Curious about this one and couldn't find anything on it. Can weapon attachments that are added to one weapon be transferred to a new weapon? I would assume that something like a sight or scope would just be clipped or screwed on to a gun, and would not be permanently attached, especially since there is no skill check involved. This would enable a character to simply remove it and attached it to a new weapon when purchased. Obviously there are certain attachments that this would not apply to, such as filed front sight and superior weapon customization, as these imply that they physically alter the weapon.

Also, if it is possible to transfer an attachment, would any modifications made to the attachment transfer as well?

Thoughts?

I'd personally allow most attachments to be freely removed and attached, but for the things that make more permanent changes - Filed Front Sight as you mentioned, as one of them - I might be open to allow it if the player can come up with a plausible enough excuse as to how they are restoring or altering the weapon/gear to allow the hard point(s) to be gotten back. But this usually incurs some sort of mechanics check since doing that is typically far from simple. Another option I give them for certain attachments is that if they can't restore the weapon, to keep the negative effects on the weapon from the attachment, but still giving the hard points back. So if they can't do the mechanics check to fix a modded Shortened Barrel, I'll give the option to re-lengthen the barrel in a very poor manner that removes the Quick Draw mod and reduced difficulty to hide the gun, but still keeps the effective shot range at Short/Adds a Setback if the Range was already Short.

I'd allow modifications to stick to attachments. Modifications as it is can be a pain to add to attachments and they're costly enough as it is, I don't see the need to tell my players that they'd have to start back at square one with an attachment they've been trying to upgrade through numerous sessions.

I don't allow players to transfer attachments, with or without mods. I consider each attachment to be custom-made to the piece of equipment it's attached to, and not compatible with anything else. I'm not doing it because I'm a sadist, but because I want my players to have something more to reach for and to spend money on. And also because I think transfering attachments back and forth between equipment is just too cheesy.

I'd probably allow attachments and their mods to be transferred, but it'd take a Mechanics check.

I consider each attachment to be custom-made to the piece of equipment it's attached to, and not compatible with anything else.

I can't really see this to be true except in the case of rare weapons like bowcasters (mods for which are explicitly "this is custom made for your unique weapon and the cost is actually parts for you to assemble"). For standardized and mass-produced weapons like most blasters and vibroweapons, there's a market for standardized mods like scopes and grips, just like the real world.

Depends on the attachment. A scope or sling I would. A barrel I would not. A balanced hilt I would to the exact same kind of weapon. Some upgraded edge I would not. I'd say use common sense.

Depends on the attachment. A scope or sling I would. A barrel I would not. A balanced hilt I would to the exact same kind of weapon. Some upgraded edge I would not. I'd say use common sense.

This is true, I'd let scope and sling transfer along with bipod and similar attachments. Stuff that's built into the item in question, like an actuator chamber or barrel, I would not.

I don't allow players to transfer attachments, with or without mods. I consider each attachment to be custom-made to the piece of equipment it's attached to, and not compatible with anything else. I'm not doing it because I'm a sadist, but because I want my players to have something more to reach for and to spend money on. And also because I think transfering attachments back and forth between equipment is just too cheesy.

Why would this be cheesy? Real life is not cheesy. The folks on Sons of Guns (Discovery Channel) do this sort of thing all the time. An Average or Hard mechanics check will do it with the right tools.

Any attachment that hasn't been modded at all I might, again depending on what. Not an edge, but some, maybe a barrel if it wasn't modded yet and it was the same kind of weapon. Given an attachment can just be 'attached' by anyone at no skill check, seems ok to me.

Seems to me a fair compromise would be to allow transferring base attachments, but no mods - basically, to get the tweaks necessary for modding, you have to readjust/retune the attachment, and incidentally risk damaging the mod slot if you already had the attachment the way you like it.

Scopes/slings could be moved without dismantling the original weapon. Things like a barrel or an actuator? If you don't have a replacement, then the base item just got scrapped for parts. Major damage per the Sunder rules seems reasonable to me, since a blaster without a barrel or actuator would be nonfunctional. Pricing for replacement parts if the character is trying to keep the original item intact are thus also taken care of - repairing from Major damage to undamaged is 75% of the cost of the item.

On second glance, that cost might be too high. I'd probably actually count the cost of repair as 25% per integral item removed, but still rule the item nonfunctional until repaired.

