Concealment and Cover

utsukushi
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Concealment and Cover

Postby utsukushi » Wed Apr 04, 2018 12:23 pm

But the point of the Firing Into Melee rules is the chaos involved, the case being that even if you aim really well, you can't account for your friend potentially moving into your line of fire just as you pull the trigger. That's why it matters that it's just "even or odd", which stay the same odds no matter how well you roll. To apply those rules to cover would imply that the table, car door, cement barricade, or whatever, is bobbing and weaving and darting in and out of the area between the attacker and their target and skill can't possibly account for its erratic movements.

I like my cement barricades a little more sedate than that. <grin>

I know you were talking about the target's head bobbing around, but the rules already assume people are trying not to get hit. That's what their defensive skills are for, and why that sets the target.

Sword of Spirit
Posts: 146
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2018 5:03 am

Re: Concealment and Cover

Postby Sword of Spirit » Thu Apr 05, 2018 2:13 am

RamblingScribe wrote:I think that I will treat it that cover and concealment stack. Like this.

A character is partially hidden by a table and the bad guys can see part of him, but it's not clear how his body is positioned, so they get -2 to hit (concealment), even if the table is made of cardboard.

But it's made of wood, so they get a further -2 to hit, except that if they miss by 2 or less, they hit him through the table and he gets armour (cover).

A plexiglass table would give the cover but not the concealment.

Darkness etc stack with cover, but not concealment.

You can do a called shot to an unconcealed area of the body, but not a concealed part.

This will work better for my sense of realism with the fewest changes.


That's pretty much how I'm planning on doing it, though I don't use the term "Concealment" because that has a specific game meaning. Rather I just apply the Darkness penalties to anything that makes aiming/visibility an issue.

The mechanical effect we are talking about ends up being the way TorgHacker says they decided it should work, (with the exception that the rules don't technically mention the sort of visibility issues I'm talking about other than Darkness or Blind-Fire). So we're basically doing it the official way.

mica
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Jan 15, 2018 4:32 pm

Re: Concealment and Cover

Postby mica » Fri Apr 06, 2018 4:14 am

The technique was meant to separate cover from concealment.
Consider the situation where a target dives between tables or runs through a forest or is on the other side of a busy road. He will have 100% cover for a fraction of the round as objects intervene between the target and the attacker. This can be treated as having less than 100% cover and effectively the same as a target intermittently leaning out from behind cover and returning fire (the bobbing up and down scenario referred to above).
The person opening fire has two choices. The first is to track the target but only fire when the target moves into the gaps; in which case cover is ignored (this option is already covered in called shots). The alternative is to fire when you have a bead on the target irrespective of intervening obstacles (firing into combat or any of the above scenarios). You will note that this does not equate to dancing tables or other such comedy but is just an approximation of how much cover the target will have over a round.

The main issue with the current mechanic is that it is a double whammy. Basically you currently hit when you would normally miss with the concealment penalty but suffer the cover penalty to damage. This means that you actually get a negative success which stacks to reduce the chance of a great and outstanding success.
For example, you miss by 4, which means you could hit at a -4 to the result and get 2 points of armour. Even if you play cards you still have to overcome the -4, i.e. generate +9 in bonuses to get +1db but also encounter the extra 2 armour.

The odd bit is lighting and dodge - why doesn't a character in the pitch black get a penalty to dodge? How do they know they are not diving into a swinging blade or line of fire?

All that said, these rules are merely attempting to approximate a situation so it is down to the GM to look at case by case scenarios and simply award what they think are reasonable penalties or bonuses.

utsukushi
Posts: 963
Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Concealment and Cover

Postby utsukushi » Sat Apr 07, 2018 1:26 am

I do like the idea of applying Firing Into Melee in situations that kind of mimic that, like trying to fire across lanes of fast-moving traffic, since that is very much akin to firing into a melee. (And Storm Knights should never do it because you're way too likely to hit an innocent bystander!)

But hiding behind trees and tables, even if you're moving, doesn't have the same chaos that the evens-and-odds rule is meant to enforce. The combination of Dodge, Concealment, and Cover, all together, do that already, and allow for the fact that when whatever you're using to protect yourself is stable, while it might make their job harder, a skilled opponent can account for it.

I am sorry for kind of making fun of the idea; I was only trying to be a bit, well, funny, not to actually tease. It's not a bad idea at all, but the cases where it works (for me) are even rarer than the cases where Concealment and Darkness conflict.

mica wrote:The odd bit is lighting and dodge - why doesn't a character in the pitch black get a penalty to dodge? How do they know they are not diving into a swinging blade or line of fire?

I'd make the case that darkness more makes it hard to accomplish anything - it's difficult to engage with your opponent at all, so it makes sense that that would net out to a bonus to dodging. In practice, dodging might be different in the dark than it is in the light. You probably aren't diving anywhere if it's really dark; then it's more a matter of moving slowly and quietly, remembering where your opponents are from the little hints you can glean and positioning yourself accordingly. And someone with a high Dodge skill will know this, and do so, while someone with a lower Dodge skill might still be bobbing and diving around... both potentially putting themselves into the line of fire, as you say, and giving their enemies more to go on in finding out where they are. But that's just reflected mechanically in them having a lower Dodge score.

Of course that's totally working backwards from the rules, but that's OK. This... might not come out very well in a lot of my writing, because I often get overexcited about things (especially Torg-related things), *and* I often think I'm funnier than I might actually be, but my base view on a rule is that if you *can* work backwards and find an explanation that makes sense, then you should do that, even if you could *also* work out a case where that rule doesn't work. It's when I try to work backwards from a rule and I just can't make sense out of it that I start complaining. I honestly don't just go attacking rules for fun.

I mean, it can BE fun sometimes - praise Lanala! - but that's not why. <grin>


Return to “Rules Questions (TORG)”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests