I am playing an Age of Rebellion campaign with my friends and a problem occurred in an encounter with some stormtroppers on board a stardestroyer. We are fairly new to the game and used to playing DnD. The Stormtroopers were inside a room, and our group was outside and the door was already open. To start the encounter a PC moved and stood in the door opening, then started shooting at the troopers. After this we rolled initiative. Problem is that this PC could move first in the encounter, use his action to shoot and move out of the way to be hidden from line of sight. Is this possible? Also could all of the PC's have a "Surprise" turn to stand in the door and shoot?

Another thing, are you able to move into the doorway, shoot and move out again all in one turn? It seems wrong.

I am not sure but it seems like it doesn't cost a maneuver to move within short range. So can you move anywhere within short as an incidental?

You roll for initiative and that's it. You might make it somewhat fancy with assinging a non-standard method or just give the PCs some a bonus die for the surprise and/or setback dice for the stormtrooper, but basically it just a init check. Cool vs Vigiliance in that case, as the PCs knew what was coming (thus cool) while the Stormtroopers use vigiliance as they get basically ambushed.

Now to the second part. Moving is a maneuver, opening the door is a maneuver and moving out is another one. Using a 2nd maneuver in a turn is possible, so moving in, shoot and move out of line of sight works. At the cost of 2 strain or 2 advantage on your action. And here is the catch, the stormtrooper can just move out too. Cost them one maneuver and allows them to freely shoot at their targets, they might even take over at the door, which allows them to peek out while still gaining the defense bonus from their cover. Using the door as cover is clearly covered by the small movement changes mentioned for incidentals, but significant movement even within short range cost a maneuver.

EotE 2nd edition, page 202/203:

" Move

3rd Bulletin Moving within short range. Performing this maneuver allows an unengaged character to move to another position that is currently within short range of him."

As advice:

Keep in mind that one turn can represent a whole minute of combat, one action for example shooting rarely represents just one, shot, but severals shots, hitting, missing and all in between with the rolled damage as the final consequence of that action. This explains for example how a "single shot" can strike down several stormtrooper minions at once. So taking the door as cover and poking out for each shot in the firefight is covered by the incidental, storming the room, shooting around and running back out before the enemy can react … now that is an two maneuvers which we even have seen more or less by Han on the death star. Though he did a coercion check first to keep those troopers running for a while …

What your player did is exactly what the cover mechanic provides both mechanically and narratively.

The first thing to remember is one round is a nebulous amount of time. Many on these very forums liken it to about a minute. But the exact time is mostly undefined. Narratively speaking, in that span of time, a person could be ducking behind a crate, and poking his head out every so often to fire his blaster. All that could be just one turn. Mechanically, the PC just spent a maneuver to dive for cover and their action to fire their blaster. In the end, NPCs just add a setback die for the PC's cover.

Since the PC is using two maneuvers to duck in an and out of cover, you could be generous and give the PC some form of improved cover. If the NPC succeeds, it simply means that they were lucky and managed to hit the PC during one of those moments where the PC had looked around the corner.

Since the PC is using two maneuvers to duck in an and out of cover, you could be generous and give the PC some form of improved cover. If the NPC succeeds, it simply means that they were lucky and managed to hit the PC during one of those moments where the PC had looked around the corner.

From the narrative perspective I absolutely agree with you.

Mechanically speaking I would require the npcs to spend a maneuver on movement to cancel out two movement maneuvers of the PCs in that case. Either to move themselves past the door or into cover at the door themselves, either way they get a legitimate way to shoot at the players.

If I am in a nasty mood having both NPCs and PCs using the cover at the door … well it certainly sounds like engage range to me.

Problem is that this PC could move first in the encounter, use his action to shoot and move out of the way to be hidden from line of sight. Is this possible?

No, this is not possible. Per the rules, it takes a maneuver to get into cover, and cover just gives a setback*. It makes more sense if you realize that while mechanically everybody takes their turns in order, narratively everybody's turns overlap somewhat. If you poke your head out from behind a bunker and fire off a couple shots, you've exposed yourself to return fire.

You could certainly grant complete cover if they were already in cover from their maneuver last turn, and they did not expose themselves again, but that would be on a case by case basis, not a normal combat situation.

---------------------

* Note you can adjudicate whatever level of cover you think makes sense...a durasteel wall with tiny slits is going to impose more of a setback on the shooter than a large hydrangea, but a single setback is the default, and you're not compelled to entertain anything else.

Mechanically speaking I would require the npcs to spend a maneuver on movement to cancel out two movement maneuvers of the PCs in that case. Either to move themselves past the door or into cover at the door themselves, either way they get a legitimate way to shoot at the players.

