P-47's Fix-It Shop

Homebrew & House Rules
#41

Remember that Sniper Shot and attachments to increase range do exist, so it won’t be permanently limited to Short range.

The changes between this and the carbine are -1 damage, -1 range, -3 Inaccurate, +50cr.

I think you should drop Accurate, but other than that it’s fine.

I’m still going to stick to my version: Ranged (Heavy); Damage 7; Crit 3; Short; Enc 1; 2 HP; Auto-Fire, Inaccurate 1, Stun setting.
“When this weapon is used in its Auto-fire mode, the GM may spend 2 Threat to cause the weapon to run out of ammo or a Despair to cause the weapon to overheat, running out of ammo and dealing 3 Strain to the wielder.”

You make a good argument on the 1 Enc being “pistol” territory, but I’m sticking with it for the reasons I’ve explained.

Are you adding any effect to your version?

And yes, I think we’ve both gotten something really good out of this. It was a lot of fun cooperating with you on this!

1 Like
#42

Sniper shot takes a maneuver and upgrades difficulty, and I’d rule hunter and marksman barrels as incompatible with carbines, so I’m not seeing much possibility in turning it to a useful sniper weapon anytime soon. That said, I might drop Accurate anyway. It’s a fun little synergy, but it might be a bit too powerful.

No, I prefer to avoid special qualities unless it’s really needed. It keeps things simpler.

#43

I wasn’t so much concerned about making it a “sniper weapon” but about the justification for Accurate being the weapon’s confinement to Short range.

That’s fair, and I generally agree with you. In my case, I added it as a balancer and to narratively address something in the Wookieepedia article about the weapon being prone to overheating in its auto-fire mode.

Oh, one more question: Do you think both statblocks fit the 950cr price point?

#44

Haven’t put that much thought in it. Stuff IRL might be objectively worse and still more expensive for any number of reasons.

For balance, I’d say the price point is about right, or close enough for it not to matter. Players tend to want what they want and probably wont sweat a couple hundred credits more or less.

1 Like
#45

Next item on the list: personal anti-armor weapons!

Another point of friction between the personal and planetary scale rules is how near-impossible it is for hand-held anti-armor to make any meaningful damage against even fairly lightly armored vehicles.

The main infantry anti-armor weapons are missile tubes, rps rocket launchers and flechette launchers with anti-vehicle damage. These all clock in at (damage+breach) 3 points of vehicle damage and crit 2, meaning that they can quite reliably put crits on armor 3 vehicles, and cause minor hull trauma to vehicles and ships with less armor than that. I guess that’s good enough.
The AT-AT’s armor 5 no-selling stuff like that is also fine.

The thing is, armor 4 is nigh impenetrable (needs 8-10 successes and 2 advantages just to crit), and against anything else, if you don’t score a crit, it will be more of nuisance than anything else, as it will cause just 1-2 points of hull trauma.

Sure, there are more beefy armaments like high explosive missiles and shaped thermal detonators that pump damage + breach up to around 4, but that’s about of enough to reliably take out speeder bikes.

Ie, if you’re in a vehicle, handheld weapons just aren’t very dangerous, even if they penetrate.

I’ve been toying with the idea of boosting the breach rating of the missile launchers, as it wouldn’t make them more powerful against personal scale targets (who very rarely have soak of more than 10) anyway, but that would just mean that speeder bikes still have decent shot at surviving.
Successes adding planetary scale damage against vehicles is another idea, but might be too much.

Anyone have any other good ideas on how to fix this?

#46

In my games as GM, I settled on a “soft” approach to dealing with these kinds of weapons, making it more about target selection and “component destruction” or weak-point targeting than about straight damage.

Things with low armor and HTT can be fairly easily dealt with by moderately heavy weapons or even lighter weapons that can beat the armor (e.g., a blaster rifle vs. an armor 1 speeder), but if you’re going against an AT-TE or something of that nature, it takes a more specialized approach.

For one thing, larger vehicles will be of much less “universal durability.” While some may have extremely heavy armor in certain areas, others will remain vulnerable. For the AT-TE, this would be the articulated segment between hulls. In these situations, I simply change the armor and would usually require a “Called Shot” Aim Maneuver. I might, instead of reducing armor, name an “automatic” or “minimum” crit that would be generated if a crit is triggered.

