When reading the FAQ and errata on armor/cover I think it reads that you can only benefit from one source of static defence (use higher).

So according the rules there's no point taking cover if wearing armor like Armored Clothing or Heavy Battle Armor that also add static defence. Or am I missing something here???

It just doesn't make sense to me that a person in a deflective armor doesn't gain any bonus if also taking cover behind a rock. He should be harder to hit. Right?

And if the rule really is like this why? And how do you explain it logically? "People with armor don't care about cover"? "If you hide behind a rock when wearing armor the rock deflects the shots instead of your armor (that suddenly became non deflective)"?

Would really appreciate some clarification here...

Yes, basic cover isn't helpful to someone wearing armor. However, cover can grant additional defense at the discretion of the GM, which would make it better than the armor.

There's no part of the equation that says the armor stopped deflecting--just that the shot was good enough to hit him in a weak point, same as if he hadn't been in cover. Generally cover leaves the vulnerable parts exposed, that's the nature of having to actually look where you're shooting and actually point your weapon. Head, neck, and under the arms is the weak points in most armor, and those are the bits that are not protected by cover when you're shooting, and since you're in armor, you're going to be a bit less prone to be as quick to duck back behind it--you're armored, after all.

But if you're in a good spot, like a wall with a hole in it just big enough for you to look through and shoot, you should be getting Cover Defense of 2 or more, which would override the armor and represent the cover being effective.

In principle I agree, it doesn't make sense. But what they're trying to avoid is a level of stacking that makes the game unplayable. Realize that a single die in this game has large effects. If it was D20, one pip is 5%. Here, the effect of one die is anywhere from 10-50%. So it's a fix to the game mechanic. It's not a great one, but I can't think of a way to improve it.

I think that another reason they designed it this way is to keep the action going. Think about it; a combat scenario where everyone is hunkered down in cover and popping up to shoot at another is pretty boring. People with ranged defence don't need to take cover, so they have greater incentive to move around and do things as opposed to just sit tight and see who whittles whom down first.

Good mechanics imo. Too many systems see hunkering + repeated (boring) slugfests, rather than being mobile and creative.

Think about it; a combat scenario where everyone is hunkered down in cover and popping up to shoot at another is pretty boring. People with ranged defence don't need to take cover, so they have greater incentive to move around and do things as opposed to just sit tight and see who whittles whom down first.

The GM controls whether the NPCs hide behind cover or not. So there should never be a situation where both sides are hiding in cover shooting at each other. Every combat should have a point, an objective each side is trying to accomplish. Something they generally can't accomplish by hunkering down. If the GM has created a situation where neither side has any reason to do anything but plink away at each other, then the GM has messed up. Changing the rules won't automatically make that combat exciting or dynamic.

In TCW, the clone troopers are always using cover when defending from droid attacks. Emulating the source material is the most important point of a game like this.

Um.. Clone troopers will also stand in the open being shot at by 30 droids and not get hit, but then be shot and die from one shot as soon as they get into cover.

Um.. Clone troopers will also stand in the open being shot at by 30 droids and not get hit, but then be shot and die from one shot as soon as they get into cover.

Not a good reflection of the mechanics

Um.. Clone troopers will also stand in the open being shot at by 30 droids and not get hit, but then be shot and die from one shot as soon as they get into cover.

Not a good reflection of the mechanics

True. Cover should remove all defense AND soak! It's the only way to be accurate.

Most people confuse the defense bonus of armor with the thought of ballistic protection. I look at the defense bonus from armor or cover as representing a lack of a good target spot on a target at which to aim prior to firing. Soak represents the ballistic protection of the armor. So once you're armored up you've already limited the number of good target locations on yourself that can be aimed at.

Most people confuse the defense bonus of armor with the thought of ballistic protection. I look at the defense bonus from armor or cover as representing a lack of a good target spot on a target at which to aim prior to firing. Soak represents the ballistic protection of the armor. So once you're armored up you've already limited the number of good target locations on yourself that can be aimed at.

Except that defense is used to reflect shields as well.

Also, if we used this methodology, then getting behind cover should probably provide soak.

Ultimately, I feel that something should be done to have taking cover remain useful irrespective of your defense and soak otherwise--getting behind something should always provide better protection in a fire fight in one way or another.

Most people confuse the defense bonus of armor with the thought of ballistic protection. I look at the defense bonus from armor or cover as representing a lack of a good target spot on a target at which to aim prior to firing. Soak represents the ballistic protection of the armor. So once you're armored up you've already limited the number of good target locations on yourself that can be aimed at.

Except that defense is used to reflect shields as well.

Also, if we used this methodology, then getting behind cover should probably provide soak.

Ultimately, I feel that something should be done to have taking cover remain useful irrespective of your defense and soak otherwise--getting behind something should always provide better protection in a fire fight in one way or another.

No difference with shields, bottom line is a target location is covered up. It still involves a setback die which involves hitting the target.

It should probably involve silhouette in some fashion to have a foundation in RAW. They call for an extra difficulty with a 2 silhouette size difference so a GM could rule a player's head and gun and maybe hand represent a silhouette -1 and add a Difficulty die to attacks made against that player while firing from cover.

Think about it; a combat scenario where everyone is hunkered down in cover and popping up to shoot at another is pretty boring. People with ranged defence don't need to take cover, so they have greater incentive to move around and do things as opposed to just sit tight and see who whittles whom down first.

The GM controls whether the NPCs hide behind cover or not. So there should never be a situation where both sides are hiding in cover shooting at each other. Every combat should have a point, an objective each side is trying to accomplish. Something they generally can't accomplish by hunkering down. If the GM has created a situation where neither side has any reason to do anything but plink away at each other, then the GM has messed up. Changing the rules won't automatically make that combat exciting or dynamic.

In TCW, the clone troopers are always using cover when defending from droid attacks. Emulating the source material is the most important point of a game like this.

To adress your last point first: No. No, no, no. The most important part of a game like this, or any other game, is to have fun. Just because characters in a movie or series did something most definitely does NOT mean everyone has to emulate them!

Furthermore, you seem to be assuming that the GM controls all combat encounters - not just that they happen, but where and how and with whom. This is simply not the case. Sure, many fights are scripted as part of the story, but any group of players will frequently go off-script and throw you curveballs. Combat can erupt in the damndest places and for the strangest reasons. And sometimes players will simply reject what you had planned as the "goal" of the encounter and invent their own.

Oh, and of course Clone troopers take cover. They're wearing laminate armour, which has a Defence rating of 0. If they remain standing in a hail of blaster fire instead of taking cover, it's probably because they have ranks in Side Step or Dodge.

I am surprised by the subjet of this topic, because, i think that the rule about Covert clear.
The Covert is optional and affect only the Defense of a character and not his Soak.

The Errata

Chapter VI : Conflict and Combat

page 213
In the Cover entry, replace “increases the character’s ranged defense by 1” with “allows the character to gain ranged defense 1"

I give this 3 example of Cover's situation

A spy without armor, but he can have a ranged defense 1.

A Droid with Personal Deflector Shield (Defense 2, Soak 0), have the choice between a ranged defense 1 by cover and a ranged defense 2 by his armor.

A soldier with Heavy Battle Armor (Defense 1, Soak 2), have the choice between a ranged defense 1 by cover and a ranged defense 1 by his armor.

To finish, i am in accord with Krieg22, the most important in a game, is the fun.

I am surprised by the subjet of this topic, because, i think that the rule about Covert clear.

The Covert is optional and affect only the Defense of a character and not his Soak.

I understand this now. The my initial confusion came from the fact that if you're wearing armor good enough (with defense) there's no point taking cover. This is very unlike real world and my head didn't want to accept what I was reading.

Thank you all for your help. I understand now that it is not meant to be logical rule, but one that is born because of the balance issues.

