My players current have the Kryat Fang, which I adjusted to have an Ion Turret in place of one of its laser turrets.

He wants to find someone to take the Ion cannons and move them to the forward mounts on the ship, my original thought was: "These are turret weapons, they may not be compatible with the mounts" and he immediatly went on the defensive... simply becuase he doesnt want to pay for original weapons.

I did suggest he part exchange them for another turret (he wanted to change the turret to lasers anyway), but he seemed adamant that what he wanted to do was possible, even to the point of cutting me (the GM) off mid sentence.

I know it seems like a silly thing, but would you allow this? Simply removing the cannons from the turret mount, and mounting them elsewhere?

Additionally, how would weapons mounted that cover the fore arc, affect space combat? The Arc of weapons seems to have little effect given the way the system works.

Cheers

RD

Space combat in EotE is extremely abstract. I've been taking some measures in my games to alleviate some of that, but it still remains a strange thing....

WHY is it so important to him to have forward mounted weapons? Fire Arc All is far superior. There's no difference in damage output, range, crit, nothing, so why is it such a big deal?

I would side with you. Turret mounted weapons are very likely designed differently than single arc mounted weapons.

If he wants to throw a temper-tantrum over it, remind him that GM has final say in all things and that if he has an issue with that, he is free to start his own campaign, away from your table.

Tell him that what he wants to do is possible, "and here's the difficulty of the Mechanics check."

OR just charge a realistic price for him to 1) find an NPC that's willing and able to modify the ship and 2) engage that NPC in work. Maybe the price ends up being pretty close to what it'd cost for an original weapon.

OR the mechanic he hires could be a slipshod kinda guy, just willing to get the job done "on the cheap." He might only charge you a pittance for the modifications, but watch out the first time the ship takes a critical hit: that cannon is getting toasted.

In any case, it sounds like your player (not the PC) is counting pennies. And that's not helpful.

Regarding firing arcs, there are no hard and fast rules for facing and such, but there are 1) chases and 2) Gain the Advantage, both of which give you an idea of positioning.

My players current have the Kryat Fang, which I adjusted to have an Ion Turret in place of one of its laser turrets.

He wants to find someone to take the Ion cannons and move them to the forward mounts on the ship, my original thought was: "These are turret weapons, they may not be compatible with the mounts" and he immediatly went on the defensive... simply becuase he doesnt want to pay for original weapons.

I did suggest he part exchange them for another turret (he wanted to change the turret to lasers anyway), but he seemed adamant that what he wanted to do was possible, even to the point of cutting me (the GM) off mid sentence.

I know it seems like a silly thing, but would you allow this? Simply removing the cannons from the turret mount, and mounting them elsewhere?

Additionally, how would weapons mounted that cover the fore arc, affect space combat? The Arc of weapons seems to have little effect given the way the system works.

Cheers

RD

You can do whatever you like at your table. Moving weapons around is a hand wave as far as I'm concerned. The whole man tantrum thing, with him pitching a fit is more of a concern and I'd be far more concerned with that and want to nip that in the bud. If it's just the one thing no big deal, if it's a pattern he would be politely asked to not attend game night anymore at my table.

I would allow the movement and remounting of weapons as long as the ship had the available hard points. As far as weapons being combatible with the mounts, weapons are generally designed independent of mounting systems. Think of all the tanks (turrets) and assault guns (limited traverse forward mounts) that have used the same gun throughout modern history.

Its not so much a 'no you can't do it', but something which when you do, would incur some time/money and skill use to have the mounting points adjusted, power connections redone and patched into the ship fire control- tested and then made sure it works.

Sort of like if I gave you a set of shock absorbers for your car, that came off something like a large 4wd and you only have a sedan. The length maybe wrong, the mounting points are different and the rebound rates are also not like the ones on the car. Its not to say you 'can't' put them in, but there's a bit more engineering involved to make part of a vehicle work with another part!

@Serif Marek

Its not a case of it wants Forward Mounted over Turrets, he wants both.

YT-1300, he wants two turrets AND Forward Mounted Ion cannons... his thinking is: We own the Ions, we can just move them, the turret fixings can come off.

And it didnt sit right with me at the time.

He also created a very capable mechanic and computer tech, so he will probably try and do all the work himself, and will almost certainly pass the roll.

@Serif Marek

Its not a case of it wants Forward Mounted over Turrets, he wants both.

YT-1300, he wants two turrets AND Forward Mounted Ion cannons... his thinking is: We own the Ions, we can just move them, the turret fixings can come off.

And it didnt sit right with me at the time.

He also created a very capable mechanic and computer tech, so he will probably try and do all the work himself, and will almost certainly pass the roll.

Then, while he's doing it, have a group of orphans come up and punch him in his midichlorians.

