39 minutes ago, Aramur said:

Many rules simple don't make any sense if you have a minute worth of actions.

1. You don't always have a minute. Combat rounds take the time that is required by the narrative, which is informed by the dice results.
2. Combat is frantic and fast-paced, and yeah Quick Draw can make tons of difference! It's still a maneuver to draw a weapon, no matter how long narratively the combat round is. And maneuvers are often invaluable. This is what make a Gunslinger a fantastic grenadier. Two free weapon draws per round, the ability to put two grenades in two different places at a minimal difficulty.

52 minutes ago, Aramur said:

GM: "You take the grenade and while moving from cover to cover and avoiding crossfire and lob it towards the Stormtroopers"
Player A: "No I don't, I'll take the risk of getting caught by a shot and use the extra time to lob three more grenades. That is what my character would do. Death or glory!"

GM: "...Are you sure?"
PC 1: "Yeah, I just stand up and start lobbing grenades."
GM: "Okay, you take several blaster bolts to the chest. You are down and unconscious, with an Average critical injury. Ji'im, you're up! You just saw Grudo stand up and get mowed down by the intense blasterfire. What do you do?"

2 hours ago, Aramur said:

I agree that this system is less meant to take up the majority of the play time, and that is a reason that we are actually playing it: combat is more of an option, and less of a neccessity! But once combat starts, I'd prefer it to be more cinematic and a major part of that is simply have more time to go into the ebb and the flow of combat. If your buddies already shot down the big bad once your turn comes around and you haven't even spent a maneuver to draw your gun from your holster, then yeah, it feels kinda anti-climatic.

My approach to combat is usually to start with the arena of conflict. How often in Star Wars do you see a cinematic combat in a flat featureless area facing your opponent at short range. That'll be never.

So throw in things that add danger, at least setbacks if not the occasional upgrade, things that get in the way, interesting obstacles to overcome, reinforcements on the way, blast doors that need opening, maybe the big bad likes talking, but has lots of minions to take the hits for him, maybe he has a powerful ray shield to switch on between him and the PCs. I like setbacks for two reasons - one, makes those stormtroopers less effective without making them pack small weaponry, two, gives the combat specialists who invested in talents to remove them a benefit.

Whoops - double post

6 minutes ago, awayputurwpn said:

GM: "...Are you sure?"
PC 1: "Yeah, I just stand up and start lobbing grenades."
GM: "Okay, you take several blaster bolts to the chest. You are down and unconscious, with an Average critical injury. Ji'im, you're up! You just saw Grudo stand up and get mowed down by the intense blasterfire. What do you do?"

GM 1:

Well, standing up normally is one maneuver, grabbing one grenade is one extra maneuver costing you two strain. Grabbing and throwing more normally isn't possible in the given timeframe. Do you want to take the 2 strain to stand up and lob the one grenade? Maybe if you roll a Triumph, I'll allow you to grab and lob one additional grenade. If you roll a despair though, your haste might accidentally cause you to lob a grenade at your friends.

Player: Ok, I'm cool with that. I'll take the 2 strain and hope I'll get a Triumph. If it doesn't work I'll probably suffer some hits on the Stormtroopers' turn, but I can think I can take it.

GM 2:

You are down and unconscious.

Player: How, what? I've weathered fire like this before with my Soak of 7, are these special Stormtroopers, they didn't even roll to hit, what's different? Oh, you just didn't want me to lob three grenades and arbitrarily punished me for wanting to do so. Gee, thanks man. If you don't want me to do something just tell me next time.

______

My preference is the first option.

1 hour ago, awayputurwpn said:

Both are equal in terms of mechanics, and both are easily within the Rules As Written...and yet, they are two entirely different responses.

One could argue that with Number One, the extent of the mechanical penalty is just giving the target a black die and that's it. Being knocked on his butt is just color, and standing up next round doesn't take a maneuver like it would if you used the 3 Threat/Knockdown talent (which makes them use a maneuver, get the black and whatever the **** else that talent does to the target.)

And yeah - the Knockdown talent is crap.

2 hours ago, Aramur said:

GM: "You take the grenade and while moving from cover to cover and avoiding crossfire and lob it towards the Stormtroopers"
Player A: "No I don't, I'll take the risk of getting caught by a shot and use the extra time to lob three more grenades. That is what my character would do. Death or glory!"

