The normal aim maneuver adds a boost to the next attack and a second aim maneuevr adds another boost.

To aim at a particular part of a body or area, however, gives 2 setback. A second aim for that same thing reduces to 1 setback.

How would you rule the results of a successful attack, say, to shoot the blaster hand of a thug? Would one be able to make the hand drop the blaster with their shot?

What about if your player was aiming for the opponent's throat? Does that actually do anything special mechanically or is it entirely dealt with in a narrative sense?

Is it possible to perform both versions of aim in 1 turn? (Aim for boost, then aim at blaster hand for 2 setback).

The picking the target is meant for dropping the blaster or damaging it, etc.

Aimed shots to body parts add no mechanical benefit but narratively it could be handled to say they can't make a sound or something.

Aim spells out it provides only one of the two bonuses when you use it, so that means no double dipping imo, just a better version of each for the double aim.

Mechanically no it doesn't or at least not as far as the rules go. if you have a sniper character who takes a shot at the head and succeeds should that mean he takes his target out in one hit or not? I think it is up to the GM to decide before the player attempts the shot and make it clear what the results could be. But then you run the risk of setting a precedent, if you are going to allow headshots then players will want to do it all the time.

On the other hand shooting a character is the hand which is wielding a weapon is different. The successes add to damage as normal but any advantages could be used to apply a disarm effect. In fact I'm pretty sure there is a table for that on the GM screen.

Mechanically no it doesn't or at least not as far as the rules go. if you have a sniper character who takes a shot at the head and succeeds should that mean he takes his target out in one hit or not? I think it is up to the GM to decide before the player attempts the shot and make it clear what the results could be. But then you run the risk of setting a precedent, if you are going to allow headshots then players will want to do it all the time.

Or you could remind the players that anything they can do, so can NPCs. Like, NPC Bounty Hunters.

So, if they don’t want that method used against them, they might want to think long and hard about whether or not they make common use of it.

Mechanically no it doesn't or at least not as far as the rules go. if you have a sniper character who takes a shot at the head and succeeds should that mean he takes his target out in one hit or not? I think it is up to the GM to decide before the player attempts the shot and make it clear what the results could be. But then you run the risk of setting a precedent, if you are going to allow headshots then players will want to do it all the time.

Or you could remind the players that anything they can do, so can NPCs. Like, NPC Bounty Hunters.

So, if they don’t want that method used against them, they might want to think long and hard about whether or not they make common use of it.

lol yeah could do that too but I prefer to avoid NPC's making those kind of attacks, I have enough dice to track already

Or if they aim at the head, assuming no helmet is worn, they can bypass soak from armor? It's a little complex for this system, might be easier to say they ignore all soak.

Or if they aim at the head, assuming no helmet is worn, they can bypass soak from armor? It's a little complex for this system, might be easier to say they ignore all soak.

That has issues too as soak is primarily derived from the Brawn characteristic so even with no gear on at all the character should still be allowed a soak value.

I can see awarding a rank or two in Vicious to successful attacks against targeted body parts. Anything beyond that is a bit excessive.

I still say you are setting a precedent by allowing head shots. There is a reason the rules don't cater for that. Disarming an opponent, fine - shoot the gun right out of their hands, its cool we have rules for that. But head shots will cause problems and its easier just to play it as written.

I still say you are setting a precedent by allowing head shots. There is a reason the rules don't cater for that. Disarming an opponent, fine - shoot the gun right out of their hands, its cool we have rules for that. But head shots will cause problems and its easier just to play it as written.

Agreed. I rule that, when using lethal force, the characters are always going for the kill shots. It's assumed they are aiming for head or heart.

Headshot don't really fit the setting, I don't think. In the movies, shows, comics, whenever someone gets shot really anywhere, they go down.

Headshot don't really fit the setting, I don't think. In the movies, shows, comics, whenever someone gets shot really anywhere, they go down.

mm.. yeah - ish. Depends on what source you believe.

In the comics and novels Storm Troopers are the ultimate Elite, they get the best training, the best gear... but...

In the movies they are incompetent and can't hit the broadside of a freighter

Interesting moment tonight. I had a player narrate his blaster shot after successfully hitting but not downing his target. He exclaimed he shot the character in the head. He expected the character to be dead. I had to explain how wounds work and said he still shot the guy in the head which gave him a wicked scar atop his noggin and burned off some hair but that he wasn't down.