After running this game every other week for a year, I'm wondering how your players are recovering their strain that quickly. Managing strain is the surefire way to nip this in the bud as the GM!

However, I don't feel like penalizing the players for playing the game as the rules allow is the right answer. My answer is to challenge them in combat in different ways, for example placing environmental conditions that induce strain, or events that lead up to the fight induce strain (a long hike, climbing the outside of a building, etc.)

Others have said it, but it bears repeating: your bad guys can pull the same tricks, and they should! And, now that the PC crew has developed a rep in a fight, your baddies might have some foresight to plan better.

Of course you need to be the PC's biggest fan and guide the story to be fun for all, but challenge births champions and it's the hard fights most players enjoy.

Just my two cents but the fact the rules point out turns happen sequentially as a matter of mechanics and in reality occur near simultaneously means this sort of tactic doesn't fly. Bottom line is they are either using cover to engage in combat and have access to the applicable Setback dice, or they are in total cover removed from combat and not able to effectively participate.

Beyond the rule gaming, GMs need to equip opponents realistically and have them use good tactics. A group of armed opponents with knowledge of the adversaries they may face will be equipped to handle contingencies just like anyone else. They're going to have melee options, they will have non lethal capture options, they will have crowd control/area denial capability, they will have indirect fire options, etc. My point being there is no 'peak-a-boo, you can't shoot me' rule shenanigans at my table.

hmm I swear I read that cover, (not just concealment also provides +1 defense as well as a setback die to the attacker. which can be negated by things like Precision aim etc.

Is this incorrect?

Another question If I may I understand the 'simultaneous' combat concept but if there is initiative and separate actions per player/npc how is this also simultaneous? just curious

Hmm

hmm I swear I read that cover, (not just concealment also provides +1 defense as well as a setback die to the attacker. which can be negated by things like Precision aim etc.

Is this incorrect?

AFAIK the setback die comes from the +1 defense.

Another question If I may I understand the 'simultaneous' combat concept but if there is initiative and separate actions per player/npc how is this also simultaneous? just curious

Because if everyone talked at same time it would be caos. It is just to keep things more simple.

Hmm

Also, forum tip: Avoid multiples sequencial posts. If you want to add a extra question and nobody replied to the thread yet just use the edit button.

hmm I swear I read that cover, (not just concealment also provides +1 defense as well as a setback die to the attacker. which can be negated by things like Precision aim etc.

Is this incorrect?

They do call out that especially heavy or prepared cover can grant +2 defense. Things mentioned are trenches, bunkers with firing ports, and things of that nature.

Another question If I may I understand the 'simultaneous' combat concept but if there is initiative and separate actions per player/npc how is this also simultaneous? just curious

I actually said "near simultaneously". Someone still goes before someone else but the concept is that action happens very quickly. In the original example the characters exiting 'full cover' shooting at a target and then returning to 'full cover' thinking that the opponents are apparently required to wait after being shot at to fire back is where some people are going off track.

At sufficient range and without an indirect fire option or the ability to flank and get the angle, I might allow characters to be in full cover. However, if they emerge from cover and engage opponents, I don't care if they have a maneuver left, their only option for not receiving return fire is to kill everyone they are shooting at. Point is, while they are firing, unless they kill the opponent or minion group, it isn't realistic to think the bad guys aren't going to immediately return fire.

Well that's the point of the whole discussion. As you said, it isn't at all realistic for the enemies to be standing like statues, allowing the PCs to emerge from total cover inside an alley, stand in the open and fire, then return to total cover inside the alley, all without the enemies ever returning fire since it isn't "their turn".

Nevertheless, this is exactly how the rules work . You shouldn't be imagining or describing the events as a series of discreet actions in which each participant acts on his turn while the others stand like statues. That would be ridiculous and would ruin the narrative of the game. Yet that is, in fact, exactly what happens according to the game mechanics.

