Forum

Trying to understand this sentence on page 64 in Ranged combat in the Cover section?

"You cannot be both prone and behind cover"

I am not sure which one of these statements is right

• Is it saying if you are in cover partial or full you do not get the -1 from prone?

• Is it saying you do not get -1 from prone if you are taking Partial Cover?

• Is it saying the -1 from prone and the -3 from full cover do not stack?

I am not sure to me it feels like the third statement (full cover and prone do not stack)? I sure feels like I could be prone next to a wall and leaning out to fire? But thought I would see how others look at this

The book says "If you are prone and behind cover, only the cover benefits apply."

Yes, the book has been updated with a clarification. The rule should be seen from the benefits point of view. Of course you can be prone behind a cover, but you can also be crouching, it doesn't matter because you're behind a cover, it is the cover that is the benefits in this case.

I must have an older PDF...I will rememdy that thank you.

Did i miss where there is a to hit penalty for cover? I thought it only provided armor protection if a hit location behind it was rolled on the white die. Can someone point me to cover hit mods?

As i read it, Cover like a sandbag would offer its AV4 only if legs or torso is rolled on the hit location die. And no protection at all if a head or arm was hit.

If there is a to hit modifier as well, that would make cover even better. As it is my snipers have no problem popping head shots at 300m on guys in partial cover.

PS: my own rule, for a sniper, if they do not roll any hits, they dont waste the shot, they just dont have the opportunity to take the shot.

Did i miss where there is a to hit penalty for cover? I thought it only provided armor protection if a hit location behind it was rolled on the white die. Can someone point me to cover hit mods?

As i read it, Cover like a sandbag would offer its AV4 only if legs or torso is rolled on the hit location die. And no protection at all if a head or arm was hit.

If there is a to hit modifier as well, that would make cover even better. As it is my snipers have no problem popping head shots at 300m on guys in partial cover.

PS: my own rule, for a sniper, if they do not roll any hits, they dont waste the shot, they just dont have the opportunity to take the shot.

There is no to hit penalty for shooting someone behind a cover. The topic of this thread is about a sentence in the 1st printing of the book that could perhaps be misunderstood, that you couldn't be prone (that normally have -1) behind a cover, which is of course not the case. You can be prone, just that there is no penalty (because of being prone) when shooting at someone that is prone if he also is behind a cover. There is a penalty of shooting at someone in full cover though, but that is a special case since it breaks Line of Sight.

PS: my own rule, for a sniper, if they do not roll any hits, they dont[sic] waste the shot, they just dont[sic] have the opportunity to take the shot.

I wouldn't do this. The player knows the modifiers and their chance to hit, which means the character has a reasonable understanding of their likelihood to hit given their available opportunities, and thus they choose whether to attempt the shot or not. If it works for you, <shrug>

Found it…. -3 to hit someone in total cover. Per the ranged combat hit modifier table.

Its pretty unrealistic for a sniper to get a shot every 10-15 seconds.

That is a function of mission and target density, not anything inherent to being designated and trained as a sniper. I suspect very little general game play outside hunting involves the PCs having mission sets resembling what one might think of as sniper missions. Using that as a template, you use ammo if you miss. A "lack of opportunity" assessment by the character is the chance of success falling under a mechanical threshold the player deems nonnviable and the player choosing not to roll the dice. But if you're rolling dice, you (the player and character) have assessed the viability of the shot and made the decision to commit to pulling a trigger. If that doesn't work for you and a houserule counter to that does, great. You lose some of the resource scarcity and management aspects of a FL game, and agin, if tht's you're goal, you do you. I've said my piece on the subject.