When do you Abort?

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess it is assumed that the AOE attack in question was AOE Radius and not Cone since by its very nature Cone would be recognized as AOE as soon as its fired (unlike a hand grenade).

Why would that be any more obvious (assuming the cone has range, of course)? The AoE doesn't necessarily start until the attack hits and goes off. Consider, for example, a sonic grenade which has a 120 degree arc, rather than a 360 degree arc, as the conic area in question.

In fairness, I don't think I've ever seen an AoE cone that wasn't also "no range".

[Hugh Neilson]

A lot of vitriol directed at the GM here. I'm curious what information those on the board feel should have been given to the player.

(a) "He's firing an attack" At whom? Who knows - do you want to Abort in case it's at you?

(b) "He's taking aim on you" player can now decide to dodge or dive for cover, if desired. However, he doesn't know which would be most effective.

(c) "He's taking aim on you. The blast is spreading out" Now I know, presumably, this is an AoE and I should dive for cover. How far should I dive? Is it my GM's fault if I dive too far, or in the wrong direction? After all, if I make my roll but don't clear the appropriate area, I've still wasted my next phase for nothing AND I'm now prone.

(d) "He is taking aim on you. It looks like an AoE of 5" radius, however his hands are shaking, so he's going to miss your hex by 2 and center the radius 2" away from your hex to the right. Would you like to Dive for Cover 4" to the left, which would the the shortest distance to avoid his radius entirely"? [Or "It's a line/1 hex area - you could dive one hex behind you and avoid it entirely."

I consider (a) to be unreasonable - at a minimum, it should be pretty easy to see who he's facing, and where his head is pointed, to get a fair idea of who he's aiming at. Maybe it's not crystal clear if there are two characters standing side by side, but that's splitting hairs.

However, I'd say (d) is equally unreasonable. There are limits to how much you can perceive and, absent high level Precognition on your part, or a limitation/disadvantage that telegraphs the villain's moves on his part, there's no way to get all that detail before he fires.

I'd say (b) or (c) are appropriate, depending on the attack's SFX. As well, if the character has some signature moves, these might make the attack of choice a bit more obvious. ["He raises his hands in the air and a nimbus of evergy glows between them." If that was the stance for the ;ast three AoE's,. it's reasonable to guess what this shot will be.]

Someone mentioned earlier that it's pretty common in the comics for "missed me" to turn out to be an explosion "No, actually I didn't." I seem to recall this with exploding arrows and exploding batarangs, for example.

Another thought: how easy is it for characters to tell the difference between an area effect attack and Spreading to fill multiple hexes?

[Killer Shrike]

Thats a reasonable simulationist approach for the GM to take -- you don't know what attack is being thrown, and you do have to declare your intent to Abort <i>before</i> the opponent actually "pulls the trigger" so to speak; i.e. before they roll to hit.

So you dont know what the attack might be before hand. Further, thanx to the "HERO-ism" of the "Multipower Gun", even in situations where it might otherwise be obvious (machine gun vs. grenade launcher vs. flame thrower, etc), it's not completely predictable.

Danger Sense, knowledge of an opponent, any disadvantagous Reps on the part of the opponent, and description of any SFX build up prior to the attack being launched are all indications that might tip a character that a D4C is more appropriate.

In this case, a character with a name like "Gigaton" might be expected to be a heavy blaster with big effects, but really unless a character like that with "natural" blasts telegraphs their intent somehow, you basically have to guess.

Sounds like your GM later allowed you to make PER checks to discern the nature of an incoming attack via SFX, so it sounds like he was being fair. You didnt mention if he was evenhandedly applying the same logic to the the PC's attack vs the villains. So long as its consistently applied to both sides it's fair.

Some people obviously prefer a less simulationist approach and take more of a "care bear", set the PC's up for success in the interests of "fun" tact. Some people like to play in games where it's a foregone conclusion that the PC's will "win" everytime, and the game is about the "how they do it" rather that than the "can they do it". In such games PCs will frequently be allowed or encouraged to play on knowledge they technically don't have in the interests of fostering easy successes. The same GM might vary in this aspect as well depending on genre or even within the same campaign based upon the status of the opponents being fought (i.e. let things slide with Agents, dial it back up a bit for significant opponents, and turn it high for major villains or encounters). It's just a matter of different playstyles.

[sbarron]

I can see how people might think the GM is being lame, but as long as the characters are able to learn from it, I think it would make the game more fun in the long run.

