Jump to content

Recommended Posts

It's Star Wars,with starships that create an audible and distinctive roar as they zip past, select groups of people employing psychic powers, and a slew of other things that fly (literally) in the face of the laws of physics (faster than light travel and lightsabers being two of them).  Any realism in Star Wars is kind of like historical accuracy in the movie 300; it's a happy accident :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All the reasons that people have mentioned for why cover and armor don't stack are pretty lame.  To say "spaceships make noise in space in Star Wars, therefore a barrier between you and a laser doesn't mean anything if you're wearing protective gear" is a poor arguement.  The designers admitted that it was for metagame reasons, to keep dice pools from getting too bloated. 

 

That said, my group has so far been allowing armor to stack with defense.  It doesn't break the game.  If you want cover to stack in your game but are worried about dice pools getting too big, an alternative would be to allow them to stack, but then make defense max out at 4 or something like that.  That's similiar to the starship combat rules where a starship can have a max of 4 defense in any arc at any given time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Armour, of course, increases soak, and only a few versions provide an actual defensive value. I can see why you simply use the highest value rather than letting things stack. Best defense available simplifies things.

Wearing armoured clothing and hiding behind a wood table would both provide a defensive measure of some sort, but truthfully not all that much. A successful blaster hit would not really be slowed down effectively enough to warrant two setback dice as a defense value, and the armour in the clothing doesn't do you much good if it hits you in a non-armoured spot.

Also, if defenses stack, why did he droidekas (destroyers) not dive for cover? (They didn't need to)

I'm one for keeping it simple, as well as allowing the benefit that a personal defensive device renders (ie. not having to spend manoeuvre strain to aim) to allow for more interesting combats, rather than a bunch of people stacking multiple tables in front of them... Which is likely the natural outcome of allowing defense to stack...

Edited by Agatheron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But stacking two tables in front of you isn't going to do anything, since they are both covering the same areas in front of you.  If you shoot around one table, you shoot around both.  Shooting around one table doesn't magically make your armor disappear.

What kills me about them not stacking is that a naked man sitting behind a table trying not to get shot is at the defensive level as a man wearing heavy armor, save his +2 soak.  But if he just wanted more soak, he wouldn't have shelled out 5000 credits for Heavy Battle Armor.  I understand suspension of disbelief for making starship noises and explosions (because it is cool) but I can't condone removing player options that make perfect sense, like an armored dude hiding behind cover, for example.

And as for the Droidekas, I can guarantee you that their programming did not include a "Take Cover" option because their shield generator already provides two defense.  Sure, they could potentially get 3 or 4 if you allowed cover to stack with their shield and they took cover, but with two defense already there, it may not be necessary.  It certainly saves the cost of the verbobrains required in each individual droid by not having them asses the battlefield for strategic cover, and instead just deploy into mobile assault platforms.

AND BEFORE YOU START SAYING "Well, you just proved my point by saying that if you have armor you don't need cover" business, realize instead that I'm saying having armor means that you can get away without having cover IF YOU WANT TO, but you should STILL have the option of using a maneuver to get into cover if it is available and get some benefit from it, instead of literally nothing happening from it.

 

With how this game is set up, I feel like realism, believability, and sense overcome the metagame, and I'm a little disappointed that the devs have ruled that they don't stack, especially since there are PLENTY of ways to negate defense (Advantages, outflanking, and melee attacks for advantages, and Precise Aim, which can negate both.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those are reasonable arguments, but the rules as written say they don't stack. You are free to house rule that they do, I'm looking at reasons as to why the game designers specifically said that they don't. To me it makes sense that they don't... And truthfully defense values aren't going to be that common early in campaigns, and players will get used to diving behind cover. For me by using "best available" it gives players more options in terms of their attack.

I did anticipate the dive-for-cover with the droidekas. Yes, I don't think they were programmed to, but they didn't need to because of their shield systems... Basic battle droids don't either as they rely on numbers. By contrast, Commando droids do, as they are better programmed for tight space combat.

Here's another example: the Forsaken Jedi is a beast to hit. He/she/it has a ranged defense of 2 (plus adversary talent). Likely that defense ability comes from the Forsaken Jedi's ability to anticipate shots and move out of the way or even deflect shots... That defense value is contingent on their ability to be mobile in combat. Hiding behind cover, a Jedi is theoretically holding still, and therefore can't really use their preternatural ability to dodge when doing so.

The rules as they stand make sense to me for these and other reasons. It may not make or break combat, but keeping setback dice numbers on an even keel with potential bonus dice is something to consider.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was just floating an idea to justify RAW. Personally I don't have a problem with some degree of stacking of armour and cover. I think about it this way, cover makes you harder to hit, armour makes you harder to damage. If I am wearing armour and hiding behind a big rock I will be both harder to hit and harder to damage. If I am buck naked hiding behind a big rock I will be harder to hit, but no harder to damage if you hit me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well... normally cover makes you harder to hit (adding setback dice via a defense value), and armour makes you harder to damage (soak value). The question is, when the armour itself has qualities that also make you harder to hit, what is it about the armour that makes you harder to hit. In the case of armoured clothing, some of the panels work a bit more like a deflective shield rather than damage absorption. Same deal with the Heavy Battle Armour.

 

Personal deflector shields are bulky and inconvenient really...

 

So really, when talking about armour, for the most part we are going to talk about soak (mostly), and occasionally low-end defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Setback die also deflect damage as well, in the form of cancelling excess successes that would increase damage.

 

Given the Forsaken Jedi example you gave, I could see an argument not permitting those defenses to stack.  Arguably, hiding behind cover would make it easier for a jedi to deflect lightsaber bolts, since you would only have to worry about blocking bolts coming up over the cover, instead of at your entire body.  Keep in mind they get that defensive bonus from their lightsaber, so it is NOT from dodging.  It is from the deflective properties of their lightsaber.

I do know that it is RAW that they don't stack... but it is also RAW that you throw out the rules when the rules would cause you or your players to not have the most fun you can.

 

If I tell my mandalorian in HBA that taking cover does absolutely nothing for him and that he's SOL, well, I can easily see that making him annoyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

 

Hmm... How does that work with armour +1 Defense, +1 Soak and two vibro swords?

 

Defense 2 or 3?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hmm... How does that work with armour +1 Defense, +1 Soak and two vibro swords?

 

Defense 2 or 3?

I'd say Melee Defense 2, since the Defensive trait wouldn't stack with itself as it's being applied as a weapon quality, much the same as wearing a set of armored clothing and heavy battle armor wouldn't suddenly give you Defense 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just off the top of my head (as I haven't analyzed it for viability, or applied it in practice or anything)...

 

What if you simply house rule that any "unused" defense due to overlap instead becomes additional soak?

 

So, for example, Armored Clothing (+1 Defense/+1 Soak) - when behind cover - becomes +2 Soak instead.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey guys, long time lurker and first time poster here. Just thought I'd butt my head in here because I finally had something important enough to say.

 

From The Order 66 Podcast, episode 14:

 

Sam Stewart: "In general the two things do not stack from each other."

 

Sam Stewart: "Unless the source of defense specifically states otherwise."

 

Core rulebook page 213, under Cover:

 

"...increases the character's ranged defense by 1..."

 

My take from Sam's clarification is that defense from cover does stack with whatever other defense you have (certain pieces of armor, for instance). Armors state a definite number for defense if they have any, but nothing about stacking, so they follow the general rule of no stacking (ie. defense from two pieces of armor do not stack). Cover however specifically breaks the rule by stating that it increases the ranged defense (but not melee) by 1, so it stacks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Core rulebook page 213, under Cover:

 

"...increases the character's ranged defense by 1..."

 

My take from Sam's clarification is that defense from cover does stack with whatever other defense you have (certain pieces of armor, for instance). Armors state a definite number for defense if they have any, but nothing about stacking, so they follow the general rule of no stacking (ie. defense from two pieces of armor do not stack). Cover however specifically breaks the rule by stating that it increases the ranged defense (but not melee) by 1, so it stacks.

 

Yes, but page 207 also states: "Multiple sources of defence do not stack". Those two conflicting quotes from those two pages are the source of all this headscratching.

