Viscount stats unveiled; SSD mess resolved

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-11-11 10:17am

Hopefully they're done right. If he doesn't, it'll simply be perpetuation of a pre-existing fallacy and can be dismissed on that basis, like usual.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2006-11-11 11:42am

Well, after WEG and KT, I think it's quite refreshing to see this kind of approach.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-11-11 12:30pm

I still want to know if there's any confirmation that he'll be doing the ISD and Home One. So far, I've only heard that he will be.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-11-11 12:57pm

It's not known, it could either be him or Gary Sarli. From what I've heard, Sarli was behind alot of the Executor stuff, so this might be a win-win situation.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-11-11 01:12pm

With the exception of #4, all the Starship Battles previews credited both Sarli and Hershey as writers. What I'm curious about is if there's any evidence that either one of them will be doing the ISD and Home One at all. I don't want everyone to get their hopes up, only to find out that the remaining previews are on things like TIE fighters and Y-wings.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-11-11 01:37pm

Judging from my correspondence with Hershey, he can't say anything about details in future articles, so it seems they will make one for each of the models used in the game.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-11-11 03:41pm

[quote="nightmareOk, I get your point. But there's nothing that says the ion cannons are fire linked in any groups whatsoever.[/quote]

Except that if you add together the number of turbolasers and ion cannons, its far less than 5000 isnt it?

According to WOTC. Multiple errors does not make one right... I'd certainly like to interpret the figures creatively if it makes the numbers better, but I don't see how.

Its called harmonization. When you have conflicting data or an incomplete solution, you tailor your theories so as to best fit the existing data, with making as few corrections or omissions as possible (or assumptions.) This is both part of canon policy itself. (IE We know the Executor's concussion missiles, as well as those of VSD-1's, have been used in starship combat in the X-wing novels as well as ground attack. Therefore, we logically conclude that they carry/employ multiple kinds of warheads.)

What I have seen is people arguing about if it takes 3, 14, or 24 X-Wing protorps to destroy an ISD. There are a few people here and there with a better grasp on canon and realism, but they are in stark minority. Sure, WOTC is just an RPG... but the video games, tabletops, novels, etc, colors people's minds and then they warp their impressions of the movies watched years ago and vaguely remembered to fit the games they play today.

Obvious or proven gameplay elements are not considered canonical though, and this almost certainly falls under gameplay (as it requires a statistical comparison between the durability of the ISD and the damage potential of the torpedoes, which as we know in the games is clearly skewed towards fighters.) In the literature AFAIK we've never actually SEEN an ISD destroyed by a torpedo volley (a dozen X-wings could not even take on an ISD in SOTE.) Whereas we know fro othe rsources that VSDs and Interdictors can have their shields knocked down by a couple dozen protorps. While in other examples, fewer can take out an ISD shield. However, there is no one single, consistent yield or kind of protorp amongst fighters or capital ships, and since we know ISDs are more powerful than VSDs and Interidctors, we can conclude it took a more powerful warhead to knock it down (or that the proton torpedoes were optimized to knock them down. Either source exists in canon, and usually the torpedoes in comics and such while fewer in number are also considerably larger.)

I don't recall reading any of the sort. If you count the WEG carried ships, they are 200 with fighters included. Well, at least that's an improvement.

The ISB gave the complement differently, but the EGV&V evidnetly changed this. I'll post a quote when I find my copy.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-11-11 03:43pm

Vympel wrote:
NRS Guardian wrote:Starship Battles' Preview 4 is up http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=st ... SBPreview4 and it has the upgraded TF Battleship. Something which should give a little hope for the later previews is that they got the stats very close to what was figured looking at the armament diagram for the 3D model.
Read his blog entry about it, which is linked to at the bottom of the page, it's interesting.

One thing, notice the atmospheric speed of the Tri-Fighter is given as 1,050km/h in the RPG stats. I think that's good evidence of all the low atmospheric speeds given for pre-prequel fighters being that low as merely an RPG game mechanic convention for combat, rather than their true performance in atmosphere (since we know the maximum speed of a Tri-Fighter in atmosphere is in actual fact 37,000km/h).

WOTC did the same for the Delta-7 for the revised Core rulebook too. Which is interesting, because many of the other stats seemed to pull directly from the ICS (They got the LAAT/i airspeed accurate, IIRc.)

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-11-11 03:46pm

VT-16 wrote:Judging from my correspondence with Hershey, he can't say anything about details in future articles, so it seems they will make one for each of the models used in the game.

Such is typical for most such endeavours LFL goes on with authors and such, as I understand it.

Ah well. It offers potentially interesting opportunities for discussion or analysis in the interim until the TV series comes out.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2006-11-11 04:15pm

He did link to the new articles when they available in his emails, so he seemed involved in the conversation, though he couldn't say anything either way about new stuff. That was very nice, I thought. 8)

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-11-16 10:19pm

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=st ... SBPreview5

Number 5 is up.

And did the release of these get rolled back? They were originally Nov 268th, but now amazon says Jan 16th

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-11-16 11:16pm

Yeah thats what I got too.

Looking at this one, it seems to be mainly Sarli's work, so I wasn't expecting anything terribly stellar. I notice he left out reference to the Mass Drivers, for example.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-11-16 11:19pm

Eh, nothing new this time. I still wish they would get around to publishing official stats for regular Providence-class ships, since the Invisible Hand is heavily modified.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2006-11-20 01:10am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Yeah thats what I got too.

Looking at this one, it seems to be mainly Sarli's work, so I wasn't expecting anything terribly stellar. I notice he left out reference to the Mass Drivers, for example.

