[ikarinokami]

it does say you need to use the automatics skill to change the mode, regardless of what mode you change from or into, and it is classified as an assault rifle. I

[Michael Chandra]

Even if it's classified as an AR, that doesn't mean all its weapon modes use Automatics. I wouldn't let a player use Automatics to fire an Alpha's Grenade Launcher, for example. And the Automatics skill is used to reconfigure it, that doesn't mean it's used for all its firing modes, simply that it's required to understand how the thing is put together. So it's still an open question, and I wonder what the SR5 answer will be.

[Kincaid]

As a follow-up to my question--what specialization do I use with the carbine?

[martinchaen]

I also question the Automatics + Agility test to reconfigure the XM30; seems to me like that should be an Armorer test.

[darloth]

I'd go with the SMG specialization for a carbine, personally.

I know it's not exactly the same, but it seems closest.

[salesninja]

Carbines are typically a stlightly shorter slightly lighter assult rifle. I would rule that it's an AR not a SMG

[Namikaze]

I also question the Automatics + Agility test to reconfigure the XM30; seems to me like that should be an Armorer test.

I agree.  Since my table doesn't have the Automatics skill, I'm already working with Armorer.  But it seems like it should have been Armorer to begin with.

[Kincaid]

There's a good case to be made for Armorer, but the item that sets precedent (the SM-5) rolls Firearms (?? Let's assume they mean Longarms) + Logic.

[martinchaen]

Which I ALSO think should be Armorer...

[ZeConster]

Why? It makes sense to me that how good you are at using a firearm helps determine how easily you can take it apart and put it together again, more so than how good you are at creating/repairing them (I doubt most of those people in series and films that practice this over and over to minimize the time needed to do so know the Armorer skill). If you make it require Armorer (rather than houseruling it in as an alternative), you're basically forcing people to take a secondary skill if they want to use the SM-5.

[martinchaen]

Taking a firearm apart and putting it back together again is precisely what the Armorer skill IS, though. Taking away from that core functionality of the Armorer skill by making anyone who's a good shot with a rifle also good at servicing said rifle is like saying "Oh, you can drive? You must also know how to service your car" to my mind.

For me the difference between Armorer and any Firearm skill is exactly the same as that between the Engineering skill group and the Piloting skills; one does not equate the other, and by allowing the primary skills (Piloting, Firearms) to overlap with the secondaries (Mechanic, Armorer) you water down the usefulness of the latter.

And yes; I firmly believe that anyone who wants to use something like an SM-5 or the XM30 SHOULD have a degree of knowledge in firearms maintenance, represented in this case by, you guessed it, Armorer.

[JackVII]

Eh... I think basic maintenance of a firearm (field stripping to clean) would be covered under whatever applicable firearm skill covers it. I've always seen Armorer as being more in-depth than that. With that said, something as complicated as the XM30, depending on exactly how difficult the interchangeable bits are, should probably be covered under the Armorer skill.

[martinchaen]

I disagree, JackVII. As someone who's fired over 20,000 rounds during training alone from my service weapon, I can vouch for the fact that the skill of shooting a rifle is not equal to the skill of maintaining it; they are two separate things completely.

There are already few enough uses for the armorer skill. To my mind, if you want to make a character that is supposed to have a military or otherwise professional gun-slinger background, you better take at least ONE rank of Armorer, if not more.

Same thing with deckers, as you can be the world's best hacker but if you don't know how your tech works (represented in-game by the Hardware skill) you're taking a risk; no amount of coding is going to bring that bricked piece of electronics back to life.

To my mind, the Street Sam claiming that "Because I know how to fire my assault rifle, I also know how to maintain and/or repair it" is exactly the same as the rigger claiming that "Because I know how to drive my vehicle, I also know how to maintain and/or repair it" or the decker claiming that "Because I know how to use my deck to break into places I'm not authorized, I also know how to maintain and/or repair it".

Almost every active skill that uses a piece of equipment has an equivalent technical skill that is used to repair it. Taking away from those skills when they're already weak further reduces the need for players to take them, which further encourages the kind of min/maxing a lot of people are complaining about. If we want more breadth of skill assignments, we'll have to come up with more uses for the lesser-picked skills instead of making skills that are already very good (Automatics, anyone?) even better.

[ZeConster]

Basic gun maintenance is on a different scale than car maintenance, though.

[martinchaen]

Speaking as a veteran, ZeConster, I wholeheartedly disagree.

I'd much rather my car break down on me than my service weapon, and making sure my service weapon does not fail during a critical moment requires more than just "basic gun maintenance".

To my mind, basic gun maintenance is oiling the weapon. Basic car maintenance is making sure the car has sufficient oil levels.

Changing the oil on a car would, at least at my table, be covered by the Automotive Mechanic skill, just like replacing the firing pin on a machine gun would be an Armorer test.

Again, to my mind, unless mounted on a rail system, swapping the unberbarrel weapon on an XM30 should be an Armorer test, just like assembling and disassembling an SM-5. My opinion only, not RAW.