Rules Question - Cover and Hiding

[disziplin]

Cover is simple enough to understand: a Traveller in any amount and type of cover bestows a -2DM to his attacker.

The next section called Hiding seems to muddy that, at least for me. The definition for hiding insists that the character be entirely concealed from his attackers. Makes sense. But then the table states:

"The following table gives some examples of Armour
bonuses granted by cover. The referee is free to devise
his own based on the values of this table."

My confusion is: does the table only apply to those who are hiding (100% concealed) and are attacked, or does the table also apply to those in partial cover as well?

Thanks in advance...

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Let me try...

I would say it's up to the Referee if you get any extra armour:

Diving for Cover (p73)
...
A Traveller diving for cover will inflict a DM-2 on the attack roll of every attacker who targets him in this combat round, and may get a bonus to his Armour.

It may also be a choice for the attacker, e.g. a target is in cover behind a car door, the attacker can choose to attack the exposed part of the target (-DM) or choose to shoot through the car door (a little extra armour).

 

[disziplin]

Thanks for your reply. I appreciate it.

I think what you're suggesting is more of a house rule, which is fine. I may adopt that in the future.

Right now I am curious of the intention of the rule as written. The table which lists the armor DMs is within the section entitled "Hidden", but the the description implies the modifiers are applicable to anyone in cover, not just hidden, hence my confusion.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

I think what you're suggesting is more of a house rule, which is fine. I may adopt that in the future.

Right now I am curious of the intention of the rule as written.

I can't say what the intention was, but I see a fairly vague system, with some tools for the Referee to use. I guess it is up to the Referee to judge things on an ad hoc basis.

 

[disziplin]

Good point. Thanks again

 

[steve98052]

I don't have the book handy, but there are two kinds of cover.

One provides concealment and makes it difficult to hit because the attacker isn't sure where the target is. (Examples: smoke, hanging laundry, leaves, darkness.

The other provides protection, even if it doesn't impair the attacker's ability to know where the target is. Examples: bullet resistant glass, the car door Another Dilbert mentioned.

Some items could be both. Examples: a crenelated wall, the combination of trees and camouflage, a wide foxhole.

 

[disziplin]

OK, that helps. Thanks for your reply.

 

[phavoc]

In the military we are taught the differences between cover and concealment. Cover provides protection and (usually) concealment at the same time. Concealment just offers obfuscation from detection, and if detected provides NO benefit from incoming fire.

An example is a foxhole. It provides both cover AND concealment. Depending on the type of incoming fire, it provides total protection (bullets), or partial protection (artillery rounds), or potentially no protection (grenade sharing your foxhole with you - which is why you are taught to dig slopes in your foxhole and grenade sumps).

Concealment would be hiding behind a curtain (lets assume your bulk and boots are fully concealed). Unless your attacker is blindly firing into the curtain you are safe from incoming fire - but once they open fire the curtain provides no protection from incoming fire.

To be fair, it's damn difficult to put into a referee's table because cover varies - a wall, armor plating, a car, etc. Basically each time is going to be a judgement call. Even if you had a wall to hide behind, what's the makeup of the wall? Is it inside a building (drwyall, not much ballistic protection -i.e. cover - but total concealment), is it a stone wall, is it reinforced concrete, or is it a castle wall? All are walls!

Best advice - wing it and use common sense.

 

[collins355]

I think I understand the question, which is, does the extra armour on the table on p74 apply to a character who is not hiding but has some partially obscuring cover between him and the adversary?

And the answer is that it isn't clear. I'd say that, as written, you could make a stronger case that it doesn't. As the OP notes, the table is put in the section on hiding rather than in the earlier section for a start. And the paragraph "However, if an enemy is aware of the Traveller’s
presence, he can still be attacked. The Traveller gains
all the benefits of cover, but also gains a bonus to his
Armour protection (or giving the Traveller an Armour
score if it did not already have one). The amount of
bonus Armour a target receives depends on the type of
cover it is hiding behind." suggests that the table only applies in one specific situation (i.e. when a character is hiding but the enemy is still aware of his presence - this could be because he has previously fired from that position).

 

[disziplin]

If anything, I think it's clear that the intention of the rule is, well...unclear. I appreciate all of the opinions. I guess I will wing it when it occurs, based on the circumstances. I'm not opposed to house rules in the least, but I think they are best kept in balance with the rules themselves when they are derived from an understanding of the original intent.

 

[arcador]

Indeed it's a little bit vague.

I have come to the following conclusions for my situation.

Using cover (meaning usually attacking) grants -2 to being hit.
Hiding (meaning not attacking) grants -2 to being hit and a bonus to armor. (The rule states hiding grants all benefits of cover, which is the -2 to being hit)

Diving for cover grants -2 to being hit from everyone (for cover) and grants bonus to armor, but perhaps only after the first attack. I assume diving for cover is making an attempt to put yourself out of the enemy fire fully.

Against weapons with BLAST trait, I always assume cover grants armor, if it's between the blast and the target.