Bastion are wrong by approving the ffg ship stats.

You very much are talking about different measurements , a ship measured in Bastion units vs. a ship measured in official ffg units. This is like the difference between an English/imperial ton and a metric ton, or a mile and a nautical mile. Even though the units are named the same thing, the units are different sizes . That's why Bastion's stats simply aren't comparable to official ffg stats, because the numbers mean different things. If you Bastionize anything , then you have to Bastionize everything , because the numbers aren't comparable any more than the number of cm and number of inches of different things.

18 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

The ir-3f is a borderline/dubious case because it is in the middle of the sil 5 spectrum, which would make it a very small, and very undergunned, cap ship if it was one at all, but it's mission is that of a paramilitary patrol boat and it's underwhelming weapons load out is appropriate to it's paramilitary mission . Since the FAD core book doesn't have a separate section for custom enforcement patrol boats/ships, ffg may have lumped it in with cap ships for convenience rather than create a new section for a single entry. Regarding the ir-3f's underwhelming weapons load out it should be compared to the cr-90 ( 2 twin medium turbolasers and 4 twin light turbolasers) which can be legally purchased by civilians so it's something the ir-3f actually has to interdict. If you look at the DP-20 and marauder (the other sil 5 cap ship from the eote core) I think both have 8 twin light turbolasers. So like I said, the ir-3f would be very undergunned for a cap ship.

The yz series is "explicitly" paramilitary not military in the legends lore, as per wookieepedia https://starwars.fandom.com/wiki/YZ_series

"The CEC denied that the ships of the YZ series were originally intended to be converted to be combat vessels and sold to paramilitary organizations, despite them being used regularly for just that purpose"

I put "explicitly" in quotes because 1) CEC denied it and 2) the yz series ships had to be CONVERTED before being fit for even PARAMILITARY use. So as per usual the FORMERLY canon now legends lore does NOT say what you claimed it did. As per the legends lore the stock yz ship firepower might have been paramilitary grade but was certainly not military grade. For all we know the typical paramilitary conversion for these ships could involve replacing the heavy laser cannons with light turbolasers and the concussion missile launchers with proton torpedo launchers.

The definition of arbitrary you quoted says " rather than any reason or system" and I've demonstrated that there was reason and, at least, an implicit process/system behind ffg ship stats by coming up with a ruleset to reproduce them. That you don't like the strongly dependent on both silhouette and role reason/system does not make it arbitrary.

You like using bs strawman arguments. It is not SOLEY based on size, I explicitly said role had a significant effect and the nubian design collective rules reflect that. For example enc of a dedicated cargo bay for a bulk freighter scales as the 4th power while for all other ships it scales as the third power plus dedicated cargo bays cost fewer hp for bulk freighter hulls and certain frame types. So role has a very significant impact like I ORIGINALLY SAID IT DID.

A dedicated sil 5 cargo ship can hold approx 10K enc, so only 1800 for a sil 5 ship that's not a dedicated cargo ship isn't outright unbelievable especially when it has to interdict Action IV's with their 10K enc (so potentially a lot of contraband) and when the consular assault cruiser (an actual cap ship like you like to claim the ir-3f is) which is approximately the same size as the ir-3f can carry 3200 enc, and the non military version of the consular can carry 4000 enc. so ffg did significantly REDUCE the ir-3f's cargo capacity compared to a similarly sized cap ship as might be appropriate for a patrol boat.

Also, because the ir-3f is going to be away from port for a month at a time and it doesn't have a hyperdrive it could potentially need to store contraband seized from multiple dedicated cargo ships, and beyond that it needs to store supplies for the crew for a month so considering the mission profile 1800 enc is VERY reasonable. Also the yz-900 is a multi role transport rather than a dedicated cargo vessel, so it's definitely not the top of its class in terms of cargo hauling ability. There's even at least 1 sil 4 that surpasses 500 enc.

However, size is a pretty good predictor of the total amount of stuff you can cram into a space, whether that be armor or cargo or passengers or what have you.

You're right that what's on one side of the conversion ffg did is arbitrary crap but you're wrong about which side it is. The ffg ship stats are the most consistent/least arbitrary of any of the star wars rpg editions to date. The original non canon source materials is the arbitrary crap side of the equation, and I'm sure you've heard the expression " garbage in, garbage out ". The problem is largely not with Bastion's methods but the inconsistent/arbitrary crap input he's feeding into it. There's also the fact that the weapons, armor, hull trauma etc. mechanics interact differently in ffg than in previous iterations of the game which he should have accounted for.

There is no ORIGINAL CANON star wars rpg material that predates the ffg rpg. The house of mouse deep sixed it.

The argument that legends is crap EXCEPT FOR LINE ITEM EXCEPTIONS specifically allows for line item gems to be pulled out of the rest of the crap. That's exactly what eote did. So your supposed counter argument by example is complete bull, and the proof that your argument is bull is that eote explicitly did not pull in all of legends. Also, and this is key, ffg fixed issues with the stuff they did pull in by CREATING NEW STATS FOR and altering the lore for everything that they did pull in. They weren't using the very inconsistent/arbitrary stats from the original non-canon source rpgs.

If your claiming ffg ship stats contradict legends lore that that was officially deep sixed, that's officially irrelevant . If you're claiming that ffg ship stats contradict the current canon show me the current canon they contradict, where you can (which I think that is nowhere) you would have an argument for a line item change to official ffg ship stats, when and where you can't use the current canon to contradict ffg ship stats Lucasfilm has already said you and Bastion are wrong by approving the ffg ship stats.

You very much are talking about different measurements , a ship measured in Bastion units vs. a ship measured in official ffg units. This is like the difference between an English/imperial ton and a metric ton, or a mile and a nautical mile. Even though the units are named the same thing, the units are different sizes . That's why Bastion's stats simply aren't comparable to official ffg stats, because the numbers mean different things. If you Bastionize anything , then you have to Bastionize everything , because the numbers aren't comparable any more than the number of cm and number of inches of different things.

Keith. The technical specs I'm talking about aren't "Game material" .

Cargo capacity and passenger capacity is not a "game mechanic" . The number of passengers, and the tonnage in cargo a ship can carry is not a "game mechanic" . It's a real world technical specification. Secondly, the Ir3F is not a dedicated cargo hauler. Most of its interior is dedicated to engine and power supply. Third, the original stats for the various ships was not arbitrary. Each was done based upon a number of factors:

• what's the intended use of the ship? Military? Cargo hauling? Passenger liner? Interceptor?
• what kind of resources does the company have to produce it?
• what's the intended market for the ship?
• what's the intended price point?

FFG did not reduce the Ir3F's cargo capacity. It multiplied it by a factor of ten. Not only that, but your claim that there is consistency in ships encumbrance capacities is hogwash . There is none whatsoever . And I'm talking even with ships with current canon technical specifications. The current canon technical specs for the YT-1300 (specifically the YT-1300 F and FP) rates it at 100 metric ton cargo capacity*, yet an encumbrance of 165 . The CR-90 canonically has a 3000 metric ton maximum cargo capacity yet its Encumbrance capacity is listed at up to 2500 . The YT 1300's encumbrance is larger than its tonnage rating yet the CR-90's Encumbrance is smaller than its tonnage rating? Where's the consistency there? The YV-929 has a greater tonnage rating as the YT-1300 ( 150 metric tons ) yet an Encumbrance rating of only 80 . IT has the same Silhouette and function as the YT-1300, and the same cargo capacity in metric tons , yet half the Encumbrance rating . The same is true of the Imperial I Star Destroyer. The Imperial I class Star Destroyer has a cargo capacity of 36,000 metric tons , yet its Encumbrance rating is only 15,000. That's less than half its tonnage rating . So, don't give me any bull about FFG's ship stats being consistent, especially when it comes to cargo and passenger capacities. They're all over the place , even within the same class and relative size of ship. And I'm talking even when compared to current canon technical specifications . And this is because there is no actual conversion system between Encumbrance and tonnage. The devs simply slapped on whatever encumbrance value they felt like without even bothering to research these ships' actual tonnage ratings in canon or Legends material (depending upon where the ship originated). and then rewrote their own lore to suit their personal whims. By definition, that is arbitrary.

The original canon and Legends specs for all of these various vessels were not determined arbitrarily. Even in reality vessels of the same relative size and similar functions can have widely different capabilities . And that is dependent a lot on production cost and price point, as well as other factors.