The first time you fight a villian, you wouldn't have seen his powers in action, so you might make mistakes like this. The next time he fires a particular attack, though, I'd think the PC should be able to recognize the attack for what it is (EB, RKA, Exp. AoE, whatever). This provides an advantage to the character the second time they fight a villian, which is very much in line with the genre. Also, it allows the player to learn about the villians along with his character. I just think that is a cool idea.


Edit: I broke my right hand and now can't type for crap.

[Blue]

I think with diving for cover the question for me has always been about whether to tell the person how big the explosion/AOE is or to have them simply pick a spot and dive to it. Ultimately I give them enough information to give them a safe shot at diving to safety, but it does seem to invalidate most AOE attacks, provided the person hadn't already taken an action this turn.

[Champsguy]

We always do it this way:

GM: He's shooting at you.
Player: I dodge.
GM: Well, it's an Area Effect attack. You'll have to dive for cover.
Player: Okay, I made my dex roll by 4.
GM: You dive 4 hexes over this way. The blast is 10 hexes across. Sorry.

[Hugh Neilson]

We always do it this way:

GM: He's shooting at you.
Player: I dodge.
GM: Well, it's an Area Effect attack. You'll have to dive for cover.
Player: Okay, I made my dex roll by 4.
GM: You dive 4 hexes over this way. The blast is 10 hexes across. Sorry.

I like that approach. I might refine it a bit to require the character to set a maximum distance, which is where they will land

EXAMPLE: I'm diving for cover 10 hexes away, my full leap. I roll and succeed by 4, so when the attack goes off, I'm in the air four hexes away. However, I'll land a further 6 hexes away (bsent knockback if I'm still in the attack radius).

[Dust Raven]

We always do it this way:

GM: He's shooting at you.
Player: I dodge.
GM: Well, it's an Area Effect attack. You'll have to dive for cover.
Player: Okay, I made my dex roll by 4.
GM: You dive 4 hexes over this way. The blast is 10 hexes across. Sorry.

That's kinda how I do it. Though if for some reason the target wouldn't be able to tell whether or not it was an AE Attack, I'd tell the player just that; they can't tell. That way if the make an assumption, it's their assumption and I'm not diliberately misleading them.

I tend to encourage the use of Dive For Cover though. I don't grant it any special bonuses to make it more attractive to the players; I just remind them that if the attack isn't an AE, it automatically missed is the DEX Roll is made. If I'm using Holocust and firing a 20d6 EB and someone, and they know he likes to spread by 8 for accurace, Dive For Cover looks really attractive.

[pinecone]

It looks like I'm in the minority here...thats mostly like I do it for Dive for cover.But "combat telepathy" as a hand wavey power is a pev of mine. I don't enjoy victorys that are not hard won, after all I could just sleep walk my way through and still win if victory is forgone...basicly this is a style thing. I don't let villians pull stuff like that, and I don't let heros do it either.If you've got a power or skill I will totally give it to you but otherwise..."If it don't kill ya, it'll learn ya"... So if you try to dodge a AE and you've got Tactics I'd let ya roll without telling you why, if you fail the roll, well obviously you missed something important. Dangersense is the power of choice for this sort of thing, and using Per rolls in future fights sounds like a fair way to show improved knowlage of the foe. As long as its fun its all good.

[Sean Waters]

Just read the entry for Diving For Cover and learned a couple of things:

1. DFC is an attack action. Really? Weird.
2. You can use DFC to avoid normal attacks as well as AE attacks.

The bit about it being an attack action. Why? I mean you never DFC as part of your regular action: it is an abort action, plain and simple. The only reason for stipulating this that I can see is that it ends your phase, but that implies that it is possible to say abort to turning on a defensive power and still have actions in hand. Probably I'm over-analysisng, but you all know that's whatI do best.

I did know the second point at some level, but always ignored it: if you are fighting a high OCV single opponent 'aborting to taking a step backwards' is always going to be more effective than dodging, assuming they don't have a speed advantage and you have a buddy around with some sort of taser. I just don't really allow that to happen, because it seems to silly.

Anyway: slap the GM? Well no, if I read your post right this is your group's first game and if the GM is new to all this I think some slack should be cut. Hell, lots of slack. I'd been playing a couple of months before I realised that normal defences stopped the body from normal attacks. I lost so many characters that way...