 

 

Just off the top of my head (as I haven't analyzed it for viability, or applied it in practice or anything)...

 

What if you simply house rule that any "unused" defense due to overlap instead becomes additional soak?

 

So, for example, Armored Clothing (+1 Defense/+1 Soak) - when behind cover - becomes +2 Soak instead.

 

This actually sounds like a very good idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Core rulebook page 213, under Cover:

 

"...increases the character's ranged defense by 1..."

 

My take from Sam's clarification is that defense from cover does stack with whatever other defense you have (certain pieces of armor, for instance). Armors state a definite number for defense if they have any, but nothing about stacking, so they follow the general rule of no stacking (ie. defense from two pieces of armor do not stack). Cover however specifically breaks the rule by stating that it increases the ranged defense (but not melee) by 1, so it stacks.

 

Yes, but page 207 also states: "Multiple sources of defence do not stack". Those two conflicting quotes from those two pages are the source of all this headscratching.

 

Yeah, it does state that and without Sam's clarification I'd be scratching my head right with you.

 

I guess I was fortunate not to have read the rulebook that far before I listened to episode 14, because reading the rules after Sam's clarification I can see how page 207 sets the general rule (Sam: "In general the two things do not stack from each other") and page 213 includes one specific example where the rule is broken (Sam: "Unless the source of defense specifically states otherwise").

 

Cover doesn't stack. 213 is incorrect the earlier reference 207 iirc is the correct one. Scroll back a page or two

 

 

I read the thread and I'm saying Cover stacks based on Sam's clarification.

Edited by Cairo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam has specifically clarified that 213 is wrong, cover and armor don't stack RAW or RAI. I think this can be an easy houserule.

I originally thought the same thing about 213

Edited by WarrenH

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sam has specifically clarified that 213 is wrong and cover And armor don't stack

 

That should be easy enough to verify. Can you tell me at what point he said that in the podcast? (or elsewhere)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah that podcast specifically says armor and cover don't stack. In the last thread about this myself and another poster both confirmed the official rules answer we got from Sam through the ask a rule question section. When I get home happy to link to that thread

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Warren, that's much appreciated. In the meanwhile here's a transcript of that part of the podcast and a highlight where it specifically says armor and cover do stack:

 

 

"GM: Rikoshi needs some defense clarification. He says page 207 says that multiple sources of defense don't stack. Is this referring to personal sources of defense or does this mean the defense from cover and defense from armor don't stack?
 
Sam: It doe… that's a good question and unless the source of defense specifically states otherwise, you know, unless it's… unless the source specifically breaks that rule it doesn't stack. So yes, in general if you have defense from your armor and you have defense from your cover you only get a certain amount of bonus.
 
And the big reason that exists, from a totally meta-game reason, is to avoid stacking too many bonuses and bloating out the dice pool too much. And it also may mean that if you need to get some… if you want to get a higher defense than your armored clothing offers for example, maybe you just need to get in better cover, like get behind a trench or a giant duracrete building or something.
 
But yes, in general, the two things do not stack from each other."
Edited by Cairo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a quote from that thread

Ok, I have had a very quick answer from Mr Sam Stewart himself, it was as stated on the order 66 podcast. Defense from cover absolutely does not stack.

Mr Stewart was really helpful and explained;

"The reason we changed defense slightly is we wanted to balance defense with, on the one hand, being useful to the players and allowing them to increase it, with, on the other hand, avoiding really bloated dice pools. We ret-conned the change in the Beta after we decided (post-Beta) to make Sixth Sense and Superior Reflexes not Force talents (leaving them potentially open to more characters in the future). Now armor and cover don't stack, but the "defensive" talents do."

What a totally nice guy!

(And this means i have changed my mind back, it doesn't mean that I haven't grown as a person just that I have realised, as a fan boy, that a Devs word is LAW!!!, Sam is to FFG what Dredd is to MegaCity One)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks again Warren, if that's Sam's last word on the subject then obviously it overrides whatever earlier explanations were given and understandings were drawn from them.

 

I stand corrected and would be very interested to hear what Sam meant with the portion I've highlighted in my previous post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...