Targeting cone attacks

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Langy

That's about right - but, as mentioned, that only works for games that utilize tactical battlemaps.

If the rules work differently if put down a hex map than if I just state the distance, I think there is a problem. But let's say there is no battlemap.

I'd say that as well, there is always some way to calculate a straight-line distance between you and the target. If Gnome is right, you may as well say you're aiming at some space between you less than 2 yards so it's -0 (heck, +4 if you're right), roll against skill to hit that, and poof, your attack is centered on the target.

I'm wondering if that is correct.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

If the rules work differently if put down a hex map than if I just state the distance, I think there is a problem. But let's say there is no battlemap.

I'd say that as well, there is always some way to calculate a straight-line distance between you and the target. If Gnome is right, you may as well say you're aiming at some space between you less than 2 yards so it's -0 (heck, +4 if you're right), roll against skill to hit that, and poof, your attack is centered on the target.

I'm wondering if that is correct.

It isn't. In order to center your attack on the target you need to make a normal attack roll, including range and SM modifiers. If you actually want it centered on the opponent, you use his SM as the size modifier, but even that won't center it on his center - it'll just ensure that the center of the effect is somewhere within his body. In order to ensure that it's centered even more precisely you'll need to accept more of an SM penalty.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Gnome

On targeting cone attacks, Basic 413 says:
"Once you know the target point, imagine (or trace on a battle map) a line between the attacker and that point. The cone spreads to either side of this line, out to its maximum range."

Simple question: Is there ever any reason to aim at a point more than two yards away? As long as you choose a point directly between yourself and your foe, the cone will go through the foe's hex, correct? Given that targeting a hex is already +4, this would seem to make to-hit rolls for cone attacks fairly irrelevant. Am I missing something?

because of scatter on miss. Aiming close to you rather than close to the target will effectively increase the effect of scatter, reduced the advantage of a close miss still being a hit

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Langy

It isn't. In order to center your attack on the target you need to make a normal attack roll, including range and SM modifiers. If you actually want it centered on the opponent, you use his SM as the size modifier, but even that won't center it on his center - it'll just ensure that the center of the effect is somewhere within his body. In order to ensure that it's centered even more precisely you'll need to accept more of an SM penalty.

You mention SM twice - the SM of the target I get. Where is the other one coming from? By the RAW, I mean.

It sounds like you're saying it's Skill, minus distance/speed, + size, like any other ranged attack. Okay so far. That's how claymores work in High-Tech. What's the part about accepting a smaller SM? I'm not sure I see where that comes in, again, by the RAW (which I'd like to use unless it's utterly broken.)

Part of the issue is, it's an attack that hits everything between you and maximum range in an arc. You can miss your point of aim and still hit. This gets weird with, say, some form of dragon's breath - everything will and should be hit unless it's under cover; there isn't a chance of being missed if you're within the area covered by that spreading arc. Now before people argue that "maybe this dragon's breath is different and" etc., I'm saying mine will in my game, and I want to run it correctly.

The issue for me is that it makes sense to shoot at an intermediary, closer target so you can still clip the target you're really worried about hitting with the "out to maximum range" part of a cone.

In a lot of ways it makes sense that if you've got an intermediary target to shoot at, you're more likely to hit a properly lined-up further target. I'm imagining a range stake here, and say, a cone-like blast of canister - shoot so the stake is your aim point but the maximum extent of the blast still keeps going out past that and hits things other than the stake, just like you wanted to.

That's where my disconnect lies. The RAW makes it seem like you should have to roll skill, but there is no reason not to shoot a closer target. And if you are indeed right when you stated upthread that aiming for a particular point in space is +4, not hitting the ground is +4, I can't see how you wouldn't use that. I think it shouldn't apply to anything other than area-effect attacks or attacks on the ground. But if you really get a +4 for targeting a specific point in space, even one off the ground, I don't see why cones shouldn't get it.

Look, I have a dragon in my dungeon and he's got a cone attack. I want to run this correctly, but I'm having a hard time parsing out what's the correct and proper and consistent way to run it by the RAW.

[Langy]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

You mention SM twice - the SM of the target I get. Where is the other one coming from? By the RAW, I mean.

The second mention is just a clarification of what the RAW states - that if you want to hit a target, you're penalized by its SM. With a cone attack, you can choose to target something other than the intended subject of the attack (like targeting a hex two yards away from you) - but that won't center the attack on that enemy, nor will it make the attack hit the actual center of that hex (instead, it hits some random point of that hex, meaning the line drawn down the map won't likely be going through its center and might be *highly* off-center).

It sounds like you're saying it's Skill, minus distance/speed, + size, like any other ranged attack. Okay so far. That's how claymores work in High-Tech. What's the part about accepting a smaller SM? I'm not sure I see where that comes in, again, by the RAW (which I'd like to use unless it's utterly broken.)

Skill minus distance/speed + size (like any other ranged attack) only allows you to hit some random portion of that target (or, for a Cone, to have the cone be centered on some random portion of the target). This isn't guaranteed to always hit in the actual center of the target. If you want to center it on a smaller portion of the target - say, a 1 cubic inch sphere at the target's center of mass - then you have to accept more of an SM penalty, because you're in effect targeting a smaller portion of the target.

