I guess this is better suited for the AoR board, but I know this board gets more traffic.

Dynamic Fire is a talent that is only found in the Recruit tree, the universal specialization from AoR. It reads:

When making a ranged attack while engaged with an opponent, the character may suffer 2 strain to reduce the ranged modifier added for being engaged by 1 for the attack. So, when firing a Ranged (Heavy) weapon, the character only increases the difficulty by 1 when engaged, and when firing a Ranged (Light) weapon, he doesn't increase the difficulty at all.

And the Forearm Grip attachment is found in both the EotE and the AoR CRB. It reads:

Decreases the additional difficulty of making Ranged (Heavy) checks with this weapon while engaged to an additional [1 Purple] (rather than [2 Purples]).

So both say they decrease the difficulty, but then both specify that it goes from 2 to 1 (on Ranged (Heavy)). Just reading the wording, my gut tells me that the attachment is always from 2 to 1, however the talent could further modify it as I see the spelling out of going from 2 dice to 1 as more of an example of how it would work rather than the hard rule.

However, I could see them not able to overlap at all. Just curious if anyone has seen this brought up or maybe I am missing something. I plan to mail the devs about it as well.

They're both written about themselves only so I would let them stack.

They're both written about themselves only so I would let them stack.

Though I am sure there are bigger guns out there. Makes for a fun flavored sniper though!

The talent also costs 25 xp to purchase and 2 strain to activate, so ruling that an attachment makes the talent useless for heavy weapons seems harsh, while allowing them to stack doesn't feel unbalancing in the slightest.

I'd say, allow it.

The talent also costs 25 xp to purchase and 2 strain to activate, so ruling that an attachment makes the talent useless for heavy weapons seems harsh, while allowing them to stack doesn't feel unbalancing in the slightest.

I'd say, allow it.

On reflection, I think I’d allow them to stack. The attachment simply makes it easier for anyone to use the specific Ranged (Heavy) weapon at Engaged, while the talent is knowing how to make better use of whatever you’ve got.

However, in this case I think I might House Rule that the Pistol Grip attachment also adds a Setback die when you attempt to use the weapon at longer ranges, because the thing that makes it less inconvenient to use a sniper rifle at Engaged range would also tend to get in the way when trying to use the weapon for the original intended purpose.

OTOH, the pistol grip could potentially also make a nice mounting point for a bipod or unipod attachment, which would help increase accuracy at the longer ranges.

Dunno. I’d have to think about the House Rule situation on that.

On reflection, I think I’d allow them to stack. The attachment simply makes it easier for anyone to use the specific Ranged (Heavy) weapon at Engaged, while the talent is knowing how to make better use of whatever you’ve got.

However, in this case I think I might House Rule that the Pistol Grip attachment also adds a Setback die when you attempt to use the weapon at longer ranges, because the thing that makes it less inconvenient to use a sniper rifle at Engaged range would also tend to get in the way when trying to use the weapon for the original intended purpose.

OTOH, the pistol grip could potentially also make a nice mounting point for a bipod or unipod attachment, which would help increase accuracy at the longer ranges.

Dunno. I’d have to think about the House Rule situation on that.

I assume you're meaning Forearm Grip?

I wouldn't add a setback. It just doesn't seem to me that it would make a huge difference at longer ranges.

I would say that you probably couldn't use a bipod mount and a forearm grip on the same weapon. The two seem diametrically opposed to each other and would go in roughly the same physical spot on the rifle.

On reflection, I think I’d allow them to stack. The attachment simply makes it easier for anyone to use the specific Ranged (Heavy) weapon at Engaged, while the talent is knowing how to make better use of whatever you’ve got.

However, in this case I think I might House Rule that the Pistol Grip attachment also adds a Setback die when you attempt to use the weapon at longer ranges, because the thing that makes it less inconvenient to use a sniper rifle at Engaged range would also tend to get in the way when trying to use the weapon for the original intended purpose.

OTOH, the pistol grip could potentially also make a nice mounting point for a bipod or unipod attachment, which would help increase accuracy at the longer ranges.

Dunno. I’d have to think about the House Rule situation on that.

I assume you're meaning Forearm Grip?

I wouldn't add a setback. It just doesn't seem to me that it would make a huge difference at longer ranges.

I would say that you probably couldn't use a bipod mount and a forearm grip on the same weapon. The two seem diametrically opposed to each other and would go in roughly the same physical spot on the rifle.

The rules do mention that elusive unicorn known as common sense. You could put a forearm grip and bipod on a long gun if the weapon is reasonably long enough, the Model 38 is long enough. They also don't really get added to weapons in the same place, a bi-pod is typically closer to the end of the barrel and a forearm grip needs to be reached by the shooter, so it's close to the trigger assembly. The RAW allow them to stack, personally I don't think they should because they're essentially redundant. If you're using a bi-pod, a forearm grip isn't going to do anything for you in reality.

On reflection, I think I’d allow them to stack. The attachment simply makes it easier for anyone to use the specific Ranged (Heavy) weapon at Engaged, while the talent is knowing how to make better use of whatever you’ve got.

However, in this case I think I might House Rule that the Pistol Grip attachment also adds a Setback die when you attempt to use the weapon at longer ranges, because the thing that makes it less inconvenient to use a sniper rifle at Engaged range would also tend to get in the way when trying to use the weapon for the original intended purpose.

OTOH, the pistol grip could potentially also make a nice mounting point for a bipod or unipod attachment, which would help increase accuracy at the longer ranges.

Dunno. I’d have to think about the House Rule situation on that.

I assume you're meaning Forearm Grip?

I wouldn't add a setback. It just doesn't seem to me that it would make a huge difference at longer ranges.

I would say that you probably couldn't use a bipod mount and a forearm grip on the same weapon. The two seem diametrically opposed to each other and would go in roughly the same physical spot on the rifle.

The rules do mention that elusive unicorn known as common sense. You could put a forearm grip and bipod on a long gun if the weapon is reasonably long enough, the Model 38 is long enough. They also don't really get added to weapons in the same place, a bi-pod is typically closer to the end of the barrel and a forearm grip needs to be reached by the shooter, so it's close to the trigger assembly. The RAW allow them to stack, personally I don't think they should because they're essentially redundant. If you're using a bi-pod, a forearm grip isn't going to do anything for you in reality.

Actually they aren't really redundant, but more like mutually exclusive. The forearm grip provides control for the user to swing the barrel of the gun around more easily while standing up and gives the other hand somewhere to grab that isn't the heating up area around the barrel. The bi-pod is meant to allow the gun to be more easily pivoted around while it is resting on something. So, using them both at the same time makes no sense as you said.

It's a judgement call for a GM and probably varies for each situation. I don't view it as a big deal having both installed on a sufficiently long weapon.

On reflection, I think I’d allow them to stack. The attachment simply makes it easier for anyone to use the specific Ranged (Heavy) weapon at Engaged, while the talent is knowing how to make better use of whatever you’ve got.

However, in this case I think I might House Rule that the Pistol Grip attachment also adds a Setback die when you attempt to use the weapon at longer ranges, because the thing that makes it less inconvenient to use a sniper rifle at Engaged range would also tend to get in the way when trying to use the weapon for the original intended purpose.

OTOH, the pistol grip could potentially also make a nice mounting point for a bipod or unipod attachment, which would help increase accuracy at the longer ranges.

Dunno. I’d have to think about the House Rule situation on that.

I assume you're meaning Forearm Grip?

I wouldn't add a setback. It just doesn't seem to me that it would make a huge difference at longer ranges.

I would say that you probably couldn't use a bipod mount and a forearm grip on the same weapon. The two seem diametrically opposed to each other and would go in roughly the same physical spot on the rifle.

The rules do mention that elusive unicorn known as common sense. You could put a forearm grip and bipod on a long gun if the weapon is reasonably long enough, the Model 38 is long enough. They also don't really get added to weapons in the same place, a bi-pod is typically closer to the end of the barrel and a forearm grip needs to be reached by the shooter, so it's close to the trigger assembly. The RAW allow them to stack, personally I don't think they should because they're essentially redundant. If you're using a bi-pod, a forearm grip isn't going to do anything for you in reality.

I'm going to assume that you weren't intending to imply I'm lacking common sense, but yes I know that a bipod and a grip don't go in exactly the same place. That's why I said "roughly" meaning along the underside of the barrel. I agree with you that they probably shouldn't stack. The same way I believe a rifle that features a grenade launcher attachment shouldn't be able to also have a flame thrower, grip, or bipod. That's just my opinion, but I don't see how it would even realistically come up. If I were a PC with a Model 38, it would never even cross my mind to put a forearm grip on it. A scope, ASB, and a bipod and that thing is full on hard points. Why anyone would waste a HP on a grip is baffling.

On reflection, I think I’d allow them to stack. The attachment simply makes it easier for anyone to use the specific Ranged (Heavy) weapon at Engaged, while the talent is knowing how to make better use of whatever you’ve got.

However, in this case I think I might House Rule that the Pistol Grip attachment also adds a Setback die when you attempt to use the weapon at longer ranges, because the thing that makes it less inconvenient to use a sniper rifle at Engaged range would also tend to get in the way when trying to use the weapon for the original intended purpose.

OTOH, the pistol grip could potentially also make a nice mounting point for a bipod or unipod attachment, which would help increase accuracy at the longer ranges.

Dunno. I’d have to think about the House Rule situation on that.

I assume you're meaning Forearm Grip?

I wouldn't add a setback. It just doesn't seem to me that it would make a huge difference at longer ranges.

I would say that you probably couldn't use a bipod mount and a forearm grip on the same weapon. The two seem diametrically opposed to each other and would go in roughly the same physical spot on the rifle.

The rules do mention that elusive unicorn known as common sense. You could put a forearm grip and bipod on a long gun if the weapon is reasonably long enough, the Model 38 is long enough. They also don't really get added to weapons in the same place, a bi-pod is typically closer to the end of the barrel and a forearm grip needs to be reached by the shooter, so it's close to the trigger assembly. The RAW allow them to stack, personally I don't think they should because they're essentially redundant. If you're using a bi-pod, a forearm grip isn't going to do anything for you in reality.

I'm going to assume that you weren't intending to imply I'm lacking common sense, but yes I know that a bipod and a grip don't go in exactly the same place. That's why I said "roughly" meaning along the underside of the barrel. I agree with you that they probably shouldn't stack. The same way I believe a rifle that features a grenade launcher attachment shouldn't be able to also have a flame thrower, grip, or bipod. That's just my opinion, but I don't see how it would even realistically come up. If I were a PC with a Model 38, it would never even cross my mind to put a forearm grip on it. A scope, ASB, and a bipod and that thing is full on hard points. Why anyone would waste a HP on a grip is baffling.

I'm not sure what an ASB is. The forearm grip makes the weapon more viable in close quarters. Ideally you are never in that situation, however it means you only need one weapon and have no need to switch.

I'm not sure what an ASB is. The forearm grip makes the weapon more viable in close quarters. Ideally you are never in that situation, however it means you only need one weapon and have no need to switch.

Augmented Spin Barrel.

Requires two Hard Points and fully modded would give the weapon +3 base damage, Accurate 1, and Pierce 1.

I'm not sure what an ASB is. The forearm grip makes the weapon more viable in close quarters. Ideally you are never in that situation, however it means you only need one weapon and have no need to switch.

Augmented Spin Barrel.

Requires two Hard Points and fully modded would give the weapon +3 base damage, Accurate 1, and Pierce 1.

Also, why would you get a bipod mount? That just removes Cumbersome quality, which the Model 38 doesn't have. Waste of a hard point.

I like the thought of A Gadgeteer modifying the Bi-pod mount so when collapsed it becomes the Forearm Grip. Mechanically I would probably ask for both to be Installed and maintained separately, it would be more of a Narative thing