Depends on the attachment. A scope or sling I would. A barrel I would not. A balanced hilt I would to the exact same kind of weapon. Some upgraded edge I would not. I'd say use common sense.

This is true, I'd let scope and sling transfer along with bipod and similar attachments. Stuff that's built into the item in question, like an actuator chamber or barrel, I would not.

Why not? If you're reading the actuating chamber attachment as "I remove the store-bought actuating chamber and replace it with a better one" why can't you remove that better one again and put it in a different weapon of the same size?

Same with edges. If you have a vibrosword and replace its standard, store-bought blade with one that's monomolecular and serrated, why can't you just remove the blade that you added and put it on another sword? (I can see why you wouldn't allow it to be put on an axe, because it doesn't make sense, but a different model of vibrosword?)

Depends on the attachment. A scope or sling I would. A barrel I would not. A balanced hilt I would to the exact same kind of weapon. Some upgraded edge I would not. I'd say use common sense.

This is true, I'd let scope and sling transfer along with bipod and similar attachments. Stuff that's built into the item in question, like an actuator chamber or barrel, I would not.

Why not? If you're reading the actuating chamber attachment as "I remove the store-bought actuating chamber and replace it with a better one" why can't you remove that better one again and put it in a different weapon of the same size?

Same with edges. If you have a vibrosword and replace its standard, store-bought blade with one that's monomolecular and serrated, why can't you just remove the blade that you added and put it on another sword? (I can see why you wouldn't allow it to be put on an axe, because it doesn't make sense, but a different model of vibrosword?)

Because it would be custom-fitted for the weapon it was on. Sure, if someone was transferring it to exactly the same make and model item then you could argue it would fit. But taking an actuator module from a heavy blaster pistol and sticking it on a hold-out blaster? I don't think so. Same for vibroswords; the size and weight of the blade is specifically matched to the size and weight of the hilt to create a balanced weapon, and they're all different. It would be like trying to take the blade of a katana and sticking it on the hilt of a rapier. In theory you could get a slashing rapier, in practice you'd get an unwieldy lump of metal.

Depends on the attachment. A scope or sling I would. A barrel I would not. A balanced hilt I would to the exact same kind of weapon. Some upgraded edge I would not. I'd say use common sense.

This is true, I'd let scope and sling transfer along with bipod and similar attachments. Stuff that's built into the item in question, like an actuator chamber or barrel, I would not.

Why not? If you're reading the actuating chamber attachment as "I remove the store-bought actuating chamber and replace it with a better one" why can't you remove that better one again and put it in a different weapon of the same size?

Same with edges. If you have a vibrosword and replace its standard, store-bought blade with one that's monomolecular and serrated, why can't you just remove the blade that you added and put it on another sword? (I can see why you wouldn't allow it to be put on an axe, because it doesn't make sense, but a different model of vibrosword?)

Because it would be custom-fitted for the weapon it was on. Sure, if someone was transferring it to exactly the same make and model item then you could argue it would fit. But taking an actuator module from a heavy blaster pistol and sticking it on a hold-out blaster? I don't think so. Same for vibroswords; the size and weight of the blade is specifically matched to the size and weight of the hilt to create a balanced weapon, and they're all different. It would be like trying to take the blade of a katana and sticking it on the hilt of a rapier. In theory you could get a slashing rapier, in practice you'd get an unwieldy lump of metal.

You certainly couldn't 'stick it on'

You could remachine it to fit.

Given the ease of access to desktop CnCs in the current day (2,000$ for a good one), I'm pretty sure it's more than probable anyone taking out actuators and tinkering with them probably has access to whatever the Star Wars equivalent of a CnC is.

Depends on the attachment. A scope or sling I would. A barrel I would not. A balanced hilt I would to the exact same kind of weapon. Some upgraded edge I would not. I'd say use common sense.

This is true, I'd let scope and sling transfer along with bipod and similar attachments. Stuff that's built into the item in question, like an actuator chamber or barrel, I would not.

To be fair, bi-pods and optics are only really quick change because of modern rail systems on firearms. A lot of Star Wars weaponry are based off of WWII weapons and lack rails, making it difficult to swap optics and such.

Yes but the write up and description in the book for attachments is very much as if they are talking about a rail system as there is no check involved for simply installing an attachment.

I think this is a pretty clear-cut case where it's up to the GM, on a case-by-case basis, to adjudicate what makes sense to remove and reuse and what doesn't, along with how much the campaign wants to fuss over the ins and outs of gear management.

