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.

Ok so one thing that's never made any sense (to me, at least) about markerlights is the fact that cover saves can't be taken against the markerlight itself. I played 8 games against tau this week and some things are just stupid: like he'd be able to see a small amount of my model past a ruin, a tree, two walls and through another unit... I mean is there seriously no chance that that thin beam will hit something OTHER than that tiny speck of a man 600m away?
This, I believe, is but one reason why the cover system makes no sense in 40k. I'll give another example:
A space marine in power armour and a tau ethereal are both behind an Aegis Defence Line. A boltgun is fired at both targets, and both are hit and wounded. Both models elect to go to ground for a 2+ cover save. Now, this is all fine and dandy, but to me it makes no sense that both the Space Marine, who has inches thick ceramite plating, and the ethereal, who is essentially coated in paper, have the exact same chance of stopping the bullet. Furthermore, I see no logical reason why a tree has a chance of stopping a lascannon shot, when TDA cannot. The only fluffological explanation I can produce for the tree problem is that the tree has prevented the target from being seen properly by the shooter.

I have, however, come up with a solution(s) to these problems. I would like some feedback as to how appropriate these changes are?:

Option1:
We revert to the fantasy method (and I believe the method of OLD 40k IIRC), where cover simply provides a negative to-hit modifier, or else lowers the shooter's BS. However, this does not solve the Space Marine / Ethereal problem.

Therefore option two:
Cover saves can be taken in addition to armour saves. This could be combined with invulnerable saves too, but IMO that would call for a complete codex re-write. However this option would not solve the problems of the lascannon tree, or the invincible markerlight.

The only other option I can think of therefore is-
Option 3:
If the person in cover elects to go to ground, then the cover offers both a negative to-hit modifier, and a cover save that can be taken in addition to a normal armour save. If the model elects NOT to gtg, then they simply get the extra save. HOWEVER, cover saves are affected by AP values as well as armour saves.

I know some of these would require other changes too.

Thoughts? Opinions on the changes or the matter in general? Alternatives?

Mechanics > Fluff. Sometimes systems have to be unintuitive to make the play easier or deeper. If fluff = mechanics, I'd doubt 40k would even translate into a game.

As for your suggestions: you can always house-rule house-games, if all the participants are willing.

Lumipon wrote:
Mechanics > Fluff.

100% agree

The cover saves were designed to prevent well-armored units, like Space Marines and Terminators, from turtling behind heavy cover in gunlines. In 2nd edition you got to hit modifiers instead, but they opted to move away from that. I agree it's counter-intuitive, but to use an already worn term: it's more cinematic this way.

You also have to allow for a certain level of abstraction. Trees won't stop a lascannon shot, but they do blur the model's silhuette enough that the firer can't get an exact bead on the target. Individual trees on the board often represents bushy forest areas, and you have to remember that your units are supposed to be continually moving. They don't stop up every 6" to allow the opponent the time to aim and shoot.

tgjensen wrote:
Trees won't stop a lascannon shot, but they do blur the model's silhuette enough that the firer can't get an exact bead on the target. Individual trees on the board often represents bushy forest areas, and you have to remember that your units are supposed to be continually moving. They don't stop up every 6" to allow the opponent the time to aim and shoot.

Then wouldn't you agree that a to-hit modifier would make more sense than an alternative save? Fantasy still works perfectly well with such a system, as do many other wargames. I am in no way suggesting that my way would be in any way, shape or form more efficient or quicker than the current system, I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way.


On a separate note, what do people think about markerlights not allowing cover saves? To me that wouldn't even slow the game down by more than a few seconds each turn.

if you allowed cover saves against markerlights you'd pretty much make the entire Tau codex worthless by removing it's main mechanic. Basically you look at pathfinders, the standards for markerlights, and want them to hit 50% of the time and then you save half of those. So each pathfinder squad is reduced to 25% effectiveness, or basically for every 8 pathfinders you get 2 hits, which gives just enough markers for one unit to ignore cover. The pathfinders are T3, BS3, 5+, LD7 infantry with heavy weapons for 88 points. They don't need anymore holding them down.

I understand where you're coming from, in the realm of it making sense. But remember it's a laser sight, so instantaneous travel and the drop is almost nonexistant. It produces no flash, the beam is probably invisible, and no sound. It gives no chance for a unit to "hide" into cover.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Then wouldn't you agree that a to-hit modifier would make more sense than an alternative save? Fantasy still works perfectly well with such a system, as do many other wargames. I am in no way suggesting that my way would be in any way, shape or form more efficient or quicker than the current system, I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way.

I certainly would! It's far more intuitive, and Space Marines gaining no advantage from hiding behind walls seems odd. That's just the way they chose to take the game though, and cover saves aren't a completely bonkers way of doing it either.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
On a separate note, what do people think about markerlights not allowing cover saves? To me that wouldn't even slow the game down by more than a few seconds each turn.

What savageconvoy said. Yeah, it'd make sense to get a cover save, but then you'd significantly undermine the whole point of markerlights. So long as the points cost of Pathfinders is well balanced, I'm fine with it.

tgjensen wrote:

Tactical_Genius wrote:
Then wouldn't you agree that a to-hit modifier would make more sense than an alternative save? Fantasy still works perfectly well with such a system, as do many other wargames. I am in no way suggesting that my way would be in any way, shape or form more efficient or quicker than the current system, I just wondered if anyone else felt the same way.

I certainly would! It's far more intuitive, and Space Marines gaining no advantage from hiding behind walls seems odd. That's just the way they chose to take the game though, and cover saves aren't a completely bonkers way of doing it either.

Tactical_Genius wrote:
On a separate note, what do people think about markerlights not allowing cover saves? To me that wouldn't even slow the game down by more than a few seconds each turn.

What savageconvoy said. Yeah, it'd make sense to get a cover save, but then you'd significantly undermine the whole point of markerlights. So long as the points cost of Pathfinders is well balanced, I'm fine with it.

Finally someone who agrees with me
If the cover was just a to-hit modifier, would the cost of pathfinders have to change? Also bear in mind you could use markerlights to boost markerlights

game mechanics. Nothing more.

your examples illustrate the problem of the save system, in general. but heres a worse one. Space marine in cover. gets hot by a bolter. Ignoring the going to ground thing, he can take either a 5+ cover save, or a 3+ armour save. So in effect, if he elects to use the cover to his advantage, he is worse off, than by simply standing there and taking it as his armour magically disappears if he takes his 5+ instead of his 3+.

To be honest, its a bad game mechanic, and nothing more.

With regard to your suggestions:

(1) to hit modifiers. probably the easiest way, depending on what you are trying to represent with your "attacking" roll.
(2). No. all it would do is encourage space marine gunlines camping and shooting, with very limited ways for their opponets to get rid of them. effectively you make one of the hardest armies out there even harder.
(3) infinity does this. its fine there, because weaponry are so much more destructive, but in 40k, where 100shots fells about three marines, adding an extra layer of surveability only results in a further passive buff to armies that have no need of it, by making them both harder to hit, and harder to kill with extra saves on top of what they already have.

If you want to adapt it, look at how other companies do it.

(1) to hit modifiers, or defense bonuses. this is how they worked it in 2nd ed 40k, or in warmachine hordes. effectively, the mechanism exists to represent that the target was harder to hit because of cover.
(2) armour modifiers. in the old Mongoose Starship Troopers game, cover gave a positive armour save modifier. effectively the mechanism existed to represent the extra protection cover granted to the defender.
(3) both. infinity confers both a to-hit modifier, and an arm modifier on armour rolls. but this is a d20 system.
(4) alternative saves. this is how 40k does it.


Personally, i like to-hit modifiers, whether against the firing unit (2nd ed 40k), for for the defending unit (flames of war, warmachine, hordes). that said though. you need to mate this with something else. with 40k, if you compare the ability to inflict damage against the ability to absorb damage, the system very much favours absorbing damage. you have a hit roll, a wound roll, saves, FNP etc. with a hundred shots, you will only kill a handful of enemies. compare that to games like warmachine where 20 shots will kill a dozen enemies. making targets harder to hit, and not changing anything else merely has the result of making basic weapons even more worthless - as their already meagre kill ratios are further diluted, and putting increased emphasis on cover-denying weapons and weapons that negate armour saves. thats the big skew. any army that has access to blast weapons that ignore cover (guard)will simply see these options spammed. armies without access to these will suffer and will drop in their effectiveness. if you want to make it truly work, you need a two-roll system, instead of the three-roll or greater system of 40k to make both hitting your target trickier, but making weaponry a bit punchier at the same time. in this sense, i think Infinity is great. hit modifiers for cover, range etc, and the defender saves against the damage value of the weapon in question, modified by their armour values/cover etc.

I also just realized that the to hit modifiers would make Necrons godly. Their weapons are better off on rolls of 6 than other unit's weapons anyways so they suffer less. Then add in they are harder to hit, as well as being pretty durable units, and then getting their RP rolls as well.

The problem again with pathfinders in using a to-hit modifier is they are already BS3. So going down to BS2 would mean that for every 6 pathfinders you take you would average out two hits. If changing the cover to a to-hit modifier then you have an even higher demand for markers, since they would be soley just to keep shooting at an average level.

Everything about tau would have to change
Its not that markerlights would need to be cheaper its that no tau player would even take them

Usualy when i play a game my pathfinders go down in the first two turnd. If there was a bs modifyer then they would probs get two or three hits. Then i could take away cover + hit you on 3s for ONE UNIT SHOOTING ONCE



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Btw markerlights are silent so you wouldn't know in time to duck

Deadnight wrote:

your examples illustrate the problem of the save system, in general. but heres a worse one. Space marine in cover. gets hot by a bolter. Ignoring the going to ground thing, he can take either a 5+ cover save, or a 3+ armour save. So in effect, if he elects to use the cover to his advantage, he is worse off, than by simply standing there and taking it as his armour magically disappears if he takes his 5+ instead of his 3+.

To be honest, its a bad game mechanic, and nothing more.

You're wrong, it's actually a pretty elegant rules quirk. If cover gave equivalent bonuses to models regardless of armor save then you'd see every unit using cover in the same way. But, because cover saves give a much smaller benefit to marine-equivalent models they become much more mobile, able to leave cover and soak up a lot more fire than the more human models who have to cower behind walls and trees or suck up plenty of casualties.

It's a very fluffy result.

 hey801 wrote:

Btw markerlights are silent so you wouldn't know in time to duck

Noise makes no difference. Almost every type of ammunition, in this time and in the future, is supersonic, and therefore would hit you before you heard it. This is particularly prevalent with 'las' weapons, as they are actually travelling at the speed of light (3x10^8 m/s IIRC), which is almost 900,000 times faster than sound. Noise plays absolutely no part in the fluff for cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

raverrn wrote:

It's a very fluffy result.

Still makes no sense though.

raverrn wrote:

You're wrong, it's actually a pretty elegant rules quirk. If cover gave equivalent bonuses to models regardless of armor save then you'd see every unit using cover in the same way. But, because cover saves give a much smaller benefit to marine-equivalent models they become much more mobile, able to leave cover and soak up a lot more fire than the more human models who have to cower behind walls and trees or suck up plenty of casualties.

It's a very fluffy result.

Not really. Marines using cover are tougher to kill than marines not using cover. the 40k game mechanics do not represent this at all. it would be a more fluffy result to apply to-hit mods to models shooting those in cover (ie they're harder to hit) or armour mods for those in cover (cover offers more protection). As is, the marine wont bother with cover, as its worthless. THe mechanics say he either uses his armour or the cover. Somehow though, when he uses the cover against bolter rounds, his armour disappears and he becomes extremely easy to kill. How is that more fluffy?

marines in open ground are as vulnerable as anything else, frankly.

I like having someone on my side for once

Tactical_Genius wrote:

Still makes no sense though.

The day you begin to base rules on what 'makes sense' is they day the entire 'Nid army collapses under the collective weight of the square-cube law and every battle becomes a cacophony of orbital strikes and nothing more.