Hi People!

We came across a problem, or better: had a discussion.

When you fire an accurate weapon with a called shot, does "accurate" trigger?

Imho a called shot should be considered as an aimed shot for the "accurate" specialty of a weapon, should it not?

What do you think?

Would be glad for some input…

Accurate only triggers if you take an aim action. So to use it with called shot you would need to spend a half action/full action previous round aiming, and then perform the called shot next round.

The poster above me is correct. The aim action and called shot action are different. The accurate weapon quality only comes into effect when you're using the aim action.

Don't use roleplaying description to try and get around rules. Just makes you look bad most of the time.

I don't like the way Called Shots have been handled since Rogue Trader. This is one of the changes from Dark Heresy that I disagree with.

I brought this up during the Beta , but no changes were made

Well, yes I know what the rules say.

But an accurate weapon does more damage because you use it precisely.

An aimed shot only aims at a target (let's say a human). In this case the accurate specialty triggers.

Now let's assume we don't shoot at just this human target but at his HEAD. This would be a called shot.

I guess we are on the same page, when I say that shooting at a head instead of just shooting at a person is a more precise aim than just aiming for a body in general?

So it just does not make sense, that the accurate specialty does not trigger with called shots. Regardless what the rules say.

Imho they simply forgott about ruling this in. Especially since the description of called shot says: "..This action may be used to AIM at specific locations on monsters…"

So an Errata or explanation why they didn't rule it in would be nice…

I don't believe so. As written it doesn't appear so.

I'm new though, so don't take my two cents without a grain of salt :-)

I read it as more of a thing to INCREASE the benefits of the aim action, not increase to the benefits of an alternative use of time(Called Shot).

From the gameplay side, with accurate only on the aim action:

The additional time spent on the aim action is being used to roll the opportunity for additional damage, in addition to the normal additional Ballistic Skill.

Alternatively:

A player would probably NOT aim more if called shot processed the "accurate" weapon trait, since a sniping character normally posseses the deadeye/etc. talents.

No reason to aim another half action for +10 accuracy, when you can shoot twice as fast at a -10 accuracy with called shot each round. The opportunity cost to aiming would be too high. Aiming would not be useful at that point unless there was a ridiculous gap between your ballistic skill and their evasion.

Well actually the whole discussion came up around a sniper Char, indeed.

But if called shots did not trigger "accurate" then it would be totally pointless for a sniper char to actually make a called shot. (apart from shooting unarmored locations since even shooting heads does no extra damage, which in itself is another totally stupid thing in the rules, but that's another discussion)

Because with a standard attack plus aim he would actually do more damage. So why should I spend 350XP for all the Talents then?

Apart from that: it still does not make sense… Called Shot is a full round action with the goal to shoot a specific location on a target. Hence the Char using it HAS TO AIM. Which leads us back to the initial Problem: why wouldn't accurate trigger then?

Under the interpretation of the people responding to this post:
Aiming + Standard attack is a 1-1.5 round action. You get the additional damage dice. Cover or armor can negate or mitigate the effect. Your critical location is random.

Called shot is a 1 round action. Cover or armor cannot mitigate the effect, with irregular armor coverage. You choose location for criticals.

Aimed and called shot is a 1.5-2 round action. You gain the additional damage dice, choose the critical damage location, and the effect is not mitigated by cover or armor.

Assuming that target is in the open, on an unarmored target, not sending any damage critical, against high hitpoints… aiming will be better.

With heavy cover, disproportionate armor, with low hitpoints… using aim can be a waste of time. Whereas called shot may multiply your chances of a hit by a considerable amount; an individual with a head and 1 arm exposed has a significant reduction in net damage if their cover holds.

They fulfill different functions. Called shot can also be used for hitting more than body parts.

Of course… overwatch isn't a bad use of a round either. Pinning has its benefit, even with a long las. And then you run into Waaaaagh!ing orcs, and suddenly the damage from aim is essential. And then you run into someone with terminator armor, and the hit locations are more important than anything.

I don't think it would be a fun run if called shot gave "accurate" aim benefits, because aiming with standard attacks would barely ever be a good idea. Overwatch, same story to a lesser extent; pinning would be useful, but not comparative to a 1 round 3d10 shot that ignores cover and armor.

Chillcorp said:

Chillcorp said:

Well the reason a sniper would go for a called shot is because they should be investing the Deadeye shot talent and its pre-requisites - this means that on any given turn they can Half aim for a +10 bonus, Accurate then kicks in and likely rewards at least 1 but maybe 2 more damage die AND the sniper can choose where to hit the target - either the weakest point if it's really tought or something thematically useful such as taking out the arms of an ork or the legs of a predator animal.

Snipers really do not need any buffing so suggesting that Accurate kicks in on Called-Shots is silly.

I think part of the problem is the assumption that a Called Shot automatically implies the same level of "aiming" that the Aim action represents.

A Called Shot is a form of attack where the PC attempts to make their attack hit a specific location. It could be a form of hip firing where you simply "hope" that location is hit, and does not have to include the "aiming." Its handled by the difficulty of the shot.

To be honest, I see it as a necessary form of the economy of actions for trying to get a "better" hit. Really, its just better to go for Aim+Standard Attack than to try and use Called Shot (without Deadeye at least).

The problem is that a Called Shot takes longer than a regular shot, in addition to the difficulty increase.

The difficulty modifier is fine, as it is on-par with the size-modifiers. Ie, shooting in the head is just as difficult as shooting a head-sized target. (ie a servo skull).

All good.

The problem is that you need a Full Action to shoot the head, but you're still free to shoot at the smaller targets using Half Action attacks.

THAT is the problem.

Revert to DH rules, where Called Shots were a -20 modifier to the BS test, and all these problems go away.

Or change Called Shot to a Half Action, which has the same effect

Called shot and aiming are entirly different things. Called shot is you are trying to hit a specific part of an overall object rather than the object itself, simply narrowing the focus of where you are pointing the weapon. Aiming includes sighting the weapon on the target, accurately judging distance, accounting for enviromental effects that might interfere with the shot, adjusting for movement, and other things that increase the overall accuracy of the weapon. An accurate weapon should not count a called shot as having aimed, because it is not even remotely the same thing as an aim action. You could aim before a called shot though, and then get the benifits of both. This is what snipers do.

Oh? Is that so? Then why does called shot need a full action?

Chillcorp said:

I don't think you are looking at this properly, so lets try and break it down.

Half action to aim + half action to shoot = 1 Full action spent lining up an accurate shot but not focussing on where on the enemy it hits.

Full action to called shot = 1 Full action to hit a target and specify where you hit it which is useful as discussed in previous posts.

So both are Full actions, with the Aim giving you the option of spending an additional Half action (in a previous round) aiming at the target for even more accuracy.

Yes, and the problem is I should not NEED to spend more time trying to hit what is in essence just a smaller target.

Most people would, and you certainly have that option.

But a skilled gunslinger could very well just "shoot from the hip" in fast-draw style, and still go for the head. Without any extra Aiming.

But OW RAW, he cannot.

By DH RAW, he can.

And in both games, ha CAN do so if the target is not a head, but just a headsized target.

I don't think it makes sense, but you're free to disagree.

What action it should take is a different argument than if it should activate accurate special ability. My only comment on it is that no rule system will ever be perfect, use houserules to your hearts content. If you want a perfect rules system, play real life.

Darth Smeg said:

You mention skilled gunslingers being able to pull off certain feats, and in this system they can - because being a skilled gunslinger is represented via the Deadeye shot talent - if you choose not to invest XP into an option that represents your skill at arms, then you can't complain about not being able to pull off complex manouvers without spending more time doing so.

I would have thought that much was obvious…

I agree that Called Shot should be handled the same way its done in DH, but still feel the Accurate bonus damage shouldn't be added without an Aim action.

Maybe its just me, but I hate how video games have influenced this with making "headshot!" be an inherent goal of anyone with an Accurate weapon. Certainly in this system (where RF goes to the crit table, although its debatable if its better to cause the 1-5 crit range on locations other than the head. I'd personally rather cripple an enemies arms than blind them for a round or two)), it has its uses, but realize, for the purpose of damage, most enemies have consistent armour across their bodies (I know we tell ourselves that enemies may have different armour, but come on). A headshot is simply not any more damaging than a body shot. And all locations being the same, its really just better to go for the more accurate hit. Realize, that the DoSs of an attack that causes multiple dice of damage can be used as a replacement for a single die of damage (p. 250, "Step Four…", and no, since you have to "roll" a 10 to RF, 10 DoSs != auto RF threat). Maximizing the DoSs helps mitigate rolling low damage. Called Shots do nothing to help maximize DoSs.

Probably the larger use for a called shot is with regards to enemies behind cover.

Kasatka said:

Well, the problem is that even with all these talents, they still can't make that Called Shot to the head without a comarative loss of bonus. Because they cannot use the Aim action with the Called Shot on one round.

Sure, they can make a Called Shot without penalty, and hit a Head at base BS (assume normal range).

But they could make an Aimed (+10) Standard Attack (+10) attack vs the flying head (-20) for the same net modifier (0), but then gain the bonus for Accurate weapons (which they likely would have, being artisans of the gun).

I think it is strange that the other shooting actions were reduced from Full to Half actions (Semi/Full auto Burst), but Called Shot remained a Full Action.

The change from the original DH rules (which happend with Rogue Trader) was quite a nerf, as they kept the -20 penalty but also prevented a mitigation of this with Aim. I guess this was to counter the increased damage done by Accurate weapons (which was introduced in the Errata, and so was not originally DH RAW), and to prevent snipers form one-shotting one enemy per turn. But I don't think that was necessary, as the heavy gunners or explosive users could easily put down more than one enemy a round as well.

KommissarK said: