Nothing I can find in the Core books, the Hired Gun book the armor mount mod is from or the Technician book tells me if you add the weapon's Encumbrance to the armor's total. On the one hand I could see the argument made that it costs 2 HP on the armor AND 1 HP to mod the weapon to mount, so in the interest of fairness it shouldn't. On the other, I can't realistically say the encumbrance just disappears because you mount it. It still has weight, adds size, etc. Besides, with enough Jury Rigging and Stripped Down mods, you can reduce encumbrance to the point a character could carry so many weapons it'd just be way to OP to even be fun.

Without an official rule, the best I can think to do is a compromise, like halving the weapon encumbrance rounded up and adding that to the armor's total.

?

What sort of rule do you need? An encumbrance 2 weapon has an encumbrance of two no matter where it is on you. Attaching it to a suit of armor doesnt change that

3 minutes ago, HVSD said:

Nothing I can find in the Core books, the Hired Gun book the armor mount mod is from or the Technician book tells me if you add the weapon's Encumbrance to the armor's total. On the one hand I could see the argument made that it costs 2 HP on the armor AND 1 HP to mod the weapon to mount, so in the interest of fairness it shouldn't. On the other, I can't realistically say the encumbrance just disappears because you mount it. It still has weight, adds size, etc. Besides, with enough Jury Rigging and Stripped Down mods, you can reduce encumbrance to the point a character could carry so many weapons it'd just be way to OP to even be fun.

Without an official rule, the best I can think to do is a compromise, like halving the weapon encumbrance rounded up and adding that to the armor's total.

Try asking the Developers here .

14 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Try asking the Developers here .

That's handy, TY.

On 10/12/2018 at 12:53 PM, korjik said:

?

What sort of rule do you need? An encumbrance 2 weapon has an encumbrance of two no matter where it is on you. Attaching it to a suit of armor doesnt change that

Well, it does and it doesn't - sure, the mass and dimensions of the item don't change a lot, but it's not a stretch of logic to assume that mounting a weapon to armor would result in it being easier to carry and thus not contribute as much to a character's overall Encumbrance - like a load-bearing backpack.

I think it would be reasonable to negate a couple points of Cumbersome and Encumbrance, but I wouldn't negate either completely if I were to make a house rule. The unit would still have mass and dimensions that inform both of those qualities. Even a giant wookiee with a shoulder-mounted missile tube is going to have to consider the balance of the unit when performing Coordination checks and whatnot, and it's still heavy.

If you logic was being used, it would have been mentioned somewhere. Which is kinda my point. There is no need for a rule, or for a developer to make some sort of pronouncement, or for there to be any sort of confusion. An encumbrance 2 item has an encumbrance of 2. The armor mount doesnt change that. If it did, it would say so.

The devs don't have the time or space to create rules for every situation and while I agree we don't need a giant tome of rules here, this question in particular is interesting enough to warrant some thought. Ergo, a little logic to help out a forum friend isn't going to hurt anyone.

And this is a classic example of looking for a rule that doesnt need to be a rule. There is no hole in the rules, there is no soft spot in the rules.

An encumbrance 2 gun has an encumbrance of 2. It is pretty straightforward.

Maybe use the Weapon Harness for example.

It doesn't decrease the Encumbarance, but decreases the Cumbersome rating. Which means, the weapon won't get lighter, but easier to hold / use.

48 minutes ago, korjik said:

And this is a classic example of looking for a rule that doesnt need to be a rule. There is no hole in the rules, there is no soft spot in the rules.

An encumbrance 2 gun has an encumbrance of 2. It is pretty straightforward.

I don't recall anyone saying there was a hole in the rules. I encourage people to do whatever they want to at their table, not quote RAW to them when they've already demonstrated they've read the rules. This is a thought exercise, for thinking. Nobody is forcing you to participate.

9 minutes ago, Rimsen said:

Maybe use the Weapon Harness for example.

It doesn't decrease the Encumbarance, but decreases the Cumbersome rating. Which means, the weapon won't get lighter, but easier to hold / use.

That's how I handled it when I was crafting custom armor for an NPC. I do think Encumbrance in this system describes how bulky an item is as well - e.g. ship cargo or carried armor, so I don't think it's too far-fetched to knock a point of each with the appropriate costs. Cumbersome seems to equate directly to usability, but I agree it's a shady area. Cumbersome really only comes into play while using the weapon, but it would make sense that it could be a detriment to other activities like Coordination and Resilience checks.

