Bit of a noob question, apologies if someone else already asked and had this answered(But I couldn't find it):

If I add the mod "Serrated Edge" to a stock Vibroknife, does the normal Vibroknife "Vicious 1" become upgraded to "Vicious 2"? As in the same "Vicious 2" that a Lightsaber has?

Yes and yes.

can you also add a monomolecular edge with is well or will i have to take the talent from bh gadgeteer?

I think they only have one hard point? Unless I am mistaken. The Gadgeteer can add a HP though.

can you also add a monomolecular edge with is well or will i have to take the talent from bh gadgeteer?

You can if you have an available Hard Point.

A Vibro Knife has 2 HPs. You could add both.

The answer depends on if your GM allows two different edge attachments. It's not too much different from allowing two barrel attachments, two sights, two under-barrel attachments, etc. The simplest ruling is that only one attachment that applies to any named part of the weapon (like the 'edge') can be applied.

I use common sense. A serrated knife can be really sharp.

IMO, nothing wrong with a serrated monomolecular edge. It's not like one takes up too much room for the other...you just serrate the edge once you've applied the monomolecular attachment.

The guidance in the book is about common sense. The barrel attachment example is an example of common sense and needing to have room for attachments, not a literal 'only one barrel attachment' or one of something else rule. I get that, a bipod and an under barrel grenade launcher would not play well together. That makes sense. A serrated edge could be very sharp like I said.

I wouldn't allow both the monomolecular edge and the serrated edge together.

A serrated edge has numerous sharp teeth that allow it to be used like a saw. These teeth are thicker at their base than they are at their tip, because each tooth requires a certain amount of strength to keep from breaking. A monomolecular edge, however, is an edge only one molecule wide. Making it serrated would simply increase the chance that the blade would dull quickly, as the teeth would begin to break off, for lack of tensile strength.

If, we were talking about metallurgy the way we understand it. We aren't though. Anything engineered to maintain a sharp fighting capable surface one molecule thick isn't going to have issues with a serrated edge. It would have to be absurdly strong stuff to keep from shattering when you struck anything.

The answer depends on if your GM allows two different edge attachments. It's not too much different from allowing two barrel attachments, two sights, two under-barrel attachments, etc. The simplest ruling is that only one attachment that applies to any named part of the weapon (like the 'edge') can be applied.

Multiple sights is not a problem. You can have a telescopic multioptic sight. It means you bought a more expensive sight.

The answer depends on if your GM allows two different edge attachments. It's not too much different from allowing two barrel attachments, two sights, two under-barrel attachments, etc. The simplest ruling is that only one attachment that applies to any named part of the weapon (like the 'edge') can be applied.

Multiple sights is not a problem. You can have a telescopic multioptic sight. It means you bought a more expensive sight.

Such a sight should cost more than the sum of its parts and probably take up less hard points than the sum of its parts. Of course, even allowing such a thing sets a precedent that you could have a barrel that mixes the spin barrel and the marksman barrel, and then even more dubious combinations start to rear their head.

This is why I say that the simple solution is to not allow multiple attachments to the same part.

Ta everyone.

The answer depends on if your GM allows two different edge attachments. It's not too much different from allowing two barrel attachments, two sights, two under-barrel attachments, etc. The simplest ruling is that only one attachment that applies to any named part of the weapon (like the 'edge') can be applied.

Multiple sights is not a problem. You can have a telescopic multioptic sight. It means you bought a more expensive sight.

Such a sight should cost more than the sum of its parts and probably take up less hard points than the sum of its parts. Of course, even allowing such a thing sets a precedent that you could have a barrel that mixes the spin barrel and the marksman barrel, and then even more dubious combinations start to rear their head.

This is why I say that the simple solution is to not allow multiple attachments to the same part.

Why do you say that? That is not the case today. Why would it be in Star Wars. For example I can get a red dot sight for my rifle and attach it to my rifle. I can also get a telescopic magnifier and attach it and now have a telescopic red dot optic. I can also add a night-vision scope in front of the red dot and have a telescopic night vision red dot. if we can manage that today i see no reason why they couldn't in star wars.

I do agree some atachments should not be able to be used together. Like a marksman barrel and a spread barrel. They are counter to each other. On the other hand I see no reason why one could not have an augmented spin marksman barrel.

I see your point, but I'm with HappyDaze. Partly because I prefer as little faffing around as possible (for some, of course, this level of crunch is zero bother). Mainly it's because I like my choices to matter and "one type of X" goes a way to enforce that.

Do I want to Crit more often or have my Crits be more nasty? (Serrated vs. Mono)

Do I want to mess a guy up real bad or mess up any guy on the field pretty bad? (Marksman vs. Spin)

There was another thread had a fair bit to say about it.

Way to gamify something that does not need to be gamified. there are already plenty of those choices simply by the fact that there are limited HPs to work with.

The answer depends on if your GM allows two different edge attachments. It's not too much different from allowing two barrel attachments, two sights, two under-barrel attachments, etc. The simplest ruling is that only one attachment that applies to any named part of the weapon (like the 'edge') can be applied.

Multiple sights is not a problem. You can have a telescopic multioptic sight. It means you bought a more expensive sight.

Such a sight should cost more than the sum of its parts and probably take up less hard points than the sum of its parts. Of course, even allowing such a thing sets a precedent that you could have a barrel that mixes the spin barrel and the marksman barrel, and then even more dubious combinations start to rear their head.

This is why I say that the simple solution is to not allow multiple attachments to the same part.

See now while I would allow a multi use sight, it would cost more and it would use it more real estate on the weapon in the form of more HPs. I wouldn't allow more than one barrel. There aren't two barrels only one on a weapon. Easy peezy common sense I think.

If a GM wants to create a multi-use sight that does different things, that's fine. Adjust the cost, adjust the hard points necessary, and offer it to the players. That doesn't break the rule of one upgrade or attachment of each type, because it becomes a single upgrade. And if a GM wants to rule that a specialist can upgrade a player's knife with a monomolecular, serrated edge, well... i'm not going to stop him, because it's not my game. But the mere idea of it seems a bit overdone, gaming the system to create a weapon more powerful than the vibroknife was meant to be.

That said, adjust the cost to greater than the cost of both individual upgrades, adjust the hard points required, and call it good. It's your game, no matter what we internet folks have to say. Run it your way.

No need to adjust the cost. You will already be buying each individually and using multiple hard points. IE costs more and uses more hard points.

As to the barrels Why not? If it was a problem they would have called out it as not allowed. I just would not allow barrels that do opposite things to be put on. IE Spread and marksmanship.

Ok I am the new guy so take it with a grain of salt. I would allow for multiple upgrades as long as they did not contradict each other. On one of my real rifles, I could put a longer barrel that would help increase its long range accuracy and performance, so it would be a marksman upgrade in game terms. If I opted to have the barrel customized when I ordered it, I could have a different rifling profile which would change the bullets spin, again another marksmanship upgrade. So game wise and real life two different mods that would together to make a weapon system better.

A monomolecular, serrated edge virbo knife? Seems like overkill. As a GM I would make them say there was something special about it, like a gift from a parent, trophy from a slain enemy or so forth to justify doing that. But a lot of blades, some of mine included, have a partially serrated edge, so if I want a quicker cut I have a serrated edge for that. I see no reason why they couldn't have both and say that only part of the blade was serrated.

Way to gamify something that does not need to be gamified. there are already plenty of those choices simply by the fact that there are limited HPs to work with.

Ouch. Just trying to put into words something that doesn't feel right.

The other thread I linked to had some good arguments on both sides.

Personally, I've found that in more outlandish settings (like Star Wars) powerful builds have a more negative effect on a game than realism issues. Mono+serrated is pretty nasty, right? I guess everyone'll want one, soon enough...