The Rancor Pit Forum Index
Welcome to The Rancor Pit forums!

The Rancor Pit Forum Index
FAQ   ::   Search   ::   Memberlist   ::   Usergroups   ::   Register   ::   Profile   ::   Log in to check your private messages   ::   Log in

Shields
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules -> Shields Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11853
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 1:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
We never heard anything about getting more power to the guns, adjusting anything to the fire control or the like.

But we do hear about it in the X-Wing video games, where transfering power between ships systems is a long-standing rule built into the game. This rule is an attempt to incorporate both what we see in the films and the games (which are a logical extrapolation of the other things "auxiliary power" could potentially be used for.

The idea is a rule that encompasses all the following quotes:
    Han: "Chewie, lock in the Auxiliary Power."

    Han: "Hold ' em off; angle the deflectors while I charge up the main guns."

    Red Leader: "Switch your deflectors on, double front."

    Gold Leader: "Switch all power to Front Deflector Screens."

    Gold Five: "Stabilize your Rear Deflectors; watch for enemy fighters."

_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

garhkal wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
Okay, but why? Is it just because that's what the RAW says, or do you have a specific reason why shield dice should combine differently than everything else?

Because its that with Shields, there's a set # of dice to allocate. NO OTHER method of combining actions has that.

CRM, it is policy here that RAW is not inherently superior just by being virtue of RAW. I would think that the king of house rules and re-stats should really appreciate that. However you are starting to come off as if RAW is inherently inferior and your view is inherently superior, and I do not appreciate that either. If someone doesn't see your reason for changing RAW then there is nothing wrong with that.

CRMcNeill wrote:
But that's my point. The Shields are basically using a completely different method of combining than every other rule for combining effort in the game, and accruing a much greater benefit from it.

You can have shield technology work any way you want in your universe, but I feel like you are not even trying to understand us. Above you said that shields have a "different method of combining" when some of us do not see shield arcs or shield dice combining actions with themselves, which is why we do not see that shields absolutely having to work like other combined actions. And your combined action rules are altered from RAW, so it seems like you are citing another house rule of yours to criticize the rest of us for not replacing RAW with your brand new shields house rule you just introduced to the world. gahkal saying he doesn't see it that way is not an attack on you doing it your own way.

And I think you are so deep in the D6 matrix at times that you have lost sight of what the whole real world purpose of coordination/combining actions is - to save dice rolls. If you have 8 guns shooting at a ship you could roll 8 attack rolls, and damage and hull rolls for each hit. Or the 8 guns can combine fire. It is dice roll simplification. Combining actions is multiple characters. Shields from multiple ships aren't even combining with each other. We are talking about rules for a single ship's own shields. There is only one single shield roll to set the shields in a certain arc formation. You don't roll for each D of shields. It is not like multiple gunners firing multiple guns and combining actions to fire on a single target. I would see it more your way if each 1D of shield energy was generated by a separate shield generator and operated by a separate shield operator, where they combine their efforts to protect a single arc. But shields isn't that.

I imagine starship shield technology working pretty much like in RAW. My ship's shield generator can make so much shield energy and we'll call the increments of energy "D". We've got four possible arcs to cover. If I put 2D in a single arc, that is a 1D layer and then another 1D layer of shield energy. The two layers are decidedly not combining with each other. They are stacking on top of each other. Each layer provides its full +1D protection. So my hull roles for successful attacks are hull +1D for one layer of +1D for the other layer. It is not a "different method of combining". It is not combining actions at all. No combining actions are involved to set the shields. A single character makes a single roll for the entire ship's single shield-arc configuration. I have no problem with the shield game mechanics being its own system because it is unique thing completely unlike characters combining actions. It's one action.

My interpretation of the films may be different than your chosen interpretation, but mine is still a valid interpretation that works. I don't think there is anything wrong with your interpretation or you running it your way in your game, but you should not think there is anything wrong with people disagreeing with you. We share our ideas with each other here. I am glad to have your input and everyone else's. But there is no need to achieve a consensus on how RAW should be house ruled (or even if it should be). We are not in competition with each other to write the best rules. We share our ideas, and they may help others. Or they may not. Both outcomes are ok.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Tue Mar 05, 2019 11:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

MrNexx wrote:
So, thinking about this...

"Angle the Deflector shields" is a Command Action, telling your shield operator to be ready to use their [Type] Shields skill, usually combined with a named arc.

"Double Front", as part of that Command Action, tells them to ignore other arcs; explicitly, do not take the penalty for engaging your shields on multiple arcs.

Now, mind you, I think the rules could have been implemented BETTER; I prefer the idea that you use Starship Shields to cover your arcs, then don't have to worry about them as a reaction unless you want to switch arcs... but that's not RAW, nor MAIR (Movies As Interpretted in Rules).

Well as some of us agreed on the first couple pages of this thread, RAW is poorly worded and not explicit, but shields couldn't possibly be reaction-only because the shields have to be in some certain setting for them to be changed from something, otherwise shield arc configurations would only be done as a reaction to change from whatever they were the last time there was a reaction. And logically, what if the last setting is where you want it (say all dice in the rear arc because that is the only arc you are being shot at from)? You wouldn't roll if you are just leaving it the way it is. So with a little interpretation from the movies, the gap in the RAW being filled is that setting the shield arc configuration can be action or reaction, because I should be able to reset my shields even when no one is shooting at me. Some of us feel it is implicit in the rules that non-reaction shields are possible and that the system works as a decent interpretation of the films.

I feel an important minor tweak to RAW is that the shield dice total should be able to be broken down into pips and not just whole dice only. And I've got a comprehensive space transport power routing rule in the works inspired by CRM's Aux Power rule and The Far Orbit Power Control rule, which includes being able to route more power to the shields (in the form of more shield dice), but that is another rule for another thread.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11853
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
CRM, it is policy here that RAW is not inherently superior just by being virtue of RAW. I would think that the king of house rules and re-stats should really appreciate that. However you are starting to come off as if RAW is inherently inferior and your view is inherently superior, and I do not appreciate that either. If someone doesn't see your reason for changing RAW then there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. We point out flaws in the RAW all the time, so I fail to see the problem in asking whether someone's reasoning is based on a plausible explanation that backs up the RAW, or on a general presumption of the RAW's infallibility.

Quote:
You can have shield technology work any way you want in your universe, but I feel like you are not even trying to understand us.

I feel like I have the same problem. The RAW is a patchwork of imperfect rules where the updates almost always resulted in unintended consequences, and the various coordination rules are one of them. You have elsewhere stated that you appreciate the consistency I apply to my various stats and house rules, and my position here is rooted in that same desire for consistency.

Yes, I do have a house rule for coordination that uses the x2=+1D method, but note that I did not reference that rule for the purposes of this conversation. Rather, I cited specific instances in officially published stats where doubling something (specifically, number of cannon fire-linked) result in an increase of +1D, not 4D + 4D = 8D.

Quote:
Combining actions is multiple characters.

I quote the following from the SW-RPG 2R&E Rulebook (page 127):
    Fire-linked weapons can be rigged to fire separately, but subtract damage, using the rules on combined fire. (Let's use the X-wing example. The four fire-linked laser cannons do 6D damage. The pilot decides to fire each cannon separately. Using the "combined actions" rule, four characters working together get a bonus of +1D+2. That means subtract-lD+2 from each
    cannon's damage: the cannons individually do 4D+1 damage.)
Per the official rules, the bonuses for combining are also applied to weapons. This has long been the case for pretty much every capital ship, else most of their weapon systems would be effectively useless against starfighters.

Quote:
Shields from multiple ships aren't even combining with each other. We are talking about rules for a single ship's own shields.

