Oddball_E8
Topic Author
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 20:13

Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Sun 21 May 2023, 10:43

So, yesterday my players ran into a roadblock. Both sides failed their recon roll, so they were both surprised and it became a meeting engagement, with the players vehicle still moving down the road when I rolled initiative.

Now, my players were in an M151 Jeep without a roof (or doors, for that matter).
Two players in the front seats, both sitting down (driver, navigator), one player standing up in the back (on guard) and one sitting down in the back.

The Marauders at the roadblock open fire on the players vehicle (one of the marauders got the best initiative roll) and miss, but get hits on the ammo dice, thus it should cause supression.
However, the RAW states that "a target fully inside a vehicle cannot be suppressed, but they can be forced to bail out".

Now, my players argued that even though they were in a vehicle without roof or doors, they were still "fully inside", even the person standing up in the back.

I would argue that they're not, they have to be covered by doors/roof to count as fully inside.

Given that I didn't want to disrupt the flow, I said that I'd allow it this one time, but I'd make an official ruling at the start of the next session.

So, how would you rule in this situation?

Technically, the three people sitting down in the car were "fully inside" from the view of the enemy firing. So I could give them a *tiny* bit of leeway. But the person standing up was clearly not "fully inside" the vehicle and should have been effected by the suppression.
 
User avatar
Fenhorn
Moderator
Posts: 4428
Joined: Thu 24 Apr 2014, 15:03
Location: Sweden

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Sun 21 May 2023, 12:04

I think your last idea was quite clever. Those that sits are considered inside the vehicle and the idiot standing is considered to be outside or technically both. I like that approach.
“Thanks for noticin' me.” - Eeyore
 
Mr Oldtimer
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2019, 12:01

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Sun 21 May 2023, 15:35

So, yesterday my players ran into a roadblock. Both sides failed their recon roll, so they were both surprised and it became a meeting engagement, with the players vehicle still moving down the road when I rolled initiative.

Now, my players were in an M151 Jeep without a roof (or doors, for that matter).
Two players in the front seats, both sitting down (driver, navigator), one player standing up in the back (on guard) and one sitting down in the back.

The Marauders at the roadblock open fire on the players vehicle (one of the marauders got the best initiative roll) and miss, but get hits on the ammo dice, thus it should cause supression.
However, the RAW states that "a target fully inside a vehicle cannot be suppressed, but they can be forced to bail out".

Now, my players argued that even though they were in a vehicle without roof or doors, they were still "fully inside", even the person standing up in the back.

I would argue that they're not, they have to be covered by doors/roof to count as fully inside.

Given that I didn't want to disrupt the flow, I said that I'd allow it this one time, but I'd make an official ruling at the start of the next session.

So, how would you rule in this situation?

Technically, the three people sitting down in the car were "fully inside" from the view of the enemy firing. So I could give them a *tiny* bit of leeway. But the person standing up was clearly not "fully inside" the vehicle and should have been effected by the suppression.
I like your take on this and would pretty much have done the same.

Also, I've had the argument about the possibility to target a specific person inside a vehicle if the vehicle in question isn't an armored one, like a jeep, pick up truck or a truck. They feel it's a bit too random to try and pick off the driver of a truck by first penetrate the armor and then roll the D10, when they argue they could see the driver in the truck, thanks to the trucks large front view window. I've ruled that when targeting people inside trucks/cars with large windows, someone not under fire themself, can target someone inside the vehicle as if they where a passanger riding unbuttoned. A driver or passenger who hunkers down behind the dashboard can't be targeted and one who sits up straight has half cover. Also, a driver hunkering down has -2 to his drive roll.
 
Oddball_E8
Topic Author
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 20:13

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Sun 21 May 2023, 18:23

Oh, yeah I've just counted targeting a (visible) person inside a vehicle as a called shot.

They get a -2 that cancels out the +2 for firing at a vehicle. Basically, they're not firing at the vehicle, they're firing at the person and that person just happens to be in partial cover.

This does mean they can't do a "second called shot" to aim at a specific body part, but that's been acceptable to my players so far.

So, they roll a normal attack against the target in the vehicle, if they hit a body part not visible (usually anything except the head), they'll hit the vehicle and proceed as if they just shot at the vehicle (ie. roll for damage, see if you pen, roll for what module you hit and so on).

Granted, this might mean they hit someone else in the vehicle, but then bullets do ricochet on metal pretty easily, so it's not impossible that that shot you fired at the driver changed direction when going through the engine block trying to get to the driver...
 