If I am in a nasty mood having both NPCs and PCs using the cover at the door … well it certainly sounds like engage range to me.

Were I the GM in this case, I wouldn't require it.

Mechanically, a character can spend a maneuver to impose a setback die (through cover, prone, defensive maneuvers), so it stands to reason that 2 revenuers would be equivalent to 2 setback dice. The stipulation in this case would be if the character is already engaged with something that would provide enough cover that would allow them to utilize two maneuvers in this way.

As Whafrog pointed out, we're stepping outside the realms of RAW, so my post should be taken with a grain of salt, and is in no way a reflection of rules as written.

Also could all of the PC's have a "Surprise" turn to stand in the door and shoot?

While it's ultimately up to the GM, there are no formal surprise rounds in this system (not only would that be kinda OP in this system, there's specific talents related to allowing the players to go first). Instead you do things like modify the initiative pool, adding boosts, setbacks, upgrades and difficulties based on the situation and opposed skills if applicable.

Mechanically speaking I would require the npcs to spend a maneuver on movement to cancel out two movement maneuvers of the PCs in that case. Either to move themselves past the door or into cover at the door themselves, either way they get a legitimate way to shoot at the players.

If I am in a nasty mood having both NPCs and PCs using the cover at the door … well it certainly sounds like engage range to me.

Were I the GM in this case, I wouldn't require it.

Mechanically, a character can spend a maneuver to impose a setback die (through cover, prone, defensive maneuvers), so it stands to reason that 2 revenuers would be equivalent 2 setback dice. The stipulation in this case would be if the character is already engaged with something that would provide enough cover that would allow them to utilize to maneuvers in this way.

As Whafrog pointed out, we're stepping outside the realms of RAW, so my post should be taken with a grain of salt, and is in no way a reflection of rules as written.

In this special case the goal is not to take cover, but instead walk out of line of sight, utilising the move maneuver, with all the advantages and disadvantages that this brings. It means for example as well that next turn the PC has to spend another move just to get a shot, it means as well that he does not get any defense bonus, neither against advancing stormtroopers from the room nor against potential reinforcements which might appear on his side. This is imho not a case from cover, but basically running away. And btw, it might be inferior to just taking cover as well … well outside of that oddball of non-stacking defenses on characters with equipment which already provides more defense then the cover would. But that oddball is under review anyway and will hopefully get a fix sooner or later.

Though, to be completely honest, just ruling that this counts as taking cover and that's it, seems like it would lead to a much better gameflow, while giving clearly superior results if you allow the defense bonus from cover to stack defense from armor./weapons.

Seriously, I don't care how many maneuvers a guy is using, if he's shooting at people, they can shoot back. Standing behind a thick wall, spending most of your time completely out of sight is just improved cover. Standing behind that wall, not poking your head out, and shouting encouragement to your buddies? I'd say they can't shoot at you. Unless, of course, they spent a maneuver to get an angle on you, but they're going to focus on the guys with blasters out in the open anyway.

Thanks for the replies! W started to rule the game so you can't move twice in a turn. So every turn you may designate a place you want to move, before or after you take your action. This way you cannot move to two different places in one turn. (example, in out in the opening is one move, and moving again away behind the wall is a second move). If you want to move further you may spend the maneuvers consecutive.

That seems rather limiting, I can't imagine a good reason for it. The game works best if both the players and the GM don't try to micro-manage that kind of stuff.

The way I do it is: You can take a maneuver to get out of line of sight, and you can take a maneuver to get back in line of sight. So you can move in and out of line of sight while still shooting during a turn if you strain to get two maneuvers, but the enemies will respond appropriately and try to get into engaged range with you, or start doing the same.

Also, remember that people don't just wait idly, while one acts, then act separately. Much of the actions may happen at same time. So, I'd allow PC to do that without maneuver, but I'd only give him cover. IMO, when he shoots, he can be shot. It's different matter if PC goes purposefully behind a thick wall to cover, so he cannot be shot, but then he also cannot shoot.

That's a fair point, the NPCs turn technically does happen at the same time, so if you're ever exposed you could be counted as only being in cover. However, cover is an ongoing effect, you only need to maneuver to cover once and then you have the benefit of cover without having to spend more maneuvers until your cover is broken by you moving or enemies destroying it by spending advantage. So if you're spending two maneuvers every single round you should get more than just +1 defense for it.

That's a fair point, the NPCs turn technically does happen at the same time, so if you're ever exposed you could be counted as only being in cover. However, cover is an ongoing effect, you only need to maneuver to cover once and then you have the benefit of cover without having to spend more maneuvers until your cover is broken by you moving or enemies destroying it by spending advantage. So if you're spending two maneuvers every single round you should get more than just +1 defense for it.

