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

Sector Rangers - Ships & Vehicles
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech -> Sector Rangers - Ships & Vehicles Goto page 1, 2  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Captain


Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 590
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 3:45 pm    Post subject: Sector Rangers - Ships & Vehicles Reply with quote

So i'm stranded with my folks, with whom i get on with about as well as Luke got on with Uncle Owen...

Anywho, i am making stats & thinking GR75s can be converted into mobile precincts for Sector Rangers, trading most of the Cargo Capacity for 2 hangars & passenger space...
Main hangar is for Sector Ranger fighters, shuttles & airspeeders, 2nd hangar is the impound lot for seized/recovered ships & vehicles until offloaded to planet or space station facility. Passenger space is for the Sector Rangers that staff the precinct & pilot the starfighters & other patrol craft.
I'm thinking 24-36, R-41 &/V R-42 Starchasers & R60 T-wing Interceptors.

I'm also thinking Clone Wars leftovers, Frigate size & smaller would be fair game, Bulk Cruisers being the biggest they'd be allowed to have, at best...
What else should i consider for Sector Rangers?
Is Pirates & Privateers the main book for Sector Rangers info? I thought it was GG9 Fragments From the Rim but i appear to be mistaken on that.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
Artoo Gonk Artoo
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor.
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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Tue Dec 27, 2022 5:01 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Honestly, considering the need for boarding ops and prisoner transportation, bounty hunter ships like the Firespray (or with similar capabilities) would be a better bet.
_________________
"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
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Captain


Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 590
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Honestly, considering the need for boarding ops and prisoner transportation, bounty hunter ships like the Firespray (or with similar capabilities) would be a better bet.

I think Conqueror Assault Ships, Firespray Patrol/Attack Craft, Pursuer Enforcement Ships, & RX4 Patrol Ships supplement the ubiquitous Law-class light patrol craft. With over 1,000 sectors to patrol/police, that A) demand is higher than supply for many sectors, and B) needs may vary, so other craft will need to be used...
What else might be a good fit for a Sector Ranger Fleet?
Would they be able to purchase/use customs ships?
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
Artoo Gonk Artoo
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor.
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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Guardian-Class Light Cruiser and its successor, the Guardian 344 (although how the Wookieepidiots managed to turn an internal crew reconfiguration into a completely different ship is beyond me).

The WEG stats are actually pretty impressive, except for the weapons suite, which is completely lacking any sort of weapon that'd be useful in pursuing and capturing another ship. I made my own version of the stats that combines the base Guardian and the Guardian 344 into a single ship, as well as upgrading the weapons.

The result is a tough, fast ship with a small crew, plus room for a boarding squad and cells for six prisoners.
_________________
"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
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Captain


Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 590
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 3:13 pm    Post subject: Raining Guardians Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
The Guardian-Class Light Cruiser and its successor, the Guardian 344 (although how the Wookieepidiots managed to turn an internal crew reconfiguration into a completely different ship is beyond me).

The WEG stats are actually pretty impressive, except for the weapons suite, which is completely lacking any sort of weapon that'd be useful in pursuing and capturing another ship. I made my own version of the stats that combines the base Guardian and the Guardian 344 into a single ship, as well as upgrading the weapons.

The result is a tough, fast ship with a small crew, plus room for a boarding squad and cells for six prisoners.

i Like your Guardian-Class Light Patrol Sloop, but rather than replace the WEG/RAW Guardian-class light cruiser & Guardian 344-class Light Cruiser, i'll add it to the family.
The question i have now is, which does it get it's looks from?
The Guardian or the Guardian 344?

_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
Artoo Gonk Artoo
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor.
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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 9:04 pm    Post subject: Re: Raining Guardians Reply with quote

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
i Like your Guardian-Class Light Patrol Sloop, but rather than replace the WEG/RAW Guardian-class light cruiser & Guardian 344-class Light Cruiser, i'll add it to the family.

I dislike the idea of keeping ships that can't perform their assigned roles on account of poor stat choices by WEG. Do whatever you like in your own setting, but I think it's dumb to keep ship stats simply to have more ship stats.

Quote:
The question i have now is, which does it get it's looks from?
The Guardian or the Guardian 344?

The former (first one). The other image is of either the Imperial Customs Frigate (seen in modified form on pg. 81 of Tramp Freighters) or a very close relative.

