Just my 0.02 creds.
In the absence of clarification on where the typo might lie (supposed to be twin? No Link?), I'd probably rule it as 2 turrets controlled by a single firing console. There's no gunnery position, which would put the shooting in the hands of the pilot and/or co-pilot. As such, the 2 guns would only be able to link when a target is at the exact horizon of the ship. Other than that (literal) edge case, it's basically a single cannon with full spherical coverage.
Information on the ship has it with two single laser cannon turrets. No mention of a link, but that is more of a game artifact. So I doubt it is a single turret with two cannons. Unless there are two twin-laser cannon turrets. Still think it is perfectly acceptable as it is.
Never thought about the absence of a gunnery position. How difficult would it be for the pilot to control both the ship and aim the laser cannons if they are indeed single linked turrets? For example, how would he aim at a ship chasing from behind? Do the targeting computers work on any enemy within range? It wouldn't be that hard to imagine, but just looking for clarification.
Never thought about the absence of a gunnery position. How difficult would it be for the pilot to control both the ship and aim the laser cannons if they are indeed single linked turrets? For example, how would he aim at a ship chasing from behind? Do the targeting computers work on any enemy within range? It wouldn't be that hard to imagine, but just looking for clarification.
I hadn't thought of the mechanics on that. Well, with the Ion-turret on the Y-wing, it's either controlled by the co-pilot/gunner or locked forward for the pilot. On the E-9, I'd maybe just throw the gunnery console on the co-pilot side of the cockpit and leave it at that.
My group also took the E-9 explorer even though they haven't seen space combat yet, I would just make them twin turrets to simplify everything. Unfortunately, it does easily make the E-9 one of the strongest, if not the strongest, choice for a starter ship with its Class 1 hyperdrive, good armor and thresholds, and excellent handling. Ha, I sound like a used starship salesman.
the biggest drawback of the ship is its encumberance most starter ships are 100-200 encumberance its sacrafices storage for armor and power but IMO its one of the best ships to pick up and since its smaller it should be one of the cheapest group ships to use a dock so its a budget ship with some of the best stats you can get before going into the 200-500k credit ranges in ships but as players you shouldn't have a need to go into a C-90 corvette.
In going back to the Core Book, I guess the YT-1300 doesn't name gunners as crew members either, so that shoots a hole in my earlier thoughts.
I'd probably just erase the "Linked 1" bit, as other have said, and leave it to the players to mod up to twin cannons.
The picture of the E-9 in the book has a double barrelled turret mounted dorsal.
I know this is only an artists impression and not hard evidence, but I just wanted to mention it.
Why is it a typo? I understand that it certainly could be, but why the assumption that it is. Could it not have been done purposely like that? Giving the pilot a linked weapon system in certain arcs? I don't understand the reasoning for it to be a typo. Some have tried to use rules to explain it, but nothing there says it can't be. It strikes me as a poor man's Millennium Falcon in that Han was able to fire his quad cannons linked. So there is an in universe precedent, so why not this ship too?
Dosent change the fact that the enrty in the OP is a typo tho.
It is a typo because it is different that all the other dorsal/ventral mounts without an explanation and the weapon entry exactly matches an entry for a later ship.
What is more likely: Forgetting to remove the linked 1 after a cut an paste or the writers adding a completely new weapon utilization without a single word about it?
Decide which option is more appealing to you:
1) Add the word "twin" before medium laser cannon.
OR
2) Remove Linked 1 from the weapon stat line.
Or just leave it the way it is. Nothing wrong with it.
well i have made my own adaptation of the layout of the ship here's a link to the main deck. Blue/black boxes are windows expanded the lounge took out some of the stuff one room could be concidered the "med bay" larger commanders room and made the room directlybehind the cockpit the comms room so enjoy you can use this for your group if you like since shareing is careing.
Thanks for all the input everyone, it's been very helpful.
Since my player group is fairly small (3 PCs), I think I'm going to say that they can operate either as two separate single cannon turrets or can be locked in a forward position (Fire Arc Forward) for the the pilot to use as a Linked 1 weapon, similar to how the Y-Wing's cannon can be used by either the gunner or pilot. I feel, for my player group at least, this should work decently well from a fun point of view, as it gives all 3 PCs something to do pretty much all the time while on the ship. The pilot can fly while the other two man the turrets, and, if something should happen on board the ship, the pilot can pick off a couple TIEs and what-not while the others repair systems or put out fires.
I did submit a rules question out of curiousity if any part of the entry was a misprint however, so this could change once there's an official answer.
I did submit a rules question out of curiousity if any part of the entry was a misprint however, so this could change once there's an official answer.
I asked back in mid-December when the book first came out. It's one of the half-dozen rules questions I've sent that has not gotten a response.
I did submit a rules question out of curiousity if any part of the entry was a misprint however, so this could change once there's an official answer.
I asked back in mid-December when the book first came out. It's one of the half-dozen rules questions I've sent that has not gotten a response.
Ah, alright. Well, I suppose it doesn't hurt to ask and see if anything comes from it. If I do get a response, I'll be sure to post it here.
I've still not received an answer on this question despite sending it in monthly (lately with a second question on whether or not the concussion missile launchers on the YV-929 should have Slow-Firing 1). Maybe July will be the moth they answer...
My answer from Sam came today. He indicates that the profiles are correct for both of my questions. This means that:
1) The E-9 is fitted with dorsal and ventral twin* medium laser cannons (identical to the base armament of the YT-2400) and thus should have Linked 1.
* Substitute Double or Dual for Twin if you prefer.
2) The concussion missile launchers on the YV-929 are not supposed to have Slow-Firing 1. In effect, they are rapid-firing launchers. YIKES! Now we know why it's so freaking expensive.
2) The concussion missile launchers on the YV-929 are not supposed to have Slow-Firing 1. In effect, they are rapid-firing launchers. YIKES! Now we know why it's so freaking expensive.
Oh yay! Now I can create my beloved Macross Missile Massacre scenario every round!
Oh yay! Now I can create my beloved Macross Missile Massacre scenario every round!2) The concussion missile launchers on the YV-929 are not supposed to have Slow-Firing 1. In effect, they are rapid-firing launchers. YIKES! Now we know why it's so freaking expensive.
My answer from Sam came today. He indicates that the profiles are correct for both of my questions. This means that:
1) The E-9 is fitted with dorsal and ventral twin* medium laser cannons (identical to the base armament of the YT-2400) and thus should have Linked 1.
* Substitute Double or Dual for Twin if you prefer.
2) The concussion missile launchers on the YV-929 are not supposed to have Slow-Firing 1. In effect, they are rapid-firing launchers. YIKES! Now we know why it's so freaking expensive.
I'll try and add this to the thread when I get the chance, I have a few more on backlog too that have been PM'd to me.