Hi Guys,

I've been GM'ing EotE for several months now, and my group has started abusing the following mechanic to attack enemies and completely avoid being counterattacked. This doesn't sit right with me. Here's an example;

PC spends a maneuver to get completely behind a wall, etc. so cannot be seen or shot.

Then when fighting begins...

PC spends a maneuver to move out from behind wall toward enemies.

PC shoots at enemies.

PC, takes strain, and moves back behind wall so enemies cannot see or return fire.

On the NPC enemies turn, they have nothing to shot at. Rinse and repeat.

Also... here's another one that I've seen that bothered me;

PC spends a maneuver to move into short range.

PC spends an action to shoot enemy at short range.

PC takes strain and spends a maneuver to move into medium range.

Now, NPC is stuck shooting the PC at medium range with increased difficulty.

Has anyone else seen this in their games?

These methods bother me.

First of, why would the NPCs stand still in the open to continue to be shot at? But...

If it's combat, thing happen "simultanisly" more or less, which means the enemies kinda shoot back at the same time that the PCs shoot them, it just happens with more structure out of game play so I wouldn't allow for complete "can't-shoot-back-cover" they way that you're describing your players doing. Taking cover gives a mechanical benefit though, but it is not a can't shoot back benefit.
So actually they are not abusing the game-mechanic, they are abusing you, the GM.

Otherwise if you don't think that's a thing, maybe let the NPCs do exactly the same thing. Have them barricade them with a heavy repeater blaster behind a wall pointing to the only entry point, and wait for the players and have some other npcs (rivals) skirmish in the same way the PC does.

The other example, why doesnt the NPC take their maneuver to go back to short if that's the thing, following the "fleeing" PCs and continue shooting? NPCs do get a maneuver and an action each turn.

Make the npcs have grenades, lay ambushes and create more complex scenarios?

And no, my players haven't done that.

I'm confused why the NPCs don't just run up and shoot them. NPCs get maneuvers too. I mean, sure, your minion pack only gets 1 maneuver per turn, but rivals and nemesis level NPCs can take 2.

Even then, consider this. So the PCs are at medium range from your NPCs. They maneuver up into short, fire at your NPCs, then 2 strain maneuver back to medium. Next initiative rolls around; it's an NPC. NPC maneuvers forward to short range...and fires at short range...and sits there.

What am I missing here?

Hello, Wall. Meet Missile.

As far as your first scenario:

The PCs shoot then hide. Since they have total cover, they can't see what is happening. The NPCs could hide behind complete cover(around the corner of a building or what-have-you) and the PCs would have to expose themselves to try and find them. If they don't, have the NPCs flank them.

It isn't rules abuse. They keep taking strain for doing it, and the NPCs have a counter. I would also rule that the NPCs could ready their weapons at the last point the PCs were seen, and blast them as soon as they reappear, as a delayed action.

Hello, Wall. Meet Missile Lightsaber.

Also, NPCs can negate cover by spending the necessary number maneuvers to move around it. If you're NPCs are standing around letting the PCs do this, they aren't thinking clearly.

If I was in a firefight and my enemies were doing this, I wouldn't just let that happen.

Edited for clarity.

Doesn't sound like a problem to me. The PCs are taking the required strain to do it, and the enemies should be reacting with similar tactics. Have them split up and flank the PCs. Have them fall back to better defensive positions when the PC ducks out of sight. Have them realize these aren't just some rival gang's goons and call in backup.

I'm confused why the NPCs don't just run up and shoot them. NPCs get maneuvers too. I mean, sure, your minion pack only gets 1 maneuver per turn, but rivals and nemesis level NPCs can take 2.

Minions can take 2 maneuvers if they give up their action. So in round one, squad 1 runs around the wall to flush out the PCs. In round two, those that are left open fire, while squad 2 moves once and fires if possible.

PC spends a maneuver to get completely behind a wall, etc. so cannot be seen or shot.

Your players sound like one player I have: military background, so he's always trying to exploit the tactical angle. And that's fine in D&D4 or something but not in this narrative game...

Anyway, the above is the fundamental mistake. "Cover" is only +1 to Defense, so the NPCs only get a setback. The only way I'd allow total cover and no NPC shots is if they remain hunkered down for their entire turn. Once they are active and start poking their heads out and dashing back and forth, the wall is only going to provide basic cover (or maybe a case could be made for "hard cover" and give the NPCs 2 setback...if you're generous). Basically they become exposed to attacks of opportunity that are only resolved later.

I think it's fine to allow full cover sometimes so the PCs can use it to recover, take a stimpack, etc. But not if they're acting like ground squirrels.

I'm confused why the NPCs don't just run up and shoot them. NPCs get maneuvers too. I mean, sure, your minion pack only gets 1 maneuver per turn, but rivals and nemesis level NPCs can take 2.

Minions can take 2 maneuvers if they give up their action. So in round one, squad 1 runs around the wall to flush out the PCs. In round two, those that are left open fire, while squad 2 moves once and fires if possible.

Oh yeah I just meant while still maintaining the ability to shoot.

Standing around the corner of a building or behind a thick wall and NEVER popping out to shoot is complete cover. If you are popping out from time to time to shoot, you don't have complete cover, you just have normal cover - a Setback. The NPCs, during their turn, are going to fire at those PCs while they are popping out to shoot. The cover they are ducking back into is just giving a Setback, not precluding any shot at all. In fact if you are managing it right (as I just described) the players are being stupid and earning strain by moving out of that cover and back constantly. They can do the same thing without earning strain (using the cover while shooting at the NPCs to get Setback protection while never having to use Maneuvers or earn Strain).

This is a narrative system, don't try to interpret it though a d20 lens.

Newb Player: "I use a Maneuver to jump over the wall, Action to shoot at the Stormtroopers, Maneuver to jump back over into my complete cover." (grins excitedly like he just stole the cheese from the mouse trap)

GM: (leans his head to one side with a strange look). "Okaayy"

Newb Player: (rolls and shoots a Stormtrooper) "Awesome!". (uses Maneuver plus Strain to move back over the wall).

GM: "As you are jumping back over the wall, the rest of the Stromtroopers of course see you and open fire". You land back in your complete cover"..... (rolls for the Stormtrooper squad while applying a Setback for cover)...."with a searing pain in your arse from a blaster bolt" (a hit)..."and are a little winded from all of the heroic acrobatics" (ensures the player adds 1 Strain).

Veteran Player: "Ok I'm behind the same wall. I pop up and take a shot at the Stormtroopers while still using the wall as cover. Action to fire plus I use a single Maneuver to toss dumb arse over here a stimpack for his rear".

That is how I've been handling it. I think as intended by RAW, but please tell me if I'm wrong.

Edit: I also wouldn't have any problem with a GM ruling the player willfuly gave up his cover until the next turn since he jumped out of it. We take turns in Initiative order but I think it would be fine to interpret (in a narrative system) how the others in the same round got their shot off before the PC returned to the cover.

@Sturn that's pretty much how I'd do it, although I'd narrate it slightly differently as I run the RAW initiative slots. The wY you describe it almost makes it like an over watch, or interrupting actions order. Not wrong, just different from how I'd describe it.

But yeah, this is a simulation of a cinematic firefight with everyone snapping off shots, ducking in and out of cover. It's not a turn based strategy game where each side takes turns in complete isolation.

@Sturn that's pretty much how I'd do it, although I'd narrate it slightly differently as I run the RAW initiative slots. The wY you describe it almost makes it like an over watch, or interrupting actions order. Not wrong, just different from how I'd describe it.

But yeah, this is a simulation of a cinematic firefight with everyone snapping off shots, ducking in and out of cover. It's not a turn based strategy game where each side takes turns in complete isolation.

I use the initiative slots too. What I was trying to convey is once the Stormtroopers (in my example) took their next turn, the narrative description would have them hitting the PC as he went back over the wall, not some lucky bank shot over the top of it. I guess the description I gave would get kinda wonky if 3 other PCs took their turn after the PC jumped back over the wall, then the Stormies hit that PC that seemingly a while back made it over the wall.

For my games Pretty much I use 1 setback for less then half, 2 setback for more, and if you are completely covered they obviously cannot see or shoot you. if oyu manuver out from cover, fire, and then move back.. go ahead. The opponent will know where you are, you cannot aim, and eventually they will flank you or just lob a grenade your direction

Also consider the possibility of using triggered/ready actions. IIRC anyone can take an initiative slot and declare a conditional action (i.e. when he pops out to shoot, I will shoot).

In play it would go something like:

DM> Okay, player 1, take your action.

Player 1> I maneuver out from behind the wall, action to shoot, 2 strain and maneuver back behind the wall.

DM> Got it. Enemy action. Players, it seems that they have stopped shooting. As none of you are visible targets, you can't see what's happening. Player 2, your action.

Player 2> I maneuver out from behind the wall...

DM> Stop. At this point, you see a squad of Storm Troopers who are all pointing heavy weapons at you. As soon as you come out of cover to shoot, they light you up. <rolls> Take X wounds before soak. Now you can continue your action.

Player 2> Actually, I'm unconscious, roll the crit.

I'll just note that I much prefer to not change the rules to stop the players from doing something. If it's something truly unbalancing with no counter, then I might change it. Otherwise, I'd much rather use the rules to counter their tricks.

You have to remember that part of the fun for this type of player is to figure out the rules and use them to get whatever advantage they can. If you start adding rules, the PCs would (rightly I believe) feel they should be able to use the same rules. Otherwise you're just making stuff up ex post facto to rain on their parade. Sure, you can write them off as dirty, cheesy power-gamers and tell them it's your way or the highway (as many GMs claim to prefer)...but why do that when you don't have to?

What they're doing in this situation is easily countered within the existing rules (use NPC maneuvers to catch them, have a part of the force circle around and flank, radio in for more support, set the story ahead of time so they can't just sit back and skirmish all the time, throw grenades over the cover, etc) so I'd just use them as written.

I'll just note that I much prefer to not change the rules to stop the players from doing something.

We aren't changing anything, at the most putting our own interpretation on RAW. A couple snippets (I used AoR for page numbers, sorry):

(page 210) They should also remember that although each round is broken up into turns that happen sequentially in gameplay, narratively the turns are occurring at roughtly the same time.

(page 213) In some cases, a character may even be able to perform a maneuver when it's not his turn......These additional maneuvers are generally awared at the providence of the GM...

The narrative aspect of combat is stressed over and over in RAW. I don't see anything in the recent posts above flatly changing the spirit of the rules.

I'll just note that I much prefer to not change the rules to stop the players from doing something.

We aren't changing anything, at the most putting our own interpretation on RAW. A couple snippets (I used AoR for page numbers, sorry):

(page 210) They should also remember that although each round is broken up into turns that happen sequentially in gameplay, narratively the turns are occurring at roughtly the same time.

(page 213) In some cases, a character may even be able to perform a maneuver when it's not his turn......These additional maneuvers are generally awared at the providence of the GM...

The narrative aspect of combat is stressed over and over in RAW. I don't see anything in the recent posts above flatly changing the spirit of the rules.

Well, my post wasn't specifically pointing out any individual post that was changing the rules rather than interpreting; it was merely stating my personal GMing style to avoid issues with players. But since you brought it up, specifically the post regarding readied actions immediately before my post I'd avoid personally unless you're opening it up to allow players to do the same. I feel that's a pretty clear addition to the rules.

Regarding suggestions that you qualify their trick as merely cover, it essentially is the same as saying "don't do that" as then it's exactly the same benefit as firing from around a corner using 0 maneuvers and 0 strain. May as well just tell them it's not going to work that way because the rounds are happening over a minute or so, and the enemies get the chance to fire back with cover. Don't just declare ex post facto that their maneuver and strain expenditure had no effect; let them know ahead of time since you already know what they're trying to do.

All that being said, I'm fine changing the rules when necessary. Just don't do it just to screw over players. Work with them. For instance, I had a problem in Saga where a particular player with a Gungan PC would run up into melee with gun-wielding opponents and immediately drop prone to gain the bonus AC vs ranged attacks. In the subsequent round, he would stand as a free action with Acrobatics, attack, and drop prone again. So, I worked with the players, and we all came to the conclusion that Aiming should negate the prone penalty to ranged attacks just like it negated the cover penalty since the concept behind being prone and being behind cover was similar: they reduced your profile vulnerable to attack. Everyone was happy and we got rid of what we now affectionately call "flopping Gungan syndrome." So, change or add to the rules if you feel you must, but work with the players so it doesn't feel like you're just out to get them. While it seems at times to be adversarial, roleplaying at its essence is cooperative.

And again, just stating my general preference. When it comes down to it, it's your group's game, not mine. I'm not offended if you do something different.

The idea of having a flat bonus for a cover mechanic - as opposed to a scaled bonus - is in place exactly for this reason. When you are peaking around a corner and shooting a ducking back, that's all covered in the narrative aspect of the setback die. It represents the character hiding behind cover and peaking up/around to to fire off a few shots during a round.

You may choose to ignore Sturn's explanation, but he's exactly right. All of the actions are kind of happening at once. If the PC was behind "Full cover" but moved out to get a shot, the NPCs should be able to narratively shoot back at the opportune moment. No need to declare prepared actions or anything silly like that. Just apply the setback and save your PCs some maneuvers. Should the NPCs miss, that means that they were behind the corner and all of the NPCs shots missed.

In short, if the PC did this, I would just apply the one setback as per RAW, and if the PC chose to just stay behind cover and not shoot, I would then I wouldn't have the NPCs fire at them.

Not sure if that "You may choose to ignore Sturn's explanation" was directed at me, but I wasn't saying it was wrong. I agree with him (and you) that it works that way. I'm just saying that I'd tell my players that it's just going to be normal cover before they take the maneuvers and extra strain rather than after they've already done it. My previous post regarding changing the rules was in reference to readied actions and other more direct rules changes (which I'm, again, not ruling out; just saying talk to the players before bringing the hammer down).

My apologies Alatar1313, I didn't mean to come off as being accusatory or harsh. But I think I may have.

Explain the situation with your players. Be truthful about how you feel and give them plenty of facts. Most of all, tell them how you don't think the tactic is fun or cinematic. It just feels too tactical, and more in line with a war game like WH40K.

PC spends a maneuver to get completely behind a wall, etc. so cannot be seen or shot.

PC spends a maneuver to move out from behind wall toward enemies.

PC shoots at enemies.

PC, takes strain, and moves back behind wall so enemies cannot see or return fire.

On the NPC enemies turn, they have nothing to shot at. Rinse and repeat.

I really hate Players who pull this cr*p because they know it's not what the RAW intends and they just want to get away with scr*wing with you as a power play, it's annoying. They basically force you to justify an abstract rule that they already understand to catch you in a mistake of logic so they can run roughshod over you.

What you are describing here is leaving Heavy Cover and returning to Heavy Cover. If they refuse to accept this then find new players because it isn't going to get any better with them.

I haven't seen this in my games yet. But if my players did this, I would let them, as it is "playing by the rules". But when they come out of cover to shoot again, there won't be anyone there. Either "they"are hiding behind cover, or perhaps going around to flank them. If the PCs are behind cover they can't see the baddies moving around, Even if there is no target to shoot at, i would still make the PC take the maneuver-action-maneuver, taking the 2 Strain.

I also spend PC Threat/NPC advantages generated on them as Strain damage. I do a two threat/advantage for one Strain.I try to explain it in a narrative way, Like "the blaster bolt comes racing in at your head, you turn away, as you feel the heat of the super-heated plasma drive past you", take one Strain form the two advantages I rolled.

Strain for us is a hot commodity, that is not too easily replenished in combat. Stun grenades and weapons can eat away that Strain really fast, as can an enemy Politico.

For me and my players, we understand that in this game, all the action is happening at the same time. They don't try to pull this stuff, as it tends to ruin the flavor of the game and the atmosphere of my table. I try not to over do it with my combat scenes, and I don't make my enemies too crazy to beat, so they are not looking to "game" the system.

The final way you could look at this: the book says you get one setback die for cover. That is it, the end. If you are in cover that you can easily duck up and down from, or around, the cover only grants what the book says, if your players want to only use the rules from the book, and game the system.

Some things were already mentioned.

