These are probably obvious but I want to make sure:

1. Can you use your action and maneuvers in any order? I ruled yes.

Or do you have to do your maneuvers and then your action is last. For example can you action and then maneuver? Could you maneuver from around a corner (maneuver), fire (action), and then spend 2 strain on a second maneuver to go back around the corner to be completely covered/unable to be targeted? Seems like you can but I didn't want to rule full cover/not attackable because they were exposed for some time when they were firing.

2. Can you do the same maneuver twice to double its effect like take cover twice? I ruled yes.

Thanks for any help.

usgrandprix said:

First one, i agree with you, actions and maneuvers can be taken in any order.

Second one I tend to agree with as well, since you can move twice, as well as ostensibly drawing two weapons. In regards to taking cover twice, I'd picture as the person not just ducking behind cover, but hunkering down in a near-fetal position to present as small a target as possible.

Thanks. I don't know why I wasn't sure about the first one but I wanted to be sure.

usgrandprix said:

The first one is correct, however, the second one I would rule differently on. Once you’ve taken cover, you have that bonus to your defense, the way the taking cover maneuver is worded makes it sound like to me that you either have cover or you don’t. However, while I wouldn’t allow people to take cover twice, I would let them be in cover and drop prone, to get their 2 defense that way.

The other issue with letting people take cover twice is why limit it to taking cover twice, you could take cover as many times as you wanted, which would be silly when you have increased your defense by six thanks to a tree between the attacker and you. The maneuver specifically states what increases that defense bonus from cover, particularly sturdy cover (I might rule that large or specifically built cover counts as well).

3WhiteFox3 said:

I'd agree with this assessment.

It's like drawing your blaster twice; it doesn't give you a second blaster.

3WhiteFox3 said:

Agreed on both counts. I think the rules are pretty clear on this point - cover is binary, you either have it or you don't. The only thing that can improve the number of [setback] dice provided is the quality of the cover, not the number of maneuvers you've spent.

As you point out, the rules handle the "foetal position" thing pretty well by both taking cover and dropping prone (including the negative modifiers you should have against melee attacks).

Gotcha. But you can use the same maneuver twice if it makes sense? Like you can move twice right?

Just not some things like cover that don't make sense.

What about that maneuver that let's you get more melee defense (forget what it's called). I'd say they can do it twice if they spend the stain. Plus the negatives for it would stack anyway so there is a price.

Can you do the same starship defensive maneuver twice too? Seems to favor bigger ships with copilots where snub fighters should actually be more agile.

As to the second question, dropping prone behind cover should do the trick to get you that +2 ranged defense.

I disagree that "cover is cover," in the sense that either you have cover or you don't. There are some instances where I would give characters extra cover bonuses from behind behind really good cover (say, firing from a slit in the wall rather than from behind a speeder). And the rules definitely support that.

That being said, game-mechanics-wise, spending extra maneuvers to get extra benefits from cover while not actually being prone should be the purview of a talent, not just something anyone can do. That's how I see it, at least. The trained ship-boarder or trench fighter will know how to get more out of cover than your average guy in a blaster fight.

usgrandprix said:

About the starships, remember that once a craft reaches a size larger than size 4, it is no longer considered a small craft and can only be given one Pilot Only maneuver a round, so smaller ships are better in that case. Also, larger ships usually have handling penalties while snub fighters have handling bonuses.

awayputurwpn said:

Not sure if this was aimed at my reply, but if you read what I wrote there I said exactly what you just said!

The state of having cover is binary or not - you can't , for example, have cover twice - but the quality of the cover you do have definitely influences the bonus you get. However you'd get that same bonus (improved or not) whether you spend one maneuver getting it or two.

3WhiteFox3 said:

Yep, that's my read too. In the specific case of guarded stance, I'm not sure if it's something I'd allow a player to do twice - seems like cover to me, you're either in a guarded stance or you aren't. Though I guess you could look at it like the d20 "fighting defensively"/"total defense", whereby you can get a lesser and greater defensive effect depending on how much of your turn you dedicate to it…

3WhiteFox3 said:

Another agreement from me. If you are trying to emulate someone getting the most out of their cover, then the prone option behind cover seems to already do that. A second Maneuver to get more cover from the cover you are already behind doesn't make sense. But, I can imagine squatting behind a short wall to get Cover (1 Defense), then going Prone (1 Defense) behind the same wall for a total of 2 Defense.

awayputurwpn said:

I wouldn't allow it for a Talent either. What would the Cover Talent emulate? The master at using cover squeezes himself behind the cover and gets more of a bonus? I think anyone knows how to take cover behind an object, experience isn't going to give you some special way to get better cover. There isn't one. I have nearly 20 years in the military and police. I'm currently the team leader of a Special Response Team (aka SWAT). I've yet to discover a "talent" that allows me to take cover behind a tree or corner better then someone else.

FWIW my thought was not that you would be getting "better cover" but that you would be behind cover for longer or focusing more on being behind cover.

The rounds can be a minute and I guess we assume everything is happening at once even though we go in initiative order.

So an attack represents several shots I'd guess. That can happen any time. Probably when you pop up to attack even though you are behind cover for part of the time too.

So if you take cover and attack and then spend the strain to take cover again you should be harder to hit than if you take cover and then end your round firing.

Not sure I'm explaining that clearly but I'm trying to think of it more like an abstract system than a 6-seconds-per-round tactical system.

Anyway, if someone just took cover for a round and nothing else and it was behind something big and solid then I wouldn't let them be attacked at all. Unless they popped out with an attack or some other action to expose them. Now what they are hiding behind is fair game.

Sturn said:

+1 to what Sturn said, with one exception.

At this point, being prone does not provide defense, just setback to ranged attacks, which is not the same thing. (though I expect this to get patched).

-WJL

usgrandprix said:

I think the confusion comes from the wording on the aim maneuver, and something about being able to stack them. When I read this part I figured that this wording was odd. I thought about it and came to the conclusion that one can aim for two rounds and break the “on/during the next turn” rule.

I would figure that you can go from cover to cover and get two blue dice. Or go from cover to a better spot behind the cover. Like ducking behind a ruined wall (first cover), then moving towards a corner (second cover) and shooting at a Stormtrooper who thinks you are at the first cover spot.