Stunt Problem

[ways and means]

Someone in my group had the stunt Sniper (sniper): Gain an additional +1 when tagging an aimed aspect, he then aimed for two turns before firing what I was wondering was should the bonus be applied per each maneuver so a net +6 for 2 rounds aiming or should it only be applied for the first aspect so only a +5 from two rounds of aiming. In the case of Sniper allowing the +1 per round seems fine to me but I am not sure of it as a precedent because someone else in the group has the Opportunist (Weapons) stunt which allows then to gain an additional +1 when tagging a consequence which if I allow him to get the bonus per each consequence could get a bit overpowered. What do people think? 

[computerking]

Was the second Aiming aspect strategically different than the first? If yes, I think the Sniper works for both (+2). If not, I would say he only gets the +1 once.

[ways and means]

Well the first aimed aspect was "in my sights" and the second was "pre-adjusting for movement (this isn't the exact aspect he said he was using the second aiming round to get in sync with his target).

[computerking]

Sounds like +2 to me....

[Silverblaze]

Mechanically I'd say yes.

However, you may find the player tries to aim for 3 - 5 rounds atempting to get a HUGE bonus to his roll.  ( I know the player does nothing else in the meantime and if their aim is throw off it was all wasted, but it sounds like a good way to kill the GM's big bads easier. 

I'm not saying it is a problem, but it is a consequence of allowing it to add to multiple manuevers.

[zenten]

Mechanically I'd say yes.

However, you may find the player tries to aim for 3 - 5 rounds atempting to get a HUGE bonus to his roll.  ( I know the player does nothing else in the meantime and if their aim is throw off it was all wasted, but it sounds like a good way to kill the GM's big bads easier. 

I'm not saying it is a problem, but it is a consequence of allowing it to add to multiple manuevers.

I don't see that as a problem myself.

[Sanctaphrax]

Depends on how the stunt is written.

Is it

"+1 to attack rolls with Guns in which an aim-based aspect is tagged"

or is it

"Aim-based aspects provide +3 when tagged to improve an attack with Guns"

?

For what it's worth, I think the former is a better-written stunt.

[Becq]

As stated above, it depends on the custom stunt.  However, your stunt sounds like it is covered by the following option in the stunt rules (YS149):
"Get a more powerful effect, but only when you
spend a fate point. Usually only allowed once
per scene.
Example: Killer Blow – Add 3 to the
damage of a Fists attack on a successful hit,
once per scene, for a fate point. This stacks with
any other damage-increasing stunts for Fists."
In this case, the player isn't spending a Fate, but is tagging a free-taggable aspect, which is basically the same, at least to my mind.  So the second half of the rule should probably also apply to the stunt in question.  Or, at the very least, limit the bonus to once per roll.

[Belial666]

Do note that, unless the situation allows for piling up tags, you have to use a free tag soon or risk losing it. An "aiming" tag vs a moving target won't stay taggable for long, for example.

[sinker]

"Get a more powerful effect, but only when you
spend a fate point. Usually only allowed once
per scene.
Example: Killer Blow – Add 3 to the
damage of a Fists attack on a successful hit,
once per scene, for a fate point. This stacks with
any other damage-increasing stunts for Fists."

I would point out that they aren't quite the same. They both boil down to "spend a fate point, receive a +3 bonus," however the OP's stunt does require an aspect. Not sure if that's really a valid argument against what you're suggesting, but it's an inconsistency that bothers me when making that comparison.

[Sanctaphrax]

Eh. Killer Blow is pretty weak.

The only thing that redeems it is its stackability.

Balancing against it seems unwise to me.