| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 8:26 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Whill wrote: | | Riot Blaster Pistol |
| Quote: | Heavy Blaster Carbine
Heavy Blaster Rifle |
This one is actually combined with how I view Blaster Rifles and Blaster Carbines. I picture the standard Blaster Rifle a lot like:
The Rifle has a much longer barrel than the Carbine (the rifle pictured here is actually a bit too long for my tastes, but it's what we see in the films). The standard E11 Stormtrooper Blaster Rifle from the Classic Trilogy would actually be the modern Blaster Carbine, better suited to indoor, close range combat than the Blaster Rifle.
I picture the Heavy Blaster Rifle and Carbine being very similar to the standard rifle and carbine. On close examination, the barrels would be larger, the firing aperture wider, etc. For example, this is an AR-10:
It's hard to tell apart from the AR-15 (the civilian variant of the military's M16), but while the AR-15 fires .223/5.56mm, the AR-10 fires the more powerful .308/7.62mm.
An AR-10 requires a larger diameter barrel and a wider, longer chamber then the AR-15 to accommodate the larger, longer bullet. I picture the same to be true of the difference between the Standard and Heavy Blaster Rifle / Carbine. The way I envision blasters functioning, blaster gas is used a reactant in the blaster's firing chamber, converting into a linear plasma discharge on firing. Want a more powerful blast? Increase the amount of blaster gas used per shot (which of course necessitates a larger firing chamber and bigger diameter barrel).
The in-universe result is that the Heavy and Standard Blaster Rifle & Carbine are visually almost identical, but the Heavy's consume twice the blaster gas per shot fired (hence the 50% reduction in ammo capacity). A professional can tell the difference on close examination, but the being-on-the-street wouldn't have a clue.
| Quote: | | Marksman Blaster Rifle |
Having trouble getting the image to show in the message.
| Quote: | | Destroyer Blaster Rifle |
Same problem.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10300
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is very helpful. It seems evident that the E-11s (sniper variant) is an in-universe example of your Marksman Blaster Rifle class stats, and the DLT-20A is an in-universe example of your Destroyer Blaster Rifle class stats.
So is your Riot Blaster Pistol just your stats for the modified DH-17? Or do you consider this to still be a manufactured class of blaster, and the DH-17 is just one blaster that has a Riot variation?
So does this blaster system reclassify the standard E-11 as a carbine? Is the retractable stock a defining difference between carbine and rifle? Did WEG and the EU get the carbine and rifle differentiation wrong and this system corrects that?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | So is your Riot Blaster Pistol just your stats for the modified DH-17? Or do you consider this to still be a manufactured class of blaster, and the DH-17 is just one blaster that has a Riot variation? |
It's more like I was describing the Riot Blaster Pistol (a standard pistol with an enlarged barrel and larger power pack), then stumbled across exactly that (the DH-17) while doing an image search for something else. Since we already have Luke's DL-18 as the standard blaster pistol, it seemed retroactively simpler to just relabel this gun (in my universe) as a riot blaster pistol. IIRC, the only time we see them in the SWU is the detention block guards on the Death Star, and Riot Blaster Pistols would not be inappropriate in the event of a sudden riot or escape attempt in close quarters.
| Quote: | | So does this blaster system reclassify the standard E-11 as a carbine? Is the retractable stock a defining difference between carbine and rifle? Did WEG and the EU get the carbine and rifle differentiation wrong and this system corrects that? |
It does. The distinction between the two is more extreme in my version than is normally encountered in the real world. For example, here is a size comparison of the M16A2 Battle Rifle and its little brother, the M4 Carbine:
Naaman will be able to give you more detail on this, but the difference between the M16 and M4 isn't so extreme as to readily justify two different stats. My version of the Blaster Carbine is more equivalent to what is known as a SBR or Short-Barreled Rifle; the barrel on that is even shorter than the carbine.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10300
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In addition to being used by the Death Star detention block guards, the DH-17s were also used by the Rebels on the Tantive IV. Of course using auto-fire pistols against a numerically superior armored enemy force is also very appropriate! The Wookieepedia Legends article on the DH-17 says it's "used primarily for shipboard combat", and a new canon sourcebook describes the DH-17 as a "close-combat" blaster. Both statements support the weapon having a shorter range than the RAW blaster pistol, so this does seem like a good fit for your Riot Blaster Pistol.
But the scope doesn't seem right for a shorter range weapon so I can see why your stats block doesn't have that - That may be something specific to the DH-17 that not all Riot Blaster Pistols necessarily have. I thought Han's Heavy Blaster Pistol having a scope was silly but then I read that is was a night-vision modification and not just a general magnifying scope.