Oddball_E8
Topic Author
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 20:13

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Sun 21 May 2023, 18:25

Also, a driver hunkering down has -2 to his drive roll.
I'm stealing this bit :)
 
Mr Oldtimer
Posts: 388
Joined: Sun 14 Apr 2019, 12:01

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Sun 21 May 2023, 22:12

Also, a driver hunkering down has -2 to his drive roll.
I'm stealing this bit :)
No need to steal, I'm offering it for free... :)
 
welsh
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun 29 Nov 2020, 15:53

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Tue 23 May 2023, 00:24

So, how would you rule in this situation?

Technically, the three people sitting down in the car were "fully inside" from the view of the enemy firing. So I could give them a *tiny* bit of leeway. But the person standing up was clearly not "fully inside" the vehicle and should have been effected by the suppression.
Anyone in an open-topped vehicle would be subject to suppression in my world, because suppression is about the feeling of vulnerability. You can be suppressed by rounds flying overhead while in a slit trench with full overhead protection, and you are much more vulnerable in an open jeep, and painfully aware of it. In an enclosed vehicle, you're going to be less aware of that fire and therefore not subject to suppression.

I'd extend that to rounds flying over the open top of a BTR-60P. Are you going to pop your head up over that armour when you hear the machine gun rounds going overhead? No? Because that's suppression.

BTW, am I alone in feeling that when a party in a vehicle meets a stationary party, and both fail their recon roll, the stationary party has surprise by default?
 
User avatar
Tegyrius
Posts: 22
Joined: Sat 13 Jun 2020, 03:20
Contact:

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Tue 23 May 2023, 01:37

Watch any bodycam video of a police gunfight when the officer is behind the wheel and rounds are coming through the glass. Under rules as written, that's an enclosed vehicle with Armor 1 all the way around, but that's not an environment in which a lot of people are going to be nonchalantly shrugging off the threat of incoming. All games are imperfect, low-resolution models of some reality; it's up to the individual referee to determine when verisimilitude takes precedence over RAW at his table.

The second edition rules had an exception case just for this situation. Page 220:

Unarmored Vehicles: Unarmored vehicles have a slight armor protection provided by their metal bodies, but it is an incomplete cover. Whenever a shot hits an unarmored vehicle, there is a 50% chance of the shot hitting metal and a 50% chance of it going through the windows or canvas cargo covers. If it hits metal, the shot is resolved normally, and the vehicle receives the benefit of its armor. If it goes through the window or cargo area, the shot is always resolved as minor damage and any damage result is ignored except for crew or passenger (cargo) hits.

- C.
Clayton A. Oliver

Find my free Twilight: 2000 material and links to my published sourcebooks at http://www.de-fenestra.com/t2k/.

If you dislike change, you're going to dislike irrelevance even more.
- General Eric Shinseki
 
User avatar
FatherJ_ct
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed 21 Sep 2022, 07:38

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Wed 07 Jun 2023, 06:24

People not fully enclosed (like tank/APC/IFV) are "exposed" in the case of a jeep/truck, though sitting down/hunkering down would count as partial or full cover. Like sitting in a jeep with no top/sides would be partial cover for legs but torso/head/arms are not covered (unless ducked down/laying down). Exposed personnel can be targeted normally, with movement/cover modifiers.

Hits to the vehicle in general (penetrating/non-penetrating) already has vehicle crew personnel listed in the roll table (driver/gunner/commander/passenger) for what gets hit on/in the vehicle. Though I might be inclined to use that 2nd edition 50/50 rule about armor protection for a personnel hit for a jeep/truck (for the sitting).
 
Oddball_E8
Topic Author
Posts: 442
Joined: Sat 14 May 2016, 20:13

Re: Need help with RAW interpretation. (Vehicle combat)

Wed 07 Jun 2023, 20:01

People not fully enclosed (like tank/APC/IFV) are "exposed" in the case of a jeep/truck, though sitting down/hunkering down would count as partial or full cover. Like sitting in a jeep with no top/sides would be partial cover for legs but torso/head/arms are not covered (unless ducked down/laying down). Exposed personnel can be targeted normally, with movement/cover modifiers.

Hits to the vehicle in general (penetrating/non-penetrating) already has vehicle crew personnel listed in the roll table (driver/gunner/commander/passenger) for what gets hit on/in the vehicle. Though I might be inclined to use that 2nd edition 50/50 rule about armor protection for a personnel hit for a jeep/truck (for the sitting).
Sure, but this wasn't about whether or not they could get hit, it was about whether or not they would get supressed.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests