Questions regarding cover

[GauntZero 588]

In what way does cover concern your evading attempts ?

The skill desciption section writes something about bonus to evading if being in full or partial cover.

What exactly is full and partial cover and when do you get this bonus and when not ?

[Covered in Weasels 587]

Partial cover is when you are leaning around a solid object (what we usually think of as being "in cover") and full cover is when you are completely behind an opaque object. That's how I understand it, though the rules don't explain the difference very well, if at all.

The +20 evade bonus isn't used very often because characters usually only fire on targets they can see. But when an enemy is shooting an autocannon at you while you hide behind a garden shed you'll be glad to have it

Edited August 19, 2014 by Covered in Weasels

[GauntZero 588]

And why do you get +20 on an evasion, when you cant see your enemy yourself ? Would you get an evasion at all ?

[Covered in Weasels 587]

And why do you get +20 on an evasion, when you cant see your enemy yourself ? Would you get an evasion at all ?

The +20 Evasion bonus is due to your opponent not knowing where exactly you're standing. IMO it would make more sense as a -20 penalty on the attack roll because it affects the shooter's chance to successfully target you.

I can think of another possible explanation for the difference between partial and full cover:

-- Partial cover includes objects that provide some protection from attacks but won't conceal you entirely if you step behind them. Trees thinner than a human, church pews, soil-filled vases, thin pillars, wrought-iron bannisters and life-sized staues (or human shields) all give partial cover.

-- Full cover includes large objects or scenery which can completely hide a character if they duck behind it. Building walls, large vehicles, support pillars, sandbag walls and dumpsters are examples of full cover.

This explanation makes more sense to me, but cover isn't classified this way anywhere in the (beta) rules. These are the definitions I'll house-rule into my game from this point forward.

[GauntZero 588]

Not seing an enemy at all would rather be blind firing, wouldnt it ?

So handling a blind firing guy who fires on a guy that cannot see the one who fires on him blindly, with a evasion bonus...sounds strange to me

[Darth Smeg 234]

If you're COMPLETELY hidden by cover, then you can't see the attack. If you can't see the attack, then you can't attempt an evasion at all.

 

But yes, the attacker takes a -30 penalty to his attack

[Fgdsfg 1,017]

Not seing an enemy at all would rather be blind firing, wouldnt it ?

So handling a blind firing guy who fires on a guy that cannot see the one who fires on him blindly, with a evasion bonus...sounds strange to me

To say the least. Really, in that situation, it might actually be better to simply treat it by Force Field rules. Now, that sounds odd as hell, but it makes sense. See, the one shooting knows about where you are, but he can't actually aim at you. But he can aim at the cover, because he knows you are behind there.

So, no matter what, being completely covered, he will hit the cover. If you treat the size of the cover as a modifier for Force Field rules, representing the fact that there's a rather wide area he thinks you may or may not be in, if you make the Force Field save, it means he hit the cover, but completely missed you. If you fail the Force Field save, it means he hit you.

On an "Overload", the cover was damaged.

Make sense to anyone else, besides the fact that it *feels* odd to use Force Field rules for Cover, albeit Full Cover only?

[Darth Smeg 234]

Well, the rules at this point are quite simple: The guy shooting gets a -30 to his test. The target may not attempt to Evade.

 

If he hits, the target is protected by cover and adds the Covers AP to his own, as normal.

 

I don't really see how the forcefield rules would make this simpler.

[Fgdsfg 1,017]

Well, the rules at this point are quite simple: The guy shooting gets a -30 to his test. The target may not attempt to Evade.

 

If he hits, the target is protected by cover and adds the Covers AP to his own, as normal.

 

I don't really see how the forcefield rules would make this simpler.

I never said it would be simpler...?

 

[GauntZero 588]

I think it is just really unnecessary to state these confusing example modifiers at the skill section (that are not even mentioned in the combat section). Just delete them and everything should be fine ;D

[seanpp 58]

To add to the chorus, if you can't see the attack you can't evade it.

 

The original topic of how to apply the suggested Dodge modifiers is a good one - since it comes up now & then.  The question was posed at the thread's inception of what does cover have to do with evasion.  I would offer cover makes evasion easier because the target has something to quickly duck behind.

 

Noteworthy is that FFG has made a small change to the suggested Dodge Modifier examples in question.  It went from +20 for "Character has full cover between him and an attack" in the (2nd) beta  - to "Character has obscuring cover between him and an attack" in the 2e book.

 

I think it's an improvement.  If a targeted character is firing around cover they have "partial cover" for +10 to their Dodge Test.  If there is something visibly obscuring - though not completely concealing, of course - then you go to +20.

[GauntZero 588]

If its obscuring, isnt it more like fog, woth a -20 on the attack ?

I really think these examples are rather confusing than helpfull...

[Obihobit 9]

To expand on a question relating to cover - do attacks from Psychic Power benefit from cover?

[seanpp 58]

To expand on a question relating to cover - do attacks from Psychic Power benefit from cover?

Indeed, a necessary question.  Fortunately, I would offer it's been given a manifest answer in 2e by the clear classification of some powers being physical attacks and others not.  In the Psychic Bolts Section on page 198 of the 2e Core it states, "A number of powers produce blasts or energy bolts that inflect harm in a manner not dissimilar to a weapon.  These powers all follow the same basic rules...Psychic Bolts of all kinds can be dodged as if they were any other kind of ranged attack."  The psychic powers are clearly categorized as to whether they fall into the Psychic Bolt (physical attack) category that may be evaded - so these would be the powers that are subject to cover.

 

Cheers

Edited March 27, 2015 by seanpp

[Obihobit 9]

Thanks. But since they follow the rules as ranged weapons, do they also get to-hit bonuses from short/point blank range?

[Desolator2 14]

I believe you needs to roll willpower to hit instead of BS? and you then apply the range modifiers to that roll, yes.

[seanpp 58]

Thanks. But since they follow the rules as ranged weapons, do they also get to-hit bonuses from short/point blank range?

 

No, on page 195 of the 2e Core under the Range and Line of Sight section it states, "The target must also be within the power's stated range, but there are no modifiers for range (Short, Point Blank, etc.)."

Edited March 28, 2015 by seanpp

[Obihobit 9]

Much appreciated. While we're on this topic, what does exactly "or otherwise be aware of" (in relation to line of sight) mean? Does it mean you can cast psychic powers at targets, for example, behind doors (if you can hear them)?