So I noticed on p.207 that...

"Multiple sources of defense do not stack."

Since cover now provide 1 range defense (or potentialy greater than 1 at GM discression) does this mean that any character with armor that provides a defense rating shouldn't ever bother taking cover?

For instance armored clothing provides 1 defense and 1 soak. Cover would not stack with the armors defense?

Wraith428

So I noticed on p.207 that...

"Multiple sources of defense do not stack."

Since cover now provide 1 range defense (or potentialy greater than 1 at GM discression) does this mean that any character with armor that provides a defense rating shouldn't ever bother taking cover?

For instance armored clothing provides 1 defense and 1 soak. Cover would not stack with the armors defense?

Wraith428

Interesting question. Logic suggests that armor and cover should stack just fine, after all.

I wonder if this was just a minor oversight. A question for the devs, maybe.

The wording in the beta errata was that cover increases range defense by 1 . This is different than defense 1 from armor, and does not count as stacking. I don't have the core book yet, but is that still the wording? If so, there's no issue.

The wording in the beta errata was that cover increases range defense by 1 . This is different than defense 1 from armor, and does not count as stacking. I don't have the core book yet, but is that still the wording? If so, there's no issue.

In the core book, it says that taking cover allows a character to "gain ranged defense 1," which is a bit problematic, wording-wise, insofar as armor stacking is concerned.

Huh. That's weird that they would change that from the final Beta to the Core.

Actually, what's the wording on the "multiple sources of defense don't stack" in the Core book? Because I believe in the Beta it was clarified that multiples of the same source of defense don't stack, so you couldn't wear two pieces of armor or dual wield defensive weapons, but that armor + cover or armor + vibroblade stacked just fine.

Page 213:

"To keep things simple, being behind some sort of cover... increases the character's ranged defense by 1... "

It goes on to discuss adding setback dice to some rolls as well. Looks like the wording has been clarified. It doesn't provide 1 defense, it merely increases existing ranged defense by 1.

Actually, what's the wording on the "multiple sources of defense don't stack" in the Core book?

Page 207:

Multiple sources of defense do not stack.

After reading the replies in this post I will rule for my game that it "increases" ranged defense as said above. So if the PC has 1 ranged defense and goes into cover I will let them have 2 ranged defense.

If that didn't happen then it really would be worthless for someone with 1 ranged defense to go into cover.

This was discussed quite a bit during the beta days. From what I can understand it must refer to multiple identical sources of defence, so armour stacks with cover, it also stacks with defensive and/or deflecting weapons. Has been discussed and clarified a bit here .

This is perhaps worthy of a clarification question for the upcoming Order 66 Q&A episode? There seems to be some confusion.

The wording in the beta errata was that cover increases range defense by 1 . This is different than defense 1 from armor, and does not count as stacking. I don't have the core book yet, but is that still the wording? If so, there's no issue.

In the core book, it says that taking cover allows a character to "gain ranged defense 1," which is a bit problematic, wording-wise, insofar as armor stacking is concerned.

Ranged Defense is different from Melee defense. I'm thinking, in this case, "melee defense" is just called "defense". The reason you can't stack armor defense is because it makes zero sense to where two helmets, for example...or two storm trooper chest pieces. Additionally, cover wouldn't increase melee defense but it would increase ranged.

"This was discussed quite a bit during the beta days. From what I can understand it must refer to multiple identical sources of defence, so armour stacks with cover, it also stacks with defensive and/or deflecting weapons."

Yeah, this would make perfect sense, too...hence the comment about wearing two sets of armor

I could see some cover being useful for melee, like moving behind/around a pillar to keep it between them - you see it all the time in the movies, sometimes people attack through, or whatever. I can see it work, but perhaps only "big cover" that would normally provide 2 setback dice, could provide a +1 to melee defence as cover.

This is my understanding, taken from another forum :

.... Sources of defence:
Armour (only 1 applies - I'd assume the best one worn)
Qualities (multiple instances of same quality does not stack - the one with highest rating applies)
Talents - [snip] Flat bonus talents like Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes always applies .
Manoeuvres - improves upon defence, I'd also assume that for instance taking cover (1 manoeuvre) stacks with Side step (1 manoeuvre plus strain cost for talent activation), would both improve my defence, since one is an upgrade of difficulty dice, while the other adds ranged defence +1.

So these different sources stacks, but multiple instances of one source does not. Right? I mean, sure if I used both Take Cover and Guarded stance manoeuvres those would boost ranged and melee defence respectively, but they would apply to different types of attacks, hence not stacking with each other.