The whole Mass Driver thing got me thinking. The ROTS:VD says there's an Ion Cannon mounted to the Mass Driver. In the ROTS:ICS there are the 12 point-defense Ion Cannons, and they seem to be mounted about where the Mass Drivers are in the film. So I was thinking maybe the Mass Drivers with their mounted Ion Cannons are the point-defence Ion Cannons, with the Mass Driver being the point-defense component what with the probability that it fires flak projectiles. In ROTS you can see the Ion Cannon mounted alongside the Mass Driver firing red bolts btw.

Post by **Vympel** » 2006-11-20 02:31am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Yeah thats what I got too.

Looking at this one, it seems to be mainly Sarli's work, so I wasn't expecting anything terribly stellar. I notice he left out reference to the Mass Drivers, for example.

I don't think he can be faulted for that- the RotS:ICS didn't include them, why should he be expected to? Personally I think he's done well with his Starship Battles stuff, all's told. He was the one that did the Executor/ Super retcon, after all.

Ender · Post by **Ender** » 2006-11-20 07:50am

Connor MacLeod wrote:Yeah thats what I got too.

TUrns out that amazon didn't order enough to match demand, so Jan is when they will be able to meet new orders. They still hit street the 24th.

Connor MacLeod · Post by **Connor MacLeod** » 2006-11-26 07:55pm

Preview Six is out in case anyone noticed.

Nothing overtly interesting here. Except that the Utapau P-38 is considered fairly cheap (meaning its capabilities are probably low end realtive to better craft) and the Techno Union starfighter is normally battle-droid piloted.

NRS Guardian · Post by **NRS Guardian** » 2006-11-26 10:09pm

I noticed it, as you say its not very noteworthy. Although it does mention up top that this is the last preview.

I was wondering what anyone else thought about the possibility of the Mass Driver/Ion Cannon mount, being the point defense ion cannons mentioned in the ROTS:ICS?

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2006-11-26 11:04pm

So ends the Starship Battles previews. Unfortunately, they didn't tackle the ISD or the Home One as we hoped, although we probably shouldn't have expected them to. Still, I have to give it up to Sarli and Hershey. These guys probably did more against EU minimalism in one little game preview than almost anyone not named Saxton.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2006-11-27 04:13am

I liked that part: "For more detail check out the book RotS:ICS".

I think they downplayed the Utaupan-fighter a little bit, but I have to check the ICS again.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2006-11-27 06:22pm

I love the previews and I'm glad they don't destroy the ridiculous farmyard minimalism mentality applied to SW in many RPG rules.

On the other hand, I have doubts about the Starship Battles game itself; the Acclamator outguns the Venator considerably in this game, instead of the other way around! I understand game balance issues (the Acclamator's troop carrying capacity is not represented in a space battle settin, while Venator has a high fighter capacity/launch rate, Fighter Launch 4), but still..

000 · Post by **000** » 2006-11-27 07:24pm

Meh, it's just a game. You can't expect too much accuracy; apparently fighters are seriously overpowered too and can take down heavy capships without too much difficulty.

I'll give the regular game a chance when I get around to playing it before toying with my own rules.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2006-11-28 03:43am

Well with Saga Edition coming out in the 1st Quarter of 2k7, we should see some revisions to ship stats, and SSB rules are going to be included for Fleet-to-Fleet Battles and another Revised Starship Combat System for small hero groups, SSB doesn't give heroes much of a chance at life. A large number of the SWRPG Community are hoping for a Saga Edition Release of Starships of the Galaxies (Even if we don't see revisions this has a system that allows you to build your own ship, so adjustements can be made). Also if anyone was wondering about the Point Defense Weapons for the Executor the guy who does Jedi Couneling worked on it and said he didn't want the mini to be too hugely overpowered, though IIRC he said this would be fixed in Saga.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2006-11-28 04:46am

What's the RRP in the US? I saw it in a store today, and while the Executor miniature is DEFINATELY the 5-mile, 2-bank version with the bridge too far back, it's AU$50. That's pretty cheap if the starter pack has all the rules and shit.

Also, I've never seen a SW game that didn't need the shit tweaked out of it to be true to the source.

Cykeisme · Post by **Cykeisme** » 2006-11-28 04:54am

000 wrote:Meh, it's just a game. You can't expect too much accuracy; apparently fighters are seriously overpowered too and can take down heavy capships without too much difficulty.

Yeah, in that game, fighters (even in small groups or alone) are a considerable threat to capships.
Initially I thought a fighter mini represented a squadron or perhaps even a wing of fighters (which actually makes more sense in a fleet combat game), but the fact that there are fighters that represent main characters (i.e. Anakin Skywalker's Jedi Interceptor) pretty much blows that out of the water.
I know it's a game, but that doesn't automatically mean it must have poor accuracy. The RPG stats for the ships are plenty good. I understand the minis rules are deliberately very simplified, but why can't they still keep the relative strength of the capital ships? The RPG stats for the Acclamator and Venator are fairly good representations of their capability. Even when simplified to a lower resolution of detail, the relative ability can be maintained.. especially since there's a fleet construction point cost to balance the power of any given ship.

I guess you're right, though, when it comes to the people behind the minis games; in the tactical minis game, a lot of the movie characters end up as mooks. And even taking inaccurate portrayal as a given, the designers are crap at assigning squad construction costs appropriate to a mini's ability, too.

Full list of stats at http://www.swshoebox.com/miniFinder.cfm, if anyone's interested.

As a complete aside, I'd like to see a game, set at any scale, (pen and paper, tabletop, computer, anything) with Curtis Saxton on the design team, dammit!

General Schatten is right, the new RPG stats for the Saga edition look like they're going to be good since there'll be Sarli on it, judging by his RPG statblocks in the previews.