If you didn't agree on some level you wouldn't be bothered by what I think. You know this is Munchkinism and I call it like I see it.

I'm telling you that I find what you're posting to be insulting. If that's not your intent then be aware that responding to someone's post with lines equating to "you're not using logic" when my points are made in reference to the rules of the game is a form of personal attack. Discuss the rule issue at hand rather than making a swipe at the poster's faculties.

I can't see any sense in requiring a Weapon Sling if you have Brawn 5+ since the point of the sling (or tripod) is to lower the Cumbersome 5 down to where the weapon can be handled. If you have Brawn 5+, you wouldn't need that kind of help.

Ummm how exactly do you imagine someone carrying and firing a weapon of this size without a sling?

Unless you expect the PC to never let the weapon go and use their hands for anything other than holding the gun.

What are they teaching kids in school these days? Obviously not logic.

Just for the record this is still Munchkinism in my mind and as Sam mentioned this GM would not allow it.

Furious Greg, you are living up to your name. We like to keep it civil here. I'm actually more on your side, I like some reality in my game. I want it to be like the movies, not like the Clone Wars cartoon, for example. Its unrealistic, but not outlandishly so. But, you really need to be a little gentler to get your point across without slinging personal attacks. What you said to Happy Daze (who is respected here by most I think) is actually extremely rude and probably reportable.

And to add, I once carried a large M60 machinegun around in jungle terrain as part of my job. I didn't use a sling even though one was issued. Most M60 gunners preferred not to in dense vegetation. A sling would just get caught on everything. During long hauls without much chance of bad guys about, you actually laid the M60 across your shoulder. So in reality and in game mechanics there shouldn't be a requirement to have a sling. Yes you should suffer the extra cumbersome without the sling, but in no way should it be a must.

Sturn wins the discussion lol. I'm officially giving the Imperial Admiral villain I've been using a veteran Clone Commando as her Stormtrooper captain who goes by "Sturn".

I'm telling you that I find what you're posting to be insulting. If that's not your intent then be aware that responding to someone's post with lines equating to "you're not using logic" when my points are made in reference to the rules of the game is a form of personal attack. Discuss the rule issue at hand rather than making a swipe at the poster's faculties.

To each his own in play. Personally I run a game that's more action than role playing and deep character investment. I know a lot of GMs that wouldn't like that. Style of play is a big part of why its a different for everyone.

I guess the other missing piece in this discussion is the level of characters. I believe your characters (300+ XP) are getting to the point where skill starts to dominate. Ie. carrying this thing wouldn't exactly tilt the game,

I guess a lot of people miss the point that other people may be at a different point in advancement as well as a different style of play.

I guess a lot of people miss the point that other people may be at a different point in advancement as well as a different style of play.

I sure didn't. My biggest piece of advice in this whole thing was for GMs to work with their players to find out what THEY feel is believable for their own character. To each their own, but player tastes come first 110% of the time for me. GMs are entertainers, and good entertainers entertain their audience first and themselves second, kind of like a cook.

My current game is up to 385 earned XP (over starting XP). Many of the characters have their best skills at 3, a few have a skill at 4. About half of the characters have taken a Dedication talent. Carrying a HRB into personal scale combat would still dominate scenes where it can be employed (which isn't very many in my current game). However, the same could be said for carrying a lightsaber into personal scale combat and my players aren't set up for doing that either.

I think I'm going to go with a few house rules on this.

1) The HRB works as listed in the weapons stat line. Ignore all of the added text given in the weapon description. It does not come with a tripod - although one can certainly be purchased as an attachment - nor does it require additional operators or have an external generator and power coupling. It can be carried and used as normal for a weapon so long as the character can deal with Encumbrance 9 and Cumbersome 5. Obviously attachments can help here. This weapon is fairly expensive (6,000 credits) due to the miniaturization required to make the weapon (relatively) portable.

2) The HRB listed in the weapons stat line is not the E-Web. The E-Web will be a planetary scale weapon best represented by the Auto-Blaster more commonly mounted on vehicles. The infantry support version is usually served by two operators and contains an integral tripod. It is connected to an external generator and power coupling. This system requires three actions to set up the weapon for use and the weapon system is treated as being Silhouette 2 with HTT 2, SST 2, and Armor 0 if it is attacked directly. Despite being more powerful than the common man-pack HRB, this weapon is cheaper (3,000 credits) since it dispenses with the miniaturization of the man-pack HRB. The system totals Encumbrance 32 (weapon 8, tripod 8, generator and power coupling 16) so it is often transported by four soldiers (one carries the weapon, one carries the tripod, and two can share the load of the generator and power coupling).

This allows for a heavy man-portable anti-infantry weapon and also allows for a crew-fired weapon that can actually hurt a starship (setting up the HRB described in the rules to fire at the Millennium Falcon would have been utterly pointless).

I agree with Sturn's assessment of the weapons sizes, but I can appreciate the designers' intent to simplify things. Here's a house rule I had in mind that preserves as much of RAW as possible:

1. Leave the HRB stats the way they are in RAW. The Encumbrance and Cumbersome ratings reflect the weight and bulk of just the gun and tripod assembly.
2. Add the generator as a separate item, with the stats of a crate (ENC: 4, Cumbersome: 4). Even though two troopers were team-lifting it, it doesn't look like something too big to be handled by just one, but there would probably be cumbersome penalties.
3. The gun alone has a System Strain Threshold of 0, the generator has a threshold of 4. This gives the generator guy something substantive to do during combat. He's making "Damage Control" checks to keep the System Strain low and prevent the HRB from shutting down or overheating. The gunner is suffering System Strain with each threat he rolls on his attacks.
   • In a pinch, the gunner might also fire without the generator attached, but with a threshold of 0, any amount of strain will have to be cleared before he can make his next attack (sort of a variable slow-firing effect).

With this, a dedicated PC ought to still be able to build his Heavy Weapons Guy, but it ought to bring enough "realism" to the table to eliminate the cartoony bits.

• A 4 ENC backpack rig will handle the generator. That still leaves the 9 ENC weapon, so the price of admission will be 4 Brawn.
• The harness will alleviate 2 Cumbersome of the weapon's 5, but that still doesn't address the 4-Cumbersome weight hanging off his back. He's still looking at a net Cumbersome rating of 7. That's an increased difficulty of:
  • +3 for Brawn 4
  • +2 for Brawn 5
  • +1 for Brawn 6
    These ought to be fair numbers, considering the feat this guy is trying to pull off.
• The HWG will still need someone to manage that strain. If he doesn't have a buddy behind him, fiddling the knobs, then he'll have to alternate between firing and performing Mechanics checks. With the generator on his back, I'd also be tempted to inflict wounds when the thing overheats from Despair or large amounts of Threat.

setting up the HRB described in the rules to fire at the Millennium Falcon would have been utterly pointless

I forgot about that point.

I agree, if we're statting this faithful to the films, it ought to have enough bite to make Han worried.

I strongly recommend not putting Cumbersome on things that are not weapons as the rules for Cumbersome are specific to the use of the device with the quality as a weapon. Technically, a spacer's duffel with Cumbersome 2 only applies a penalty to a Brawn 1 character if the character is using the duffel as a weapon . For non-weapon items, the best answer for a big and bulky item is to just give it a higher Encumbrance rating, but obviously this doesn't really work for "container" items like a duffel bag that add to the user's Encumbrance Threshold.

My players have a lightsaber they're tossing around between party members, and so far it's been nothing but interesting. No one has -- or is capable of getting -- ranks in the skill, so it's mostly been used to cut open walkers and sneak into places. In one scene, we decided that the strain being dealt to a walker from the player's use of Dodge and Side Step was him leaping away from lasers, cutting hydraulics on the walker.

Now mind you I'm fully aware that the two Agility 5 players could do some dangerous things with that lightsaber, but luckily my players know full well that whipping these things out during the Rebellion era is generally a pretty horrible idea. (At least one very drunk player learned this the hard way when tried to use it to get a Boost die on a Coercion check.)

Considering what a superior heavy blaster rifle with a fully upgraded augmented spin barrel already does to enemies, I honestly don't imagine even a superior heavy repeating blaster being much worse. The difference in damage is only 2 points, the difference in Pierce is just 1 point, instead of Accurate 1 the heavy repeating blaster has Vicious 1, and the critical rating is lowered to 2. Now mind you that lowered critical rating is pretty cool, but mostly in a flavorful sense. If you have a choice between dealing an additional 17 damage or a crit with 2 Advantage, 9 x out of 10 you're going to go with 17 damage.

Also, don't forget that heavy blaster rifles are only Cumbersome 3, which a Brawn 2 character can easily carry with a weapon sling without messing with the RAW one bit (or even their ability to attach an augmented spin barrel and add the Superior quality). They are both more accurate and easier to carry, and not much less powerful given that their biggest drawback compared to a heavy repeating blaster is a measly 2 points of damage and 1 point of Pierce.

My players have a lightsaber they're tossing around between party members, and so far it's been nothing but interesting.

No Threats yet rolled when tossing it around between party members?

2) The HRB listed in the weapons stat line is not the E-Web. The E-Web will be a planetary scale weapon best represented by the Auto-Blaster more commonly mounted on vehicles.

I did something a little similar, but my house rule changes the damage ratio between vehicles and people entirely. So far so good, but it could be a mistake. I have a x5 ratio in place instead of a x10 ratio for damage. The damage on the Heavy Repeater remains the same (15 personal scale). That makes it a 3 on vehicle scale, which is what the similarly described Auto-Blaster is. It makes me think the designers had originally intended the person-vehicle ratio to be x5, but later changed it to x10 when they didn't work. I've done the math and I personally like the x5 allowing heavy blasters a chance to take down smaller, unarmored vehicles. The only issues I've had so far are what to do with the qualities (such as Pierce, Breach) when shifting between personal and vehicle scale. I almost need a seperate list of stats for weapons at each scale (added, unwanted, complexity), such as Heavy Repeater Blaster vs. Auto-Blaster, even though they are the same weapon.

My players have a lightsaber they're tossing around between party members, and so far it's been nothing but interesting.

No Threats yet rolled when tossing it around between party members?

2) The HRB listed in the weapons stat line is not the E-Web. The E-Web will be a planetary scale weapon best represented by the Auto-Blaster more commonly mounted on vehicles.

I did something a little similar, but my house rule changes the damage ratio between vehicles and people entirely. So far so good, but it could be a mistake. I have a x5 ratio in place instead of a x10 ratio for damage. The damage on the Heavy Repeater remains the same (15 personal scale). That makes it a 3 on vehicle scale, which is what the similarly described Auto-Blaster is. It makes me think the designers had originally intended the person-vehicle ratio to be x5, but later changed it to x10 when they didn't work. I've done the math and I personally like the x5 allowing heavy blasters a chance to take down smaller, unarmored vehicles. The only issues I've had so far are what to do with the qualities (such as Pierce, Breach) when shifting between personal and vehicle scale. I almost need a seperate list of stats for weapons at each scale (added, unwanted, complexity), such as Heavy Repeater Blaster vs. Auto-Blaster, even though they are the same weapon.

Makes perfect sense to me. They were setting up the E-Web to shoot at a starship, and the reality of the heavy repeating blaster in the game wouldn't do squat to a YT-1400 unless you aimed at certain components, which is easy enough to do with any personal scale weapon.

My players have a lightsaber they're tossing around between party members, and so far it's been nothing but interesting. No one has -- or is capable of getting -- ranks in the skill, so it's mostly been used to cut open walkers and sneak into places. In one scene, we decided that the strain being dealt to a walker from the player's use of Dodge and Side Step was him leaping away from lasers, cutting hydraulics on the walker.

Now mind you I'm fully aware that the two Agility 5 players could do some dangerous things with that lightsaber, but luckily my players know full well that whipping these things out during the Rebellion era is generally a pretty horrible idea. (At least one very drunk player learned this the hard way when tried to use it to get a Boost die on a Coercion check.)

Considering what a superior heavy blaster rifle with a fully upgraded augmented spin barrel already does to enemies, I honestly don't imagine even a superior heavy repeating blaster being much worse. The difference in damage is only 2 points, the difference in Pierce is just 1 point, instead of Accurate 1 the heavy repeating blaster has Vicious 1, and the critical rating is lowered to 2. Now mind you that lowered critical rating is pretty cool, but mostly in a flavorful sense. If you have a choice between dealing an additional 17 damage or a crit with 2 Advantage, 9 x out of 10 you're going to go with 17 damage.

Also, don't forget that heavy blaster rifles are only Cumbersome 3, which a Brawn 2 character can easily carry with a weapon sling without messing with the RAW one bit (or even their ability to attach an augmented spin barrel and add the Superior quality). They are both more accurate and easier to carry, and not much less powerful given that their biggest drawback compared to a heavy repeating blaster is a measly 2 points of damage and 1 point of Pierce.

The main attraction for one character to "pack heavy" and take the HRB over the heavy blaster rifle is that the character in question is focused on Gunnery over Ranged (Heavy).

I should note that I have also house ruled that additional hits from Auto-fire must be spread to additional targets. I do not allow more than one hit on any single target of an Auto-fire weapon (exception if there is a Linked weapon that can Auto-fire). This house rule has made Auto-fire favored for dealing with large numbers of enemies without it insta-gibbing every significant opponent.

"Nice HRB you got there. Wanna dance pretty boy?"

My players have a lightsaber they're tossing around between party members, and so far it's been nothing but interesting. No one has -- or is capable of getting -- ranks in the skill, so it's mostly been used to cut open walkers and sneak into places. In one scene, we decided that the strain being dealt to a walker from the player's use of Dodge and Side Step was him leaping away from lasers, cutting hydraulics on the walker.

Now mind you I'm fully aware that the two Agility 5 players could do some dangerous things with that lightsaber, but luckily my players know full well that whipping these things out during the Rebellion era is generally a pretty horrible idea. (At least one very drunk player learned this the hard way when tried to use it to get a Boost die on a Coercion check.)

Considering what a superior heavy blaster rifle with a fully upgraded augmented spin barrel already does to enemies, I honestly don't imagine even a superior heavy repeating blaster being much worse. The difference in damage is only 2 points, the difference in Pierce is just 1 point, instead of Accurate 1 the heavy repeating blaster has Vicious 1, and the critical rating is lowered to 2. Now mind you that lowered critical rating is pretty cool, but mostly in a flavorful sense. If you have a choice between dealing an additional 17 damage or a crit with 2 Advantage, 9 x out of 10 you're going to go with 17 damage.

Also, don't forget that heavy blaster rifles are only Cumbersome 3, which a Brawn 2 character can easily carry with a weapon sling without messing with the RAW one bit (or even their ability to attach an augmented spin barrel and add the Superior quality). They are both more accurate and easier to carry, and not much less powerful given that their biggest drawback compared to a heavy repeating blaster is a measly 2 points of damage and 1 point of Pierce.

The main attraction for one character to "pack heavy" and take the HRB over the heavy blaster rifle is that the character in question is focused on Gunnery over Ranged (Heavy).

I should note that I have also house ruled that additional hits from Auto-fire must be spread to additional targets. I do not allow more than one hit on any single target of an Auto-fire weapon (exception if there is a Linked weapon that can Auto-fire). This house rule has made Auto-fire favored for dealing with large numbers of enemies without it insta-gibbing every significant opponent.

That's not bad at all. At the very least it gives dual wielding an interesting niche in that it can be a more optimal choice for single targets than Auto-fire.

Adversary, Dodge, Side Step, armor, and prepared cover have all worked wonders for me. If the enemy is important enough for me to care if they get mowed over, there are plenty of options available to ensure that those extra Advantage results are hard to score. Even with 530 earned xp, rivals with Adversary 1, Dodge 1, and armored clothing are enough prevent the Ranged (Heavy) 4/Deadly Accuracy Bounty Hunter from mowing down more than one or two foes in a round.... IF that. He misses rather often (it's stupid luck; he passes other checks he doesn't have a right to other times).

Minions...? Well that's another story. I've seen this same player take out a grand total of 8 security officers with a single attack roll. Pretty nasty, but also consistent with the high body counts Star Wars is famous for.

@HappyDaze, Okay I can apologize for the logic comment and I do, I'm sorry it was stronger than it needed to be and I can appreciate that. I'm not going to apologize for calling something Munchkinism, thats my opinion on the idea and it's only rude if you choose to take it personally.

@Sturn, I appreciate your service and I hope that it was uneventful.

As for the whole sling thing, my point was not that you couldn't hold the weapon without a sling (I believe I even said something like that) but that without one thats all you'd be able to do. Even the picture posted with the M60 on the soldier's shoulder shows he must use at least one hand to balance the weapon so it stays there. Thats just an M60 the HRB is more like a 2m+ .50cal. So how do you play that? Do you say "Okay, you don't need a sling but you're down a hand". What about getting it into position to use? Does the PC have to take an action to put it down before doing anything else, or before firing the thing? Is having a 2m+ 9ENC weapon on your shoulder affect you in any other way? Getting through doors maybe? Does carrying this weight hour after hour ever get uncomfortable? How are you going to RP this? Because right now I see no indication that HDaze is going to take any of this into account, it's just numbers on a sheet of paper right now. Thats what I was talking about when I made the logic comment.

So let me rephrase my question without the logic snipe: How are you (those who want this to work) going to role-play the above issues relating to carrying around such a large weapon or are you going to just hand wave all of that away?

When I say something is Munchkinism it's in part because of this lack of seeing beyond the numbers. I see this whole HBR thing as having this lack of consideration so to me it's Munchkin.
When as a GM you are willing to stretch the rules in this way you begin to create tears in the contract between you and the players about the world your playing in. It's one thing to make something a singular event that goes beyond the expected, that's cinematic license. However if you codify it and place it into the world then you've changed the playing field. If you're going to play in a world with Cartoon physics then everything in that world should conform to those physics otherwise everyone at the table no longer has the shared, solid frame of reference to imagine their character's actions on. Things are no longer governed by a shared set of rules but become dependent on the GM's whim. If character A can do a thing without penalty then why can't character B or NPC C do some other thing without penalty? Consistency matters.

It is my opinion that EotE is not written with Cartoon physics but with Real Life (through a cinematic lens) physics as it's base of reference.

I should note that I have also house ruled that additional hits from Auto-fire must be spread to additional targets. I do not allow more than one hit on any single target of an Auto-fire weapon (exception if there is a Linked weapon that can Auto-fire). This house rule has made Auto-fire favored for dealing with large numbers of enemies without it insta-gibbing every significant opponent.

Nice. It's not realworld realistic but for a narrative game mechanic it makes lots of sense. Players will naturally go to single shot mode for single targets and auto-fire for masses of minions. Overall that's realistic even if technically a full auto weapon can get multiple hits on target.

@HappyDaze, Okay I can apologize for the logic comment and I do, I'm sorry it was stronger than it needed to be and I can appreciate that. I'm not going to apologize for calling something Munchkinism, thats my opinion on the idea and it's only rude if you choose to take it personally.

@Sturn, I appreciate your service and I hope that it was uneventful.

As for the whole sling thing, my point was not that you couldn't hold the weapon without a sling (I believe I even said something like that) but that without one thats all you'd be able to do. Even the picture posted with the M60 on the soldier's shoulder shows he must use at least one hand to balance the weapon so it stays there. Thats just an M60 the HRB is more like a 2m+ .50cal. So how do you play that? Do you say "Okay, you don't need a sling but you're down a hand". What about getting it into position to use? Does the PC have to take an action to put it down before doing anything else, or before firing the thing? Is having a 2m+ 9ENC weapon on your shoulder affect you in any other way? Getting through doors maybe? Does carrying this weight hour after hour ever get uncomfortable? How are you going to RP this? Because right now I see no indication that HDaze is going to take any of this into account, it's just numbers on a sheet of paper right now. Thats what I was talking about when I made the logic comment.

So let me rephrase my question without the logic snipe: How are you (those who want this to work) going to role-play the above issues relating to carrying around such a large weapon or are you going to just hand wave all of that away?

When I say something is Munchkinism it's in part because of this lack of seeing beyond the numbers. I see this whole HBR thing as having this lack of consideration so to me it's Munchkin.

When as a GM you are willing to stretch the rules in this way you begin to create tears in the contract between you and the players about the world your playing in. It's one thing to make something a singular event that goes beyond the expected, that's cinematic license. However if you codify it and place it into the world then you've changed the playing field. If you're going to play in a world with Cartoon physics then everything in that world should conform to those physics otherwise everyone at the table no longer has the shared, solid frame of reference to imagine their character's actions on. Things are no longer governed by a shared set of rules but become dependent on the GM's whim. If character A can do a thing without penalty then why can't character B or NPC C do some other thing without penalty? Consistency matters.

It is my opinion that EotE is not written with Cartoon physics but with Real Life (through a cinematic lens) physics as it's base of reference.

Apology accepted. I don't mind when people disagree as long as things are civil.

As for the realities of carrying the weapon, the character generally won't be carrying it far or for long. Normally it will be stowed in the group's ship hidden in the smuggling compartment. If its needed it'll normally only be employed within a few hundred yards of where the ship is currently parked. Humping this thing over multiple kilometers of rough terrain just isn't in the cards, nor is trying to negotiate tight interiors (although some Star Wars architecture is very large and very open).

@HappyDaze, Okay I can apologize for the logic comment and I do, I'm sorry it was stronger than it needed to be and I can appreciate that. I'm not going to apologize for calling something Munchkinism, thats my opinion on the idea and it's only rude if you choose to take it personally.

@Sturn, I appreciate your service and I hope that it was uneventful.

