Cover (maneuver): How to Use

[Christopher R Taylor]

I kind of like that better, as a solution.  Its not as absolute and it fits the system a bit better, but I wouldn't put a penalty on it, since its situational and sacrifices a phase to use later.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

25 minutes ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

I kind of like that better, as a solution.  Its not as absolute and it fits the system a bit better, but I wouldn't put a penalty on it, since its situational and sacrifices a phase to use later.

It prevents anyone from Aborting to defend.  That's pretty huge. 

[Vanguard]

On 9/7/2019 at 5:41 AM, Duke Bushido said:

The write up specifically says its a build to represent being missed using a mechanic (armor ) that does nothing until after you've been hit _and_ the damage has been rolled.

 

And you've never, ever changed anything that was RAW?

 

We've used Combat Luck to represent everything from "Nah-nah you missed me!!" to "the bullet hit a particularly thick portion of your armor".

 

For someone who seems to have no problem with house rules and/or making changes to his game for the better, you seem particular stuck on the wording of this . . 

 

But as you say, you're done talking about this and now so am I.

[Vanguard]

On 9/7/2019 at 8:09 AM, Scott Ruggels said:

 

There was an issue of Spider-Man, dealing with a character's drug abuse. The comics code prohibited the depiction of the use of drugs. Stan Lee thought the story was important so he appealed. The appeal was denied, so he took the seal off the cover, and printed it anyway. The public didnt notice. The seal stayed up for a time but concurrently other publishers arose, like Pacific Comics (With titles like Groo The Wanderer, and John Sable Freelance), Eclipse Comics, and others that never bothered with the comics code. The code was an artifact of Newsstand distribution. With the shift of comics to comic shops, there was no longer a need for the code. 

 

 

Thanks Scott.  

[Scott Ruggels]

You're welcome. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

It prevents anyone from Aborting to defend.  That's pretty huge. 

 

Sure, and I think that's the logic of why the Cover maneuver takes a -2 OCV now.  But nothing about that says that it should be less accurate, just more difficult to do.  If there's ever been a maneuver which should be pretty accurate, its a cover maneuver, since you can aim more carefully as the other person freezes and doesn't react.  Lower DCV makes a lot more sense, since you're not dodging around, either.

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

On 9/14/2019 at 8:11 AM, Christopher R Taylor said:

Sure, and I think that's the logic of why the Cover maneuver takes a -2 OCV now.  But nothing about that says that it should be less accurate, just more difficult to do.  If there's ever been a maneuver which should be pretty accurate, its a cover maneuver, since you can aim more carefully as the other person freezes and doesn't react.  Lower DCV makes a lot more sense, since you're not dodging around, either.

Here's my reason for objecting to that. 

If Robert sees the heroes knocking out his fellow criminals and turns to take a shot at Sally, InvincoLad can charge into the line of fire, Teen Tornado can blow the bullet off course, or Barrier Boy can put up a forcefield.  In mechanical terms, one of the heroes is Aborting to a defensive action to protect Sally.  This makes narrative sense to me. 

If Robert sees the heroes knocking out his fellow criminals and turns to point his gun at Sally but doesn't fire, InvincoLad can't charge into the line of fire, Teen Tornado can't be ready to blow the bullet off course, and Barrier Boy can't put up a forcefield.  In mechanical terms, the Cover maneuver is proposed to prevent Aborting.  This makes no narrative sense to me.  Why does Robert taking longer to fire prevent the heroes from reacting?  If anything, it should make it easier! 

[Duke Bushido]

GB(i), my friend, 

 

I don't think there are many narrative players left.  I don't think this system has had an overabundance of them in years.

 

 

 

[Gnome BODY (important!)]

50 minutes ago, Duke Bushido said:

GB(i), my friend, 

 

I don't think there are many narrative players left.  I don't think this system has had an overabundance of them in years.

 

I'd hardly call myself a narrative player.  I just don't like it when applying the rules to a situation and describing the outcome results in nonsense. 

[Christopher R Taylor]

Quote

his makes narrative sense to me. 

 

But that's a problem with Cover as a maneuver, not what I was talking about

[Chris Goodwin]

1 hour ago, Christopher R Taylor said:

 

But that's a problem with Cover as a maneuver, not what I was talking about

 

A question I was getting at earlier, but never really articulated -- my fault -- was:  does the Cover maneuver cause someone to freeze and go to 0 DCV, does it presuppose they're already freezing and 0 DCV, or does it even care whether or not they're at 0 DCV?  

 

The version in Danger International seemed to assume that if you successfully used the maneuver, the target would drop to 0 DCV.  Which may or may not be relevant to what it does now, except that we're assuming that, at some point, the target does drop to 0 DCV.  

 

But... if you're attempting to Cover someone who is at full DCV and attempting to avoid being hit, then you're not, strictly speaking, attempting to Cover them.  You're attempting to attack them.  

 

It seems to me that the essential components of Cover are: the ability to roll the Attack Roll before actually using the attack, the target's inability to resist or avoid the attack except for in a particular set of circumstances, and the target already being at 0 DCV.  

