Yep, see post #4.

Sorry, missed it, but what's not logical? I believe it's sniper spending time following his target and shoot when appropriate. And as I know you can't rely to get more accuracy for hour aiming against half-hour aiming.

As I see that's not "you should spend some time into aiming, so for half-time you get half-bonus", it's just different types of aiming.

It is clear that the rules does not allow you to improve you Aim in the second turn. If you really want to get that +20 to your BS but you also need to spend maybe half action on reload you could do something like this according to RAW (even if its a bit foolish):

1. Turn:

Half action reload

Half action Aim, now +10 BS

2. Turn

Full action Aim, now +20 BS

3. Turn

Half action shoot using +20 BS from aim along with other modifiers

something else for the last half action

It seems a bit silly though, a more resonable approach is:

1. Turn

Half action reload

Half action Aim, now +10 BS

2. Turn

Half action Aim, improving +10 BS to +20 BS (which must be the MAX since Aim by RAW does not provide more than +20)

Half action shoot using +20 BS from aim along with other modifiers

The house rule in this case is that you can spend a half action to improve a +10 aim to a +20 aim. In the groups I play we use this house rule, and I believe a lot of other groups use it as well. It doesn't really collide with anything else in the rule set, nor does it allow for infinite aims.

It is clear that the rules does not allow you to improve you Aim in the second turn. If you really want to get that +20 to your BS but you also need to spend maybe half action on reload you could do something like this according to RAW (even if its a bit foolish):

Sorry, missed it, but what's not logical? I believe it's sniper spending time following his target and shoot when appropriate.

Which is exactly why I think the RAW makes no sense. I think it's just streamlined for ease of use - similar to the aforementioned critical injury locations - possibly to prevent people from forgetting how big their bonus to BS was at a given point if they have to spend multiple actions to achieve it. At least that's the only explanation I can think of.

Dark Heresy in general tries to keep as many actions as possible in the same turn to prevent confusion. Aim is just one of those cases where it may seem strange. And I think I would houserule it, much like I'd houserule critical injury locations.

Which is exactly why I think the RAW makes no sense.

Sorry, can you explain?

Sorry, can you explain?

I believe the book is very clear about the Aim action not being allowed to be stretched across multiple turns (taking a +10 in one round, and another +10 in the next for a total of +20, effectively using two Half Action Aims for a Full Action Aim bonus).

But I also don't like this because it sounds too "artificial", making the barrier between turns too "solid" instead of treating time as fluid as it is. It's not something I feel particularly strongly about, but I can definitely understand the criticism.

I believe the book is very clear about the Aim action not being allowed to be stretched across multiple turns (taking a +10 in one round, and another +10 in the next for a total of +20, effectively using two Half Action Aims for a Full Action Aim bonus).

Aim _action_ - sure. Aim _bonus_ - other matter.

It's kind of "sniper get into position, takes aim and waiting his target to leave cover for better snipe". Or waiting for a correct moment - such as starting storm floor below. That situations are quite popular, after all. Something near overwatch.

Now I don't understand what you are getting at, sorry.

I have a feeling we both mean the same thing and just fail to get it across.

So do I.

I mean that pause between Aim and attack, with all other action forbidding, is model for sniper "following" his target. So essentialy he isn't stop aiming all that time, he just don't get more bonus (and after first turn he always have a option to do something else because he should only "maintain" his aim). So I can't see anything bad about it as is, so you tell " Which is exactly why I think the RAW makes no sense.". It's completly sensible for me.

And a difference about half action aiming and full action aiming isn't the time spent but level of concentration on aiming, such as with All Out Attack is Full Action without any time cause, or Run action is quite different from two Move actions. Aim is Concentration action after all.

"Following a target" is an action that should be available regardless of whether you do it in one, two, or three turns. It's just that every half action you spend, you get a +10 bonus to BS, up to a maximum of +20.

But, the RAW says that you can maintain this bonus of +20 across rounds, but you cannot add another +10 to an existing +10.

Hence my comment about it not being very logical.

It is clear that the rules does not allow you to improve you Aim in the second turn. If you really want to get that +20 to your BS but you also need to spend maybe half action on reload you could do something like this according to RAW (even if its a bit foolish):

Nope. Well, you could, but it's silly.

Really you could do something like that:

1. Turn:

Half action reload

something else for the last half action (moving to good fire position for example)

2. Turn

Full action Aim, now +20 BS

3. Turn

Half action shoot using +20 BS from aim along with other modifiers

something else for the last half action (reload for example)

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you still should consider doing my "silly" example. Because if the combat circumstance somehow changes between 1. and 2. turn such that it is clear that you cant wait another full turn, then you would still have an aim that invokes accuracy trait of your weapon (assuming sniper).

"Following a target" is an action that should be available regardless of whether you do it in one, two, or three turns. It's just that every half action you spend, you get a +10 bonus to BS, up to a maximum of +20.

Oh. Yes, I can see perfectly valid option with "1. reload-aim. 2. shoot with accuracy-aim. 3. shoot with accuracy-aim. 4. shoot with accuracy-aim". My party sharpshooter do it all the time.

I can't see a situation when you will rationaly change half-action shoot bonus to full-action shoot AND then shoot. For +10 BS lose full round?..

Thing is Full Action really not just two Half Actions combined.

Not as per RAW, no. It was merely a simplification for the sake of the discussion -- although it could be, as unlike with the two Half Action Moves, the result of a Full Action Aim is exactly double that of a Half Action Aim.

The system just feels a bit arbitrary at places. I guess that's normal in most RPGs, though.

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you still should consider doing my "silly" example. Because if the combat circumstance somehow changes between 1. and 2. turn such that it is clear that you cant wait another full turn, then you would still have an aim that invokes accuracy trait of your weapon (assuming sniper).