And just as a single ship's laser cannon - per the above quote - combine to inflict more damage, so too do its shields combine (at the shield operator's discretion) to resist more damage. However, they do not do so in a manner consistent with everything else in the RAW.

In fact, there are multiple instances in the EU where ships flying in close formation are able to overlap their shields and provide a concentrated defense by combining their shields. There's no rule in place to simulate this, so what's the upper limit? If you can do this with a squadron of B-Wings (with 2D of Shields each), do they get a 24D Shield rating in one arc if they all focus their shields in that arc?

I much prefer a single, consistent rule that allows ships to combine their systems for differing effects, but also one that provides diminishing returns as the number being combined increases, so as to keep the system from becoming ridiculous. Otherwise, what's to stop a YT-1300 owner from dropping 200,000 credits and filling his entire cargo bay with 3D Strength Shield Generators to give himself 30D in Shields? There's certainly no prohibition against it in the RAW...
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Red 331
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Location: Nebraska

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
Mamatried wrote:
If we use shields as reaction only, when actively used the rules work.
Setting them to something like "double front" now takes for granted a front arch attack tactics, with deployed shields and thus negating the need for the shield operator to actively use the shiled (reaction skill), and is now freed up to act as gunner, engineer, co pilot etc.

With another shiled setting or a diversion from the tactics or a surprise attack can again force a reaction skill to move the shiled to deflect this "new" attack.


so by simply setting an arch beforhand you free up the shield operator until either you need to change shield arch or you need to react to to attacks from unshielded arch etc.

If I read you correctly, yes that's what I was thinking would make the most sense with respect to RAW. You can proactively set the shields to whatever arc coverage you want, and the reaction aspect of shields only enters when an attack comes in to an arc you want more shield defense for, you react to see if you switch them over in time before the attack comes. If you fail, the shields are still set for whatever arc(s) they had been before the attack. Or if you are good with the current setting as-is and want to focus on other things, you can not react and just let the current shield setting apply to any attacks that hit.


After reading more closely through the thread, and looking back at the RAW, I think you were all too kind - I think I WAS off my rocker with my initial RAW interpretation. Smile Whill and Mamatried - I think you're spot-on with your rationale above.

I take back my earlier argument about actively angling deflectors within a given arc - RAW definitely seems to the skill use is all about RAISING the shields for a given arc or arcs, and NOT having to angle within those arcs. I think the interpretation of RAW you two lay out is more on the mark.

It's interesting to look at D6 Space's text on shields (Pgs 70-71) - sorry if I'm breaking a rule here by mentioning that source here Smile "Deploying shields counts as an action, but the shield setting remains in effect until the pilot realigns them or they're overloaded. (When splitting dice among areas, remember that there are three pips in a die.)"

Given the ambiguity of shields in 2nd R&E RAW, and the fact that several of the the D6 Space authors were former WEG writers, I'd say that language could be considered consistent with 2nd R&E RAW. And it also, I think, meshes with what you two were saying about a shield setting remaining in place and allowing splitting into pips.

I think that still leaves things a little open to interpretation if you fail the shields skill roll, in terms of if you still can benefit from the shields in their previous settings, or if the roll failure means that you can no longer utilize the shield benefits in ANY of the arcs until you make a successful roll to raise shields. I think I lean towards the latter, but I think you can argue either way given the opacity of the RAW.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Red 331
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander


Joined: 24 Jun 2007
Posts: 211
Location: Nebraska

PostPosted: Thu Mar 07, 2019 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

By the way - the resources posted in the "OFFICIAL RULES Clarifications, Errata & Conversions" post are awesome - I don't think I've noticed those before. Particularly the Moon Swing Chronicles material - I didn't realize WEG offered those "official" responses and clarifications while they were still in operation. Cool stuff! Thanks Whill!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Red 331 wrote:
By the way - the resources posted in the "OFFICIAL RULES Clarifications, Errata & Conversions" post are awesome - I don't think I've noticed those before. Particularly the Moon Swing Chronicles material - I didn't realize WEG offered those "official" responses and clarifications while they were still in operation. Cool stuff! Thanks Whill!

