I've recently noticed that defence from cover and defence for cover don't stack.

I was wondering if people found this to be good or does making them stack just throw everything off to much?

Defense rules are under revision.

Defense rules are under revision a mess.

Fixed that for you.

They are unnecessarily complicated imo. I don't know how they got from simple Soak which you can add from a single source type, armor, talents, cybernetics, etc. to Defense, which is an absolute @#$% show.

I wish they would run Defense just like Soak. You can add it from a single source type, but multiple sources, so a piece of gear (armor, shield, etc), Talents, Maneuvers, maybe cybernetics at some point, and environment (wall, bunker, smokescreen, Doug, etc).

I also wish they hadn't split it between Melee and Ranged. That just adds complicated for complicated's sake imo.

I also wish they hadn't split it between Melee and Ranged. That just adds complicated for complicated's sake imo.

I'm just thankful that Soak isn't designated by type (melee or ranged) too.

I also wish they hadn't split it between Melee and Ranged. That just adds complicated for complicated's sake imo.

I'm just thankful that Soak isn't designated by type (melee or ranged) too.

I suppose the tankard is half full it's true.

I also wish they hadn't split it between Melee and Ranged. That just adds complicated for complicated's sake imo.

I'm just thankful that Soak isn't designated by type (melee or ranged) too.

I suppose the tankard is half full it's true.

With all due respect, the OP wasn't asking for another referendum on the complexity of the rules, but for a GM's perspective on the effect on your game when you use them. No need to bog this down with everyone's feels before starrius even gets his/her question answered.

I personally have players who are good enough at optimizing for these sorts of things that we all like that they don't stack; this game is already pretty blunted when it comes to PC danger; a little more risk works well for my group.

I've recently noticed that defence from cover and defence for cover don't stack.

I was wondering if people found this to be good or does making them stack just throw everything off to much?

I think it varies quite a bit.

A number of folks in the early going had a lot of trouble getting around the notion that defense from armor and defense from cover didn't stack. Of course, back then it wasn't too big of a deal because you didn't have that many ways to add to one's ranged defense beyond cover and armor, so two setback dice isn't that huge of a deal (3 if using a personal shield, which has no soak bonus). There's a couple items with the Deflection quality (which adds a bonus to ranged defense) but they're not commonly-used weapons. As for how much of a problem that is, it depends on how often setback dice have an impact on any given roll. There are some players that have unusually good luck and any setback dice on their checks come up blank, and yet I remember a demo game I ran where one poor player had every setback die in his pool come up with a failure symbol (other players were using those dice and didn't have nearly as rotten luck in their setback dice results).

That being said, the melee defense side of things is a bit messier, as there's now a plethora of ways to get weapons with the Defensive quality (the real root of the current issues with how Defense is calculated).

As for stacking them, as the PCs get better at their combat skills and the Adversaries get more capable, an extra setback die vs. ranged attacks probably won't make that big of a difference. It might when dealing with attackers who are only rolling a couple of dice (ability or proficiency), so if a PC with Agility 2 and Ranged (Light) 1 is trying to shoot a bad guy that's wearing armored clothing and hiding behind cover, that presence of a second setback die is going to have more of an immediate impact than it would for the PC that's rocking Agility 3 and Ranged (Light) 3 while using a weapon with the Accurate 1 quality.

There are two major schools of thought on this

1. Let defense stack - because it starts balancing the defense and attack pools. Most attack pools are at least +1 die larger than the defense pool. Characters like it, it enhances their survivability. GM's need to be careful to use judgement on what stacks though.

2. Don't let defense stack - because it encourage character not to use cover. This keeps the action flowing, since sitting behind a box plinking doesn't give you an advantage. They have a reason to vault the box and flank the enemy, since it reduces the enemy's defense, but won't affect his own.

Personally, I let defense stack, my players prefer a more "realistic" approach where cover is king. But I use those threats to trash cover, and everything else I can to try to dig them out.

First off, I have to say I love the SW FFG system. I really think it is the best SW RPG made to date. But...there is always a but isn't there? But, I really feel for as great as the books look, and the high physical quality of them, the writing and overall layout of them leave a lot to be desired. So, I just to set up that I'm not just FFG fanboy that feels they do no wrong, or on the other end, just bashing them because it's not D20.

So as to Cover and Defense ratings. Well, I have been GMing this now on and off for about three years. I feel I have a pretty good handle on the mechanics of the game...and I just changed a major way I run the game.

Since time immemorial, I have ran cover and defense in the strictest sense of the book wording. In a sense, they don't stack. But after really looking at the passages in the book, and hearing about this on the Order 66 Podcast, I have changed my mind on this, and I think on the O66, (Sam Smith?) was talking about this, and I think he too got it wrong. Let's look at the passage from the book shall we:

"Multiple sources of defense do not stack. However, the character always uses the best defense rating available to him. If he possesses a defense rating of 1 against all attacks, but a defense rating of 2 against melee attacks, he applies the defense 2 against all close combat attacks." ECRB p 207....I know I should use FaD..but I tend to pick the ECRB more often.

Hmm, another poorly written paragraph. The burning question here is what constitutes a "source". Well, we are left to infer from their given examples. Those examples are a Defense against ALL attacks and a Defense against Melee attacks. So it is saying no one can argue that my "all Defense 1 can stack with my Defense 2, for a new total of 3." It does not list out an example of cover or not. What if I have armor and a shield? Well, according to this paragraph and what it has constituted to be a "Source", then yes, they in fact stack.

Moving to the Cover section. Wow, this is going to be hard to write. Let me cover the topic of cover that is covered in the Environmental Effects chapter... LOL.

Yes, cover is deemed to be an Environmental Effect and clearly states that:

"To keep things simple, being behind some sort of cover-a rock, crate, wall, or vehicle, for example-in­creases the character's ranged defense by 1..." ECRB p 213

So the book is clearly stating that Cover will Increase the characters Ranged Defense by 1. If it did not intend for them to stack, they would (have been more vauge) said something to the effect that cover will change your RD to 1, or something else, not INCREASE it.

So to all my past players out there...sorry, I got this one wrong...but at least an old dog can be taught new tricks.

So for me at least, from here on out Defense stuff stacks.

FFG, I love y'all, but man, you guys need to nail down your writing...still better than WotC!!! LOL

I wish they would run Defense just like Soak. You can add it from a single source type, but multiple sources, so a piece of gear (armor, shield, etc), Talents, Maneuvers, maybe cybernetics at some point, and environment (wall, bunker, smokescreen, Doug, etc).

Caption: A stormtrooper hiding behind a wall, in a bunker, behind some smoke, and finally, behind the cartoon character Doug Funny.

2P51 is clearly playing a more interesting game then I am...

Man we have beaten this horse to death, but there really doesn't seem to be a good answer to the question. It's too situational to make a hard & fast rule that works for everything, and when you try to encapsulate everything, you get a clunky mess. My advice is to let your common sense prevail.

Man we have beaten this horse to death, but there really doesn't seem to be a good answer to the question. It's too situational to make a hard & fast rule that works for everything, and when you try to encapsulate everything, you get a clunky mess. My advice is to let your common sense prevail.

possibly why its taking so long to get a full Errata response from FFG.

Man we have beaten this horse to death, but there really doesn't seem to be a good answer to the question. It's too situational to make a hard & fast rule that works for everything, and when you try to encapsulate everything, you get a clunky mess. My advice is to let your common sense prevail.

possibly why its taking so long to get a full Errata response from FFG.

From the sound of things when I spoke to him last. It sounded like it was on Sam's To Do list, but not a huge priority. It's a frustrating answer, but it's a good thing that they're keeping him busy. All that delicious new material they keep pumping out must be taking all his time.

I'd like to thank everyone for their input and taking the time to help me.

I might try the next adventure them stacking so I can see the difference in action