The way I see it, attachments do one of 2 things: literally attach something to the weapon, such as a scope, or replace an existing part with a better one, such as a barrel. Given that it requires no check to put on a new barrel, actuator, etc., it should require no check to remove one, as removing the original is part of the process of installing the attachment.

I would however, require that the attachment, in most cases, the exceptions being the literally attached things like scopes, bipods, and slings, be reattached to the exact same type of weapon, i.e. a monomolecular edge on a vibrosword to another vibrosword and not a vibroknife or vibroaxe. It only makes sense. The one attachment I would never allow the be removed and installed on another weapon is superior, as the nature of this is that it modifies the weapon or armor itself.

I wouldn't allow a modded barrel to be removed and plus onto a different weapon. Too much specific weapon smithing to that individual weapon plus it mechanically lets players bypass skill checks on modding.

I probably wouldn't allow it. Some just don't make any sense to be removed, others may have been modified to fit the gun. But more than any of this, I have to think of it in the context of why one would want to do this in the first place. First is upgrading. I think the added cost of modding out your new gun makes an otherwise straight upgrade an interesting choice. Second would be to quickly move your attachments from a damaged gun to a pristine gun when the time, money, or spare parts are unavailable. That just feels cheesy to me. And I definitely wouldn't allow it. I really can't think of any more situations where it would matter.

As Rikoshi noted, it's pretty much up to the GM (which seems to be the way this game handles a lot of nebulous details).

I'd say that the attachment could be removed, but any modifications are lost and the PC has to start from scratch on the new item in terms of adding modifications. If the GM wants to keep this from being abused too often, perhaps require an Average difficultly Mechanics check to remove the attachment without damaging any of the parts. If the PC fails, then they've caused some minor damage and need to repair the attachment; treat as a Minor Repair per Table 5-4 on page 159 of the EotE core rulebook, including the application of a setback die on any rolls involving the base item. If the PC fails with a Despair, then the attachment is destroyed during the removal process. A Triumph on a successful roll might allow the PC to carry over a single existing modification from the original item, or upgrade a future Mechanics check to install a modification.

If I am reading the rule right first you are paying for the part and the extra bits you need to fit it to that particular weapon. I would rule it like this. The person spends 10% of the weapon price for the new parts for the weapon it is being transferred to. Then you would have to make the same check you did to install it into the old weapon (which hopefully there was a note for the number of successes or triumphs) because I would rule on a triumph the part fit so well that it can't be removed again. Then if the person succeeds on this if they make the check to install the part into the new gun. At least that how I would rule it for certain things. The sling and scope issues I would say the sling is just a 10% cost but it would have to be a weapon of the same type of the blaster. The scope I would up the price up to 20% of the weapon because you need to re-sight the weapon and perhaps even install new software to make it compatible with the weapon. This is just my opinion honestly.

Then you would have to make the same check you did to install it into the old weapon (which hopefully there was a note for the number of successes or triumphs) because I would rule on a triumph the part fit so well that it can't be removed again.

(1) Installing an attachment doesn't take a roll. Modding it does.

(2) Who would keep a record of that? Way too much bookkeeping for what I assume is a rare occurrence of upgrading gear in this game.

(3) That is not a Triumph result. Triumph is good for the player, not bad, and this is a bad result. That's more appropriate for a number of Threat. (Despair destroys the attachment or I'd go with that).

1) The books format does not promote that too much as written but it is entirely up to the GM and player honestly. I was just giving my perspective from the ways the rules were written not actual game play. I may have missed where that clarification is made in the text as well. Though it seems clear that mods take up hard points even those that in my opinion that shouldn't such as a filed front sight. Simply my opinion of course.

2) Just triumphs really is all I was thinking but some GMs are a bit more particular than I so I put it as an option.

3) Well I would also rule the triumph would make it impossible to disable the attachment even if the weapon takes damage or there is a crit hit that effects said weapon doesn't effect the mod that you added as it was so well integrated.

The book is very clear, installing an attachment is "a fairly simple process (as they are designed for easy installation) and simply requires a few minutes of uninterrupted work."

I've been thinking about this and I can't seem to come up with a blanket rule. I'll probably just house rule it on a case by case basis if it ever comes up.

There's just a 'rules smell' here- gear attachments and mods should not be so important as to affect balance or take up table time. There's probably an underlying problem at issue here, gear/economics minutia is just disguising it.