The only changes between the Guardian and the Guardian 344 was the increased level of automation allowing for fewer crew, which in turn freed up enough room for a boarding squad.
_________________
"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
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2023 10:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
The Guardian-Class Light Cruiser and its successor, the Guardian 344 (although how the Wookieepidiots managed to turn an internal crew reconfiguration into a completely different ship is beyond me).

Would you mind explaining this? Wookieepedia or any idiots there aren't supposed to be making any decisions about anything or changes to the canons. What exactly did they do wrong? If there is an error, it can be corrected.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Captain


Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 590
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 8:49 am    Post subject: Re: Raining Guardians Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Inquisitor1138 wrote:
i Like your Guardian-Class Light Patrol Sloop, but rather than replace the WEG/RAW Guardian-class light cruiser & Guardian 344-class Light Cruiser, i'll add it to the family.

I dislike the idea of keeping ships that can't perform their assigned roles on account of poor stat choices by WEG. Do whatever you like in your own setting, but I think it's dumb to keep ship stats simply to have more ship stats.

Quote:
The question i have now is, which does it get it's looks from?
The Guardian or the Guardian 344?

The former (first one). The other image is of either the Imperial Customs Frigate (seen in modified form on pg. 81 of Tramp Freighters) or a very close relative.

The only changes between the Guardian and the Guardian 344 was the increased level of automation allowing for fewer crew, which in turn freed up enough room for a boarding squad.

Looking at info in Pirates & Privateers & Planets of the Galaxy, vol. 3, my takeaway is that the radically different appearance in the art is taken out of context; the radically different appearance is not the standard/stock 344, but the heavily modified pirate ship in Planets of the Galaxy, vol. 3. Unmodified 344s resemble the Guardian.
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
Artoo Gonk Artoo
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor.
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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
If there is an error, it can be corrected.

I did some digging, and it's deeper than I thought; the actual error appears to be in the WEG write-up itself. The official Guardian-Class is what's pictured in the Holocron stat page, although I can't seem to locate the original source of the image.

The Guardian 344 is first mentioned in Pirates & Privateers, on pg. 84, in the Capsule section of the stats for the Guardian itself.

However, in Planets of the Galaxy Volume Three (or the Planets Collection, pgs. 117-118), the Guardian 344 is strongly inferred to be a completely different ship that much more closely resembles the Modified Customs Corvette Counter Puncher from pgs. 81-82 of Tramp Freighters.

So, what I had originally thought to be an error by whoever wrote up the Wookieepedia article on the Guardian 344 is actually technically correct, in that it is sourced directly from WEG material. That doesn't mean I think it makes sense to have one ship be completely different from the other and call them both the Guardian-Class. If you're going for that radical of a change, then it needs a new class name, as well. And there's no reason to go with a completely different ship when all that's really happening is an internal crewing rearrangement.

I'd say that whoever wrote the stats either didn't see the art or mistakenly wrote the wrong ship image up as a Guardian 344-Class, when it should've been something else.
_________________
"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
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Director of Engineering


Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 10:47 am    Post subject: Re: Raining Guardians Reply with quote

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
Looking at info in Pirates & Privateers & Planets of the Galaxy, vol. 3, my takeaway is that the radically different appearance in the art is taken out of context; the radically different appearance is not the standard/stock 344, but the heavily modified pirate ship in Planets of the Galaxy, vol. 3. Unmodified 344s resemble the Guardian.

There's no feasible way to modify a Guardian into the Guardian 344 as pictured. Those are two completely different hull designs, and any modification that extensive would require stripping one down into bits and rebuilding the other from scratch. It would also be sufficiently expensive that you'd get a better return from your investment spending the money on a brand-new ship.

Even then, there is nothing highly modified about the stats for the Guardian 344 as depicted, apart from the crew differences described in the Pirates & Privateers write-up. "Heavy (read: expensive) modifications" on a working pirate vessel aren't done for cosmetic purposes; they're done to improve the ship's performance or ability to do its job better, with any difference in appearance being secondary or tertiary to that.
_________________
"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
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Captain


Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 590
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...

PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2023 4:59 pm    Post subject: Re: Raining Guardians Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
If there is an error, it can be corrected.

I did some digging, and it's deeper than I thought; the actual error appears to be in the WEG write-up itself. The official Guardian-Class is what's pictured in the Holocron stat page, although I can't seem to locate the original source of the image.

The Guardian 344 is first mentioned in Pirates & Privateers, on pg. 84, in the Capsule section of the stats for the Guardian itself.

However, in Planets of the Galaxy Volume Three (or the Planets Collection, pgs. 117-118), the Guardian 344 is strongly inferred to be a completely different ship that much more closely resembles the Modified Customs Corvette Counter Puncher from pgs. 81-82 of Tramp Freighters.

So, what I had originally thought to be an error by whoever wrote up the Wookieepedia article on the Guardian 344 is actually technically correct, in that it is sourced directly from WEG material. That doesn't mean I think it makes sense to have one ship be completely different from the other and call them both the Guardian-Class. If you're going for that radical of a change, then it needs a new class name, as well. And there's no reason to go with a completely different ship when all that's really happening is an internal crewing rearrangement.

I'd say that whoever wrote the stats either didn't see the art or mistakenly wrote the wrong ship image up as a Guardian 344-Class, when it should've been something else.

I think the original Guardian-class art was in a WEG book with punch/tear out cards, hence by both color and b&w images circulating the internet. Might be one of the Tapani books, but i can't swear to it...
Also there should have been more in the stats about the modifications made; lazy writeups force GMs to either tweak the stats or interpret the pirates' bold claims as petty bragging...
I am inclined to agree with CRMcNeill; this was an art gaffe of some kind, clearly art of the Imperial Customs Frigate.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Inquisitor1138 wrote:
Looking at info in Pirates & Privateers & Planets of the Galaxy, vol. 3, my takeaway is that the radically different appearance in the art is taken out of context; the radically different appearance is not the standard/stock 344, but the heavily modified pirate ship in Planets of the Galaxy, vol. 3. Unmodified 344s resemble the Guardian.

There's no feasible way to modify a Guardian into the Guardian 344 as pictured. Those are two completely different hull designs, and any modification that extensive would require stripping one down into bits and rebuilding the other from scratch. It would also be sufficiently expensive that you'd get a better return from your investment spending the money on a brand-new ship.

Even then, there is nothing highly modified about the stats for the Guardian 344 as depicted, apart from the crew differences described in the Pirates & Privateers write-up. "Heavy (read: expensive) modifications" on a working pirate vessel aren't done for cosmetic purposes; they're done to improve the ship's performance or ability to do its job better, with any difference in appearance being secondary or tertiary to that.

Yes, that is logical. Most people aren't logical & stupid doesn't discriminate. People have done worse for less. That said, kitbashing a Guardian-class to resemble an Imperial Customs Frigate is stupid.
i should know. Kid me at one time thought i could somehow kitbash my wrecked Millennium Falcon into the Red Dwarf, and that doing so was a good idea...
Needless to say, i was wrong on both counts.
At least this exercise in futility gave birth to my Redsaber...
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
Artoo Gonk Artoo
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor.
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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 12:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another possibility: Fractalsponge's Intersector-Class Sloop.

Also, re the Guardian, I had originally called it a Sloop, but I'm strongly inclined to call it a Cutter (in the sense of "a government enforcement agency vessel"), since it's much closer to the Cruiser WEG seemed so insistent on naming everything.
_________________
"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
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)


Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10286
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy

PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2023 2:40 am    Post subject: Re: Raining Guardians Reply with quote

CRMcNeill wrote:
There's no feasible way to modify a Guardian into the Guardian 344 as pictured. Those are two completely different hull designs, and any modification that extensive would require stripping one down into bits and rebuilding the other from scratch. It would also be sufficiently expensive that you'd get a better return from your investment spending the money on a brand-new ship...

I concur.

CRMcNeill wrote:
Whill wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
The Guardian-Class Light Cruiser and its successor, the Guardian 344 (although how the Wookieepidiots managed to turn an internal crew reconfiguration into a completely different ship is beyond me).

Would you mind explaining this? Wookieepedia or any idiots there aren't supposed to be making any decisions about anything or changes to the canons. What exactly did they do wrong? If there is an error, it can be corrected.

So, what I had originally thought to be an error by whoever wrote up the Wookieepedia article on the Guardian 344 is actually technically correct, in that it is sourced directly from WEG material.

That's what I thought, but I wanted to give you a chance to backup your original claim.

Wookieepedia definitely does have some errors, as one would expect from such a massive database with content provided and edited by a large number of fan volunteers. The user interface is not so user-friendly, so correcting it is not easy.

I spend a lot of time reading Wookieepedia, but I often have the original sources for what I am reading about, so it points me in the right direction to research directly from the sources myself. In my experience, the situation you found with this is fairly common. Much more often that Wookieepedia being wrong is that it accurately reflects contradictions and flaws in the canons themselves. One thing more massive than Wookieepedia is the Star Wars franchise it has articles about.

I think the term "Wookieepidiots" is unfairly prejudice. There can't be very many idiots there because interfacing with it is too difficult for idiots. And if there are, then that would make me an especially underperforming idiot. I have a wiki account and have only made 22 edits at Wookieepedia in the last 7 years.

CRMcNeill wrote:
The Guardian 344 is first mentioned in Pirates & Privateers, on pg. 84, in the Capsule section of the stats for the Guardian itself.

However, in Planets of the Galaxy Volume Three (or the Planets Collection, pgs. 117-118), the Guardian 344 is strongly inferred to be a completely different ship

It's more than strongly implied. In Planets of the Galaxy Volume Three and the Planets Collection both, the ship is only classed as 334-class without any "Guardian." There is literally zero reference to the Guardian there. So it seems most likely to me that someone at some point, perhaps Timothy O'Brien or his editor in 1997, just decided to implement a retcon connecting two originally unrelated ships.

CRMcNeill wrote:
that much more closely resembles the Modified Customs Corvette Counter Puncher from pgs. 81-82 of Tramp Freighters.

Yeah, that's probably what the artist was going for. It's not like these ship classes are even named by the artist who draws them...

CRMcNeill wrote:
That doesn't mean I think it makes sense to have one ship be completely different from the other and call them both the Guardian-Class. If you're going for that radical of a change, then it needs a new class name, as well. And there's no reason to go with a completely different ship when all that's really happening is an internal crewing rearrangement.

I'd say that whoever wrote the stats either didn't see the art or mistakenly wrote the wrong ship image up as a Guardian 344-Class, when it should've been something else.

I haven't shared it yet, but for a project related to my MC-13v2, I researched the publication history of Mon Calamari freighters (which is mostly WEG). For each ship in Stock Ships, there was an author for the fluff and stats, one or two graphic designers for the deckplans, and an artist of the vessel exteriors (Christina Wald, also the artist of the Guardian-class). I feel the body of evidence shows a very strong case for the DeepWater in Stock Ships having been originally conceived to be the class of the generically named "Mon Calamari Light Freighter," the class for the modified ship called the Nautical Star from "Fizzi's Slightly Used Starships" in AJ#9. The ship exterior's art and its deckplan both have references to Fizzi's ship, and they both somehow resemble that ship more than they do each other. The AJ ship is only 30m long. It looks to me like the deckplan designer(s) screwed up the scale, making it too big to be a 30m ship, so after the art and deckplan were done, the author and/or editor decided to make it a different class, the DeepWater. And eyeballing the scale of the deckplan, they gave it a 45m length, which was a bit too big but still a lot closer than the 30m. The stock class of Fizzi's ship was referenced in the DeepWater's fluff capsule.

All this tells me that there was little coordination between the graphic designers, artist, and author. And we have a lot of evidence that indicates that phenomenon wasn't limited to Stock Ships. What fans tend to accept as the inviolable canon is sometimes just weird, pointless retcons and rushed editors barely meeting publishing deadlines.

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
I think the original Guardian-class art was in a WEG book with punch/tear out cards, hence by both color and b&w images circulating the internet. Might be one of the Tapani books, but i can't swear to it...

I spent a lot of time looking through my WEG SW collection today after work (which is not an easy task as all my paperback books are bagged and boarded like comic books). I looked in all the box sets, and all the books I could think of with punch-out cards. The artist of the image has made other ship art in a similar style for WEG, including punch-out ship cards in the Tapani box set, but not for this ship. It was big waste of time and all the while the answer was always a handful of clicks away...

CRMcNeill wrote:
I did some digging, and it's deeper than I thought; the actual error appears to be in the WEG write-up itself. The official Guardian-Class is what's pictured in the Holocron stat page, although I can't seem to locate the original source of the image.

The Holocron wiki page of the Guardian got its image from Wookieepedia (where most of the web seems to have gotten it from), and Wookieepedia recorded its sources if you know how to dig for them. Scratching the surface indicates the image originated in the Gamemaster Screen, Revised. It is on p.40, but that is the b&w image. Digging a little deeper, Wookieepedia reveals that the color image came from the artist's blog. I had visited her blog a couple years ago and found that she had a spin-off blog for a lot of the game art she has done. I re-found it and linked it below. It seems that the original Guardian art she made was in color, but WEG only used it in a b&w booklet.

Christina Wald's Game Art blog, Star Wars search

It seems to me that the simplest solution is to eliminate the P&P retcon and take the 344-class back to its origin by removing the Guardian nomenclature and fluff from it. These can just be two unrelated ship classes made by Sienar Fleet Systems. And of course, each ship should have appropriate stats for that ship.
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Inquisitor1138
Captain
Captain


Joined: 28 Nov 2021
Posts: 590
Location: Hoth. Or Ilum...

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 3:47 am    Post subject: Re: Raining Guardians; ..344s & Imperial Customs Frigate Reply with quote

Whill wrote:
CRMcNeill wrote:
The Guardian 344 is first mentioned in Pirates & Privateers, on pg. 84, in the Capsule section of the stats for the Guardian itself.

However, in Planets of the Galaxy Volume Three (or the Planets Collection, pgs. 117-118), the Guardian 344 is strongly inferred to be a completely different ship

It's more than strongly implied. In Planets of the Galaxy Volume Three and the Planets Collection both, the ship is only classed as 334-class without any "Guardian." There is literally zero reference to the Guardian there. So it seems most likely to me that someone at some point, perhaps Timothy O'Brien or his editor in 1997, just decided to implement a retcon connecting two originally unrelated ships.

CRMcNeill wrote:
that much more closely resembles the Modified Customs Corvette Counter Puncher from pgs. 81-82 of Tramp Freighters.

Yeah, that's probably what the artist was going for. It's not like these ship classes are even named by the artist who draws them...

CRMcNeill wrote:
That doesn't mean I think it makes sense to have one ship be completely different from the other and call them both the Guardian-Class. If you're going for that radical of a change, then it needs a new class name, as well. And there's no reason to go with a completely different ship when all that's really happening is an internal crewing rearrangement.

I'd say that whoever wrote the stats either didn't see the art or mistakenly wrote the wrong ship image up as a Guardian 344-Class, when it should've been something else.

I haven't shared it yet, but for a project related to my MC-13v2, I researched the publication history of Mon Calamari freighters (which is mostly WEG). For each ship in Stock Ships, there was an author for the fluff and stats, one or two graphic designers for the deckplans, and an artist of the vessel exteriors (Christina Wald, also the artist of the Guardian-class). I feel the body of evidence shows a very strong case for the DeepWater in Stock Ships having been originally conceived to be the class of the generically named "Mon Calamari Light Freighter," the class for the modified ship called the Nautical Star from "Fizzi's Slightly Used Starships" in AJ#9. The ship exterior's art and its deckplan both have references to Fizzi's ship, and they both somehow resemble that ship more than they do each other. The AJ ship is only 30m long. It looks to me like the deckplan designer(s) screwed up the scale, making it too big to be a 30m ship, so after the art and deckplan were done, the author and/or editor decided to make it a different class, the DeepWater. And eyeballing the scale of the deckplan, they gave it a 45m length, which was a bit too big but still a lot closer than the 30m. The stock class of Fizzi's ship was referenced in the DeepWater's fluff capsule.

All this tells me that there was little coordination between the graphic designers, artist, and author. And we have a lot of evidence that indicates that phenomenon wasn't limited to Stock Ships. What fans tend to accept as the inviolable canon is sometimes just weird, pointless retcons and rushed editors barely meeting publishing deadlines.

Inquisitor1138 wrote:
I think the original Guardian-class art was in a WEG book with punch/tear out cards, hence by both color and b&w images circulating the internet. Might be one of the Tapani books, but i can't swear to it...

I spent a lot of time looking through my WEG SW collection today after work (which is not an easy task as all my paperback books are bagged and boarded like comic books). I looked in all the box sets, and all the books I could think of with punch-out cards. The artist of the image has made other ship art in a similar style for WEG, including punch-out ship cards in the Tapani box set, but not for this ship. It was big waste of time and all the while the answer was always a handful of clicks away...

CRMcNeill wrote:
I did some digging, and it's deeper than I thought; the actual error appears to be in the WEG write-up itself. The official Guardian-Class is what's pictured in the Holocron stat page, although I can't seem to locate the original source of the image.

The Holocron wiki page of the Guardian got its image from Wookieepedia (where most of the web seems to have gotten it from), and Wookieepedia recorded its sources if you know how to dig for them. Scratching the surface indicates the image originated in the Gamemaster Screen, Revised. It is on p.40, but that is the b&w image. Digging a little deeper, Wookieepedia reveals that the color image came from the artist's blog. I had visited her blog a couple years ago and found that she had a spin-off blog for a lot of the game art she has done. I re-found it and linked it below. It seems that the original Guardian art she made was in color, but WEG only used it in a b&w booklet.

Christina Wald's Game Art blog, Star Wars search

It seems to me that the simplest solution is to eliminate the P&P retcon and take the 344-class back to its origin by removing the Guardian nomenclature and fluff from it. These can just be two unrelated ship classes made by Sienar Fleet Systems. And of course, each ship should have appropriate stats for that ship.

A lot of good points here! Thank you, Whill! Especially for the find of the artist's blog! Sorry about sending you down a rabbit-hole.

Was P&P a retcon? Possibly. We may never know. I would like to track down writers & editors, and ask them directly.
At the moment, we have information gaps, stats for a Modified 334 cruiser that closely match the Guardian-class, and art depicting an Imperial Customs Frigate.
Speculation is fine & i enjoy speculating too. But without evidence all we have are unproven theories.
What i am settling on, is accepting the 344 as a newer model Guardian, and the discrepancy in its *in universe* depictions is human error; Dorok's Pirate Fleet in fact had both a 344 and an Imperial Customs Frigate. Terrified victims/witnesses got the two confused as to which was the command ship, the "Last Thing".

We are unlikely to get Wookiepedia to stop perpetuating WEG's error unless someone from WEG clears up the matter in a blog or a Disney approved/licensed book addresses the matter specifically to clear the matter up, using the Guardian design/art for the 344, ISB Ship & any other variants.

In taking my time to read & reread the source material, and thinking about it, i plan to make some use of Redthorn-class scouts, which were introduced in either that adventure & used in "The Hutt Gambit", but nothing else since.
I also am making a band of pirates, similar to Dorok's Pirate Fleet but larger & more diverse in craft. Morrok is often mocked by NPCs, but an imperial Moff & a few other officers are in hot water because these pirate scum have stolen a disturbingly high number of Imperial ships...
Morrok, to satisfy his ego, has had two of the Imperial Customs Frigates combined to make a 'stretch Customs Frigate' 70 meters long, with extra armor, shields, weapons & speed...
_________________
Facing all that you fear will free you from yourself.
Artoo Gonk Artoo
The Rancor Pit Library
Bounty Hunting is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Game Mastering is a Complicated Profession... Wouldn't you agree?
Count Dooku: Your swords, please. We don't want to make a mess of things in front of the Chancellor.
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: 16163
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.

PostPosted: Sun Jan 08, 2023 12:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just...what? That's not how shipbuilding works. Nobody with an ego that demented and the resources to pull it off is working as a successful pirate in the Outer Rim. Two separate ships are best used raiding in two separate places, which increases potential profits. You don't waste them both by recombining them into an Ugly version of a warship that isn't properly engineered and is just as likely to break in half the first time you throw it into a high-g turn as it is to actually function.

A far more likely premise:
    1). There are sufficient visual differences (no wing cut-outs, the different shape of the bridge, and two engines instead of four) between the Modified Customs Frigate in GG6 and the "344" in Planets of the Galaxy to justify calling them two different ships from the same company.

    2) The stats on the GG6 ship need a revamp, as its numbers are too high for a ship that is now the same length as the Millennium Falcon (revised stats have the YT-1300 in the 35 meter range). My first thought is to keep the stats, but flip the length numbers so it's now 53 meters long.

    3). Then make the version from Planets of the Galaxy into either a "II" variant of the GG6 ship, or make it the follow-on model, with the same general hull shape, but with upgrades, with a couple stats upped by +1 to make it subtly different. You can also stretch the length from 53 meters to 70 meters if you prefer, as it makes a lot more sense for a ship to be that long if it was designed, engineered and built that way than because it got kit-bashed by a pirate with more ego than sense.

_________________
"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
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    The Rancor Pit Forum Index -> Ships, Vehicles, Equipment, and Tech All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
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