Extra grenades do not count as extra frames.  Grenades, CDWs and vehicles are all outside of the frame rubric.

The rifle you mention would best be designed in one of two slightly different ways:

A tandem combo weapon with three frames, one of them a GL frame.

A tandem combo weapon with two frames and the one-shot GL augmentation.

Despite likely costing more, the advantage of the latter is that you would not need to spend a round switching between frames to fire the GL.

Note that a combo weapon only counts as one "frame" for purposes of strategic rating, unless each part of the weapon is also available separately (as is the case in The Humna Confederacy army list).  In other words, to count as a "frame", a given weapon must be use-able by itself.

Yes and yes.

It didn't occur to me either (until I read the Star Marines list) that you could combine more than 2 weapons in a single frame or that you don't count the frames included therein unless they are also separately available :oops:

The rule as it should be interpreted effectively actually allows you to "overload" infantry/vehicle frames with quite a lot of different weapons as the actual limit of the different weapon frames available to each is actually almost solely dictated by the cost limits of the weapon frame classes (SI, PI or VE weapon). Which does potentially have quite a bit of impact on the army creation, so methinks this is something that should be made more explicit in the FAQ.

Consider it done.  I think that the vast majority of the time combo weapons are - in fact, you pay quite a premium to have extra round capability if you think about it - but as you both point out, there are a few ways in which unscrupulous players could violate the intent of the rule.  As an unofficial stopgap:

-no army list may contain more than 2 combo weapon frames, +1 per each level of frame variety (i.e. max of 4)
-the minimum cost to add a second round is +10 PV for parallel, +5 PV for tandem.
-no weapon may have more than types of round

Let me know what you think.  This is easy to change in the core book.

-Demian

I changed the errata on the yahoo group to update the combo weapon design process and make it less abusable.  I ultimately decided against making an absolute maximum on the total number available, but did think that enforcing a minimum cost for each extra frame and restricting total number of frames to 4 would reduce the potential cheese of making a series of "ammo 1" frames that could be fired at will based on the target type in question.

-Demian

I think it was already broken when you got into the room. But I'm sure tea & bisquits are in order all the same.

Isn't the errata available through the main Defiance site yet? IMHO it won't do to direct people to an errata file that requires you to sign on to something...

I say don't change it. If someone is being cheesy like that then there is an easy way to deal with them.... refuse to play with them. If they whine find another player. Any system can be exploited... even the fix you are thinking of will be exploited. There is no need to change it. The players should balance the army, the system should never force it like that.

There may be an army it makes sense to have all the combo weapons. And, having to spend an action to change weapons is a big deal. That is a round without firing. That means you could feasibly loose the unit what it is switching weapons.

I would recommend guidelines instead. Stating not to exploit the rules and such.

Jonathan

speaking off infranites......

how would one build a long range smoke launcher. specifically the "metal smoke" round for the chain cannon/gun.  it does no damage,has a max range of 75 inches, a 4 inch AoE, stays on the table for 2 turns and produces a -1 LOF (probably -2 due to different size die). and i already know that the ROF of 2 will be dropping to 1.

                                                                      thanks,
                                                                      jim a.

Good question.  In theory, it will require playtesting more than any mathematical formulae, though its cost would still vary statistically by the weapon frame attributes used to shoot the smoke grenade.  My gut says price it the same as a 9+ AOE template of the same size for -1 LOS and a 7+ AOE template for -2 LOS.  It would have the same tabletop duration as a smoke grenade.

Let me know if you try this out.

*quote*Given the fact that many games tend to end as platforms for competetive gaming (by design as per Wh40k or -- at least apparently -- by accident), IMHO it could well be a hard and fast rule: up to 4 "free" frames per single "counted towards the frame limit" frame is plenty. Even Tech Level + 1 would seem to be enough (although at Level 3 it of course amounts to the same thing). If somebody wanted to make monster combo frames he could as well do it by adopting a house rule.

Minimum cost to add a frame on the other hand seems a little suspect to me as it might direct people towards "points juggling" with combo weapon frames to get the maximum "bang for the buck". Which is non-conductive to making characterful armies.*quote*

I like the TL+1 idea.  Can you give me an example of a scenario where point cost minimums would lead to frame juggling?  In a sense, one could argue that there should be a minimum cost for the sake of flexibility alone.  Plus, many weapon frames already cost 20PV or more, even without effectors, meaning that the +5/+10 minimum won't make a difference very often.

-Demian

I would consider any situation where the halved (or quartered) points cost of the frame you want to add to the combo weapon would initially be less than 20 (or 10) points an excuse for juggling the costs of the primary frame and the additional frame(s). Which could lead to cheap auxiliary frames' demise from the force in favour of more powerfull but less characterfull combinations (and I'm not talking about "8 single shot frames" characterfull, but for example the Warzone style auxiliary weapons as described by Brother Jim above).

On a visceral level, I agree, but I would rather prefer to see the cost tied to the actual number of options taken -- a sort of "progressive tax model" if you like. Something along the lines of "1 additional frame = 50% discount to the cost of the additional frame, 2 additional frames = 40% discount to the combined cost of the additional frames, 3 additional frames = 30% discount to the combined cost" maybe.

Hmmm, I see your point, but don't like adding in fiddly math if I don't have to do so. 

On further reflection, I'm inclined to leave things largely the way they are, with the one restriction being 4 max frames, and see if anyone can find a "cheesy" weapon that goes against the spirit of the rule.