So, tripods. There's a tripod that comes integrated into the Heavy Repeating Blaster (HRB) and then there's the Tripod Mount that is an attachment for the Light and Heavy Repeating Blasters. The text for the HRB says it includes the same type of tripod as described under the tripod mount. But they're different...

The HRB tripod says it takes three actions to set up. The Tripod Mount says it takes two preparation maneuvers. Which is correct? Right now, I favor the use of preparation maneuvers, as I don't like 'unrolled' actions.

Also, the text for the HRB - as well as the rules written for it - seem to allow someone of Brawn 5+ (3+ with the Weapon Harness attachment) to carry and use it without penalty. IOW, they can go all "G.I.Joe Roadblock" and use this as their longarm. However the text for the HRB also contradicts itself and indicates that the weapon requires a second operator and needs the tripod.

So, in two places I am finding fault with the descriptive fluff of the HRB and the 'rules' that are spelled out within them. Anyone have any clarifications?

There's definitely a contradiction. I'm inclined to go with two maneuvers to set-up, for the same reason you do.

As for requiring a second operator, as I've told all my high-Brawn players that rule sticks even if you can pick it up and move it around without penalty. I require someone to be there making an Easy Mechanics check every round to keep HRBs going, even if it means they have to follow someone around.

I even throw one Setback die into the mix during a loud battle; two when being shot at; two when following someone around; and three while being shot at and following someone around.

Then again, I'm also kind of a jerk, so play this out how you like.

Incidentally, this very question is the primary reason I'd like to see Gonk power droids given a write-up. In the WotC minis game they could be use to increase the power output of ANY blaster, but were most often used in conjunction with tripod-mounted repeaters. (The trade-off being that, when they died, they exploded and dealt some pretty extreme damage to adjacent units.)

There's definitely a contradiction. I'm inclined to go with two maneuvers to set-up, for the same reason you do.

As for requiring a second operator, as I've told all my high-Brawn players that rule sticks even if you can pick it up and move it around without penalty. I require someone to be there making an Easy Mechanics check every round to keep HRBs going, even if it means they have to follow someone around.

I even throw one Setback die into the mix during a loud battle; two when being shot at; two when following someone around; and three while being shot at and following someone around.

Then again, I'm also kind of a jerk, so play this out how you like.

Incidentally, this very question is the primary reason I'd like to see Gonk power droids given a write-up. In the WotC minis game they could be use to increase the power output of ANY blaster, but were most often used in conjunction with tripod-mounted repeaters. (The trade-off being that, when they died, they exploded and dealt some pretty extreme damage to adjacent units.)

OK, so would it be reasonable to split the Encumbrance of 9 between the gunner and the loader? Surely (sorry, I'll try to stop calling you Shirley) the power generator has to make up some of the weapon's Encumbrance. Of course, the tripod should have some of the Encumbrance too, so not having the tripod attached should also cut the Encumbrance some.

I have no problem with the idea of Roadblock being closely followed by a power droid. That seems cool. I'm not keen on throwing in Setback dice, nor of even having the monitoring of the power supply be an Action (a maneuver each round should be sufficient).

I just read over Wookieepedia's article on heavy repeating blasters, and it seems that they can indeed be carried and used without the power generator, but that the ammunition capacity was limited to 20 shots.

This might mean that it has Limited Ammo 20 without the generator, but this isn't how Limited Ammo usually works since there is no cost for reloading, just a need to hook it back up to the power pack.

It could also mean that, when not attached to a generator, that the heavy repeating blaster uses the same special rules for running out of ammo as the heavy blaster pistol.

It could also be that a heavy repeating blaster operating without the generator loses the Auto-fire.quality.

I like a combination of the latter two (can run out of ammo on three Threats, no Auto-fire) for using it without the generator, so I may go with this for when the Gonk isn't available.

For 20 shots, I'd say it has Limited Ammo 2 when used with auto-fire. I already apply the HBP rule to auto-fire weapons anyway, personally. It just makes sense.

I'd also definitely consider the weapon itself to be fully encumbrance 9, with the generator being tracked separately. Light repeating blasters are already at encumbrance 7 without a generator, and the E-Web itself took two Snowtroopers to carry in Episode VI besides.

Still a very interesting bit about it having only 20 shots without the generator... I'm not sure it would still have auto-fire either. Then again, since other editions of the game had it listed as "auto-fire only", I'm not sure it WOULDN'T have auto-fire.

For now I'm going to stick with "Limited Ammo 2" for auto-fire mode, and 3 Threats = no ammo for single-shot mode. I'm definitely gonna read up on heavy repeaters on Wookieepedia tomorrow, though.

So:

So:

Yeah, pretty much that. I don't see why a guy with Brawn 5+ (enough to handle the Cumbersome 5) shouldn't be able to do the same thing. The Encumbrance and Cumbersome ratings are what they are for a reason, and the fluff text doesn't quite match what the profile of the weapon lists in this case.

Of course, that appears much closer to the Z-6 rotary blaster cannon than the E-Web, but both are versions of heavy repeating blaster. There is also the reciprocating quad blaster (see pic below) for man-pack heavy weapons.

Consider: the space marine is using a model of light repeating blaster, and the ARC Trooper is using a heavy repeating blaster along with a weapon harness (-2 Cumbersome).

As for the lack of stationary power supply, there very well could be an attachment for that. As of now, no attachments work with either a light repeating blaster or a heavy repeating blaster (although personally I allow the augmented spin barrel to work with light repeating blasters so that they don't get outclassed by heavy blaster rifles with augmented spin barrels).

Consider: the space marine is using a model of light repeating blaster, and the ARC Trooper is using a heavy repeating blaster along with a weapon harness (-2 Cumbersome).

I would certainly argue that. I think of light repeating blasters as being very large rifle-like weapons like the M249. This is why they use Ranged (Heavy) rather than Gunnery. The weapon being carried by the Spartan certainly looks like a heavy repeating blaster in SW terms.

Its a turret weapon that has infinite ammo... until you rip it off its mount and cart it around, cackling maniacally.

Munchkin

Yes, darling?

I just read over Wookieepedia's article on heavy repeating blasters, and it seems that they can indeed be carried and used without the power generator, but that the ammunition capacity was limited to 20 shots.

This might mean that it has Limited Ammo 20 without the generator, but this isn't how Limited Ammo usually works since there is no cost for reloading, just a need to hook it back up to the power pack.

It could also mean that, when not attached to a generator, that the heavy repeating blaster uses the same special rules for running out of ammo as the heavy blaster pistol.

It could also be that a heavy repeating blaster operating without the generator loses the Auto-fire.quality.

I like a combination of the latter two (can run out of ammo on three Threats, no Auto-fire) for using it without the generator, so I may go with this for when the Gonk isn't available.

I just read over Wookieepedia's article on heavy repeating blasters, and it seems that they can indeed be carried and used without the power generator, but that the ammunition capacity was limited to 20 shots.

This might mean that it has Limited Ammo 20 without the generator, but this isn't how Limited Ammo usually works since there is no cost for reloading, just a need to hook it back up to the power pack.

It could also mean that, when not attached to a generator, that the heavy repeating blaster uses the same special rules for running out of ammo as the heavy blaster pistol.

It could also be that a heavy repeating blaster operating without the generator loses the Auto-fire.quality.

I like a combination of the latter two (can run out of ammo on three Threats, no Auto-fire) for using it without the generator, so I may go with this for when the Gonk isn't available.

Why not do like the heavy blaster pistol? Despair=empty. If the generator isn't manned it also upgrades all shooting attacks. One man can fire it, until something goes wrong, then the gen malfunctions and requires a average mech check and an hour to fix.

I'm talking about using it without an attached generator. That's why I suggested that using it in such a manner would make it run out of ammo more quickly in a manner similar to the heavy blaster pistol. I also suggested that using it in such a manner might remove the Auto-fire quality since without the generator feeding an excess of power, it might take the weapon longer to cycle.

BTW, Despair = empty isn't the heavy blaster pistol rule, it's the rule for all ranged weapons. The heavy blaster pistol is special because it can also run out of ammo with three Threat.

I think that the best solution would have been for them to stat out a heavy repeating blaster without the tripod and external generator. The tripod can be purchased as an Attachment (or not if some other means of employing the weapon is desired), and the generator could be purchased as a separate piece of gear (with its own Encumbrance value) to be carried by the second member of the team. Then some quick rules for how the weapon operates differently with/without the generator.

So, maybe something like this:

HRB (unconnected to generator pack): Damage 13; Critical 3; Range (Long); Auto-fire, Cumbersome 5, Piercing 1

The HRB is Encumbrance 9.

The generator pack is Encumbrance 9.

Cost the HRB at 3,750 credits, the tripod mount at 250 credits, and the generator at 2,000 credits.

Seriously? We are doing another goram thread about the fraking HRB?

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/95453-heavy-repeating-blaster-1-man-crew/

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/90174-heavy-repeating-blaster/

Just send Sam Stewart an email and post the reply so that we can stop having this discussion every couple months.

Seriously? We are doing another goram thread about the fraking HRB?

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/95453-heavy-repeating-blaster-1-man-crew/

http://community.fantasyflightgames.com/index.php?/topic/90174-heavy-repeating-blaster/

Just send Sam Stewart an email and post the reply so that we can stop having this discussion every couple months.

The thread title was pretty clear on what was being discussed here, and there's room enough on these forums for another thread.

The thread title was pretty clear on what was being discussed here, and there's room enough on these forums for another thread.

Yes, but in your OP you also brought up the issue of one/two man operation of the HRB. A topic which has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. Discussions in which you have participated. So my problem is this: You know from being around the forums and engaging in the past threads, that the HRB one/two man debate is a hot button without a clear resolution. So I'm forced to conclude that you 1) Forgot this happening at least twice in the past couple months 2) Are looking to stir up debate on something you know has no resolution.

