Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi.
I guess this topic has been discussed a couple of times before but rather then necromancing an old thread I start this one.

So I played my first large scale 5th edition rules game (2k pts) this Saturday and I was chocked at the amount of cover saves in this edition. Everything has 4+ cover all the time it seems.

Some of the cover saves I can totally accept but some are just plain stupid.

example:

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o
-----cover------------


m m m m

legend: O = opponent, m = my troops.

So, in this example above i can see 10 of the 21 in the opponents squad. Hey! now they have cover save.


Another problem I found was that since I play orks with 30 boy mobs I am having trouble positioning my troops so that at least 50% of my boys can see 50% of the target etc. This essentially means that my large mobs give cover saves to stuff in the open sometimes rather then just having less boys to shoot with.

Seriously - did GW playtest this at all?

I really hope that i misread the rules. What does Dakka^2 have to say about this?

/Grindah

Grindah wrote
Seriously - did GW playtest this at all?

i played a bunch of 2K games in 5th, and in my opinion, is'nt so bad, everything went smoothly, with or without coversaves so i really cant complain.

You guys probably had some really silly terrain set ups for it to look as if the cover save thing was a bit too technical because otherwise, i didnt.

Yes, the trick is in the terrain. As quite a lot of stuff gives a 4+ save now, it's best to leave it off the board in favour something which offers less protection.

Also, who's to say that you have to follow 5th edition rules in the way that you apply cover saves to certain objects. A 4+ save for hunkering down in a crater seems a bit high to me, so I tend to drop it to 5+.

Well in your example that is a pretty foolish way for him to display his force because a little more to the right and he would not have cover.

Very rarely is it advantages to keep 51% of your models from shooting so you get a 4+ save, in my opinion.

Grindah wrote:Hi.

Another problem I found was that since I play orks with 30 boy mobs I am having trouble positioning my troops so that at least 50% of my boys can see 50% of the target etc. This essentially means that my large mobs give cover saves to stuff in the open sometimes rather then just having less boys to shoot with.

Just to make sure, you know your own models in the same unit don't provide cover, right.

While I agree the increase in Cover saves may seem a bit excessive...it is great for armies that never get Armour saves against most armies. For example...

Orks
Eldar
Imerial Guard
Kroot
Tyranid Gaunts/Genestealers

All of those races rather like the new changes. It is slightly annoying to ALWAYS die from a basic gun shot while your weapons do jack nothing to them in return unless it is a heavy weapon. Now that I am playing Imperial Guard I screen my units w/ Conscripts just for that save.....why not use it?

don_mondo wrote:

Grindah wrote:Hi.

Another problem I found was that since I play orks with 30 boy mobs I am having trouble positioning my troops so that at least 50% of my boys can see 50% of the target etc. This essentially means that my large mobs give cover saves to stuff in the open sometimes rather then just having less boys to shoot with.

Just to make sure, you know your own models in the same unit don't provide cover, right.

Yes I know that.

Im talking about the following situation:

E E E E <-- enemies --------- ---------- <-- cover F F F F F F F F <-- friendlies
So, in this situation the enemies get a cover save rather then just having the two guys that can see fire.

This is how i interpret the rules. I might be wrong about this.

/Grindah

Cover saves work via incoming, not outgoing. If those guys behind cover can't see the squad they are shooting at they can't shoot. You can kill things beyond line of sight, but you can't shoot with models that don't have LOS to their target.

In your example the friendlies get a cover save, assuming they have LOS. They are 'in' cover. If the cover is (e.g.) a wall which is higher than the friendlies LOS, then clearly no LOS and only the two in the middle can fire.

Regardless, in your example the enemies have no cover save.

So basically I said the same as Shuma, why did I post?!

livingregret wrote: While I agree the increase in Cover saves may seem a bit excessive...it is great for armies that never get Armour saves against most armies. For example...

Orks
Eldar
Imerial Guard
Kroot
Tyranid Gaunts/Genestealers

All of those races rather like the new changes. It is slightly annoying to ALWAYS die from a basic gun shot while your weapons do jack nothing to them in return unless it is a heavy weapon. Now that I am playing Imperial Guard I screen my units w/ Conscripts just for that save.....why not use it?

In theory the different armies points costs reflected the value of their armour save. If your cover save was 5+ you got an upgrade for free. If your armour save was 4+, you got nothing. If your armour save was 3+ or better, you got a 4+ cover save against anti-SM weapons for free.

ShumaGorath wrote:Cover saves work via incoming, not outgoing. If those guys behind cover can't see the squad they are shooting at they can't shoot. You can kill things beyond line of sight, but you can't shoot with models that don't have LOS to their target.

Can you point me to where in the rule book it says it works this way?

I can see how one could extrapolate this from the rules, but as usual GW is not very clear in the rules. They really need to hire a technical writer...