*From YT-1300 Corellian Freighter Owner Manual pub. 2018 .

So, FFG"s cargo capacities don't even align with current canon . So don't give me any bull about their ship stats being "consistent" or more accurate than Bastion's. The Lore is the standard to which the game is supposed to match, not the other way around . If the existing lore says a ship can carry 14 passengers, it can carry 14 passengers. Period. If the lore stats that a ship can carry only 180 metric tons of cargo, then that's how much it carries.

You cannot tell me that FFG has a consistent system for their designs when Sam Stewart himself has stated flat out that this is not the case. They make it up purely as they go along, with no system, no rhyme, no reason. It's all arbitrary by his own admission.

Passenger capacity is not a game statistic. Tonage is not a game statistic but encumbrance most certainly is a game statistic. Tonage is weight, and the only limit to the weight you can carry is the amount of force you can apply to it. But the amount of cargo you can carry is limited by the volume and shape of the cargo hold as well as the cargo's weight. Encumbrance also is a combination of volume, shape and weight. Tonage is at most 1/3 of the cargo/encumbrance story so expecting there to be a straight forward conversion between them is overly optimistic. It's like comparing a volume to a length, yes they're related in a non linear way but not only do they have different units, they have different dimensions.

The other two/thirds of encumbrance (volume and shape) depend soley on the size/lengths involved so having a strong correlation between enc and size/shape makes a lot of sense. The third, carried cargo's weight, is limited by both the density and volume of cargo, and if for the sake of simplicity we handwave the thrust of the ship to be sufficient to carry whatever fits in its hold, we're left with encumbrance depending ONLY on size and shape. Hence, that ffg ship encumbrance strongly (but not solely) depends on size makes A LOT of physical sense. It is very physically consistent; that previous iterations of the game (and legends lore) didn't follow a similar principle shows it for the inconsistent arbitrary crap that it is. Because of their inconsistenc I seriously doubt that most of the ships originally statted in the WEG d6 era had much thought put in their stats, unfortunately that infects any other ship statted using them as a reference.

Moreover, ffg explicitly said that the listed enc is only what could be accessed easily while in flight and that most ships could carry a lot more if they needed to. So if the ffg game designers thought two ships with the same leftover thrust available to carry cargo (i.e. tonage) had different volumes or easily accessible volumes because of their shape and internal layout, then they have a very good reason for assigning them a different encumbrance of EASILY ACCESSIBLE CARGO.

Basically encumbrance is a game statistic that by its definition would be extremely hard to contradict by canon technical stats. If you wanted to try to contradict ffg ship passenger capacities using the current canon that seems achievable, but that would only get you a line item change to passengers.

But to address a point, only canon lore should be a target for the ffg to aspire to. And the legends crap is officially NOT canon . That 14 passengers you're quoting for the I think YZ-775 is not canon so isn't a basis for complaint, nor is the 180 metric tons from the non canon previous sources for the ir-3f.

When you're talking about consistency, it really depends on what you are consistent with. There is no reason to be consistent with the non canon legends material, but giving the appropriate nod to canon (or explaining around it) and being SELF consistent and consistent with geometry/physics are good goals. Ffg ship stats are more self consistent and geometrically consistent than any previous iteration of the game. To date you haven't given an example of official ffg ship game statistics being contradicted by the current canon.

Also, that I was able to devise a rule set, in which most statistics strongly but not soley depend on size (role is another very significant factor), that does a good job at replicating official ffg ships, shows that they used reason and at least an implicit system/process for statting ships. Whether or not you like that implicit system/process for statting ships or believe it shouldn't be called a conversion process, I have shown that what they did is not arbitrary.

The "capacity" of the ship is largely set by silhouette but there's freedom on how to spend that capacity to gain capabilities (or improve them above base levels that also depend on silhouette). The point is ffg predominantly used rational baselines for ships and following that made rational trade offs to tailor ships to specific roles. Maybe they were only implicitly following that rational process because that's what felt right to them but they were still following a rational process.

And I never claimed that ir-3f was a dedicated cargo hauler, if for no other reason than it doesn't have a hyperdrive, but it does have to be able to seize contraband from dedicated cargo haulers. More to the point, the yz-900 was not a dedicated cargo hauler; it's a multi role transport. So they're pretty comparable in that regard, also since by your calculations a ir-3f has a volume 8 times greater than a yz-900 you a priori would expect it's encumbrance to also be 8 times greater, assuming that the yz-900 had 500 enc that puts the EXPECTED enc of a ir-3f at 4000 but the ir-3f has less than half of that, i.e. only 1800 enc which ON A RELATIVE SCALE makes the ir-3f a lot worse (i.e. a relative to yz-900 or civilian consular reduction) at carrying cargo than a yz-900 which itself is NOT a dedicated cargo hauler. So you're correct that the ir-3f is not a dedicated cargo hauler, but its enc is also much smaller than one would expect for a dedicated cargo hauler of it's size. So yeah you've got no basis for a complaint.

If you're going to attempt to contradict my statements on relative comparisons, a reduction in x relative to y, make sure you keep the same anchor points for the relations that I used. Otherwise you're speaking different units and run into that 10 cm vs 6 inches issue (or an analog to it).

There's a lot of my last post that you didn't address, I take that as you conceding those points. Particularly that the stock yz-900 definitively does not have military grade firepower, and that in order to Bastionize anything you have to Bastionize everything.

And that too is a key part of the problem with FFG's encumbrance system vs what Lucasfilm itself uses for its ship statistics. The ship stats used in non game material is the maximum cargo capacity for that ship, not the minimum . For example, the crab fishing vessel the Cornelia Marie has a Gross Tonnage of 198 tons and a Net Tonnage of 135 tons. These are standard maritime values of a ship's overall internal volume . and replaced Net Register Tonnage Gross Register Tonnage . What Star Wars ships are rated for their cargo hold's deadweight tonnage (its actual weight carrying capacity in metric tons).

Quote

Name:	Cornelia Marie
Owner:	Josh Harris, Roger Thomas, Kari Toivola, Casey McManus
Operator:	Capt. Casey McManus, Josh Harris
Port of registry:	Kodiak, Alaska , United States
Builder:	Horton Boats, Bayou La Batre, Alabama
Yard number:	255
Completed:	1989
Identification:	IMO number : 8852538 MMSI number : 367142081 Callsign : WDD4240
Status:	In Service
General characteristics
Tonnage:	198 GT 135 NT
Length:	128 ft (39 m)
Beam:	28 ft (8.5 m)
Draft:	11.70 ft (3.57 m)
Propulsion:	2 × 750 hp Cummins QSK19-M diesels with Twin Disc 4.5:1 reduction gears
Speed:	14.50 knots (26.85 km/h; 16.69 mph)

And, yes, I have given examples. The YT-1300 being one of them as well as the Ir-3F. Not only that, but there is no consistency within FFG among different ships regarding cargo encumbrance compared to their original deadweight tonnages. To use two ships with official FFG stats. look at theYT-1300, YZ-775 and the IR-3F. The yt-1300 has a canonical cargo capacity of 100 Metric tons . FFG gave it an Encumbrance of 165 . Its encumbrance rating is 65 more than its Deadweight tonnage. The YZ-775 (Sil 5) originally had a cargo capacity of 400 metric tons . FFG gave it an Encumbrance of 850 . That's more than double its deadweight tonnage. The IR-3f has a max cargo capacity of 180 metric tons, but an encumbrance of 1800? That's ten times its deadweight tonnage. How do you go from one ship's encumbrance being only a little more than its deadweight tonnage, to encumbrance being more than double a ship's deadweight tonnage to Encumbrance being ten times a ship's deadweight tonnage. There's no consistency there. Also, how does a ship with a cargo capacity of only 80 tons more than the YT-1300, and 220 metric tons less than the YZ-775 suddenly have an Encumbrance more than double the YZ-775 and more than ten times the YT-1300? That is not internal consistency. It is completely in consistent. Even if Encumbrance values are different than deadweight tonnage, the relative values between ships of different cargo capcacities ships be consistent with those original values in how they compare to other ships. So if one ship has a higher deadweight tonnage than another ship, its Encumbrance rating should also be equally higher that the second ship's Encumbrance rating. Not only that but there should be a consistent conversion calculating Deadweight tonnage to Encumbrance.

