Jump to content

Prone & DCV with ranged weapons


Recommended Posts

I know I've seen this as a conversation before, but I just can't track it down. Forgive the duplicate question.

 

​Common sense and dramatic sensibilities tell us that when you are out in the open and someone is trying to shoot you from a distance, you drop down to the ground to make your silhouette smaller, thus making you harder to hit (whether it's an OCV drop or DCV increase is moot to me, since it all comes out in the wash). However, being prone is a flat 1/2 DCV penalty. My question is this: at what distance should it actually become a DCV bonus (or OCV penalty for the shooter)?

 

Some considerations:

  • If I drop to the ground 1 meter away, I would obviously be easier to hit if someone had a gun. Or even HtH for that matter.
  • 10 meters away still seems reasonable to consider me 1/2 DCV.
  • At 20 meters, it seems to go either way: maybe it's a hindrance, maybe a benefit. Target shooting at 20 meters in a combat situation isn't all that easy.
  • By the time I get to ranges on the range modifier table (16m, 32m, 64m, etc.) and the OCV penalties start kicking in, it seems like the DCV penalty shouldn't be applied anymore since distance is a hindrance, and a smaller silhouette is a benefit.
​Has anybody worked this out? At what distance should "hitting the dirt" be considered a benefit, not a hindrance?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I know I've seen this as a conversation before, but I just can't track it down. Forgive the duplicate question.

 

​Common sense and dramatic sensibilities tell us that when you are out in the open and someone is trying to shoot you from a distance, you drop down to the ground to make your silhouette smaller, thus making you harder to hit (whether it's an OCV drop or DCV increase is moot to me, since it all comes out in the wash). However, being prone is a flat 1/2 DCV penalty. My question is this: at what distance should it actually become a DCV bonus (or OCV penalty for the shooter)?

 

Some considerations:

  • If I drop to the ground 1 meter away, I would obviously be easier to hit if someone had a gun. Or even HtH for that matter.
  • 10 meters away still seems reasonable to consider me 1/2 DCV.
  • At 20 meters, it seems to go either way: maybe it's a hindrance, maybe a benefit. Target shooting at 20 meters in a combat situation isn't all that easy.
  • By the time I get to ranges on the range modifier table (16m, 32m, 64m, etc.) and the OCV penalties start kicking in, it seems like the DCV penalty shouldn't be applied anymore since distance is a hindrance, and a smaller silhouette is a benefit.
​Has anybody worked this out? At what distance should "hitting the dirt" be considered a benefit, not a hindrance?

 

I would say it is very situational for it to have ground rule, for example being prone against an opponent standing on higher ground it's not such an advantage, he will still see almost the same surface area of your body and you will be limited in

you ways to dodge, so 1/2 DCV is right.Being prone against someone on the same or lower ground level ,on some distance, would get some Behind Cover Modifier, as 6E2 suggests(only head and shoulders showing -4 OCV) but still 1/2 DCV for limited dodge capability.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Target size/cover/hit location rules pretty much cover it. The shooter is penalised for a smaller target, but the target is still 1/2 DCV (and other shooters may have a better angle anyway, such as firing from directly above).

 

If the defender wasn't prone but had the same amount of cover, they'd have a better DCV, which feels right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah. Target size/cover/hit location rules pretty much cover it. The shooter is penalised for a smaller target, but the target is still 1/2 DCV (and other shooters may have a better angle anyway, such as firing from directly above).

 

If the defender wasn't prone but had the same amount of cover, they'd have a better DCV, which feels right.

 

The question becomes at what distance these rules cover this situation. At 2 meters being prone is an obvious disadvantage. At what distance does the prone target gain the benefits of his position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like the suggestion is that the crossover comes when the Range penalty on the shooter is equal to the half DCV penalty.

 

If you are talking heroic campaign, DCV is high at 6 and so the prone penalty is 3. If you use the optional range modifier table, then you have a penalty of 3 between 17 and 24 metres (about 56 to 80 feet).

