Ok I know that adding a new weapon to a ship costs one CP, and replacing an existing weapon with a new one costs zero CP, unless linked weapons are involved. But what about changing the firing arcs of a weapon? For example changing a weapon that fires into the port arc into one tt fires into the port, and aft arcs, or port, aft, and forward arcs. I looked through the section of the core rulebook concerning adding weapons to a ship and didn't see an answer, sorry if I missed something.

I have no idea....but I still hope that I was helpful to you.

You mean like going from a 'fixed' forward arc mounted, to a turret with fire arc all?

It would be a simple "ok, you changed it from forward to aft" but if you're trying to increase the amount of arcs...itd be up a GM call...and if you could physically imagine it....I couldn't imagine it on, for example, a tie fighter/x-wing.

I'd say this is a common sense GM call.

Honestly, for most ships that are PC run, fire arcs aren't going to play a huge role, since we're talking mostly Silhouette 3 and 4 ships, and given the narrative nature of combat with ships of those size, firing arcs aren't a massive consideration. I hardly think it's game-breaking for a PC (or PC group) to spend money to replace a forward-mounted weapon with a turret-mounted weapon for a net 0 HP.

That being said, for a snubfighter like an X-Wing, I can't see a turret-mounted weapon really making sense. But again, I don't think an X-Wing needs to have one, given its size in a narrative context.

The actual idea was to change a capship's port and starboard Lasers so they could cover the aft arc in addition to the side arcs, and possibly the forward arc as well.

And maybe doing the same with the ship's default two arc turbolasers so they could cover a third arc, basically everything except the arc opposite the emplacement.

I was bored and skimming through some of my books while waiting for my group to show up this afternoon and the idea came t mind..

I'm of a similar line of thought with Rikoshi.

For Silhouette 4 and bigger ships, there shouldn't be much of an issue with changing a weapon from having a fixed firing direction to a turret. At most, I'd have it cost a 1000 credits (for necessary parts) and require an Average (2 Purple) Mechanics check if changing a stock weapon to a turret. Adding a new weapon I'd say that the decision to give it a fixed firing arc or a turret mount is made when installed and has no extra costs.

For Silhouette 3 ships however (which mostly covers starfighters), I'd say that in most instances it wouldn't be possible. Rikoshi gave a great example of the X-Wing's wingtip laser cannons, but there's also the TIE Interceptor's similar set-up, or even just the baseline TIE's twin chin-mounted laser cannons. Turning those into a turret-mounted weapon is going to require extensive and radical modification to the ship's base design, almost to the point that you're creating an entirely new ship. In that case, only if adding a brand new weapon (i.e. one that you're paying a Hard Point to install) would the option be there to have it be turret-based.

I could see a possibility of maybe adding a low-profile turret to the top or bottom of a ship like an X-Wing, adding a gunner spot to the ship's complement. Visualizing it in my head, it works.

Using some of the missile packs in Dangerous Covenants, it seems that changing firing arc to All is a possible Modification option for weapons/hardpoints.

I could see a possibility of maybe adding a low-profile turret to the top or bottom of a ship like an X-Wing, adding a gunner spot to the ship's complement. Visualizing it in my head, it works.

Well, where are you going to stick the gunner? The X-wing cockpit isn't exactly what one would call "roomy" to begin with. Although you could set it up to let the Astromech operate said weapon, but then you run into the "can't deliberately harm an organic" restriction that most non-PC droids tend to carry.

Ok I know that adding a new weapon to a ship costs one CP, and replacing an existing weapon with a new one costs zero CP, unless linked weapons are involved.

In case you missed it A set of linked weapons (no matter how many acutal weapons its composed of) only take up 1 HP in this system.

Ok I know that adding a new weapon to a ship costs one CP, and replacing an existing weapon with a new one costs zero CP, unless linked weapons are involved.

In case you missed it A set of linked weapons (no matter how many acutal weapons its composed of) only take up 1 HP in this system.

Yeah, but RAW is that replacing a linked weapon (like linked light lasers) with a linked weapon (like linked medium lasers) still uses a hard point. I think it's a bad rule, and I ignore it.

Ok I know that adding a new weapon to a ship costs one CP, and replacing an existing weapon with a new one costs zero CP, unless linked weapons are involved.

In case you missed it A set of linked weapons (no matter how many acutal weapons its composed of) only take up 1 HP in this system.

Yeah, but RAW is that replacing a linked weapon (like linked light lasers) with a linked weapon (like linked medium lasers) still uses a hard point. I think it's a bad rule, and I ignore it.

yea I never understood that RAW rule with linked weapons. 20 lasers take up as much room as 1?

yea I never understood that RAW rule with linked weapons. 20 lasers take up as much room as 1?