The other problem with FFG's "standars of encumbrance is that just because a ship of a given silhouette could potentially be given a cargo hold that could hold a certain volume or weight of cargo does not mean every ship of that silhouette will be capable of comparable cargo capacity. It all depends upon how much internal volume the ship designer chooses to allot to cargo capacity. For example, a ship designer wanted to, he could design a huge Sil 8 ship with no capacity whatsoever for cargo. By contrast, a ship designer could decide to dedicate almost the entire internal volume of a much smaller ship to cargo capacity, thus creating a small ship with a much greater cargo capacity than the larger ship. Thus, Silhouette can only determine what the potential maximum , a ship could potentially hold if every available space were devoted to cargo. It should in no way determine its minimum capacity. The actual value of any ship's cargo capacity is only what the ship designer chooses to allot to cargo capacity. And In the case of the IR-3f, the original specs of the ship allotted only enough cargo hold space to hold a maximum of 180 metric tons of cargo. By contrast, the YZ-900 is rated at a 500 metric ton cargo capacity. That is a difference of 320 metric tons. No matter how you measure that, the YZ-900 has a larger cargo capacity than the Ir-3F. Bastion used the YZ-900's actual cargo capacity in Metric tons as its Encumbrance value, given no other actual measurements or conversions.

As for the YZ-900's firepower being miitary grade? For a ship of its length (54.3 meters) yes, it is. Its weapons are military grade for a medium sized ship, not for a capital ship . Two twin Heavy Laser cannons, two twin Medium Laser cannons, and two Concussion Missile Launchers are military grade weapons for a ship of the YZ-900's specific size. That's more firepower than the Ghost, which itself is a military vessel. The Ghost only has one turret mounted twin light laser cannon, a twin Medium laser cannon, and a proton torpedo launcher. And that's a ship specifically modified for, and actually used in, combat missions . And a stock YZ-900 significantly outguns it. So, yes, for a ship of its size and class , the YZ-900 definitely has military grade weapons.

Now, as for "Bastionizing everything". Yes, absolutely. Every ship should have been designed the way Bastion did: by researching the original specs and trying to make these stats as accurate to those original specs as possible using this system. This means having a proper and consistent conversion from dead-weight tonnage to Encumbrance, as well as keeping the exact same passenger capacities as the original source material, maintaining the same relative hull traumas values and shield capacities, the same crew requirements , the same weapons , etc. Nothing should be rewritten whole cloth nor changed arbitrarily. So if one ship's encumbrance rating is ten times its dead-weight tonnage, then all ships' Encumbrances should be ten times their Dead-weight tonnages. Or, if one ship's Encumbrance is going to equal double its dead-weight tonnage, then all ships' Encumbrances should equal double their dead-weight tonnages. Or, if one ship's Encumbrance is going to be 65% more than its dead-weight tonnage, then all ships's Encumbrances should be 65% more than their dead-weight tonnages. This way, you won't have a ship with a dead-weight tonnage less than half that of another ship having an Encumbrance almost quadruple the second ship's Encumbrance. FFG did not do this, Bastion did. So, yes, I am all for "Bastionizing" every ship in the game insomuch as I want every ship in the game to be as accurate to their original specs as possible. And, as it stands, FFG has not been doing a good job of that with preexisting ships.

On 9/17/2019 at 4:51 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

And that too is a key part of the problem with FFG's encumbrance system vs what Lucasfilm itself uses for its ship statistics. The ship stats used in non game material is the maximum cargo capacity for that ship, not the minimum . For example, the crab fishing vessel the Cornelia Marie has a Gross Tonnage of 198 tons and a Net Tonnage of 135 tons. These are standard maritime values of a ship's overall internal volume . and replaced Net Register Tonnage Gross Register Tonnage . What Star Wars ships are rated for their cargo hold's deadweight tonnage (its actual weight carrying capacity in metric tons).

And, yes, I have given examples. The YT-1300 being one of them as well as the Ir-3F. Not only that, but there is no consistency within FFG among different ships regarding cargo encumbrance compared to their original deadweight tonnages. To use two ships with official FFG stats. look at theYT-1300, YZ-775 and the IR-3F. The yt-1300 has a canonical cargo capacity of 100 Metric tons . FFG gave it an Encumbrance of 165 . Its encumbrance rating is 65 more than its Deadweight tonnage. The YZ-775 (Sil 5) originally had a cargo capacity of 400 metric tons . FFG gave it an Encumbrance of 850 . That's more than double its deadweight tonnage. The IR-3f has a max cargo capacity of 180 metric tons, but an encumbrance of 1800? That's ten times its deadweight tonnage. How do you go from one ship's encumbrance being only a little more than its deadweight tonnage, to encumbrance being more than double a ship's deadweight tonnage to Encumbrance being ten times a ship's deadweight tonnage. There's no consistency there. Also, how does a ship with a cargo capacity of only 80 tons more than the YT-1300, and 220 metric tons less than the YZ-775 suddenly have an Encumbrance more than double the YZ-775 and more than ten times the YT-1300? That is not internal consistency. It is completely in consistent. Even if Encumbrance values are different than deadweight tonnage, the relative values between ships of different cargo capcacities ships be consistent with those original values in how they compare to other ships. So if one ship has a higher deadweight tonnage than another ship, its Encumbrance rating should also be equally higher that the second ship's Encumbrance rating. Not only that but there should be a consistent conversion calculating Deadweight tonnage to Encumbrance.

The other problem with FFG's "standars of encumbrance is that just because a ship of a given silhouette could potentially be given a cargo hold that could hold a certain volume or weight of cargo does not mean every ship of that silhouette will be capable of comparable cargo capacity. It all depends upon how much internal volume the ship designer chooses to allot to cargo capacity. For example, a ship designer wanted to, he could design a huge Sil 8 ship with no capacity whatsoever for cargo. By contrast, a ship designer could decide to dedicate almost the entire internal volume of a much smaller ship to cargo capacity, thus creating a small ship with a much greater cargo capacity than the larger ship. Thus, Silhouette can only determine what the potential maximum , a ship could potentially hold if every available space were devoted to cargo. It should in no way determine its minimum capacity. The actual value of any ship's cargo capacity is only what the ship designer chooses to allot to cargo capacity. And In the case of the IR-3f, the original specs of the ship allotted only enough cargo hold space to hold a maximum of 180 metric tons of cargo. By contrast, the YZ-900 is rated at a 500 metric ton cargo capacity. That is a difference of 320 metric tons. No matter how you measure that, the YZ-900 has a larger cargo capacity than the Ir-3F. Bastion used the YZ-900's actual cargo capacity in Metric tons as its Encumbrance value, given no other actual measurements or conversions.

As for the YZ-900's firepower being miitary grade? For a ship of its length (54.3 meters) yes, it is. Its weapons are military grade for a medium sized ship, not for a capital ship . Two twin Heavy Laser cannons, two twin Medium Laser cannons, and two Concussion Missile Launchers are military grade weapons for a ship of the YZ-900's specific size. That's more firepower than the Ghost, which itself is a military vessel. The Ghost only has one turret mounted twin light laser cannon, a twin Medium laser cannon, and a proton torpedo launcher. And that's a ship specifically modified for, and actually used in, combat missions . And a stock YZ-900 significantly outguns it. So, yes, for a ship of its size and class , the YZ-900 definitely has military grade weapons.

Now, as for "Bastionizing everything". Yes, absolutely. Every ship should have been designed the way Bastion did: by researching the original specs and trying to make these stats as accurate to those original specs as possible using this system. This means having a proper and consistent conversion from dead-weight tonnage to Encumbrance, as well as keeping the exact same passenger capacities as the original source material, maintaining the same relative hull traumas values and shield capacities, the same crew requirements , the same weapons , etc. Nothing should be rewritten whole cloth nor changed arbitrarily. So if one ship's encumbrance rating is ten times its dead-weight tonnage, then all ships' Encumbrances should be ten times their Dead-weight tonnages. Or, if one ship's Encumbrance is going to equal double its dead-weight tonnage, then all ships' Encumbrances should equal double their dead-weight tonnages. Or, if one ship's Encumbrance is going to be 65% more than its dead-weight tonnage, then all ships's Encumbrances should be 65% more than their dead-weight tonnages. This way, you won't have a ship with a dead-weight tonnage less than half that of another ship having an Encumbrance almost quadruple the second ship's Encumbrance. FFG did not do this, Bastion did. So, yes, I am all for "Bastionizing" every ship in the game insomuch as I want every ship in the game to be as accurate to their original specs as possible. And, as it stands, FFG has not been doing a good job of that with preexisting ships.