(GM: Take 8 Body and 28 Stun.
Me: Damn, Swooping Crane clutches at his shattered chest and collapses, dead.
GM: What? You weren't even close to unconscious.
Me: I know, but he was already on negative BODY after being hit twice before.
GM: I don't think you can be doing this right...
Me: Well, it's pretty basic subtraction, dammit, give me another character sheet. This time I'm buying at least 50 points of BODY....)

Personally I can't remember this problem ever coming up as we tend not to use AE attacks much, at least not 'normal' ones: if you can take a 12d6 EB with some damage you are going to snigger at a 6d6 one, but I'd be inclined to go with what works best for the group. The arguments both ways are good, but unless you have a genuinely amazing GM s/he isn't going to be able to forget that you are using an AE attack when deetermining defensive response, so I'd go for the user friendly version. I even have a reason:

Think of it this way, dodge and DFC are really only game conventions designed to give you the illusion of realistic choice and to mimic a certain level of comic book/cinematic action drama. You can't really dodge laser beams, and if the explosion goes off on impact, well, you are not going to have time to move even assuming that you noticed the high velocity projectile that housed the explosive. So if you can't argue them as mimicing reality and accept that they are game conventions designed to allow you to enjoy your game more, you have to ask yourself this: which method of play would be most enjoyable?

Not a question any of us can answer for you...good luck!

[Blue]

Generally speaking, if I don't want a player to know what kind of attack is coming at him, I spring for the Invisible Power Effect.

[TheEmerged]

Just read the entry for Diving For Cover and learned a couple of things:

1. DFC is an attack action. Really? Weird.
2. You can use DFC to avoid normal attacks as well as AE attacks.

The bit about it being an attack action. Why? I mean you never DFC as part of your regular action: it is an abort action, plain and simple. The only reason for stipulating this that I can see is that it ends your phase, but that implies that it is possible to say abort to turning on a defensive power and still have actions in hand. Probably I'm over-analysisng, but you all know that's whatI do best.

The way I read that "attack action" thing is that DFC costs you your attack action & ends your phase -- like Block and Dodge.

As for DFC'ing normal attacks? You see this all the time in genre literature -- especially with hyper-DEX character like Spiderman and Nightcrawler. Most of the time this is not a good idea unless you're SPD is a lot higher than the opposition or your side outnumbers theirs -- you are left at 1/2 DCV and can't do anything else that segment, including DFC the next attack on the same segment...

[pinecone]

Yeah I just figured it was written that way to stop someone from going "I'll dive for cover behind those crates and then blast'em with 3/4 cover".....By ending your phase you can leave it in the "only abort" box.....

[Champsguy]

The way I read that "attack action" thing is that DFC costs you your attack action & ends your phase -- like Block and Dodge.

As for DFC'ing normal attacks? You see this all the time in genre literature -- especially with hyper-DEX character like Spiderman and Nightcrawler. Most of the time this is not a good idea unless you're SPD is a lot higher than the opposition or your side outnumbers theirs -- you are left at 1/2 DCV and can't do anything else that segment, including DFC the next attack on the same segment...

See, I'll let someone dive for cover behind an obstacle or something to avoid a normal attack, but I don't let them dive for cover to just avoid it. That's not fair to the guy who bought a 20 OCV. What you see in the comics is the sfx of a dodge.

"Let me get this straight, I bought a 20 OCV, and the guy with an 18 Dex and one overall level made a 14- roll to avoid it?"
"Yep."
"How much did he have to make it by?"
"None. He just had to make it."
"Then why would he ever dodge?"
"Don't know."
"This game is so gay."

[Hyper-Man]

See, I'll let someone dive for cover behind an obstacle or something to avoid a normal attack, but I don't let them dive for cover to just avoid it. That's not fair to the guy who bought a 20 OCV. What you see in the comics is the sfx of a dodge.

"Let me get this straight, I bought a 20 OCV, and the guy with an 18 Dex and one overall level made a 14- roll to avoid it?"
"Yep."
"How much did he have to make it by?"
"None. He just had to make it."
"Then why would he ever dodge?"
"Don't know."
"This game is so gay."

Your example disregards speed.
Assuming that the 20 OCV character has the same or higher SPD than the defender, say 6, the attacker could in theory delay a phase and then fire his attack on phase 5 to prompt an abort to dive for cover and then again on phase 6 now vs. a half DCV 18 DEX character who cannot abort again.

This might be considered metagaming but is no more so than using dive for cover (an optional rule) against non-area affect attacks so I would allow it.