Starships of the Galaxy (New)

Megabot · Post by **Megabot** » 2007-12-13 11:14pm

In the final cutscene for the Rebel campaign in X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter: Balance of Power, B-Wings are shown firing warheads from weapon pods mounted directly below the engines, not from the engine block itself.

AirshipFanboy · Post by **AirshipFanboy** » 2007-12-14 12:52am

Game Mechanics Question: does the new "Starships of the Galaxy" book use the same ship design rules as the old book?

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-14 01:07am

Megabot wrote:In the final cutscene for the Rebel campaign in X-Wing vs. Tie Fighter: Balance of Power, B-Wings are shown firing warheads from weapon pods mounted directly below the engines, not from the engine block itself.

Either they're addon pods not seen in ROTJ or that portrait, thus irrelevant, or they're the wing hinges and they're smoking crack game mechanics. I'm not sure how this is helping you. Like I've said a million times, the dumbass EU is even too stupid to just say 'obviously the sixpack on the front isn't an intake in space, it's a rack for six big warheads'. Nah, that makes sense (although somewhat contradicted by ROTJ) and isn't stupid enough. Indeed, the existence of these pods means EVEN THE GAME DESIGNERS REALISED IT (bwing superplane wank lurl) WAS FUCKING STUPID and tried to fix it!

This is a tangent to the usual 'oh wow new SW book full of dumb shit' thread action, but the B-wing thing is just dumb. Don't Let Game Developers Invent Shit. A rule to live by. And don't talk about that damn painting again: Stormtroopers were also 'supposed' to have fucking swords, remember? Only what's in the movie penetrates my shitfilters.

Of course, canon is canon etc and I'm not arguing about that. I just personally think it's utterly retarded, like all the other 'canon' things that were stupid and got changed, and retarded things like the bullshit starship stats we've been stuck with for 20 years. If they weren't so inclusionist, they could just say 'yes some have pods yay great the basic B-wing as seen in ROTJ is not some superheavy bomber for killing capships with giant bombs from the TARDIS'.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-12-14 01:09am

AirshipFanboy wrote:Game Mechanics Question: does the new "Starships of the Galaxy" book use the same ship design rules as the old book?

I went through the book repeatedly, but the stupid book does not explain anything.

It makes the point of the book as a game book a bit superfluous. The only reason why i bought the book is to get the latest info the ships.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-14 01:12am

Are you serious? You bought a book solely for the latest retconned rehash of bullshit stats? That's insane.

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-12-14 01:15am

Stark wrote:Are you serious? You bought a book solely for the latest retconned rehash of bullshit stats? That's insane.

To hell with the stats. They don't make much sense. It's the other descriptive stuff.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-14 01:16am

Phew. I thought there was a market for this '5 turbolaser battery' stuff.

Then again, I read that old WEG droids book... and the fluff was terrible stuff. Whatever floats your boat I guess.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2007-12-14 02:40am

Sounds like someone forgot a '0' in those weapons stats. Among other things.

I also like how they made the Pellaeon-class smaller than the Imperial-class. Thanks for the continuous ISD-wank, WOTC.

FTeik · Post by **FTeik** » 2007-12-14 08:18am

So the ROTS:ICS is wrong.

Instead of "These ships (Imperators and Tectors) will serve for decades ... " it should have been "...will serve for centuries... ."

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-14 09:08am

I am glad I'm not the only one who doesn't like ISD-wank. They're uber ships which are really awesome yet piss all over combined-arms and try to do everything! And no one is smart enough to build a flotilla of dedicated-role vessels that could fuck up equivalent tonnage in ISDs.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-14 11:42am

On the one hand, Lusankya being encased in a big box; Good. Death to that horseshit about Palpatine mind-controlling billions of people to stop them seeing it.

On the other... How the hell can Vengance have the same firepower as the Excecutor class? Mind you, if the Excecutor class is as terrible and inefficient as they seem to think it is, it's not that surprising.

Gullible Jones · Post by **Gullible Jones** » 2007-12-14 11:48am

Could be that SW civilizations don't have what it takes to make capship-killing warheads, so the only sensible way to take out a capship is to throw more capships at it.

(Though in RotJ, doesn't a fighter squadron manage to destroy an SSD, if partly by accident? I recall concentrated fire taking out a shield generator, and a fighter getting hit by PD turrets and crashing into the bridge, causing the SSD to smash into the Death Star. I think it was a shield generator anyway; it's been a while since I've watched RotJ.)

