My problem with the dev response is that point #2 makes no sense. Replace a 2-linked with another 2-linked shouldn't cost any HP. But it costs the same as #1. You're not adding anything whatsoever (like linkage), you're just swapping weapons.

25 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

My problem with the dev response is that point #2 makes no sense. Replace a 2-linked with another 2-linked shouldn't cost any HP. But it costs the same as #1. You're not adding anything whatsoever (like linkage), you're just swapping weapons.

I agree, and think issue is that the poster was confused about the linked quality adding to a weapon versus adding multiple independent weapons. As such the response wasn't as helpful in clarifying the rule.

Yea, the fact that replacing a linked weapon with another linked weapon costs exactly the same amount as simply adding a whole new linked weapon and keeping the old one makes no sense.

I wrote something about an alternate system for weapon replacement a while back, just sort of a thought experiment/houserule thread:

That's sort of what I would have liked to see for weapons.

Well, at times the dev responses remind me very much of how a police officer would answer: "You are installing two linked weapons, sir. The cost is 1 HP. That's the law. No exceptions."

"But officer, I'm only swapping the weapons, not any connections or how they're mounted. I already had two linked weapons."

"No exceptions. It's the law ."

Right. I had considered replacing the twin light ion cannons on a BTL-S3 Y-wing with twin medium laser cannons. Under the RAW+FAQ, that would cost 1 HP. I'm better off just adding the lasers to the turret in addition to the ions and giving the gunner the option of using either the lasers or the ions each turn since that costs the same in credits and in HP. In effect, replacing a weapon system is often pointless.

2 minutes ago, HappyDaze said:

In effect, replacing a weapon system is often pointless.

Unless the GM changes the rules ... to make sense.

10 hours ago, Desslok said:

My impression is that most of these complaints are based on hypothetical breakings of the system and not actual play experiences. He claims that high powered Jedi play will overshadow non-Jedi, but my personal experience from two 600+ XP campaigns that were Jedi heavy that this is not the case. A Marauder is far more deadly and my Engineer is in no way a sidekick.

I'm guessing the same thing here - has he actually run into this problem with hardpoints in game-play? Or is this someone sitting down with a book looking for ways to break the engine?

I'm one of two players in my game. At 1300 hundred xp, there's a Jedi with 5 force die and a Swiss Army Mandalorian. We rock, but one isn't better than the other outside of our respective focuses.