[JoeNapalm]

Draperies? 

If I say "cover" and you think "draperies"...you're doing it wrong. 

Cover generally isn't made of pillows, kittens, or other non-bullet resistant materials. You can conceal yourself behind these things, but they're not really cover. Perhaps SR4 doesn't differentiate between "cover" and "concealment/soft cover"...but it's kind of moot.

Even assuming draperies...seriously...draperies were cover, then, by all means, don't give a bracing bonus. I'm not even suggesting that cover necessarily grant a bracing bonus. I'm saying that firing from cover shouldn't be penalized.

The VTAC barrier doesn't represent "perfect cover" - actually, it's plywood, and wouldn't stop a .22  - it does, however represent a very wide assortment of firing positions from cover. What the cover is made out of is irrelevant. The point is that you can fire from horizontal, vertical, diagonal, slotted, even little openings down on the ground, from a stable firing position.

It is very easy to see someone when they can't see you, if you have an interposing object. (Google "slicing the pie" - I'm long-winded enough without holding a seminar on basic tactical doctrine.)  While you are correct - if you can see their eyes, they can probably see you - but you don't have to see someone's eyes to shoot them. (This, plus the draperies, tells me we have a very different approach to problem solving.  )

But cover isn't even about who can see who's eyes. People attempting to defend the RAW penalty bring up things like hopping about or impaired views - my point is that this isn't the case. Stand at a corner, a tree, whatever, and look around the edge at someone standing in the open.

You can see all of them. Every last bit. If you're doing it right, they should see the muzzle of your weapon, one eyeball, and maybe a most of one hand. So who has the restricted viewing angle?

So even if said cover is made of bouncy castles and stuffed puppy dogs, whither the penalty to the individual in cover? He has an unrestricted view of his opponent, he can engage without the TJ Hooker Dive Roll or hopping about like a March hare, and he has a pretty stable firing platform from either standing, kneeling, or prone.

Cover is good stuff. Seeking it should be encouraged.

I've kind of derailed this into Houserule territory. My group Houserules the penalty out -- one less arbitrary modifier. That said, I never have a problem with someone playing the RAW version (well, okay, except maybe Scatter  ).

-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

[Lethe]

You are stating the obvious: the reason why the other person gets -4 on the attack targeting the person behind cover.

While I was giving examples, in which the covered person would also get a -2 on his attacks.

Sometimes cover limits a character’s ability to see the action and obstructs his view of his target(s), even when he moves quickly out from behind cover to shoot. If the Attacker benefits from Good Cover, or his cover obscures his view, apply a –2 dice pool modifier to any attacks.

Joe: Yes, thats how SR defines cover, material doesn't matter:

the defender’s form is obscured by intervening terrain or other forms of cover such as brush, foliage, or various obstacles (crates, windows, doorways, curtains and the like)

Any yes, your example barrier is perfect cover and again i don't mean the material, but in this case the thickness. You are obscured, while having a "total" field of vision to the other side. 99% of times this will not be the case. read my examples again, please.

[Zilfer]

Ah I see. Still don't know where they get the idea that it's obscuring your view.... <.<

[JoeNapalm]

You are stating the obvious: the reason why the other person gets -4 on the attack targeting the person behind cover.

While I was giving examples, in which the covered person would also get a -2 on his attacks.

Sometimes cover limits a character’s ability to see the action and obstructs his view of his target(s), even when he moves quickly out from behind cover to shoot. If the Attacker benefits from Good Cover, or his cover obscures his view, apply a –2 dice pool modifier to any attacks.

Yes, and I disagree with the rule as it is written, for the above reasons.

(I agree...I am stating the obvious.  )

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Lethe]

And yes, i agree seeking cover is encouraged. It nets you a +2 bonus. +4 to your defense however often you will get attacked at, while being yourself only at a -2.

Imagine seeking cover behind a couch. It will be a very difficult position to hide behind there, while moving to another difficult position to shoot out from it..  unless you have a smartgun.

The rules themselves states, the -2 is optional depending on the kind of cover. All your examples are of course good examples of cover, but that won't be always possible. Thats all i am saying.

[JoeNapalm]

And yes, i agree seeking cover is encouraged. It nets you a +2 bonus. +4 to your defense however often you will get attacked at, while being yourself only at a -2.

Imagine seeking cover behind a couch. It will be a very difficult position to hide behind there, while moving to another difficult position to shoot out from it..  unless you have a smartgun.

The rules themselves states, the -2 is optional depending on the kind of cover. All your examples are of course good examples of cover, but that won't be always possible. Thats all i am saying.

Per your own citing of RAW, the -2 for Good Cover isn't optional.

If you are in Good Cover, you get the -2 penalty.

If it were an optional -2 for people seeking cover that specifically required unique contortions, then...well..that's a penalty for shooting from a weird position. If you're penalizing for a weird position, make it a -2 penalty for Weird Position, rather than a blanket penalty -2 for whenever you're smart enough to find more than 50% cover.




-Jn-
City of Brass Expatriate

[Reaver]

don't forget,

If the target has good cover, he gets +4 to defense.

If the attacker is blind firing (can't see target at all), attacker get -6 to attack.

Possible total bonus: +10 to the target ( -6 for the attack, +4 for defense.)


sometimes it's worth while to hide behind the couch, screaming like a little girl.... until someone else draws his fire.

Attacking from cover negative attack modifier makes some sense to me, i see it as you are trying to fire quickly while keeping the best cover you can. That means you are probably not employing proper firing/shooting techniques, or your ability to bring the weapon to bear is extremely limited in you alloted time... (if you have an IP of 3, firing a semi-auto pistol, you are coming up from cover, bring weapon to bare, firing TWICE and ducking back to cover as best you can in 0.6666667 seconds... that's hella fast!!)

Sadly, I couldn't find anythign about "bracing" a weapon in the rules  Could someone direct me to the book/page? (thank you!)


And as usual, you don't have to use every single rule, or rules you don't like. Change things to suit your gmae/players/play style. Enjoy the game and your buddies!

[JoeNapalm]

Forget? We just had a whole thread about it. 

(Don't get me started on time in SR. It's an abstract. That's all that we need to know. The fact that it's just not that fast isn't important. What's important is how fast one character is in relation to another.)

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Zilfer]

So you think your fast...? *twirls pistol in hand*

XD i could see one of my character's doing that except the one that would be doing it is a mage! XD

[JoeNapalm]

So you think your fast...? *twirls pistol in hand*

XD i could see one of my character's doing that except the one that would be doing it is a mage! XD

If my Mage twirled his revolver, he'd probably shoot himself...

...which would be a marked improvement over his usual level of accuracy.


-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist