Reluctant Killer and Grenades

[Kalzazz]

My take is you have to be doing something reasonably aimed at the vehicle

So for a motorcycle you can shoot the motorcycle itself, whether or not the rider can handle the motorcycle being shot out from under him or not, or shoot the motorcycle with with a rocket such that the rider is red mist as the bike vaporizes, but you can't empty the saddle shooting the rider directly

A trench gives me less pause than a motorcycle, trenches are as obviously things of war as a battlemech, and I'd allow shooting at a clear cockpit mech as well

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

My take is you have to be doing something reasonably aimed at the vehicle

So for a motorcycle you can shoot the motorcycle itself, whether or not the rider can handle the motorcycle being shot out from under him or not, or shoot the motorcycle with with a rocket such that the rider is red mist as the bike vaporizes, but you can't empty the saddle shooting the rider directly

A trench gives me less pause than a motorcycle, trenches are as obviously things of war as a battlemech, and I'd allow shooting at a clear cockpit mech as well

The target being or occupying a 'thing of war' is in no way a factor for the trait.

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

...
A trench gives me less pause than a motorcycle, trenches are as obviously things of war as a battlemech, and I'd allow shooting at a clear cockpit mech as well

It's not reluctant killer of non-combatants. It's reluctant killer, period.
Maybe you're confusing it with how certain Codes of Honor explicitly say they don't apply during war.

[Kalzazz]

Well, a tank or a trench or such things seem more 'things you can aim at' than a Cozy Coupe or a wading pool

But true, the disadvantage does not mention such things

Anyway, to me, firing at occupied vehicles sounds fine
Fire at a jeep, groovy. Fire at the specific person in the jeep, not groovy, but try to lob a grenade into the jeep? I'm fine with that, trying to land grenades and molotov cocktails and such into vehicles is a time honored means of attacking them. Do a called shot at the gun mounted on the jeep? Also fine. Called shot at the driver or gunner? Not fine.

The same jeep is replaced by a trench or a pillbox? Its no longer a vehicle, but you can still see people (it clearly is not a very good trench if you can easily see the occupants, but whatever). And since it no longer is a vehicle then you can't target it?

That seems very silly to me.

And I can very easily imagine someone who can have problems with lining their sights up on a person and shooting them, but is perfectly happy with putting a shot through the engine of their bike, because your not aiming at the person, your aiming at a hunk of metal not significantly more hard to aim at that a soda can

Sure, this might have the side effect of causing the bike to wipe out or crash and kill the person, but your okay with causing effects that may lead to death, you can hand people ammo of all things

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Well, a tank or a trench or such things seem more 'things you can aim at' than a Cozy Coupe or a wading pool

All of those are equally things you can aim at.

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

Fire at the specific person in the jeep, not groovy, but try to lob a grenade into the jeep? I'm fine with that, trying to land grenades and molotov cocktails and such into vehicles is a time honored means of attacking them.

Many time-honored methods of attack conflict with Reluctant Killer. Probably most, to be honest.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

And since it no longer is a vehicle then you can't target it?

That seems very silly to me.

Honestly, the silliness seems to me to stem from putting too much emphasis on the idea that someone being in/on a vehicle makes RK magically no longer apply. Having the "occupied vehicle" exception apply to closed vehicles but not to those where you can see the riders' faces seems to be the most consistent with the rest of the trait. Otherwise, as I stated upthread, you should be able to target people with grenades without any real difficulty - you just aim at the ground, not them - and that doesn't seem like it would jive with RK.

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

And I can very easily imagine someone who can have problems with lining their sights up on a person and shooting them, but is perfectly happy with putting a shot through the engine of their bike, because your not aiming at the person, your aiming at a hunk of metal not significantly more hard to aim at that a soda can

I actually sort of agree here, because shooting a rifle at a bike's engine block isn't an obviously lethal attack. Shooting a tank's main gun, an RPG, or similar weapon with "splash" is an obviously lethal attack, however, so the -4 would come into play. I will note that once the character has "accidentally" killed someone by shooting their bike out from under them (and suffering the resulting nervous breakdown), doing so in the future will count as "obviously lethal" - they now have empirical evidence that such an action isn't just fun and games. In fact, even if the target survives, a particularly nasty wipe-out might result in the penalty anyway (but note those that can survive a wipeout are probably targeted at only -2, as they are wearing motorcycle helmets).

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Many time-honored methods of attack conflict with Reluctant Killer. Probably most, to be honest.

Strangulation, bashing in the skull, stabbing in the neck, stabbing in the gut, shooting in the face, shooting in the chest, setting on fire, playing "catch the grenade," pushing off a cliff, etc are all time-honored traditions, and are all likely to suffer the RK penalty.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Kalzazz

(it clearly is not a very good trench if you can easily see the occupants, but whatever).

I think this is an important point. Under reasonable combat expectations*, soldiers in a trench will be about as concealed as people in a vehicle. So attacking the trench should be fine.

* == Standing right above the enemy trench and seeing everyone in it while still being alive isn't a standard combat situation, albeit it's probably not impossible.

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

I think this is an important point. Under reasonable combat expectations*, soldiers in a trench will be about as concealed as people in a vehicle. So attacking the trench should be fine.

* == Standing right above the enemy trench and seeing everyone in it while still being alive isn't a standard combat situation, albeit it's probably not impossible.

Yes, in the normal circumstance that you can't actually see the people in the trench you're throwing the grenade into, you're safe from the penalty.

If you can see them, though, the fact that they're in a trench won't help you in any way.

[vicky_molokh]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

Yes, in the normal circumstance that you can't actually see the people in the trench you're throwing the grenade into, you're safe from the penalty.

If you can see them, though, the fact that they're in a trench won't help you in any way.

That depends on the vehicle-and-RPGs interpretation.
Note the precise wording:

Originally Posted by B148

You have no penalty to attack
a vehicle (even an occupied one), an
opponent you do not believe is a per-
son (including things with Horrific or
Monstrous appearance), or a target
you can’t actually see (e.g., a set of
map coordinates or a blip on a radar
screen).

(Underlining mine.)
Apparently attacking a vehicle and attacking a target you can't see is are considered different conditions, fulfilling even one of which is enough. If you can fire a LAW at a jeep or the like (something not explicit but implied by the wording), then how is a trench 'worse' than an vehicle?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by vicky_molokh

That depends on the vehicle-and-RPGs interpretation.
Note the precise wording:

(Underlining mine.)
Apparently attacking a vehicle and attacking a target you can't see is are considered different conditions, fulfilling even one of which is enough. If you can fire a LAW at a jeep or the like (something not explicit but implied by the wording), then how is a trench 'worse' than an vehicle?

I already made a long post addressing this, and I don't think there's anything to add to it.