Why do you need rules for climbing, swimming and jumping - why can't I GM those?
Such rules already exist - and, even if they didn't, I'd say such common things need standardised rules.
Aside from the inevitable slowdown when GMs are required to contrive rules, it would be a bit problematic for a player if the size of the gaps he could jump was an unknown variable from GM to GM.
The key reason for their replacement is because of the attempt to phase out the very weird mechanism for risky actions - and as that's essentially the only test those movements make at the moment, they need something else instead.
(And on the note of "Rules for Everything", I really would like to see a universal set of Vehicle rules. Unfortunately, the somewhat sloppy way the rules were dealt with back in Exterminatus meant that lots of people went about making up their own...)
There needs to be a decision on what your overall philosophy is
My overall philosophy is to try and reach a compromise between everyone else's overall philosophies.
Unfortunately, I've only had direct feedback from all of seven other people so far, so I'm having to guess from what I know people (and myself) have complained about in the past - and don't necessarily know that the fixes as I have them are what they want.
Without a completely clear view of what the truly
overall philosophy is, we are a little restricted to tinkering with details, in the hopes that this might catch the attention of more people.
that should include whether you are looking to inject more detail into the system; whether you want more / less / no GM; where you draw the line on Core Rules.
Personally, I have relatively little interest in introducing further detail to the system - it's already quite a detailed system.
However, the success of the Revised Armoury has shown me that variety is popular, so compromising detail to the point variety cannot exist is not on my list of "good ideas".
Largely, my efforts relate to trying to simplify - or at least streamline - areas to speed up the game.
Injury, I want faster. But, as I've said, I think some form of scaling injury penalty is vital to a PvP "RPG" - simpler systems like hit points or wound only work well in PvE or much numerically larger games*, so I know we have limits here.*Considering that each character in Inquisitor is the equivalent of entire squads in something like 40K, where the "scaling penalty" comes from simply losing squad members.
I am hoping to integrate some Revised Armoury damage types here (such as the Rending, Trivial, Tearing and Armour Piercing effects) but, once familiarised with, these standardised effects can be put to an endless variety of fast and easy uses - even faster
uses in some cases.
Shooting - I'd like to make that quicker too. Aside from what's possible by changing the range table (although I believe it should still contain a decent number of options), I had a discussion with Koval the other day about completely stripping out Placed Shots, which complicate things quite a lot (particularly
with Semi-Auto actions), and replacing them with either "location aims" (basically, an aim action that modifies the location roll, not the hit roll) or straight out "Called shots" similar to Dark Heresy.
The only area I'm really insisting on increasing in depth is the close combat section, as almost all close combat fights are a practically identical sequence of actions, unchanged by the characters in it or their surroundings. Sometimes counter-attacks mix things up, but that's it.
It doesn't really matter if it's fast (and it's not, players faffing around with working out their parry chances under the current system is often damn slow), because it's not fulfilling.
Reactions are, although something I would love to see included, far more up in the air. I don't know if they'll work.
They might slow things down too much - but alternatively, increasing either speed or chance on each action die and then introducing the play-off between actions and reactions may actually speed up games by letting characters get through the non-interactive parts of them faster.
They're here as a proposal, not a firm suggestion.
As for GMs... not really planning on changing things much. I know some people want to remove the GM from Inquisitor, but I feel their "director" role is an important part of the system.