In principle I agree, it doesn't make sense. But what they're trying to avoid is a level of stacking that makes the game unplayable. Realize that a single die in this game has large effects. If it was D20, one pip is 5%. Here, the effect of one die is anywhere from 10-50%. So it's a fix to the game mechanic. It's not a great one, but I can't think of a way to improve it.

I think that another reason they designed it this way is to keep the action going. Think about it; a combat scenario where everyone is hunkered down in cover and popping up to shoot at another is pretty boring. People with ranged defence don't need to take cover, so they have greater incentive to move around and do things as opposed to just sit tight and see who whittles whom down first.

I believe it's also so you can play a Luke, Han Solo, or Princes Liea type PC (they don't wear armor in the films) without being overshadowed by those that do wear it. It may not make perfect sense as a simulation but it makes sense mechanically to achieve fantasy cinematic realism in an RPG. You must unlearn what you have learned...

Is there a point in getting into cover even if it doesn't improve your defenses? YES!

Sure, mechanically there may not be a difference, but you have to look past the mechanics. The characters will be doing threat analysis in real time. They don’t see the numbers. If half of a party is in cover and half isn’t, a GM might decide to focus fire on the guys who aren’t in cover because those are the easiest ones to see. If you’re highly visible, you’re more likely to get attacked. If you're less visible than the other guys, you're less likely to be attacked. That is if all things are equal. If you're hiding with the biggest gun on the field, I'm sure fire would still come your way, but that's for the characters to decide if they want to attack the biggest danger, the easiest one to see, or keep attacking the guy they've been shooting at because they have a grudge and just want to put their man down.

Is there a point in getting into cover even if it doesn't improve your defenses? YES!

Sure, mechanically there may not be a difference, but you have to look past the mechanics. The characters will be doing threat analysis in real time. They don’t see the numbers. If half of a party is in cover and half isn’t, a GM might decide to focus fire on the guys who aren’t in cover because those are the easiest ones to see. If you’re highly visible, you’re more likely to get attacked. If you're less visible than the other guys, you're less likely to be attacked. That is if all things are equal. If you're hiding with the biggest gun on the field, I'm sure fire would still come your way, but that's for the characters to decide if they want to attack the biggest danger, the easiest one to see, or keep attacking the guy they've been shooting at because they have a grudge and just want to put their man down.

This is definitely true. I will totally target people not in cover first until one PC shows they're a bigger threat. I hadn't even thought about that.

I like the idea of cover doing something for you. The reducing of your silhouette is a nice idea. I just spent too many days in courses and drills learning to use cover in real life (Army) to accept that is does nothing for you. Even with full Kevlar and helmet you still use cover to your advantage. As long as you create a situation with incentives for movement and action characters will not just hunker behind the cover. You put a rope to swing on, vents to sneak through, or a trap to spring; the players will get moving.

I believe it's also so you can play a Luke, Han Solo, or Princes Liea type PC (they don't wear armor in the films) without being overshadowed by those that do wear it.

Who says that Luke, Han, and Leia (sometimes) are not in armor?

Episode IV

Luke - starts with Heavy Clothing [you could call it Adverse Environment Gear - Desert if you want but that's still +1 Soak]

Han - I think the leather vest he wears is a Catch Vest. It's from Suns of Fortune, the Coreellian sourcebook, and it sounds about right [+1 soak or + 2 Soak vs blasters]

Both switch to Stormtrooper Armor [Laminate, for + 2 Soak] when they get the chance

But go back to their previous outfits after the Death Star.

At the end Luke is in a Flight Suit and I'm not sure what sort of armor, if any, that would count as.

Leia - No armor

Episode V - They all start with Adverse Environment Gear [soak +1] and wear various outfits through the rest of the movie but for much of the time Luke is in Heavy Clothing, Han in his Vest, and Leia with no armor, as in Episode IV.

