Cover

Not open... yet
User avatar
Jay Belarpin
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:45 pm

Cover

Post by Jay Belarpin » Wed Dec 14, 2016 4:04 pm

-----
THIS SPACE RESERVED FOR FINAL DECISIONS
-----

Rob is correct in regards to why feet, hands face/head are illegal targets. Otherwise this discussion helped me see perspectives I hadn't given much consideration to. We are DEFINITELY KEEPING the No shooting blind rule. That is, you cannot Ever just put your weapon around the corner/edge of cover and shoot. That's totally an unsafe dick move. Also, do not hit people in or aim to hit people in illegal areas with boffers.

We will for the rest of 2017 playest the following amended rules:
You must always wear eye protection and we recommend you wear protection for your feet hands face and groin.
You may use any amount of cover at any time.
When using cover you may not shoot at anyone you cannot see.
BB hits to any part of your person count as damaging shots.
Players are not to intentionally aim airsoft at feet hands groin or head of other players unless no other striking area is presented to them.
As all of this happened, Bill poured a drink.

Plot
Posts: 737
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 12:40 am

Re: Cover

Post by Plot » Wed Dec 14, 2016 5:12 pm

Current cover rules are that in order to use airsoft you must show half of yourself from cover before firing. Presently it doesn't matter if your cover is a popup barrel, your buddy holding a breech mantle or a tree.

Should we reduce this amount or increase it or do nothing?

User avatar
jazzman831
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:56 pm

Re: Cover

Post by jazzman831 » Wed Dec 14, 2016 8:17 pm

As someone who got hit in the hands and face several times while hiding behind cover at the last game (not at the fault of the shooter), I'd say definitely don't increase the amount of allowed cover. The more of your body you have hidden, the higher percentage of illegal target you are presenting.

I could see the argument for requiring more of you body to be shown, but half is a really easy measure to visualize on the fly. If we said, say, 2/3's, there's no good rule of thumb for how much of your body must be showing.

I will say, though, that there are few enough opportunities for good cover (we do play in open fields a lot of the time), that it's probably not (re)inforced enough when someone is using too much cover. A friendly reminder might help people get a better feel for half cover. It could even fall under Brother's Keeper.
-Jebediah the Proud

User avatar
Ander
Posts: 752
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 9:09 pm

Re: Cover

Post by Ander » Wed Dec 14, 2016 11:04 pm

I pretty consistently forget that this is a thing. Luckily I also don't use guns much so it doesn't come up for me, either on the giving or receiving end.

That being said, I think it is probably true that anything more complicated than "half" is unlikely to have much attention paid to it. It is already going against your instincts to have more of you showing than you have to. If you have to do math in the process as well I think it will just be too un-intuitive to actually happen.

p.s. Do costumes count toward the "half"? Because I'm pretty sure my hat is like... 1/3 of me. :)

User avatar
Swordguy
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Cover

Post by Swordguy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 5:33 am

Honestly, I'd rather see the "cover" rule go away entirely.

Mainly because - in practice - when meaningful cover actually exists this rule goes right out the window. Every person with a gun during the Raid on Happy Fun Land who had access to cover was breaking this rule, for example. Trees, popup barrels, downed bodies, and yes my dragonscale shield** were all employed improperly in regards to the cover rule. Everyone who participated enjoyed the combat.


**In my defense, I was under the impression that Breach Mantles - which the shield counted as as per N8 - were an explicit exception to the "must show 50%" rule.

There's also huge issues with the implementation; if I'm 20 feet behind a small gap in trees, but I'm in a clearing and I'm shooting through that small gap, am I in cover or not? If I'm in a heavy bush that happens to block BBs but I can still clearly be seen, is that cover? There's a question of something like a breach mantle providing 45% cover while you're standing, and 70% cover when you kneel. Finally, there's the question of taking cover behind a down PC or NPC; as they're capable of taking damage, the bullet is hitting a valid target and not "cover" as we define it.

It's just a giant mess, with a ton of on-the-fly judgments and exceptions and there's a ton of room for disagreements on the field. Additionally, there's only rarely actual cover available in the combat zones, so I question how often this comes up. Therefore, I'd submit we drop the cover limitation completely.

"But Rob, how will we keep people from going 'full turtle' during firefights?"

The ways to keep people from going full turtle in cover are four-fold:

1) If you're clearly utilizing cover (and people damn well know when they are), let hits to the head and hands count. Don't like it? Don't force the OPFOR to shoot in a way that only hits your head and hands and give them more to shoot at. It's your CHOICE as a player and as an adult.
2) Players and NPCs will just have to learn to work together to flush people out from behind cover. 99.9% of the time, cover is unidirectional. That would take communication and teamwork, though.
3) Use more game effects that force people to move. Grenades are a good idea (or tossing a foam "rock" and yelling "fire in the hole", which is always funny). Repels are good as well; force somebody from behind cover while your buddies shoot them. There's also game effects that *prevent* people from utilizing their cover; chuck a smoke grenade in front of the guy's cover and you can rush in since he can't see through it to shoot.
4) Plot reasons. As in, "you don't have the time to sit there and engage in a 20-minute firefight." Defenders are usually the ones who get the advantage of cover; attackers have to move quickly and decisively to flush the defenders from their cover. PCs can be either one, depending on the scenario.

