Jump to content



Photo

Modifications


  • Please log in to reply
37 replies to this topic

#1 Sylrae

Sylrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:14 PM

So, when attempting to install a modification you can fail, and its says you "may not attempt to install that mod again".

 

I searched these forums, and there seems to be two interpretations of that text:

 

1. The attachment can no longer take mods of that type (possibly a really big deal).

2. The mod you purchased is ruined, and you're out 100+credits.

 

I'm curious what the official ruling on this is, if there is one.

 

~Sylrae


Edited by Sylrae, 20 February 2014 - 03:21 PM.


#2 Crimson Death

Crimson Death

    Member

  • Members
  • 326 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:16 PM

It's not ruined, you can't attempt to try that same mod again. It's only ruined on a despair.



#3 Sylrae

Sylrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:28 PM

It's not ruined, you can't attempt to try that same mod again. It's only ruined on a despair.

On a Fail+Despair, you have completely broken the attachment.

 

It says in the book on page 187 that you make a DDD mechanics check, and if you fail you cannot attempt to install that mod again.

 

The question is whether "cannot attempt to install that mod again" means mod is ruined, or means attachment is damaged to the point that you cannot install the mod in this particular attachment.

 

For example:

If I have 10 of the same attachment (assembly line style) and I'm trying to install the same mod in them.

On a failure, do I discard the mod kit and grab another kit for the same mod, or do I take the mod kit in my hand and apply it to the next attachment, and mark down the first one as damaged goods that can still be sold at a lesser price?

 

 And, as a sidenote: Are there any guidelines for the price of buying a pre-modded attachment? So, say you're taking away all the risk of failure and whatnot, and having a mechanic do it for you. Is there a price in the book for that that I'm not seeing, or is that left to GM discretion?


Edited by Sylrae, 20 February 2014 - 03:28 PM.


#4 Dbuntu

Dbuntu

    Member

  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:36 PM

I think it breaks the mod in your hand.

But I read it as you cannot try to install that type of mod again. Otherwise you'd just be making an infinite attempt until you succeed or despair. Though you'd have to be burning cash to make each new try.


  • kaosoe and GMmL like this

#5 Crimson Death

Crimson Death

    Member

  • Members
  • 326 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:37 PM

It's not ruined. You just can't keep rolling dice to try to get it right.

 

Augmented Spin Barrel you can do damage +1 damage +1 Pierce +1

 

If you fail on the first damage +1 you can try to do the other damage +1 and the Pierce +1 but you can't do the first damage +1 over again.


  • Hygric and cvtheoman like this

#6 Lathrop

Lathrop

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:42 PM

It's not ruined. You just can't keep rolling dice to try to get it right.

 

Augmented Spin Barrel you can do damage +1 damage +1 Pierce +1

 

If you fail on the first damage +1 you can try to do the other damage +1 and the Pierce +1 but you can't do the first damage +1 over again.

 

This.



#7 Sylrae

Sylrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 03:55 PM

Is there an errata or FAQ that answers this?

 

Lathrop and Crimson Death seem to think that it means it has damaged the attachment, and you can never attempt to install that mod type on this attachment again (Depending on the attachment and mod in question, this may mean the highly expensive attachment could now be a piece of garbage to the player, as they may have been getting it specifically for the mod they can no longer install).

 

I think it means that you're out the parts and credits you paid for the mod kit, but if you buy another mod kit you can attempt it again, you just might burn through lots of money doing so. I thought the cash you're burning through to make subsequent tries was the penalty.

 

Dbuntu seems to think it's both (which seems way too harsh to me) - if it's both, I would probably only hire NPCs to mod my gear, and shunt the potential costs of failure onto them, and just pay a flat fee up front for the finished product.

 

I can definitely see how the text is ambiguous though. Any one of these readings could be the intended one, and we're all just interpreting it based on what we feel is most reasonable, even though we're reading the same text to mean different things. It's really not clear. 


Edited by Sylrae, 20 February 2014 - 03:56 PM.


#8 Lathrop

Lathrop

    Member

  • Members
  • 323 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:06 PM

It really isn't that ambiguous when it comes to what breaks the attachment.

 

Pg. 187:

"If he fails, the mod is not installed and he may not attempt to install that mod again. If he failed and his check generated at least one [Despair], the attachment is also rendered useless by his tinkering."