I sometimes abstract this with an appropriate Knowledge (usually Warfare) check, but just as often make it an RP thing.

The larger the vehicle, the more distinct and individually targetable its components are. While it would be quite difficult to target the steering vanes of a speeder bike, you could target the leg of an AT-AT with much less difficulty (though a rocket launcher’s efficacy there is questionable to say the least).

As far as adapting or creating personal anti-vehicle weapons, I once toyed with the idea of a missile launcher that dealt planetary scale damage, but was inaccurate against smaller targets and took more time to aim. I eventually removed it from my sheet because I decided it was no longer needed and was not to my standards of quality. If I were to stat it now, I would do so thusly:
Gunnery; 3 (Planetary); 2; Close; 8 Enc; 2 HP; Limited Ammo 1, Breach 2, Guided 2, Prepare 2, Targeting Silhouette 3.
“When attacking a target of silhouette 1, gains the Inaccurate 2 quality.”

This gives it a degree of anti-air support as well as just anti-vehicle, because air units will only infrequently be measured within personal scale.

1 Like
#47

Sure, and if you want a more cinematic “missile hits, vehicle goes kablooey” you can always fall back on the “minion vehicles die from crits”-guideline.
For the most part the soft approach works, particularly since attacks that don’t pierce armor can still have some effect through advantages. The problem is that it’s a bit arbitrary and works a lot better with PCs on foot vs npcs in vehicles than the other way around.

If the PCs trundle along in an AT-TE (armor 4), enemy minion cease to be a threat even if they brought what is supposed to be dedicated anti- armor weapons. Sure, they could “aim for weak spots”, but I that would feel arbitrary and unfair for players without a bit more structure to it to act as forewarning.

PCs: “We should be fine, we have enough armor to soak everything they throw at us.”
GM: “They passed a knowledge warfare check so they’re aiming for your weak spots though…”
PCs: “We have weak spots?”

Of course, to some extent this can be solved with good communication and trust between players and GM, but the more of a structure you have, the easier it is to communicate to players what to expect and plan for.
Not sure how to do it but maybe a list of suggestions for spending advantages, threats, etc when fighting vehicles might be a good way to codify a soft approach. I’ll see if I can scrounge up the time for putting something together.

I like the idea of automatic crits in some cases very much at it adresses the “randomness” of some crit-dependent weapons.

Yeah, I did something like that too, working off the “mini” concussion missiles from dangerous covenants, reasoning that if they’re small enough to put a bunch of them on a speeder bike, they should be somewhat man portable, but that lead me to thinking that maybe all missle launchers should be planetary scale weapons, and then I started to think about semi portable cannon emplacements, such as a light blaster cannon on a repulsorlift mount, kind of like the smaller anti-tank guns of WW2 and then things suddenly got big and complicated…

I’m quite vulnerable to scope creep. :sweat:

#48

This would be something to discuss up-front in a vehicle-based campaign. In the case of an AT-TE-centric campaign, I would tell the players ahead of time that getting flanked by anti-armor equipped infantry is dangerous, and that if they overextend and get past their infantry screen, their weak-points will be exposed.

They would know all their own weak-points and would have that necessary tactical knowledge. They may also learn what standard Separatist anti-tank infantry tactics are, perhaps with Knowledge (Warfare) checks thrown into the mix, and would be able to predict and counter the attacks using that knowledge.

They would have to use their guns and infantry support to avoid getting flanked, and in an emergency could disembark additional troops (if carried) to attack the enemies. It also breaks up the monotony of constant vehicle combat by throwing in a more unconventional encounter they can’t defeat with the same rote actions, and supports officer-type PCs by giving an infantry screen to command and control.

Yeah… xD
There’s a reason the game is pretty strict about personal weapons are all personal scale…
As for anti-tank guns, those would fall under the rubric of blaster cannons and there’s an example of one in FiB (the Atgar 1.4 FD P-Tower).

Closest alternative comparisons I can think of are the panzerfaust/bazooka and recoilless rifles, but those tend to be much lighter in damage, and anti-tank rifles are essentially just single-shot heavy machine guns/heavy repeating blasters in terms of efficacy and damage. Mmmm… fifty cals…

#49

Oh, no i didn’t mean anti-tank rifles, more like the smaller anti-tank cannons, something like the german Pak 36/38/40. A crew served gun on a some sort of carriage/repulsorsled.
The Atgar 1.4 was pretty much exactly what I had in mind, but the gun in FiB is confusingly enough not a P-tower. It’s a 1.8 anti-infantry turret, which I presume is something more akin to the DF.9. Stats-wise is closer to a heavy repeating blaster than anything else.

Anti-tank rifles are well represented by stuff like the proton rifle and the like.

More? You’ve already had eight!

1 Like
#50

Right, right, I was covering both (hence “alternative comparisons”). I think the 1.4 was actually in Lead by Example. FiB had two anti-infantry guns, LbE had the anti-tank gun.

Rule number one of fifty cals: You can never have too many.

1 Like
#51

I’ve had the book for years and I’ve managed to completely miss that one up until now. Wow. I’d be ashamed if I wasn’t so impressed with myself. :sweat_smile:

YT-2400BT Saga Edition Stats
#52

Hey P-47! Any chance you could create a stat block for the (YT-2400BT)? Perhaps in saga edition format if you were familiar with it. Thankyou very much regardless.

#53

I am not familiar with Saga Edition, nor with the YT-2400BT.
It seems that the YT-2400BT only appeared in a background role during the Battle of Exegol?

Are you aware of any particular differences between the YT-2400BT and the YT-2400 that would necessitate different stats?

#54

To me the BT version is pretty much the same the regular YT-2400 with the rear cockpit spar removed and replaced with an outrigger on the port side with a cannon mounted there. I’d call it even and just use the regular YT-2400 stats with an extra weapon of similar size as it’s stock guns. If you want it to be more of gunship, I’d increase shielding and maybe armor.

It was a while since I dabbled with Saga, but as far as I can recall, it does have some kind of system for customising ships using something like hardpoints. Emplacement points? I distinctly remember Corellian ships having lots of them, so that should cover any modification without homebrewing much. Consider it a standardized mod more than a brand new model.

1 Like
#55

That’s actually a good point I can’t really find much info on it at all haha. I’m mainly just looking for a freighter at the moment to transport water/ice that won’t really break the bank. Was thinking maybe a YU-410 may do the trick. But not sure how that would fair harvesting off an asteroid or something of the like. Any advice would be greatly appreciated as usual. Thankyou.

#56

Those are some great points Thankyou pen!

#57

What you need is something with a cargo bay that can be pressurized or depressurized, and ideally some sort of mining equipment (or attachments for mining equipment).

That immediately makes me think of the Wayfarer-Class Medium Freighter, which is starting-group-legal at 120,000cr and carries a modular cargo bay that can be de/pressurized separately from the actual “ship.”

There are a few mining vehicles, but they’re all terrestrial and you’d have to homebrew an attachment to make them spaceworthy.

“Musts” for a mining-equipped Wayfarer would be, in my opinion, at least one tractor beam and a couple cannons, or tools specifically built for mining (which would require homebrew, or borrowing from ground vehicles). A missile launcher is not necessary, but would be nice to have.

The weapons would break off chunks, and the tractor beam would then guide them into the ship’s depressurized cargo bay.

#58

Dude you’re frickin brilliant. I didn’t even factor in half of that. Why the pressurization p47?

#59

So you can just have the cargo bay exposed to space. Easier to pull in a giant chunk of ice if there’s no gravity or pressure change, and it lets you float between bay and space without the need for an airlock (you’d need a pressurized spacesuit anyway). It’s also automatically the temperature of space, so you don’t have to worry about your newly-harvested chunks of ice dissolving before you’ve put them in storage.
Being separated from the rest of the ship allows you to open up the cargo bay without compromising the actual spaceship, as would be the case in something like the YT-2400.

Plus, spacewalks are fun. Even if you argue that you could just open up the front and use a magnetic shield to hold in the atmosphere like the hangar bays of a Venator, that isn’t as interesting mechanically.

#60

You’re the man. That is genius lol. Thankyou so much for your time as usual.