…

Also, does the book state somewhere that there is a max of two consequitive Aims?

Yes, page 201. Gain 1 boost die for aiming, or 2 boost dice for a "double aim."

-EF

While I'm inclined to agree with you that a "double aim" is indeed the maximum (it sounds like this is the intent of the rule), you need to be careful here.

Page 201 most definitely does not say that there is a maximum to the number of times you can stack the Aim effect. It says that you may spend one maneuver to aim and gain one boost die. It also says that you may spend two consecutive maneuvers to aim twice and gain two boost dice. It does not say that you can't spend three or more consecutive maneuvers to aim three or more times and gain three or more boost dice.

That was the point of Morridini's question - does the book actually say that you can't aim three or more times? The answer, as far as I know, is that it does not say this. Whether or not it implies this is a matter of personal interpretation.

For me, the maneuver says exactly what it can do: add 1 or 2 boost dice to a combat check. Since it doesn't say it can add 3 or more, it can't.

In my mind, that's cut and dry. It does A or B​. That precludes the possibility of C or D. I personally don't see the need to go the d20 route and say what you can and can't do. That would be a really long list of things you can't do.

I understand that there are people out there that think differently than I do, so they do want that list. If it's that important that you know, there is the Rules Questions link at the very top (More… > Customer Service > Rules Questions) and someone from FFG will tell you the intent behind the rule.

-EF

Yeah I was specifically thinking of a sniper taking time to line up a sight over multiple rounds. By declaring the target the target would be able to go to cover etc. before the shot.

Also, does the book state somewhere that there is a max of two consequitive Aims?

Declaring the target of your aiming doesn't mean that target 'knows' you're aiming at them, though, right?

Telling the GM "I'm aiming at the Aqualish bounty hunter" doesn't necessarily mean the Aqualish bounter hunter knows you're aiming at him...

Yeah I was specifically thinking of a sniper taking time to line up a sight over multiple rounds. By declaring the target the target would be able to go to cover etc. before the shot.

Also, does the book state somewhere that there is a max of two consequitive Aims?

Declaring the target of your aiming doesn't mean that target 'knows' you're aiming at them, though, right?

Telling the GM "I'm aiming at the Aqualish bounty hunter" doesn't necessarily mean the Aqualish bounter hunter knows you're aiming at him...

I would say that the target (player or NPC) would not automatically notice (especially the first shot). However, if the target or one of their allies rolls an Advantage they can spend it to "Notice a single important point in the ongoing conflict". Which would include noticing someone is lining a shot up on you or someone in your party (or another minion or whatever) who can call out a warning. Since combat is narrative it would be okay to "meta-game" in this way because it has a cost (1 Adv.)

As for allowing for more than a double Aim? I'd call that the limit. It really makes no sense to allow a triple and beyond bonus.

For me, the maneuver says exactly what it can do: add 1 or 2 boost dice to a combat check. Since it doesn't say it can add 3 or more, it can't.

Well this is merely a nitpicking detail and largely off-topic - but as I said, that's only one interpretation.

While I share your interpretation and believe it is what was intended by the author, I have to admit that it's not the only fair and reasonable way of reading the passage. You can also read it, fairly and reasonably, as meaning the opposite. If you can't see that, then I don't know what to tell you.

It really makes no sense to allow a triple and beyond bonus.

Why does a double bonus "make sense" but not a triple bonus?

How many applications of Aim the rules permit you to stack is entirely arbitrary (as are most rules in most games). No one number "makes more sense" than any other.

I agree that no specified limit is cited by raw, but I doubt rai they want you to spend 10 turns double aiming and fire on someone with 20 boost die on your 11th turn. A possible house-rule would be to limit the number of aim actions you could do to your training, i.e. the number of ranks in the attack skill you are using? If someone is playing a sniper character, is sitting at extreme range from his opponent, has 5 ranks in heavy range, and wants to spend 2 full turns sighting in on their target, then 3rd turn aiming a fifth time and firing with 5 boost die, I personally wouldn't have a problem with that. It is flavorful as hell, and also reflects the cap of benefit to which one can benefit from aiming, and how that is increased by training. Just a suggestion.

It really makes no sense to allow a triple and beyond bonus.

Why does a double bonus "make sense" but not a triple bonus?

How many applications of Aim the rules permit you to stack is entirely arbitrary (as are most rules in most games). No one number "makes more sense" than any other.

Realistically speaking, there's only so much waiting and "aiming" you can do until your chances of success are as good as their likely to get.

I see it only as an example that you can infact spend 2 maneuvers to gain 2 boost dice. That implies to me that you can do more because it merely adds the boost dice to your NEXT combat check.

If someone really wants to spend 10 rounds "aiming" then so what, that's 9 rounds where they haven't been very helpful to the group and how often does an encounter go that many rounds?

I also see aiming more than looking down your sights and firing.

I can see multiple rounds of aiming making sense.

Settling down and calming yourself

Situating your weapon on something to steady yourself

Taking wind measurements for the shot (shut up and go with it)

Focusing their scope

getting an accurate sight picture

calculating elevation

getting into rythmic breating

squeezing their testicles

FIRE!!

So it makes sense to me that it could take multiple rounds of "aiming" and increase your effectivness every round, especially if you do a lot of testi-squeezes.

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

I can certainly see how a character taking his maneuver one turn to aim and then also taking his maneuver on a second turn to aim could suffer a damaging attack in between.

I don't see a specific prohibition in the rules on aiming for more than two consecutive maneuvers, although we have been playing it as two max.

I could see a sniper taking taking ten turns aiming, but good luck if someone is shooting back at you...

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

No, it even says for stun setting that it does stun damage instead of damage in wounds.

I would rule it not be considered taking damage considering it's a strain effect.

If however they were shot by a stun blast, where damage is convereted to strain it would interupt their aiming bonus.

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

Usually not, no. The rule states damage in excess of your soak, so unless your soak is 1, you're fine.

-EF

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

Usually not, no. The rule states damage in excess of your soak, so unless your soak is 1, you're fine.

-EF

Soak wouldn't apply to the voluntary strain you get from taking a 2nd maneuver anyway, though. Right?

Soak wouldn't apply to the voluntary strain you get from taking a 2nd maneuver anyway, though. Right?

Soak would not reduce that strain from a second maneuver.

When you take strain from doing a second maneuver it's considered a strain effect, not a damage effect.

The only time it's considered damage is when there is a stun setting where it specifically states that you take damage in strain and not damage in wounds.

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

Usually not, no. The rule states damage in excess of your soak, so unless your soak is 1, you're fine.

-EF

Soak wouldn't apply to the voluntary strain you get from taking a 2nd maneuver anyway, though. Right?

Right. Soak (per page 207) only reduces damage taken from "attacks…or other sources of physical damage."

My point, however, was only damage in excess of your soak vale negates the aim maneuver. So as long as your soak is 2 or higher, the 2 strain "damage" won't disrupt your aiming.

-EF

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

I can certainly see how a character taking his maneuver one turn to aim and then also taking his maneuver on a second turn to aim could suffer a damaging attack in between.

This was also answered on the Order 66 Podcast. Suffering Strain isn't the same as taking damage. You take damage from an attack. You suffer strain as the result of activating a talent or taking a second maneuver.

Another way of looking at it: Damage (whether strain or wounds) is applied to Soak (unless otherwise specified). Suffering strain/wounds from a given effect is not.

I wonder would taking strain to take a second aim maneuver be considered "taking damage"?

Usually not, no. The rule states damage in excess of your soak, so unless your soak is 1, you're fine.

-EF

Soak wouldn't apply to the voluntary strain you get from taking a 2nd maneuver anyway, though. Right?

Right. Soak (per page 207) only reduces damage taken from "attacks…or other sources of physical damage."

My point, however, was only damage in excess of your soak vale negates the aim maneuver. So as long as your soak is 2 or higher, the 2 strain "damage" won't disrupt your aiming.

-EF

It isn't 2 strain "damage" it's a strain effect.

Stun setting converts damage into strain damage that is the only way it would be considered "damage"