Combining refits?

[wpngjstr]

A quick question, apologise if it's asked elsewhere;
If I roll on the refit table and get a result that halves my AD, then later get a result that that adds AD, would those also be halved? My assuption is Yes, but as an "after the upgrade" upgrade it could be argued otherwise.

Eg if I start with 6AD, apply the halving giving me 3 and then get an "add 2 AD" result would I have 4 or 5 AD?

As a related question, some refits say "when using the extra range" halve the AD- from the phrasing I would assume full AD within normal range?

 

[katadder]

i would say 5AD in the example you showed. basically do it in the order rolled.
for the extended range weapons, yes its normal AD once in standard range.

 

[SylvrDragon]

I'd agree with katadder, though for a slightly different reason. Personally I'd see the refits as a bonus, so basically you'd adjust the weapon and then add bonuses on top of that. I come to this conclusion because refits are modifications to the weapon and not modifications to other modifications. In this line of thought I'd also count the weapons original stats for qualifying for refits. But that's just my opinion on how things should work. Why should you be penalized for having another bonus, or for not rolling them in the right order. You paid xp to get an effect and I believe that you should get the full benefit of what you earned.

 

[Chernobyl]

Don't some of the AD-adding weapon upgrades require a minimum amount of AD to begin with? I seem to recall that from the "turbo weapons" in 1st edition, but I don't remember the 2E tables well enough to know if that's still there. If that's the case, you new "3 AD weapon" may not qualify for the upgrade anymore.

I belive the original intent was to prevent some of the smaller beam weapons from becoming too powerful on small ships...

Chern

 

[Methos5000]

Don't some of the AD-adding weapon upgrades require a minimum amount of AD to begin with? I seem to recall that from the "turbo weapons" in 1st edition, but I don't remember the 2E tables well enough to know if that's still there. If that's the case, you new "3 AD weapon" may not qualify for the upgrade anymore.

I belive the original intent was to prevent some of the smaller beam weapons from becoming too powerful on small ships...

Chern

Its the addition weapons fitted refits that have minimums or make exceptions for certain weapon systems (never beams though).

Off the top of my head I know the AD upgrade for the ISA makes exceptions for WS, WS2 and Bluestar Molecular pulsars as they are all below the 5AD minimum.

The Vree also have an upgrade which adds 2AD to the highest AD weapon system on the ship and the Vaarl only has 1 3AD gun so it could benefit.

Turbo weapons itself never required a minimum AD total though, and because ot it is actually more beneficial the less AD you have. 3AD guns become 3AD DD guns, 1AD guns become 2AD DD guns.

 

[wpngjstr]

6AD was picked purely as a random number for an example, no particular significance, so feel free to change it to 12AD

The reason I think it would be logical for the AD halving to apply is simply that the end result should be the same regardless of the order... if I gain the 2 AD first then the halving then it would have become a 1 AD upgrade, where as if it came second it remains a 2 AD bonus...
Both cases pay the same XP costs, but come up with a 1 AD difference in end results...

eg
Player A 12AD wpn, gets +2 AD, so 14 AD weapon. Next turn, gets Turbo so (14/2=7+1) 8AD DD...

Player B 12AD wpn, gets Turbo so (12/2=6+1) 7AD DD Wpn. Next turn, gets +2 AD, so 9AD DD...

Despite both paying the same cost, and getting the same results, Player A comes out 1 AD worse off. This seems a little unfair

 

[Harry Lonsdale]

The order does make a difference, since Turbo Weapons reduces the AD to half +1 not straight half.

We just do them in the order in which they're rolled.

 

[SylvrDragon]

But it doesn't say to do it in order, or to not do it in order. So there's no more reason to do it this way than to do it any other way. I personally see simply assuming that it should be done in order received as a blind, linear means of jumping to conclusions. Each refit is it's own modification to an existing weapon and because each affects the weapon separately I believe that they should be likewise handled separately. Not only does this make more sense to me, since you're modifying the weapon and not the modification, but it is also MUCH more balanced. I can't honestly say that my view is correct, but I will go as far as to say that my view is an intelligent one that is focused more on keeping play both fun and fair.