You got a rules citation which says you can add INDIVIDUAL weapons to the same weapon slot, for one hard point? Maybe I'm horribly misreading the rules here but as far as I can see the only way to add multiple weapons in the one hardpoint "slot" is to stack them up with the Linked quality, not adding multiple discrete weapons.

6 minutes ago, Aetrion said:

Even if you rule that one hardpoint is only one weapon though you can pretty easily drop one-shot capability against star destroyers in a big ship by just replacing all the fluff guns with heavy torpedo launchers.

If you already have a capital ship-sized vessel as a foundation, replacing turbolasers with missiles is risky. Unlike the lasers, the missiles can be killed by a good point defense (especially the assault variety, if the GM rules that they are Sil-3 instead of Sil-0 or 1), and their range is only short, so good command and control of the ISD can keep the player's ship out of missile range.

assault concussion missile launcher (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 7; Critical 3; Range [Short]; Blast 4, Breach 5, Guided 2, Inaccurate 1, Slow-Firing 1)

15 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

You got a rules citation which says you can add INDIVIDUAL weapons to the same weapon slot, for one hard point? Maybe I'm horribly misreading the rules here but as far as I can see the only way to add multiple weapons in the one hardpoint "slot" is to stack them up with the Linked quality, not adding multiple discrete weapons.

AoR CRB p.287: "Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing system."

No mention of the Linked trait. Each of the weapon types (turbolasers, point defense laser cannon, tractor beams) on a Nebulon-B are "individual", per your usage, are not Linked, and are treated as being a single weapon system for each type. "Combining" is not synonymous with "Linked". It just means having more than one in the battery (or batteries).

4 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

AoR CRB p.287: "Weapon systems combining two or more weapons always cost 1 hard point, even if replacing an existing system."

No mention of the Linked trait. Each of the weapon types (turbolasers, point defense laser cannon, tractor beams) on a Nebulon-B are "individual", per your usage, are not Linked, and are treated as being a single weapon system for each type. "Combining" is not synonymous with "Linked". It just means having more than one in the battery (or batteries).

And if you read further down in the chart, it indicates you can link two or more of the same weapon type at half the cost of the weapon per additional weapon to be linked. So this is how you could add dual or quad turbolasers.

And, ugly as it is, you could have a half-dozen quad turbolasers in a battery and still only use a single frigging HP for all 24 guns.

Yeah the chart seems to make it pretty clear that multiple weapons in one slot are mechanically represented by the Linked trait, not by multiple discrete guns.

This does seem like one of those murky areas where the rules are a little imprecise and in need of clarification but I'm really having trouble seeing putting multiple discrete weapons in one slot as being the author intent here.

52 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

No. The weapons on a Nebulon-B, to continue with the example, are not linked. A player could use a Sil-5 or 6 vessel as a basic frame, mount a few dozen turbolasers (assuming an idiot GM) and then have every weapon fire independently at a target. Poof, there goes that pesky ISD. Only limit is cash. Because even crew for all those guns is no problem when using droid gunners. Never underestimate the cleverness of munchkin / power-gamers.

While this is completely true I have a couple of schools of thought on this one.

School of thought 1.) If the players are having fun flying around their totally bogus Neb-B, and the GM is having fun too, then there is no harm in this story. The players are supposed to be the uber-warriors who take on Star Destroyers and live to fight another day. My players currently have a Mobiquet Medium Transport (if you want to see goofy stats for a sil 5 freighter this ship takes the cake), and they were able to destroy an Interdictor by **ramming** it to death. I think they rammed it like five or six times, and then the final shot from the forward turbolaser scored a crit that roll a natural 100. Kaboom!

School of thought 2.) If the players are actively trying to subvert the spirit of the rules, I would simply look them in the eye and ask "what is the real goal here?" From there I would make it clear that I am not really interested in bothering to try to tell a story in which the PCs are the main drivers if all they are going to do every time there is a remotely significant challenge is press the "I win button" and then ask "So what loot was he/she/it carrying?"

4 minutes ago, Tom Cruise said:

Yeah the chart seems to make it pretty clear that multiple weapons in one slot are mechanically represented by the Linked trait, not by multiple discrete guns.

This does seem like one of those murky areas where the rules are a little imprecise and in need of clarification but I'm really having trouble seeing putting multiple discrete weapons in one slot as being the author intent here.

It fully is the developer's intent here, it was answered in the Developer Answered Questions. Multiple weapons of the same type are considered a single weapon system and take one hard point. You can also add linked versions of these weapons but those are a discrete and separate mechanic.

10 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

press the "I win button" and then ask "So what loot was he/she/it carrying?"

This happens a lot with players whose sole prior experience of RPGs is D&D, or worse, computer RPGs of most genres. Goal: get the +5 sword of insta-death and the +5 armor of godhood. Play: "where's the loot? is it better than what I have now? move on to next victim." Repeat until everyone gets sick of playing and game group falls apart.

It's roll-playing, not roleplaying.

31 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

And, ugly as it is, you could have a half-dozen quad turbolasers in a battery and still only use a single frigging HP for all 24 guns.

Yeah you could. But those turbolasers (assuming they are light turbolasers) are going to cost you $12K base + $18K more for making them quad turbolaser cannons. So adding six of them is $180K credits. Furthermore, these weapons are restricted and rarity 7, so they are not going to be easy to find, and certainly not easy to acquire in quantity. Of course there is also the cost of installing them, which is completely up to the GM.

Can this become outrageously bogus real fast? Yes is sure can, especially if the GM is not being careful. But it also could be a springboard for an awesome story arc where the PCs learn about the location of a derelict warship that could have salvageable weapons. But it is located in a dense asteroid field cloaked by a nasty nebula with lethal radiation from the intense solar radiation from hundreds of young stars. If the PCs could reach this wreck and get the salvage they could arm their capital ship just in time to stop the Imperial Fleet from BDZ'ing Ploticus Importicus IV! Or they could get deep fried by radiation in the attempt.

1 minute ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

Ploticus Importicus IV!

I may just have to name a planet that someday!

42 minutes ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

It fully is the developer's intent here, it was answered in the Developer Answered Questions. Multiple weapons of the same type are considered a single weapon system and take one hard point. You can also add linked versions of these weapons but those are a discrete and separate mechanic.

Thanks for that correction, good to know it's been clarified. I'm not a big fan of the system, but it's good to know what the official line is on it.

6 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

I wonder how many players would bother with it then? Rhetorical question: how many of your players bother to buy more than one set of clothes? Do they dress like Padme and Leia (changing outfits), or like Han (who never does)?

I don’t buy extra sets of clothing for my characters, but I assume they do have them.

This is just one of many things that gets handwaved in the kinds of narrative games that I tend to play in. IMO, there’s no sense in playing Spreadsheet Wars or Bank Account Wars, or Shopping Spree Wars. We’re here to play a different game than that, and so there’s certain stuff we can just handwave away — unless there’s a good story reason to avoid doing so.

13 hours ago, Aetrion said:

Bottom line is, there should be at least two separate resources for ship customization, there should be hardpoints for modifying the actual stats of the ship and there should be interior space for adding rooms and amenities.

But then you (or someone else) will scream that there should be three separate resources, and then four, and five, and so on, ad infinitum.

The game already gives you HP and Encumbrance as two separate resources for putting things in or on your ship, and if you need any more than that, you talk to your GM. Problem solved. We don’t need to invent a whole new form of mathematics just to handle your crushing need to play Spreadsheet Wars.

11 minutes ago, bradknowles said:

We don’t need to invent a whole new form of mathematics just to handle your crushing need to play Spreadsheet Wars.

Sure we do. It might lead to a doctoral thesis. Star Wars Math: what those with "alternative facts" use to balance their checkbooks.

1 hour ago, Magnus Arcanus said:

It fully is the developer's intent here, it was answered in the Developer Answered Questions. Multiple weapons of the same type are considered a single weapon system and take one hard point. You can also add linked versions of these weapons but those are a discrete and separate mechanic.

