Agreed, it's not exactly the same thing, but the pricing does feel off to me. As I said earlier, I'm not going to change anything just yet as I haven't played the system long enough to get a feel for the relative value of the stats. I just have a feeling players will go - Hmmmm, 6000 credits for an unarmed vehicle vs 3000 for one that has a gun? Gun please. If that choice becomes the default answer, then it's not a choice and then there's something not right. If the players would rather than the more expensive, unarmed one, then that's cool. I know there will be issues driving around with an armed bike with respect to NPC reactions, but then again, it's not a restricted vehicle so they would probably argue with me that there shouldn't be.

I agree on the pricing front. I was only arguing on the restricted/non-restricted front.

In response to your modern analogy:

If you can find an Assault Rifle for $1000, let me know where. I'll apply for that $200 tax stamp and buy it myself, then sell it to someone else for a $4000-$15000 profit, and replace it with a perfectly serviceable semi-automatic rifle in the same caliber.

This has potential to derail, so I will reply once and hopefully you will reply once at most.

I actually didn't mean to be realistic about the dollar amount, I could have said $10 or $10,000, the analogy would still stand. You are assuming a full auto definition, I'm not. Even so, my cost is actually somewhat high or spot on when considering semi-auto assault rifles even with a recent price spike.

Most people think of the common M4/M16 or AK47 when speaking of assault rifles. Even with a recent spike that shot costs through the roof on Assault Rifles (not so many years ago you could get one for $400), they are back down to around $800. Here is one right now. Even with the recent inflated prices, my price tag is slightly high or typical if anything.

Yes I'm referring to the common definition that includes semi-automatic weapons as Assault Rifles. You apparently aren't and are assuming Assault Rifles must all be fully automatic by definition. That definition can vary greatly by who you speak to.

I started to use the SAW as my analogy weapon, which seemed the most similar to the light repeating blaster, but I didn't think it mattered at all what weapon I used. I could have said a $400 handgun that happened to be restricted placed on a moped costs $450 and is no longer restricted, to get the same point across.

Edit: Cleaned and shortened, not wanting to start a fight.

In response to your modern analogy:

If you can find an Assault Rifle for $1000, let me know where. I'll apply for that $200 tax stamp and buy it myself, then sell it to someone else for a $4000-$15000 profit, and replace it with a perfectly serviceable semi-automatic rifle in the same caliber.

This has potential to derail, so I will reply once and hopefully you will reply once at most.

I actually didn't mean to be realistic about the dollar amount, I could have said $10 or $10,000, the analogy would still stand. You are assuming a full auto definition, I'm not. Even so, my cost is actually somewhat high or spot on when considering semi-auto assault rifles even with a recent price spike.

Most people think of the common M4/M16 or AK47 when speaking of assault rifles. Even with a recent spike that shot costs through the roof on Assault Rifles (not so many years ago you could get one for $400), they are back down to around $800. Here is one right now. Even with the recent inflated prices, my price tag is slightly high or typical if anything.

Yes I'm referring to the common definition that includes semi-automatic weapons as Assault Rifles. You apparently aren't and are assuming Assault Rifles must all be fully automatic by definition. That definition can vary greatly by who you speak to.

I started to use the SAW as my analogy weapon, which seemed the most similar to the light repeating blaster, but I didn't think it mattered at all what weapon I used. I could have said a $400 handgun that happened to be restricted placed on a moped costs $450 and is no longer restricted, to get the same point across.

Edit: Cleaned and shortened, not wanting to start a fight.

At risk of the derailing you refer to, I'll point out that despite the title of the linked article, the article discusses the definition of 'assault weapon', not 'assault rifle'. The two terms are distinct. The latter is a term invented by the military, and *defined* as a fully-automatic, or select-fire firearm. The former is a term invented by politicians who want to confuse the masses and confound intelligent debate. The former is also a term for which not even the politicians who invented it can provide a consistent definition, it mostly seems to be related to cosmetic and ergonomic features, rather than any actual functional distinction. When implemented in law, the definition is even more arbitrary, with certain firearms which have *none* of the described characteristics being banned, and others which have several such characteristics being explicitly exempted from the ban.

That will be the last I'll post on this tangent, since it's not actually the topic at hand.