Unless you're claiming that 1 enc = 1 ton (which is completely ridiculous because then you're claiming average human can carry 7 tons) the YT-1300 having 165 enc of (easily accessible encumbrance during flight) is not 65 tons more than 100 tons. And since he ir-3f, yz-900 and YZ-775 have no canon sources that could contradict ffg stats, ffg does have a blank slate to do whatever they want to with the stats even if they wanted to specify tonnage.

3 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

Unless you're claiming that 1 enc = 1 ton (which is completely ridiculous because then you're claiming average human can carry 7 tons) the YT-1300 having 165 enc of (easily accessible encumbrance during flight) is not 65 tons more than 100 tons. And since he ir-3f, yz-900 and YZ-775 have no canon sources that could contradict ffg stats, ffg does have a blank slate to do whatever they want to with the stats even if they wanted to specify tonnage.

No, what I have a problem is the lack of consistency in how ship Encumbrance is handled, and how they compare between different ships compared to their respective tonnage ratings. A ship that has a lower cargo capacity in tonnage than another ship should not have a higher Encumbrance rating than that other ship; rather, it should be equally lower . And, if two ships have similar cargo capacities in tons, then they should also have similar Encumbrance capacities. So, if the YT-1300 has a cargo capacity of 100 tons, and the Ir-3F has a cargo capacity of 180 tons (180% the capacity of the YT-1300), then the IR-3F should also have an Encumbrance capacity 180% that of the YT-1300. So, if the YT-1300 has an Encumbrance of 165, then the IR-3F should have an Encumbrance of 297, not 1800. And, by the same token, the Ir-3F has a cargo capacity in tons 36% that of the YZ-900 (180 is exactly 36% of 500). As such, its Encumbrance rating should also be 36% that of the YZ-900. This would put the YZ-900 at an Encumbrance of 825 (which also happens to be 500% that of 165). Either that or the YT-1300 should have an Encumbrance rating of 1000 , and the YZ-900 should have an Enumbrance rating of 5000, meaning all ship Encumbrance ratings should equal ten times their Cargo capacity in metric tons.

Or, simply use their existing tonnages as Net Tonnage (a measure of volume equal to 100 cubic feet or 2.83 meters cubed) , at which point their Encumbrance values should equal their existing canon and Legends tonnage ratings. As such, the YT-1300 should have an Encumbrance of 100 (NT), the IR-3F should have an Encumbrance of 180 (NT), and the YZ-900 should have an Encumbrance of 500 (NT). There is no reason why they couldn't use the same numbers as already established.

No matter what, the relative ratings between ships should be identical even if the exact numbers vary. An IR-3F should always have a cargo capacity rating (be it in Encumbrance or metric tons) 180% that of the YT-1300, and 36% that of the YZ-900.The YZ-900 should have a cargo capacity rating 500% that of the YT-1300. That should not change no matter how Encumbrance relates to metric tons.

And no, just because the YZ-900 ans IR-3F didn't yet have new canon sources does not mean that they're blank slates FFG can do whatever they want with. The game does not fit perfectly in canon to begin with and draws from both Canon and Legends already. Much of EoTE was published before the Disney buyout and extensively uses the now Legends material, so that doesn't wash. Even if you factor ship Encumbrance as a measure of volume , the real world measure for ship volume is still measured in tonnage . Specifically Gross Tonnage and Net Tonnage . So, if you look at the YT-1300's 100 ton cargo capacity as Net Tonnage, then the Encumbrance values would still need to be comparable and the percentages should still be identical even if the exact numbers aren't.

There has to be consistency between the encumbrance ratings and the ships' pre-established cargo capacities in metric tons in how they convert over from one measurement to the other . Currently there is none . There is no consistency and no standard.

And, for the record, there is no reason to assume that 1 Vehicle scale Encumbrance equals one Personal scale Encumbrance.

Sorry for the short replies (yesterday's was while at a rest stop), we're in Denver co at the moment and will be leaving to see a museum soon

There being no canon (for particular ships) allows FFG to do whatever they want with non canon ships subject to Lucasfilm approval. And there is a lot more oversight now (in the era of disney canon) compared to back in the WEG or wotc days.

Ffg stats are heavily dependent on ship size, i.e. there is reason and at least an implicit system which makes it much more self consistent that ships first statted in previous system.

For "comparable" canon ships, different layout of the ships (particularly those as small as the YT-1300) can have a dramatic impact on what's easily accessible while in flight. And that is specifically in the rules (natural consequence of explicit RAW).

No one should be measuring volume in tons, they have completely different units it's asinine ridiculous that you would try to make that claim.

The one legends source i've seen that says anything about it, says the yz series has to be converted before being fit for paramilitary use. Which means at best the stock yz-series ships may have paramilitary grade firepower and that's not guaranteed because for all we know the paramilitary conversion involves upgrading heavy lasers to light turbolasers and concussion missile launchers to proton torpedo launchers. If you have a legends source that says differently quote it verbatim and cite it otherwise you will remain dead wrong on this.

2 hours ago, EliasWindrider said:

Sorry for the short replies (yesterday's was while at a rest stop), we're in Denver co at the moment and will be leaving to see a museum soon

There being no canon (for particular ships) allows FFG to do whatever they want with non canon ships subject to Lucasfilm approval. And there is a lot more oversight now (in the era of disney canon) compared to back in the WEG or wotc days.

Ffg stats are heavily dependent on ship size, i.e. there is reason and at least an implicit system which makes it much more self consistent that ships first statted in previous system.

For "comparable" canon ships, different layout of the ships (particularly those as small as the YT-1300) can have a dramatic impact on what's easily accessible while in flight. And that is specifically in the rules (natural consequence of explicit RAW).

No one should be measuring volume in tons, they have completely different units it's asinine ridiculous that you would try to make that claim.

The one legends source i've seen that says anything about it, says the yz series has to be converted before being fit for paramilitary use. Which means at best the stock yz-series ships may have paramilitary grade firepower and that's not guaranteed because for all we know the paramilitary conversion involves upgrading heavy lasers to light turbolasers and concussion missile launchers to proton torpedo launchers. If you have a legends source that says differently quote it verbatim and cite it otherwise you will remain dead wrong on this.

And yet that's exactly how ship and boat volume is measured in real world shipping . It's measured in Gross Tonnage and Net Tonnage , Deadweight tonnage , and Displacement tonnage. Whether you think that's a good idea or not is irrelevant . That is the international maritime standard as determined by the The International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 , and adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1969, and which came into force in 1982. It is all measured in tonnage: Gross Tonnage, Net Tonnage, Deadweight tonnage , Displacement Tonnage , etc. It's all measured in tonnage. Deal with it.

And as I said regarding ship size affecting cargo capacity. total ship size has very little to do with a ship's cargo capacity. A large ship does not necessarily have a large cargo capacity. It all depends upon how much of the ship's internal volume the designer allots for cargo, and how well the ship's engines can handle the load . Most passenger liners don't have huge cargo holds, neither do most military vessels. They typically only have enough space allotted for the ship's stores of consumables. Passenger aircraft will also have some for extra baggage, as well as some smaller cargo.

And no, it does not make it more "self consistent" when a ship that has a larger cargo capacity in metric tons would have a massively smaller cargo capacity in volume or Encumbrance. Nor does it make sense that a ship with a cargo capacity only a little larger in tons than another ship would suddenly have a massively larger cargo capacity in Encumbrance or volume. The differences should still match up. This is undeniable fact. It doesn't matter what the silhouettes of the ships in question are, especially since silhouette covers a wide range of actual sizes. Just because one ship is Sil 4 and another is Sil 5 does not mean that the Sil 5 ship will inherently have a larger cargo capacity. It might , but that is not a given. Nor does it mean that even if the larger ship does have a greater cargo capacity that said cargo capacity is necessarily always going to be massively greater than that of the Sil 4 vessel. It all depends upon how the designer chooses to allot the internal space. The IR-3F was designed specifically with a very small cargo hold capable of only carrying 180 tons of cargo. That's only 180% that of the YT-1300's 100 ton canon cargo capacity.

As for oversight, there was just as much oversight under Lucas Licensing before the Disney takeover. Lucasfilm Licensing had a full department of people, lead by Leland Chee, and, formerly , Sue Rostoni, whose job it was to maintain continuity between all of the different media in order to minimize continuity contradictions. Sound familiar? That's the same purpose of the current Lucasfilm Story Group.

And, as for military weaponry, a turbolaser is a capital ship weapon. The YZ-900 is not a capital ship. It's a Medium transport; a medium sized ship. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it though your thick skull. For a ship of its size class (40-70 meters), the YZ-900 is very heavily armed . It is armed with military grade weaponry for a ship of its specific size class .

On 9/20/2019 at 12:47 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

And yet that's exactly how ship and boat volume is measured in real world shipping . It's measured in Gross Tonnage and Net Tonnage , Deadweight tonnage , and Displacement tonnage. Whether you think that's a good idea or not is irrelevant . That is the international maritime standard as determined by the The International Convention on Tonnage Measurement of Ships, 1969 , and adopted by the International Maritime Organization in 1969, and which came into force in 1982. It is all measured in tonnage: Gross Tonnage, Net Tonnage, Deadweight tonnage , Displacement Tonnage , etc. It's all measured in tonnage. Deal with it.

And as I said regarding ship size affecting cargo capacity. total ship size has very little to do with a ship's cargo capacity. A large ship does not necessarily have a large cargo capacity. It all depends upon how much of the ship's internal volume the designer allots for cargo, and how well the ship's engines can handle the load . Most passenger liners don't have huge cargo holds, neither do most military vessels. They typically only have enough space allotted for the ship's stores of consumables. Passenger aircraft will also have some for extra baggage, as well as some smaller cargo.

And no, it does not make it more "self consistent" when a ship that has a larger cargo capacity in metric tons would have a massively smaller cargo capacity in volume or Encumbrance. Nor does it make sense that a ship with a cargo capacity only a little larger in tons than another ship would suddenly have a massively larger cargo capacity in Encumbrance or volume. The differences should still match up. This is undeniable fact. It doesn't matter what the silhouettes of the ships in question are, especially since silhouette covers a wide range of actual sizes. Just because one ship is Sil 4 and another is Sil 5 does not mean that the Sil 5 ship will inherently have a larger cargo capacity. It might , but that is not a given. Nor does it mean that even if the larger ship does have a greater cargo capacity that said cargo capacity is necessarily always going to be massively greater than that of the Sil 4 vessel. It all depends upon how the designer chooses to allot the internal space. The IR-3F was designed specifically with a very small cargo hold capable of only carrying 180 tons of cargo. That's only 180% that of the YT-1300's 100 ton canon cargo capacity.

As for oversight, there was just as much oversight under Lucas Licensing before the Disney takeover. Lucasfilm Licensing had a full department of people, lead by Leland Chee, and, formerly , Sue Rostoni, whose job it was to maintain continuity between all of the different media in order to minimize continuity contradictions. Sound familiar? That's the same purpose of the current Lucasfilm Story Group.

And, as for military weaponry, a turbolaser is a capital ship weapon. The YZ-900 is not a capital ship. It's a Medium transport; a medium sized ship. How many times do I have to tell you that before you get it though your thick skull. For a ship of its size class (40-70 meters), the YZ-900 is very heavily armed . It is armed with military grade weaponry for a ship of its specific size class .

I'm calling bs

The page you linked to defines tonnage as weight not volume

Deadweight tonnage (also known as deadweight ; abbreviated to DWT , D.W.T. , d.w.t. , or dwt ) or tons deadweight (DWT) is a measure of how much weight a ship can carry,

which illustrates that you resort to lying when you've lost an argument. When you lie please at least try to make it believable. I'm not aware of anyone foolish enough to believe your "volume is measured in tonnage" lie.

btw quoting displacement tonage

The displacement or displacement tonnage of a ship is its weight based on the amount of water its hull displaces at varying loads. It is measured indirectly using Archimedes' principle by first calculating the volume of water displaced by the ship then converting that value into weight displaced. ...

Ship displacement should not be confused with measurements of volume or capacity typically used for commercial vessels, such as net tonnage , gross tonnage , or deadweight tonnage .

A volume of water does have a weight (a volume filled by any mass does) but wikipedia specifically told you not to confuse it with cargo volume or capacity (and yes I get that part of the message is you can't fill the entire volume of a ship with cargo but that actually supports the RAW definition of encumbrance as being a combination volume shape and weight that can't be straight forwardly converted to tons). If you actually believe volume is measured in tons you did exactly what the wikipedia page specifically told you not to do. If you're not intentionally lying then the reason you're telling blatant falsehoods is that you're biased to the point of being so delusional that it impairs your reading comprehension.

Secondly, self consistency does not require consistency with previous editions of the game particularly the very arbitrary legends crap. Let go of your legends anchor (which is weighing you down, biasing you) and you should be able to see how self consistent ffg ship stats are.

Third Order(100) of enc isn't massive.

Fourth your strawman arguments are as worthless as all strawman arguments. I never claimed enc was determined solely by silhouette or even size, only that there was a strong dependence, I've specifically said role has a significant effect. However when a lower silhouette has a larger enc than a larger sil it should be because the smaller sil is on the upper end of enc and size for it's sil and the larger sil is at the lower end of enc and size for it's sil. Having the larger sil ships (in the middle of their sil) cargo capacity being comparable to the cargo capacity of ships on the smaller end of enc and size for the smaller sil is a problem actually exhibited in the previous iterations of the game.

As you have observed merely repeating BS enough times is not sufficient to convince me of anything, what you need to do to get it through my "thick skull" is provide evidence supporting your claims that 1) light turbolasers are restricted to capital ships (because there's nothing in the rules that says this to my knowledge) 2) quote and cite a legends or canon source saying that yz series ships have military grade firepower. Btw military grade firepower for a civilian transport is an oxymoron. Given your penchant for telling straight out falsehoods you need to support your implaussible claims by quoting a nd citing ffg RAW or legends or canon sources. Until you do that you remain dead wrong on this. Because the one legends source that I know of that says anything about it says yz series ships had to be converted before being fit for paramilitary use and for all we know that paramilitary conversion could involve replacing the heavy laser cannons with light turbolasers and the concussion missile launchers with proton torpedo launchers. Go ahead quote and cite legends or canon that says the yz series paramilitary conversion doesn't involve upgrading the weapons, but I'm pretty sure that you can't do that. The point is, whether the stock yz series ships even have paramilitary grade firepower is in doubt based on the available legends lore.

Since you gave up arguing against it, you seem to have conceded the point that you would have to Bastionize everything in order to Bastionize anything. Because otherwise the ships don't have comparable stats (i.e. the difference between metric and English/imperial tons or the difference between miles and nautical miles).

Current vs legacy oversight are very different. . While both have oversight groups there is a huge distinction.

Legacy approach if it doesn't quite fit we can downgrade the level of canon or slap the infinities label on it.

Disney approach there is only 1 level of canon that everything new must abide by/be consistent with.

On 9/22/2019 at 12:36 AM, EliasWindrider said:

I'm calling bs

The page you linked to defines tonnage as weight not volume

Deadweight tonnage (also known as deadweight ; abbreviated to DWT , D.W.T. , d.w.t. , or dwt ) or tons deadweight (DWT) is a measure of how much weight a ship can carry,

which illustrates that you resort to lying when you've lost an argument. When you lie please at least try to make it believable. I'm not aware of anyone foolish enough to believe your "volume is measured in tonnage" lie.

btw quoting displacement tonage

The displacement or displacement tonnage of a ship is its weight based on the amount of water its hull displaces at varying loads. It is measured indirectly using Archimedes' principle by first calculating the volume of water displaced by the ship then converting that value into weight displaced. ...

Ship displacement should not be confused with measurements of volume or capacity typically used for commercial vessels, such as net tonnage , gross tonnage , or deadweight tonnage .

A volume of water does have a weight (a volume filled by any mass does) but wikipedia specifically told you not to confuse it with cargo volume or capacity (and yes I get that part of the message is you can't fill the entire volume of a ship with cargo but that actually supports the RAW definition of encumbrance as being a combination volume shape and weight that can't be straight forwardly converted to tons). If you actually believe volume is measured in tons you did exactly what the wikipedia page specifically told you not to do. If you're not intentionally lying then the reason you're telling blatant falsehoods is that you're biased to the point of being so delusional that it impairs your reading comprehension.

Secondly, self consistency does not require consistency with previous editions of the game particularly the very arbitrary legends crap. Let go of your legends anchor (which is weighing you down, biasing you) and you should be able to see how self consistent ffg ship stats are.

Third Order(100) of enc isn't massive.

