Forum

This sentence, "You cannot be both prone and behind cover", appears on p65 of the Players Guide, and has always bugged me. I have to assume that this only applies to "partial" cover as someone prone behind a low wall would be out of sight but in "full" cover. You could still fire at them if you knew roughly where they were, with a -3 modifier and damage reduced by the armor protection value of the wall, typically 2 for external brick walls and 1 for internal walls. P.S. - I would argue that drywall/plasterboard used for interior walls of modern homes would have armor protection 0.

From my own experiences, you can indeed be in full cover and still shoot. However, this severely limits your ability to observe the rest of the battlefield. This happens when you're down behind solid cover with an aperture in it... a gap between the ground and a fallen tree for, example, or a hole in a wall just large enough to see and fire through. I mean, the DC shooters [John Muhammed and Lee Malvo] did their thing through hole created in the trunk of a car by popping out the lock. Frikkin' hole was barely large enough for the muzzle of the rifle.
But again, firing through such a tight window deprives you of the ability to see who is moving to flank you.
This is why most soldiers are taught to shoot and move. If you stay and fire in one very protected place, somebody is gonna lob a grenade or RPG at you. And I'm pretty sure you won't like the results.
This is the kind of real-life situation that RPG's have a difficult time simulating and it has to be ruled on by the referee in a logical and consistent manner.

Remember that your position is a 10m hex, not anything more specific. It makes sense that things are more abstracted at this scale.

Also, you're probably not going to find a lot of drywall in Y2k warzone Poland. That said, drywall construction will provide some cover; the shot may hit a stud or the like.

Some examples of why I am mystified by this sentence.

1) I'm in partial cover behind a tree in a woods hex when I get suppressed. I'm now prone "next to" the tree and no longer in cover. Explain.

2) I'm in partial cover firing over a low wall when I get suppressed. I'm now prone behind the low wall but apparently cannot benefit from its cover. Explain.

"Explain! Explain! EXPLAIN!"
(Sorry, couldn't help myself there...)

But sorry, no. I'm afraid there is no logical way to explain it. I'd say it's an oversight in the rules, but on the whole, @ottarrus has the right of it — this is simply one of those situations where you as GM simply have to look at the situation, realise the unreasonableness of what The Book says, and overrule it.

It would be nice to get an explanation what the idea was with this, but I don't think that will happen. I will just ignore that sentence.

Some examples of why I am mystified by this sentence.

1) I'm in partial cover behind a tree in a woods hex when I get suppressed. I'm now prone "next to" the tree and no longer in cover. Explain.

Being suppressed running for your life, I mean your joe doesn't controll much and lose cover for prone...

2) I'm in partial cover firing over a low wall when I get suppressed. I'm now prone behind the low wall but apparently cannot benefit from its cover. Explain.

common sens beat the rules, prone behind a low wall is full cover, period...

That would be my interpretation, yet as a referee I choose too.

Sorry to go on about this but I think it's important to get a set of rules interpretations down that work and are sensible.

The thing about not allowing prone to use cover ties in with the following sentences about suppression, and in quite an important way...

"If your CUF roll fails, you are suppressed. This means that you immediately drop prone, suffer 1 point of stress, and lose both actions on your next turn".

The reason this is a problem is that, if you are behind a tree, you not only miss the following turn, but the turn after as well, as it takes you a fast action to get up again and another fast action to seek partial cover. That's two whole turns just to get back to being in partial cover behind the tree.

The rules interpretation (or house rule) I think I will use is...

"If your CUF roll fails, you are suppressed. If you are in partial cover you immediately switch to full cover if possible, or drop prone. If not in partial cover you immediately drop prone. In either case you suffer 1 point of stress, and lose both actions on your next turn".

This would allow someone who fails their CUF roll to switch to full cover behind a tree, boulder, building corner, window, etc. without actually becoming prone, thus saving them an action to get up again once the suppression wears off. The wording of this house rule also means that if you are in the open you drop prone, and if in full cover when someone fires at you through the wall, you drop prone, but in normal situations when looking or aiming over or around cover you just duck back into full cover without dropping prone.

Hello!

The intent behind the "You cannot be both prone and behind cover" line is that you cannot claim the prone modifier (-1) while behind cover. If you're behind cover, full or partial, the cover rules apply, and there is no -1 modifier for also being prone.

And yes, the intent is also that if suppressed while behind partial cover, you will drop to a prone position and thus also go into full cover.

You can seek cover in your hex even when prone.

I hope that clears it up!

The intent behind the "You cannot be both prone and behind cover" line is that you cannot claim the prone modifier (-1) while behind cover. If you're behind cover, full or partial, the cover rules apply, and there is no -1 modifier for also being prone.

I see. That definitely clears up the wording. Thanks.

And yes, the intent is also that if suppressed while behind partial cover, you will drop to a prone position and thus also go into full cover.

Fine with that. It was kind of obvious but worth clarifying as the wording of "cannot be both prone and behind cover" was a bit odd.

You can seek cover in your hex even when prone.

Ah ha! Now this is important. So are you saying that if I'm prone behind a low wall and thus out of sight and in full cover, I can seek partial cover over that wall without first doing a fast action to "get up". It does sound like that's what you're saying - i.e. seek cover includes any required change in stance?

I hope that clears it up!

90% there, probably 100% if I interpreted the point about seeking cover whilst prone correctly.