And back to the topic at hand:

A more straight forward example of how physically smaller firearms are often more heavily regulated and restricted than their larger brethren. To legally own a handgun in the US, you must be 21 years of age. To legally own a long arm (rifle, shotgun, or the like), you only have to be 18 years old. (It's another example of the arbitrary, "You're an adult now, except for a few things where we've decided you're not!" nonsense in US law.)

If it were because of destructive capability, the rifles would be more heavily regulated. Even when they share the exact same ammunition, a pistol is significantly less powerful than a rifle, largely due to barrel length allowing for a more complete burn of the powder before the round exits the muzzle, giving it more time under acceleration. Instead, the more powerful weapon is *less* regulated. (In some cases it's because rifles are 'scary' to a certain crowd, in others because they are less easily concealed.)

And back to the topic at hand:

A more straight forward example of how physically smaller firearms are often more heavily regulated and restricted than their larger brethren. To legally own a handgun in the US, you must be 21 years of age. To legally own a long arm (rifle, shotgun, or the like), you only have to be 18 years old. (It's another example of the arbitrary, "You're an adult now, except for a few things where we've decided you're not!" nonsense in US law.)

If it were because of destructive capability, the rifles would be more heavily regulated. Even when they share the exact same ammunition, a pistol is significantly less powerful than a rifle, largely due to barrel length allowing for a more complete burn of the powder before the round exits the muzzle, giving it more time under acceleration. Instead, the more powerful weapon is *less* regulated. (In some cases it's because rifles are 'scary' to a certain crowd, in others because they are less easily concealed.)

That's good, I agree with you. But the topic at hand is not smaller vs larger weapons, but the same weapon attached to a vehicle or not.

There are lots of modern weapons that are exactly the same weapon when attached to a vehicle or not. This can range from it is completely identical (pintle mounted weapons that can quickly be detached) or (more relevant to the Aratech) near permanently mounted weapons - it's the same weapon often with a belt feed and a different trigger more permanently attached to the vehicle. If you've been in an APC or a UH-1 you will often see the same weapon carried by infantry mounted in the vehicle with some adjustments. I once carried an M60 machinegun, for example. In the UH-1 (Huey) it was the exact same gun with a butterfly trigger and handles on the end (versus a standard trigger and stock) and a large belt feed mechanism. Now imagine the same setup attached in the bed of a pickup, permanently. So (just an example, let's don't discuss realworld cost again, not my point) an M60 needs a special license and costs $15,000. It is attached permanently to a pickup and now costs $16,500 and no longer requires the special license????

And back to the topic at hand:

A more straight forward example of how physically smaller firearms are often more heavily regulated and restricted than their larger brethren. To legally own a handgun in the US, you must be 21 years of age. To legally own a long arm (rifle, shotgun, or the like), you only have to be 18 years old. (It's another example of the arbitrary, "You're an adult now, except for a few things where we've decided you're not!" nonsense in US law.)

If it were because of destructive capability, the rifles would be more heavily regulated. Even when they share the exact same ammunition, a pistol is significantly less powerful than a rifle, largely due to barrel length allowing for a more complete burn of the powder before the round exits the muzzle, giving it more time under acceleration. Instead, the more powerful weapon is *less* regulated. (In some cases it's because rifles are 'scary' to a certain crowd, in others because they are less easily concealed.)

That's good, I agree with you. But the topic at hand is not smaller vs larger weapons, but the same weapon attached to a vehicle or not.

There are lots of modern weapons that are exactly the same weapon when attached to a vehicle or not. This can range from it is completely identical (pintle mounted weapons that can quickly be detached) or (more relevant to the Aratech) near permanently mounted weapons - it's the same weapon often with a belt feed and a different trigger more permanently attached to the vehicle. If you've been in an APC or a UH-1 you will often see the same weapon carried by infantry mounted in the vehicle with some adjustments. I once carried an M60 machinegun, for example. In the UH-1 (Huey) it was the exact same gun with a butterfly trigger and handles on the end (versus a standard trigger and stock) and a large belt feed mechanism. Now imagine the same setup attached in the bed of a pickup, permanently. So (just an example, let's don't discuss realworld cost again, not my point) an M60 needs a special license and costs $15,000. It is attached permanently to a pickup and now costs $16,500 and no longer requires the special license????

Again, as I've stated before, having *equivalent* weaponry doesn't mean it's the *same* weapon, and the speeder (with, or without the built-in weapon) *is* significantly larger than the blaster. Also in point of fact, it's pretty clear that the weapon built into the Aratech 74-Z *isn't* a normal, off the shelf, Light Repeating Blaster that's been welded or bolted to the speeder, and that (without significant modification) it would be virtually impossible to wield *unless* you were sitting on the speeder bike at the time, which *significantly* limits the places where you can take the attached weapon.

Note: I've only been debating the Restricted vs. Unrestricted nature of the two, not the cost issue when comparing the two speeders (which I agree about).

Again, as I've stated before, having *equivalent* weaponry doesn't mean it's the *same* weapon, and the speeder (with, or without the built-in weapon) *is* significantly larger than the blaster. Also in point of fact, it's pretty clear that the weapon built into the Aratech 74-Z *isn't* a normal, off the shelf, Light Repeating Blaster that's been welded or bolted to the speeder, and that (without significant modification) it would be virtually impossible to wield *unless* you were sitting on the speeder bike at the time, which *significantly* limits the places where you can take the attached weapon.

Last part of that paragraph first. I think you are putting too much weight on how many places the weapon can be taken. There are disadvantages (like you mentioned) AND clear advantages to having the weapon mounted on a vehicle. I don't think it makes a clear reason to change it's restriction level from "you can't have it" to "it's perfectly legal" just because you attached it to a bike.

Light Repeating Blaster - Damage 11, Crit 3, Range Long, Auto-Fire, Pierce 1.

Aratech Light Repeating Blaster - Damage 11, Crit 3, Range Extreme, Auto-Fire, Pierce 1.

It's the SAME weapon for game purposes, except it apparently gains Extreme range. I'm gonna assume that means it added the longer Marksman Barrel attachment. It has the same name and characteristics. Unless you are adding variations of the Light Repeating Blaster to your campaign, for game purposes there is one and only one Light Repeating Blaster.

If you disassemble it from the bike, I agree it wouldn't be immediately useful. Buy a few parts - trigger mechanism, stock, handgrip, blaster pack magazine well. Then some time and a few Mechanics checks and you have yourself a Light Repeating Blaster AND a bike all for 3,000 credits plus the parts versus 2,250 for just the blaster. In your campaign (it's yours after all) I would assume the personal-carry weapon you just modified would now be restricted. In my campaign it's going to be already restricted before removing it from the bike. An M60 partially dissambled and welded to a pickup should be as restricted as the M60 I could carry around.

I think we've beat this horse enough. Let's shake and agree to disagree. Each will handle this their own way in their campaign. There are sensible arguments for either case.

Light Repeating Blaster - Damage 11, Crit 3, Range Long, Auto-Fire, Pierce 1.

Aratech Light Repeating Blaster - Damage 11, Crit 3, Range Extreme, Auto-Fire, Pierce 1.

It's the SAME weapon for game purposes, except it apparently gains Extreme range. I'm gonna assume that means it added the longer Marksman Barrel attachment. It has the same name and characteristics. Unless you are adding variations of the Light Repeating Blaster to your campaign, for game purposes there is one and only one Light Repeating Blaster.

As a sidenote, the Light Repeating Blaster is not allowed to mount the Marksman Barrel attachment.

I think you are putting too much weight on how many places the weapon can be taken. There are disadvantages (like you mentioned) AND clear advantages to having the weapon mounted on a vehicle. I don't think it makes a clear reason to change it's restriction level from "you can't have it" to "it's perfectly legal" just because you attached it to a bike.

I mentioned the 'where you can take it difference, because it was your original contention that the speeder-mounted weapon could be taken *more* places.

I'm curious what 'clear advantage' you get by having the weapon on the bike compared to having a person on the bike with the same-named weapon? (I see the range advantage, that you can't get on the personal weapon, but that points even more to them *not* being the same thing, despite being given the same, very generic, description.

I agree that it *shouldn't* make a difference with regards to it's restriction level (though we seem to disagree on which direction that should move), but I pointed out, with a real-world example, how it sometimes *does*. (I don't think you should have to be any older to own a pistol than a rifle, but you do. I don't think possessing the same, in this case *literally* the same, firearm in New York should go from being legal with a low-capacity 7-round magazine to a felony with a 15-round magazine, but it does.) Sometimes those legal distinctions are built on rational, if speculative, reasoning (like being able to more easily conceal a pistol). Sometimes they're built on arbitrary rationalizations (like New York's magazine capacity restrictions).

