New Star Wars Mod thread

There's supposed to be an archive at www.swshoebox.com, but the site was down last couple of times I checked. WOtC's official site has done a set of prequels of ships that gave their roleplaying game and SBminis stats, and the Invisible Hand, the Recusant, the Munificent and the Venator were all in there.
 
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/
This link has some of the ships. Look at the expanded universe section for each ship for more detailed info.
 
Majeh said:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/
This link has some of the ships. Look at the expanded universe section for each ship for more detailed info.

Thanks. It appears to not have much specific data though such as number of weapons, firing arcs, etc
 
Slightly Norse John said:
There's supposed to be an archive at www.swshoebox.com, but the site was down last couple of times I checked. WOtC's official site has done a set of prequels of ships that gave their roleplaying game and SBminis stats, and the Invisible Hand, the Recusant, the Munificent and the Venator were all in there.

I saw the previews they posted. Rumour has it that there is a sourcebook in the works that will have the stats as well

Mind you Matt could make this all easier for us :-)
 
pixelgeek said:
Majeh said:
http://www.starwars.com/databank/starship/
This link has some of the ships. Look at the expanded universe section for each ship for more detailed info.

Thanks. It appears to not have much specific data though such as number of weapons, firing arcs, etc
If you look there is plenty of info on number of weapons:
Imperial Class Star destroyer:
60 Turbolaser batteries, 60 Ion Cannons, 10 tractor beam projectors, Full stormtrooper division, 20 At-Ats, 30 AT-STs, 8 lambda class shuttles, 12 landing barges, and six tie squadrons.
Also:
http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-star-wars-capital-ships
Has alot of information as well.
 
msprange said:
We already have an unofficial 32 page 'supplement' knocking around the office that basically mods CTA to Star Wars.

That's some harsh teasing go on there, Mr Sprange.

Renny
 
Renny said:
That's some harsh teasing go on there, Mr Sprange.

Renny

Wondering exactly what to do with it :)

Could use some playtesting, I would like players to try it out - but there are certain copyright issues, coming from a publishing house :)
 
I can see the problem. As someone mentioned earlier on in the thread, using Star Wars would be a great way to get people in to the ACTA rules.

I'm sure you'll think of some suitably cunning way to get those rules out there. :D

Regards

Renny
 
Majeh, the problem with that is, if you look at the actual model used in the films, where are they?

Imperator-I has three medium triple turrets on the centreline forward of the superstructure, and four large twin turrets on each side of the superstructure. The after of each heavy turret line is supposed to be an ion cannon, and light turbolasers and point defence cannon are spaced mainly along the brim trench, along with possibly two quad mediums each side.
Imperator-II deletes the triples and replaces the heavy twin turrets with eight octuple medium-heavy turbolaser turrets, and reduces the trench armament to light and PD weapons.

The 60/60 line is descended from West End Games, and they don't seem to have actually looked at the model when statting the things up. This is the Star Wars equivalent of B5's Lasers-on-the-Primus, Centauri Ion Cannon grumble, except it's been running for twice as long.

Similarly, there's an unsolved problem about the troop complement; specifically, there may be room on board, but unless they flatpack, how do you get an AT-AT landing barge to fit through what we see as hangar doors?

There is one reason to put up with WEG's stats; how they scale, or not, to the real world. Basically, the system allowed heroes, etc, to take combined actions, pooling their effort, and get bonuses for it. It was possible to do this with weapon damage, as well, in fact it was necessary with a 20- gun battery. This is how wings of starfighters were supposed to hurt capital ships. Let the big ships play by the same rules, and you find an Imperator-II's forward guns throwing the equivalent of 5D Death Star scale. That's a mass extinction on an Earthlike planet, a hard kill on something the size of Luna, Mercury or Titan. Somehow I think they might have got the scaling wrong a bit there.
 
Majeh said:
If you look there is plenty of info on number of weapons

It didn't seem to have a lot of specific info for the Separatist and Republican ships that I looked at though.

I'll check out the other link you psoted

Thanks
 
This is exactly the same position with the Star Wars Evolution rules. Thay can't be seen to come from Mongoose or WOTC may get upset, even if to play with the rules you have to use their miniatures.

A potential solution is setting up a Mongoose mods yahoo group, and people put their Mongoose games system mods there.
ACTA - Star Wars/Trek/BSG etc
BF:Evo - Star Wars, historical, possibly even converting certain well known games systems.
 
I'll host a website from any B5 ACTA Mods. I have my currect site.
http://www.pcsii.com/josborn/b5 (which is going away)

I have started a new site
http://www.happinessismandatory.com/
and I happy to host any file for B5 ACTA. If any one wants to send me a copy PM me and I will send you my E-mail address and post the file as soon as possible.

BTW Matt if you PM ask for an address I will delete all E-mails so no one will (hint hint, wink wink)

Thanks,
Jon
 
I suggested it to see if Matt would say yes first. Setting up groups might be a little peremptory.

It depends if Matt believes WOTC would take action or whether they will see it not as Mongoose infringing on their intellectual property, but Matt in his "Man about Town" persona posting some stuff for common enjoyment.

It will hinge on what Matt thinks.
 
CraftyShafty said:
[Too bad the moderator has delusions of grandeur and insists people state a 'reason' for joining the group. :roll:

Its to stop spam bots from automatically joining the group.

Its pretty standard and the "reason for joining the group" question is a default question that I don't think I can remove at all.

Its pretty standard now and I'm really surprised that you even think its an issue. Not sure how you could take something like this personally but you appear to have done so.
 
Back
Top