This may be planned for a future supplement (I hope so), but there have been some worried of only generic weapons being provided. The customization system can easily model some of the iconic weapons by adding differentiation, I hope this is what is planned.

The customization system allows many adjustments using attachments and modding of attachments with mechanic skill to be made to weapons and armor. There are some basic attachments in the core book. I'm assuming some more will be added in an expansion. Since a player mechanic can mod attachments, a weapons factory making the weapon itself should be able to easily add attachments or even mod them before sell.

Here are some examples of what I mean. I'm using the old WotC Arms and Equipment Guide as a source:

DL-18 Blaster Pistol: The basic Blaster Pistol. Cr 500. 3 Hard Points remaining.

DL-22 Blaster Pistol: A Blaster Pistol with a the Blaster Actuating Module attached (not modded) giving +1 damage but adding a Setback die. Stun ability removed. 2 Hard Points remaining. Cr 500.

DL-44 Heavy Blaster: The basic Heavy Blaster Pistol. 3 Hard Points remaining. Cr 750.

SoroSuub Model K-3: Heavy Blaster with Blaster Actuating Module (not modded) +1 damage and Telescopic Optial Sight (not modded) -1 difficulty Long/Extreme 1 Hard Point remaining. Cr 1100.

BlasTech E11: Blaster Carbine with Folding Stock. Encumbrance 2. 2 Hard Points remaining. Cr 1000.

I used costs of attachments at 1/2 price since they were added at the factory. These attachments are permanent with the weapon though. They can not be modded afterwards (if not already at the factory) or removed without destroying them. Thus, the Mechanic's mod ability is not made obsolete and a player can not circumvent the cost of attachments by buying a weapon with a 1/2 price attachment then modding it. Factory weapons still may have remaining hard points for further modification. So the factory weapons are overall cheaper, but a skilled mechanic may still use his skills to make something better and exactly to his liking, at an added cost.

When making the examples above, I assumed that removing the Stun ability from a weapon saves Cr 250. I created the Folding Stock attachment for Carbines and Rifles only which uses 2 Hard Points, costs Cr 250, and reduces Encumbrance by 1.

I'd like to see your full write up for the folding stock. Something alongs the lines of reducing a weapon's 'cumbersome' rating, but imposes a penalty if shooting beyond a certain range.

LethalDose said:

That was just made up on the fly to use as an example. I do think such an attachment is needed. More in-depth thoughts below.

I fiddled with Cumbersome, but didn't like it. Cumbersome only applies to larger weapons and in the real world folding stocks are typically found on smaller ones (rifles and below). I also fiddled with Range band penalties when closed but again ran into a problem. This reduced most rifles from Long to Medium when the stock was folded. Carbines and Slugthrower Rifles were however reduced to Short (the old Close). The Stormtrooper carbine of the movies with the folded stock (the norm) would only be usable at Short range. Making it a rifle is a different argument. The primary problem with the range band reduction is when adding a stock to a pistol. If you say this increases the range by 1 range band, you have a pistol that has a longer range then a Carbine. That doesn't seem right. I then moved to adding a difficult die when a stock is folded on a rifle/carbine, but removing a difficulty die for a pistol with a stock made it better then a Blaster Carbine. The only other solution would be to not allow a stock to be added to a pistol at all. This would allow any of the stock rules above to be feasable. I wanted the option of pistols with stocks (they exist in the real world), so I ended up with what I have below:

On a Rifle or Carbine: A Folding Stock costs Credits 250. When folded, the rifle or carbine reduces its encumbrance by 1. But, with the stock folded the weapon can not Aim. It takes 1 Manuveur to fold or unfold the stock.

On a Pistol: A Folding Stock costs Credits 250. Even when folded, the pistol has encumbrance +1. Two possible bonus options to consider using when the stock is deployed, both require a slight rule change: 1) Pistols can not Aim without a stock attached. Adding a deployed stock allows Aiming. 2) Pistols can Aim, but not take two consecutive Aims without a stock.

If you wanted folding stocks on larger weapons like Light Repeating Blasters, you could still add them with the no-Aim rule. It still makes sense.