Show me a link to the post in question, because I think you're grossly misjudging what has actually been said. A "weapon system" is what you can operate with a single skill check, typically a single weapon or a set of linked identical weapons. Multiple discreet weapons are not a single weapon system.

3 hours ago, ShadoWarrior said:

If you already have a capital ship-sized vessel as a foundation, replacing turbolasers with missiles is risky. Unlike the lasers, the missiles can be killed by a good point defense (especially the assault variety, if the GM rules that they are Sil-3 instead of Sil-0 or 1), and their range is only short, so good command and control of the ISD can keep the player's ship out of missile range.

assault concussion missile launcher (Fire Arc Forward; Damage 7; Critical 3; Range [Short]; Blast 4, Breach 5, Guided 2, Inaccurate 1, Slow-Firing 1)

Well I'm talking about something like a Sil 4 or 5 with a half dozen separate medium or light laser systems.

Im just going to point out no game survives a gm who wont reign in abusive behavior...

3 hours ago, bradknowles said:

But then you (or someone else) will scream that there should be three separate resources, and then four, and five, and so on, ad infinitum.

The game already gives you HP and Encumbrance as two separate resources for putting things in or on your ship, and if you need any more than that, you talk to your GM. Problem solved. We don’t need to invent a whole new form of mathematics just to handle your crushing need to play Spreadsheet Wars.

You're not even trying to make an actual argument here.

Right out of the gate with the slippery slope, simply asserting that if we have two customization resources we might as well have infinite customization resources. I mean please, back that up with an actual argument. I named a reason to have two, can you name a reason to have infinity? No? You haven't even presented an argument for why two are bad.

Is six characteristics a bad system because then we might as well have seven, eight or nine ad infinitum? I mean any number higher than one you might as well have infinity right? That's what you're trying to pass as an argument here.

Then the whole "Ask your GM" spiel again. How is this relevant to a discussion of how the rules work? Why does this keep coming up as though it's some kind of actual argument? The ability to ignore the rules has no place in a discussion about the rules.

Then into full blown hyperbole about needing a whole new form of mathematics, combo that with personal attacks and idiotic buzzwords like "spreadsheet wars" that you throw around to dismiss ideas without actually making any argument at all and instead basically just slapping a negative label on something.

I know that you have a few haters here who give likes for this fallacious bantha poodoo, but you haven't made an argument of any kind here. This is pathetic.

See i dont think we need another resource. I just think the resource is attached to the wrong thing. Sub systems should have the hard points. Not the whole ship.

27 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

See i dont think we need another resource. I just think the resource is attached to the wrong thing. Sub systems should have the hard points. Not the whole ship.

Like the power grid, cpu core, power core, communication grid, the hull itself. inertia stabilizers and the environmental systems themselves?

I will not agree, as I like my star wars simple, I think the system is unnecessary rules heavy, clumsy, spread out and unfocused on actually playing the game, instead gaming the system. But I like the idea in general for games which focus more on the ships, actually I think having those things for shipbuild would even work for star wars.

6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Im just going to point out no game survives a gm who wont reign in abusive behavior...

A great many of Aetrion's problems would be easily solved by a GM who doesn't let players run roughshod over them. I'm shocked that he has hasn't discovered the ability to take a backpack and put it inside another backpack inside another backpack inside another backpack and quadruple a character's Encumbrance score.

Any RPG can be broken by a determined player, no engine is perfect. However sady the Signiture Ability: Common Sense is one that a great many fail to unlock.

To be fair, a lot of his problems would be solved as well if the GM would just introduce fitting attachments with zero hp cost like the core books suggest the GM should do if the situation calls for. ;-)

6 hours ago, Daeglan said:

Im just going to point out no game survives a gm who wont reign in abusive behavior...

Wanna bet?

15 minutes ago, themensch said:

Wanna bet?

Nope. I've seen games last in which all of the players were munchkins and the (idiot) GM was an archetypal Monty Haul.