Combat and Cover issues experienced today...

[Nerhesi]

So I just returned from my weekly 5 hour session and we have been using the new combat rules. I have some concerns:

With the new move to Cover just adding armor, we've moved away from basically aiming to hit the exposed target, to simply firing through whatever. It doesn't really seem to fit from both a system perspective or a role-play perspective. My players want to hit the exposed head, or arm for example, rather than firing through a bunker wall... sorry too bad?

Bane/Boon definitely don't cut it. My ability to shoot a barely exposed section of someone's head shouldn't be the same as my ability to shoot someone hiding behind bush that is covering barely 1/3rd of them.

We had to switch to an alternate system for latter half of the session, that being:

Trying to hit a target in Cover is -2 (as per the beta rules), or -4 or -6. Basically, we added higher "levels" of cover.
OR
Shooting through the cover is no -DM, but simply takes into account the armour value you are shooting through.

This fixes the "I'm aiming for the exposed part... aiming... aiming, and yes! I hit with a 14 total! oh.. I still subtract armour for the cover?!?!" and allows characters more reasons to continue to improve their skills (otherwise that attainable +8 to hit (augmented) will almost never miss as well).

Thoughts?

 

[ShawnDriscoll]

So you found some bushes that are bullet-proof. And you found some side-of-a-barn to shoot at that no one needed to roll for to see if they hit it or not?

 

[TrippyHippy]

I've yet to play it myself, but maybe the issue is the AVs of the respective covers are too low. Shooting through a tree trunk merely provides 4 AP? Most rifles would struggle to shoot through a tree trunk. Secondly, it is actually difficult to target anybody if they are....y'know....hidden behind something. There should be a disadvantage (bane?) for shooting at someone hidden as well as increasing the difficulty threshold.

 

[VenomousFiligree]

I guess it depends on how you interpret "if an enemy is aware of the Traveller's presence".

Is it a general awareness of a Traveller hiding behind a vehicle, or the precise location given by a scanner (or similar)

 

[Nerhesi]

So you found some bushes that are bullet-proof. And you found some side-of-a-barn to shoot at that no one needed to roll for to see if they hit it or not?

Side of a barn? No, your professional soldier with either dex of 12 or atheletics(dex) of 2. Dodging, into cover (-4).

Also, from the rules, Bushes are +2 armour, tree trunks are +4. Refrees are free to devise their own values. You always apply the armour from cover.

So tell me Mr. Driscoll, if I'm hiding behind a 15 vehicle armour (150 traveller scale), what do the rules inform us of now? If I may also ask, how would you determine if the players are trying to snipe the exposed head of a target as they poke out of their vehicle/foxhole/bunker/etc...?

 

[grauenwolf]

Shooting through cover should still have a DM because you can't necessarily tell exactly where the person is.

 

[grauenwolf]

As for avoiding cover, I would use this rule:

A man-sized target is Average 8+.
A half-man sized target is Difficult 10+.
Just a head is Very Difficult 12+
Anything smaller like a hand is Formidable 14+

So yea, if you want to just aim for the head go fit it.

 

[Nerhesi]

Shooting through cover should still have a DM because you can't necessarily tell exactly where the person is.

Agreed - that would be the bare -2. To me thats shooting a target in cover because you're applying the cover armour in the way

As for avoiding cover, I would use this rule:

A man-sized target is Average 8+.
A half-man sized target is Difficult 10+.
Just a head is Very Difficult 12+
Anything smaller like a hand is Formidable 14+

So yea, if you want to just aim for the head go fit it.

Oh - where is that? I must have missed it. Funny enough - it is exactly the same as the -4/-6 rule that we use and is from previous editions - making hitting a target that is mostly hidden (bunker or so) a 14+

 

[grauenwolf]

Oh - where is that? I must have missed it. Funny enough - it is exactly the same as the -4/-6 rule that we use and is from previous editions - making hitting a target that is mostly hidden (bunker or so) a 14+

That's just my proposal, I'm not aware of any rules explicitly talking about hitting smaller targets.

 

[MongooseMatt]

You might be conflating two rules here.

If you can see any part of the enemy, you use the Cover rules. If you can't but know he is there (someone has ducked behind a wall, for example), you use Hiding.

DM-2 to hit regardless, but you only use the Armour protection if the enemy is completely hidden.

 

[Nerhesi]

You might be conflating two rules here.

If you can see any part of the enemy, you use the Cover rules. If you can't but know he is there (someone has ducked behind a wall, for example), you use Hiding.

DM-2 to hit regardless, but you only use the Armour protection if the enemy is completely hidden.

Ah ok, thanks for the clarification

 

[grauenwolf]

You might be conflating two rules here.

If you can see any part of the enemy, you use the Cover rules. If you can't but know he is there (someone has ducked behind a wall, for example), you use Hiding.

DM-2 to hit regardless, but you only use the Armour protection if the enemy is completely hidden.

That will need to be clarified in the rules.