If you are set on also fiddling with Cumbersome, I would add +2 Cumbersome to any weapon that has its stock removed or folded. This would make a Blaster Carbine with a folded stock have a Cumbersome of 2, manageable by most. A Heavy Blaster Rifle with a folded stock would have a Cumbersome of 5, making it difficult except for the very strongest. If you have pistols with stocks, they would not be affected by cumbersome at all.

Lots of thoughts above, not sure which is the best. Your thoughts?

First, I dig your thread and don't want to hijack it off of the original intent: Classic weapons using mods.

I think you're onto something, but I think we need to look at it a little bit differently:

The purpose of the folding stock is to make the weapon easier to handle in combat, and with ranged weapons, the place we see a 'penalty' for this is firing at engaged targets. I'd recommend that the folding stock be used to reduce the penalty for firing rifles in combat to +P (down from +PP), but add a setback die to firing at targets in range bands medium and abeyond Mod options can further

• Reduce encumberance when stock is retracted
• Reduce Cumbersome when stock is retracted
• Quick draw innate talent (but I don't want to step on the sling's feet)
• Quick strike innate talent?

how does that strike you?

-WJL

Completely missed the option regarding the lower penalty shooting while engaged. That makes sense also. Thanks.

I really liked the idea of not being able to Aim though if you don't have a stock. That is one of the purposes of a stock. It does not fit well though that with RAW, pistols don't have stocks but don't have a penalty to aiming. I don't see FFG changing a basic rule just for an attachment to work better. Something different is needed.

Ok back to the drawing board.

HEAVY FOLDING STOCK
May be applied to any Ranged (Heavy) weapon. The folding stock can be used retracted or extended. Retracting or extending a stock requires 1 Manuveur.
Base Modifiers: When retracted, reduces Engagement penalty from +DD to +D, but increases Cumbersome by 1 and gives +S at Medium or longer ranges.
Modification Options: (when retracted) Reduce Encumbrance by 1.
Cost: 500 credits.

LIGHT FOLDING STOCK
May be applied to any Ranged (light) weapon except Holdout Blaster, Ionization Blaster, Bola/Net, and Grenades. The folding stock can be used retracted or extended. Retracting or extending a stock requires 1 Manuveur.
Base Modifiers: +1 Encumbrance (always). When extended +S at Short* but +B at Medium (if base Short range, add Medium with no Bonus). Also when extended, increase Engagement penalty to +DD.
Modification Options: When retracted ignore Encumbrance penalty, When extended ignore Engagement penalty.
Cost: 250 credits.

I like the 2nd versions much better, thanks.

*I put the Setback at Short so a pistol with an extended folding stock won't have an advantage over a Carbine (basically a pistol with a permament stock). Without this penalty, a Blaster Pistol (any sort) with a stock would be more accurate then a Carbine (same Engagement penalty at Short, but with a +B at Medium). Adding the +S at Short corrects this for game purposes?

I'm completely against having Cumbersome reduced by a folding stock. After reading Cumbersome more then once, I think the oppositve should be true. Folding a stock on a big rifle makes it harder to shoot and requires more brawn to control it, not less. Encumbrance down, but Cumbersome up.

There are lots of options when considering folding stocks, hopefully FFG will take notice. If a folding stock is not included in Edge of the Empire, hopefully they have planned ahead on an Arms supplement and the RAW will not interfere.

I think your interpretation of "Cumbersome" is spot on and makes sense: To get the benefit of the retracted stock, the weapon takes increased brawn to control. I like that. Weapons without an existing cumbersome rating are also basically unaffected, since everyone has at least Brawn 1, as far as I know.

Re: "Light" folding stocks, eh. I don't see the need for them. I understand they made these (or something similar) for many pistol up until the end of WWII (I know some Luger models had them). They weren't effective and never got used. Ended up just being a novelty. There are plenty mods and attachments for pistols currently.

-WJL

Sturn said:

I'm thinking that maybe instead of two separate modifications, just have a single folding stock modification instead, taking elements of what you've come up with and putting it into a unified whole.

So as one possible option, a folding stock would increase the weapon's Encumbrance by one (Cumbersome really doesn't do much unless the weapon has a fairly high rating to begin with), costs a Hard Point, and has a note that it's restricted to blasters & energy weapons (the weapons under this heading in the ranged weapons chart on page 110), slugthrowers, and flame projectors. When the stock is extended, it provides an additional Boost die when using the Aim maneuver against targets at Medium Range or better, but increases the difficulty by one when Engaged with the target. When retracted, it decreases the difficulty when Engaged by 1 (minimum Difficulty of 1) but adds a Setback die when shooting at Medium range or further (a fair reflection of "shooting from the hip" and that the weapon's balance is a bit off from the factory standard).

As modifications, you'd have the option of getting rid of the Encumbrance penalty entirely, and a second option to add the Accurate quality to the weapon.

LethalDose said:

Donovan Morningfire said:

I think you're missing the point of the modification. When the stock is extended, there should be no functional difference between that weapon and an unmodified rifle. You're are taking a long gun and reducing the length. That means no bonuses to aim from any source, unless the regular rifle would get it too. Maybe it should, but that's a different thread.
Basically, the rifle's stock folds make it more suitable weapon for close-quarters fighting, but possibly loses some control at all ranges (cumbersome rating) and always loses some accuracy at longer ranges (Setback dice at Medium+). I don't think there needs to be a base expense of encumberance, but a mod that reduces encumbrance
It should only be applicable to Rifles, Carbines, and light repeaters (long weapons becoming short).
If you want to start adding totally different mods to pistols (and AluminiumWolf's post is perfect), then make them different mods. Here, you're taking a short weapon and lengthening it. Then, you can do all the aim bonuses you want, but it shouldn't make the weapon any better than a base rifle for shooting distances. They also don't improve the weapons range at all. What the stocks do on these pistols is not make them easier to handle, but improve firing stability. I would say using them could add a boost to firing at targets at short or medium range, but the pistols don't go to Long and this attachment can't change that. The benefits shouldn't apply engaged targets either, in fact it should be harder to use these in engagements than weapons without the stock on them.
But again, I don't think there's ANY precedent for these in Star Wars or even modern firearms (The UZI could be an exception, though).

LethalDose,

Well, seems I missed the memo that it was against official forum policy to offer alternatives and suggestions to a poster.

If the original poster doesn't want to consider a suggestion made by another poster, that's his choice to make. He's just as free to ignore my suggestions as you are to ignore my and I am to ignore yours.

Donovan Morningfire said:

How about the following:

Removable stock (150cr / 1 HP - can be added to Ranged (Light) pistol weapons or Ranged (Heavy) carbine weapons)

Increase the weapons encumbrance by 1, and the weapon's range by one band. This weapon counts as a Ranged (Heavy) weapon, when determining the difficulty of attacking while engaged. Can be removed - or reinstalled - (negating bonuses and penalties) as a maneuver.

Folding stock (150cr / 1 HP - can be added to Ranged (Heavy) rifle weapons)

Can fold (or unfold) the weapons stock as a maneuver. When folded, reduce the weapon's range by one band (to a minimum of Short - if already Short add [setback] to attack rolls), add [Difficulty] to Perception checks to detect and counts as a Ranged (Light) weapon when determining the difficulty of attacking while engaged.

I think adding additional [boost] to attacks when aiming is probably too good for an upgrade…

It also has the advantage of making a carbine stat-wise the same as a rifle by adding a removable stock.

LethalDose said:

Agreed - it shouldn't make a pistol into a "better rifle", and as I said in my reply to DMs post, I think adding additional [boost] to aiming manuevers is too powerful.

LethalDose said:

Here I disagree - I think improving firing stability should have exactly the effect of increasing the effective range of the weapon. It doesn't physically make it shoot further, but it does let you increase the range at which you can be effective with the weapon a little (i.e.: one range band).

Adding a removable stock to a carbine weapon (effectively a stockless rifle), should have the effect of giving the carbine the same stats as a rifle of the same type - namely one more encumbrance and one more range band).

@ Gribble

I totally get where your argument is coming from, and I disagree with you for the same reason you disagree with me: what determines range. As I see it, range is determined by how far a weapon can send it's projectile, in this case, an energized, spin-sealed tibanna gas packet. How far the weapon can project this thing before it falls apart it based on focusing crystals, energy source, colimator, blah blah blah (seriously, who cares about the specifics). The point is, the way the gun works fundamental sets the range at which it operates. Strapping some wood, or durasteel or plastiwhatver to the butt of the weapon doesn't affect how the gun works.