Yeah, I've always run it as different sources stack (Armor + Cover), but that the same type doesn't stack (Vibroblades have the Defensive 1 quality. When dual-wielding them, this still only counts as 1 MD)

I have a question relating to cover.

Would moving to cover and crouching behind cover by 2 seperate maneuvers?

For example, say there's a waiste high crate or something, suitable for cover. Would moving over to it (assuming it was close enough for 1 maneuver) and also "taking cover" be separate maneuvers?

Also, drawing a weapon from a holster would be a maneuver correct? So, hypothetically, the way I see it is:

Group is suprised by enemies (ie - group is unarmed). Player moves to cover, takes cover, and draws weapon = 3 maneuvers? If that's the case, he can only do 2 of those on his turn, then do the third move on his next turn, correct?

Moving to cover is one maneuver and should include moving to it, unless the cover is in a different range band. So one could move to cover and spend 2 strain for an additional maneuver to pull a weapon.

Moving to cover is one maneuver and should include moving to it, unless the cover is in a different range band. So one could move to cover and spend 2 strain for an additional maneuver to pull a weapon.

So, you would consider "moving to cover" and "taking cover" as the same thing (assuming the cover was close enough to move to in 1 maneuver)? What if taking cover involves crouching, and not just standing behind a corner?

Moving to cover is one maneuver and should include moving to it, unless the cover is in a different range band. So one could move to cover and spend 2 strain for an additional maneuver to pull a weapon.

So, you would consider "moving to cover" and "taking cover" as the same thing (assuming the cover was close enough to move to in 1 maneuver)? What if taking cover involves crouching, and not just standing behind a corner?

Wouldnt crouching be an incidental action? Going prone is only a maneuver after all.

Moving to cover is one maneuver and should include moving to it, unless the cover is in a different range band. So one could move to cover and spend 2 strain for an additional maneuver to pull a weapon.

So, you would consider "moving to cover" and "taking cover" as the same thing (assuming the cover was close enough to move to in 1 maneuver)? What if taking cover involves crouching, and not just standing behind a corner?

Moving to cover is one maneuver and should include moving to it, unless the cover is in a different range band. So one could move to cover and spend 2 strain for an additional maneuver to pull a weapon.

So, you would consider "moving to cover" and "taking cover" as the same thing (assuming the cover was close enough to move to in 1 maneuver)? What if taking cover involves crouching, and not just standing behind a corner?

Wouldnt crouching be an incidental action? Going prone is only a maneuver after all.

I thought of that, too, which is partly why I'm asking. Crouching seems to be a simple thing to do

This isn't a tactical game. Rounds are not 6 seconds long. They are pretty ambiguous. Therefore an action to take cover, whether to dive behind a wall or to crouch behind it, need not be so exactly defined. It is a maneuver and it it is up to the players to describe it. But I would differentiate between taking cover and being prone. Even if someone dives behind cover, for all intents and purposes to a prone position, he would still just be "taking cover".

In another post regarding the interviews on the Order 66 podcast it seems that this was clarified.

Defense does not stack thus...

Armor and cover do not stack.

I'm scratching my head at this one I gotta say... and so are my players.

Wraith428

Yeah this has been confirmed several times at this point. Cover and armor don't stack. The talents from FSE (6th sense and superior reflexes) do stack because they state +1 to defense. Cover's wording on 213 is incorrect, the wording on the earlier page (207 iirc) is correct.

I have big problems with this too until I came to understand that combat rounds are a minute long. Sometime in that minute the bad guys are likely to get a decent shot at you unless all you are doing is hiding behind cover to block any possible line of sight.

I told my players: If you are just grabbing some cover, it helps a bit, but since you are shooting back or doing some other action that isn't hiding, the bad guys will get a shot at you. If you are dropping prone in a bunker and avoiding any possible line of sight to the bad guys, thats not cover, thats you avoiding combat. I wouldn't even allow the bad guys to take a shot at you unless they found a way to negate your "cover"

I imagine one of the main reasons for the "defence does not stack"-rule is that it might bog down combat. Everyone takes the best cover they can find and are mortally afraid to leave it, thereby reducing what could be an exciting fight into a "roll until everyone on one side is dead"-kind of thing. You want the players to be out there, running around, taking advantage of terrain features, translating their Advantages and Triumphs into cool actions, not just hiding behind a wall and grabbing as many crits as they can until the NPCs die (from boredom).

Sometimes realism needs to be jettisoned in favor of play-ability.

Sometimes realism needs to be jettisoned in favor of genre emulation.

In Star Wars cover and armour don't stack, you just use the best one.

Yes, there are lots of reasons to jettison realism in games.