A couple ideas I have been throwing around.

Rapid Reload - Amendment: Rapid Reload now only applies to weapons that the PC has been trained to use. When attempting to reload weapons that they do not have the proper training in, the standard reload time applies.

- The idea here being that if a PC doesn't have the training to fire a weapon proficiently, then they definitely aren't somehow capable of working that weapon's reload mechanisms faster than normal.

Tactical Maneuvering - Amendment: When using a full action to move twice the vehicle's tactical speed, attacks from the vehicle suffer a -20 to hit rather than the standard -10.

- Again, I figured that if attacks from a vehicle suffer -10 to hit when the vehicle moves its full speed in one round, then moving double that would increase the difficulty to hit anything a further -10.

Pretty simple and to the point. Thoughts?

The Rapid Reload one I can agree with wholeheartedly. The shooting from a vehicle stuff I'm not so sure of. Is it going faster, or is it just driving further? In the former case, which I would have thought the "gun it" manouver or whatever it's called would suffice. If it's just the driver moving further, I'm not sure it should count.

I agree with you. I had this conversation with my player and I would have to argue that it is actually going faster.

The length of the round doesn't change, right? Therefore in 6 seconds, it is going double the distance that it normally is able to. Just by deduction that would have to mean it is going faster. Unless I am totally missing the point of that maneuvre.

I agree with you. I had this conversation with my player and I would have to argue that it is actually going faster.

The length of the round doesn't change, right? Therefore in 6 seconds, it is going double the distance that it normally is able to. Just by deduction that would have to mean it is going faster. Unless I am totally missing the point of that maneuvre.

I have to agree with you here, the combat is broken up into turns but you should read it as a continuity, the vehicle doesn't move with "frog jumps", drive couple of meters and than stop and move again in the next turn, with this it's only logical that going twice the lenght means going twice the speed. Also that being said, no GM should allow anyone to enter/jump on/mount any vehicle that has moved in a former or current turn, without a proper, challanging or hard, test (agility would be my bet), since it's in motion. Unless the driver specyfied that s/he stops at the end of the turn.

As for the rapid reload, yeah I agree, no training no trait benefits, and I would give it to all traits/feats/whatever, still thinking about not applying "accurate" weapon trait when used by untrained person, but that is a bit of a gray area.

As for the rapid reload, yeah I agree, no training no trait benefits, and I would give it to all traits/feats/whatever, still thinking about not applying "accurate" weapon trait when used by untrained person, but that is a bit of a gray area.

When you say you would give it to all traits/feats/whatever, what exactly do you mean? I feel like I agree with you but I need some more specification, haha. That is a good point about the accurate quality, and I have never thought about it. But I think it would have to be on a situation-to-situation basis. For example, our sniper doesn't have heavy weapons training, but let's say for the sake of argument that he came upon some sort of ultra-heavy sniper rifle, lascannon, whatever with a scope that just happened to have the accurate quality - I would say that he knows how to aim proficiently and would benefit from it.

Granted, that is a super hypothetical. Much closer to home would be a PC with SP training but no Las training. Let's say they have a sniper rifle with a scope, but come across a long las with a scope.. I think in that case I would allow them to benefit from the quality and simply take the -20 for improper training.

I was thinking of things like "Dead Eye", "Hip shot" & "Swift attack" talents, those that modyfie the combat, but it might be to much as I think about it.

As for the accurate weapon trait for snipers, it depends on your interpretation of how the weapons work, in Dan Abbnets "Gaunt Ghosts", las weapons are described as shooting solid projectiles propeled by the laser beam and that causes recoil - don't ask, imperial science, for me, las guns should have no recoil whatsoever as they shoot bems of concentrated photons so they differ from solid projectile weapons. Soldier trained with solid projectile will expect a kick while shooting and try to compensate for it, suddenly using the las weapon there is no kick but old habits die hard and trying to compensate he doesn't shoot so accurately.

Ok, lot of text and now that I read it it's mostly wibbly wobbly mumble jumble, the easiest way to go with it would be just removing the additional damage from accurate, and leaving the BS bonus for aiming.

Yeah. Semantics and interpretations aside, I am with you on that.

I have a new idea for a rules amendment and I would like your help.

Here is the skinny: My players are in a Chimera that only two of them can work the weapons on - the Operator since he is trained to be a badass Tracked vehicle operator and the Heavy Gunner since he has both Heavy and Las weapon trainings and thus can work the Multilaser with no penalties.

Here is what I was thinking of doing: Regarding weaponry, specifically that which is mounted to vehicles, a player who has at one of the required weapons trainings for a Heavy Weapon can fire it with a -10 penalty rather than the standard -20.

For example, say the Weapons Specialist has Bolt training but not heavy training, he can now fire the front mounted heavy bolter with a -10 penalty rather than the -20 for not being trained in both Heavy and Bolt.

I can forsee this becoming a problem if anyone takes the Arm's Master talent (that still exists in this game, right?). I was thinking of making Arm's Master not stack with this particular rules amendment. Basically, having Arm's Master and having training in bolt would not completely negate the penalty for firing a heavy bolter.

I don't know, what do you think? I think it is silly to have such a harsh penalty for firing a vehicle mounted weapon that is completely braced, especially if the PC has half of the required training (heavy or bolt or what have you).

Edited: Used proper talent title.

It's too early for me to really think about it too hard, but I can tell you this:

You're thinking of Arms Master, not Armsman. Armsman is a special Advance for the Weapons Specialist's comrade, which allows him to swap weapons as a free action.

Haha, yes. That is what I meant!

Arms Master (the talent that reduces the penalty for firing untrained weapons to -10).

Apologies, it has been a long day filled with tiny Japanese kids yelling at me for Ninja Turtle Stickers.

I went ahead and made that amendment allowing people with 1/2 of the trainings required to get a -10 penalty on firing such vehicle based weapons. If it comes up, members of the party with only one of the two required weapons trainings AND Arm's Master will fire at -5. Trivial but it could come down to a hit or a miss.

Pearldrum1, why is the rest of the crew not proficient in Pilot: Surface? Are they not a vehicle regiment?

They are not.

They are a specialized Penal Regiment, yet they find themselves in Chimeras because the mission calls for it. Right now, one of the weapon specialists is sitting on top of the turret in order to man the Storm Bolter while the squad Heavy Gunner is in the commander's seat manning the Autocannon. It is a ball of laughs.