Oh. Yes, I can see perfectly valid option with "1. reload-aim. 2. shoot with accuracy-aim. 3. shoot with accuracy-aim. 4. shoot with accuracy-aim". My party sharpshooter do it all the time.

I can't see a situation when you will rationaly change half-action shoot bonus to full-action shoot AND then shoot. For +10 BS lose full round?..

It was just a silly example that shows how the mechanics takes over and forces the player to dump a half action on idling, because "shoot with accuracy-aim" rhythm is not very good as it effectively blocks your reactions.

Well if you want to play by RAW, then you still should consider doing my "silly" example. Because if the combat circumstance somehow changes between 1. and 2. turn such that it is clear that you cant wait another full turn, then you would still have an aim that invokes accuracy trait of your weapon (assuming sniper).

Oh. Yes, I can see perfectly valid option with "1. reload-aim. 2. shoot with accuracy-aim. 3. shoot with accuracy-aim. 4. shoot with accuracy-aim". My party sharpshooter do it all the time.

I can't see a situation when you will rationaly change half-action shoot bonus to full-action shoot AND then shoot. For +10 BS lose full round?..

It was just a silly example that shows how the mechanics takes over and forces the player to dump a half action on idling, because "shoot with accuracy-aim" rhythm is not very good as it effectively blocks your reactions.

Well, snipers don't supposed to dodge incoming attack, relying at stealth and distance.

We've always ruled that +20 Aim actions can be split over two turns - in all honesty I didn't even realise that this was effectively a house rule until I read this thread.

One thing I think we're quite lax on is remembering to remove the aim bonus if the shooter has used a reaction.

We've always ruled that +20 Aim actions can be split over two turns - in all honesty I didn't even realise that this was effectively a house rule until I read this thread.

One thing I think we're quite lax on is remembering to remove the aim bonus if the shooter has used a reaction.

It's not a house rule, it's an extended action, which is in the rules.

It's not a house rule, it's an extended action, which is in the rules.

In the RAW, Extended Actions are specifically listed as such. Aim is only either Half or Full, and either can only occur in a single round.

It's not a house rule, it's an extended action, which is in the rules.

In the RAW, Extended Actions are specifically listed as such. Aim is only either Half or Full, and either can only occur in a single round.

I have to agree with this.

It makes sense that Aim should be an extended action - so much so that it looks like many people assume it is and play it that way without actually checking (like we do).

But RAW it isn't, so playing it otherwise is a house rule.

It makes sense that Aim should be an extended action

I that I can't be sure.

By description, extended action is a task too complex to be completed by one test (and in one round), so you need to take some DoS. So there is some result that character pursuing - for example he repairing a generator; generator can be more fixed and less fixed, so every DoS moves him to "fixed" and every intermediate stage have sense too.

But aiming doesn't follow this pattern. It's not a task you're trying to achieve and that can be more or less achieved. It's a state that you enter, and in real life (such as in DH2) two hours aiming don't make your shoot better. You're trying to aim or you're not; you can concentrate more on aiming or less (essentialy nearly every shoot including some aiming), but it's not something that became better for time spent and not something you can lose or achieve.

I feel like the combat system becomes really rigid, gamey, and unrealistic if you don't allow most full-actions to be taken as an extended action. It's much more free-form cinematic if you allow it.

Which is probably why most people houserule it, at least for Aim.

Realistically , any Full Action should be allowed to split into two Half Actions, as there is no such thing as "end turn" in real life ... it's just that in many cases, it's sadly not easily doable because of circumstances changing between a character ending their turn, and the beginning of their next one. Examples were discussed earlier.

Realistically , any Full Action should be allowed to split into two Half Actions, as there is no such thing as "end turn" in real life

Yes, there is no such thing as end turn in real life and that's exactly the cause why full action should not be allowed to split.

Full action differ from half action by not time, but concentration vs multitasking issues.

Yes, there is no such thing as end turn in real life and that's exactly the cause why full action should not be allowed to split.

Full action differ from half action by not time, but concentration vs multitasking issues.

I think you misunderstand -- the discussion is not about doing task X 50%, then doing something else, and then doing the rest of task X ... but rather just doing task X in one go. It's just that in a pen & paper environment, we have turns that "pause" our characters' actions to allow others to act as well. Our heroes and villains don't just stop moving and stand around like zombies because it's not their turn anymore, after all. They "freeze" in whatever they were just doing, such as hunkering behind cover or shooting their gun or dancing in melee.

And such a pause would effectively cut a Full Action into two Half Actions: one at the end of a character's turn, and at the start of their next. Just like Extended Actions.

But as we established, this is not really possible here, as conditions may change from one turn to the next.

That's exactly my point.

What's Full Action Aim? It's not "you're aiming for six second". It's "you're stay immobile, targeting your action and taking good position to shoot, fully dedicated to it". It's an action sniper in position or biathlete on fire range takes. What's Half Action Aim? It's not "you're aiming for three seconds, so your Aim, that's derivative on time spent, worse"; it's you're pause your "something", dodge bullets and shoot. Why can't you take three half actions for +30 bonus? Or four for +40? Or ten for +100? Extended rolls don't work this way, but it's not stopping nobody here.

Confusion, I believe, created by +20 and +10 bonuses, so it's quite natural to assume "there is basic aim tick for half-action, so you can take one tick or two ticks in a round, not more because it's too awesome". But in real life you don't get superior accuracy for time spent on aiming, this time is just concentration technique. Round isn't really a time spent, but a value for attention managment.

It's not the ideal concept, of course, but we have not better one.

This is a really bizarre position to take that at first I thought was a language barrier issue but I now believe is actually a complete disagreement in how to interpret structured time in combat. I don't know that there's much more to discuss until someone works up the effort to email the devs.