Two humanoid allies of roughly the same size are in combat. One is a brick with high defenses, the other an energy projector with relatively low defenses. The projector stands behind the brick and fires bolts at the opposition over/around him. I'm guessing that with Hit Location rules, that would be head, hands, arms, and legs exposed and everything else covered, and one-third of the body showing (OCV -3) under the main rules. Yes?
Would the "Firing Into Melee" optional rule apply unmodified here, the same as if the combatant providing the "soft" cover were an ally of the attacker (and in danger of being hit by "friendly fire") rather than an ally of the attacked person actively trying to protect him? Or should the soft-cover provider (intentionally protecting the Target) be more likely to be hit than an ally of the attacker (who might accidentally be in the way)?
Question
Epiphanis
Two humanoid allies of roughly the same size are in combat. One is a brick with high defenses, the other an energy projector with relatively low defenses. The projector stands behind the brick and fires bolts at the opposition over/around him. I'm guessing that with Hit Location rules, that would be head, hands, arms, and legs exposed and everything else covered, and one-third of the body showing (OCV -3) under the main rules. Yes?
Would the "Firing Into Melee" optional rule apply unmodified here, the same as if the combatant providing the "soft" cover were an ally of the attacker (and in danger of being hit by "friendly fire") rather than an ally of the attacked person actively trying to protect him? Or should the soft-cover provider (intentionally protecting the Target) be more likely to be hit than an ally of the attacker (who might accidentally be in the way)?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
1 answer to this question
Recommended Posts