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-14 11:55am

Perhaps we should twiddle our thumbs, ignore the apparent author's intent, and say that Jerec was also at some point master of this Vengance. He did seem to have a habit of naming his ships Vengance after all...

Fingolfin_Noldor · Post by **Fingolfin_Noldor** » 2007-12-14 11:58am

The book introduces Shield Buster/plasma torps for K-wings though. Also, the Acclaimator II carries Heavy Proton Torpedoes for orbital bombardment. Stated there that the Acclaimator II was designed for the purpose of bombarding planets.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2007-12-14 12:13pm

On the other... How the hell can Vengance have the same firepower as the Excecutor class? Mind you, if the Excecutor class is as terrible and inefficient as they seem to think it is, it's not that surprising.

Decreased mass and armor + same armament = Star Battlecruiser. 8)

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2007-12-14 01:27pm

There's no way it could house the Ex's power core.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-14 01:28pm

VT-16 wrote:Decreased mass and armor + same armament = Star Battlecruiser.

The thing is though... It's about half the length, too. And there's no sign of a large power core.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2007-12-14 02:11pm

What's worse is, the command tower is tiny. I've seen animatics where it's the only visible structure above the main body, where the bridge covers a significant proportion. The ventral superstructure also arches upwards, decreasing the mass further. This in turn means the ship is a thin sliver compared to the Executor-class.

Ritterin Sophia · Post by **Ritterin Sophia** » 2007-12-14 02:22pm

Fingolfin_Noldor wrote:
AirshipFanboy wrote:Game Mechanics Question: does the new "Starships of the Galaxy" book use the same ship design rules as the old book?
I went through the book repeatedly, but the stupid book does not explain anything.

It makes the point of the book as a game book a bit superfluous. The only reason why i bought the book is to get the latest info the ships.

Fucking shit cock! The whole reason why SotG was so popular and a new one was so desired by SWRPG players was the design rules. I speak for many Game Masters here when I say, fuck Gary Astleford, Owen K.C. Stephens, and Rodney Thompson.

Darwin · Post by **Darwin** » 2007-12-14 06:08pm

VT-16 wrote:
"A squadron of B-wings responsible for destroying one ISD at the Battle of Endor"
That's what the old McQuarrie concept art showed, so it's not taken out of thin air.
Of course, SOTE shows a Strike cruiser being taken out by Wedge's X-wing only when its shields were focused on protecting its rear, which faced a Rebel fleet, so that's my rationalization for fighters powning capital ships.

Depending on the B-wing's warhead load, a dozen of those things may well be a credible threat to an ISD, especially with capship support. We just don't know enough to discount it.

Stark · Post by **Stark** » 2007-12-14 06:16pm

Watch it buddy, I may explode.

Anyway, I thought Jerec was known to constantly name his ships 'Vengeance', so he may have at one time had an Executor of that name?

Wait, sorry, I'm rationalising poorly researched bullshit again. It's not really worth it.

Jim Raynor · Post by **Jim Raynor** » 2007-12-14 07:41pm

Wow, actually seeing those new stats has reversed my opinion of this book.

You guys are right, using the undefined "battery" instead of actually listing the guns is really fucking lazy. Laziness just seems to permeate this book from the way it's been described here, with Jerec's Vengeance having the "same specifications" as the Executor, the Pellaeons being Nebula clones, etc. And even the number of batteries seems really freaking random. I don't know how those stats can be derived from counting the guns on the actual ISD models, which have been known (thanks to Saxton's SWTC) for years and years.

And I just love how they screwed up the Executor's stats again, after that last WOTC retcon that GrandAdmiralJello posted here did the best official attempt at capturing its true size and power.

Post by **NecronLord** » 2007-12-15 06:14am

Stark wrote:Anyway, I thought Jerec was known to constantly name his ships 'Vengeance', so he may have at one time had an Executor of that name?

Right. He had at least three Vengances.

Post by **Vympel** » 2007-12-15 06:24am

I'm still surprised anyone gives a shit about crappy RPG stats. Fuck em.

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2007-12-15 06:35am

Right. He had at least three Vengances.

Two of which are ISDs.

So I guess from the phrasing, the Vengeance is 19 km long as well?