My players are considering modding their ship, replacing the lousy Autoblaster with some laser weapons. I was surprised when using OggDude's vehicle creator that creating a "twin medium laser cannon" turret still only took 1 hard point. Is this accurate? I'm sure the next question from the players will be "how many can we stack?". There doesn't seem to be a rules limit that I can find...

And I guess I might as well ask this in the same thread: the players have a HWK-290. I was thinking of them happening upon a Gozanti carrying 4 TIEs (two minion groups of 2). They can easily outrun the Gozanti (I think it might get a shot in depending how well they bluff the Gozanti captain), but is two TIE wings too much? I'm hoping they spring for 2 pair of twin medium laser cannons, since they'll have a pilot and two gunners (not great gunners mind you...)

Replacing an existing weapon costs 0 hard points, unless your stacking weapons to gain linked, in which case it always costs 1 hard point of the vehicles allowed hard points.

From this I would say there is no limit?

But the practicality of it would be I guess 4 linked weapons for the Linked 3 quality. Probably a GM/Player negotiation to sort that out.

There is a price cost for the extra weapons as well so that's part of the limiting factor.

We may see more in the Comander or Engineer books, so far they seem to be filling most of the rules light parts as the supplements are released.

I just found on page 241 of AoR under Laser Cannons: "...laser cannons can be paired in batteries or mounted separately." So I guess the limit is two.

My players are considering modding their ship, replacing the lousy Autoblaster with some laser weapons. I was surprised when using OggDude's vehicle creator that creating a "twin medium laser cannon" turret still only took 1 hard point. Is this accurate? I'm sure the next question from the players will be "how many can we stack?". There doesn't seem to be a rules limit that I can find...

Well, EotE core book p271: "Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost one hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system"

So, I would read this to say that replacing an existing system (the auto blaster) with a "twin medium laser cannon" would cost one hard point, i.e. take how many "pre-mod" HP the ship has, and subtract one.

If you wanted to add another weapons system, that costs one HP, regardless of how many individual weapons you're adding. Okay, I guess your find makes sense. So all the Lasers on a X-wing are mounted separately (4 HP) and then linked? I guess?

Well, EotE core book p271: "Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost one hard point, even if replacing an existing weapon system"

Yeah, that line in the rules confuses me. I can't see how a weapon system would not cost a hard point even if it's one weapon, so I don't know what the rule is clarifying.

The stock HWK-290 has no weapons and 5 hard points. I gave them an Autoblaster when the campaign started, and they bought another, so as I understand it, that's two hard points used, so 3 left.

They are thinking of replacing each Autoblaster with "twin medium laser cannons". So that should still only use up 2 hard points, with 3 left...right?

And on each hard point, could they have "triple medium laser cannons", or "quads"? I'm thinking no, partly because a quad laser cannon already exists, and it can only be put on a Sil4+ vehicle (HWK is Sil3).

Okay, here's my take on it:

When swapping out a single weapon for a different single weapon, there's no change in HP. So if you had one Autoblaster and 4 HP, you could swap that for one twin laser cannon turret and 4 HP. Remove one weapon system, add one weapon system. The Twin Laser Cannon is a single weapon system. The clarification comes when you're mounting multiple weapons that will be linked to create a single weapon system, e.g. if you were mounting three separate Laser Cannons that would be fire linked, then they would each take a hard point (3 hp in total), even though they would ultimately consist of a single weapon system. The X-wing's 4 lasers would be an example of this.

The stock HWK-290 has no weapons and 5 hard points. I gave them an Autoblaster when the campaign started, and they bought another, so as I understand it, that's two hard points used, so 3 left.

They are thinking of replacing each Autoblaster with "twin medium laser cannons". So that should still only use up 2 hard points, with 3 left...right?

Okay, this is where things get twitchy, and subject to interpretation and GM fiat.