 

I could see why some might think you couldn't do any more of a specific type of mod upon failing, but if that were the intent, I'd expect the book to specific state something along those lines, ie. "... he may not attempt to install any more of that mod type again."



#9 Ahrimon

Ahrimon

    Member

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:27 PM

Pretty much what Crimson said.  His example of the Augmented Spin Barrel attachment has 3 mod options.  2 Damage +1 and a Pierce +1

 

That means that you can make a grand total of 3 mod attempts with that attachment:

1. Damage +1

2. Damage +1

3. Peirce +1

 

If you fail an attempt at one of the damage +1 mods then you are left with 2 more attempts:

1. Damage +1

2. Peirce +1

 

Yes, this does mean that if you are purchasing an attachment specifically for one particular mod on it and you fail the mod instalation check then that attachment will not meet the characters needs.  Such is life.  Buy a new attachement and try again.

 

I think this is reinforced by the mod wording "2 damage +1 mods, 1 Pierce +1 mod".  If it was the maximum any attachment could accept and you could keep trying the wording would be more like "Damage +1 x2, Pierce +1 x1".


  • Crimson Death and cvtheoman like this

#10 Sylrae

Sylrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 04:46 PM

@Ahrimon: I dont think that mod wording reinforces anything. I see that as meaning you can have 2 damage+1 mods installed (but can attempt to install them as many times as you're willing to pay for), not that you only have two attempts at damage+1 mods and if both fail then you're stuck.

 

This is apparently a rule people disagree on. I apparently missed a potential interpretation; but we're all reading the same sentence and thinking it means something different:

 

Pg. 187:
"If he fails, the mod is not installed and he may not attempt to install that mod again. If he failed and his check generated at least one [Despair], the attachment is also rendered useless by his tinkering."

 

1. The Mod Kit is ruined, buy another (my interpretation).

2. You can't attempt any more mods of that type, regardless of how many mods of that type the attachment can take (most of us agree its not this)

3. The Attachment is damaged, and you've used up one attempt at modding it, but you can use the parts and try again in another mod slot if there's a mod slot of the appropriate type available. (Lathrop, Ahrimon, Crimson)

4. 3&1 both. (Dbuntu).

 

The disagreement we're having is over what "That Mod" means.

 

Pg. 187:
"If he fails, the mod is not installed and he may not attempt to install that mod again. If he failed and his check generated at least one [Despair], the attachment is also rendered useless by his tinkering."
 
I think it means the parts you bought to upgrade your attachment are now junk. Lathrop,Crimson,Ahrimon think it means one "installation" of a mod of that type in the attachment has been ruined. Dbuntu thinks it means both.
 
I think the interpretations Lathrop,Crimson,Ahrimon, and Dbuntu are making are overly punitive on a failure and involve too much bookkeeping (not only do I need to track the installed attachments/mods of an item, I also have to track which mods have been failed, since they consume a limited number of mod attempts).
 
Anyways. I made the thread hoping to be pointed to an official clarification, instead I just got a few new interpretations of the rule. Disappointed to see that this has not been clarified by FFG. I don't see us convincing eachother on this, we're all reading the same text.
 
If someone knows of a statement by an FFG guy, or if an FFG guy comes along to post in here, fantastic, share the official ruling, but we're not going to convince eachother on this solely by merit of our opinions.

Edited by Sylrae, 20 February 2014 - 04:48 PM.


#11 Ahrimon

Ahrimon

    Member

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 05:58 PM

@Sylrae:  What makes me disagree with you is that there is not "mod kit" to purchase.  When you mod an item you pay 100 credits (+100 credits for every mod already installed) in misc unnamed parts and make the attempt.

 

Don't think of failure as destroying a kit.  Think of failure as you started drilling, cutting, altering etc on the attachment and part of the way through you ruined the parts and where you attempting to install them.  Now that area (modable portion of the attachement) can't be worked on again.  If you're lucky, the attachement can support further modifications with it's other available "slots".

 

Actually, I think slots might be a good way to think about it.  An attachment comes with several mod (upgrade) slots that accept the listed modifications.  Every time you attempt to mod an attachment, you attempt to activate that upgrade slot.  If you fail you loose the money and "ruin" that slot, if you succeed, that slot is activated.

 

I don't think there has been any official clarification on this yet.  And of course we're all free to run our games, or try to convince our GMs, how we please.  This is just how I interpret what I've read.  But, I'm also recognized as our groups Attourney at Raw.  =P


  • cvtheoman likes this

#12 Sylrae

Sylrae

    Member

  • Members
  • 75 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 06:20 PM

@Sylrae:  What makes me disagree with you is that there is not "mod kit" to purchase.  When you mod an item you pay 100 credits (+100 credits for every mod already installed) in misc unnamed parts and make the attempt.

 

Don't think of failure as destroying a kit.  Think of failure as you started drilling, cutting, altering etc on the attachment and part of the way through you ruined the parts and where you attempting to install them.  Now that area (modable portion of the attachement) can't be worked on again.  If you're lucky, the attachement can support further modifications with it's other available "slots".

 

Actually, I think slots might be a good way to think about it.  An attachment comes with several mod (upgrade) slots that accept the listed modifications.  Every time you attempt to mod an attachment, you attempt to activate that upgrade slot.  If you fail you loose the money and "ruin" that slot, if you succeed, that slot is activated.

 

I don't think there has been any official clarification on this yet.  And of course we're all free to run our games, or try to convince our GMs, how we please.  This is just how I interpret what I've read.  But, I'm also recognized as our groups Attourney at Raw.  =P

I am referring to the 100 credits of parts as the kit that is getting rendered unusable. (and the kits get more and more expensive trying to fit in more and more mods, since they have to be smaller, or you have to be picky about which way diodes and whatnot are facing to make them fit, etc).

 

But yeah; You interpret it as ruining a mod slot but not the mod kit (parts to do the mod) and I interpret it the other way around.

 

I'm typically also the group's rules lawyer. "Technically...." In our pathfinder game I pointed out to the Party's Beastmaster ranger that RAW he qualifies for the boon companion feat once per Animal Companion, and therefore he can have multiple animal companions without them all having terrible stats. I helped build the party's Lunar Oracle, and realized that using favored class bonus at each level she can have her animal companion progress at 1.5x level, so her tiger is awesome.

 

So yeah.

 

And in this case I'm not a player, I'm the GM. I saw most of the ways It could be interpreted, and I chose the one that looked most reasonable to me. I don't think the intent is for the players to have to track consumed Mod Slots for all their gear. I was hoping to see an official clarification, or see some examples of gear in adventures with mods to see if there is any mention of failed mod attempts on the items.

 

If you go with the mod slot approach, does each failed attempt also count as a mod used for purposes of pricing? Why or Why Not? (IE: you failed your first mod, now putting in your first mod costs 200 instead of 100)?


Edited by Sylrae, 20 February 2014 - 06:22 PM.


#13 Ahrimon

Ahrimon

    Member

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 20 February 2014 - 06:44 PM

I'm pretty sure that it says 100 additional credits for every installed mod.  So, I'd say that no, it doesn't increase the difficulty or cost.  I see it as once you've installed a mod it's harder to install the next one without affecting the first.  But rather than have rules for damaging existing mods, they just rule that the current one fails.  So if you failed a mod, there isn't one there to interfere with the current one you are working on and you don't need more specialized (more expensive) parts to make it work.

 

My interpretation is less generous than yours, but I don't really see it as a problem since attachments really aren't that expensive.  So if you fail a mod that you really wanted you can just buy a new attachement and try again.  Plus, it feeds into that keeping the party hungry sidebar.  I can just picture a character's primary credits expenditure being parts in his quest to get the best kitted out gear that he can.  It takes trial and effort and he has a sizable collection of half successful attachments lying around.  But there would be a great sense of suspense and dread as he's getting ready to install that last mod.  If he succeeds he's going to be talking about it for a long time.  With your interpretation, he just gets a little more cash and tries again.  Not that there's anything wrong with your interpretation, but mine has more drama.  =)  Admitedly, not everyone likes that kind of drama though so to each group their own.



#14 Dbuntu

Dbuntu

    Member

  • Members
  • 319 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 07:56 AM

 3&1 both. (Dbuntu).

 

 Dbuntu thinks it means both.
 
I think the interpretations Lathrop,Crimson,Ahrimon, and Dbuntu are making are overly punitive on a failure and involve too much bookkeeping (not only do I need to track the installed attachments/mods of an item, I also have to track which mods have been failed, since they consume a limited number of mod attempts).

