Hey everyone! Can a PC be around a corner from an enemy, take a maneuver to walk around that corner, shoot the enemy, then take two strain (or spend advantage on the roll) to walk back around the corner again? I don't see anything in the rules that suggests that they can't, but it seems ridiculous to imagine - essentially just strolling around the corner, shooting someone, then leisurely strolling back around the corner before anyone can respond! Naturally the enemy could run up around the corner, but if they're at Medium or Long range that'd be hard for them to do! Thanks in advance.

I think you're making the situation more complicated than it needs to be.

Namely, one doesn't have to completely step out from behind cover in order to attack someone. In movies (including Star Wars) we see the protagonists firing from around corners and over desks or from behind car doors or other parts of the scene that quantify as cover.

Unless the PC is looking to change their range band in relation to the target or to step completely out of cover (such as what Kanan did prior to breaking out his lightsaber against Kallus' Imperials in Spark of Rebellion), I wouldn't charge them a full maneuver to be able to shoot an enemy from behind cover and then another maneuver to hunker back down; that sort of thing is generally presumed to be going on anyway, with the shooter popping up to snap off a couple shots before ducking back down.

It's called using cover. If they're in combat, they're in combat and can be shot at. There is no, 'you can't see me you can't shoot me, but I can shoot you' if they're engaging in combat. The rules point out that combat unfolds near simultaneously, so they may 'step out' and fire first, but in a fraction of the second they are also fired at while they're exposed.

6 minutes ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Namely, one doesn't have to completely step out from behind cover in order to attack someone

Indeed, though that is the strategy that the player in question is interested in using - instead of getting a couple setbacks to the enemy roll from being in cover, he wants to completely retreat each turn and be out of sight completely.

Narratively I concur with 2P51 that it should all be happening simultaneously, but I wasn't aware of any actual rules on the matter. I think my player will be satisfied with a GM veto on narrative grounds, but I wish there were something explicit!

It is in the rules in the combat section on things unfolding more or less simultaneously. Your PC is thinking like a linear table top mini game with things occurring chronologically.

Quote

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

AoR p. 210

Indeed, though that still isn't an explicit rule against what the topic was! It is, however, justification for what already makes the most sense

Yeah, what you describe is going into and out of cover, the setback isnt just the fact that they a character is partially protected but also can be applied that they are better protected for part of the time.

I'd pretty much give them one or two defense for cover and call it good. No need to get more complicated.

The only time I'd allow someone to *not* get shot at is if they are under solid cover and do not expose themselves at any time during their turn. If they want to take a shot from behind cover, the enemy can always fire back, getting a setback (or two if it's hard cover and you're generous).

3 hours ago, Dainius2 said:

Indeed, though that still isn't an explicit rule against what the topic was! It is, however, justification for what already makes the most sense

Sure it's explicit: you can spend 2A to gain cover, and cover grants you only one setback to the enemy. Them's the simple, explicit rules. You can't convert that to say "2A gives complete immunity to return fire".

I'd let a PC find "total cover" (assuming it's available in the scenario) to not be easily and normally targeted by enemy fire but that means they cannot attack back and as soon as they "break" cover then they're a viable target. But I also reserve the option to remove that cover either through using Advantage/Threat or other enemy actions. For example, I can see a medic dragging a fallen ally to a spot with "total cover" then taking further actions for Medicine or stim packs (it's an "inefficient" use of Maneuvers/Actions but it's safer).

But the action during combat in this system is meant to be cinematic and cover things that dynamically happen and to narratively cover more than just the discrete mechanical benefits. Your turn can take up as much narrative time (4 seconds or 2 minutes) as appropriate for the scenario and what you're doing and it's not meant to be tactically precise.

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a PC that is completely blocked from sight and fire from using a maneuver to obtain line-of-sight (for example, going from one room to another room), using an action to shoot at something/someone, then a second maneuver (taking 2 strain) to go back where they started (out of sight and, at least temporarily, safe ... until any survivors chase the character down during their own turn). Since the FFG system has no such thing as "opportunity attacks" per the RAW this sort of thing is perfectly legal if a player is being smart and taking advantage of terrain a GM has created. Whether a character can go from full/total cover to a firing position and back again in the same turn is very situational. The fact that the PC made a "sneak" attack is transitory. Just because the PC got back in cover doesn't stop an enemy on their own turn from moving to where the PC went to hide and shooting the PC in revenge (unless said PC acts at both the bottom of one turn and the top of the next turn before the enemy can get their own turn).