That's what makes the behaviour in question an exploit - it does indeed follow the technical letter of the rules, but it obviously violates the spirit of the rules.

However, if they emerge from cover and engage opponents, I don't care if they have a maneuver left, their only option for not receiving return fire is to kill everyone they are shooting at.

While I would probably make a similar call myself, it should be recognised that this would be merely a house rule. By the rules as written, the "emerge/fire/return-to-total-cover" tactic is perfectly legal and works exactly the way the exploitive players want it to.

The GM can certainly put a stop to this if he chooses; but this will simply be an exercise in GM fiat. Namely, he'll just be declaring, "I don't care what the rules allow. You can't do that because I say you can't ."

While I would probably make a similar call myself, it should be recognised that this would be merely a house rule. By the rules as written, the "emerge/fire/return-to-total-cover" tactic is perfectly legal and works exactly the way the exploitive players want it to.

The GM can certainly put a stop to this if he chooses; but this will simply be an exercise in GM fiat. Namely, he'll just be declaring, "I don't care what the rules allow. You can't do that because I say you can't ."

Sorry, no, it's the opposite, and this is specified on page 202. By the rules as written, you need a maneuver to move into cover, and cover grants +1 defense (maybe +2 if the GM agrees it's hard cover). It stays at +1 until circumstances change or you move out of cover. In other words, you can't avoid getting shot at.

Where the GM fiat comes in is letting the players hunker down behind total cover and not getting shot at all. I could be wrong, but I don't recall seeing anything about total cover in the rules, so it's entirely up to the GM.

Okay, I thought about this for a bit and I realized something that would also be a RAW way of dealing with the OPs situation.

First it is an exploit what the Players are doing but it is technically within the the RAW if the battlefield is set up in a way that would allow a PC to get behind complete cover. However once all the PCs are within that complete cover they have effectively ended combat because they cannot see or be seen by their opponents. Remember that Combat Rounds are around one minute long (they can be shorter or longer as necessary, as determined by the GM, but the base described in the CRB is a minute) and a lot can happen in a minute if you can't see where your enemy is.

So when the PCs finish their first attack/retreat end combat until they decide to go back around the corner, at which point it is now a new encounter and combat starts fresh: Re-distribute your Enemy, even hide them ambush style so that the PCs must make a Perception Roll to even know where their targets might be (or even remove them entirely as they may have thought the PCs were making a run for it and they chose to try and engage them somewhere else). Heal any Enemies that could be healed as if they were out of combat for a minute (the PCs could do this too if they think of it). If the Enemy are still there re-roll Initiative and begin Combat again.

If the Player's what to avoid this then at least one PC must remain in a position to observe at least some of their opponents, one very lonely PC with a nice set of concentric circles on their forehead...

The point is that Players should be rewarded for coming up with good in-game ideas to handle situations but if they are just exploiting an artifact of the mechanics because of how Pen & Paper RPGs work then you're well within your rights to turn that exploit back on them or use one of your own. Hopefully doing this once or twice will be enough to move on and have everyone accept that once you are in Combat if you want to engage an enemy they can engage you back.

Edit: But for the record I agree with whafrog.

While I would probably make a similar call myself, it should be recognised that this would be merely a house rule. By the rules as written, the "emerge/fire/return-to-total-cover" tactic is perfectly legal and works exactly the way the exploitive players want it to.

The GM can certainly put a stop to this if he chooses; but this will simply be an exercise in GM fiat. Namely, he'll just be declaring, "I don't care what the rules allow. You can't do that because I say you can't ."

Sorry, no, it's the opposite, and this is specified on page 202. By the rules as written, you need a maneuver to move into cover, and cover grants +1 defense (maybe +2 if the GM agrees it's hard cover). It stays at +1 until circumstances change or you move out of cover. In other words, you can't avoid getting shot at.

You're misunderstanding what's being described.

Your description of "cover" (in the game mechanics sense) is perfectly correct. But what the players in question are trying to do doesn't involve "cover" at all - not in the game mechanics sense of that term. It's simply about breaking line of sight.

For example, suppose you have a long street in which a shootout in taking place - the PCs at one end and their enemies at the other. There is also a wide alley running off the street near the PCs position. The following occurs:

1. The PCs stand in the middle of the street (no cover) and fire at their enemies. Note that the lack of cover doesn't hurt them because (in mechanical terms) the enemies aren't attacking now - it's not their turn to do so.

2. The PCs then use a maneuver to walk twenty feet down the alley, COMPLETELY out of the sight of the enemies. They can even stand in the middle of the alley (no cover) if they wish - it makes no difference.

3. The enemies have their turn. They can't fire on the PCs AT ALL because they can't SEE them. There is no line of sight. Whether the PCs are actually in cover or not is irrelevant since no attack can take place. Note, also, that this particular system does not allow the enemies to "ready an action" to fire when the PCs reemerge. If they can't see their target during their own turn, they can't fire at all.

4. The PCs have their next turn. They use one maneuver to walk from the middle of the alley (no cover) to the middle of the street (no cover).

5. They stand in the middle of the street and use their action to fire at the enemies.

6. They use a second maneuver to walk back to the middle of the alley (no cover) completely breaking line of sight and making them (unless the situation somehow changes) once more immune to attack.

7. The enemies have their turn and once again cannot fire at all because they cannot see the PCs at all.

8. Repeat 4-through-7 as needed until the enemies are dead.

As I said, this is all perfectly legal by the rules as written. Would I personally allow it? No, I'd nip this sort of the thing in the bud very quickly. But my point was that I can't tell the players they're breaking the rules . I can only say that I won't let them do this because "It's bad for the game" or something like that.

I'm not misunderstanding it, what you're describing has no bearing on the rules. There are no rules for "lines of sight", that's entirely up to the GM.

Point 2 is a perfect example of "using a maneuver to gain cover". That's when they get +1 defense... and that's all they get . Anything else is not legal, it's granted to them by the courtesy of the GM.

It's really simple, and it's obvious the reason the rules are set up to require a maneuver to grant +1 defense is to avoid the situation like the OP described. Ranges, movement, lines of sight, cover, etc...these are all abstract in this game. In games where these things are more concrete, there are also rules for "attacks of opportunity" and the like. Thankfully, because the former is abstract, the latter isn't necessary.

I understand exactly what you're saying but, as politely as possible, I have to tell you that your analysis sounds like an "apologist" attempt to dodge a result you don't want to acknowledge.

Yes, the rules don't explicitly mention line of sight - they don't explicitly mention lots of things. You still can't fire at a target twenty feet down an alley when you have no angle. I don't need to defend this.

And likewise, no, Point 2 is most certainly not "using a maneuver to gain cover and +1 defense". Like I said, they're standing in the open (in the alley) and haven't even "taken cover" at all - anyone who has a shot on their position can shoot them without cover. The enemies in the scenario simply can't attack in the first place since they have no shot.

You can continue to question these points if you like, but I won't debate them. There's nothing to debate.

It's really simple, and it's obvious the reason the rules are set up to require a maneuver to grant +1 defense is to avoid the situation like the OP described.

The reason the rules require using a maneuver to enter cover is because it's a form of repositioning. It's the same as how a maneuver must be used to "engage" with a target before attacking him with a melee weapon, even if you're already within short range.

OverMatt. In my post above I believe that I outlined why this maneuver can easily be justified in the RAW as exiting combat and not just hiding in an area that they are not visible. Because rounds are about a minute and neither side can see the other anymore neither side can be sure the other is even still present. Even if they do think they are still there or can hear them they still have no idea of their disposition anymore when the group chooses to go around the corner again. So unless the Enemy chooses to follow the PCs around the corner the encounter is effectively over because both sides can no longer engage each other.

Another thing is that because the PC no longer know where the enemy is when they do go around the corner they open themselves up to an ambush and although there are no rules for reading actions a GM is well within their right to add Setback die or dice to the PC's new Initiative roll.

The GM sets the scene. Why is there a road with no cover? There are no cars, trucks, colums in the building facades or doors? Even on ships there are places where the participants in a combat can take cover.

When you get to 2 then why wouldn't you fall out of structured game time and back into a more narrative time? When the last guy runs behind the walls to the ally say "Congratulations you escape the combat, what do you do now?" Meanwhile the NPCs are doing things, calling for help, getting to cover or trying to move to get shots on the ally. Most likely they are expecting the PCs to run and will begin to chase or perhaps they know it is a dead end and set up an ambush for the players.

The players can't know, they broke LOS.

If any player(s) walks back out into the street, he can, but roll initiative new and go from there. They may be standing in the street for a while.

I think the GM is making the mistake by continuing with Structured Time, simply he has allowed the players to leave combat but kept the game in Structured Game time.

I understand exactly what you're saying but, as politely as possible, I have to tell you that your analysis sounds like an "apologist" attempt to dodge a result you don't want to acknowledge.

As politely as possible...you're dragging in elements from other games that don't exist in these rules and confusing the issue. It's not about apologist anything, it's about game and rule structure, and you appear to have experience with only one type of game. There *is* an element of overlapping turns and action resolution that is built into the game, and EotE isn't the only one.

Some games are explicit that visibility and positioning is based on where you are at the end-of-turn. Other games allow for opportunity attacks based on movement through a line of sight...even though the shooter's turn is resolved after the mover's turn, they still get a chance to hit the target on the move.

An example of the first might be Lord of the Rings Strategy Battle Game. In those rules, there is no opportunity fire. Models move, and you can only shoot at a target based on the model's position after their move is completed. It's very much WYSIWYG, you have to get down to the model's eye view to see if you can shoot.

There's a WW2 game (don't recall the name) my friends sometimes host that is completely different. If your tank crosses line of sight of another tank, it doesn't matter where your tank ends up, the opponent can try to shoot at any point in their line of sight. This means after your turn is done (and all your models are moved) you might end up shot and have to recalculate where you actually ended up.

EotE is set up more like the latter. It's intentionally non-tactical. If you aren't in cover and you move to cover, you get +1 defense and that is all. It's a super simple rule to handle these situations and it makes it easy for the GM to adjudicate, because it's a lot easier to grant than take away. All you're doing is dragging in cumbersome tactical elements which only make it *more* likely for players to find "loopholes" and more work for the GM to have to remove.

Yes, the rules don't explicitly mention line of sight - they don't explicitly mention lots of things. You still can't fire at a target twenty feet down an alley when you have no angle. I don't need to defend this.

And likewise, no, Point 2 is most certainly not "using a maneuver to gain cover and +1 defense". Like I said, they're standing in the open (in the alley) and haven't even "taken cover" at all - anyone who has a shot on their position can shoot them without cover. The enemies in the scenario simply can't attack in the first place since they have no shot.

You can continue to question these points if you like, but I won't debate them. There's nothing to debate.

You're right, there's nothing to debate...you are clearly mistaken. I don't expect to convince you, but you are confusing the issue for others. This is apparent with your counter for point 2: the act of walking down the alley is "taking cover". That's the maneuver! Taking cover doesn't mean hiding behind a bush with your toes sticking out. It can be a lot of things, including walking down the alley. Yes, at the end of the walker's turn they may not be in line of sight, but during the period they shot and then walked down they alley, they were in line of sight, and that--because of the style of game EotE is (see above)--allows the shooters to get a shot in, with a setback accounting for the fact that part of the time their target was in cover.

You're certainly able to decide that the player has total cover in the next turn. Nobody would challenge that. But the player couldn't shoot again...if they do so, they're back to +1 defense (or +2 if the cover is superior) because at some point they decided to pop their head out.