Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
HappyDaze

Replace? Nah, just bolt it on top of the other one.

Recommended Posts

Looking at the answers Sam has given to clarify hard point usage when using Upgraded Weapons, it makes me wonder why anyone would replace weapons if double/tripke/quadruple mounts are desired.

 

For example, my group wants to mount heavy laser cannons on their E-9 Explorer. They want them in dorsal and ventral turret mounts, and they want double (or maybe triple) cannons in each mount. These could replace the medium laser cannons (which makes aesthetic sense) or be additional turrets. No matter what, these will take up 2 hard points, so why wouldn't I just leave the medium lasers in place too?

 

I have considered replacing the medium lasers with light ion cannons (or concussion missile launchers), using just one weapon to replace each double mount so as to not use additional hard points. This would be in addition to adding the heavy laser turrets.

 

Still, it seems odd that you always get charged hard points for adding weapons with Linked even when replacing weapons with Linked. In general, you're almost always better off just slapping more weapons on rather than replacing existing mounts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is that how it works? If so I must have gotten it wrong. I was under the impression that when you removed an existing weapon system and replaced it with another you didn't have to spend more hard points. And adding an additional barrel (weapon) to an existing one, thereby giving it the linked quality, didn't cost hard points either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 271 under Upgraded Weapons

 

Hard Points Required: 0 if replacing an existing weapon system. 1 if adding new weapon system. Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system.

 

So replacing the Medium with Heavy Laser cannons will cost 0 hard points. If replacing a single Medium Laser Cannon with double Heavy it will cost 1 hard point. It seems that adding a third heavy laser isn't any additional hard points over a double.

 

To have triple heavy and keep the medium will cost the full 2 hard points.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 271 under Upgraded Weapons

 

Hard Points Required: 0 if replacing an existing weapon system. 1 if adding new weapon system. Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system.

 

So replacing the Medium with Heavy Laser cannons will cost 0 hard points. If replacing a single Medium Laser Cannon with double Heavy it will cost 1 hard point. It seems that adding a third heavy laser isn't any additional hard points over a double.

 

To have triple heavy and keep the medium will cost the full 2 hard points.

 

Where did the 2 come from? Far as I can tell, linked "always costs 1 HP", and it being heavy instead of medium doesn't change the cost.

So: replacing medium turrets with heavy turrets: 0 hard points

Replacing medium with linked heavy: 1 HP (From linked always costing 1 HP overriding the 0 HP for replacing)

Tacking on linked heavy over medium turrets: 1 HP (From linked always costing 1 HP overriding the 1 HP for adding a new weapon system)

Edited by Litheon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You've also gotta consider common sense and where this weapon system would go. There are only so many places on a craft you can put a gun turret. 

There are three easy answers to this, and a fourth limited application answer.

 

 

1) Mount a smaller turret on a larger turret as a cupola.

 

2) Mount multiple weapon systems on the same turret. Some AFVs mount guns and missile systems on the same turret.

 

3) Mount some turrets higher than others to allow superfiring (it's on Wikipedia).

 

4) A guided weapon (like concussion missiles) could have dorsal or ventral mounts for vertical launch and fire arcs of All like a Turret despite not technically being a turret. The existing turret would superfire over the launcher by default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Page 271 under Upgraded Weapons

 

Hard Points Required: 0 if replacing an existing weapon system. 1 if adding new weapon system. Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system.

 

So replacing the Medium with Heavy Laser cannons will cost 0 hard points. If replacing a single Medium Laser Cannon with double Heavy it will cost 1 hard point. It seems that adding a third heavy laser isn't any additional hard points over a double.

 

To have triple heavy and keep the medium will cost the full 2 hard points.

 

Where did the 2 come from? Far as I can tell, linked "always costs 1 HP", and it being heavy instead of medium doesn't change the cost.

So: replacing medium turrets with heavy turrets: 0 hard points

Replacing medium with linked heavy: 1 HP (From linked always costing 1 HP overriding the 0 HP for replacing)

Tacking on linked heavy over medium turrets: 1 HP (From linked always costing 1 HP overriding the 1 HP for adding a new weapon system)

The 2 is for when you are not replacing the medium weapon system and adding the double or triple heavy cannons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Page 271 under Upgraded Weapons

 

Hard Points Required: 0 if replacing an existing weapon system. 1 if adding new weapon system. Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system.

 

So replacing the Medium with Heavy Laser cannons will cost 0 hard points. If replacing a single Medium Laser Cannon with double Heavy it will cost 1 hard point. It seems that adding a third heavy laser isn't any additional hard points over a double.

 

To have triple heavy and keep the medium will cost the full 2 hard points.

 

Where did the 2 come from? Far as I can tell, linked "always costs 1 HP", and it being heavy instead of medium doesn't change the cost.

So: replacing medium turrets with heavy turrets: 0 hard points

Replacing medium with linked heavy: 1 HP (From linked always costing 1 HP overriding the 0 HP for replacing)

Tacking on linked heavy over medium turrets: 1 HP (From linked always costing 1 HP overriding the 1 HP for adding a new weapon system)

The 2 is for when you are not replacing the medium weapon system and adding the double or triple heavy cannons.

 

By the RAW, replacing a double medium laser cannon with a double light blaster cannon still costs 1 Hard Point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In thinking about it, do we see any evidence in the EU of vertical launch missiles/torpedoes? For that matter, do we see any turret-mounted missiles/torpedoes? Examples on non-capital ships are best, but anything is a start.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In thinking about it, do we see any evidence in the EU of vertical launch missiles/torpedoes? For that matter, do we see any turret-mounted missiles/torpedoes? Examples on non-capital ships are best, but anything is a start.