Fourth your strawman arguments are as worthless as all strawman arguments. I never claimed enc was determined solely by silhouette or even size, only that there was a strong dependence, I've specifically said role has a significant effect. However when a lower silhouette has a larger enc than a larger sil it should be because the smaller sil is on the upper end of enc and size for it's sil and the larger sil is at the lower end of enc and size for it's sil. Having the larger sil ships (in the middle of their sil) cargo capacity being comparable to the cargo capacity of ships on the smaller end of enc and size for the smaller sil is a problem actually exhibited in the previous iterations of the game.

As you have observed merely repeating BS enough times is not sufficient to convince me of anything, what you need to do to get it through my "thick skull" is provide evidence supporting your claims that 1) light turbolasers are restricted to capital ships (because there's nothing in the rules that says this to my knowledge) 2) quote and cite a legends or canon source saying that yz series ships have military grade firepower. Btw military grade firepower for a civilian transport is an oxymoron. Given your penchant for telling straight out falsehoods you need to support your implaussible claims by quoting a nd citing ffg RAW or legends or canon sources. Until you do that you remain dead wrong on this. Because the one legends source that I know of that says anything about it says yz series ships had to be converted before being fit for paramilitary use and for all we know that paramilitary conversion could involve replacing the heavy laser cannons with light turbolasers and the concussion missile launchers with proton torpedo launchers. Go ahead quote and cite legends or canon that says the yz series paramilitary conversion doesn't involve upgrading the weapons, but I'm pretty sure that you can't do that. The point is, whether the stock yz series ships even have paramilitary grade firepower is in doubt based on the available legends lore.

Since you gave up arguing against it, you seem to have conceded the point that you would have to Bastionize everything in order to Bastionize anything. Because otherwise the ships don't have comparable stats (i.e. the difference between metric and English/imperial tons or the difference between miles and nautical miles).

Current vs legacy oversight are very different. . While both have oversight groups there is a huge distinction.

Legacy approach if it doesn't quite fit we can downgrade the level of canon or slap the infinities label on it.

Disney approach there is only 1 level of canon that everything new must abide by/be consistent with.

Net Tonnage is defited as quote:

Quote

Net tonnage (often abbreviated as NT , N.T. or nt ) is a dimensionless index calculated from the total moulded volume of the ship's cargo spaces by using a mathematical formula.

IT is a measure of volume , not weight. So you are wrong there.

Secondly, Silhouette does not have even a "significant" effect on a ship's Encumbrance. It has very little effect at all, if any. A large ship can potentially have absolutely no space at all allotted for cargo, if the designer chooses to design it so. The only effect Silhouette (or other measure of a ship's size) has on cargo capacity is its maximum potential capacity. It has nothing at all to do with the minimum amount of cargo capacity a ship could be allotted. As such, you could even have a Ship the size of the Executor , or even the Death Star , with zero space available for cargo. There is no such thing as a minimum required cargo capacity for a ship's given size class, only a maximum capacity. Therefore, there is no reason for a ship to have a large cargo capacity simply because it is a large ship . Ergo, just because the IR-3F is a capital ship, does not mean it has to have a large cargo capacity. And, its original stats reflect this design choice. It has a very small cargo capacity.

Third, the source in question, SW Gamer #2 does not say that the YZ series " had to " be converted into paramilitary vessels. What the article says is:

Quote

While the Corellians have always denied that the YT series of ships were intended to be converted to paramillitary vessels, such claims are generally taken with a grain of salt.

The gist of that statement being that CEC pulled a fast one over the Empire , building military grade ships, and claiming that they weren't military grade, nor intended to be converted as such with a wink and a nod. Not only that, but the YZ-775 itself is armed with a light Turbolaser, which is definitely a " military grade " weapon system, and the White Wing, (the specific example of a YZ-900 in the book) is specifically stated to be under armed than stock, having its stock concussion missiles removed and its wing guns locked in a forward firing position. So, yes, the YZ series was designed with combat in mind, and CEC lied to the Empire by claiming otherwise.

Also, as I have pointed out already, the FFG cargo capacity stats don't even match up with current canon . This is already exemplified with the YT-1300 . among other ships. There is no consistency between canon cargo capacities and FFG's cargo capacity. So, it's not just a matter of not agreeing with Legends specs. They also don't agree with current canon specs. That's the problem . And the Developers have flat out admitted as much. They don't do the research. They make it up as they go along.

As for "Conceding that all ships should be "bastionized", I never claimed otherwise. In fact I said that they absolutely should be. That's not a "Concession". I said that from the very beginning . Bastion's stats are far more accurate than FFG's on these ships, and FFG should have been following Bastion's lead and actually research the specs of these ships and make sure that their game specs lined up with the existing lore , rather than being arbitrarily re-written whole cloth. That's not "conceding" anything. It's flat out stating it.

1) Wikipedia giveth and wikipedia taketh away (same page you quoted)

Also, unlike the net register tonnage, the net tonnage is unitless and thus can not be defined as "tons" or "net tons".

Emphasis mine.

Some one has defined "tonnage" to be a dimensionless measure of volume but it specifically is not tons ... volume is not measured in tons period, you are definitively wrong on that point, and since you didn't admit/ tried to hide that it specifically said that you were wrong it proves you were intentionally lying.

2) in the context of nautical vessels an empty space displaces water, the weight of the displaced water provides a buoyant force which allows cargo to be carried. In the context of air/space craft, empty space requires a bigger frame hence more weight and drag, which make it harder rather than helping to fly so different physics are involved https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_aircraft#Comparisons lists volume and weight hence ffg enc is a more appropriate/superior statistic/game mechanic than tons for aircraft/spacecraft

3) you're making unsupported nonsense claims about the executor and death star having zero cargo, their very size and crew requirements induce massive cargo requirements. Ships are sized to fulfill a mission and the bigger the mission/ship the bigger the minimum neccessary cargo needed to support it (in addition to the storage needed to fulfill the mission).

4) your "gist"/interpretation is hyperbole/delusional. that quote specifically says that the yz series ships were designed to be converted for paramilitary use. At best they have paramilitary grade firepower but for all we know the paramilitary conversion could involve replacing the heavy lasers with light turbolasers and concussion missile launchers with proton torpedo launchers. Go ahead find something that says upgraded weaponry is not part of the paramilitary conversion, the point is that whether stock ships of the yz series even have paramilitary grade firepower is in doubt. Some may some may not. I'll venture the opinion that the YZ-775 (presuming/contingent-on it has/having a light turbolaser, as I haven't personally checked) has paramilitary grade firepower (among other reasons because that's the best it could have according to the legends quote that you provided). But the legends quote you provided as "support" definitively proves your claim of military grade firepower to be false. In any event, if the YZ-775 has a turbolaser it means that the ir-3f is the benchmark the yz series ships should be compared to in terms of firepower, like I've been claiming all along.

5) canon YT-1300 cargo is in metric tons (max weight), ffg provides the easily accessible while in flight enc (combination of volume shape and weight) and specifically says an undisclosed larger amount could be carried by most ships. That supposed to be different things actually are different does not show a contradiction. Moreover even if encumbrance was a measure of only the total weight of max cargo (which it specifically not) you would then need 2 canon points of reference to determine a linear conversion, the YT-1300 provides 1 reference point hence by itself canon YT-1300 can't contradict ffg stats (even under the explicitly false assumption previously stated)

What you desire is for all ships to be Bastionized, what you seem to have conceded and are now tap dancing around is that you CAN'T Bastionize ANYTHING without Bastionizing EVERYTHING , because otherwise you run into the issue analagous to comparing English/imperial tons to metric tons or miles to nautical miles. Bastion's ships stats are not compatible with/comparable to ffg ship stats. To use the bastion yz-900 stats you can't use any ship stats provided by ffg. I.e. even if Bastion's stats were superior they aren't compatible with the raw ffg star wars rpg.

20 minutes ago, EliasWindrider said:

1) Wikipedia giveth and wikipedia taketh away (same page you quoted)

Also, unlike the net register tonnage, the net tonnage is unitless and thus can not be defined as "tons" or "net tons".

Emphasis mine.

Some one has defined "tonnage" to be a dimensionless measure of volume but it specifically is not tons ... volume is not measured in tons period, you are definitively wrong on that point, and since you didn't admit/ tried to hide that it specifically said that you were wrong it proves you were intentionally lying.

