You can spend your maneuver to take cover or "aim" right? And you can take strain (2) to get an extra maneuver on your turn, so can you take cover and then take (2) strain to take aim? and does that add the boost die this turn only? What exactly does cover give? I thought just makes any attacks against you add a setback?

So I take cover, spend strain to take aim, then I shoot. Next round I am already in cover, so I just use my maneuver to aim and then shoot. I can keep doing this or does the table or crate or whatever I am taking cover behind get destroyed?

Thanks,

J

May I suggest searching the forum for answers? This topic has been recently broached before.

1. Yes, you spend a free maneuver to turn over the table and take cover. You may then suffer 2 strain to get an additional maneuver used to take aim. You may then get the additional boost die for this attack, unless you wish to wait for the next round. In that case it remains until you get injured, make another action, or your target is eliminated.

2. Cover gives your attackers Setback dice as Defense depending upon the quality of the cover, usually one die. This cover remains in play until an attacker spends threat to eliminate your cover. You can keep shooting to your heart's delight behind cover. You do not have to spend a maneuver every round to keep regaining cover.

3. You may aim each round and shoot. You may keep taking additional strain for a second aim each round and shoot.

I hope that helps.

So I take cover, spend strain to take aim, then I shoot. Next round I am already in cover, so I just use my maneuver to aim and then shoot. I can keep doing this or does the table or crate or whatever I am taking cover behind get destroyed?

You can stay in cover until you move, or until something happens to remove that cover (such as the enemy rolling Advantage, or you rolling Threat).

2. Cover gives your attackers Setback dice as Defense depending upon the quality of the cover, usually one die. This cover remains in play until an attacker spends threat to eliminate your cover. You can keep shooting to your heart's delight behind cover. You do not have to spend a maneuver every round to keep regaining cover.

It's worth point out that this is Defense against ranged attacks; if someone with a Vibroax engages with you and takes a swing, you don't get the benefit of the cover.

Also, it's been confirmed by the devs that Defense from armor and Defense from cover do not stack. So, if you've got armored clothing, you'll need to find improved cover that grants two setback dice to get any real benefit.

Also, it's been confirmed by the devs that Defense from armor and Defense from cover do not stack. So, if you've got armored clothing, you'll need to find improved cover that grants two setback dice to get any real benefit.

Really? That's weird. One would think cover would help no matter what you're wearing.

Also, it's been confirmed by the devs that Defense from armor and Defense from cover do not stack. So, if you've got armored clothing, you'll need to find improved cover that grants two setback dice to get any real benefit.

Really? That's weird. One would think cover would help no matter what you're wearing.

You can always house rule it. I suspect a lot of people are going to do just that.

Just have it stack unless the character takes an aim action to target something exposed (if applicable). If you are fighting back I imagine PC's/NPC's are popping out from cover from time to time in order to line up a shot. At that point an aim action could be used to negate the table/box/wall/etc..

In other words. If you are aiming, you are potentially exposing yourself to fire (depends on line of sight) in order to line up a shot.

Or if you want you can have the aim action reduce the effectiveness of any cover by 1. I mean if you are aiming through a small hole in a permacrete wall, you still have awesome cover, but someone who takes careful aim could put a blaster bolt right through the hole and into your face.

just an idea

Also, it's been confirmed by the devs that Defense from armor and Defense from cover do not stack. So, if you've got armored clothing, you'll need to find improved cover that grants two setback dice to get any real benefit.

Really? That's weird. One would think cover would help no matter what you're wearing.

Something to keep in mind for any RPG system is it's scale (range of results) and granularity (how much you can divide results). In this system adding or subtracting a Difficulty or Setback die is a significant change (scale) and there is no lesser value addition or subtraction mechanism (granularity). The Devs believe the advantage given for being behind cover and armor of the same value is not significant enough to warrant another die and there is no further division available, so the value remains the same.

I tend to agree and think with play it'll will prove to be the right choice.

You could if you wanted create a lesser die that has half the potential successes or failures and add one of those as an "in-between" die (adding to the granularity of the system) or you could say that having both armor and cover of the same value negates an Advantage, but well, you can see how things could get out of control.

Also, it's been confirmed by the devs that Defense from armor and Defense from cover do not stack. So, if you've got armored clothing, you'll need to find improved cover that grants two setback dice to get any real benefit.

Really? That's weird. One would think cover would help no matter what you're wearing.

Something to keep in mind for any RPG system is it's scale (range of results) and granularity (how much you can divide results). In this system adding or subtracting a Difficulty or Setback die is a significant change (scale) and there is no lesser value addition or subtraction mechanism (granularity). The Devs believe the advantage given for being behind cover and armor of the same value is not significant enough to warrant another die and there is no further division available, so the value remains the same.

I tend to agree and think with play it'll will prove to be the right choice.

You could if you wanted create a lesser die that has half the potential successes or failures and add one of those as an "in-between" die (adding to the granularity of the system) or you could say that having both armor and cover of the same value negates an Advantage, but well, you can see how things could get out of control.

fair enough. That's a good point. It's not like you can just say, "oh, you get a +2 on your roll".

Also, it's been confirmed by the devs that Defense from armor and Defense from cover do not stack. So, if you've got armored clothing, you'll need to find improved cover that grants two setback dice to get any real benefit.

Really? That's weird. One would think cover would help no matter what you're wearing.

You can always house rule it. I suspect a lot of people are going to do just that.

Hey howdy. I'll be doing that. I should be harder to hit if I'm wearing Mando armor and hiding behind a crate than if I am naked and hiding behind that same crate.

You can always house rule it. I suspect a lot of people are going to do just that.

Hey howdy. I'll be doing that. I should be harder to hit if I'm wearing Mando armor and hiding behind a crate than if I am naked and hiding behind that same crate.

I don't think you should be harder to hit - harder to wound, maybe, but then that's what Soak is for.

But like, if people do it that way, as a Bounty Hunter in heavy armor, people can shoot me when I'm in the open with the same exact difficulty as if I duck behind a crate. That makes literally no sense. Why should it be as easy to shoot me when I'm hiding behind a crate as when I'm in the open? There's a freaking crate there. Isn't that going to reduce the space I can get shot at, thus increasing my defense? Like, crates have rights too. Denying them the opportunity of helping us, regardless of armor, is the right thing to do. Who are we to say that crates can't take a bullet for a friend just because he's wearing heavy armor?

Certainly not I.

But like, if people do it that way, as a Bounty Hunter in heavy armor, people can shoot me when I'm in the open with the same exact difficulty as if I duck behind a crate. That makes literally no sense. Why should it be as easy to shoot me when I'm hiding behind a crate as when I'm in the open? There's a freaking crate there. Isn't that going to reduce the space I can get shot at, thus increasing my defense? Like, crates have rights too. Denying them the opportunity of helping us, regardless of armor, is the right thing to do. Who are we to say that crates can't take a bullet for a friend just because he's wearing heavy armor?

Certainly not I.

I think (think) that the conceit is meant to represent the fact that a wooden crate doesn't do more to protect you than the metal plates already sewn into your armor (as an example).

By contrast, if you are wearing full body armor and a shot goes right through splintered wood, it might still get stopped by the ablative plating you're wearing.

You could if you wanted create a lesser die that has half the potential successes or failures and add one of those as an "in-between" die (adding to the granularity of the system) or you could say that having both armor and cover of the same value negates an Advantage, but well, you can see how things could get out of control.

Negating their Bonus Die is actually better than forcing them to add a black.

Totally understandable, to a point. But why does that wooden crate matter when you are naked, but suddenly not matter when you are wearing armor? I think that's what gets me.

I know, balance issues, blah blah, but I still just can't get past that image for some reason.

But like, if people do it that way, as a Bounty Hunter in heavy armor, people can shoot me when I'm in the open with the same exact difficulty as if I duck behind a crate. That makes literally no sense. Why should it be as easy to shoot me when I'm hiding behind a crate as when I'm in the open? There's a freaking crate there. Isn't that going to reduce the space I can get shot at, thus increasing my defense? Like, crates have rights too. Denying them the opportunity of helping us, regardless of armor, is the right thing to do. Who are we to say that crates can't take a bullet for a friend just because he's wearing heavy armor?

Certainly not I.

I understand your point but keep in mind my previous post on the Scale and Granularity of the system and the fact that both To-Hit and Damage are calculated in the same roll. Basically the Dev's feel (at least from the RAW) that the difference in the end result from wearing an equal level of protection would be pretty much the same regardless of cover. You have to draw the line somewhere and since you do take the best of the two it really doesn't matter in the Scale of the system which of the two is responsible for protecting you from damage (either from getting hit or stopping damage). The blast hits the wall or pinged off your armor, the end result is the same. Remember this is a narrative RPG not a tactical shooter and that combat isn't one shot = one hit it's one Attack = Damage with the better the attack roll the greater the damage. Why you fail to do damage at this scale isn't important.

Also keep in mind the Setting, nearly all the characters in Star Wars don't wear any armor, they use cover or run away. The ones that do (Storm Troopers etc) have the advantage of being able to move more freely on the battlefield which is what makes them more dangerous. They don't have to find cover unless it offers more protection than their armor.

You could if you wanted create a lesser die that has half the potential successes or failures and add one of those as an "in-between" die (adding to the granularity of the system) or you could say that having both armor and cover of the same value negates an Advantage, but well, you can see how things could get out of control.

Negating their Bonus Die is actually better than forcing them to add a black.

I don't doubt you're correct but the game is still not as granular as say D20 in as far as bonuses go so adding or subtracting either die equals too large a bonus at the game's Scale.

You could if you wanted create a lesser die that has half the potential successes or failures and add one of those as an "in-between" die (adding to the granularity of the system) or you could say that having both armor and cover of the same value negates an Advantage, but well, you can see how things could get out of control.

Negating their Bonus Die is actually better than forcing them to add a black.

Actually no. At face value the blue die seems a bit better - just remember that on a draw the black die wins because you need +1 to hit. But in terms of advantages it's better to remove the blue die.

If you have the following dice pool: 2 green + 2 yellow + 2 purple + 1 blue

1+ succes: 84,0%

2+ advantages: 54,1%

Remove the blue die

1+ succes: 79,9%

2+ advantages: 39,5%

Add a black die instead

1+ succes: 78,2%

2+ advantages: 47,3%

So it's not all black and blue ;-)

Also keep in mind the Setting, nearly all the characters in Star Wars don't wear any armor, they use cover or run away. The ones that do (Storm Troopers etc) have the advantage of being able to move more freely on the battlefield which is what makes them more dangerous. They don't have to find cover unless it offers more protection than their armor.

This. I too struggled with the idea that cover and defensive armor don't stack, but after having it confirmed and re-reading the book, I'm inclinded to try it as written. The above quote gives a good reason as to why not having it stack makes sense. If I have great armor, i'd rather use my maneuver to do other things instead of gain cover all the time, so thats a benefit. Plus as Sam Stewart said, it's there too keep the dice pool down to managable levels.

I think part of the idea is that if you are using cover then you are relying on that cover to take the hit instead of you, this is the same if you are wearing armour or naked.

It also keeps with the setting of not everyone wearing armour, as per RAW anyone can wear armour without any penalties but it doesn't provide enough benefit for all PCs to want to suit up but the ones that do can stand in the street and draw fire for the sneaky ones hiding behind the flammable crates (ready for that triumph roll on the NPC attack, mwuhuhu.)

Meh, I'm still not convinced. To each their own, I suppose, but I'm still just not seeing how hiding behind that crate shouldn't make it even harder to damage someone with heavy armor. Double the protection, I say.

Storm Troopers also don't get defense from their armor, so they should probably be taking cover regularly. They just get two soak from Laminate.

Wearing armor makes it so you can ignore cover if you want, to use your maneuvers as you like. But I don't like taking away choices from people unless it makes sense. If my mando wants to use cover, I don't want to tell him "No, not unless it is **** good cover, but then your armor is useless sorry." Given the simplicity of this system, and the vast ways of countering such advantages, I don't think I'll not let these sources of defense stack unless I've found an explicit reason that can change my mind. But, I see why some people might choose to for balance reasons and simplicity's sake. Understandable, but just not how I'm going to consider it.

And not everyone is going to wear armor, because armor has 3 encumbrance while worn, it is incredibly obvious, and probably somewhat illegal, restricted, or at least looked down upon on several worlds. Putting on that suit is a massive "Hey look at me I'm dangerous" sign on your back. Some people aren't going to want that attention, or their brawn might be too low to allow them to conceivably sacrifice the encumbrance to wear it. Plus, it is **** expensive, and that's with the non upgraded version!

I think it might be because the defense from armor isn't absorbing the hit, that's soak, it's things like armored clothing gives a defense boost because it's armor plates in loose outwear like dusters, they flap around and make it harder to hit anything important. If you're behind a crate you're not moving as much and causing the visual problems.

I've found that even one setback or boost die has the opportunity to make a profound impact on the results of the pool. Imagine having 3...or more. I think the system as written, once you've wrapped your head around it and watched some rolls, makes perfect sense. Soak is a different animal than ol' trusty AC. Hard to break old habits, eh lads?

Oh the system makes perfect sense. And I know that boost and setback dice are stronger than they appear. And for that same reason, I'm hesitant to discard something that is clearly an advantage for the one taking precautions just because they have a little bit of durasteel on the important parts.

I think it might be because the defense from armor isn't absorbing the hit, that's soak, it's things like armored clothing gives a defense boost because it's armor plates in loose outwear like dusters, they flap around and make it harder to hit anything important. If you're behind a crate you're not moving as much and causing the visual problems.

The designs said that the decision was made strictly for meta game reasons to keep dice pools from getting too big.

Oh the system makes perfect sense. And I know that boost and setback dice are stronger than they appear. And for that same reason, I'm hesitant to discard something that is clearly an advantage for the one taking precautions just because they have a little bit of durasteel on the important parts.

This is the problem, you acknowledge the system makes sense but choose to ignore it anyway. You're not thinking of the games rules as representations of combat and are instead applying real world logic to a narrative game without regard to the systems scale.

Take what you are asking to it's logical conclusion in regards to it's effects on combat and actual play, and don't forget that your enemies will benefit from this change as well. Given that each Boost, Setback, and difficulty dice have a significant impact, I see longer combats where lower level characters are unable to hit heavily armored NPCs, people in Heavy armor are for the most part over powered on the battlefield, and the forcing of players to choose specific talents (assuming they are even available to their career) to just return the combat balance rather than talents that expand role-playing.

You are of course free to play as you want but, and this is from a friendly place and not a rebuke or an "if you don't like it take a hike" way, but with this armor/cover thing and your views on double bladed weapons you might be happier playing with the SAGA rules as it's more tactical and better suited to fine tuning on things like this..

I have thought about it. Instead of thinking, "How can I make my party able to defeat this heavily armored walking platform," you should be thinking "How can my party outgun this superior enemy?" There are so many ways to deny the cover bonus that this proverbial adversary would get. Advantages, outflanking, melee, grenades, the list goes on. I mean, you could just back a sunder weapon and break his armor for Force's sake! What I like about this system over the Saga edition is that it is so simple to do these things. He's behind cover? Setback. He has armor? Setback. All of it makes perfect sense to me, and very little of it is "Metagame controlling." The game rules control the metagame as it is.

Now I want you to take a second and consider if low level characters SHOULD be able to drop dudes in Heavy Armor like it is nothing. Heavily armored foes are terrifying. Mandos are some of the ones that come to mind first. Should they be able to ice him by nerfing his capabilities and making cover all but useless? I don't think so. If they want to beat dudes in heavy armor, they need to come prepared and they need to out think him. I think that fits with the system's goal. Creative thinking and narrative perfection.

This is literally one of the only things I don't really like with the system, to be honest.