With a broken bottle, the Brawling-2 doctor (or Brawling-5 Marine, if you prefer) can poke out both his opponents eyes and cut a 'Z' on the guy's forehead, but if he picks up a real dagger he can't hit a barn door with it. That just doesn't seem logical to me.
Nor does it seem logical to me, either.
The problem is addressed, though, in CT. It's just not addressed directly. There isn't a section in CT that says, "If you have X skill, then the GM should give you a break when using a like skill."
But, what CT does do, with regard to this issue, is address it with later rules and skills in later supplements. We see this with more and varied use of some skills outside of Book 1. (Combat Rifleman comes to mind.)
For example...
In Book 1, a character can have
AutoPistol-1, and this implies no skill at all with a revolver.
Then, Book 4 comes along and introduces the
Pistol skill. This skill allows the same skill level to be applied to both autopistols and revolvers.
After that, Book 5 takes it a step further with its introduction of the
Handgun skill (a different skill than either the Pistol skill or the single weapons skills from Book 1) that allows the same skill level to be applied to autopistols, revolvers, and body pistols.
The Pistol skill from Book 4 still exists--you'd use the Handgun skill if you wanted to include body pistols.
Now, remember what is written in Book 1, on pg. 23 and on page 34 of Book 0. Also remember the excellent example that LKW writes on page 3 of JTAS-2.
Take all of those sources, together, and what you basically get is an implied statement, addressed to the Game Master, to "use common sense, dummy!"
That's exactly what is happening in Book 4 and Book 5. The authors of those books looked at the type of character they were addressing, and then they looked at the separate weapon skills in Book 1. And, then they said, "Hey, this needs to be fixed. An Army soldier, trained with an automatic pistol, should be just as good a shot with a revolver as he is with the autopistol." Boom, the Pistol skill was invented. When Book 5 was being written, they felt that body pistols would likely be common equipment in this Emperor's fuedal Navy, and...boom...the Handgun skill was invented (named Handgun to keep it separate from the Pistol skill).
Given all of this, it is certainly implied in CT that you, as GM, should make a call on this and not stick to the Book 1 rules if its time for common sense to prevail.
The CT rules are quick and dirty and cover most situations appropriately. But, when it comes to the situation you describe, put on your common sense hat and make a common sense call.
My "common sense" hat has led me to make this call in the past: Whenever a weapon is akin to another, and the character would likely be skilled with it, then he can use any "like" weapon at one level lower than his current skill level.
Thus, if a character has AutoPistol-3, then he can fire a body pistol or a revolver at Skill-2. If a character has Rifle-2, then he can fire his autorifle as if he had Skill-1.
My thinking on this is that the character is most skilled in his specialty--the weapon he is comfortable with. But, he should be somewhat skilled (one level lower) with like weapons. The Rifle-2 guy above could fire a shotgun as if he had the Shotgun-1 skill.
Makes sense to me.
Also, don't forget the section on Zero level skills on pg. 23 of Book 1. It basically says: If a character has a good reason for having a skill, then give it to him at Skill-0.
If a Belter character doesn't have Vacc Suit on his character sheet, for example, then the player can probably make a pretty good case why the Belter should be at least familiar with vacc suits. Give the dude Vacc Suit-0.
Use CT as your rule of thumb. A character who has spent a term in the Army is automatically granted Skill-0 with
EVERY weapon listed in Book 1. OTOH, a character who spent his terms in the Doctor career does not get that benefit. The doctors spent all their time studying medicine, I guess, because he will suffer a -5 DM with weapons with which he's not skilled.
But, no matter what the book says, follow the CT advice and use common sense. If a Doctor ends up with AutoPistol-3, then he's probably not going to be -5 DM to hit with a revolver (I'd use my rule above and consider him as having Revolver-2 skill).
It's your game and your call.
With a broken bottle, the Brawling-2 doctor (or Brawling-5 Marine, if you prefer) can poke out both his opponents eyes and cut a 'Z' on the guy's forehead, but if he picks up a real dagger he can't hit a barn door with it. That just doesn't seem logical to me.
So, in your game, you might want to consider that Brawling skill includes the Dagger skill. Characters can have either skill. A character may have Dagger and not have Brawling.
If it were me, I'd do something cool with it and say that Brawling skill includes Dagger up to Skill-2. After that, the actual Dagger skill is needed for Skill 3+.
That's how CT is mean to be played! With custom, funky, homegrown rules like that.
I truly believe it!
Maybe you'll want to invent a new skill that includes both Brawling and Dagger. Name it something different (as was done with Handgun and Pistol).
Also, remember the effects of the skills. A character that is effective Dagger-2 because of his Brawling-3 skill, per my rule above, isn't a skillful dagger weilder. He's a clunky bar fighter. He wouldn't be worth a heck if you asked him to show you some finesse with the Dagger. He probably couldn't throw it correctly either.
The character with the Dagger-2 skill, on the other hand, still have the same chance to hit, but maybe throwing the Dagger is not done with a penalty as it would have to be with the Brawling skill.
Again, it your universe. Your players are just living in it.
Time to retire a few skills that recapitulate eachother...
