I'm roughly doing that house rule myself, though I had decided on 20 ammo. I've run the numbers, and a SA sniper rifle is still usually the best overall weapon for damage, so it seems fine to me. But yes, it is weird that they made it the way it is listed.

Interesting read, thanks for helping keep me busy at work ;) Gun Safes

This was already brought up somewhere in this forums (sorry, but can't find the link now) and Rob Boyle told us that the sniper is no officially only SA.

My point exactly, 1 meter stick would be hell of a lot easier, despite its "worse" stats.

PSST! The errata, at least on my digital copy, changed it to SA only. Just thought you might like to know.

King Shere wrote:

[b]1.[/b]Full auto sniper rifles do exist in RL -though unloading full auto can hardly be called sniping, even if its from kilometers away.

I've never come across a sniper rifle that's capable of full auto fire, although my knowledge of guns is far from encylopaedic. Could you point me to the weapon you're referring to?

i dont mean to be the anoying pendant here, but the difference is the geneva convention. anti-material weapons are too large in bore to legally be used against human targets, and instead must be aimed at things like backpacks and belt buckles. hence, you cant call them sniper rifles. wither such a difference exists in the age of backed-up consiousness is open for debate, but i kind of doubt it. to topic though, EP technology seems to be able to produce weapons of arbitrary size and power. i kind of imagine that you have a triangular ballance that pits firepower against both affordability and social acceptability. move the slider wherever you want, and have a weapon as destructive as you want it to be. The game balance here shouldnt be in the combat, but rather the consequences for your actions.

puke wrote:

i dont mean to be the anoying pendant here, but the difference is the geneva convention. anti-material weapons are too large in bore to legally be used against human targets, and instead must be aimed at things like backpacks and belt buckles. hence, you cant call them sniper rifles. wither such a difference exists in the age of backed-up consiousness is open for debate, but i kind of doubt it. to topic though, EP technology seems to be able to produce weapons of arbitrary size and power. i kind of imagine that you have a triangular ballance that pits firepower against both affordability and social acceptability. move the slider wherever you want, and have a weapon as destructive as you want it to be. The game balance here shouldnt be in the combat, but rather the consequences for your actions.

Not true. There is no protocol detailing restrictions on the use of specific caliber sizes on infantry targets. There are protocols on various [i]types of ammo[/i]... Hague IV, Declaration III prohibits the use of ammo that expands or flattens in the body; Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of certain Explosive Projectiles prohibits the use of explosive rounds below 400 grams; CCWC, Protocol I prohibits the use of fragmenting rounds designed to be undetectable by X-Ray. There are probably a couple of others, but nothing that references caliber size. Besides, it would be pretty hard for them to pass this one anyways. The staple anti-infantry mounted weapon of the United States military is the M2 Browning heavy machinegun. You would be hard pressed to get them to drop the Maw Deuce as the de facto standard for soft target suppression. "Anti-material rifle" only references its bonus function of being usable against armor-protected targets and vehicles. There is no legal restrictions to note involving its use against personnel... at least that I could find. I am still looking through the Geneva Conventions, so I'll let you know if I find anything.

King Shere wrote:

To name two. Mk. 14 Mod 1 EBR M2 machinegun (vietnam war) ,when attached with a scope. [i]"The success of the M2 in this role led to the development of actual sniper rifles based on the same .50 caliber round. "[/i]

The first one is an battle rifle, the second one is an emplacement machinegun. Both can be used in sniper duties when fitted with a telescopic sight, but in the broadest context, [i]any and every weapon fitted with a telescopic sight is designated a sniper rifle[/i]. It does not mean the whole weapon series is designated as such, unlike the Dragunov SVU, M39 EMR, or the Tabuk. Besides, if you were going to model either the Mk 14 or the Maw Deuce in-game, they would be better represented by either the Assault Rifle or Machine gun (respectively; though there are no hand-portable M2s, so a larger vehicular weapon would be more appropriate, but none are present in the core book) with attached telescopic sight.

King Shere wrote:

6P62 is a full auto hand held anti-materiel rifle with optional optical sights.

Yup, you're right. That is an actual fully automatic anti-material rifle. Granted, it isn't selective fire... which means you can go full auto, or you can tap the trigger for burst-fire. Really, I can find little info on the gun, but it doesn't sound particularly handy for sniping, even though it is for all intents and purposes a sniper rifle. However, in EP terms it would only have BF/FA capability.