Note that you can choose to target a smaller area rather than targeting something at range, but due to the way SMs work the actual penalty to hit is going to be the same. In order to ensure that your cone's center goes through a target's hex, you have to roll Skill - Range + SM.

The issue for me is that it makes sense to shoot at an intermediary, closer target so you can still clip the target you're really worried about hitting with the "out to maximum range" part of a cone.

In a lot of ways it makes sense that if you've got an intermediary target to shoot at, you're more likely to hit a properly lined-up further target. I'm imagining a range stake here, and say, a cone-like blast of canister - shoot so the stake is your aim point but the maximum extent of the blast still keeps going out past that and hits things other than the stake, just like you wanted to.

Then you have to roll to hit exactly that range stake, but the penalty will be exactly the same as if you were just trying to hit the target in general, because the SM penalty for the range stake will be equal to the range penalty to hit the target.

(again, this is for if you want the target to be the center of the cone; to make it so the target is just *in* the cone but not necessarily the *center* of the cone, you should use Skill - Range + MAX(Target SM,Cone SM) - and note that this is RAW legal, but isn't directly mentioned by the rules and is instead something that can be extrapolated from them)

[DouglasCole]

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Which means cones are the best damn anti-aircraft attacks ever, in a way - all you need to do is ensure your cone intersects with your target on your turn, no matter how fast it's going, and make an Innate Attack+4 roll to hit it.

It does seem to make cones really, really accurate, and leads me to think I must be missing something in the rules. Like I said, I haven't had them come up often.

While the accuracy is less, the "annular blast fragmentation" warheads used in air-to-air missiles do attempt more or less exactly this: create a cone of expanding fragments to intersect the other aircraft.

[Stripe]

Subscribed, because I'm not real clear on cones either.

I'd like to see a good hex diagram used in a good example, too.

[Captain Joy]

Originally Posted by Gnome

Simple question: Is there ever any reason to aim at a point more than two yards away? As long as you choose a point directly between yourself and your foe, the cone will go through the foe's hex, correct? Given that targeting a hex is already +4, this would seem to make to-hit rolls for cone attacks fairly irrelevant. Am I missing something?

IMO, rogueblf has given us the RAW short answer to the "why not aim at a closer target" question.

Also, IMHO, the +4 bonus should only be used when hitting any part of a hex (read 1 yard diameter circle) with a smaller projectile. I wouldn't allow it with a cone attack because the still-hitting-on-a-miss scatter rules handle the effect of hitting an entire hex.

[Peter V. Dell'Orto]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Subscribed, because I'm not real clear on cones either.

I'd like to see a good hex diagram used in a good example, too.

Yeah, because I'm still not following Langy's arguments. Sorry Langy, you lost me at aiming for/hitting a smaller portion of the target when we're talking an area-effect attack that is almost certainly using Large-Area Injury (per Area and Spreading Attacks, p. 413)

So let's go for an example. Dragon's Breath attack, 5d burning attack, 1/2D 10, Max Range 100, 5 yards wide at the end of the cone. Innate Attack-16.

We've got only one target to worry about, an SM+1 barbarian. He's standing 20 yards away.

What does the dragon roll to hit, and why?

Example two: Same, only now there is a barbarian at 20 yards as above, and a second target, his SM+0 friend, at 100 yards (utter end of extreme range) and 1 yard off to the side. What does the dragon roll to hit for both, and is it different if he picks a different primary target?

Why SM+1 example target? So I can see where it gets added. :)

Page refs would help, too.

Originally Posted by Captain Joy

Also, IMHO, the +4 bonus should only be used when hitting any part of a hex (read 1 yard diameter circle) with a smaller projectile is desired. I wouldn't allow it with a cone attack because the still-hitting-on-a-miss scatter rules handle the effect of hitting an entire hex.

Well, to be fair, the still-hitting-on-a-miss scatter rules are for all area attacks, includes cones explicitly, and scatter only takes effect if you miss. All you need to do is not miss, which is almost certainly where Gnome's question originates and why it got me involved in this thread. You won't miss a -0 to hit target with base skill, nevermind base skill+4, that often. Not in the games I play anyway. So scatter won't happen.

I'm of the option that the +4 is excluded for cones, in general, because the rule says "area-effect or explosive attack" while the rest of the box calls out "area-effect, cone, or explosive attack" for scatter.

[Gnome]

Originally Posted by roguebfl

because of scatter on miss. Aiming close to you rather than close to the target will effectively increase the effect of scatter, reduced the advantage of a close miss still being a hit

That's an excellent point. But with a decent skill (12+) you'll almost never miss...

Originally Posted by Toadkiller_Dog

Look, I have a dragon in my dungeon and he's got a cone attack. I want to run this correctly, but I'm having a hard time parsing out what's the correct and proper and consistent way to run it by the RAW.

We've actually had this come up in numerous games. I gave my DF dragon the +4, so he basically hit with his breath every time--the PCs did a lot of diving out of the way or behind cover in that epic battle. The as-Sharaks from DF2 also have cone attacks.
We play on a hex-map, and I can tell you that cone spread is fairly challenging to figure out as well, so you may want to prep for it if you're using a map. I would love it if someone came up with "cone templates" for the GURPS hex-map, like those minis games you were talking about.

I was asking the question because we played a modern/alternate universe game yesterday in which aliens invaded wielding Sonic Screamers (UT125), and I wanted to figure out how truly awesome those weapons are supposed to be.