And that's what a triumph or advantage is for - the grenade attack kills X minions and the triumph kills one more. If the player said that they were throwing two grenades, I'd still only give them the one attack roll, triggering a crit and blowing up an additional minion works fine. They manage to lob a second grenade over the barricade. No triumph or not enough advantage? "Well, you tried to get the second grenade out, but you had to fumble around in your bag for it and you wound up throwing your spare comlink instead. Whoops."

2 hours ago, Aramur said:

Player B: "I wan't to move closer to the airlock as fast as possible, before it closes. I skip using cover entirely. That should save me some time to also get out my vibroknive and stab the closest Stormtrooper after having thrown the grenade, right?"

I see no issue with this - one maneuver to grab the grenade, the attack kills X minions and the advantage can be used as a crit which kills another minion and the other maneuver allows him to dive through the airlock. The player gets his moment of awesome and it's still well within the rules.

Just to clarify the rounds and minutes thing: a round is roughly a minute, and everybody takes their turn in that round. So if you have a lot of participants, everybody gets a smaller slice of that minute. But really it's best not to think in terms of minutes. A round is how long it takes for everybody to get a turn, whatever that is.

1 hour ago, Aramur said:

GM 1:

Well, standing up normally is one maneuver, grabbing one grenade is one extra maneuver costing you two strain. Grabbing and throwing more normally isn't possible in the given timeframe. Do you want to take the 2 strain to stand up and lob the one grenade? Maybe if you roll a Triumph, I'll allow you to grab and lob one additional grenade. If you roll a despair though, your haste might accidentally cause you to lob a grenade at your friends.

Player: Ok, I'm cool with that. I'll take the 2 strain and hope I'll get a Triumph. If it doesn't work I'll probably suffer some hits on the Stormtroopers' turn, but I can think I can take it.

GM 2:

You are down and unconscious.

Player: How, what? I've weathered fire like this before with my Soak of 7, are these special Stormtroopers, they didn't even roll to hit, what's different? Oh, you just didn't want me to lob three grenades and arbitrarily punished me for wanting to do so. Gee, thanks man. If you don't want me to do something just tell me next time.

______

My preference is the first option.

Certainly. But #1 wasn't at all the scenario you posted, and #2 isn't at all the scenario that I posted. You've created two new options

6 hours ago, Aramur said:

There is already the issue that many of the current 'target sets' have sufficient to disable many of the PCs in 1-2 hits as well.

Two hits from a Stormtrooper minion will take down the Bothan Brawn 1 Explorer(Driver) with Armored Clothing or the Mon Calamari Pilot with little trouble.

Stimpacks don't really work during combat for adversaries, healing 5 wounds for an Action doesn't help if next turn you'll simply receive 10 damage from a PC attack.

Combats are very all our nothing: a serious threat to the players can cause the battle to be decided in 1-2 rounds in favor of the adversaries.

In combat I tend to look for dramatic tension as well, there needs to be a build-up of sorts. Just a few die rolls and people dropping left or right and combat being over in moments doesn't really do that.

My character, Tresk, is now feeling the blaster scar on his neck itch. Bothan Ace/Driver who, over several sessions, was the only person in the group to not take damage... and promptly got incapacitated in one shot by a stormtrooper. Good thing he was carrying a stimpack for his rescuer to use.

2 hours ago, Aramur said:

Well, sure, but the rules still restrict what you can do, even if the narrative doesn't. Many rules simple don't make any sense if you have a minute worth of actions. Quickdraw talent? Narratively useless. You could easily draw a dozen or more weapons inside of a minute. Dropping to prone and standing up again. I don't know about you, but a typical person should be easily able to manage 10 of those paired maneuvers in a minute. Doing this will result in the GM needing to find convoluted narrative reasons to make the way the rules handle the game to fit the narrative. It is just much easier, narratively speaking, to assume you'll get of only a single shot in that time unless you weapons is capable of autofire. And hence assume that rounds run much faster than a minute.

GM: "You take the grenade and while moving from cover to cover and avoiding crossfire and lob it towards the Stormtroopers"
Player A: "No I don't, I'll take the risk of getting caught by a shot and use the extra time to lob three more grenades. That is what my character would do. Death or glory!"
GM: "????"
Player B: "I wan't to move closer to the airlock as fast as possible, before it closes. I skip using cover entirely. That should save me some time to also get out my vibroknive and stab the closest Stormtrooper after having thrown the grenade, right?"
GM: "????"
Player C: "You said the Stormtroopers had their weapons holstered just now, and they haven't had their turn yet, how can they be setting up a crossfire already?"
GM: "????"

So wait. Are you saying that combat only makes sense if you describe the round as consisting of only the maneuvers and actions used? That might be the easiest way of looking at it but it won't capture a cinematic style for combat. I don't imagine you are concerned about that anyway, so really there is no answer here for you that doesn't encompass just changing the way the combat stats are represented.

A longer Time To Kill essentially whether that is from reduced (randomized ) damage from weapons or from higher wound thresholds so that you have to shoot someone a bunch of times to kill them like Halo or something.

6 hours ago, Desslok said:

Or make sure you're using your despairs . "Good job wiping out those battalions. By the way - that despair you got? Yeah, the reinforcements have arrived and they brought a Walker with them. No, an AT-AT."

Slow down there, Satan.

2 hours ago, whafrog said:

Just to clarify the rounds and minutes thing: a round is roughly a minute, and everybody takes their turn in that round. So if you have a lot of participants, everybody gets a smaller slice of that minute. But really it's best not to think in terms of minutes. A round is how long it takes for everybody to get a turn, whatever that is.

Agree. And some or all of these actions could be nearly simultaneous, resulting in even more confusion. I think the Devs had it right when they decided to go with combat that was about what was happening, as well as a combat system resolving. They were trying to keep the narrative thing alive but no descriptive element survives first contact with the Strategy Gamers.

Aramur I also seem to be seeing a lot of Player double dipping going on in your descriptions. Are your players really like that? I think some Table Manners need to be talked about concerning trying to wheedle the GM constantly. I stop the game and pull over if players start doing that **** because I find it so annoying. Yeah, sure, I'm going to let you do five things in the round because you can think of five things to do. I really hope that's not what you are facing from the players.

8 hours ago, Aramur said:

Game mechanics clearly suggest (visible in the way ammo, two-weapon fighting, aiming etc. is handled) that one roll = one shot/swing/grenade throw.

Somehow I missed this bit, most definitely not the case, example: you're shooting at minions and you do enough damage to take one out, and you get enough advantages to do a crit, which means you can take out another. That's two in one roll, so clearly each roll represents a volley, except in the case of Limited Ammo.

On 9/16/2017 at 7:38 AM, Aramur said:

I also tends to devaluate minions. With only 5 or so damage needed to disable one, it is often more efficient to focus on the stronger opponents when given a choice, although they sometimes play a good role in absorbing fire from the non-combat focused PCs.

@Desslok already mentioned that this is a huge issue.
@2P51 already mentioned adding more minions.

I guess I will ask if you guys have thought about not getting shot? If I am a tech, I am not going to run out into combat. If a minion group gets a drop on me while I am slicing and no ally is there? I am surrendering. If allies are they and I die/get captured then they have failed. If we all get captured, then it adds story flavor. You don't have to win every fight. Losing doesn't have to be final.

@Desslok also already mentioned that combat should not take more than a couple rounds. This game is not combat-focused. Bust out those narrative chops and crank out a killer twist in the plot.

11 hours ago, Aramur said:

There is already the issue that many of the current 'target sets' have sufficient to disable many of the PCs in 1-2 hits as well.

Two hits from a Stormtrooper minion will take down the Bothan Brawn 1 Explorer(Driver) with Armored Clothing or the Mon Calamari Pilot with little trouble.

((((Yea, he has no combat skills. You are pitting a trained killer against two pilots.))))

Stimpacks don't really work during combat for adversaries, healing 5 wounds for an Action doesn't help if next turn you'll simply receive 10 damage from a PC attack.

((((Is your Rival/Nemisis standing in the open/not utilizing his minions for suppressing fire/not designed for combat/not utilizing the environment to their advantage? If the GM is allowing the main adversary of an encounter to get wasted in one shot, then he hasn't balanced him well. Further, it is VERY realistic to assume you will not function well after being shot.))))

Combats are very all our nothing: a serious threat to the players can cause the battle to be decided in 1-2 rounds in favor of the adversaries.
((((Yep. Where's the issue? Is the concern that it is anticlimactic? The GM has the power of the force on his side in that he controls fate. If things are too easy for players, he can *make* things a bit more difficult))))

In combat I tend to look for dramatic tension as well, there needs to be a build-up of sorts. Just a few die rolls and people dropping left or right and combat being over in moments doesn't really do that.