Just to clear up where I stand:

Based on the two options you presented in the OP, I think the mod in your hand breaks because the text mentions that the attachment breaks on a Despair.

 

However, I disagree with the way you interpreted the text. I think that Ahrimon is exactly right with his description of slots for mods. Whether or not it's too much bookkeeping I suppose is up to you, but I don't think it is. At the very least, I don't see how it's any more bookkeeping.



#15 cvtheoman

cvtheoman

    Member

  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 11:45 AM

I understand why this might be contended, but I believe looking at the grammar presents only one RAW solution.

 

I'm with Ahrimon, and the reason is the wording used in the CRB is consistent.  There is no term "mod kit" in the book to refer to the damaged parts you bought to create the Mod.  The only way Mod is used as a noun in the book is for the options to modify an attachment, and they are listed as such in gear chapter, "# <such-and-such> Mods."  Therefore, the meaning of "may not attempt to install that Mod again" is the only thing they've used that term for, namely, the "option slots" as Ahrimon has called them.

 

House rules, such as only having to spend more money/time to reattempt the install of that Mod, are fine, but I don't believe they would fit RAW.

 

 

One side note: one thing that really comes into play in how you want to run this for your group, is how generous the GM is with credits.  If you're only making 50cr per PC per adventure, that's going to be very different than a group that earning 1000cr per PC per adventure.


Math is such a tool.


#16 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 01:37 PM

One side note: one thing that really comes into play in how you want to run this for your group, is how generous the GM is with credits.  If you're only making 50cr per PC per adventure, that's going to be very different than a group that earning 1000cr per PC per adventure.

You have really had PC's only make 50 Creds for an adventure? Man, I would have a mutiny at my table!

 

Ok, for my 2 cents worth. I guess I would call it a "slot". I'm not sure if Ahrimon means that you have 3 slots, I fail a mod I only have two slots left to do whatever I want with. I kind of agree. To me it's not  the slot per se, but that type of mod can not be re-attempted. This my seem rather harsh, but I look at like this as, you are on the Fringe, you are a mechanic or a gearhead, not an engineer. These are chop shop jury riggings, not a scientific engineering laboratory and testing facility. You are tweaking these attachments well beyond their original specifications, which by the way, voids the warranty. :)

Example: I am a techie trying to mod the Augmented Spin Barrel. I want to do the Weapon Quality (Accurate +1). I fail without a despair. Page 187 "If he fails, however, the mod is not installed, and he may not attempt to install that mod again." So I failed at Weapon Quality (Accurate +1), I can never put that mod on this particular Augmented Spin Barrel. If I fail on the first mod on the Spread Barrel, well, I can not install Blast. 

So now, we have a third take on this rule.  :blink:  This is my interpretation of RAW, of course, house rules trump all.  I also think that the parts from the 100 credits are ruined as well. SO if I had 2 of the same attachment, mess up the first mod roll, I still have to spend another 100 to do the mod on the second attachment. 


Edited by R2builder, 21 February 2014 - 01:43 PM.

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#17 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 02:16 PM


Dbuntu seems to think it's both (which seems way too harsh to me) - if it's both, I would probably only hire NPCs to mod my gear, and shunt the potential costs of failure onto them, and just pay a flat fee up front for the finished product.

What kind of character are you playing Sylrae? If you are a Bodyguard or Merc, I would hire someone out, the books do not cover this right now, so it will all be GM discretion for the cost. I was about to suggest the price conversions thread...  :rolleyes:

 

The CRB does state. p 187 "Modifications represent dedicated mechanics and gearheads ability to tweak and customize their gear." So I don't look at Mods as something every PC can or should be able to do.


Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#18 cvtheoman

cvtheoman

    Member

  • Members
  • 196 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 03:32 PM

 

One side note: one thing that really comes into play in how you want to run this for your group, is how generous the GM is with credits.  If you're only making 50cr per PC per adventure, that's going to be very different than a group that earning 1000cr per PC per adventure.

You have really had PC's only make 50 Creds for an adventure? Man, I would have a mutiny at my table!