8 minutes ago, ShadoWarrior said:

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a PC that is completely blocked from sight and fire from using a maneuver to obtain line-of-sight (for example, going from one room to another room), using an action to shoot at something/someone, then a second maneuver (taking 2 strain) to go back where they started (out of sight and, at least temporarily, safe ... until any survivors chase the character down during their own turn). Since the FFG system has no such thing as "opportunity attacks" per the RAW this sort of thing is perfectly legal if a player is being smart and taking advantage of terrain a GM has created. Whether a character can go from full/total cover to a firing position and back again in the same turn is very situational. The fact that the PC made a "sneak" attack is transitory. Just because the PC got back in cover doesn't stop an enemy on their own turn from moving to where the PC went to hide and shooting the PC in revenge (unless said PC acts at both the bottom of one turn and the top of the next turn before the enemy can get their own turn).

Have fun with that, that is until the GM starts doing it then just brace yourself for the flood of whinging and moaning from the players...

Players that whine when a GM does unto them what they've done themselves need to grow up. If you don't want a GM to do something to you then don't give them any ideas.

8 minutes ago, FuriousGreg said:

Have fun with that, that is until the GM starts doing it then just brace yourself for the flood of whinging and moaning from the players...

This kind of gets to the notion of why you can't do it really.

Both sides would. Then we get into the 'who comes out of cover first game', then you apply everything happens more or less at the same time, like the rules say, not sure how explicitly something has to be stated to apply, but they say it, and then we go back to, it's called using cover/interacting with the environment, it's a Maneuver. Now stop loop holing the rules and roll the dice.......

1 minute ago, 2P51 said:

Now stop loop holing the rules and roll the dice.......

It almost seems like playing this way isn't all that favorable, as while you might be able to get an attack in on the enemy, nothing is really stopping them from doing the same thing on their turn. So instead all you've ended up doing is move out of cover (because no way am I gonna let a player Maneuver to be within LOS, Action to shoot, suffer Strain for a second Maneuver, and then Maneuver back out of LOS -and- get into Cover) and forced the enemy to spend a maneuver to chase you.

While from a D&D perspective this might work out OK (hence the existence and usefulness of feats like Spring Attack), it just doesn't do you any good with range bands and far more narrative forms of LOS/distance.

The way I look at it is like this: when the player is asking if they can do this, clearly the intent is to be able to attack a (relatively) stationary opponent without them having the ability to attack back. So, I ask a question: what is the reasoning for why the target is unable to attack back?

If the answer is mechanical ("Because it's not their turn;" "Because they didn't 'ready an action,'"), then the ruling is no, you can't do that. You were completely visible (and not in any sort of cover) at some point during your turn, and they could shoot you at that moment, even if at both the start and end of your turn they couldn't. Maybe I'd give you the benefit of light cover, but probably not.

However, if the answer is a story reason ("They don't know I'm there yet," and variations on that, being the most likely), then sure, go right ahead! You're down the hallway, you got your attack in, and the target couldn't attack back. However, you're not in cover and they can definitely chase you, and now that you've announced your presence (in a particularly violent manner, to boot), they will not fall for that trick again.

Basically, as a lot of other people have said, this is not a tactical, 5-foot-step-at-a-time, calculate-precise-angles-to-determine-my-cover-bonus type game. What the player is wanting to do, namely hide behind a wall and occasionally pop out and squeeze off a few shots, only to quickly disappear behind the wall again, is using cover. It's a maneuver to take cover, and it adds one or two Setback dice to your attackers' pools. Heck, if the character has particularly sturdy cover and they want to be focusing more on defense than offense, once they're in cover I'd probably allow them a ranged version of the Guarded Stance maneuver - they get an extra Setback on their attackers' pools in exchange for taking a Setback on their own.