You're welcome!
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
I feel like I have the same problem.

Nope. I completely understand your brand new house rule and your argument for it. I have no doubt garhkal does to. You've made some complex, crunchy stuff before but this isn't. It's very basic. The diminishing effect of combining actions benefits applying to multiple shield dice in the same arc, because that's how everything else combines. Check.

CRMcNeill wrote:
The RAW is a patchwork of imperfect rules where the updates almost always resulted in unintended consequences, and the various coordination rules are one of them. You have elsewhere stated that you appreciate the consistency I apply to my various stats and house rules, and my position here is rooted in that same desire for consistency.

As I recall my statements in the past were more in reference to your body of stats, but I do appreciate your efforts for consistency in a great many things, probably more than I have even stated.

With your argument for your new shields house rule, your efforts towards consistency seem to almost be promoting an infallibility of net RAW mentality, which takes consistency to quite the extreme. You seem to be venerating the combining actions rules just merely based on their number of occurrences throughout the ruleset, so there really is no consideration if the shield rules work for shields. That feels like artificially enforcing conformity on something that should be allowed to be unique. In this case, it just doesn't work for me.

We are both down for a Force attribute. But for a long time I was committed to rewriting all Force powers as skills, or skill specializations. Why? Consistency in the game system - To use the existing skill rules instead of having Force powers being exceptions. But considering skill specialization advancement just gave me a headache and I gave up the pipe dream for a more unified system. Powers will be powers and perhaps they should be powers. Rules uniformity in general is good but it can get too extreme for my tastes, and extreme uniformity can taste bland sometimes.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
CRM, it is policy here that RAW is not inherently superior just by being virtue of RAW. I would think that the king of house rules and re-stats should really appreciate that. However you are starting to come off as if RAW is inherently inferior and your view is inherently superior, and I do not appreciate that either. If someone doesn't see your reason for changing RAW then there is nothing wrong with that.

I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here. We point out flaws in the RAW all the time, so I fail to see the problem in asking whether someone's reasoning is based on a plausible explanation that backs up the RAW, or on a general presumption of the RAW's infallibility.

You were being critical of someone saying they don't see it your way, and you basically said because 'my view'. That is specifically what I was referring to. Again, someone saying they prefer RAW's method of straight stacking shield dice, that is NOT an attack on your view. We simply all share our views here and don't have to agree. If garhkal or me or anyone else just doesn't see it your way, that is not disrespect to your house rule. It is just a personal declaration. You shared your way, we considered it, and decided, no not for me. You seemed defensive and began to present a case why us accepting RAW is wrong. No one was trying to change your view. What is wrong for us is not wrong for you, and others who share your view.

Your either/or options are actually still missing the point of our view. But let me make one thing absolutely, positively clear. It is not based on the infallibility of RAW. Period. It is simply the case that RAW's non-diminishing shield dice feels like a pretty good interpretation of the films. In my view, Shield bonus dice to Hull rolls is accruing the exact benefit that shield technology was specifically designed to do.

I feel that if anything, starship shields are probably underpowered in the game. There should probably be a constant field on all the way around all the time, and then dice on top of that angle to the arcs, but to implement something like that would probably upset whatever inherent game balance there is in RAW stats between shielded and non-shielded ships so I'm not going to add that huge boost to all shielded ships. I'm just not diminishing them from RAW like you are.

And good point about fire-linked weapons and such. I'm sure that in my game I've never bothered with using rules for unlinking linked weapons like in that example - I just view all four laser canons on the X-wing as one weapon system with one attack and one damage roll. How the four blasts come out is purely effect. But yes, it is there in RAW. My view is, that starship shield technology in my SWU was designed to work like it does in RAW, so the diminishing returns/combining actions effect simply does not apply to shield dice. I do not view my SWU as inconsistent because I have no need to force shield technology to operate like other game rules that apply to different things. And my view is not contradicted by the films.

Your rule reduces effectiveness of shields but has no effect on unshielded ships, which gives a relative advantage to TIEs against PCs. But again, there is nothing wrong with your rule if that works for you. Others may like it, so thanks for sharing it.

CRMcNeill wrote:
I much prefer a single, consistent rule that allows ships to combine their systems for differing effects, but also one that provides diminishing returns as the number being combined increases, so as to keep the system from becoming ridiculous. Otherwise, what's to stop a YT-1300 owner from dropping 200,000 credits and filling his entire cargo bay with 3D Strength Shield Generators to give himself 30D in Shields? There's certainly no prohibition against it in the RAW...

Oh come on. There are two things to stop that.

First of all, if you want to get technical, GG6 says Modify or Replace and Shields is under Replacement Systems. In English, the words replace and replacement refer to removing something to put something else in its place. Which means, to add a new shield generator you have to remove the one that was there. Therefore, you would never have more than one shield system unless the ship's stats came with more. For the ships with back-up shields, even counting them as each their own shield generator still only gives you a few. Under a strict adherence to RAW, you could never get anywhere close to 30D in shields.

The more important answer is, the GM can stop it. The rules are not superior to the GM. The GM is above all rules and that is RAW. Any sensible GM would tell a player, your tramp freighter doesn't generate enough power to have 30D in shields, period. The ruleset shouldn't have to account for every ridiculous request that a player makes. The GM has to use judgement.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 2:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarn wrote:
I'm sorry, but here I disagree. A 3D shield generator is not the same as three 1D shield generators. Consider the weight - an 1D shield generator is 6 tons, while a 3D shield generator is 10 tons. There's something here that's not linear.

You're oversimplifying the relation between generator weight and shield dice output of each by saying there is something not linear. It could be linear.

I work in prescription drug benefits management. I get people who will say that the 100mg pill and the 50mg pill of the same medication are almost identical in price, but that doesn't make sense because one has twice the active ingredient. Patients feel they are getting ripped off when their doctor lowers their dose to the 50mg and they are paying almost the same price as they did for the 100mg. Well, there are other costs that go into making a pill. You aren't only paying for the active ingredient. Not working for the drug manufacturer, I will tell people the honest truth that the manufacturer's cost for making the two pills is almost identical. They would technically be ripping people off (more) if they just arbitrary charged double for the 100mg pill just because it is twice the active ingredient, when it didn't cost double to make the pill. (So their pricing is honest in the respect that they are equally ripping you off for all strengths of the medication.)

Let's say the base/housing of all three shield generators weighs 4 tons regardless of shield dice. And then let's say that each 1D of shield dice requires a projector that adds two tons more to the total generator weight. The 1D shield would weigh 4+2=6 tons. The 2D shield would weigh 4+4=8 tons. The 3D shield would weigh 4+6=10 tons. That's the book weights, and that's totally linear!
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 3:03 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Red 331 wrote:
It's interesting to look at D6 Space's text on shields (Pgs 70-71) - sorry if I'm breaking a rule here by mentioning that source here Smile "Deploying shields counts as an action, but the shield setting remains in effect until the pilot realigns them or they're overloaded. (When splitting dice among areas, remember that there are three pips in a die.)"

Given the ambiguity of shields in 2nd R&E RAW, and the fact that several of the the D6 Space authors were former WEG writers, I'd say that language could be considered consistent with 2nd R&E RAW. And it also, I think, meshes with what you two were saying about a shield setting remaining in place and allowing splitting into pips.

You're not breaking any rule. I love D6 Space. And it is basically Star War 3e with the IP stripped, so it is very applicable to rule discussions and has definitely clarified poorly worded R&E RAW before so it can sometimes give insight to RAW's intentions. I've played D6 Space a few times but never operated shields. I've never ran D6 Space that I recall. I haven't looked at D6 Space in a while.