All references are from the small rulebook:
on page 22, Units partially in cover:

If half or more of the models in the target unit are in cover , then the entire unit is deemed to be in cover....

Ok, this is pretty clear. What I can't find is where you start counting from. Say you have 2 friendlies out of 10 that can see a unit clearly due to intervening cover and only the two that don't generate cover saves for the enemy shoot. Do you calculate cover saves based on the two that actually do the shooting or the entire unit?

This is my problem.

/Grindah

You calculate using the ones that have line of sight. It's easier to find all the rulings in the minibook that came with AOBR.

GW missed out on a golden opportunity to actually prove that they think things through. Since wounds are allocated to specific models, why not just give the cover saves to the models that are protected by the cover and not to the models that are not protected? Oh, yeah, that thing about rolling armor saves in groups that totally makes a mockery of the whole reason behind their wound allocation rules. Stupid me, I need to go back to drinking heavily so that those last few brain cells will stop bothering me.

ShumaGorath wrote:You calculate using the ones that have line of sight. It's easier to find all the rulings in the minibook that came with AOBR.

I quote myself:

All references are from the small rulebook:
on page 22, Units partially in cover:

Ok, I didnt spell it out but I was using the AoBR book.

Please tell me where it states that you calculate from the amount of models that can see and not the whole unit because I cant find it.

/Grindah

Wouldn't this be better in either YMDC or Tactics?

So, in this situation the enemies get a cover save rather then just having the two guys that can see fire.

This is how i interpret the rules. I might be wrong about this.

Your example doesn't give enough info to answer the question. Is the 'cover' a wall that blocks LOS completely between the F and the E models? Or does it partially block? Is it area terrain? All these things matter.

If the 'cover' blocks true LOS completely and is as narrow as indicated, then from what I can tell the four models on the right can see at least one model, but only 1 of them can see more then half the unit. So while 4 can shoot, the target unit would get a cover save.

Also, if you so wish, that one guy can be the only one firing and thus deny a cover save, but that must be declared before checking range. This can be important when firing at a vehicle or hih toughness unit and that one model is a heavy or special.

Please tell me where it states that you calculate from the amount of models that can see and not the whole unit because I cant find it.

Here are the relevant quotes to your query (there's more to it but these seem to address your question).

BGB pg 16 wrote:WHICH MODELS CAN FIRE?
All models in the firing unit that have line of sight to at least one model in the target unit can fire.

A player may choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers (as some models may have one-shot weapons, for example). This must be declared before checking range, as all of the models in the unit fire at the same time.

BGB pg 22 wrote:If multiple models are shooting, you will need to work out how many models are in cover from the point of view of the majority of the firing models that are in range. If the majority of the firers have a clear shot to the majority of the models in the target unit, the unit receives no save. Otherwise it does. This may sound complex, but you will find that in reality in most cases it is quite obvious if a unit is in cover or not.

Emphasis mine. They key word is firer. Models that do not or cannot fire are not counted. Thus a model that is not in LOS is not counted, as it is not a firing model.

HTH

livingregret wrote:Now that I am playing Imperial Guard I screen my units w/ Conscripts just for that save.....why not use it?

Because it works both ways and cuts all your high AP hits in half.

I hear you but it doesn't really work. Also there is a great irony, cover doesnt work vs machine guns but works great for antitank weapons? The absurdity of this flies in the face of all comprehension when one considers cover saves granted by friendly models in the IG vs Marine example.

Simply, shooting the machine guns through your own models at the enemy has no changed effect on them or you, but firing a single shot lascannon at one is half as effective because you might hit your own guy....

Et Tu IG?

Perhaps it would be best to subdivide the unit into one group that does get cover saves and one group that does not, then roll for each group of identical models in each group.

Excellent reply winterman, thanks.



/Grindah

They just need to step down cover saves from 4+ to 5+ in certain areas.


Multiple troop types can have a 2 + invulnverable save and that is kind of slowed.

Augustus wrote:I hear you but it doesn't really work. Also there is a great irony, cover doesn't work vs machine guns but works great for antitank weapons? The absurdity of this flies in the face of all comprehension when one considers cover saves granted by friendly models in the IG vs Marine example.

Same problem with Storm Shield terminators.

"Oh look, a bunch of terminators. Plasma guns would be a waste, just shoot small arms at them."

Also, you tanks using cover more effectively than heavily armored infantry.

That is annoying as hell.

Hollismason wrote:Multiple troop types can have a 2 + invulnverable save and that is kind of slowed.

2+ invul? Is there anything besides Faith and the Shadowfield that can do that?

Or did you mean 2+ cover?

Yeah two plus cover

Yeah two plus cover

Which is easily overcome through:

* Flamers
* Destroying the cover (such as bunkers)
* Assaulting

I love pathfinders in my army for this, however infiltrating into positions of good cover means that means that they will often be closer to the enemy and liable to be assaulted and destroyed easily.