Its been a long time, but in the thrawn trilogy, heir if I recall correct, didn't r2 program an x-wings torpedo to make a 180 upon launch so it would knock out the tractor beam the x-wing was caught in?

Not exactly what you are referring to, but it proves the capability is there...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missiles with anything beyond the most primitive of guidance systems would be theoretically capable of locking on to a target 180 degrees from the launcher's business end.

 

The real trick is getting the guidance system to register the target. if the ships sensors only lock on to targets in the forward position then you are going to be unable to fire.

 

R2 probably had to bypass the normal targeting system and possibly feed target data from his own sensors(which could see behind them) Otherwise it wouldn't have been all that notable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Missiles with anything beyond the most primitive of guidance systems would be theoretically capable of locking on to a target 180 degrees from the launcher's business end.

 

The real trick is getting the guidance system to register the target. if the ships sensors only lock on to targets in the forward position then you are going to be unable to fire.

 

R2 probably had to bypass the normal targeting system and possibly feed target data from his own sensors(which could see behind them) Otherwise it wouldn't have been all that notable.

Ship sensors generally appear to be omnidirectional unless active scanning is used, so I don't think that's a likely limit.

 

Still, the GM in me is looking at every ship we have published so far, and I haven't seen any launchers mounted in turrets or with firing arcs other than Forward or, occasionally Aft. Based on this, I'm really thinking of just saying "no" to vertical launch systems and turret-based launchers as they don't really fit the WWII-in-space feel.

 

I do realize the missile pack from Dangerous Covenants has a Mod that changes it to Firing Arc All. Since this can apparently be used with any of the ammo types - including unguided rockets - this must be more turret-like rather than a vertical launch system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vertical launch is just putting the launch tube on the top of the vessel. You wouldn't be able to put a turret over it but the the RAW does not include fire arc dorsal/ventral. I'm imagining that you are thinking of something along lines of the dorsal launches on a sub?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Obviously the generators in Star Wars generate a ton of power, way in excess of whatever a ship could mount. You'd run out of places to put things to power before you actually ran out of power.

 

There are actually ships that have problems generating enough power for everything they mount, but they're called out explicitly in the description.  And that's usually a case where they are somehow mounting a weapon that would otherwise be too large for their Silhouette.

 

I don't remember off the top of my head which ships I have seen where this is the case, but I do recall seeing it ... somewhere.

 

 

That said, this wouldn't be a general problem that most ships would have to worry about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ultimately, it should be the GM's call on how to interpret the rules and allow/disallow attachments based on any sort of reasoning (power considerations, space issues, etc). If you wanna get real-world technical, just because you have enough power in a GENERATOR doesn't mean that your INFRASTRUCTURE can handle the power flow.

But even so, real-world examples as arguments don't fly in my games. Star Wars operates on Star Wars physics.

But if it's fun for the GM and players to pack a freighter full of gun mounts, then do it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That a GM call though, not a hard mechanic. Remember, mechanically you can mount 500 linked laser cannons on a yt, no problem (aside from credits, and your wasting of them).

 

Uh, wouldn't you have a hard time finding that many Hard Points on a YT-1300?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That a GM call though, not a hard mechanic. Remember, mechanically you can mount 500 linked laser cannons on a yt, no problem (aside from credits, and your wasting of them).

 

Uh, wouldn't you have a hard time finding that many Hard Points on a YT-1300?

 

It's 1 hard point max to add in any single weapon system. Therefore, a Laser Cannon (Linked 500) is 1 hard point. Yes, this is ridiculous.

It costs (Weapon Cost)*(1 + X/2) to make a linked X weapon. So 251 times the Creds, which at Medium Laser Cannon cost is 1.8 Million Credits. But hey, you'd have a linked 500 quality weapon! Totally good use of resources, since you'd need, what, 1000 advantage to active them all?

(At 6 Dice + 3 Boost, the max you should be getting is 17 advantage, so "only" make your linked weapons up to 8. 8D)

Edited by Litheon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might if you are trying to mount a dozen turbo-lasers on a YT-1300 that you'd have a problem. Like losing all shields for a round after you fire the Turbo-lasers.

 

Reminds me of the new long range turbolasers in LOTF. They take so much energy that an Impstar II with 4 batteries of them can't fire them and keep its shields up at the same time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It might if you are trying to mount a dozen turbo-lasers on a YT-1300 that you'd have a problem. Like losing all shields for a round after you fire the Turbo-lasers.

Reminds me of the new long range turbolasers in LOTF. They take so much energy that an Impstar II with 4 batteries of them can't fire them and keep its shields up at the same time.

This is the kind of drawback that is perfectly reasonable to throw into the mix when dealing with overpowered and non-standard systems. "Yeah, you can do that, but it's gonna cost you..." Edited by awayputurwpn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

It might if you are trying to mount a dozen turbo-lasers on a YT-1300 that you'd have a problem. Like losing all shields for a round after you fire the Turbo-lasers.

Reminds me of the new long range turbolasers in LOTF. They take so much energy that an Impstar II with 4 batteries of them can't fire them and keep its shields up at the same time.

This is the kind of drawback that is perfectly reasonable to throw into the mix when dealing with overpowered and non-standard systems. "Yeah, you can do that, but it's gonna cost you..."

 

We see this with the oversized weapon mount from Dangerous Covenants. The effect being to lower the vessel's system strain threshold.

 

I honestly wish that most of the other attachments that push already existing systems also adversely hit the SST. We see it in the high-output ion turbine, but I wish it was there in the hyperdrive generator, the reinforced shield generator, and the advanced targeting computer. All of these should make the ship's systems a bit less resilient IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...