I let players find cover and completely remove themselves from combat at times, particularly if the setting and range permits. Other skill checks are fine, but it means no combat check, other than firing a grenade indirectly which is fine, I simply apply 2 Challenge dice per the Blinded crit, and obviously flip a DP so the ill placed rooftop HVAC unit appears on bad results and bounces it back at them......

"You walk out from behind the corner and all the enemies are hiding."

1 hour ago, ShadoWarrior said:

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in the rules that prevents a PC that is completely blocked from sight and fire from using a maneuver to obtain line-of-sight (for example, going from one room to another room), using an action to shoot at something/someone, then a second maneuver (taking 2 strain) to go back where they started (out of sight and, at least temporarily, safe ... until any survivors chase the character down during their own turn).

No, and this shouldn't even be an argument.

1. It takes a maneuver to gain Cover
2. Cover gives your enemy 1 setback.

That's it, no exceptions.

You're assuming you can "go back to where you started", but there's nothing about that in the rules. We're not dealing with hexes here, as we all know, so there is very little to specify about position. Basically, you can't get back to where you started, the best you can do is end up behind cover. The GM could allow the PC to move from cover to "immunity" on the next turn, provided they didn't take a shot.

1 hour ago, FuriousGreg said:

Have fun with that, that is until the GM starts doing it then just brace yourself for the flood of whinging and moaning from the players...

The GM doesn't need to resort to that, because they don't need to allow such behaviour in the first place.

1 minute ago, whafrog said:

No, and this shouldn't even be an argument.

1. It takes a maneuver to gain Cover
2. Cover gives your enemy 1 setback.

That's it, no exceptions.

You're assuming you can "go back to where you started", but there's nothing about that in the rules. We're not dealing with hexes here, as we all know, so there is very little to specify about position. Basically, you can't get back to where you started, the best you can do is end up behind cover. The GM could allow the PC to move from cover to "immunity" on the next turn, provided they didn't take a shot.

Starting a chase would be about the only way to "get back to where you came from". Similar to Han charging around the corner on the Death Star to find an army so he turns tail and runs.

2 minutes ago, whafrog said:

No, and this shouldn't even be an argument.

1. It takes a maneuver to gain Cover
2. Cover gives your enemy 1 setback.

That's it, no exceptions.

You're assuming you can "go back to where you started", but there's nothing about that in the rules. We're not dealing with hexes here, as we all know, so there is very little to specify about position. Basically, you can't get back to where you started, the best you can do is end up behind cover. The GM could allow the PC to move from cover to "immunity" on the next turn, provided they didn't take a shot.

There are plenty of exceptions. You're arguing "rules" that may not apply (or even correctly describe) to a particular situation. Using the AoR Whisper Base map as an example (the walls cannot be breached by personal-scale blasters), if you're in one of the rooms you very likely don't have LOS/LOF to any point that's not directly in front of the room's entrance. You have total cover. No shot can hit you, period, unless the shooter is standing in the doorway or is in the room with you. By your ridiculous reading of the rules the person in the room can be shot through the wall just because you think he has no better protection than if they were crouched behind a cargo crate.

Rules aren't intended as something to beat your players over the head with. And if the rules don't fit a situation it's the duty of a GM to bend rules or make **** up so that the game works and fits the narrative. And everyone has fun.

A stronger argument can be made for allowing an enemy to shoot you if you exposed yourself during your turn, but that's reading more into the rules than what they actually say. I don't believe that the devs intended for characters to be able to make retroactive actions. That goes counter to the whole point of having initiative, which is to confer an advantage to whomever acts first. Either everything is simultaneous, or it isn't. You can have it both ways. Unless we change the discussion to quantum mechanics.

This came up recently over in another thread somewhere.

Basic answer is while there's nothing saying that you CAN'T move into LOS, take an action, and move back out of LOS, there's also nothing saying doing so actually provides the benefits it's assumed it provides.

Basically if you take cover properly, you get a 1 Defense bonus. If you try to Move-Shoot-Move the GM can overrule you pretty easy and still attack you with no penalty if that's what he wants to do.

My opinion is that there's narrative situations that may involve such an occurrence, but it's generally the kind of thing where if you have to ask the forums about actually willfully and intentionally doing it, you probably already know the answer...

Is line of sight a thing in this system? I don't recall a mechanic for it.