There's also no rule that says a vibro-ax is limited to only a single blade. Top that thing with twenty ax-blades! The only thing stopping you is common sense or a GM with common sense.

Yeah honestly Neither I nor our GM like the link rules much. If someone is replacing one twin linked weapon with another why should it cost an extra hardpoint, which it does according to how we both read the core rulebook.

Ok I know that adding a new weapon to a ship costs one CP, and replacing an existing weapon with a new one costs zero CP, unless linked weapons are involved.

In case you missed it A set of linked weapons (no matter how many acutal weapons its composed of) only take up 1 HP in this system.

Yeah, but RAW is that replacing a linked weapon (like linked light lasers) with a linked weapon (like linked medium lasers) still uses a hard point. I think it's a bad rule, and I ignore it.

It's really oddly worded, but I think your ignoring it is actually correct. It looks like they use the word "cost" with a definition of "worth" so it's saying even if you're replacing your single laser cannon with a 500 cannon "Idiots Array" it doesn't take up 499 additional HP, it takes up one and requires 0.

I agree would have been better worded had they written "linked weapon system have a HP value of 1 no matter how many individual weapons the system is composed of."

Oh well, maybe an errata or AoR final will have it more clearly

Ok I know that adding a new weapon to a ship costs one CP, and replacing an existing weapon with a new one costs zero CP, unless linked weapons are involved.

In case you missed it A set of linked weapons (no matter how many acutal weapons its composed of) only take up 1 HP in this system.

Yeah, but RAW is that replacing a linked weapon (like linked light lasers) with a linked weapon (like linked medium lasers) still uses a hard point. I think it's a bad rule, and I ignore it.

yea I never understood that RAW rule with linked weapons. 20 lasers take up as much room as 1?

Forget about "room" and think about it solely from the perspective of rolling dice and it makes sense.

In EotE linking a weapon doesn't give a passive bonus like it does in other systems, it just adds an activate-able quality to an existing weapon. 20 linked laser cannons are all good and well, but without the ability to also roll 1 success and 38 advantage it's a waste of credits.

Compare this to how this interacts with HP and you see how it related to modifications.

Look at something like an X-Wing, a fairly powerful craft in it's stock form, equipped with 4 linked cannons, 2 linked Torpedo Launchers, but only 1 open HP (or whatever they finalize it to). With each weapon system taking up a single HP, that means stripping the weapons will leave you with only 2 additional HP for a total of 3. You can play with that a bit, but trying to make the fighter something ridiculous is pretty much out of the question.

On the other hand if you make each individual gun barrel count towards an HP, stripping the X-Wing of all it's weapons leaves you with a wopping 7 total HP. That's a LOT of HP to work with and allows you to really turn the fighter into something insane.

That's it. If the idea that the HP system is purely a game mechanic, and doesn't represent any kind of physical characteristic of the craft in question bothers you, don't use it.

But be prepared for a player to realize he can exploit that for his advantage too... "My X-wing now has a Quad laser, an Ion Cannon, a torpedo launcher, is speed 6, has the shields of a b-wing, and a targeting array!"

I don't mind the idea of linked weapons taking up an extra hard point when you are adding weapons to the linkage, say replacing a single turbolaser cannon with a twin turbolaser, or replacing a twin ion cannon with a quad laser cannon. What I don't get is why replacing a twin laser cannon with a twin ion cannon should cost an extra hard point. (All of the above just being examples of course)

I don't mind the idea of linked weapons taking up an extra hard point when you are adding weapons to the linkage, say replacing a single turbolaser cannon with a twin turbolaser, or replacing a twin ion cannon with a quad laser cannon. What I don't get is why replacing a twin laser cannon with a twin ion cannon should cost an extra hard point. (All of the above just being examples of course)

It's weird word choice...

The issue is that the "number of HP you must spend to mount an attachment" uses the word required.

The "number of HP a weapons system of 2 or more linked weapons takes up when being mounted" uses the word cost.

So it's hard to tell if it's trying to say:

"A weapon system of 2 or more linked weapons takes up only 1 HP even if you are replacing a weapons system composed of only a single weapon. The system as a whole counts for 1 HP, not each weapon within the system." (this is what I think it means, FFG just misusing the word cost to denote the system's total HP value of 1)

or

"A weapon system of 2 or more linked weapons takes up 1 HP, unless it's replacing an existing weapon system in which case it takes up 2." (which doesn't make sense because every time you replace a weapon with a linked one you mysteriously lose an HP that you can never seem to get back).