How does cover work?

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by Daeglan

I do.. but the cover part really make no sense to me...As I can't find the actual rules for it in the book. I looked through the attack section... the defense section..But no where does it lay everything out...I found the cover DR and such.. but thats not helpful because it does not seem to explain how it works. All the examples i see in the book have people standing in the open.

Where do I find a table saying its a -2 for cover that hides below the belt?

Have you actually looked at the page reference people keep giving you? That's on the second half of the section entitled COVER, which starts on page 407, and is in the index under that name.

[Harald387]

Here's an example, created using the rules on B407-408:

Character A is hiding behind a 7' high brick wall (Cover DR 8), exposing as little as possible while he fires a pistol at his attackers. His skull, face, eyes, neck, right arm, and right hand are exposed.

Characters B, C, and D are shooting at character A (which probably explains why he decided to hide behind the wall):

Character B decides to fire at the exposed arm. He takes -2 to hit for the arm location, and there is no penalty for the cover.

Character C decides to blast away at a random hit location. He takes no penalty to his attack roll, but the location he hits is determined using the table on B552. If it hits an exposed location, Character A takes full damage. If he hits a protected location, then Character A gets an additional 8 points of DR against the shot (the Cover DR of the wall).

Character D decides against all reason that he wants to specifically shoot Character A in the vitals. He takes a -3 for the Vitals hit location, and an additional -2 because the location is hidden by cover. If he hits despite the penalty, Character A still gets his additional 8 DR against the shot.

Hope that helps.

[Daeglan]

yes it does immensly. Thats what i needed.

[mummy_lord]

Hello!
this is an old thread, hope someone will catch it up anyway =)

Here my doubts about how cover works. i'm taking into account both Campaign and Tactical Shooting (28-30).

Light Cover gives -2 to hit me and it rapresents 1/2 body exposed, let's assume i am behind my car's hood... so everything above waist (or above abdomen, if the car is a SUV and abdomen is a legal separated hit location) is exposed.

Page 29 (replaced with light cover)

1. Any hit location necessary to operate the weapon can be targeted at no extra penalty on any turn in which you attack. This is typically one or both hands, the face, and the weapon itself. For instance, your enemy would have -2 to shoot around light cover at your torso, -6 to target your hand, and -7 to hit your face – but if you leaned out to shoot back, he could hit your hand at the usual -4 and your face at -5.

Why standing behind the hood gives cover to torso and face at -2 while it doesn't if I shoot back?

if i have no penalties shooting to a target as big as a human chest... why it should be more difficult if the target is behind a wall high up to the waist??

Thank you!

[tbone]

Originally Posted by mummy_lord

if i have no penalties shooting to a target as big as a human chest... why it should be more difficult if the target is behind a wall high up to the waist??!

If I'm understanding the question correctly, I'd say it's not a problem with cover rules, but rather a problem with the torso TH mod. As many people have noted over many years, it's odd that aiming for a whole person is ±0, and aiming for just the torso is also ±0.

It's easy enough to ignore this oddity in general combat, but when the cover rules come into play, and if (as an example) some oddly shaped cover leaves the torso open while protecting other stuff, then, yeah, the GM is left to say "okay, you'll have to limit your target to just the torso, so instead of the normal ±0, your penalty is... uh, ±0..."

But. I don't thank that's actually a problem in the case you describe. If the person is standing with cover up to the waist, the torso is partly covered, as it extends below the waist. (The cover in your example may not quite protect a full half of the torso, but for simplicity and the sake of example, let's say it does.) So a shot at "the torso" sensibly takes a penalty.

That said, the problem I describe above still exists here; that is, if shooting at half the whole person is -2 TH, then it is an oddity that aiming for half of just the torso is also at -2. If you're not too keen on that, there's a common (?) house rule that changes the penalty for the torso as a target to -1 TH. Doing that, a whole person is ±0, the torso -1; behind cover as you describe, the half person is -2, the half torso is -3. Maybe that sounds more sensible to you?

[Ulzgoroth]

This is an old, common, and mistaken understanding of cover, as I was shown fairly recently.
When shooting at a character in cover, there are three options:

You can deliberately shoot through it. I have no idea why you would do this, since you take -2 to hit and hit the cover before hitting the character. Maybe if you really wanted to hit a hit location that is fully covered.

You can roll hit location, and if the hit location you roll is covered you hit the cover.

You can pick an exposed or partially exposed hit location. In this case you take any applicable hit location penalty, and take the -2 cover penalty if the hit location is partly covered.

So, if somebody is standing fully upright behind a barrier that only covers their legs, their torso is fully exposed and you could attack it at no penalty. However...in combat, you should probably assume that the character will lower themselves at least a little (even if they aren't changing posture) rather than standing at attention, so something that reaches to the upper thigh in a standing position would at least have some coverage of the torso.

[mummy_lord]

@tbone:
"the torso is partly covered, as it extends below the waist."

Yes but advanced rules for hit location introduce the Abdomen @ -1, and upper torso becomes Chest @ +0 and it would be far from being covered.

"Doing that, a whole person is ±0, the torso -1"
Mmm... but there is no "whole person" in GURPS.


@Ulzgoroth: "in combat, you should probably assume that the character will lower themselves at least a little (even if they aren't changing posture) rather than standing at attention, so something that reaches to the upper thigh in a standing position would at least have some coverage of the torso."

This is good for me! if i am behind a hood i would be AT LEAST in a Slight Crouch posture, so -1 to hit would be reasonable =)

Thanks!

[Apollonian]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

This is an old, common, and mistaken understanding of cover, as I was shown fairly recently.
When shooting at a character in cover, there are three options:

You can deliberately shoot through it. I have no idea why you would do this, since you take -2 to hit and hit the cover before hitting the character. Maybe if you really wanted to hit a hit location that is fully covered.

Because you're using a weapon that pretty much disregards the cover, e.g. an M2 Browning vs. a brick wall?

[Ulzgoroth]

Originally Posted by Apollonian

Because you're using a weapon that pretty much disregards the cover, e.g. an M2 Browning vs. a brick wall?

Even then, why deliberately shoot the cover instead of rolling hit locations, which means no penalty to your attack roll?

[Anthony]

Originally Posted by Ulzgoroth

You can deliberately shoot through it. I have no idea why you would do this, since you take -2 to hit and hit the cover before hitting the character. Maybe if you really wanted to hit a hit location that is fully covered.

Usually, it would be because any exposed locations have a worse to hit penalty than shooting the torso through cover, and your weapon is powerful enough that any hit is sufficient.