*EXCEPTION*: Blind Fire "ie, firing around a corner or otherwise in a manner where you cannot see the target *must* be prohibited. For safety reasons if for no other.
Mission, Method, Morals...all negotiable.

Jefferson Hendrix
Posts: 221
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2016 9:56 pm

Re: Cover

Post by Jefferson Hendrix » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:47 am

Swordguy wrote:
1) If you're clearly utilizing cover (and people damn well know when they are), let hits to the head and hands count. Don't like it? Don't force the OPFOR to shoot in a way that only hits your head and hands and give them more to shoot at. It's your CHOICE as a player and as an adult.


*EXCEPTION*: Blind Fire "ie, firing around a corner or otherwise in a manner where you cannot see the target *must* be prohibited. For safety reasons if for no other.
*Thumbs-up*
¯\_(ツ)_/¯

User avatar
jazzman831
Posts: 557
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2016 8:56 pm

Re: Cover

Post by jazzman831 » Thu Dec 15, 2016 10:34 am

I agree 100% with Rob's points 2-4. And pretty much everything he said before that.

Point #1 makes me uneasy, because now we are basically saying "these areas are illegal target areas, unless they are the only places you can hit." If they are illegal from a safety perspective*, then they should never be valid targets. It doesn't become safe to shoot someone there because it's the only part of their body they are presenting.

Plus, it's the shooter who gets to decide if shots to illegal areas are ok, not the person whose body is on the line. That leaves too much room for interpretation, i.e. "oh sorry, you were kind of behind a tree so I thought you were making everything fair game, that's why I aimed for your head/hands/crotch".

Now I think the current group of players we have now are honest and not out for blood. I don't think there's a single person I've played with who wouldn't say "hey dude, I can only see your head right now and I don't want to hit you somewhere sensitive" (Brother's Keeper, like I mentioned before). BUT we can't design rules off of the 12 people who currently play in games, either. A new player needs to instantly and easily know the first time they get into a firefight what is and is not ok to shoot at, and what is and is not ok to hide behind.

*If they are illegal for non-safety reasons, then you can pretty much ignore the rest of my argument.
-Jebediah the Proud

User avatar
Jay Belarpin
Posts: 512
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2016 10:45 pm

Re: Cover

Post by Jay Belarpin » Thu Dec 15, 2016 7:55 pm

I've never been a fan of the cover rule because I find that in an effort to follow it I end up reducing accuracy and am more likely to accidentally hit an illegal target area.

I'd ditch the rule and just let people use cover to its fullest extent. Illegal zones should stay illegal for safety reasons so if somebody is going "Full turtle" you're just gonna need to flush them out, not shoot at the only spot you can see.
As all of this happened, Bill poured a drink.

User avatar
Swordguy
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2016 11:16 am

Re: Cover

Post by Swordguy » Thu Dec 15, 2016 9:51 pm

jazzman831 wrote: If they are illegal from a safety perspective*, then they should never be valid targets. It doesn't become safe to shoot someone there because it's the only part of their body they are presenting.
My understanding is that they are not illegal because people will receive major injuries if they are accidentally hit in the face or finger by a BB. My understanding (which I must admit is backed up by some brand of junk science called "physics") is that it is illegal because it is uncomfortable to get hit in the face or fingers. The reason we tell people not to aim for the hands or face is because we don't want people aiming there deliberately, because people don't generally like discomfort. It also works with the remainder of the combat rules that tell you not to hit people in the hands or face with boffer weapons, which actually CAN cause major injuries (head=concussion, hands=broken phalanges). However, we are fine with the concept of BB headshots, because they already happen a ton and we have to suck *that* up; if the danger of a headshot with a BB was so great that we could never allow a BB headshot, then we'd need to get rid of airsoft altogether.

The fact is, a 250fps BB cannot penetrate skin, though it can cause light bruising or a blood blister if your skin is particularly thin. It might split a lip slightly. It is dangerous if it gets in your eyes, which is why we wear goggles. And if you wear a face shield, then the entire bloody issue is moot anyway; there's no difference between a chinshot, an eyeshot, and a cheekshot.

I would essentially look to tell the players that "All BB gun hits count, anywhere on the body, which is why we require some and recommend other protective gear. You are still required to refrain from aiming a BB gun for the head or hands...UNLESS the target hiding effectively everything else. If that player is CHOOSING to hide so much of their body that all you can see is the head and weapon hand(s) and the weapon, then that is on them." If the target doesn't want to have people shoot at them like that, then their choice is to use less cover so there's more to shoot at (though the vagaries of BB flight means there's still likely to get hit in the head/hands about as often), or to put on some other protective equipment, or suck it up and endure discomfort slightly more often.

Note that nothing about this prevents us from seeing somebody who is clearly deliberately aiming at heads against people not in cover (because it's really obvious when somebody is trying to minimize their target profile, and somebody going for headshots against somebody not doing that will stand out), and that falls under the already-existing rules and penalties.

Finally, I will tell you that if I'm lying prone and facing a target more than 20' and reciprocally firing, when they shoot back, they are almost CERTAIN to hit my head and hands anyway. Cover isn't involved, and the endpoint is still the same; lots of illegal shots.
Mission, Method, Morals...all negotiable.

User avatar
Olive Wilson
Posts: 545
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 12:09 am

Re: Cover

Post by Olive Wilson » Sun Dec 18, 2016 9:55 pm

During combat I often forget about the cover rule.
I think getting rid of the rule is a good idea.

Locked