And, again, you didn't 'attach the restricted weapon to a bike' and have it become unrestricted. The weapon is built into the bike in the first place. And welding a restricted weapon onto a vehicle wouldn't make the *vehicle* Restricted, it would still just be the weapon that was Restricted. A vehicle that comes with the weapon built in can, as part of the sales process, have the necessary licensing in place such that the weapon, while mounted to the vehicle, is legal.

Note: The Restricted rating seems to simply indicate that the result is, by default, considered to be a black market only purchase.

Again, as I've stated before, having *equivalent* weaponry doesn't mean it's the *same* weapon, and the speeder (with, or without the built-in weapon) *is* significantly larger than the blaster. Also in point of fact, it's pretty clear that the weapon built into the Aratech 74-Z *isn't* a normal, off the shelf, Light Repeating Blaster that's been welded or bolted to the speeder, and that (without significant modification) it would be virtually impossible to wield *unless* you were sitting on the speeder bike at the time, which *significantly* limits the places where you can take the attached weapon.

Light Repeating Blaster - Damage 11, Crit 3, Range Long, Auto-Fire, Pierce 1.

Aratech Light Repeating Blaster - Damage 11, Crit 3, Range Extreme, Auto-Fire, Pierce 1.

It's the SAME weapon for game purposes, except it apparently gains Extreme range. I'm gonna assume that means it added the longer Marksman Barrel attachment. It has the same name and characteristics. Unless you are adding variations of the Light Repeating Blaster to your campaign, for game purposes there is one and only one Light Repeating Blaster.

So... AGAIN, not the same weapon, despite sharing the same name. The point I've been making. (And I'm *STILL* not arguing against the fact that the *pricing* seems off.) If they're "the SAME weapon for game purposes" why do they have differing statistics? (Hint: because they're *not* the SAME, they're just similar enough that they both fit into the same *category*.)

If you disassemble it from the bike, I agree it wouldn't be immediately useful. Buy a few parts - trigger mechanism, stock, handgrip, blaster pack magazine well. Then some time and a few Mechanics checks and you have yourself a Light Repeating Blaster AND a bike all for 3,000 credits plus the parts versus 2,250 for just the blaster. In your campaign (it's yours after all) I would assume the personal-carry weapon you just modified would now be restricted. In my campaign it's going to be already restricted before removing it from the bike. An M60 partially dissambled and welded to a pickup should be as restricted as the M60 I could carry around.

Of course, you've also made the assumption that, if you stripped the parts from the bike, and spent the time tinkering everything into a rifle-style weapon, that the end result somehow *wouldn't* be just as Restricted as the off-the-shelf Light Repeating Blaster. It might be a way to get the parts needed to do so without raising red flags in the system, but I sincerely doubt that the law would see the end result of said tinkering as any less restricted than the off-the-shelf version.

If anything, you're probably going to be significantly worse off from a legal perspective, because once you *do* get caught with it, there's absolutely no excuse for either owning the weapon, *or* taking the actions you took to turn it into a personal, rather than vehicle-mounted, weapon.

I'll note that if it were *really* impossible to legally own such weapons, then Boba Fett and several of the other bounty hunters seen in Empire & Jedi were in possession of utterly illegal weaponry while in the presence of Imperial Navy crew, and even Darth Vader himself. That doesn't seem like a particularly intelligent way to go about *not* having been arrested several times before that scene. Obviously, it is *possible* to own and carry such a weapon legally.

I'll also note that it's possible to buy *significantly* more powerful and destructive weaponry attached to other vehicles which aren't Restricted. Compare, for example, the TIE/LN (Restricted with Medium Laser Cannons) vs. the Y-Wing (Non-Restricted, with Medium Laser Cannons, Light Ion Cannons, and Proton Torpedo Launchers). So, obviously, there are factors beyond just the capability of any attached weapons that go into determining whether a given piece of machinery is Restricted or not.)

I think we've beat this horse enough. Let's shake and agree to disagree. Each will handle this their own way in their campaign.

I agree.