Episode VI

Luke - Jedi Robes counting as Heavy Clothing [+1 Soak]

Leia [disguised as Bosch] Armored Clothing [+1 Defense & +1 Soak], most of the rest of the movie, no armor

Han Solo [while frozen in carbonite] Lots, and lots of armor with the drawback of being frozen. After unfreezing he goes back to his vest when he recovers.

The Rebel commando Armor they wear for the raid on Endor should give Leia a +1 soak boost but

I think all Han is getting out of it is a better chance to hide.

In my games, i allow 1 setback die for basic cover. I also allow this to stack with defense of any armor worn.(most of the time,

this only allows for 2 setback dice.) (cover is circumstantial)

Now, to keep things balanced with the stacking,and to keep combat interesting, i will spend 2 advantages from the attacker

to render the cover ineffective,thereby removing one setback die and keeping only that which the armor grants.

This in turn keeps the player's/npc's from relying on cover just to get the added setback die.(This applies to both the player's and Gm.)

(When i refer to basic cover, i'm referring to any cover in which a player/npc must duck behind to gain the benefit.)

Also,any cover that i grant higher than 1 setback die, the cover benefit is used in place of the armor defense and

does not stack.Keeps things balanced and fair.

Your confusion is gone yay! I did want to add my .02 anyway by pointing out that some players/characters may not always get the best armor in the game. I think this addresses the issue of players who are playing a character who can't or doesn't like bulky armor like Han. You see him take cover often in RotJ as well as other troopers like the storm troopers or the rebels. You also see it in ESB but to a lesser degree because well it people vs. vehicles it doesn't usually end well. Anyway as I said confusion clear and my .02 added yay!

I believe it's also so you can play a Luke, Han Solo, or Princes Liea type PC (they don't wear armor in the films) without being overshadowed by those that do wear it.

Who says that Luke, Han, and Leia (sometimes) are not in armor?

Leia - No armor

Don’t forget about Armored Clothing, which is designed to look like normal clothing. Depending on how volatile the universe is, or how naive Leia is, she’s either wearing it or not. I could see an argument either way. As a princess on a diplomatic mission on her own ship she might not feel the need to wear any armor. On the other hand, she is a Princess and if Armored Clothing is just like normal clothing with how it fits and feels, then I could see a protocol for her to always be wearing the stuff when not at home.

I’d definitely say that Lando is either wearing Armored Clothing or the cape is some sort of armor FFG hasn’t published yet.

I’d think that once a person has received enough stature in the Universe (or enough money) they’d invest in some sort of protection. Gangsters, bounty hunters, and evil governments are a thing, so individuals would be dumb to not wear any sort of protection. Unless, of course, they are trying to make a point of how brave they are in standing up against the Empire and don’t wear armor. Which is something I could see Leia doing.

Han, Luke, and Leia don't wear armor in the films, except the Stormtrooper stuff and only while they were trying to disguise themselves and maybe Luke and Leia on Endor. The rest of the time they are in clothing.

Their "Armor" values for that clothing in the game is another balancing mechanic added to help avoid what I mentioned in my earlier post. The same goes with lots of things added into RPGs that don't match the source material, like Han's heavy blaster having a stun setting. It's just RPG number crunching.

I actually like that armor Defense and Cover Defense don't stack.

I see getting through defenses as a narrative thing.

If I roll well enough to shoot you during our minute long exchange of blaster bolts then one of two things has happened.

I've made an accurate shot that hit you despite your attempt to take cover or protect your vitals. Either way accuracy trumps all. Everything has a weak point.

The alternative is that I have a mega gun and I blew through your piddly cover or armor. An anti-material rifle or heavy machine-gun will blast through concrete block and Kevlar with contemptuous ease. It doesn't matter if you have both; you're still hosed. Ergo at some point stacking doesn't work anyway.

Characters in heavy armor figure their armor will protect them and they should be getting the better shot. Characters in armored clothing might take cover not because the cover offers any additional protection, but because they want to pretend to be a squishy so they don't get targeted.

It's your game define it the way that you like. It works better if armored people stand there blasting away like a bad-ass while the smart ones let the hull plating take the shot.