2) in the context of nautical vessels an empty space displaces water, the weight of the displaced water provides a buoyant force which allows cargo to be carried. In the context of air/space craft, empty space requires a bigger frame hence more weight and drag, which make it harder rather than helping to fly so different physics are involved https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_aircraft#Comparisons lists volume and weight hence ffg enc is a more appropriate/superior statistic/game mechanic than tons for aircraft/spacecraft

3) you're making unsupported nonsense claims about the executor and death star having zero cargo, their very size and crew requirements induce massive cargo requirements. Ships are sized to fulfill a mission and the bigger the mission/ship the bigger the minimum neccessary cargo needed to support it (in addition to the storage needed to fulfill the mission).

4) your "gist"/interpretation is hyperbole/delusional. that quote specifically says that the yz series ships were designed to be converted for paramilitary use. At best they have paramilitary grade firepower but for all we know the paramilitary conversion could involve replacing the heavy lasers with light turbolasers and concussion missile launchers with proton torpedo launchers. Go ahead find something that says upgraded weaponry is not part of the paramilitary conversion, the point is that whether stock ships of the yz series even have paramilitary grade firepower is in doubt. Some may some may not. I'll venture the opinion that the YZ-775 (presuming/contingent-on it has/having a light turbolaser, as I haven't personally checked) has paramilitary grade firepower (among other reasons because that's the best it could have according to the legends quote that you provided). But the legends quote you provided as "support" definitively proves y po ur claim.of military grade firepower to be false. In any event, if the YZ-775 has a turbolaser it means that the ir-3f is the benchmark the yz series ships should be compared to in terms of firepower, like I've been claiming all along.

5) canon YT-1300 cargo is in metric tons (max weight), ffg provides the easily accessible while in flight enc (combination of volume shape and weight) and specifically says an undisclosed larger amount could be carried by most ships. That supposed to different things actually are different does not show a contradiction. Moreover even if encumbrance was a measure of only the total weight of max cargo (which it specifically not) you would then need 2 canon points of reference to determine a linear conversion, the YT-1300 provides 1 reference point hence by itself canon YT-1300 can't contradict ffg stats (even under the explicitly false assumption previously stated)

What you desire is for all ships to be Bastionized, what you seem to have conceded and are now tap dancing around is that you CAN'T Bastionize ANYTHING without Bastionizing EVERYTHING , because otherwise you run into the issue analagous to comparing English/imperial tons to metric tons or miles to nautical miles. Bastion's ships stats are not compatible with/comparable to ffg ship stats. To use the bastion yz-900 stats you can't use any ship stats provided by ffg. I.e. even if Bastion's stats were superior they aren't compatible with the raw ffg star wars rpg.

First off. I said that a ship the size of the Executor or Death Star could be designed with zero cargo capacity. So don't try that nonsense.

Secondly, the rating is Net Tonnage. Net Tonnage and Gross Tonnage is a measure of Volume, and that is the term I used. Net Tonnage.

The only difference between Bastion's stats and FFG's stats is his Passenger and cargo values, given that he actually uses the actual pasenger values given in the source material, and the same with cargo capacities, something that FFG fails to do. Therefore, if FFG actually researched the source material and made sure their game stats lined up with said source material by giving their ships the proper passenger capacities given in the original source materials, and the same relative cargo capacities, even if using a different actual type of measurement then there wouldn’t be a problem. That is the difference here. Bastion did his research, and worked to make his ship designs match up with the source material. The FFG developers didn’t. They arbitrarily changed things with no consideration for the source material. That is wrong. No matter what, the IR-3F should not have a massively higher cargo capacity than the YT-1300, and should absolutely not have a higher cargo capacity than the YZ-900 or YZ-775, and the YZ-775 should have a passenger capacity of fourteen , as stated in its original specs , not zero.

No matter how you slice it, Bastion’s stats are more faithful to the original source materials and to the canon.

5 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

First off. I said that a ship the size of the Executor or Death Star could be designed with zero cargo capacity. So don't try that nonsense.

Secondly, the rating is Net Tonnage. Net Tonnage and Gross Tonnage is a measure of Volume, and that is the term I used. Net Tonnage.

The only difference between Bastion's stats and FFG's stats is his Passenger and cargo values, given that he actually uses the actual pasenger values given in the source material, and the same with cargo capacities, something that FFG fails to do.

First you brought up the zero cargo death star/executor nonsense , I only called you out on your nonsense. to paraphrase men in black, if you don't start none there won't be none (in other words don't blame me for your nonsense, and if you don't spew nonsense, I won't call you out on it.)

Secondly, cargo being measured by volume and not tons supports using enc and explicitly makes previous editions' cargo stats in tons not directly convertible to enc.

No, that's completely false/bs. Basition also goes high on speed and does armor hull trauma system strain threshold etc. very differently (compare the YZ-775 stats for an illustration). Bastion's stats just aren't comparable/compatible with the RAW ffg star wars rpg. Period. Unfortunately that means the stats that's you're using for the jedi star DON'T BELONG IN THE GAME/don't mesh with RAW. I'm pretty sure that you realize this and it's the real reason you are doing every last ditch thing you can to avoid admitting that very real and obvious incompatibility.

Here's the thing, what you do in your game is your business, ffg and Lucasfilm aren't going to send the gaming police to your house (or the library where you post online from as the case may be), but when you bring other people into your game, or try to bring your ship into someone else's game you need their buy in. But you need to do that with any house rule.

Philosophically an "official" (whatever that means) rpg is only different than a large set of house rules in that the "official rpg" was sanctioned/blessed by someone with the appropriate "authority." Bastion doesn't have that authority, you don't have that authority, I don't have that authority. But Lucasfilm has used it's authority to bless ffg ship stats, and whether or not you like it, the reality is that makes raw ffg ship correct/right.

People take issue with those without authority trying to impose their idea of how things should be on others, Bastion hasn't done that but you have been trying to do that on Bastion's behalf because it would benefit your pet/"signature" character Korath Lorren.

The only reason I recommend my nubian design collective house ruleset as an alternative to the RAW fully operational ship crafting rules is 1) I've put a lot more effort into making ship crafting consistent with RAW ffg ships and 2) I tried to use the minimum neccessary departure from the raw ship crafting rules to get there. Im trying to help people be more consistent with RAW, and whether they take it or leave it it's their call but I'd guess that I've still ruffled some feathers anyway.

Bastion on the other hand, whether intentionally or unintentionally, prioritized being consistent with previous editions of the game over being consistent with the ffg star wars rpg, but then he didn't have as large a sample of RAW ships to work from as I did so his mistakes are understandable (hindsight is 20/20). Btw don't take the current iteration of the nubian design collective as the be all and end all. 1) it's just a house rule, 2) it's still evolving (doesn't have pricing and I intend to price hardpoints to get even closer to RAW ship stats than it does now).

However, the only "point" you've scored throughout this entire discussion is that if ffg ship passengers are different than CANON passengers for the same ship (and the inconsistent officially-discarded legends crap is definitely not canon ) that would justify a line item change to passengers. And you haven't pointed out a single instance where ffg stats contradicts canon passengers for the same ship.

So yeah you've been dead wrong on everything in this discussion but with the possibility of a future line item correction to passengers if it ever surfaces as a canon issue.

18 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

No matter how you slice it, Bastion’s stats are more faithful to the original source materials and to the canon.

Which was established to completely irrelevant for comparative purposes pages ago. Time well spent!

3 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

First off. I said that a ship the size of the Executor or Death Star could be designed with zero cargo capacity. So don't try that nonsense.

Secondly, the rating is Net Tonnage. Net Tonnage and Gross Tonnage is a measure of Volume, and that is the term I used. Net Tonnage.

The only difference between Bastion's stats and FFG's stats is his Passenger and cargo values, given that he actually uses the actual pasenger values given in the source material, and the same with cargo capacities, something that FFG fails to do. Therefore, if FFG actually researched the source material and made sure their game stats lined up with said source material by giving their ships the proper passenger capacities given in the original source materials, and the same relative cargo capacities, even if using a different actual type of measurement then there wouldn’t be a problem. That is the difference here. Bastion did his research, and worked to make his ship designs match up with the source material. The FFG developers didn’t. They arbitrarily changed things with no consideration for the source material. That is wrong. No matter what, the IR-3F should not have a massively higher cargo capacity than the YT-1300, and should absolutely not have a higher cargo capacity than the YZ-900 or YZ-775, and the YZ-775 should have a passenger capacity of fourteen , as stated in its original specs , not zero.

No matter how you slice it, Bastion’s stats are more faithful to the original source materials and to the canon.

Replying again because you edited your post after I quoted you.

There are no canon stats for the ir-3f, which gave ffg license to do whatever they wanted and could get Lucasfilm to approve. As already illustrated, ffg stats are more self consistent than the legends crap/previous editions that came before it as evidenced by ffg ship stats being well reproduced by the nubian design collective rules which makes the strong (though not sole) dependence on silhouette explicit even if ffg was only implicitly following a systematic process. Increased self consistency/decreased arbitrary-ness is an improvement not a failure.

Strict adherence to officially discarded arbitrary legends crap is the failure that ffg avoided .

Moreover Bastion's strict adherence to that (failing) process (and inconsistent legends source materials) makes bastions ship stats not usable in combination with RAW ffg ship stats, i.e.

3 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Which was established to completely irrelevant for comparative purposes pages ago. Time well spent!

Technically this the second page (default number of posts per page), and you made that point in the first post of this page.... you're still right but what seems to have convinced Tramp is not the cm vs inches analogy (because tramp was saying/thinking that bastoon didn't change the (names of) units) but the analogy of English/imperial vs. metrics tons and miles vs. nautical miles because those units are different despite having the same name . Yeah tramp is that narrow/inflexible minded that that pedantic of a distinction made the difference.

12 hours ago, penpenpen said:

Which was established to completely irrelevant for comparative purposes pages ago. Time well spent!

Don't underestimate the power of TG's circular logic.

17 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Don't underestimate the power of TG's circular logic.

You give him too much credit. It's pigheadedness and good old fashioned dishonesty.

11 minutes ago, penpenpen said:

You give him too much credit. It's pigheadedness and good old fashioned dishonesty.

This deserves a "you're right" reaction, but neither a heart or trophy icon quite fit.

On 9/23/2019 at 5:48 PM, EliasWindrider said:

First you brought up the zero cargo death star/executor nonsense , I only called you out on your nonsense. to paraphrase men in black, if you don't start none there won't be none (in other words don't blame me for your nonsense, and if you don't spew nonsense, I won't call you out on it.)

Secondly, cargo being measured by volume and not tons supports using enc and explicitly makes previous editions' cargo stats in tons not directly convertible to enc.

No, that's completely false/bs. Basition also goes high on speed and does armor hull trauma system strain threshold etc. very differently (compare the YZ-775 stats for an illustration). Bastion's stats just aren't comparable/compatible with the RAW ffg star wars rpg. Period. Unfortunately that means the stats that's you're using for the jedi star DON'T BELONG IN THE GAME/don't mesh with RAW. I'm pretty sure that you realize this and it's the real reason you are doing every last ditch thing you can to avoid admitting that very real and obvious incompatibility.

Here's the thing, what you do in your game is your business, ffg and Lucasfilm aren't going to send the gaming police to your house (or the library where you post online from as the case may be), but when you bring other people into your game, or try to bring your ship into someone else's game you need their buy in. But you need to do that with any house rule.

Philosophically an "official" (whatever that means) rpg is only different than a large set of house rules in that the "official rpg" was sanctioned/blessed by someone with the appropriate "authority." Bastion doesn't have that authority, you don't have that authority, I don't have that authority. But Lucasfilm has used it's authority to bless ffg ship stats, and whether or not you like it, the reality is that makes raw ffg ship correct/right.

People take issue with those without authority trying to impose their idea of how things should be on others, Bastion hasn't done that but you have been trying to do that on Bastion's behalf because it would benefit your pet/"signature" character Korath Lorren.

The only reason I recommend my nubian design collective house ruleset as an alternative to the RAW fully operational ship crafting rules is 1) I've put a lot more effort into making ship crafting consistent with RAW ffg ships and 2) I tried to use the minimum neccessary departure from the raw ship crafting rules to get there. Im trying to help people be more consistent with RAW, and whether they take it or leave it it's their call but I'd guess that I've still ruffled some feathers anyway.

Bastion on the other hand, whether intentionally or unintentionally, prioritized being consistent with previous editions of the game over being consistent with the ffg star wars rpg, but then he didn't have as large a sample of RAW ships to work from as I did so his mistakes are understandable (hindsight is 20/20). Btw don't take the current iteration of the nubian design collective as the be all and end all. 1) it's just a house rule, 2) it's still evolving (doesn't have pricing and I intend to price hardpoints to get even closer to RAW ship stats than it does now).

However, the only "point" you've scored throughout this entire discussion is that if ffg ship passengers are different than CANON passengers for the same ship (and the inconsistent officially-discarded legends crap is definitely not canon ) that would justify a line item change to passengers. And you haven't pointed out a single instance where ffg stats contradicts canon passengers for the same ship.

So yeah you've been dead wrong on everything in this discussion but with the possibility of a future line item correction to passengers if it ever surfaces as a canon issue.

No. I said "a ship the size of the Executor/Deathstar". To quote my original post:

On 9/23/2019 at 3:10 PM, Tramp Graphics said:

Net Tonnage is defited as quote:

IT is a measure of volume , not weight. So you are wrong there.

Secondly, Silhouette does not have even a "significant" effect on a ship's Encumbrance. It has very little effect at all, if any. A large ship can potentially have absolutely no space at all allotted for cargo, if the designer chooses to design it so. The only effect Silhouette (or other measure of a ship's size) has on cargo capacity is its maximum potential capacity. It has nothing at all to do with the minimum amount of cargo capacity a ship could be allotted. As such, you could even have a Ship the size of the Executor , or even the Death Star , with zero space available for cargo. There is no such thing as a minimum required cargo capacity for a ship's given size class, only a maximum capacity. Therefore, there is no reason for a ship to have a large cargo capacity simply because it is a large ship . Ergo, just because the IR-3F is a capital ship, does not mean it has to have a large cargo capacity. And, its original stats reflect this design choice. It has a very small cargo capacity.

<snip>

A ship the size of the Executor or Death Star . That is what I said. I made no claim that the Executor or Deathstar had no cargo capacity. I said a ship designer could design a ship the size of the Executor , or a ship the size of the Death Star and allot no space for cargo. As such, there is no such thing as a " minimum " cargo capacity, only a maximum cargo capacity.

Secondly, Encumbrance is both a Measure of weight and volume combined , according to Sam Stewart.

As for the YZ-775, Those stats are ones I have the biggest problem with . The developers completely botched that ship. The Passenger capacity alone is a huge screw-up. The YZ-775 has a passenger capacity of fourteen according to the original sources, not zero . Regardless of whether or not they deliberately chose to change that spec, it is fundamentally wrong and completely contradictory to the source material.

On 9/23/2019 at 6:05 PM, EliasWindrider said:

Replying again because you edited your post after I quoted you.

There are no canon stats for the ir-3f, which gave ffg license to do whatever they wanted and could get Lucasfilm to approve. As already illustrated, ffg stats are more self consistent than the legends crap/previous editions that came before it as evidenced by ffg ship stats being well reproduced by the nubian design collective rules which makes the strong (though not sole) dependence on silhouette explicit even if ffg was only implicitly following a systematic process. Increased self consistency/decreased arbitrary-ness is an improvement not a failure.

Strict adherence to officially discarded arbitrary legends crap is the failure that ffg avoided .

Moreover Bastion's strict adherence to that (failing) process (and inconsistent legends source materials) makes bastions ship stats not usable in combination with RAW ffg ship stats, i.e.

Technically this the second page (default number of posts per page), and you made that point in the first post of this page.... you're still right but what seems to have convinced Tramp is not the cm vs inches analogy (because tramp was saying/thinking that bastoon didn't change the (names of) units) but the analogy of English/imperial vs. metrics tons and miles vs. nautical miles because those units are different despite having the same name . Yeah tramp is that narrow/inflexible minded that that pedantic of a distinction made the difference.

No, it doesn't give them license to do whatever they want. And no, the FFG cargo stats are not self-consistent. Their Encumbrance values are all over the place. There is no consistency in the cargo capacities of these ships; not within the game itself and not with the source material, be the source current canon or Legends. Their cargo capacities are all random and arbitrary .

No matter what measurement you use, the IR-3F has a cargo hold only a little larger than the YT-1300, according to the source materials of both ships. As such, the IR-3F should not have an Encumbrance over ten times that of the YT-1300. At most it should have an Encumbrance 180% that of the YT-1300, given that its cargo capacity is 180% that of the YT-1300.