Personally, I don't mind players coming up with strategies like this. And if they're willing to suffer 2 strain per round for the extra maneuver, all the better.

As mentioned, minions can get an extra maneuver by converting an action. They might also have an officer in the group who can use Tactical Direction to give them an extra maneuver before their turn. Even without an extra maneuver, a minion group would still advance toward the corner, it's better than waiting to get picked off. Make sure your groups are big enough to take a number of hits and still have guys left to fire on the next turn. If the players continue to fall back, all the better, I say.

OR, the enemies could fall back, farther down a long hallway, where the PCs would have to take a second maneuver to close distance. You could leave cover for free and move down the hall for 1. Moving back to the corner would be 1, but you'd need another to "Interact with environment" for cover. The enemies could hold off, hide or just keep them there until reinforcements arrive, and then they advance and just take their losses but dish out some damage of their own.

This would also be an opportunity to make other skills useful. If your minions consistently advance relentlessly, they may want to have someone in the party use Coerce to keep them "in the pickle barrel".

Otherwise, there are still strategies if your minions don't advance. Grenades were mentioned. Since they are already causing themselves lots of Strain, I'd go with stun grenades. (if I'm feeling particularly evil) Slip in a Rival with a Special Ability (you know you can create your own, right) that lets a Grenadier convert 1 (net) Success per Rank to an Advantage instead. Better chance of activating a grenade's blast ability. Or have the grenade tossed just to the corner,

As mentioned before, just because there's no target, that doesn't mean the minions do nothing. They could find cover of their own, move something into the scene or drop prone. Anything you can do to add Setback dice. One or two Threat could add to that Strain cost of the battle. Three or more and they could lose that precious second action. (perhaps requiring an ally to pull them to safety - a risky (see below) athletics check because it's in the line of fire.

Remember, they aren't exactly catching the enemies by surprise each round. They are expected, and jumping around a corner to shoot at someone who knows you're there and has a weapon pointed in that direction is RISKY (as in worthy of an Upgrade risky.) Again, use the Threat to cost them more Strain, and Despair would mean that the player loses the second maneuver)

edit: Normally, I try not to do the same thing with Threat, and prefer to be more creative and narrative, but if the players are playing a strictly tactical game, then that's what I give them.

I would be fine with them doing this. If they're stupid enough to burn up all that Strain for a paltry advantage, that's their choice. And for justification it works fine for me - they're taking Strain because they're really pushing themselves to jump up and down fast enough to stop anyone getting a bead on them, maybe shuttle-running stooped down behind the wall to keep appearing in different places. Strain is finite. Burning it up like this is rather foolhardy, imo, but it's valid under the rules and I don't care.

More significantly, I think all of this is missing a more important point. In my experience, most problems with combat exploits are solved just by not playing the setting like a computer game. I have no idea why so many people play games where two parties just show up to kill each other. It makes no sense at all to me. I'm inclined to blame D&D, though.

So they're hiding behind a wall. What does that accomplish? Are they trying to get past the guards to escape? Fine - stay behind the wall until reinforcements arrive or your bomb goes off. Are they trying to rescue a prisoner being taken onto a transport? Fine stay behind the wall and watch them disappear over the horizon. Are they trying to assassinate an enemy commander? Well then why isn't the commander running away whilst they hide?

Either the PCs are attackers or they're defenders. If they're the attackers then they should be trying to *achieve* something with the combat else why risk their lives? Can that thing be achieved from behind a wall? If the guards are defenders why are they just staying there being shot? Why don't they fall back to another room or take cover behind a ship and wait for the PCs to advance? Are your guards idiots? If the PCs are defenders then why are the guards attacking? If the PCs are not trapped then what good does hiding behind a wall do them? If they are trapped, then hiding behind a wall only makes sense if there is no time constraint whatsoever. If time matters at all (even if it's only that their legs are going to cramp crouched down behind it after half an hour) they why are the guards letting themselves be killed instead of just waiting further back and forcing the PCs to make a break for it?

Or did the PCs walk into a room, see X number of level-appropriate guards waiting for them so that they could clear the room and move onto the next encounter? If so then there is your problem. All combat should have a purpose outside of itself.

Also, this: