If I may interject, and compile what has allready been said by Face Eater and Unusualsuspect to clarify several issues.

Going by wording and implications, the wording in the Lathe Blade (weapon upgrade) entry in IH disputes the reasoning for separate Pen values, as it states, and I quote, "A Lathe-bladed weapon loses it Primitive quality. Increase the weapon's Damage by 2 and it's Penetration by +3.". Same goes for Mono in DH Core Rulebook which states "Mono waapons no longer count as Primitive and add +2 bonus to their Penetration." In the instance of two seperate Pen values for weapons with the Primitive quality, one being 0 and the other whatever is listed, upon losing the Primitive quality they would be left with Pen 0, and there would be no need to state that "something increases Penetration by X", as that "X" would always be the final Pen you'd end up with.

Now, please note that I am refering to separate Pen values here, not Pen values that count as 0, which would bring me to my next point.

While the sentance "The Penetration of weapons with the Primitive quality only applies to armour that also has the Primitive quality." does indeed imply that the Pen value of weapons with the Primitive quality is disregarded when used on non-Primitive armour, it states nothing to the fact that said Pen value is granted by the Primitive quality, only that it's mitigated by it. As such, it would, by all accounts remain unchanged once the weapon loses it's Primitive quality.

This is also consistant with the previously mentioned wording of weapon upgrades that remove a weapons Primitive quality and increase it's Penetration by a figure rather than saying it is a set figure. It might also be noteworthy to point out that the current errata ammends Man-Stopper Bullets in exactly way depicted here, stating that a weapon using them "…increases it's Penetration to 3", while not dealing with the Penetration increasement of the Mono and Lathe weapon upgrades at all.

Most importantly, regardless of what you might think of my interpretation of RAW, the current errata (3.0) postdates the first edition of IH.

Of course, if you think that this is unbalanced, you are free to run your game any way you like.

On a side note, I do think that Mono is somewhat underpriced, since, when comparing a Mono-Sword with a Chain Sword, Tearing and +2 Damage amount to 220 TG. For a someone not a Moritat. I ended up running my games with Mono costing 100+, and the Moritats starting with a regular sword.

Now, to answer the OP, that would depend on your character style. If strictly going by numbers, I'd go for a Lathe Greatweapon, since with two talents you'd be looking at three 2d10+2+S, Pen 5 attacks, while the alternative is four talents and four 1d10+3+S, Pen 4 attacks at -10 WS. Or something in that vicinity.

Still, impersonating a noble with a 5 foot sword strapped to your back might be a tad hard to pull off

What self-respecting noble carries around a Chimera pistol sword anyway? If you really want to impersonate a noble, you either get a shiny, fancy conventional sword (perhaps with a local planetary flavor like a Fervious Longsabre) or you get a cane sword, so nobody knows you're armed until the blade is in your hands. As for pistols, they'd get a dueling las instead, so they don't get blood all over their clothes. Nobles are all about form over function, and frankly, pistol swords look downright ugly with their two grips.

On a practical note, Chimera pistol swords don't work particularly well as a pistol or a sword. A mono bastard sword is the same weapon with +1 pen for three-fourths of the price, and they're far less auspicious. A conventional Best-craftsmanship sword is even better, since it adds Balanced and a +10 bonus to hit, plus the bonus of looking shiny and fancy as a noble's weapon should. The Irontalon is also a substandard pistol; the bonus from Tearing is offset by the penalty from Primitive, and if it's only a single shot weapon, a Moritat would probably do more damage by throwing his sword instead.

I find it amusing that the OP refuses to use a great weapon, even saying "L2RP" (the mark of a cad), while he carries around a Chimera pistol sword, which is considered anathema to Moritat. He justifies his decision by saying he uses it to disguise himself as a noble, despite the many better choices of weapon, both practically and stylistically, he could take to disguise himself. Not to mention, as previously stated, Death Cult assassins use great weapons in artwork and in miniature form.

In short, Elduir Darkwing, you're doing it wrong.

Beliaal said:

I disagree. Mono is absolutely necessary for melee weapons to stay relevant, because even cheap guns like shotguns and lasguns don't suffer from the Primitive quality in addition to providing a benefit to range and rate of fire. Why bother with a sword when most classes start with a lasgun or an equivalent weapon? Chainswords are expensive, yes, but considering how expensive it must be to engineer a balanced, combat-ready chainsaw, it seems like a reasonable price. After all, bolt weapons, their ranged counterparts, are also far more expensive than lower level firearms.

I have to second that, a CQ Mono Sword is 1d10 R Pen2 for 55 thrones while a chainsword is 1d10 PLUS TWO R the same pen AND Tearing for 275 (220 thrones more), one is substantially better, but without mono no one could use normal "primitive" weapons for any amount of time besides barest necessity. Yes players like to do a mad dash towards getting mono, but without it, it is either, Chain (not available early on to most), Shocking (less so and more expensive) or nothing.

I can see your point about it's "abuse" but without it, no one could ever really use primitive weapons. If there was a middleground it might work, a smaller cost (20) to make it non primitive) and then (60) to give it a honed special property/edge.