Your SW carbines are short enough they can be fired with only one hand without penalty (with the stock retracted). So in your SWU, is the retractable stock just a typical or standard feature of carbines? Or are they absolutely on all carbines?
_________________
*
Site Map
Forum Guidelines
Registration/Log-In Help
The Rancor Pit Library
Star Wars D6 Damage |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | | But the scope doesn't seem right for a shorter range weapon so I can see why your stats block doesn't have that - That may be something specific to the DH-17 that not all Riot Blaster Pistols necessarily have. I thought Han's Heavy Blaster Pistol having a scope was silly but then I read that is was a night-vision modification and not just a general magnifying scope. |
I've never understood the reasoning behind putting such big bulky scopes on blasters in the SWU, and I've never been able to come up with a satisfactory reason for them. The closest I've gotten is a vague concept of the pistol scopes being narrow angle holo-projectors that project cross-hairs and targeting information in the air in front of the Blaster, but the focus is so narrow that only the gunner can see it.
| Quote: | | Your SW carbines are short enough they can be fired with only one hand without penalty (with the stock retracted). So in your SWU, is the retractable stock just a typical or standard feature of carbines? Or are they absolutely on all carbines? |
For the purposes of this rule, I think they have to be. I made them that way to justify statting them as weapons that could be used in close range and long range combat. The folding stock justifies giving it the same Point Blank bonus as a pistol, and taking that away just turns it into a Blaster rifle, just with less range.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CRMcNeill
Director of Engineering
Joined: 05 Apr 2010
Posts: 16178
Location: Redding System, California Sector, on the I-5 Hyperspace Route.
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 10:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
I've drawn a much starker line between carbines and rifles than is found in the real world for a variety of reasons. For the carbine, in addition to being more effective in close quarters while still retaining most of the advantages of the rifle, it is also intended to be used as a primary weapon for soldiers who have other duties. This includes medics, combat engineers, command staff and heavy weapons crews, among others. With the stock folded, the carbine can be placed out of the way in a belt holster (as seen in ANH) while still being quickly accessible when needed.
Another distinction (again, different from the real world) is that the carbine's barrel is too short to mount an under-barrel weapon, such as a grenade launcher (although I have other ideas in the works for additional under-barrel weapons, like the DEMP gun from the ImpSB). The list of potential under- weapons for an over-under combo blaster rifle is pretty extensive, but it is on my list of things to do.
The end result is a distillation of all the real-world variations on a theme of carbine vs. rifle into the two polar opposites, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages.
_________________
"No set of rules can cover every situation. It's expected that you will make up new rules to suit the needs of your game." - The Star Wars Roleplaying Game, 2R&E, pg. 69, WEG, 1996.
The CRMcNeill Stat/Rule Index
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Whill
Dark Lord of the Jedi (Owner/Admin)
Joined: 14 Apr 2008
Posts: 10300
Location: Columbus, Ohio, USA, Earth, The Solar System, The Milky Way Galaxy
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 18, 2016 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: | The polarization serves a good purpose for the game. Thanks for everything.
Does auto-fire include stun? Or is that normal damage only? I guess I should also ask, do all of the weapons even have a stun setting (aside from the two stun-only weapons obviously)? |
It's probably not canon accurate, but in my game, blasters have a piece of equipment called a 'stun adapter' that you can buy separately and attach to a blaster. This lets you toggle it on and off.
The only way I could reconcile something as useful as a stun setting...only use once on-screen. (That and I house-ruled some fairly sizeable limitations on stun...but that belongs in another thread I'd guess.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MrNexx
Rear Admiral
Joined: 25 Mar 2016
Posts: 2248
Location: San Antonio
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: | | Whill wrote: | The polarization serves a good purpose for the game. Thanks for everything.
Does auto-fire include stun? Or is that normal damage only? I guess I should also ask, do all of the weapons even have a stun setting (aside from the two stun-only weapons obviously)? |
It's probably not canon accurate, but in my game, blasters have a piece of equipment called a 'stun adapter' that you can buy separately and attach to a blaster. This lets you toggle it on and off.
The only way I could reconcile something as useful as a stun setting...only use once on-screen. (That and I house-ruled some fairly sizeable limitations on stun...but that belongs in another thread I'd guess.) |
I'm trying to think of other situations in the OT where stun would've been a desirable setting.
_________________
"I've Seen Your Daily Routine. You Are Not Busy!"
“We're going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”
http://rpgcrank.blogspot.com/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dredwulf60
Line Captain
Joined: 07 Jan 2016
Posts: 910
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MrNexx wrote: | | I'm trying to think of other situations in the OT where stun would've been a desirable setting. |
I'd say pretty much every time the baddies are shooting at the heroes. Don't they usually want them alive for information? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CRMcNeill wrote: | I've drawn a much starker line between carbines and rifles than is found in the real world for a variety of reasons. For the carbine, in addition to being more effective in close quarters while still retaining most of the advantages of the rifle, it is also intended to be used as a primary weapon for soldiers who have other duties. This includes medics, combat engineers, command staff and heavy weapons crews, among others. With the stock folded, the carbine can be placed out of the way in a belt holster (as seen in ANH) while still being quickly accessible when needed.
Another distinction (again, different from the real world) is that the carbine's barrel is too short to mount an under-barrel weapon, such as a grenade launcher (although I have other ideas in the works for additional under-barrel weapons, like the DEMP gun from the ImpSB). The list of potential under- weapons for an over-under combo blaster rifle is pretty extensive, but it is on my list of things to do.
The end result is a distillation of all the real-world variations on a theme of carbine vs. rifle into the two polar opposites, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. |
I also tend to live by this philosophy. Realism is worthy of pursuit until it interferes with my system. I totally agree with this. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 3:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dredwulf60 wrote: |
It's probably not canon accurate, but in my game, blasters have a piece of equipment called a 'stun adapter' that you can buy separately and attach to a blaster. This lets you toggle it on and off.
The only way I could reconcile something as useful as a stun setting...only use once on-screen. (That and I house-ruled some fairly sizeable limitations on stun...but that belongs in another thread I'd guess.) |
This is a cool idea. A stun adapter. I like it. As I mentioned above, with my remark about realism, the same applies to "authenticity" as well. My SWU trumps canon 100% of the time for the sake of making the game better. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whill wrote: |
But the scope doesn't seem right for a shorter range weapon so I can see why your stats block doesn't have that - That may be something specific to the DH-17 that not all Riot Blaster Pistols necessarily have. I thought Han's Heavy Blaster Pistol having a scope was silly but then I read that is was a night-vision modification and not just a general magnifying scope.
Your SW carbines are short enough they can be fired with only one hand without penalty (with the stock retracted). So in your SWU, is the retractable stock just a typical or standard feature of carbines? Or are they absolutely on all carbines? |
Some pistols do have scopes/optics on them, but they are generally very specialized weapons. Certain heavy caliber (magnum) revolvers will have optics on them for hunting, while some competitive shooters who compete in the "open" class will install optics such as reflex sights or even holographic/reticle sights to improve the sight picture.
Such implements are great in their domain, but in battle, they create more problems than they solve (on pistols)... not the least of which is adding bulk/weight.
Regarding the carbine, IMHO, if it has a solid/full stock, it might as well have the full length (20" plus) barrel. The shorter barrel gives up that last bit of reach, and shaving off a mere 4" of space savings doesn't justify it, IMHO. So a purpose built carbine should have a folding or at least adjustable stock. I prefer adjustable, even though its minimum length is longer than a folding stock... Firing a rifle caliber weapon without a stock is a desperate move--much more so doing it in one hand. However, in CRM's case, he can just hand wave the recoil and balance issues and call it light enough that it doesn't mimic real world counterparts (in reality, even shooting a pistol one-handed has its problems--the person's stability/shakiness is always magnified when using only one hand... a "long gun"--even an SBR--would not really work in one hand, except as a last resort).
Last edited by Naaman on Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JironGhrad
Lieutenant Commander
Joined: 20 Jan 2016
Posts: 152
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Having read through all 7 pages again and after thinking about it some, maybe it would make more sense to eliminate "carbine" as a category in Star Wars. I say that because as I've looked at the changes and whatnot, aside from minor range differences carbine as a category really just complicates the system unnecessarily.
The origin of the traditional carbine has always (until the advent of "modern" SBRs) been a reduction in length, weight AND caliber (damage). As CRM pointed out, the functional differences between an AR-15/M-16 and an M-4 are pretty negligible, and so I'm thinking maybe that all three types of rifles could be merged into a single rifle category and that specific features could be added as modifiers instead.
A functional real world of example of that is the Sig 556xi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Naaman
Vice Admiral
Joined: 29 Jul 2011
Posts: 3191
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2016 5:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I tend to disagree here. I think that adding model-specific differences would add a level of complexity that he is trying to avoid. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
