Pulp Alley - Am I in Cover?

[d phipps]

A Pulp Alley player recently asked ---

Rules for area cover. This is something I've talked about before, but it's a problem I have pretty much every time I set up the table or make terrain. As of now, Pulp Alley's cover rules assumes that all cover are low, linear walls, which becomes a problem with forests, tall grass, corners, rocks, and all other kind of cover where you can't easily say "you're behind it, so you're in cover". I especially feel that rules for terrain that's both cover and perilous are sorely needed.

First, we do not assume all cover are low linear walls. That seems like it would be ridiculous to me.

Here's what the rules actually say --- "To benefit from being in cover, a character must be in direct contact with the terrain/feature. Additionally, the cover must clearly be between the character and the enemy."

Basically, try to think of it from the viewpoint of the target - Are they in a position to use the terrain to their benefit? I usually start with two simple questions ---

1. Is the terrain/feature between me and the enemy?

2. Am I touching the terrain/feature?


Here are some examples ---



* Note, the Tall Grass example works for any area of potential cover - trash pile, small trees, rocky area, and so on....

In general, we strongly encourage players to use their own best judgment. And when in doubt, side in favor of the target.

Anyhoo, that's how we do it. 


I hope this helps. Please let us know if you have any questions.



HAVE FUN

[Mr. Peabody]

That's some good diagramin' 

[d phipps]

That's some good diagramin' 

  Ayup, that's what I'm know for. And if you think my diagrams are good, just wait until you see what I can draw with a box of crayons. 

[d phipps]

I especially feel that rules for terrain that's both cover and perilous are sorely needed.

If a perilous area provides cover, then it still works the same. Looking at the "Tall Grass" example above, you could easily call this area "perilous" as well -- maybe due to quicksand, poisonous snakes, native traps, of whatever. In which case, you would apply the rules for perilous areas when someone entered that area -- in addition to having the potential to provide cover.



HAVE FUN

[Wolf Girl]

1. Is the terrain/feature between me and the enemy?
2. Am I touching the terrain/feature?

Based on the Pulp Alley games I've played, and we play a lot, 99.9% of the time it is very oblivious when someone is in cover.

In Pulp Alley we assume that characters are capable of ducking, leaning around a corner, and so on. So we use the relative placement of the base to represent the general area occupied/controlled by a character and to determine cover.

We do NOT assume the characters are stuck in a single pose throughout a scenario. And somehow giving some characters an advantage/disadvantage based on how they were sculpted. That's just goofy. I was watching guys playing another miniatures game and I had to laugh when they started arguing about what percentage of a model was visible. "You can only see 40% of that guy at most!" 


 

[chirine ba kal]

I do the same thing in my RPG and skirmish games - our little people are assumed to be able to take cover. When I did my mass-combat rules, I did use the percentage of figure visible as the 'to hit' roll, but this was for special cases where it was not immediately obvious to everyone that the figure was in or out of cover - sort of a 'tie breaker' rule, actually. But then, we were the kind of people who used upside-down periscopes to determine what figures could see on the table...

[d phipps]

...But then, we were the kind of people who used upside-down periscopes to determine what figures could see on the table...

Ah yes! I remember doing the same thing in my younger days. Oh, and what about using string? ... or laser pointers? 

They all seemed like good ideas at the time. And I know their are some folks that get a kick out of playing like that. Nothing wrong with it.

For Pulp Alley we have tried to avoid those sorts of breaks in the action, and to keep the game moving at a brisk pace.

[FramFramson]

One of the best suggestions I've heard to avoid that sort of ambiguous situation that starts an argument is to just be sure to announce your figure is doing X or Y as they're doing it, if there might be any doubt. So if they're moving to cover, say they're moving to cover.

Now if you happen to be playing with the sort who wants to leave it ambiguous then start an argument with hopes of gotcha-ing you later... you probably need new gaming partners.

[d phipps]

One of the best suggestions I've heard to avoid that sort of ambiguous situation that starts an argument is to just be sure to announce your figure is doing X or Y as they're doing it...

Indeed! A statement of intent is always helpful. 

[syrinx0]

We have used periscopes and still use laser pointers but generally only for sighting vehicles.  Never had to use it in a skirmish game though. 

[FramFramson]

Say Dave, what would you think of an object or piece of terrain which covers a figure partially - but NOT at ground level?

Specifically we've been talking large tabletop-dominating planes in another thread and that's made me consider a couple questions related to a situation where you have two two characters on either side of a large plane. Take this DC3 image as an example:



So, you have this big object with a wedge-shaped space between it and the ground. The tail probably provides full cover/is blocking line of fire entirely, and near the front no cover is provided, but as the belly rises, when can characters shoot one another and what sort of cover does the fuselage provide?

And what about dropping down? Can characters scoot under the plane to move past it? I would assume so, though perhaps they would only be allowed to walk and not run. Or perhaps the underside of the plane could be treated as perilous area forcing them to stop (and thereby slowing them down), even though it would technically only be "dangerous" under the props, but the peril could just be the risk of getting snagged on something or otherwise getting tripped up by the aircraft.

What about going prone to get a clear shot (essentially denying the opponent their cover) without actually crossing under the plane? Is there a way to allow for that in the rules?

I'm using a plane as an example, but there are other situations where you'd have an odd piece of terrain to consider, or even a situation where a character might want to climb up high to shoot down on a character in cover (though in that case maybe the defending character can be assumed to be crouching, forcing an attacker to actually come over in order to get a clear shot and therefore not requiring any different use of the rules).

[d phipps]

Say Dave, what would you think of an object or piece of terrain which covers a figure partially - but NOT at ground level?

This does come up occasionally and the same two questions are a good place to start --

1. Are you touching the terrain?
2. Is the terrain between you and the enemy?

Obviously, it sometimes takes a healthy dose of "good judgement". But if the answer is no to either question, then you can not claim cover.

In your example, if a character was under the nose and clearly not in a position to use the plane effectively as cover - then they aren't in cover.

...when can characters shoot one another and what sort of cover does the fuselage provide?

This is tough to answer as a hypothetical, but we normally try to state when a piece of terrain is going to block line-of-sight before a scenario if there is room for debate. Based on the size and shape, and the distance off the ground, I might even say -- "The plane blocks line-of-sight from here to here."  -- maybe from the mid-point back to the tail?

... And what about dropping down? Can characters scoot under the plane to move past it? I would assume so, though perhaps they would only be allowed to walk and not run. Or perhaps the underside of the plane could be treated as perilous area forcing them to stop (and thereby slowing them down), even though it would technically only be "dangerous" under the props, but the peril could just be the risk of getting snagged on something or otherwise getting tripped up by the aircraft.

Agree 100% with your ideas here. Fighting around a plane could very easily slide into the perilous area column. It brings to mind a fedora wearing hero fighting a big bald German. 

What about going prone to get a clear shot (essentially denying the opponent their cover) without actually crossing under the plane? Is there a way to allow for that in the rules?

In Pulp Alley, we assume characters are capable of taking the best position to shoot from AND the best position to take cover. From this standpoint, there is no rule for going prone, because it is assumed characters go prone when it is appropriate. Personally, I probably would not say this denies the enemy their cover - because we may not be taking into account what the target is doing as well.

In general, I usually side in favor of the target if there is any question about it. Mainly because - if the shooter has left room for debate, then there's probably enough cover there to count.

The big thing that I always look for is this - is the target in a position to effectively use the terrain as cover?

I don't know if I came close to covering your questions, but I would truly encourage you to play it however feels right to you. 

[FramFramson]

Yes, definitely. Thanks Dave.