As others have said the ENC remains the same unless otherwise noted, the "otherwise noted" part is the RAW for all the rules. Unfortunately I'm AFB right now but I'm sure someone else can find an example in the CRB somewhere. As for knocking off ENC there are Mods available for some items to do that but an armor mount isn't one of them.

This game is not written as a simulation and it's not always going to make perfect sense so trying to rationalize how something "should" work is a waste of time.

49 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

This game is not written as a simulation and it's not always going to make perfect sense so trying to rationalize how something "should" work is a waste of time.

A waste of your time perhaps. We were having a perfectly nice discussion. I don't think anyone's claiming this is a perfect simulation, @HVSD asked a question that some of us are talking about, and then others are posting here telling us we're doing it wrong, at our table, where our word is law, and somehow are a better judge than we are about how we use our time. Seems kinda hostile and insulting, wouldn't you agree?

Well shoot, now I'm wasting my time.

3 hours ago, FuriousGreg said:

This game is not written as a simulation and it's not always going to make perfect sense so trying to rationalize how something "should" work is a waste of time.

2 hours ago, themensch said:

A waste of your time perhaps. We were having a perfectly nice discussion. I don't think anyone's claiming this is a perfect simulation, @HVSD asked a question that some of us are talking about, and then others are posting here telling us we're doing it wrong, at our table, where our word is law, and somehow are a better judge than we are about how we use our time. Seems kinda hostile and insulting, wouldn't you agree?

Well shoot, now I'm wasting my time.

Sorry, @themensch , but FuriousGreg is right on this one, and the hostility for your response is disproportionate to any that was in his. The issue isn't really an issue, and RAW already explain why its a non-issue. EotE CRB (p 152, Encumbrance values, paragraph 2) states:

Quote

Encumbrance doesn't strictly represent weight; it also represents mass, bulk, and how easy items are to carry. A well-fitting suit of armor adds very little encumbrance, while an armful of gimer sticks have a high encumbrance because they're tricky to carry.

So, yeah, it is kind of reasonable to say at least the weight of the weapon can just disappear if its fit to the armor appropriately, and armor with a mounted weapon isn't more difficult to wear than a set of armor without a mounted weapon, within reason . Now, I'm not familiar with the rules for mounting the weapons on armor, but if there's some restriction on mounting weapons with cumbersome this is basically handled because you can't mount anything heavier than a blaster rifle (enc 4). That's well within reason.

If there's not that kind of restriction on the mod and the GM is worried the worried about the armor ruining what they see as fun, then GM fiat is the solution.

tl;dr : The source of the problem here is a misunderstanding of what encumbrance values represent, and FuriousGreg is spot on by explaining that the it's inappropriate to try to rationalize the system.

1 hour ago, themensch said:

A waste of your time perhaps. We were having a perfectly nice discussion. I don't think anyone's claiming this is a perfect simulation, @HVSD asked a question that some of us are talking about, and then others are posting here telling us we're doing it wrong, at our table, where our word is law, and somehow are a better judge than we are about how we use our time. Seems kinda hostile and insulting, wouldn't you agree?

Well shoot, now I'm wasting my time.

I think you read in to my comment more than I intended.

54 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

I think you read in to my comment more than I intended.

Sorry, I didn't mean to snap at you. Guess I need some chill pills in my corn flakes.

58 minutes ago, OrbitalVagabond said:

Sorry, @themensch , but FuriousGreg is right on this one, and the hostility for your response is disproportionate to any that was in his. The issue isn't really an issue, and RAW already explain why its a non-issue. EotE CRB (p 152, Encumbrance values, paragraph 2) states:

So, yeah, it is kind of reasonable to say at least the weight of the weapon can just disappear if its fit to the armor appropriately, and armor with a mounted weapon isn't more difficult to wear than a set of armor without a mounted weapon, within reason . Now, I'm not familiar with the rules for mounting the weapons on armor, but if there's some restriction on mounting weapons with cumbersome this is basically handled because you can't mount anything heavier than a blaster rifle (enc 4). That's well within reason.

If there's not that kind of restriction on the mod and the GM is worried the worried about the armor ruining what they see as fun, then GM fiat is the solution.

tl;dr : The source of the problem here is a misunderstanding of what encumbrance values represent, and FuriousGreg is spot on by explaining that the it's inappropriate to try to rationalize the system.

Thanks for the clarification, I do in fact know the rules and I did apologize for snapping. I think my issue here is that OP asked a reasonable question and some reasonable conjecture for how OP might play this out in the game at their table was discussed, but then some folks keep coming in to say "you're doing it wrong" - and of course that's impossible in this context and not really helpful to the ongoing discussion. One comment about "it doesn't matter" is one thing, but belaboring the point serves nobody. OP gets it, OP don't care, OP wants to do it anyway.

But ultimately you are right in that I took it the wrong way and shot from the hip before the coffee settled in, and for that I apologize to everyone. I'm big on "have it your way, baby!" as Mr. Troy McClure would say.

Here's my thoughts on it. Armor and weapons have set encumbrance values, but when worn you reduce the encumbrance of the armor by 4. So, if you mount the weapon on the armor they effectively become one. A suit of armor with a built in weapon if you will. So I would add the encumbrance together for a total and when worn reduce it by 4. This would rarely come into play, but there are occasions where it could.

10 hours ago, themensch said:

A waste of your time perhaps. We were having a perfectly nice discussion. I don't think anyone's claiming this is a perfect simulation, @HVSD asked a question that some of us are talking about, and then others are posting here telling us we're doing it wrong, at our table, where our word is law, and somehow are a better judge than we are about how we use our time. Seems kinda hostile and insulting, wouldn't you agree?

Well shoot, now I'm wasting my time.

Since I am the person who never actually said you were doing it wrong, and since you were the one who felt the need to make an explanation on why a pretty obvious rule should be changed (that being the soft spot in the rules), and since you never responded to HVSD, but mainly only to me and FuriousGreg, maybe you should rethink all your responses in this thread.

All I did was ask why the OP thinks that attaching a weapon to armor should make the encumbrance go down. Even the OP mentioned that it is a benefit to the players that can be abused.

All I said was that the OP was looking for a rule that doesnt exist, and doesnt need to exist. If anyone was saying the way someone was doing it was wrong, it wasnt me.

Here is my thought: Dont go looking for rules when you dont need to.

Here is my other thought: Dont bother the devs, you have a brain, use it. Fix the problem yourself.

29 minutes ago, korjik said:

Here is my other thought: Dont bother the devs, you have a brain, use it. Fix the problem yourself.

If there's actually a problem there to begin with.

38 minutes ago, OrbitalVagabond said:

If there's actually a problem there to begin with.

Yeah, OP asked a question, I hoped to provide an answer, that's all. If someone mounts a weapon on armor, well then parts of that weapon generally come off. Parts of a weapon coming off could equate to Encumbrance going down. Or not. That's up for OP and the table they're at to decide.

1 hour ago, korjik said:

Here is my other thought: Dont bother the devs, you have a brain, use it. Fix the problem yourself.

Hm, that does sound familiar....

On 10/14/2018 at 7:33 AM, themensch said:

The devs don't have the time or space to create rules for every situation and while I agree we don't need a giant tome of rules here, this question in particular is interesting enough to warrant some thought. Ergo, a little logic to help out a forum friend isn't going to hurt anyone.

I guess it did hurt someone. Sorry.

17 hours ago, Ahrimon said:

Here's my thoughts on it. Armor and weapons have set encumbrance values, but when worn you reduce the encumbrance of the armor by 4. So, if you mount the weapon on the armor they effectively become one. A suit of armor with a built in weapon if you will. So I would add the encumbrance together for a total and when worn reduce it by 4. This would rarely come into play, but there are occasions where it could.

Good points made here. I was only confused by the 4 and double checked it in the books. The encumbrance of armor is only reduced by 3 when worn.

5 hours ago, Rogues Rule said:

Good points made here. I was only confused by the 4 and double checked it in the books. The encumbrance of armor is only reduced by 3 wh  en worn.

oops. It's been a while since I did it manually. Oggdude's builder takes care of it for me normally.

On 10/12/2018 at 12:49 PM, HVSD said:

Nothing I can find in the Core books, the Hired Gun book the armor mount mod is from or the Technician book tells me if you add the weapon's Encumbrance to the armor's total. On the one hand I could see the argument made that it costs 2 HP on the armor AND 1 HP to mod the weapon to mount, so in the interest of fairness it shouldn't. On the other, I can't realistically say the encumbrance just disappears because you mount it. It still has weight, adds size, etc. Besides, with enough Jury Rigging and Stripped Down mods, you can reduce encumbrance to the point a character could carry so many weapons it'd just be way to OP to even be fun.

Without an official rule, the best I can think to do is a compromise, like halving the weapon encumbrance rounded up and adding that to the armor's total.

I think your compromise is worth trying, and a lot of good suggestions have been posted. I'd be interesting to hear how this plays out at your table.