 

Ok, for my 2 cents worth. I guess I would call it a "slot". I'm not sure if Ahrimon means that you have 3 slots, I fail a mod I only have two slots left to do whatever I want with. I kind of agree. To me it's not  the slot per se, but that type of mod can not be re-attempted. This my seem rather harsh, but I look at like this as, you are on the Fringe, you are a mechanic or a gearhead, not an engineer. These are chop shop jury riggings, not a scientific engineering laboratory and testing facility. You are tweaking these attachments well beyond their original specifications, which by the way, voids the warranty. :)

Example: I am a techie trying to mod the Augmented Spin Barrel. I want to do the Weapon Quality (Accurate +1). I fail without a despair. Page 187 "If he fails, however, the mod is not installed, and he may not attempt to install that mod again." So I failed at Weapon Quality (Accurate +1), I can never put that mod on this particular Augmented Spin Barrel. If I fail on the first mod on the Spread Barrel, well, I can not install Blast. 

So now, we have a third take on this rule.  :blink:  This is my interpretation of RAW, of course, house rules trump all.  I also think that the parts from the 100 credits are ruined as well. SO if I had 2 of the same attachment, mess up the first mod roll, I still have to spend another 100 to do the mod on the second attachment. 

 

 

On credits: I know some GMs who don't have a good feel for how much to give out, and so there are some who are pretty stingy, and some who are pretty extravagant.  Based on the credit payouts from Debts to Pay (GM kit), Trouble Brewing (CRB), and Enemy of my Enemy (fan-made), I average between 500-1000cr per PC per adventure.

 

 

On the mods: I see what you mean about the type of mod, but I respectfully disagree.  I can see how you could take the CRB to say that, but I think it's how Ahrimon stated: if you mess up the first of 2 damage+1 mods on the barrel, you still have another chance to get the d+1.  Or on the Spread Barrel, you get 2 chances to up the Blast by one; any one you succeed increases Blast, any one you fail, you waste that chance and lose the 100+ creds for supplies that you broke.

 

You bring up a good distinction between this being tinkering and not re-engineering.


Edited by cvtheoman, 21 February 2014 - 03:34 PM.

  • R2builder likes this

Math is such a tool.


#19 R2builder

R2builder

    Member

  • Members
  • 361 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:03 PM

We will have to wait for further clarification from FFG before this gets resolved. I don't think we will ever get a full consensus about this one. I still feel it is not just a "slot" by the wording of "that modification". To me, it means just that. If I go for a +1 damage, fail the check, I can't forgo a different mod type and still apply the +1 damage mod later. I see your point about duplicate mods. I'm not sure on that yet. I kind of see it as I am trying to up the damage and mess it up, I have damaged that area enough not to be able to attempt that same kind of thing. I can see a noob ruining a mod, a gear head or mechanic will be roiling at least 2g, 2y and a boost or two, maybe even 2y, 3g and a couple of boost against 3 purple. With dice pools like that, this discussion should pretty well be moot. :)

I do feel that the penalty for failure should be nothing light, like just loosing 100 credits. If you are not that skilled are tinkering around with these lethal items, then yeah, bad things can happen.

But looking at everything, I don't think it would affect the duplicate type of mod. So let's say I could do a +1 damage, +1 damage, +1 hit, tried and failed to do the +1 hit, I could still try to do the other 2 +1 damages.
Or If I tried to do the +1 damage, failed, I still have one more +1 damage and the +1 hit I could attempt.
And still out the 100 credits for parts that you soldered together. :)
I think that makes the most sense to me and captures the intent of the game designers. That is what I will be going with.
Thanks cvtheoman for helping me see the errors of my ways.

Edited by R2builder, 21 February 2014 - 04:06 PM.

  • cvtheoman likes this

Please check out our group and leave comments at: https://edge-of-the-...dianportal.com/


#20 Ahrimon

Ahrimon

    Member

  • Members
  • 234 posts

Posted 21 February 2014 - 04:55 PM

R2, When I referred to slots, I was referring to specific mods.  So you have attachment X that has the available mods of 2 A and 1 B.

 

So the "slots" are:

A1, A2, and B1

 

You can attempt each one once.  If you attempt A1 and fail you can never do A1 again.  If you attempt B1 and fail you can't try to fit B1 into the slot of A1.

 

Is that how you're reading it?  I'd just like to make sure that we're on the same page before I start buying mods.  :D






© 2013 Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc. Fantasy Flight Games and the FFG logo are ® of Fantasy Flight Publishing, Inc.  All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Contact | User Support | Rules Questions | Help | RSS