1) In case you did forget I linked the most recent two threads I found in the Search Bar.

2) I'm saying let's skip all the bull. Just email FFG for clarification. Because they are the only people who can give anything more than guesswork anyway.

If you want to talk about the discrepency for tripod mounts, I'm up to hear that. I'll even jump into it.

My take is that the text for HRB saying it takes three actions really means three manuevers. The Tripod attachment could then reduce that to two manuevers. I don't have my book with me to check the exact text so maybe that's not RAW/RAI, but since my only HRB is currrently mounted on the underside of a YT-1300 I haven't had much reason to give the text more than a casual glance.

So, I'm open to hear opinions about the tripods, but we really don't need to rehash the same old arguments about carrying around a HRB like a fraking Spartan. There isn't going to be resolution on that issue without intervention from FFG.

Munchkin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCsUpggXqbQ

Munchkin

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCsUpggXqbQ

Classic!

All I can say is; "We're gonna need a bigger Wookie."

The thread title was pretty clear on what was being discussed here, and there's room enough on these forums for another thread.

Yes, but in your OP you also brought up the issue of one/two man operation of the HRB. A topic which has been discussed ad nauseum in the past. Discussions in which you have participated. So my problem is this: You know from being around the forums and engaging in the past threads, that the HRB one/two man debate is a hot button without a clear resolution. So I'm forced to conclude that you 1) Forgot this happening at least twice in the past couple months 2) Are looking to stir up debate on something you know has no resolution.

1) In case you did forget I linked the most recent two threads I found in the Search Bar.

2) I'm saying let's skip all the bull. Just email FFG for clarification. Because they are the only people who can give anything more than guesswork anyway.

If you want to talk about the discrepency for tripod mounts, I'm up to hear that. I'll even jump into it.

My take is that the text for HRB saying it takes three actions really means three manuevers. The Tripod attachment could then reduce that to two manuevers. I don't have my book with me to check the exact text so maybe that's not RAW/RAI, but since my only HRB is currrently mounted on the underside of a YT-1300 I haven't had much reason to give the text more than a casual glance.

So, I'm open to hear opinions about the tripods, but we really don't need to rehash the same old arguments about carrying around a HRB like a fraking Spartan. There isn't going to be resolution on that issue without intervention from FFG.

Or we could just discuss it like adults and see what other people are doing so we can all better enjoy this aspect of the game, maybe...l?

2) I'm saying let's skip all the bull. Just email FFG for clarification. Because they are the only people who can give anything more than guesswork anyway.

I've never had FFG answer a single SW rules question I've sent them (and I've sent many). They answer the WH40K-related questions quickly enough, but for this game line they never do, at least when I've asked. Besides, their opinions aren't really any more significant than those of anyone else until they put it into FAQ/errata.

But if it makes you feel better, I sent this:

Can a single character with Brawn 5 carry and use a heavy repeating blaster in combat in the manner of a very large rifle (but using Gunnery skill)?

The weapon lists Encumbrance 9 and Cumbersome 5. The description of the weapon mentions that the weapon needs a second operator to handle the power coupling and generator. What are the Encumbrance values of the power coupling and generator? Are the power coupling and generator included in the Encumbrance 9 of the weapon or in additional to it?

The text description for the heavy repeating blaster indicates that the included tripod takes three actions to deploy. It also says that it works like the tripod mount attachment which takes two preparation maneuvers to deploy. Which of these is correct?

I can provide at least a partial answer to the tripod question.

Question:

Sam,
I have a couple questions about the HRB and the Tripod attachment detailed on pages 162 and 193 respectively in the core rulebook.

The HRB text states that "Setting up a tripod weapon requires the crew (presumably the two-man crew the text states is required to operate the weapon) to spend three actions."

Read on it's own, that seems to indicate that a two man crew could spend a total of three actions between both of them setting up the HRB on a tripod. However, the text goes on to state, "The cost of the weapon includes a tripod such as the one found on page 193".

The tripod found on page 193 states, "Setting up a tripod takes two preparation maneuvers".

So if the HRB comes with such a tripod, exactly how many actions and/or maneuvers should it take to set up and be ready to fire?

Related question: The HRB comes with four hard points. Is the tripod included with the weapon using two of those hard points or does it have four additional hard points?

Hoping you can clarify.

Loving the game,

Response from Sam Stewart:

In this case, the three actions spent amongst the crew (each one spending an action, or one spending three, or some variation thereof) include and supersede the two preparation maneuvers needed to set up the tripod.

Also, the tripod should occupy two of the hard points.

So that should at least settle the question of tripods.

Thanks for sending the question about Ecumberance values. I didn't ask because frankly, I don't have an interest. Hopefully they will provide some response so that we can have a more definitive answer to the question. However, I will disagree on the value of FFG opinions. Even when not included in the Errata, I think FFG's Opinion > Some ******* from the Internet's Opinion (aka: mine). But that's just a matter of opinion.