 

The target's inability to resist or avoid the attack seems to be baked into the maneuver... but we see plenty of fiction where the attacker does in fact either miss their Covered target, or their target is able to do something to either escape or turn the tables on the attacker.  (How many times does the covered target, within HTH range, stomp the attacker's foot, elbow them in the gut, or otherwise throw them off?)

 

The target being at 0 DCV... the Cover maneuver always has, and in my opinion should, assume that the attacker yells "Freeze!" or something similar.  The appropriate thing to do here would be to roll a Presence Attack to see if the target in fact freezes, but that doesn't seem to be specified in any version of Covered, from first to now, with the exception of the one in Danger International.  (All of the other historical versions are more or less the same from first edition to now.)  

 

The other question that seems to be asked is: what if someone uses a Power to attempt to interfere?  The maneuver doesn't specify; we can always fall back on the trio of common sense, dramatic sense, and special effects.  The maneuver never existed in any version of Champions prior to 4th, so I would guess that it's not necessarily a superheroic level thing to happen.  Does it happen often in superhero games?  I know it's reasonably common for a villain to say "Freeze, or Lois Lane gets it!" and to hold her covered, but that's between NPCs, so is it something we really need a mechanic to cover?  Characters who can bounce bullets aren't likely to be fazed when a thug or a cop points a gun at them and says "Freeze!"  (The scene from The Incredibles where Bob and Lucius are facing down either security guards or cops, and they tell Lucius to "Freeze!", is a good one to note.)  

 

The additional questions I have are as follows.  Why does resolution happen at the time the maneuver is declared, rather than at the time it is resolved?  Does the attacker know that the Attack Roll is successful (from their in-universe standpoint, whether they hit or not)?  A further question is that, often, in non-superheroic genres, a 17 or 18 rolled on an Attack Roll with a weapon that has the Real Weapon Limitation means that some kind of mishap occurs: the gun jams, or something similar.  Does the attacker know that that will happen when he pulls the trigger?  I would suggest that the attacker doesn't know either whether the attack will hit or not, or whether the mishap will occur, when he pulls the trigger, and that -- therefore -- the Attack Roll should not be rolled when the attack is declared, but rather when it is launched, triggered, or otherwise used.  And, to me, an Attack Roll that you roll at the time the attack is resolved is an ordinary attack, rather than an attempt at the Cover maneuver.  Rolling the Attack Roll before the attack is triggered seems to me, from a meta standpoint, to give the player or GM information they logically shouldn't have and shouldn't be able to base their further actions on.  

 

All of the questions I asked above tend to lead me to a conclusion: the Cover maneuver either shouldn't exist or shouldn't do what it claims to do.  I'm far from certain myself what it's intended to do, nor whether what it claims to do is in fact what it's intended to do, nor am I certain that anyone else in the discussion is any more certain than I am.  

 

My feeling is that the Cover Maneuver, in order to work as written, must either follow a Presence Attack to cause the target to freeze and drop to 0 DCV, or must be used against a target who is already at 0 DCV.  Also, that the attacker won't know whether his attack will hit (nor any additional effects, such as the gun jamming, etc.) until and unless he actually "pulls the trigger", whether that's an actual trigger for a gun, or however the attack is loosed, therefore the Attack Roll shouldn't be rolled until then.  And, given that fiction is full of plenty of cases where the attack is somehow interrupted, avoided, Dodged or Blocked, etc., we shouldn't privilege Cover over any other attack maneuver. 

 

If the answers to these questions were obvious, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

[Manic Typist]

On 9/17/2019 at 8:32 PM, Gnome BODY (important!) said:

...In mechanical terms, the Cover maneuver is proposed to prevent Aborting.  This makes no narrative sense to me.  Why does Robert taking longer to fire prevent the heroes from reacting?  If anything, it should make it easier! 

The Cover maneuver does not prevent Aborting, period. However, isn't intuitive narratively, as has been seen.

 

Narratively, the difference between the two scenes is writing. In one, the heroes use their powers to prevent the danger. In another, they pause because they KNOW (or at least worried enough to give them pause) that they can't successfully use their ability before the target from being hurt. They exchange tense looks and begin to plan on how to get out of this situation.

 

Meanwhile, on reddit, fans are engaged in debates about how plausible it is - some defend it, some think it's ridiculous, others thing you should just go with it for the sake of telling a more interesting story and aren't worried about consistency.

 

Put another way: it's the same as "Why don't 99% of fights versus the Flash end before they even begin, since most opponents shouldn't even be able to realize he's there before he's beaten them senseless?"

 

The reason is because of The Writers.

 

If Cover hits, then the Writers wanted it that way. If Cover misses (or is thwarted), it's because the Writers wanted it that way.

 

To Chris' example - situations in which the hero stomps a foot/thwarts the cover are situations in which Cover missed, or even because the hero aborted to a Block/Dodge when Cover was being used and that's how it played out.