Now I want a vehicles book.

Even a small digital supplement for like 5$-10$ would work.

Now I want a vehicles book.

While you wait you could always adapt the rules for the Vehicles in only war.

I've not read Enemies Without yet, (I've bought it to read for when I head home over Christmas), so apologies if I've misinterpreted what's been said here. Fieldcraft for operate to fly aircraft does seem a bit weird at first. It's a bit of a stretch but I think it works in an abstract sense. A huge part of being a pilot in real life (I am, so I speak from experience here) is being able to interpret meteorology (weather) correctly so the flight can be done safely, as well as being able to navigate just by using land features and a compass should your navigational aids fail. Whilst not fieldcraft in the traditional sense, it is akin to being able to read the 'lay of the land'. I still think another aptitude should have been chosen, but perhaps that interpretation will help those who are uncomfortable house ruling it?

I think the only issue with that is that Ace can also refer to excellent drivers of various ground vehicles and even beast riders of various types to which your quite well thought out and described view on field craft might not be quite as applicable.

Whilst field craft might actually make sense for horse (and other exotic beastie) riders I think the house rule for agility/tech use for the operate skill actually makes quite a lot of sense and one I am thinking about implementing myself.

Yes, its not that Fieldcraft doesn't make sense for Operate, is that the Ace (the class that's supposed to be the super pilot) doesn't get Fieldcraft.

Frankly I'm always annoyed when sci-fi RPGs tie riding animals and using vehicles together; one always gets hosed in the end. And we need more more vehicles to make the Ace useful, how they made that class and decided to not give a decent dogfighter in the same book I'll never understand.

Because the game isn't about dog-fighting? Ace applies to more than just aircraft, and while I'd hope for more than the winged breadbox and the standard Aquila, I don't think throwing us a bunch of Imperial Navy air superiority fighters would be the way to go. Some Askellon-specific vehicles would be nice; we don't need a lot more of the standard-across-the-galaxy stuff, we need the local stuff with flavor and intriguing history (with comparable stats to things we might want to house-rule). Maybe some actual atmospheric-only aircraft? Dirigible duels make everything better, and prop-planes would tie in with the rhombus tanks so well...

Thankfully, Survival is used to ride critters, so we don't have to deal with the problem like some games have in regards to 'use this stat to control anything you sit on, from boat to plane to car to Cringer!'

My only problem so far is they've (as far as I can track, across all versions/editions) never released stats for the Valkyrie, the eponymous gunship/air assault craft. That should be the standard given so we can make our own vehicles; if we're making a faster vehicle, saw off some armor and crank up the engines, etc.

Thankfully, Survival is used to ride critters, so we don't have to deal with the problem like some games have in regards to 'use this stat to control anything you sit on, from boat to plane to car to Cringer!'

just saw the new vehicles and i got some questions :s. Since there are vehicles that can have more than just one driver, how would you rule that?, i mean, if you have 3 PCs there, would just one make the skill checks for doing vehicles checks? would the other 2 drivers give a +10 each??, who is the one who make the WS check when using the skerab walker (should he use the operate skill or Weapon skill????

I'd personally say if there's two pilots, one makes the Piloting rolls while the other controls the pilot's guns, runs sensors, etc. (the customary Co-Pilot roles). I would not give bonuses for having the full crew complement; maybe a penalty for being short-handed if it is a large enough vehicle (the co-pilot isn't completely necessary for operation, it is more of a failsafe and multitask position) and maybe, maaaybe a -10 reduction of overall situational penalties (my group stacks bonuses like they were born to it, it has gotten to the point where the sniper cannot miss without rolling a hundred). Those guns will operate off of Ballistic Skill (or Weapon Skill for some kind of melee attachment) every time (sans out-there situations like the talent that lets you add Medicae to your attacks against certain targets), and it will be rolled by whoever does the attack. The individuals can switch off as need be at that point.

I'd personally say if there's two pilots, one makes the Piloting rolls while the other controls the pilot's guns, runs sensors, etc. (the customary Co-Pilot roles). I would not give bonuses for having the full crew complement; maybe a penalty for being short-handed if it is a large enough vehicle (the co-pilot isn't completely necessary for operation, it is more of a failsafe and multitask position) and maybe, maaaybe a -10 reduction of overall situational penalties (my group stacks bonuses like they were born to it, it has gotten to the point where the sniper cannot miss without rolling a hundred). Those guns will operate off of Ballistic Skill (or Weapon Skill for some kind of melee attachment) every time (sans out-there situations like the talent that lets you add Medicae to your attacks against certain targets), and it will be rolled by whoever does the attack. The individuals can switch off as need be at that point.

Depends on the Aircraft. Some aircraft, especially the larger ones are MUCH harder to fly with one pilot. They are not designed for it! 40k equivalents would include the Guncutter and the Marauder Bomber as good examples. Others, such as the Thunderbolt fighter designed for a single Pilot and thus would not incur any penalties. I would apply a -10 penalty for each missing member of the flight crew. (Dedicated gunners wouldn't count.)