I can honestly say that I had actually predicted some aspects of the game system's development through the editions. For example I house ruled Wounded Twice in the 1e days (1988), and then that later became RAW. I'd like to think that my interpretation of R&E's RAW Starship Shields rules predicted D6 Space, but I honestly don't remember how exactly I did it before D6 Space so it very well could be that I was influenced by it and just didn't remember. But there we have it. Shields can be an action and the setting remains in effect until changed or overloaded, and you can break down the shield dice into pips. Quite sensible in my opinion.

Red 331 wrote:
I think that still leaves things a little open to interpretation if you fail the shields skill roll, in terms of if you still can benefit from the shields in their previous settings, or if the roll failure means that you can no longer utilize the shield benefits in ANY of the arcs until you make a successful roll to raise shields. I think I lean towards the latter, but I think you can argue either way given the opacity of the RAW.

If the last setting remains in effect until realigns them, then it is whatever the current setting in effect when the attacks hits that's is defending your ship, not you roll. The roll is to change the setting, not for any specific attacks. The reaction aspect of it just gives you a chance to change the setting before the attacks hits.

We've looked ahead to D6 Space so let's look back to 1e. Back then, shields was strictly a reaction because there were no arcs and the shield operator had to make a shields roll for every single attack. It was in line with their ship evasion and character dodge rules which required rolls for each attack. In 2e they modified things to not nickel and dime everyone with MAPs so a reactions skill now applies to all applicable attacks for the rest of the round. For shields it is not quite so open. They have arcs and the shield operator sets and resets the arc settings, probably because they didn't want to make it too easy to defend, and to maintain an interpretation of the 'angle the defector shields' comments in the films. But it is still better than making a separate shields roll for every single attacks.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Zarn
Captain
Captain


Joined: 17 Jun 2014
Posts: 689
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 4:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sure, Whill, you could do that. We could even extrapolate an expression for the shield generator cost showing that in that case, the fixed housing costs 2,000 credits and the extra stuff costs 2,000 credits times the square of the whole dice, and we might then build an extended shield generator table that goes as far as we'd like.

For instance,

4D - 18,000 credits - 12 tons

5D - 27,000 credits - 14 tons

6D - 38,000 credits - 16 tons

However, that's introducing detail that just isn't there in the base system. My initial point still stands: a 3D shield generator is not the same as three 1D shield generators. I stand corrected on the weight; I therefore point out that price isn't linear.

(And yes, I'm fully capable of talking about increased cost due to increased circuitry density and technobabble it away; I can make it fit anything if I'm allowed to introduce factors that weren't part of the original point.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mamatried
Captain
Captain


Joined: 16 Dec 2017
Posts: 653
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 9:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarn wrote:
Sure, Whill, you could do that. We could even extrapolate an expression for the shield generator cost showing that in that case, the fixed housing costs 2,000 credits and the extra stuff costs 2,000 credits times the square of the whole dice, and we might then build an extended shield generator table that goes as far as we'd like.

For instance,

4D - 18,000 credits - 12 tons

5D - 27,000 credits - 14 tons

6D - 38,000 credits - 16 tons

However, that's introducing detail that just isn't there in the base system. My initial point still stands: a 3D shield generator is not the same as three 1D shield generators. I stand corrected on the weight; I therefore point out that price isn't linear.

(And yes, I'm fully capable of talking about increased cost due to increased circuitry density and technobabble it away; I can make it fit anything if I'm allowed to introduce factors that weren't part of the original point.)


How would these weights corrspond to X wings, A wing etc small shielded Craft that very ovioulsy do not have a 5 ton hyperdrive, or a 5 ton Shield generator etc etc?

shilds for a star destroyer on the other hand i imagine a huge gnerator to cover 1,6 KM of ship so ther a 15 even 20 and even 100 ton gnerator makes all the sense in the world
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 11853
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 10:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mamatried wrote:
How would these weights correspond to X wings, A wing etc small shielded Craft that very obviously do not have a 5 ton hyperdrive, or a 5 ton Shield generator etc etc?