@Serif Marek

Its not a case of it wants Forward Mounted over Turrets, he wants both.

YT-1300, he wants two turrets AND Forward Mounted Ion cannons... his thinking is: We own the Ions, we can just move them, the turret fixings can come off.

And it didnt sit right with me at the time.

He also created a very capable mechanic and computer tech, so he will probably try and do all the work himself, and will almost certainly pass the roll.

The turrets are part of the ships entry, so removing the weapons does not free up the hard point. Now you just have a nice chair to look out at the stars and get away from the rest of the crew. Only replacing existing systems costs 0 HP. I would allow him to move the ion cannons to a forward arc at the cost of a hard point and 50% of the cost of weapons for a new mount. Coincidentally, that would be better than he could get if removed the weapons and sold them for scrap.

My players current have the Kryat Fang, which I adjusted to have an Ion Turret in place of one of its laser turrets.

He wants to find someone to take the Ion cannons and move them to the forward mounts on the ship, my original thought was: "These are turret weapons, they may not be compatible with the mounts" and he immediatly went on the defensive... simply becuase he doesnt want to pay for original weapons.

I did suggest he part exchange them for another turret (he wanted to change the turret to lasers anyway), but he seemed adamant that what he wanted to do was possible, even to the point of cutting me (the GM) off mid sentence.

I know it seems like a silly thing, but would you allow this? Simply removing the cannons from the turret mount, and mounting them elsewhere?

Additionally, how would weapons mounted that cover the fore arc, affect space combat? The Arc of weapons seems to have little effect given the way the system works.

Cheers

RD

In real life the .50 cal machine guns in the wings of a p-51 mustang are the same as the .50 cal machine guns on a B-29s turrets. I have a hard time believing things in the star wars world are any different. Turrets are just mounts for a weapon that allow you to re point them. And it should be a fairly simple task to accomplish.

I am guessing he wants to move the ion cannons to a front mount and replace the moved ion cannons with something else?

The question I'd ask is "What is he gaining by doing this?". Because the cost should balance the benefit. He's gaining the ability to mount another weapon in the turret, but he'd still have to buy that other weapon. In the short-term, he's losing the ability to attack any ships that've successfully Gained the Advantage over his ship with the Ion Cannon (as successfully gaining the advantage allows you to choose your relative positioning).

Against TIEs, this is a pretty noticable short-term penalty as they have better speed and maneuverability, and a wing of multiple TIE minions will at least equal your pilot's skill, so they can easily line up behind you. Starship-scale weapons are not cheap; it'll be a while before they can fit one in the turret.

Writing off the possibility entirely just seems like a mistake. Would it be truly impossible to shift the weapon? It'd be hard, sure, but hard is 3 difficulty in this system. If he fails, or rolls disadvantage, then penalise him; maybe 50-100cr per failure or disadvantage?

He does sound like a bit of a problem player, but equally having a default response of 'No' to fairly trivial actions isn't a good GM habit.

The question I'd ask is "What is he gaining by doing this?". Because the cost should balance the benefit. He's gaining the ability to mount another weapon in the turret, but he'd still have to buy that other weapon.

Because he wants to. There's no problem with that. This game is more interesting when you don't optimize or min/max anyway. If he wants to move the weapons to a forward mounting that's his call. There's nothing wrong with it and he can enjoy the benefits or drawbacks for doing so...

In the short-term, he's losing the ability to attack any ships that've successfully Gained the Advantage over his ship with the Ion Cannon (as successfully gaining the advantage allows you to choose your relative positioning).

Negative Ghost Rider. GtA says you get to pick which arc your shots land, doesn't say anything about facing or relative position. It's totally possible within the rules for the forward ion cannons to be used against an opponent that has the advantage. GtA is a lot of back and forth maneuvering, so it's fine for the craft at the disadvantage to swing around, take a pot-shot at the other fighter, and just eat any penalties.

In the short-term, he's losing the ability to attack any ships that've successfully Gained the Advantage over his ship with the Ion Cannon (as successfully gaining the advantage allows you to choose your relative positioning).

Negative Ghost Rider. GtA says you get to pick which arc your shots land, doesn't say anything about facing or relative position. It's totally possible within the rules for the forward ion cannons to be used against an opponent that has the advantage. GtA is a lot of back and forth maneuvering, so it's fine for the craft at the disadvantage to swing around, take a pot-shot at the other fighter, and just eat any penalties.

Actually both of you are right and wrong. A small ship like a Fighter or shuttle would be able to pull the maneuver off without much difficulty. Of course that is a maneuver and a separate shot taken during it. As you go up in size it becomes increasingly difficult to pull the maneuver itself, that is not including the shot, that is unless you intend to just pull a complete 180. Depending on how one would be able to swing around the ship with GtA may never fall into the arc. Or you completely expose yourself to what would be a free shot for the enemy. The rules to not prevent you from attempting such a maneuver, but doing that is not the same as being able to fire back at the enemy from a turret.

