Hi fellows,

I read a lot about cover and all the armor things. There is one point nobody ever mentioned is: shall cover provide so kind of soak on a blast damage?

Someone throws a grenade on you. He fails, but triggers blast. Can the crate or pillar you are hiding behind absorb part of the blast? How do you play that?

Feedback will be appreciated.

Cheers

I wouldn't think Cover would provide any kind of soak against the Blast Quality. Sense the setback die given to the Attacker's roll from the cover already accounted for there being something between the Item with blast and the target.

that and cover is in part WHY you use a blast weapon you may not hit them but if you can get on the other side of the cover the blast may

3 minutes ago, Zenoforce88 said:

I wouldn't think Cover would provide any kind of soak against the Blast Quality. Sense the setback die given to the Attacker's roll from the cover already accounted for there being something between the Item with blast and the target.

I beg to differ. As someone who served in the military, proper cover can go a long way in protecting someone from shrapnel and concussive forces from an explosion. The Setback dice from Defense only covers the actual attack roll to hit the intended target. It does nothing for Blast since Blast can be activated even if the initial attack roll fails , simply by spending three Advantages. Not only that, but the Setback Dice from Defense (including Cover) only helps the intended target, not anyone else who might be within the blast radius .

I agree with Tramp on the principle, but as per RAW, no. No soak or other benefit.

It doesn't seem unreasonable to me, however, to add Soak to targets in cover against Blast, but probably only for people hit by the activation of the Blast quality.

8 minutes ago, Oldmike1 said:

that and cover is in part WHY you use a blast weapon you may not hit them but if you can get on the other side of the cover the blast may

The key phrase there is get on the other side of the cover.

As far as I'm concerned, and that the RAW spells out, is that cover does not provide damage mitigation. It gives ranged defense that can make shots miss or not hit as hard. That's it.

I'm firm on this because it would make the Prime Positions talent, first seen on the Warleader in Keeping the Peace on page 29, less useful.

For those that don't know Prime Positions reads as such: When this character or an ally in short range takes cover, he increases soak against ranged attacks by 1 per rank of Prime Positions until he leaves that cover.

Finally, soak applies to all damage that doesn't inherently state you take a wound, like some of the environmental damages do. If soak didn't apply then it would mean the Flak Jacket was the only thing that soaked blast because it's the only one I can think of right now that calls it out specificly.

There is a talent that provides a character and a number of allies within range extra Soak is they are in cover. In that instance, definitely otherwise, as others have said, RAW says no.

if the group you play with use armor cover is not that useful sadly

I still wish it stacked with armor

I think the GM has every right to say those behind cover are protected, just like he can say this room is too small so blast activates anyway.

On 3/2/2020 at 7:58 AM, DrM0lek said:

Hi fellows,

I read a lot about cover and all the armor things. There is one point nobody ever mentioned is: shall cover provide so kind of soak on a blast damage?

Someone throws a grenade on you. He fails, but triggers blast. Can the crate or pillar you are hiding behind absorb part of the blast? How do you play that?

Feedback will be appreciated.

Cheers

Only if the cover is providing full cover. In which case the character cant be targeted at all. Anything less then it is one or 2 setback to the attack roll. If they hit the do base damage and blast can only effect engaged targets not the original target as they aready were hit.. On a miss with 3 advantage you can effect the target and everyone engaged with the target.

3 hours ago, Rimsen said:

I think the GM has every right to say those behind cover are protected, just like he can say this room is too small so blast activates anyway.

I'd tend agree to this, depending on the nature of the cover, and also the players. Some players (and GMs certainly) are just insufferable when it comes to rules and harrumphing at on-the-fly narrative fun-times.

Nice feedbacks. Thanks a lot!

17 hours ago, Rimsen said:

I think the GM has every right to say those behind cover are protected, just like he can say this room is too small so blast activates anyway.

My thing with this is, that's pretty much a given in any and every RPG out there, not just this one.

I totally agree, the GM away has that right, though not every GM chooses to exercise that right.

I prefer to examine what is listed per the rules in these circumstances because I have always considered the GM Fiat as an obvious given. 🤷

21 hours ago, Oldmike1 said:

if the group you play with use armor cover is not that useful sadly

I still wish it stacked with armor

per the latest faq it can depending on the type of defense you have.

25 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

per the latest faq it can depending on the type of defense you have.

Cover doesn't increase Defense, it grants it. Things that grant Defense don't stack with one another. Things which increase Defense stack with each other and with things that grant it.

1 hour ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Cover doesn't increase Defense, it grants it. Things that grant Defense don't stack with one another. Things which increase Defense stack with each other and with things that grant it.

and certain things increase it. so if you have 1 defense normally and you get behind cover you could have 2 defense and if you have things like defensive you could have 3.

6 hours ago, Jareth Valar said:

My thing with this is, that's pretty much a given in any and every RPG out there, not just this one.

I totally agree, the GM away has that right, though not every GM chooses to exercise that right.

I prefer to examine what is listed per the rules in these circumstances because I have always considered the GM Fiat as an obvious given. 🤷

You are absolutely right. However the rules of this system are intentionally loose and it states in many-many sidebars that GMs should exercise common sense when judging situations. We don't get more RAW than that. Unfortunately many GM forgets this and wants the books to cover every teeny-tiny detail to be in it.

29 minutes ago, Rimsen said:

You are absolutely right. However the rules of this system are intentionally loose and it states in many many sidebars that GMs should exercise common sense when judging situations. We don't get more RAW than that. Unofortunately many GMs forget this and wants the books to cover every teeny-tiny detail to be in it.

True.

Unfortunate thing about sense though...if it were actually common, we'd see allot more of it. 😉

18 hours ago, Daeglan said:

and certain things increase it. so if you have 1 defense normally and you get behind cover you could have 2 defense and if you have things like defensive you could have 3.

Yes, certain things increase Defense. Cover is not one of them . Cover grants Defense. It does not increase it. Cover has a static Defense rating of 1 or 2. Items that increase Defense are marked with + 1 or + 2 (note the + sign). Those stack. Cover does not have a + sign before its Defense value. As such, it grants Defense. It does not increase it. Only items which increase Defense stack.

The question then is does Armor increase Defense.

48 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Yes, certain things increase Defense. Cover is not one of them . Cover grants Defense. It does not increase it. Cover has a static Defense rating of 1 or 2. Items that increase Defense are marked with + 1 or + 2 (note the + sign). Those stack. Cover does not have a + sign before its Defense value. As such, it grants Defense. It does not increase it. Only items which increase Defense stack.

I know. But you use the best defense. So if you have armor that gives 1 defense are behind a 2 defense cover and have a shield that provides +1 defense you would have 3 defense. 2 from cover one from the shield.

Just now, Daeglan said:

I know. But you use the best defense. So if you have armor that gives 1 defense are behind a 2 defense cover and have a shield that provides +1 defense you would have 3 defense. 2 from cover one from the shield.

Correct. What you don't get is the 1 Defense from Armor plus the 2 from Cover, plus the one from the Shield.

6 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

Correct. What you don't get is the 1 Defense from Armor plus the 2 from Cover, plus the one from the Shield.

And I never said you did. You assumed I did. I didnt.

1 hour ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The question then is does Armor increase Defense.

RAW, no. It, like cover, grants defense.

It has been a house rule at my table for a very long time that cover increases defense.