I would not allow a single hardpoint to hold a "triple laser cannon", because of your cited text. A "triple" weapon would violate the RAW "lasers cannons in single or double mounts." I'm going to make a GM fiat exception below. The quad, however, is a different story. The quad exists as a discrete, described weapon in RAW. I would rule that you couldn't fire link multiple quads, because... reasons. They already have linked, no need to make it more complex.

Now, notice the Quad isn't 4 linked medium laser cannons, it's more like 4 linked light laser cannons. I think I would allow a triple version of the quad (same damage, same crit, etc except Linked 2 instead of 3), that could be mounted on a Sil 3 ship. The trade off is that you get linked 2 instead of 3 on a smaller ship.

To further complicate matters, some versions of the Z-95 are listed to have linked, triple blasters... so... whatever.

Edit: added the "what the rule is clarifying" section to the first part of the response.

Richardbuxton had it right. I'm not sure I can follow what Lethaldose is trying to say, so I'm going to explain as best I can, both the RAW, and how most people play.

RAW: You swap out any weapon system for another single weapon system for 0 hard points. By single weapon system I mean any one weapon on the list, including the quad laser cannon, oddly. For instance, you could trade the autoblaster for a heavy laser cannon. However, as soon as you make that a twin heavy laser cannon, it costs a hard point. When adding entirely new weapon systems, it always costs one hardpoint, no matter how many actual cannons etc. you link together in the system. I don't know about Age of Rebellion, but in Edge of the Empire there is no limit to how many weapons of the same type you can link together, beyond cost, practicality, and possible in game consequences. No matter how good you are at gunnery, you're unlikely to need more than quad cannons, ever.

Now, most people adopt a simple houserule, that any weapon system can be swapped for any other weapon system, including a linked system. This seems to make the most sense, and is more player friendly, as stock weapons on a lot of craft aren't that good.

For your HWK-290, since it's Sil 3, you can't have Heavy laser cannons, so I would go with one or two dual or quad medium lasers and/or light ion cannons. If you don't use the houserule, I would either keep the autoblaster or swap it out for something else, like a single proton torpedo launcher. A lot of this will depend, of course, on how many credits your group has and are willing to spend.

What book is this ship in anyway? I'm somewhat curious after looking up the design.

What book is this ship in anyway? I'm somewhat curious after looking up the design.

Far Horizons, p56. It's better than a Y-Wing IMHO, and it carries stuff too.

However, as soon as you make that a twin heavy laser cannon, it costs a hard point. When adding entirely new weapon systems, it always costs one hardpoint, no matter how many actual cannons etc. you link together in the system.

That's how I'd interpret RAW as well, but it makes no sense to me, if you kept swapping out weapons you'd always be losing hard points.

Now, most people adopt a simple houserule, that any weapon system can be swapped for any other weapon system, including a linked system. This seems to make the most sense, and is more player friendly, as stock weapons on a lot of craft aren't that good.

Agreed, I think I'll do that. However, I think I'll also limit it to 2 per hard point. I haven't looked through every book, but I haven't found a triple formation yet (couldn't find the Z-95, and the Heavy Z-95 has two medium lasers).

Thanks for the help all...

In my game, I allow fixed (single firing arc) weapons to be installed in single, double, triple, or quadruple mountings. I only allow single and double mountings for turreed (multiple firing arc) weapons. The Quad Laser Cannon is still just one weapon, and it's special for being the one way to get beyond Linked 1 with a turreted weapon.

However, as soon as you make that a twin heavy laser cannon, it costs a hard point.

I don't interpret this as RAW due to the AoR passage cited by the OP:

"...laser cannons can be paired in batteries or mounted separately."

I would interpret this to mean that a paired battery (e.g. a double or twin laser cannon) is considered a single weapon, hence a single weapon system.

I haven't looked through every book, but I haven't found a triple formation yet (couldn't find the Z-95, and the Heavy Z-95 has two medium lasers).

The Z-95 in EotE has light laser cannons in it's stat block (pg 258) and mentions triple blasters in its description. I recall the triple blasters from the old WEG stats for the headhunter, but I'm surprised it even got a mention in these books.

Agreed, I think I'll do that. However, I think I'll also limit it to 2 per hard point. I haven't looked through every book, but I haven't found a triple formation yet (couldn't find the Z-95, and the Heavy Z-95 has two medium lasers).

According to the page at <http://swrpg.viluppo.net/transportation/starships/434/>, the original Z-95 can be found in the books “Onslaught at Arda”, EotE CRB, and “Beyond the Rim”.

Does any Vehicle have weapons with more than Linked 3 in any book as standard? If not that sets a precedent that weapons probably shouldn't have more than 4 in a weapons position. Of course PC's are supposed to be extraordinary and so a Riggers ship may be a bit over normal. But if an ISD isn't fitted with turrets that have 10 lasers each then what would?

Does any Vehicle have weapons with more than Linked 3 in any book as standard? If not that sets a precedent that weapons probably shouldn't have more than 4 in a weapons position. Of course PC's are supposed to be extraordinary and so a Riggers ship may be a bit over normal. But if an ISD isn't fitted with turrets that have 10 lasers each then what would?

I’m not aware of anything beyond quads with the standard Linked rules.

If you want to go beyond quads, I think you’re looking at the rules for banks and barrages.

But, that might be a good question for the devs.

TIE Phantom has Linked 4.

Ok, so 5 linked weapons on a very rare experimental vehicle, and they are not turrets on a Cap ship, but fixed weapons on a fighter.

So there are no rules for how much a turret costs vs a fixed weapon either, by RAW it's the same cost, seems to be a lot of small holes in the system here. The more I think about this the more I'm sure there is more to come on this in a Spec book.

My take on the rule is this: if it is a turret, replacing it with another weapon costs no hard points. Single, double, it's in the same spot on the ship.

I think the rule about adding "another" weapon using a ship's hard points is for pilot-controlled weapons. In this instance, adding dual lasers to your HWK-290 that were fired from the pilot station would cost 2 HP. The trade-off is the necessity of the additional crew member.

This would keep PCs from turning a Y-wing into a two-person corvette, while allowing for more modification of freighters and such. Seems in keep with the intent of RAW, anyway.

So there are no rules for how much a turret costs vs a fixed weapon either, by RAW it's the same cost, seems to be a lot of small holes in the system here. The more I think about this the more I'm sure there is more to come on this in a Spec book.

When you get down to it, the whole system is full of "small holes" and it's apparently been by design. The devs chose to keep the rules simple without a lot of exceptions and details. The simple rule set is intended to provide GMs wide berth to make on-the-fly decisions that are contextually appropriate.

So there are no rules for how much a turret costs vs a fixed weapon either, by RAW it's the same cost, seems to be a lot of small holes in the system here. The more I think about this the more I'm sure there is more to come on this in a Spec book.

When you get down to it, the whole system is full of "small holes" and it's apparently been by design. The devs chose to keep the rules simple without a lot of exceptions and details. The simple rule set is intended to provide GMs wide berth to make on-the-fly decisions that are contextually appropriate.

So there are no rules for how much a turret costs vs a fixed weapon either, by RAW it's the same cost, seems to be a lot of small holes in the system here. The more I think about this the more I'm sure there is more to come on this in a Spec book.

When you get down to it, the whole system is full of "small holes" and it's apparently been by design. The devs chose to keep the rules simple without a lot of exceptions and details. The simple rule set is intended to provide GMs wide berth to make on-the-fly decisions that are contextually appropriate.

Whilst I completely agree with you, I also think that they are making a habit of filling the small holes with each release of a supplement.

Remember so far 6 career books are released, with 12 to come (yes 36 more specialisations!). Not to mention 2 regional books and 3 adventures. There is probably at least 6 more Region books (assuming they sell well) and 6ish more adventures (after the 3 currently announced). That's 24 more books not yet announced. There is so much potential for little rules enhancements that I would be surprised if this particular one isn't answered.

I guess I haven't purchased enough supplements to notice. The only one I own is Enter the Unknown (EotE Explorers).