I'm with 2P51 on this one.

It is great to come to the forum and get advice from the community. It can help see things in different ways that we may have been blind to before.

As I see this, it is not really about moving turret ion cannons to a forward mount, it is about a GM making a call (and a fair one in my opinion) and a player not getting what they want and acting out about it.

I am not a fan of bully players. What the GM says goes. It does help that I am the GM

No in all seriousness here, there really should be no arguing over it. Both "sides" here have brought up great points to the debate of turret/mounted debate, and it is great that you are reaching out to the community for advice, but it stands, you made a decent call, and the table should move forward with it.

So the next time the player feels that he didn't get what he wants, is he going to throw another fit and stop the game?

This about bad behavior and disrespect. This game is about playing make believe and having fun with a group of people either in person or on the interweb. Did you ruin his "fun" by making this call? Perhaps a little as he is wanting to "max" out the ship, but all in all, the call was not a bad, one the player should have moved forward, not ruin everyone else's fun at the table. This was not some crazy GM call that seems to be one of those things like, "all your blaster packs are empty, and there are 50 Stormtroopers coming at you!)

I can totally relate to being in an area where gamer's can be rather sparse, but I would rather not game at all than game with bad people. (I have no idea if you have a lot of other gamer's around or not.) I would highly question inviting this person back to the table.

For the record though, my gut thought to this question was "No". then after reading some comments, and doing a quick google search, I would go with a yes, it can be done. Would I allow it? Maybe. With this player I would not. But, I am male reproductive organ like that.

Here are a few little links showing large machine guns in various configurations. Not exactly the same thing, but it gets the point across. And here is a little video that I feels sums up your table from your description of it. (all in good fun) And quit stealing my avatar!!! (Stoopid FFG won't let us have our own avatars!)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minigun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M2_Browning

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M249_light_machine_gun

In the short-term, he's losing the ability to attack any ships that've successfully Gained the Advantage over his ship with the Ion Cannon (as successfully gaining the advantage allows you to choose your relative positioning).

Negative Ghost Rider. GtA says you get to pick which arc your shots land, doesn't say anything about facing or relative position. It's totally possible within the rules for the forward ion cannons to be used against an opponent that has the advantage. GtA is a lot of back and forth maneuvering, so it's fine for the craft at the disadvantage to swing around, take a pot-shot at the other fighter, and just eat any penalties.

Actually both of you are right and wrong. A small ship like a Fighter or shuttle would be able to pull the maneuver off without much difficulty. Of course that is a maneuver and a separate shot taken during it. As you go up in size it becomes increasingly difficult to pull the maneuver itself, that is not including the shot, that is unless you intend to just pull a complete 180. Depending on how one would be able to swing around the ship with GtA may never fall into the arc. Or you completely expose yourself to what would be a free shot for the enemy. The rules to not prevent you from attempting such a maneuver, but doing that is not the same as being able to fire back at the enemy from a turret.

You sure about that chummer?

If you are in a craft Sil 4 or smaller:

To swing the turret around and fire it's a Gunnery check.

To swing the ship around and fire it's a Gunnery check.

Now if the pilot fails his gunnery check you can certainly add the narrative that he just wasn't able to get the other craft in front, but there's absolutely no organic mechanical change in difficulty or required actions/maneuvers when comparing a forward gun and a turret. The system just assumes that the pilot, simply by being in combat and making a combat check, is also flying around and trying to line up a shot.

While turrets would certainly make a difference if your craft was Sil 5 or larger, when dealing with small craft it's really up to the GM and narrative. By RAW pure mechanics though, turrets on Sil4 and lower are no better or worse then fixed guns.

I can agree that an outburst by a player can be a problem. However I can see this players point of view. The Attachment/Mod system in this game is extremely simplistic. (not necessarily a bad thing) So the idea you have to buy new weapons seems awfully silly.

Let him move the Ion guns where he wants em and charge him a couple hundred credits for 'mounting braces' or whatever. Have him buy new lasers to put in the turret. Remind him that the additional weapons are going to take a hardpoint(s).

There is a REASON the player has chosen to have a high mechanics skill. (has he taken any specializations related to this?)

Be glad he's keeping things simple and not something like pulling off the sensors from a scout ship and putting them on his ship in place of the existing sensors. (absolutely no rules for that...yet)

With three turrets worth of weapons, I'd make him get a few more permits and more troubles with customs. The Empire doesn't even like freighters much with any guns, let alone 50% more.

"Your weapon ratio is way off there bubba. Let's just check and see if you're wanted around these parts for waving those bad boys around!"

No Objections from me Streak.

D6 Star Wars Tramp Freighters had some nice rules for the cost of running starships.