 

Doc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, it looks like the suggestion is that the crossover comes when the Range penalty on the shooter is equal to the half DCV penalty.

If you are talking heroic campaign, DCV is high at 6 and so the prone penalty is 3. If you use the optional range modifier table, then you have a penalty of 3 between 17 and 24 metres (about 56 to 80 feet).

Doc

I didn't even catch that. Thanks for the clarification!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sometimes eyeballing it helps. This can be hard even with minis, even if you have one that's modelled prone (and not just tipped over) but is needed if 3 dimensions are involved. Falling prone just behind the ridge of a slope (even a very gentle one) should get the effect at any range, while an elevated shooter may have the target size increased if they fall prone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I think I remember something about this in the rules.

"A prone target (i.e., one who’s lying on the
ground) is at half DCV. However, he may be
Behind Cover, making it harder to hit him. Many
attacks and other situations can cause a character
to become prone.
If a character wants to drop prone voluntarily
(perhaps to get Behind Cover quickly, avoid being
run over by a train, or the like), he must use a
Zero Phase Action (this is a defensive Action he
can Abort to). Getting back to one’s feet takes
a Half Phase Action (unless the character uses
Breakfall; see 6E1 66). Neither dropping down
nor standing up costs END, but it does affect the
character’s CV — see
Groundfghting, 6E2 127, for
details."

So you have 1/2 DCV, but the attacker is also suffering from you being effectively "in Cover". But it depends heavily on who is attacking you from where and what is in the way.

Cover applies a OCV penalty. And at the end of the day, OCV penalties are DCV bonuses that can not be affected by 1/2 or 0 DCV effects. So unless your DCV is superheroic, it is propably a worthy tradeoff.

 

 

If you already were behind even a low cover (1-10% while standing), you are now likely in full cover. You entire body is protected by the cover from that attack direction. Or at least the bulk.

If you are throwing yourself on the ground without anything specific now blocking attacks I would say the smaler silhouette counts as 75%+ Cover (head and shoulders showing). While more parts are showing, any attack has to go through those 2 first. And thus likely looses to much power.

 

Of course even a little bit of elevation, can totally ruin that defensive bonus:

1. For an attack from directly above, you have 0 Cover. Indeed you made yourself a larger target, but that is propably handeled well enough by 1/2 DCV. But outside of superheroics that rarely happens. Even planes have to do a "strafing run" or fire a side gun from a near ground angle.

2. But even some elevation - say a Pillbox on D-Day - could cut it down to -1 OCV penalty quickly. But range can drastically alter that again, because beaches - especially with tank blocks, artillery craters and what not - tend not to be very even. So there is a good chance the character is in full cover behind the next dune now. Or at least only your legs (not a big or impotant target) is showing.

3. And of course if the enemy just went into melee (even bayonet on rifle), you are done for. Like get's a "high ground" bonus for standing on your cover. Of course that attack would also be a very easy target for your 2nd to 5th line. Wich explains why that is rarely done.

 

So you half your DCV, but could end up with everything between 0% cover and 100% cover, depending on what the field is, what the ranges are and from where you are attacked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us take teh beach scene from Saving Private Ryan, because it shows a lot of scenes from the point of the MG42 gunners wich gives you a lot of practical insight:

 

At 2:00 you can clearly see that they have free fire on the landing crafts. The tank traps are the only cover against those attackers. But you can also see that they only cover a very small part of the beach. Literally only the first few feet. By design of their positions, they have 0 ability to cover the beach right below them. They can not even cover that 1st puddle properly. Just moving foward the own bunker they were in, provided 100% cover to anyone too close to them.

The original adivce "do not be clustered, 5 guys are a opportunity, 1 guy is a waste of ammunition" is very important for survival here. Only in the landing craft themself, are they forefully grouped up.

 

This entire scene is about going far enough forward to be out of their line of fire for those guns. That dune they cover behind after that? Those MG's up there could not even fire down there.

 

Next scene then is about dealing with the MG's covering the path up the bunkers back enterance. Then killing everyone in the bunker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it gives a bit more "strategic" view, Company of Heroes Omaha scene might help too:

 

The close range weakness was exactly why they put in a shingle at that point. It did provide some cover for attackers. But without it, the attacker could have rushed easily out of line of fire of those upper defenders easily.

At 6:20, two other MG nests - based around sandbags - were the main issue. While the shingle gave some cover, it also gave them a opportunity to actually work.

 

The moment the wires line was broken, the enemy could actually move into grenade range of those first two sandbag MG nests. And grenades are "short range anti cover weapons". They player just ignored to tip to use them.

Bascially the defenders deseperatly tried to prevent 7:30. At that point the beachline in that segment had effectively failed. The enemy could move off the beach up to the trenches, without being under serious MG fire. Possibly without being under fire at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a rule where dropping prone doubled range mods but can't find it in 6th.  All I could find is that in dropping prone, assuming your head if facing them and your feet area away, while your DCV drops to half, they get a -4/-8 to be hit.  (6e2pg 41-44).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a rule where dropping prone doubled range mods but can't find it in 6th.  All I could find is that in dropping prone, assuming your head if facing them and your feet area away, while your DCV drops to half, they get a -4/-8 to be hit.  (6e2pg 41-44).

 

Sounds like a possible early edition rule. Maybe even as far back as Espionage! I don't recall it though.

 

In any case, a -2 OCV IS in effect a doubling of the range (from an 8m baseline every double adds -2).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when range mods kick in would be my 2 cents

 

The question becomes at what distance these rules cover this situation. At 2 meters being prone is an obvious disadvantage. At what distance does the prone target gain the benefits of his position?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

when range mods kick in would be my 2 cents

I'm inclined to agree with you. It makes good intuitive sense, and while the range modifiers kick in at 9 meters, the DCV penalty is high enough that it would be foolish to go prone that close. At 9 meters it would make more sense to dive for cover because the shooter would only have a -1 OCV penalty, but at 33 meters the OCV penalty is high enough at -5 that in a heroic setting it would outweigh my DCV penalty.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I seem to recall a rule where dropping prone doubled range mods but can't find it in 6th.  All I could find is that in dropping prone, assuming your head if facing them and your feet area away, while your DCV drops to half, they get a -4/-8 to be hit.  (6e2pg 41-44).

 

This fits in with what I'm inclined to rule. I looked up your page reference, and it's a pretty broad range of stuff, although the CV modifiers chart is on p. 41. When you say -4/-8, are you looking at any rule in particular (range modifier, etc.), or are you generalizing from the overall feel of the rules?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let us take teh beach scene from Saving Private Ryan, because it shows a lot of scenes from the point of the MG42 gunners wich gives you a lot of practical insight:

 

At 2:00 you can clearly see that they have free fire on the landing crafts. The tank traps are the only cover against those attackers. But you can also see that they only cover a very small part of the beach. Literally only the first few feet. By design of their positions, they have 0 ability to cover the beach right below them. They can not even cover that 1st puddle properly. Just moving foward the own bunker they were in, provided 100% cover to anyone too close to them.

The original adivce "do not be clustered, 5 guys are a opportunity, 1 guy is a waste of ammunition" is very important for survival here. Only in the landing craft themself, are they forefully grouped up.

 

This entire scene is about going far enough forward to be out of their line of fire for those guns. That dune they cover behind after that? Those MG's up there could not even fire down there.

 

Next scene then is about dealing with the MG's covering the path up the bunkers back enterance. Then killing everyone in the bunker.

 

 

As it gives a bit more "strategic" view, Company of Heroes Omaha scene might help too:

 

The close range weakness was exactly why they put in a shingle at that point. It did provide some cover for attackers. But without it, the attacker could have rushed easily out of line of fire of those upper defenders easily.

At 6:20, two other MG nests - based around sandbags - were the main issue. While the shingle gave some cover, it also gave them a opportunity to actually work.

 

The moment the wires line was broken, the enemy could actually move into grenade range of those first two sandbag MG nests. And grenades are "short range anti cover weapons". They player just ignored to tip to use them.

Bascially the defenders deseperatly tried to prevent 7:30. At that point the beachline in that segment had effectively failed. The enemy could move off the beach up to the trenches, without being under serious MG fire. Possibly without being under fire at all.

 

These are great resources! It gives me a lot to think about. How do you think it all plays out in terms of OCV/DCV modifiers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

These are great resources! It gives me a lot to think about. How do you think it all plays out in terms of OCV/DCV modifiers?

I would say elevation trades of lesser Cover penalties for having a minimum range. And if the enemy is closer then said range, you can not even aim for them.

You could propably stand up and move to the edge of the ledge/hill. But doing so would mean you loose all cover to the enemy rear line and propably halve your DCV (unsafe footing/limited mobility).

 

Being high enough up to negate one level of Cover, would mean not being able to shoot anything 2-8 m or closer without exposing yourself.

 

Due to the extremely large blind spots, you would only use extreme elevation for large scale battles (like a Naval invasion). In game practice, it will usually be confied to "levels of a building" categories:

Ground Floor - no change

1st Floor - 1 step change/2-8m minimum range

2nd Floor - 2 step change/9-12m minimum range

3rd - 4th Floor - 3 steps change/13-16m minimum range

 

But those are just some rough figures. I have no idea what proper Miltiary Tractical manuals say about "blind spots" for certain elevation levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but this seems to me to be exactly why we have GM's. My first thought, completely off the cuff when I read the first message, was "what is the terrain like?"  That dictates a lot. Not only that but each character attacking the prone character might be treated differently based on their relative position to Prone (NOT prawn) Guy. Cover and concealment might make the "half DCV" a worthy trade-off. My second thought was "double the range penalty" before I realized that wasn't a great idea. So then I thought, "double any range penalty not offset by a Ranged Skill Level."  That sits better with me.

 

Point being is that the guy standing next to Prone Guy with a cavalry saber is going to be treated differently than the sniper at 1,000 meters with a scope, who is in turn treated differently than the guy merely 50 meters away but two stories above the point where Prone Guy dropped. They are all treated by using applicable Hero rules, but those rules are applied on a case by case basis. That is the GM's very job in the game; judge the circumstances and apply the appropriate modifiers at the appropriate circumstance. Looking for a canned solution is doing a disservice to the tactical flexibility that Hero provides.

 

Just my take on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This fits in with what I'm inclined to rule. I looked up your page reference, and it's a pretty broad range of stuff, although the CV modifiers chart is on p. 41. When you say -4/-8, are you looking at any rule in particular (range modifier, etc.), or are you generalizing from the overall feel of the rules?

 

From the overall rule.  It says that it would depend on what is visible(10%, 25%, 50%, etc).  So a prone character, in the position I stated, you might see the upper half of the body or just the head and shoulders.  Being prone in just about any direction as long as you are at least 8m/30' away would seem to reduce the visibility of the target by about half.

 

[addendum] Just looked in 4th ed, it shows an example just like this on 4Epg149 with Andarra.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the overall rule.  It says that it would depend on what is visible(10%, 25%, 50%, etc).  So a prone character, in the position I stated, you might see the upper half of the body or just the head and shoulders.  Being prone in just about any direction as long as you are at least 8m/30' away would seem to reduce the visibility of the target by about half.

 

[addendum] Just looked in 4th ed, it shows an example just like this on 4Epg149 with Andarra.

 

Unfortunately, 4e is the only book I don't have at this point. Does this example exist in any of the other editions?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything, but this seems to me to be exactly why we have GM's.

 

My first thought, completely off the cuff when I read the first message, was "what is the terrain like?"  That dictates a lot. Not only that but each character attacking the prone character might be treated differently based on their relative position to Prone (NOT prawn) Guy. Cover and concealment might make the "half DCV" a worthy trade-off. My second thought was "double the range penalty" before I realized that wasn't a great idea. So then I thought, "double any range penalty not offset by a Ranged Skill Level."  That sits better with me.

 

Point being is that the guy standing next to Prone Guy with a cavalry saber is going to be treated differently than the sniper at 1,000 meters with a scope, who is in turn treated differently than the guy merely 50 meters away but two stories above the point where Prone Guy dropped. They are all treated by using applicable Hero rules, but those rules are applied on a case by case basis. That is the GM's very job in the game; judge the circumstances and apply the appropriate modifiers at the appropriate circumstance. Looking for a canned solution is doing a disservice to the tactical flexibility that Hero provides.

 

Just my take on it.

 

You may not be trying to be a jerk, and I honestly don't believe you are a jerk based on what I've read of your many other posts. But this comes across in a pretty jerky sort of way. Your final suggestion is to read the rules, Mr. GM-guy, and apply them based on the circumstances of the game because it's already covered. This, of course, could be the answer to about 75% of the posts on these forums. Rules are, in fact, canned solutions to a whole range of possible situations, so I don't feel like it is a disservice to understand the rules, and their idiosyncrasies, in order to be able to apply them better. I'm not trying to be argumentative: I'm just trying to solve what seems to be inconsistent (to my mind) in the rules applied to this situation.

 

However, I realize my original post is a bit vague, so let me restate my query. If I, as a normal human, have a DCV of 4 and another normal human of 4 OCV wants to shoot me from 30 meters. Let's assume it's in the middle of nowhere, with no terrain variance, and a freshly mown field, so there is no cover. If I stand there, I have a full DCV and their OCV is 0 because of the range modifier of -4. So his chance to hit me is 7-. 

 

If I drop prone, which intuitively makes more sense in terms of trying to give him less of a target, that automatically cuts my DCV in half, which actually increases his chance to hit me to 9-. So it's actually better for me to stand there, upright, and do nothing rather than try to drop down and presumably make myself harder to hit.

 

The rules as written cover a prone target very clearly. What they do not cover clearly, however, and this is my original question, at what point does going prone actually become a benefit, not a liability? This prone vs. ranged attack situation not only doesn't make intuitive sense in terms of the rules, it seems to run counter to the obvious: give them a smaller target so you are harder to hit.

 

What I hadn't considered has been covered here: elevation, terrain, and such are also important considerations, but not part of my question.  The rules say this about the range modifiers: "This reflects the fact that it's harder to hit a target who's far away than one who's nearby. Among other reasons, this is because the target appears smaller at range --- there is 'less' of it to hit" (6e1 p. 38). So what the rules are actually saying is that range modifiers are adjustments to what is visible on the player.

 

The suggestions to use the hit location and cover rules, etc., to increase the penalty, are what I'm inclined to apply in this situation, but the RAW for range modifiers presumably already are taking into account the "smaller target size." Is that double dipping on the penalties? 

 

The next problem is this: the DCV Modifiers Table on 6e2, p. 37, says a prone target uses the normal hit locations table, which also goes completely against the common-sense solutions everyone up to now has been suggesting. So add this to my perplexity.

 

So, in the end, I'm not all that satisfied that I'll find a clean solution. As you correctly say, Nolgroth, the tactical flexibility is amazing in HERO, and is exactly why I made the switch to these rules back in the '80s. In this case, it's that flexibility that is vexing me so much.

 

I think, in the end, "all of the above" is the correct answer. Thanks guys!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Unfortunately, 4e is the only book I don't have at this point. Does this example exist in any of the other editions?

Sorry. I didn't see anything but here's the entry from 4th:

 

 

Example: Andarra has just drawn her blaster on a squad of Imperial Star Marines. Not liking the odds, she drops prone and fires her blaster. The well-trained marines return fire. But because Andarra is prone and the marines are 20 hexes away, the GM decides that they can only shoot her in the head, hand, arms, and shoul- ders. If one of them was standing next to her, she would of course get no cover. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...