Converting: Encumbrance – Customisation Hard Points

Another little preview, and discussion about a house rule for converting Encumbrance to Customisation Hard Points.

While some ships have a lot of customisation hard points (CHPs), like the YT-1300, others don’t. In order to gain more CHPs a good argument could be made for sacrificing encumbrance (Enc) capacity, replacing this with more or larger power supplies and the like. A costly procedure and certainly frowned upon by the Empire and other law enforcement, this route has been used by many Rebel engineers and crafty mechanics to further customise their starships. The amount of cargo space needed to be sacrificed depends on the size and type of starship. Below is a set of suggested conversion guidelines.

Silhouette

Enc per CHP

Cost

3

4

10,000cr

4

25

22,000cr

5

75

35,000cr

6

300

100,000cr

Bear in mind that some starships have very little cargo space for its size, and others have a lot more than what one should expect. Therefore it should also be reasonable to cap conversions at something like 4-5 CHPs acquired through cargo conversion, halving the cargo capacity, or placing a cap equal to the starship’s silhouette, i.e. no silhouette 4 can receive more than 4 CHPs this way, and a silhouette 5 can receive up to 5. Whichever solution fits the individual gaming group best. With no cap in place, the most sought after starship will quickly become the Action VI with its 10,000 encumbrance worth of cargo capacity, as long as dogfighting is not an important factor in the game.

Another issue concerns starships of Silhouette 4 through 6 with very low encumbrance capacity, for whatever reason. By very low one could argue that a silhouette 4 with less than 50 encumbrance capacity, or a Silhouette 5 with less than 150. In these cases perhaps a solution could be for a low-encumbrance capacity Silhouette 5 starship to look at the Silhouette 4 encumbrance to CHP cost, but still paying the Silhouette 5 cost in credits. With the cap in place, a low-encumbrance capacity silhouette 4 can still not really exploit the silhouette 3 conversion rate.

Still, this brings us to the ultimate problem of using absolute values with a more relative and abstract value. Perhaps a percentage of total original encumbrance capacity would be a better solution, rounding fractions up. I present the follow suggestion.

Silhouette

% of Total Enc per CHP

Cost

3

50%

10,000cr

4

10%

22,000cr

5

15%

35,000cr

6

20%

100,000cr

This is of course not a perfect solution and it requires somewhat more math. This method favours Silhouette 4, although even Silhouette 5 gets away easy, at least considering the various starting ship in EotE available to the players. Some easy addition shows that a Silhouette 3 cannot receive more than 2 CHPs this way, but that seems fair considering their size, design and purpose. Silhouette 4s can almost halve their encumbrance capacity, using a cap of 4 converted CHPs, and will still be able to carry some cargo. The Silhouette 5s on the other hand will more than halve their encumbrance capacity, but in most cases that hardly matters considering some of the Silhouette 5 starships’ enormous cargo holds. The Silhouette 6 capital ships stands to loose the most encumbrance capacity. So, again, not a perfect solution, as the Action VI freighter now stands to loose more cargo space per CHP than almost any other starship, silhouette 5 or 6.

Personally I’m probably going to use the absolute numbers version presented in the beginning. If you were going to consider a house-rule like this, what would you do? Make a cost based on total encumbrance cross-referenced with silhouette perhaps? Pick one of the above or present your own in a comment!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s