Forum

Is the -1 modifier the only change compared to shooting at a standing enemy according to the rules? I feel like there should be more to this, like some hit locations would mean a miss, but I can't find anything in the rules.

I.e. if target was prone and facing an attacker shooting at him from a few hexes away the target area would be quite smaller than if he was standing up. I would think that rolling 1 (legs) and 2-3 (lower to mid torso) on hit location die = miss but close enough to cause possible Suppression.

I don’t think the game models this in this way. It’s a good point though and one that maybe you could house rule.

Eg roll to hit as normal - no penalty. Roll to hit location and eg count leg hits as missing. Something like that

I don’t think the game models this in this way. It’s a good point though and one that maybe you could house rule.

Eg roll to hit as normal - no penalty. Roll to hit location and eg count leg hits as missing. Something like that

I'll probably do that. I haven't played Twilight since mid 90s but I recall that was the rule in the earlier editions. But maybe that was just a house rule back then also.

As the -1 modifier for being prone doesn't apply when the target is in the same hex as the shooter, changing the modifier to a restriction on valid hit locations should respect this also (e.g. if shooting at target in the same hex, all hit locations are valid).

I.e. if target was prone and facing an attacker shooting at him from a few hexes away the target area would be quite smaller than if he was standing up.

RAW do not have facing for persons, excluding cover. You'd need new rules for this and I don't think it's worth it.

I agree too much complication for a close range gun fight,
Prone or not, a high caliber round at <10m range will rip through the arm/upper torso to hit a leg/lower torso. No need for extra complexity or dice mechanics.

The rules as written are sufficient IMHO.

Yes. It’s the original earlier version way of handling it.

I don’t think the game models this in this way. It’s a good point though and one that maybe you could house rule.

Eg roll to hit as normal - no penalty. Roll to hit location and eg count leg hits as missing. Something like that

I'll probably do that. I haven't played Twilight since mid 90s but I recall that was the rule in the earlier editions. But maybe that was just a house rule back then also.

I don't think this question has been adequately answered. It'd be great to hear from a dev or a mod with inside info. Assuming the target of a ranged attack (not in the same hex) is hit, and the hit location die indicates the torso, how should that be handled?

The target's torso is on the ground, pretty much ruling out a direct hit. The ground is, in effect, providing cover for the target's torso.

Does this damage location die roll result effectively turn the rolled hit into a miss?

If the ground is cover, one can fire behind cover but the rules are clear that, in that case, the head and arms are exposed. Here, again, a hit to the torso would transform into a miss, no? This would include the legs too.

If all this is accurate, then prone is a pretty powerful combat position as the shooter can only take damage from a bullet if the hit location die result indicates head or arms. AND, the prone target position already gives shooters a -1 penalty on the to hit roll.

Now let's address the realism aspect of the above rules interpretations. On one hand, there's some realism there because a prone individual offers a much smaller target profile. Naturally, a prone target should be considerably harder to hit than an upright or crouching target. On the other hand, it seems kind of unrealistic that someone lying prone could never be hit in the legs or torso.

Couldn't a bullet hit a prone target in the collar area and penetrate the upper torso? Is that how a torso hit location result should be interpreted? In that case, the only advantage to being prone is the -1 to hit penalty. That seems a little harsh.

I thought writing this out might bring clarity, but I'm no closer to a definitive answer. All you rules lawyers out there, please weigh in.

-

Thanks for the super prompt reply, and the clarification.

-