Smart Missile House Rules

[CRMcNeill]

Just in case it becomes an issue...

Warhead Damage Chart
0-3 = Controls Ionized (-1D to all systems for 1 round. Note that, because the guidance system is separate from the Fire Control and Maneuvering systems, each suffers the -1D penalty separately, resulting in a cumulative -2D penalty to all actions)
4-8 = Lightly Damaged (Roll 1D)

1-3 = -1D from Fire Control
4-6 = -1D from Maneuverability

9-12 = Heavily Damaged (Roll 1D)

1-3 = -2D from Fire Control
4-6 = -2D from Maneuverability

13-15 = Severely Damaged (Roll 1D)

1-3 = -3D from Fire Control
4-6 = -3D from Maneuverability

16+ = Destroyed.

For ion cannon, use standard ionization damage chart.
_________________
"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

[CRMcNeill]

Aft Arc Defense Array
In response to the threat of smart warheads, several armament companies have introduced multi-role defense pods designed to protect starfighters from attacks in their aft arcs, primarily from missiles, but also from other starfighters. The most common variation is a customizable modular system that can be tailored to fit the specific needs of the customer, with 2 modules for basic systems up to 8 modules for deluxe systems.

MODULE TYPES
Blaster Cannon
Fire Arc: Rear
Skill: Starship Gunnery
Fire Control: 3D
Space Range*: 1-5/10/17
Atmosphere Range*: 100m-500m / 1km / 1.7km
Damage: 3D
Note: When multiple Blaster Cannon modules are selected, they are fire-linked specifically to increase accuracy as opposed to damage, so that any fire-linking bonuses will be applied to Fire Control.
*The cannon is sufficiently short ranged that it almost never gets more than one intercept attempt at an incoming warhead.

Fire Control Jammer
Fire Arc: Rear
Effect: -2D to Fire Control for any attacks from the starfighter's rear arc. Additional modules increase the penalty by 1D per module

Decoy Launcher
Capsule: Decoys are little more than a quick burning ion flare that creates temporary disruption of sensor systems, particularly the guidance systems of homing and guided ordnance.
Effect: Increases Lock-On and To Hit Difficulty for Homing and Guided Ordnance by +5 per decoy launched.
Duration: 1 round
Ammo: 1 launcher contains 10 decoys. Multiple launchers can be purchased if the customer wishes.
_________________
"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

[CRMcNeill]

So, jmanski posted a question earlier and I'd like to get some input on it. SW space ordnance doesn't appear to give anything more than lip service to what distinguishes one form of ordnance from another, so concussion missiles, proton torpedoes, seismic charges and such all seem to just do whatever the film makers wanted them to do. In the RPG EU, however, that sort of "just shrug and go with it" attitude isn't really enough for most people. As such, I'd like to see a discussion on it. I have my own ideas, but I'd like to hear yours, too.

-What is the difference between concussion and proton warheads? I'm less interested in the descriptive physics of how the different warheads do what they do than I am in what practical effects the two differing types have on possible game rules.

-What is the difference between missiles, torpedoes and rockets? Is it possible for a proton warhead to be mounted on a missile or a rocket instead of a torpedo (or to have a concussion torpedo), depending on the circumstances? What would be the optimum circumstances for the different applications?

Those are the two main questions on my mind, but if you have others that I've missed, I'd love to throw them into the mix as well...
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

IMO the payload is what the diff is.. CMs imo use some form of C4 like explosive, where PTs most likely use baridium or something similar to make a small nuke explosion.
_________________
Confucious sayeth, don't wash cat while drunk!

[CRMcNeill]

C4 sounds awfully low tech for a sci-fi universe to me. Ever since I saw seismic charges in AOTC, I've felt that conc missiles use gravity as the transmissive medium to deliver damage. It certainly opens up options for their use in space.

And again, I'm less interested in the what of it than I am in how it translates into game rules.
_________________
"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

[The Brain]

[atgxtg]

I'd love to differentiate between warhead types, but we'd have to work out just what does what.

For instance are concussion missiles designed to cause a concussion? That is are they specifically designed to do brain damage, or is that just some sort of slag term that's been universally accepted based on the effects, like the term "room broom"?

Are proton torpedoes really based on protons, and should they be treated as energy weapons?


It's an interesting can of worms.

[CRMcNeill]

My personal opinion, after seeing the Seismic Charges in AOTC, is that concussion warheads deliver kinetic energy via some form of transmissible medium that functions even in a vacuum. Whether that medium is gravity or some variation on tractor beams or strong nuclear force, I don't know. As far as proton torpedoes, they could, indeed, be enlarged versions of thermal detonators. Speaking for myself, I converted fragmentation grenades to proton grenades long ago, simply because we have fragmentation grenades in use today (and they have been around for decades), and proton grenades sound much more Star-Wars-ish to me. That doesn't stop them from being small thermal detonators, however.
_________________
"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

[garhkal]

[CRMcNeill]

[jmanski]

I personally see proton torpedoes as guided bombs and concussion missiles as air to ground missiles. Jango Fett fired a missile at Obi Wan in AOTC, and that to me is a homing missile of some sort (but not a concussion missile). I don't think WEG had enough resources to differentiate, and only the TIE Fighter and X-Wing series of games would have given them anything else to work from.

I think if you want homing missiles, make some purpose-built homing missiles instead of bending the rules to make concussion missiles work.

YMMV.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[CRMcNeill]

Given a choice, I would drop proton torpedoes and concussion missiles entirely in favor of homing missiles or guided missiles and such. However, in the interests of maintaining a link to Star Wars, I've done my best to incorporate the names and try to come up with plausible explanations for their use.
_________________
"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

[jmanski]

Keep what they've got and add a homing missile. Matter of fact, you could just change the fire control and damage of a concussion missile to suit; there could be many varieties out there.
_________________
Blasted rules. Why can't they just be perfect?

[CRMcNeill]

[garhkal]