Hello Battle-Brothers,

after having seen the Ultramarines Movie I thought about kneeling on one leg as seen in the movie.

One might say that going down and steady oneself is a half-action. As long as the Marine remains in that position he has a fire arc about 45 degree and gains +10 BS.

Changing the orientation is again a half-action.

A marine must decide at the beginning of his turn if he stands up as a free action or stays in that position.

Maybe it should be restricted to only Basic Weapons and Pistols. Or instead of a combat option be a Talent.

What do you think?

Best regards,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

It's an interesting idea, I'd say anyone with the proper weapon proficiency should be able to use it (like full auto, semi auto, overwatch, etc). I'd definitely limit it to basic and smaller, as the heavy weapons just don't have a way to really be stabilized against the knee in that position, you might as well go prone.

Though the +10 seems a bit high to me (though I'm just defensive from munchkins mind you)- they already have something similar in the "Aim" action, where you spend a half action to get +10%, and you have to do it with each shot. If it were going to add a +10 potentially in addition to this, I'd definitely say that it had to be purchased as a talent, otherwise as a player you'd just to this with a half action, aim with your next half action, then fire full auto the next turn with a +50 to hit for free; and all of the bad guys could do it too . I totally see the fluff value and the idea of instilling some tactics into the team, but personally I'd just add it add an additional descriptor to things when the marine goes to spend a half/full action aiming.

That said, if I were to take it and tweak it some I'd say that moving into AND out of the position should cost a half action, and redirecting your field of fire takes a half action. That way they can get a benefit if pumping lead (or bolts) down range at a known enemy equal to aiming, which means you could essentially get aim on all of your full auto bursts, but it leaves you vulnerable to hits from the side and vulnerable if you ahve to stand up and run.

I'd say you'd count as prone, or something to that extent, as a drawback in any case.

BrotharTearer said:

I think mechanic wise that's not a bad drawback, and it would be consistent with the rules.

Descriptive wise it doesn't make that much sense to me but the prone rules never have. You're reducing your profile why are you easier to hit? I can see why it would be harder to dodge but you shouldn't be easier to hit. </rant>

just read the rules to Prone and it say. Ballistic skill tests made to hit Prone targets are difficult (-10) unless at ponit Black Range. Weapon skill is at (+10)

all sounds good to me

Mattman375 said:

Ah, that's what I get for readiing other books and assuming DW hadn't changed the system

Why not simply go for 'half prone' modifiers? +5 to be hit with ranged weapons, +5 with melee.

I would say this is a fair house rule, although personally I will not use it, as I find tracking facing to be more of a pain, and lends itself to the possibility of accusations of meta gaming. ("You can't tell that that guy is there, because you failed the awareness test" "But hes right in front of me and I'm facing that direction!", removing the idea of facing doesn't really get rid of the problem, but helps abstract it out into rolls).

I would say +10 BS, use a reaction to kneel (and must be used each round) is reasonably fair, might need more work (half action and reaction, half action to enter, halves movement, and half to leave?)

KommissarK said:

I see your point. But isn't that more an issue of awareness and attack rolls altogether?

I think it is the same with any bonus granted for the attack roll "Since the enemy is invisible I shoot with full-auto to get at least a +20 bonus to BS." - "Uh, but you do not have any idea where to shoot." - "For that reason I take full-auto to get the bonus." - "Yes, no, I mean..."

Maybe the problem is that the section about awareness is not detailed enough for that case.

Back in the days of DnD3.5 I think you had also a malus when attacking an invisible opponent. BUT you have had to point the square on the battle-map which you attack. Or in other words you had to have an idea where the attacker might be. And that you could only achieve with a very hard Perception Test.

So, even if it is a little off-topic, even in DW I think it should be a bit more detailed. If you win an opposed Awareness you just get an idea that somebody or something is around. But none of the bonuses are counting! When you play with a battle-map you can point a square and against that square all the bonuses are counting. But if the enemy is not there then everything is just ignored.

But say, if you win the opposed Awareness Test by 3 or more successes then you have a good idea where the enemy is around and then you may gain the bonuses. Even if you still suffer from a -30 malus for invisibility since you do not see anything at all.

Best regards,

TechVoid.

TechVoid said:

IMHO, if a player fails an awareness test to see an invisible something or other, they're simply not allowed to fire on that position. If they try, you tell them no. If they pass the awarness test but the enemy is using some form of invisibility, quickly decide if it's a -30, -60, or just a plain 50% chance you miss.

Hrm, now that I think of it, I think this type of thing is NOT a problem in my group simply because we've been arguing over the 'invisible enemy' for years, and systems like D&D 3.5 had a reasonable method to deal with it so we're just kind of used to it. Probably not RAW, but it works...