IMO using two maneuvers per turn to practically make you invincible (i.e. allowing total cover so character cannot be attacked) is a thing which doesn't belong to this game. But if someone wants to allow that then it's not a problem to me. Then I'd just suggest that maybe nemesis NPCs can also do it. Personally I'd make it so that PC uses normally one maneuver to take cover and then attack from there and we'd handle the cover taking narratively (I'd also remind that PC can now aim).

If someone wants to allow 2 maneuver thing, then maybe give +2 to defence from it. Or what ever bonus seems appropriate.

Well, there is no such thing as total defense as long as the enemies you put your players up against don't act like they are just there to be killed. If a group of enemies obviously stands no chance in a stand up fight they should make an attempt to escape, try to sabotage equipment the players need, kill weaker NPCs the players want to protect, call in reinforcements that can handle it, try to sabotage the player's ship etc. Enemies can be threatening in dozens of ways that have nothing to do with combat.

I still think the general rules of the game permit moving in and out of total cover with two maneuvers. If you have an enemy firing down a street at you then it would take a maneuver to step into a building, which obviously would take away their ability to hit you, and it would take a maneuver to step out of the building, which would put you back in their line of sight. It may not be ideal, but the rules simply don't say anywhere that you can't finish your turn with a maneuver that takes you somewhere the enemies can't fire at you.

So, from my perspective, if a player wants to do that, ok, the enemy simply starts doing it as well and they can stalemate each other till the cows come home. Standoffs and skirmishes are a lot more common in war than everyone just going all in to force a decisive result.

If you have an enemy firing down a street at you then it would take a maneuver to step into a building, which obviously would take away their ability to hit you,...

This has already been covered, and no, the maneuver to step into a building would only give you cover, not take away their ability to hit you. The turns are not synchronous, they are asynchronous, which means everybody's turn overlaps somewhat. If you were exposed at the beginning of the turn and step into a building, the enemy can use the fact that you were exposed to still shoot you.

There is no rule that says "If you use a maneuver you go somewhere where the enemy can't shoot you you gain cover for the rest of the turn and are considered out of the line of sight of an enemy at the start of your next turn" as far as I can tell.

You can certainly say that a character that took an action against an enemy is always considered to be visible to that enemy until their next turn, that makes perfect sense actually, I'm just saying it's not in the core rules.

Except that it *is* in the core rules: it takes a maneuver to get into cover, and cover grants 1 setback...and may not even stack with other equipment or abilities the character has, so it might not even apply. There are no exceptions specified for durasteel walls or whatever else might make a shot impossible. IOW, it can't be clearer.

It's also in the core rules that you can use a maneuver to move to another position that is currently within short range of your character. If that position isn't in the line of fire of your opponent then there is nothing in the rules that says you have to treat it as cover if the player moves there.

Moving is a perfectly legal maneuver in the game and has the potential to take you somewhere where an enemy can't attack you without moving themselves.

You can use it to disengage from an enemy after striking them in melee for example, and force them to make a move to be able to attack you back.

You can use it to move from short to medium range after taking a shot at someone to force them to move or have to make a harder attack roll, or even get out of range of their weapon.

Why shouldn't you be able to move to a location where the enemy logically can't hit you?

I mean take another example, A Seer steps off a starship and has to roll vigilance initiative. He crushes the check thanks to his foresight, and realizes there is a sniper with a disruptor rifle aiming at him from long range. He moves back into the ship to avoid getting shot. According to you all this should do is add one measly setback to the sniper while he simply gets to take the shot anyways. How does that make any sense? A character who literally has hundreds of XP invested in the ability to see ambushes coming can't actually avoid them even if they succeed at seeing them coming? But here is the kicker, if that Jedi had just been walking along open ground and moved into long range of the sniper and got his first turn he could have used two maneuvers to just run back to extreme range and be safe, unless moving to another range band also only counts as cover in your session.

Or another example, a Toydarian character hovers above a Gamorrean thug, and uses one maneuver to get to engaged range with an opponent, attack them in melee and then uses another maneuver to disengage back into the air. The Gamorrean doesn't have the ability to fly and cannot move to engage the Toydarian. This is a perfectly legal use of the movement rules of the game, it doesn't say anywhere enemies get to attack you with a setback if you manage to end your turn somewhere where they can't reach. This isn't a broken mechanic, the Gamorrean just has to adopt a strategy that can actually beat the Toydarian, like throwing his weapon at him, or moving to medium range so that the Toydarian would have to use two moves to get to engaged and thus won't be able to fly to safety at the end of his turn.

I think the key here is the overlapping timing.