In terms of a modern weapon, even if you chamber a pistol for a larger cartridge (increase power), it doesn't do much to increase the range, because the distance that the explosive charge acts on the bullet is still limited to the length of the barrel. Does more damage for sure, but doesn't take the effective range from "several dozen meters" to "further than a few dozen meters" (Man the band descriptions in this game really suck). And that's a lot closer to changing how the weapon works than adding stock.

Anyway, i see your point, I just see it differently. And that's okay.

-WJL

LethalDose said:

Yep - I can see where you're coming from too. You probably have a point based on the way that the telescopic sight upgrade works, and that another way of looking at the carbine is that it's a rifle with the "shortened barrel" upgrade (even if, by the rules that can only be applied to pistol weapons, which I think is an oversight given that it's most frequently applied to shotguns in the real world).

I guess the way I see it is that the projectile of "Short" range weapon, when fired in absolutely perfect conditions (i.e.: a target range, with ample time to pick optimal firing position, etc) actually reaches "Medium" range, but when used in actual combat conditions, the effective range of firing the weapon is only "Short". IMO, adding a stock increases that effective range, allowing you to make the most out of the actual distance that a projectile travels.

But I agree it could be seen either way. I'd be hesitant with any upgrade that added [boost] to attacks, and reducing the difficulty at range treads too much on the territory of sights. Perhaps a removable stock could provide an upgrade to attacks at the weapons maximum range, and conversely a foldable stock could upgrade the difficulty at the weapons maximum range. How about:

Removable Stock (150cr / 1 HP - can be added to pistol and carbine weapons)

Can be removed (negating bonuses and penalties) or re-attached (re-applying bonuses and penalties) as a maneuver. Attacks made at this weapons maximum range band are upgraded. Adds 1 to the weapons Encumbrance rating and the weapon counts as a Ranged (Heavy) weapon when determining the difficulty of attacking while engaged.

Foldable Stock (150cr / 1 HP - can be added to rifle weapons)

Can be folded (negating bonuses and penalties) or unfolded (re-applying bonuses and penalties) as a maneuver. When folded, this weapon counts as a Ranged (Light) weapon when determining the difficulty of attacking while engaged, but the difficulty of attacks made at this weapons maximum range band are upgraded.

LethalDose said:

I agree with you now. Just one Folding Stock is needed (previously Heavy Folding Stock). The Light Folding Stock was problematic and non-elegant anyhow.

gribble said:

As it stands, anything that grants the Accurate quality (Augment Spin Barrel mod, and 2 Sniper barrel mods) already adds boost(s) to attack rolls, so it already there. And concerning "treading on sights" for imposing a penalty beyond a range, well filed front sights can only be applied to pistols, not rifles, so it's exclusionary the proposed folding stock.

-WJL

Donovan Morningfire said:

Surprised you missed it. You wrote it.

-WJL

gribble said:

As basic attachments I like these, they remind of the saga option for blaster rifles with foldable stocks counting as heavy blasters if used one handed (at least I think it's there I read about such a notion) and its one of the few things I liked in that system.

The removable stock could potentially, if the increased range band is such an issue, give the with the accurate quality. Although I see that as quality as a potential modification, above and beyond the basic modification of the attachment. Actually I can see both stock options having that as a modification option. I like these as they are. As far as I know there are talents that allows some to shoot beyond the range band of the weapon, so I can see the removable stock sort of work like that - not that I've read the talent(s) recently and I don't have the book here (blasted LF and their policy on pdfs!).

LethalDose said:

I was hoping there might be a reasonable compromise, but since you seem hellbent on sniping my posts and taking things out of context even far outside of the one disagreement over how one species as interpreted, that seems impossible. I was hoping the actual forum moderaters. not the self-appointed vigilante ones, might take notice about this, but seeing as how they either approve of your constant attacks or simply don't care, then I guess reasonable compromise is out the window.

Perhaps you should simply save us both a lot of grief and simply ignore my posts in the future, as you obviously are taking umbrage with everything I say. I'll certainly extend you the same courtesy going forward.

I created this thread for the topic mentioned in the title. If you must argue, please create a thread or PM.

Back on topic. I've read elsewhere about three core setting books, EotE being the first. Does this mean only 3 books are planned thus far or are each of these books going to be supported by supplements? I hope so, if not there is little chance we are going to see something like a supplement of Arms and Armor with new mods and iconic weapons statted out.

pretty sure that we can expect supplements for each individual Star wars game. They way they seem to have explained is EotE, Age of Rebellion, and Force& Destiny are intended to actually be stand-alone games, but will have interchangable rules. So, after we have all 3 core products, we'll have, I guess, 3 separate games, but can be combined into a, uh, super-game? I guess. Not sure what to call.

Point is, yeah, I think we can expect all 3 will have their own supplements, so we should be seeing Bounty Hunter, and trader, and underworld, and scout/exploration supplements for EotE soon after launch. Just look how quick they were to launch new minis for X-Wing.

-WJL

PS Sorry about pissing on the thread, won't happen again.

Sturn said:

Well, the WH40K line has three core books (Dark Heresy, Rogue Trader, DeathWatch), but a whole host of supplements in addition to those. So we can probably expect to see other sourcebooks as well for FFG's Star Wars line.

As far as the topic of "distinctive weapons," I think that kind of depends on how important your view on gear in Star Wars is. When the A&EG came out for the RCR, there was a fair amount of negative feedback as most of the weapons had very minor differences from the base weapons given in the corebook. And the one Saga Edition book where they went for specific weapon types (Clone Wars Campaign Guide) over more general models also caused a lot of negative feedback, primarily as several of the CWCG weapons were so much better than their standard equivalents, notables being the DeathHammer heavy blaster pistol (no inaccurate, restricted availability) and the Longblaster rifle (which beat the pants off the Sniper Rifle listed in Scum & Villainy).

One of the things that I think Saga Edition really got right was making equipment more of a secondary concern rather than the classic D&D approach of "you are your gear." It wasn't the type of blaster that made you awesome, it was what feats and talents your character had that made you awesome.

As to the topic if new modifications, those I'd like to see, particularly for melee weapons and armor. The upgrade system in Scum & Villainy was done quite well, giving players plenty of ways to tweak their weapons and equipment, but generally not let things get too out of hand in the process.

Brand names are important - consider James Bond here having breakfast:-

"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!" *reviving old thread for selfish purposes*

Rightyho!

I have now, throughout the last few days, attempted to do something similar to Sturn's idea. I have not tried to make these individual weapons only by going through attachments - rather I've just given them a boost here, a decrease there. Some do on the other hand have qualities or mods. Its all in this document along with my ship conversions. Although further changes has been done since posting it, amongst them the DL-22 which is now very much like Sturn's conception - the same basically although more expensive.

To make it easier I post my version of the retractable/attachable stock here:

Retractable (removable) stock
The stock on a rifle may be made retractable, or a pistol may have a removable stock attached. Applying this oneself requires an average mechanics check. This may only be applied to blaster rifle, carbine, heavy blaster pistol and blaster pistol, additionally also the two slugthrower variants. Removing or folding the stock requires a manoeuvre.
Basic Modifier: When applied to a rifle: when the stock is folded the weapon now uses Ranged (light) skill and the effective range is reduced to medium due to the weight and instability of the weapon. When extended the rifle is as per original stats.
When applied to a pistol: The weapons encumbrance increases by 1. When attached the weapon increases its effective range by one range band due to improved stability. Requires a ranged (heavy) check to fire.
Modification Options: Rifle: Innate talent (sniper shot)
Pistol: 1 Weapon Quality (accurate +1) mod
Hardpoint Cost: 1
Cost: 150

Actually, this is a great start, but we need more. In fact, we need to figure or at least find rules for certain types of outright modifications.

For example, the rifle mounted flame thrower mod, why not allow it to be added to armour? For Bounty Hunters, like Boba Fett wannabes.

One of my friends wants to play a Black Widow ripoff (She's not sure at the moment, she's waffling between Hired Gun/Marauder and Bounty Hunter/Assassin, I'm leaning latter) and I suggest maybe some shock gloves with built in 'brass knuckles'…

And frankly, I want to have man sized explosive missiles, and that 'wrist dart launcher' that was mentioned in the book, but no other details given.

We need slightly more rules in how things can be modified.