They wouldn't; the weights being used as the basis for this are in GG6: Tramp Freighters, and there is a specific note in the Starship Modification chapter that the weights and prices listed are for space transports only, not starfighters or capital ships (see the Sidebar titled Important Notice on page 31 of Tramp Freighters).
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.

The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zarn wrote:
Sure, Whill, you could do that. We could even extrapolate an expression for the shield generator cost showing that in that case, the fixed housing costs 2,000 credits and the extra stuff costs 2,000 credits times the square of the whole dice, and we might then build an extended shield generator table that goes as far as we'd like.

For instance,

4D - 18,000 credits - 12 tons

5D - 27,000 credits - 14 tons

6D - 38,000 credits - 16 tons

However, that's introducing detail that just isn't there in the base system.

That's introducing shield generators that aren't RAW for freighters, which is fine if you want freighters to have access to shields that strong. I think more than 3D is too much for shields, so I am in agreement with RAW on that.

I wasn't trying to introduce details for shield generators by breaking it down into weight for components that don't really matter for the sake of the game. I was just merely responding to your comment about weight not being linear.

Zarn wrote:
My initial point still stands: a 3D shield generator is not the same as three 1D shield generators. I stand corrected on the weight; I therefore point out that price isn't linear.

(And yes, I'm fully capable of talking about increased cost due to increased circuitry density and technobabble it away; I can make it fit anything if I'm allowed to introduce factors that weren't part of the original point.)

I agree price isn't linear, but I don't feel that fact necessarily supports a 3D shield generator not providing a full 3D bonus to Hull rolls in the same arc. In general in real life, the price of things is often based on just what people are willing to pay. In the completely fictional economy of the game world, the price of things is even more arbitrary. But when I look at those RAW prices, I don't have any issue with accepting them as possible in a system where shield dice in the same arc do not diminish as combined actions rules would have them do. Each generator may have linear manufacturing costs and different markups. The cost of shield generators has never been important in my game because the PCs either aren't paying for them, or it is just part of a total loan shark debt in which the actual credit amount really isn't important because owning money to loan sharks is more of a story factor in my game. But I fully support you or anyone else just changing the price of something as you see fit. If the pricing of anything in the game doesn't make sense to you for any reason, change it. Prices fluctuate anyway, so I always saw the price of things in RAW as just ballpark suggestions. But I certainly have never changed stats or rules because of RAW pricing. That's putting the cart before the horse in my opinion. I have changed the RAW price of things because of the stats and rules.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Whill
Supreme Chancellor (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 5319
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Fri Mar 08, 2019 11:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Mamatried wrote:
How would these weights correspond to X wings, A wing etc small shielded Craft that very obviously do not have a 5 ton hyperdrive, or a 5 ton Shield generator etc etc?

They wouldn't; the weights being used as the basis for this are in GG6: Tramp Freighters, and there is a specific note in the Starship Modification chapter that the weights and prices listed are for space transports only, not starfighters or capital ships (see the Sidebar titled Important Notice on page 31 of Tramp Freighters).

Right, and it only makes sense. Starfighters are smaller than freighters so there is less ship to cover with shields.

Mamatried wrote:
shilds for a star destroyer on the other hand i imagine a huge gnerator to cover 1,6 KM of ship so ther a 15 even 20 and even 100 ton gnerator makes all the sense in the world

Agreed. I have only ever been talking about starfighter-scale ships and shields in this thread. Capital ship stats don't usually matter too much because capital ships are more of a backdrop, setting, and motivation in my game. Motivation as in fly the other direction.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration & Log-In Help
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Official Rules All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 4 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group


v2.0