Sure, the targets in question can move out of range, but their actions overlap with the actions of the people who are trying to attack them. That setback die represents the increased probability that the target will be able to move out of range before the attacker can manage to hit them.

So, you resolve the actions in a serial manner, but when it comes to the back-and-forth actions during a combat, everything overlaps with everything else to a certain degree.

How much it overlaps (or doesn’t) will control how many setback dice are added to the roll for the attacker to hit the individual who is moving out of range or into cover.

If that position isn't in the line of fire of your opponent then there is nothing in the rules that says you have to treat it as cover if the player moves there.

What? If you move out of sight, that's synonymous with "taking cover". You don't get to not be a target.

Why shouldn't you be able to move to a location where the enemy logically can't hit you?

Because you're exposed for the turn. You're conveniently ignoring the simultaneity in the rules. With games like D&D you can get away with your interpretation, in this one you can't. In any case, if the game was supposed to allow you to do what you're doing, why would they bother defining the movement requirements to get into cover, and then define what cover was? It's pretty specific.

Your examples are outliers. If you're fluttering over a Gamorrean and make a melee attack, he still has a chance to hit you as you flee. It's that simultaneity thing again.

If the Seer wins the Vigilance roll they can act to increase their defense, or do any number of other things. If they wanted to dash back into the ship, and spent their action and two maneuvers to do so, I'd certainly let it pass. But if they wanted to take a quick shot at something or make a Perception check to get a read on the situation, and then dash back in...yeah, they'd only get the single setback for cover.

I think the key here is the overlapping timing.

So if I kill an enemy they should be allowed to shoot back with setback because of overlapping timing? I guess it really doesn't even matter if Han Solo shot first.

Why should movement be subject to overlapping timing but nothing else? There are dozens of ways of removing a character from combat or making an attack impossible, but when it comes to movement you suddenly want to just houserule the value of having initiative out of existence?

What if I use Misdirect to make myself invisible to the shooter? Can they just shout "Overlapping timing" and downgrade my force power to just being a setback?

What if I hit someone with a concussive weapon? Can they just say "Overlapping timing" and take their action anyways?

What if I sunder someone's weapon? Can they just declare "Overlapping timing" and shoot me with it?

The whole game doesn't make sense anymore if you don't respect the fact that this game resolves initiative in sequence. Just because in some rare circumstances the move maneuver can be used to make a character impossible to attack doesn't mean you should break the core mechanics of the game. There are dozens of ways of making someone unable to attack in the rules, and none of them are subject to ANY rule that let's the opponent simply disregard it with a bit of setback.

What? If you move out of sight, that's synonymous with "taking cover". You don't get to not be a target.

No it isn't. It's two entirely different maneuvers and you're flat out disregarding the rules of the game by treating them the same. Page 214 and 215 of the AoR rulebook gives you an overview of maneuvers. Taking cover is listed under the "Interact with the Environment" section of the maneuvers. It also very clearly states that Move is a maneuver that allows you to change range increments, engage or disengage from a target or move to another location within short range. The text even specifically reads "A character can make a move [...] away from an assassin droid's vibroblade, or out of range of an enemy's blaster pistol." It flat out says in the book that you are allowed to move to place yourself outside of the influence of an opponents attack with absolutely no mention that this counts as taking cover or that the opponent still gets to hit you.

You're basically disregarding the rules of the game just because there is a rare circumstance where a character can avoid being attacked by moving. This doesn't even break the game, it's just a player recognizing a circumstance where that is a smart move and taking it. A good GM doesn't try to houserule intelligent play out of existence, he makes the enemies react to change the circumstances that allow the player to get the upper hand that way.

Oh, yeah, total brain fart on the Toydarian and melee... of course you can move out of range of melee.

But for the rest, we're just talking about taking cover. Nobody said anything about range increments or whatever, the discussion is about the OP's case where somebody pops out to shoot, then pops back and thinks they can't be shot. And in that case I say no, you'll have cover but the enemy can take a shot.

It is totally rules legal to do that though. The thing to keep in mind is, if you run behind a house to stop an enemy from shooting you the enemy can simply use their move to follow you. 90% of the time move counters move. The only time you can actually just pop in and out of total concealment is if you're fighting an enemy that can't get to you for some reason, in which case there is nothing wrong with using the rules as stated to counter them. At that point the GM just makes the enemy realize that they can't win that way and alter their strategy. The sniper simply packs up and leaves and tries to ambush the players again later for example. You simply don't allow situations to happen where players can just abuse this to step in and out of total concealment over and over to defeat an opponent. There is no reason for the opponent to let that happen. If they have no way to counter it they simply leave and plan a better ambush.