If my group would rather have a YT-1300f or a YT-1300p instead of the YT-1300fp given in the book, it shouldn't be a problem as both (in other sources) still have the same base cost.

For the YT-1300f the Passengers would drop from 6 to 0. Encumbrance Capacity should increase from 165 to ___(?)

For the TY-1300p the Passengers would increase from 6 to 15. Encumbrance Capacity should drop from 165 to ___(?)

Suggestions on the Encumbrance Capacity for the two variants I mention would be appreciated.

Do you have a source for the information on the two variants somewhere? What does it say about tonnage?

Well, if the encumbrance of a person = 5+Brawn then I'd say 6 passengers equal about 42 (5+2x6) encumbrance, let's round that up to 45, and your new encumbrance for the YT-1300f is 210. If that isn't enough in your mind, add 50 to 65 encumbrance, but not much more than that I'd think. I mean going for 10 encumbrance for a passenger might be fitting, perhaps even 15 if you want to be real generous in this conversion.

For the YT-1330p I'd just decrease the encumbrance to 100, perhaps 90.

Well, if the encumbrance of a person = 5+Brawn then I'd say 6 passengers equal about 42 (5+2x6) encumbrance, let's round that up to 45, and your new encumbrance for the YT-1300f is 210. If that isn't enough in your mind, add 50 to 65 encumbrance, but not much more than that I'd think. I mean going for 10 encumbrance for a passenger might be fitting, perhaps even 15 if you want to be real generous in this conversion.

For the YT-1330p I'd just decrease the encumbrance to 100, perhaps 90.

I like the 10 EC per passenger equivalence. This gives the YT-1300f an EC of 225 while the YT-1300p has an EC of 75. Both of those seem fair.

In fact, using that guideline and modifying a YT-1300p by removing the aft/starboard passenger pod (and replacing it with what is traditionally the No. 3 hold on the f and fp versions) will give me a good compromise with 10 passengers and 125 EC.

Do you have a source for the information on the two variants somewhere? What does it say about tonnage?

I've had others tell me that the tonnage isn't really a good benchmark for setting EC. For example, the TY-2400 is typically noted as having 150% of the tonnage capacity of the YT-1300, but in this game it has less EC.

On a side note, I find it amusing the the ceiling height limits the passenger pod to 5 passengers since the end bunk can't be made into double bunks...except on the standard fit on the "fp" version apparently. Somehow it got some extra ceiling space.

Do you have a source for the information on the two variants somewhere? What does it say about tonnage?

I agree with this. What is your source. The book does not specify variants of the yt-1300.

You have one source here.

Thanks, Jegergryte. It looks like it loses 75t's worth of cargo space, however that applies. I'd be inclined to think that the space required for carrying passengers would be significantly limiting in terms of cargo load. But perhaps 1/4 is a good equivalence?

Thanks, Jegergryte. It looks like it loses 75t's worth of cargo space, however that applies. I'd be inclined to think that the space required for carrying passengers would be significantly limiting in terms of cargo load. But perhaps 1/4 is a good equivalence?

The bunks are noted as folding and there are storage closets in the passenger compartments, so it's not like all of the cargo capacity of the space is removed.

You'll also see that there are errors on the "f" since it is still listed as carrying 6 passengers - which it might be able to do if they don't mind sleeping on the floor of the cargo hold.

how often are you guys worrying about tonnage, and ship capacities? Like, what sort of scenarios would you use this in? Just curious.

how often are you guys worrying about tonnage, and ship capacities? Like, what sort of scenarios would you use this in? Just curious.

And where do you sleep in those weeks-long hyperspace jumps? This F configuration looks like a short-range hauler to me, fit only for very short jumps within the same region. There's no crew quarters on the deckplans. At best, you'd be pulling out cots in the cargo hold. But if you're full up, what then?

how often are you guys worrying about tonnage, and ship capacities? Like, what sort of scenarios would you use this in? Just curious.

And where do you sleep in those weeks-long hyperspace jumps? This F configuration looks like a short-range hauler to me, fit only for very short jumps within the same region. There's no crew quarters on the deckplans. At best, you'd be pulling out cots in the cargo hold. But if you're full up, what then?

Also, weeks-long hyperspace jumps seem uncommon in this system. A few days is more typical. The normal light freighter is intended to be as comfortable as a sleeper cab on a tractor-trailer rig. You can sleep in it short term, but you'll always want a room at your destination.

Hmm...

I can't seem to get images to post. Anyone have any suggestions? There seems to be a way to draw things from Attachments, but I can't seem to figure out how to put things there to begin with.

Do you have a source for the information on the two variants somewhere? What does it say about tonnage?

You have one source here.

There's also the Haynes' Millenium Falcon Owners Shop Manual ( http://www.amazon.com/Millennium-Falcon-Owners-Workshop-Manual/dp/0345533046 )

A sample PDF from http://images.bookdepository.co.uk/assets/images/content/blogs/1319544205/Haynes-Millennium-Falcon_extract.pdf shows the Falcon (matching the Krayt Fang from the BG map), and a YT-1300p plan.

The dead tree also has the YT-1300f plan.

I'm thinking the passenger variant would drop to about 40 Encumbrance but with a maximum passenger capacity of 15, going by the Wookieepedia article that Jegergryte linked to.

There's also an option for additional cargo pods, which going by the d6 Rebel Alliance sourcebook gave the YT-1300f a max cargo capacity of 200 tons. Using the average "ton to encumbrance" ratio of 1.6 that seems to appear for most light freighters we've seen, I'd say the cargo pods ups the Encumbrance to 320. Or just double the listed Encumbrance for the standard YT-1300f and say the addition of the cargo pods ups the Encumbrance to 330, which admittedly is a lot simpler.

Arent you all wildly overthinking about the effects of an obviously broken system?

First, published deckplans arent scripture. If the plans are obviously unworkable, then dont think they have to be used. Star Wars RPGs have a long and glorious history of impossible ship interiors.

Second, encumbrance is not mass! The capability of a ship to carry passengers or cargo is determined by the GM not the book. There isnt a translation between the encubrance capability of the ships in EotE and the cargo capacities from other sources. There isnt even a translation between different ships in the EotE book. A GR-75 says 1 encumbrance is 190 TONS! and Action VI is 1 E = 10 tons, a YT-2400 is about 1 E is 1 ton.

So, to answer the OP: I dont think I would change the encumbrance capacity at all. I would say the 1300f would have problems carrying people and could carry alot more cargo, and say the 1300p could carry more people and not carry much cargo.

Just a thought.

Are we sure that the YT-1300 listed in the core rules is actually the freighter version? I can't help but notice the 6 passenger capacity listed in the text. Since the layout maps seem to only have staterooms for the YT-1300p, with far less cargo space, it only makes sense to me.

Am I far off here?

The core rules seem to be giving us the YT-1300fp - the hybrid freight/passenger version.

The core rules seem to be giving us the YT-1300fp - the hybrid freight/passenger version.

Huh. I missed that paragraph on wookieepedia, but now I see it. Are there any deck plans for this or just the freighter or passenger models?

Huh. I missed that paragraph on wookieepedia, but now I see it. Are there any deck plans for this or just the freighter or passenger models?

As far as I know, the only deckplans for a YT-1300fp are the ones for the Falcon--which may vary from a stock YT-1300fp, but it's as close as we get.

Huh. I missed that paragraph on wookieepedia, but now I see it. Are there any deck plans for this or just the freighter or passenger models?

As far as I know, the only deckplans for a YT-1300fp are the ones for the Falcon--which may vary from a stock YT-1300fp, but it's as close as we get.

Haynes Millenium Falcon Owner's Workshop Manual has the floorplan for the YT-1300fp. I find it lacking compared to just taking elements from the "f" and "p" and combining them into a variant arrangement (such as the forward lounge, forward/port passenger compartment, and full head/refresher from the "p" along with the aft/port cargo bay from the "f" - you end up with the same things as the "fp" - plus a shower! - but the arrangement feels better to me).

Just a thought.

Are we sure that the YT-1300 listed in the core rules is actually the freighter version? I can't help but notice the 6 passenger capacity listed in the text. Since the layout maps seem to only have staterooms for the YT-1300p, with far less cargo space, it only makes sense to me.

Am I far off here?

It matches the Krait Fang stats from the Beginner Game. Which means it's not the standard YT-1300's; they are (according to Haynes and thus Lucasfilm) slightly different.

The Millennium Falcon plan is a variant. This means the Haynes manual has 4 different YT-1300 plans.

Let's see... giving directions by the hour-hand of a 12-hour clockface

1300p has

3 cabins (3:15-4:00, 8:00-8:45, 9:15-10:00

Commons (10:15-12:15)

Cargo (12:15-1:30)

Bridge Pod 1:30-1:45

2 Escape pods and ladders to ground (2:45-3:15, 8:45-9:15) (Note: No ramps)

Engineering and additional cargo (4:15-7:45)

1300f has

0 cabins

Commons/cargo (9:30-12:15)

Cargo (12:15-1:30)

Bridge Pod 1:30-1:45

2 ramps to ground (2:45-3:15, 8:45-9:15) (Note: No escape pods there)

Engineering and additional cargo (4:30-7:30)

Aft Cargo P/S (3:15-4:30, 7:30-8:45)

1300fp has

1 cabin (8:00-8:45)

IIRC, the Krayt Fang appears to have the improved ion drive based on its Speed and SS Threshold compared to the YT-1300 from the book.

Arent you all wildly overthinking about the effects of an obviously broken system?

Second, encumbrance is not mass! The capability of a ship to carry passengers or cargo is determined by the GM not the book. There isnt a translation between the encubrance capability of the ships in EotE and the cargo capacities from other sources. There isnt even a translation between different ships in the EotE book. A GR-75 says 1 encumbrance is 190 TONS! and Action VI is 1 E = 10 tons, a YT-2400 is about 1 E is 1 ton.

EC is in part mass. That's pretty clear in the rulebook. It's also a measure of how cumbersome an object is- which makes it particularly tricky to measure in relation to a starship's carrying capacity.

The capability of a ship to carry passengers and cargo has final determination by the GM, but you're acting like the rulebook isn't making any effort at all to define those values. It most certainly is.

We're in agreement that EC values are flucating wildly from previous sources, and aren't even comparable ship to ship. I think that's an indication of a slightly broken system, and not that EC doesn't equate cargo capacity -when it's clearly an attempt to indicate just that.