As for the whole sling thing, my point was not that you couldn't hold the weapon without a sling (I believe I even said something like that) but that without one thats all you'd be able to do. Even the picture posted with the M60 on the soldier's shoulder shows he must use at least one hand to balance the weapon so it stays there. Thats just an M60 the HRB is more like a 2m+ .50cal. So how do you play that? Do you say "Okay, you don't need a sling but you're down a hand". What about getting it into position to use? Does the PC have to take an action to put it down before doing anything else, or before firing the thing? Is having a 2m+ 9ENC weapon on your shoulder affect you in any other way? Getting through doors maybe? Does carrying this weight hour after hour ever get uncomfortable? How are you going to RP this? Because right now I see no indication that HDaze is going to take any of this into account, it's just numbers on a sheet of paper right now. Thats what I was talking about when I made the logic comment.

So let me rephrase my question without the logic snipe: How are you (those who want this to work) going to role-play the above issues relating to carrying around such a large weapon or are you going to just hand wave all of that away?

When I say something is Munchkinism it's in part because of this lack of seeing beyond the numbers. I see this whole HBR thing as having this lack of consideration so to me it's Munchkin.

When as a GM you are willing to stretch the rules in this way you begin to create tears in the contract between you and the players about the world your playing in. It's one thing to make something a singular event that goes beyond the expected, that's cinematic license. However if you codify it and place it into the world then you've changed the playing field. If you're going to play in a world with Cartoon physics then everything in that world should conform to those physics otherwise everyone at the table no longer has the shared, solid frame of reference to imagine their character's actions on. Things are no longer governed by a shared set of rules but become dependent on the GM's whim. If character A can do a thing without penalty then why can't character B or NPC C do some other thing without penalty? Consistency matters.

It is my opinion that EotE is not written with Cartoon physics but with Real Life (through a cinematic lens) physics as it's base of reference.

Apology accepted. I don't mind when people disagree as long as things are civil.

As for the realities of carrying the weapon, the character generally won't be carrying it far or for long. Normally it will be stowed in the group's ship hidden in the smuggling compartment. If its needed it'll normally only be employed within a few hundred yards of where the ship is currently parked. Humping this thing over multiple kilometers of rough terrain just isn't in the cards, nor is trying to negotiate tight interiors (although some Star Wars architecture is very large and very open).

I'd let the player wanted to haul this thing over long distances or -- even worse -- use it inside tight interiors if they wanted to. However I'd do what I always do in situations where a situation doesn't sound practical; apply an appropriate number of Setback dice to various checks depending on the situation. I do the same thing with full body armor and Stealth checks, rifle shots inside the confines of a starship, etc. Anything that seems tactically unsound.

Some might say that this all relies on "the whim of the GM", but my players know full well I'm open to discussion about practically anything. I merely get the final say.

As for the whole insinuation that this all munchkinism, two things

1. That's an awfully big assumption to make about someone else's game based merely on their interest in crunching numbers.

2. So what if it is? There are no such thing as cheat codes in tabletop games, so if munchkinism spoils the game you're dealing with a weak GM to begin with. If your players go home every week with a smile on their face, discuss the game between sessions, and come back the following week you've done your job regardless of whether you screwed up some rules or indulged a munchkin or two.

I have a follow-up question:

If it takes 3 actions to set up an e-web turret, and its being carried by three Snowtroopers in a single minion group, would it take the group 3 rounds to set it up because they count as a single unit or can they somehow finish it in a single round because they are 3 people?

58 minutes ago, SSB_Shadow said:

I have a follow-up question:

If it takes 3 actions to set up an e-web turret, and its being carried by three Snowtroopers in a single minion group, would it take the group 3 rounds to set it up because they count as a single unit or can they somehow finish it in a single round because they are 3 people?

A follow up question almost a decade later.

I would treat it as just 3 total actions. If you are speaking of the RAW version, I believe it does say, "total" or something similar without checking the book. So yes it could be done by 3 people in one round.

I think the idea is the man for feed ammo into heavy machine guns. They grab new ammo cans reload new belts in etc. They make continuous fire work better. You can accomplish this by plugging the heavy repeater into a gonk droid. Who follows you around. Or a person carrying and maintaining the reactor.

Gadgets and Gear made some slight tweaks to the HRB. I don't think they applied to the tripod, but it can now be carried by larger species (it says Herglics, Dowutins, and Besalisks) as a one-man weapon in the same manner that a smaller being would carry a LRB. Herglics don't have official PC stats, but Dowutins and Besalisks both do.