((((Then start with a minion group that can survive the first round barely, Have support show up in the nick of time with more minions and a rival or two, and after that have the Nemisis and his right-hand man show up with a minion or two in the next round. Make each entry for each group explosive and dynamic to the environment. It seems to me that perhaps you guys might just need more time to better understand the narrative aspect of the game and how to use the tools you have. I only say this based on your other post regarding "useless Skills."))))

Ultimately, it is up to you guys to create the story together. Do what works at your table to balance encounters. Discuss things with the GM.

Also, don't play with modifying the mechanics too heavily in order to adjust; you will inadvertently break other aspects of the game (usually in the form of nerfing/overpowering talents and specializations)

3 hours ago, whafrog said:

Somehow I missed this bit, most definitely not the case, example: you're shooting at minions and you do enough damage to take one out, and you get enough advantages to do a crit, which means you can take out another. That's two in one roll, so clearly each roll represents a volley, except in the case of Limited Ammo.

I think when it comes to personal combat the Limited Ammo thing was probably a necessary evil. They could have left it out but there would have been no way to regulate the supply or finite amount of ammo available for things like missile tubes and grenades. While you can certainly see it as exactly what the quantity reads, it would also be in the spirit of the rules for a character to be described as throwing more than one grenade, but having to toss an additional one because the fist one missed, and counting that as one grenade. Same thing for the missile tubes that could hold more than one for ammo, or maybe had an extra round prepped for the tube, so that when the first missile missed or didn't detonate right on target another one could be hastily launched and that one hits. This could be done so that you don't have to describe the hit and miss on separate rounds where everyone has shifted focus off that weapon for a while.

This is why the combat system doesn't have to be one shot for one roll even if it's a limited ammo weapon. If my character doesn't act until the 3rd slot and there is something like a minute worth of combat going on, you can bet the character is doing a lot of things, but only 1-2 Maneuvers and an Action are narratively noteworthy. I missed my other shots or I purposely put down covering fire. If I attacked with two weapons I have a chance to hit with the second weapon, but I had to close with the target and then defeat the target's defenses with multiple attacks in tempo in order to get strikes that actually made it through and hit the target character. Even better would be if my second strike that hit occurred in a slightly later timeframe to represent multiple successive hits instead of the improbably Kirk hits with both fists at once.

Or consider the slow-firing trait. Nothing stopping your from narrating several low-energy swings or shots vs one powerful attack, before the weapon has to recharge.

The 'round is one minute' thing is also why taking cover is a maneuver - instead of literally moving around the corner the way you would in D&D. Also why there aren't any readied or conditional actions.

16 hours ago, Aramur said:

GM 1:

Well, standing up normally is one maneuver, grabbing one grenade is one extra maneuver costing you two strain. Grabbing and throwing more normally isn't possible in the given timeframe. Do you want to take the 2 strain to stand up and lob the one grenade? Maybe if you roll a Triumph, I'll allow you to grab and lob one additional grenade. If you roll a despair though, your haste might accidentally cause you to lob a grenade at your friends.

Player: Ok, I'm cool with that. I'll take the 2 strain and hope I'll get a Triumph. If it doesn't work I'll probably suffer some hits on the Stormtroopers' turn, but I can think I can take it.

GM 2:

You are down and unconscious.

Player: How, what? I've weathered fire like this before with my Soak of 7, are these special Stormtroopers, they didn't even roll to hit, what's different? Oh, you just didn't want me to lob three grenades and arbitrarily punished me for wanting to do so. Gee, thanks man. If you don't want me to do something just tell me next time.

______

My preference is the first option.

If this is a real example and not a case of whataboutism, it's an example of bad game mastering and bad player decision making.

If you will recall, I stated that FFG Star Wars was interested in recreating the feel of the Star Wars films, not just providing a setting. Because the setting takes place during the Original Trilogy and the Original Trilogy was focused on the narrative drama of being "the little guy", the base assumption is that the PCs are going to be outmanned and outgunned at all times. There are no situations where young Obi-Wan Kenobi/a 10th-level paladin is taking on 30 battle droids/goblins in this game and then flying home to the Jedi Temple/magic castle. Combat is usually a quick run-and-gun that occurs from players being someplace they aren't meant to be, be they sneaking into an Imperial stronghold or breaking a smuggler buddy out of the pokey, or the PCs running from the authorities. Even in the Rebel vs. Empire story lines, it's primarily guerrilla combat. If three PC Y-wings are trying to take on two Imperial Star Destroyers, something is going very wrong. Or the players are trying to do something cool and will come up with a good story reason.

Soak will counter some points that would normally go to your wound threshold. However, the stereotypical RPG tank character doesn't exist within the framework of the rules. Any player who is opting to break from hiding to throw a grenade in full view of a minion group of stormtrooper doesn't understand the risks he's taking and the GM should explain that.

The core books' combat sections aren't actually that long or complicated. Outside of the basic die rolling mechanic, there are a handful of environmental rules (which break down to add 1 or 2 blue/add black dice to physical actions or Perception checks), and some exception-based tags, like Breach. If you look at the system across the entire line, FFG SW is only focused on combat to the degree that it provides for an interesting narrative. Combat isn't meant to be time consuming on a Biblical scale, it isn't meant to add unnecessary computation or be overly granular without adding anything, be overly risky with no reward, or add a bunch of dice rolls that, end the end, mean nothing to the overall narrative. It's expected that the players will either be successful or their "failure" will add complications without ending the story or the character. The system is designed around a "fail forward" mentality and dragging out combat is completely counter to that.

Indeed, I wouldn't overly embellish a characters action UNTIL they rolled. I would start off by providing a general description, then embelish it after the roll.

"I take two menvourers to draw two grenades, taking the 2 strain. I'm going to make an attack when I first see the opportunity"

"I rolled 3 success, 2 advantage and a Thrumph"

"Oh boy, describe how that goes."

"I'm gonna launch the grenade and use blast to take out the first squad then, being lost in the moment and with blaster bolts ripping all around me I launch the second at the squad over, before I scramble back into cover as the bolts scorch where I was"

"Awesome! Well a couple of suggestions, you can either have your grande do it's blast damage to the second minion group; or alternatively the blast hits a critical function of the blast door, giving you guys a few moments of breathing space to plan your next move..."


Or


"Oh **** we are really up against it. I would like to grab my entire belt of grenades and make a machanics check to make a improvised blast; basically I want to completely blow out this corridor and give us time to escape."

"Sure, a 3 purple check, and a setback for the hecktic enviroment. I'll also upgrade this check with a destiny pip."

"Oh lord."

E.g. the players are not their characters and frequently need to collaborate with the GM to provide a satisfactory scene within the framework, but it's important to not let the exceptions become the norm.

On 18.9.2017 at 6:40 PM, Concise Locket said:

Unlike Dungeons & Dragons and other trad simulationist games, the narrative FFG SW combat mechanics are designed for quick resolution. Yes, damage numbers are high. However, that's backstopped by the PC/Nemesis death mechanic which requires a 150 roll on a d100. I'm running my fourth campaign right now and I've only had 1 PC in all those games die in combat.

Borrowing from D&D slang, minions are "glass cannons." They can be easily removed from a scene but they also put out a great deal of damage, depending on the number in play, if they have the appropriate group combat skill, and their equipment modifiers.

I suspect that you're viewing these rules through the lens of a more traditional role-playing gamer. It's helpful to push aside preconceived notions and accept that FFG SW is attempting to replicate the feel of the entire Star Wars experience, not just providing a setting. This means also putting emphasis on skill test resolution and social encounters. The career books go into more detail about how to integrate this into a game.

I don't know if you're a GM or a player but a rookie mistake most GMs make is an over-reliance on combat encounters to fill game time. Unlike D&D, you're not going to spend 30-60 minutes resolving one combat encounter. The emphasis is on how the characters interact within the game's story. The outcome of the encounter, not the encounter itself, is what affects the story. How the players defeated a group of NPCs usually isn't relevant.

A second rookie mistake is a failure to understand that failure in an encounter doesn't end the game or a character, it simply reduces a resource. A player can flub a skill roll and keep the game moving forward by accepting a loss of Strain or Wounds. This helps to avoid the stupid D&D trope of a single die roll ending your character. A missed Coordination check doesn't necessarily mean your PC falls to his death unless all other reasonable options have been eliminated.

A third rookie mistake is a failure of players to think creatively and narratively. Simply taking cover in a firefight will only add 1 setback die to the attacker. If she's outgunned, a defender is better off coming up with a creative, Star Wars-y solution to quickly end combat rather than standing in place and trading shots. For example, shooting the bottom of a stack of crates and causing them to collapse onto a squad of stormtroopers. See every episode of Rebels. A bad GM will either fail to provide PCs with options or say "no" to reasonable ideas.

This post should go on the game's description page!

Thumbs up!

On ‎19‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 0:57 AM, whafrog said:

Just to clarify the rounds and minutes thing: a round is roughly a minute, and everybody takes their turn in that round. So if you have a lot of participants, everybody gets a smaller slice of that minute. But really it's best not to think in terms of minutes. A round is how long it takes for everybody to get a turn, whatever that is.

Indeed. The "the troopers are standing there like lemons because they've not had their turn yet so I can attack them and they're unarmed" is really, really reaching for it.

It's about the same as "I use a maneuver to move into line of sight, shoot, then take strain to maneuver back out of line of sight - I can't be attacked!" argument. Star Wars is fundamentally a universe run on the demands of a narrative plot (sorry, the will of the force), not silly rules exploits. If you are shooting through the doorway every round, you must be occupying it for long enough that return fire has a chance of hitting you. The fact that you're actively spending strain on maneuvers to "exploit cover better" means that you should get some sort of improved defence, but that's not the same as being unassailable because "it's not their turn yet".

Something to remember (and it can be a hard habit to break) is that things are kind of reversed with the narrative dice... with most games, you narrate your actions, sometimes quite specifically, the GM inputs on difficulty, and then the dice provide a binary outcome - success or failure based on what you already described.

With this game, you roughly describe your action or desired outcome, and the GM inputs on difficulty, which is what develops the dice pool, and then the dice provide a whole host of outcomes - success or failure, but also the other effects. Only then can the player narrate exactly what happened - and input from the rest of the table is encouraged - by essentially reading the dice through the lens of that originally stated action or outcome...

It's a completely different mindset and model, and it can take some real getting used to.

10 hours ago, Magnus Grendel said:

"I use a maneuver to move into line of sight, shoot, then take strain to maneuver back out of line of sight - I can't be attacked!"

Yeah... that's what the maneuver to take cover is for. I am, sort of, ok with 'I use a maneuver to move from medium to short range, shoot, then take strain to move back to medium range.' It's a minor difference, really, but I can come up with narrative to explain it and the mechanical effects are minor - the bad guys can just close the distance, after all. I also kinda think that the '2 maneuvers to change between medium and long, or long and extreme' are to mitigate movement abuse.

5 hours ago, Genuine said:

Yeah... that's what the maneuver to take cover is for. I am, sort of, ok with 'I use a maneuver to move from medium to short range, shoot, then take strain to move back to medium range.' It's a minor difference, really, but I can come up with narrative to explain it and the mechanical effects are minor - the bad guys can just close the distance, after all. I also kinda think that the '2 maneuvers to change between medium and long, or long and extreme' are to mitigate movement abuse.

Exactly. I'm fine with "I'm darting back and forth to attack, I must be a harder target than someone stood still in medium range", but not a blanket "you can't shoot at me because rules exploit".

I'm much the same with this in most games I GM. I remember one time someone in an Only War game who knew the 'enemy' stats off by heart and counted off the number of grenades they had as they threw them. I had realised he was doing this based on something he could not possibly know; they'd not seen the enemy before they came under fire, and it's not like cultists have a 'standard issue' kit list they subscribe to like a more 'organised' enemy would.

So the third time he did this, he went "right, that was the fourth grenade, chaaaaarge!" just as a fifth and sixth grenade came calmly flying at him over the barricades.

7 minutes ago, Magnus Grendel said:

Exactly. I'm fine with "I'm darting back and forth to attack, I must be a harder target than someone stood still in medium range", but not a blanket "you can't shoot at me because rules exploit".

I'm much the same with this in most games I GM. I remember one time someone in an Only War game who knew the 'enemy' stats off by heart and counted off the number of grenades they had as they threw them. I had realised he was doing this based on something he could not possibly know; they'd not seen the enemy before they came under fire, and it's not like cultists have a 'standard issue' kit list they subscribe to like a more 'organised' enemy would.

So the third time he did this, he went "right, that was the fourth grenade, chaaaaarge!" just as a fifth and sixth grenade came calmly flying at him over the barricades.

Running back out of sight isnt really an option as technically that move is the actual maneuver -taking cover, which does provide setback but doesnt make you impossible to hit, moving in and out of range is an option, but you can just be followed providing that terrain doesnt slow your opponent down ( ideal use of triumph or destiny point, is to ask the GM to put rough terrain between you and your opponent when using hit and fade tactics.