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.

I suppose this has more to do with the metagame than anything else, but I'm wondering if cover is becoming obsolete for MEQ armies. The reason I pose this is that the current rules for cover saves make them very plentiful (or at least that’s what people seem to think). Since cover is becoming so plentiful, people are abandoning high strength, low ap weapons in favor of weapons with higher ap and more volume of fire. So, with this in mind, armies that rely on 3+ saves for the bulk of their models no longer gain any benefit from cover and have less reason to make any use of it. After all, if the lowest ap your opponent has in any significant number is 4, then all terrain does is slow you down.

Thoughts?

When 5th ed came out I immediately noticed how much cover there was. Almost everything is going to get a cover save now. And I personally agree that MEQ's needing cover is slowly becoming obsolete. Most people I play against don't use good AP weapons anymore. The only time I see low AP is if it's a plasma cannon. And they don't run that for low AP they run it for blasts.

I disagree
There will always be models with high AP weapons and you will want some sort of save from these shots.
Since every army needs some sort of anti tank firepower and usually this entails AP 2 or AP3 cover could help against it.

As usual it is situational though.

I think it is what they wanted with 5th. You can't win if you are designed to kill a few MEQ models and the horde is upon you.

Of course that means people will be buying said horde, increasing the GW cash flow.

cypher wrote:I disagree
There will always be models with high AP weapons and you will want some sort of save from these shots.
Since every army needs some sort of anti tank firepower and usually this entails AP 2 or AP3 cover could help against it.

As usual it is situational though.

The thing is though, those weapons are few and far between. Gone are the days of star cannon death eldar armies. Gone are the days of the las/plas squads. With so much of the ap 3 (or better) fire power going away I wonder if terrain will just become a hinderance to marines (and their power armored ilk) rather than a help. Sure there will be las cannons and melta guns around, but with the relatively small number of those that are likely to be pointed at your infantry, it seems like just sucking up the .4 casualties they are likely to cause (assuming the shooter is BS 4) would be better than taking the movement hit of trying to duck behind and/or move though cover.

I'm just curious if people are thinking about how cover may now be more of a bad thing than a good thing for heavily armoed armies.

Indeed, rate of fire seems to be the best way to kill any foe, even 2+ saves cannot hold forever (let alone with the 3++ save shields are supposed to get).

The only unit clearly anti-meq are my dark reapers, and they have a good value of fire to worry hordes, too.

Greets
Schepp himself

thousand sons are anti MEQ.

It will be situational. Against my orks, I have very little AP 2 or 3 fire (heck, I barely have any AP 4 fire besides lootas), so they should try to deploy where the firing lanes or choke points are best, not based on cover.

Since most tournaments should be open list now, you can probably just glance over your opponent's list and see if you need to worry about anything.

40K games should have a lot of cover, but there should be space between cover. SM can exist in those spaces, guard and other light troops cannot. Power armour fives you the versatility.

Also remember that the number of cover negating weapons is slowly increasing.

Also, cover means little in close combat, especially if you have frag grenades. Assault is half of the game and there the 3+ save will really help.

I would say that it's armor that's becoming obsolete, not cover saves. When you can slap down a unit of guardsmen just about anywhere and grant them between 3+ and 4+ cover saves, shoot outs begin to favor armies that don't have high quality armor costed into their models. They throw bodies on the board and gain good defense as a situational bonus instead.

When you can slap down a unit of guardsmen just about anywhere and grant them between 3+ and 4+ cover saves, shoot outs begin to favor armies that don't have high quality armor costed into their models.

I completely agree with Sourclams on this. Cameoline guardsmen are getting the same 3+ save as Marines in standard cover, and if a single squad comes under sustained fire it can simply go to ground and turn that into a Terminator-class 2+.

Pheonix does have a point though, increased cover saves have lead to alternative weapon options being considered instead of the simple las/plas of the past, and that does impact on how useful cover is for Marines.

My answer to his question is no, cover will never be obsolete as long as Leman Russes are packing Battle Cannons.

sourclams wrote:I would say that it's armor that's becoming obsolete, not cover saves. When you can slap down a unit of guardsmen just about anywhere and grant them between 3+ and 4+ cover saves, shoot outs begin to favor armies that don't have high quality armor costed into their models. They throw bodies on the board and gain good defense as a situational bonus instead.

I'd have to agree with you there. But the fact that cover doesn't benefit you means you can be less tactically involved (which can be a good or a bad thing depending on who you are).

As long as there are ap 3 weapons cover will never be obsolete and when I can go to ground and get a 3+ cover save its fun to park my footslogging crusader squads in cover and wait for the enemy to close in before assaulting out.

Typeline wrote:

sourclams wrote:I would say that it's armor that's becoming obsolete, not cover saves. When you can slap down a unit of guardsmen just about anywhere and grant them between 3+ and 4+ cover saves, shoot outs begin to favor armies that don't have high quality armor costed into their models. They throw bodies on the board and gain good defense as a situational bonus instead.

I'd have to agree with you there. But the fact that cover doesn't benefit you means you can be less tactically involved (which can be a good or a bad thing depending on who you are).

You aren’t less tactically involved, but have to follow a different set of tactics. A guy playing an army with crappy armour saves, such as guard, has to keep his troops in cover, and maintain his flanks to ensure his opponent can’t manoeuvre into a position where his cover is denied.

A guy playing an army with a good save, such as marines, doesn’t worry about cover (most of the time), but he does have to worry about having around half as many troops and heavy weapons. He can’t settle for standing still and shooting it out, he’s got to manoeuvre to deny the other guy his cover save, and to ensure local fire superiority.

It's almost as if it's not a matter of whether cover is obsolete, but when you should use it. Crazy.

Still lots of AP3 ordnance running around.

Nurglitch wrote:It's almost as if it's not a matter of whether cover is obsolete, but when you should use it. Crazy.

So what you're saying is you should consider your army and your opponents, consider terrain and objectives, and revise your planning each turn based on battlefield conditions? Nah, I'm pretty sure an absolute rule based on bulletin board theory is much, much better.

sebster:

Yes, I'm saying that you should consider your army and your opponents, consider terrain and objectives, and revise your planning each turn based on battlefield conditions.

My attempt at sarcasm failed. :(

sebster wrote:
So what you're saying is you should consider your army and your opponents, consider terrain and objectives, and revise your planning each turn based on battlefield conditions? Nah, I'm pretty sure an absolute rule based on bulletin board theory is much, much better.

My problem with absolute rules is that it makes people plan armies/strategies around these absolute rules, and the absolute counters for these absolute rules, then you find a guy who doesn't play by these absolute rules and you have no idea what to do with 'im. Relying on consistancy in a game where almost everything is determined by the random roll of a d6 is .... um... lets just say it's overly optimistic. Being able to adapt, and adapt well is what distinguishes the good and the great commanders. The only real constant in this game is math hammer

Shrike78 wrote:

sebster wrote:
So what you're saying is you should consider your army and your opponents, consider terrain and objectives, and revise your planning each turn based on battlefield conditions? Nah, I'm pretty sure an absolute rule based on bulletin board theory is much, much better.

My problem with absolute rules is that it makes people plan armies/strategies around these absolute rules, and the absolute counters for these absolute rules, then you find a guy who doesn't play by these absolute rules and you have no idea what to do with 'im. Relying on consistancy in a game where almost everything is determined by the random roll of a d6 is .... um... lets just say it's overly optimistic. Being able to adapt, and adapt well is what distinguishes the good and the great commanders. The only real constant in this game is math hammer

I totaly agree. Being able to adapt is critical you cant fully plan out a game you have to make room for variable and contingencies.

Sorry phoenix, I didn't really answer your question, I just argued with others... so here it goes

If you can use something, its not obsolete. Even for Meq armies, whose armor is often better than the cover they are using, there will always be a time when you need to use cover to your advantage whether, its Ap 3 pie-plates, or an anti-tank squad that has run out of tanks an has decided that your terminators would be fun targets, a commander will need to know when and how to get to cover.

Also, it is possible to use cover as an offensive weapon, though this may sound strange, I have found that against armies with lots of cover hugging shooters, cover pins their army more effectively than a vindicare sniper (my favorite unit to use). This is because commanders who love cover, are, naturally unwilling to leave it. This can cause a delay of movement for one even two turns while your troops flank. This will allow you to make a thrust on unprotected targets that will make your opponent second guess his go-to-ground instincts.

And that, is when you have him.

Shrike78 wrote:Also, it is possible to use cover as an offensive weapon, though this may sound strange, I have found that against armies with lots of cover hugging shooters, cover pins their army more effectively than a vindicare sniper (my favorite unit to use). This is because commanders who love cover, are, naturally unwilling to leave it.

In 4th ed, I'd agree with you. However, in 5th ed, if your board truly has 25% terrain coverage, you should be able to gain the benefit of a cover save just about anywhere from just about any angle. Even if you're using your own men going to ground to provide cover saves, your enemy is going to have to waste shots killing fairly durable throw away units while your actual killers maintain their optimal death range, whatever that might be.

well I'm not at all familiar to 5e so I'll defer to your judgment on this

Nurglitch wrote:sebster:

Yes, I'm saying that you should consider your army and your opponents, consider terrain and objectives, and revise your planning each turn based on battlefield conditions.

My attempt at sarcasm failed. :(

I got your meaning, and I was agreeing with you. It was my sarcasm that was a little crappy.

sourclams wrote:In 4th ed, I'd agree with you. However, in 5th ed, if your board truly has 25% terrain coverage, you should be able to gain the benefit of a cover save just about anywhere from just about any angle. Even if you're using your own men going to ground to provide cover saves, your enemy is going to have to waste shots killing fairly durable throw away units while your actual killers maintain their optimal death range, whatever that might be.

If you spread the cover out across in small, even amounts leaving no open areas or any particularly congested areas, then yeah. But you shouldn't do that, because it results in boring games where everyone gets cover from everywhere else.

Shrike78 wrote:My problem with absolute rules is that it makes people plan armies/strategies around these absolute rules, and the absolute counters for these absolute rules, then you find a guy who doesn't play by these absolute rules and you have no idea what to do with 'im. Relying on consistancy in a game where almost everything is determined by the random roll of a d6 is .... um... lets just say it's overly optimistic. Being able to adapt, and adapt well is what distinguishes the good and the great commanders. The only real constant in this game is math hammer

The ability to take general principles, weigh them up given conditions on the table, then choose the best strategy is pretty the definition of good play. A lot of people tend to stop at understanding a principle, make it absolute and follow it slavishly. It'll work until they come up against players who do modify their playing style based on the conditions in the game.

Not that 40K is the best example, for all its improvements in recent years it's never been a game of high strategy. But the ability to adapt will still give some advantage.

Marines will be good when they come out.

In a year, marines will be nasty--not because they are by themselves nasty, but because where everyone else has a 4+ cover save (and has to stay in it)...marines come with a 3+ cover save (and are able to be mobile).

See, none of my armies have needed to change because I do not run marine armies.

Until 5th edition, and the new Marine codex comes out.

Will marines be dominant? No, but I think with their rise you'll find alot of builds stretched awfully thin between:

Torrent of fire.
Rapid fire.
Close combat.
Mech.
Marines.
Orks.

And:

Inability to dislodge the enemy by fire.
Ability to dislodge almost everyone by close combat.

This is not a bad thing. The days of running a 'balanced' army out of book X is coming to an end.

The day that the balanced army is marines and everyone else is a variant off the tactical wheel.

Eldar is defeated by Tyranids is defeated by Chaos is defeated by Orks is defeated by Imperial Guard.

All variants of an attack form, which I put to you will be centralized around marines.

You might be able to deal with certain armies by overloading your own army into a certain army configuration that they cannot deal with effectively, but the balanced army that is the new marines will be able to deal with you.

No matter how you change, unless you specifically gear to kill marines...but the overarcing reach of 4+ cover save generation makes even that a self-defeating prophecy, able to hurt the balance but never quite tip...it...over.

There was an interesting discussion on the notion of a 'metgame' in 40k some time ago. As a refugee, or maybe graduate, from the MECHWARRIOR game, I can say that there is TONS of 'game outside of the game' in 40k.

Army size is one metagame element. Much of the advice on this forum is most pertinent to games of a specific size. An army may play better one way at 1250 points and another at 1500 or 1750.

Terrain is a second metagame element. As one of the above observers noted, cover saves now make Imp. Guard as tough as Space Marines. BUT, who is setting up the terrain, how much and what pieces of terrain will there be? Rumor has it that the boards are obscenely open at Grand Tournaments-too many participants, too little terrain to go around. Yes, the rules suggest that 25% of the board be occupied by terrain. Each venue, each tournament may be different. In the Bat Rep section there was an Eldar vs. BT game from a GT, virtually vacant of terrain (so its not just rumor).

Buildings may be very popular at your FLGS/RTT. Buildings BLOW UP in 5th edition. Not as good as woods for cover I would suggest.

A third element will be mission vs. annihilation, and which will be in use in Aard Boyz, not that I'm playing? Which will be in use at FLGS's RTT? Will the missions and victory conditions be textbook, or specially created? And created by who? By impartial referees from outside the area, or by referees who have playtested the scenarios with players who will be showing up for the tournament?

A fourth element is army construction. Will Forgeworld stuff be allowed? Will Tyranid Armorcast pieces, built under license by Armorcast at the time, be legal? Will that second Inquisitor Lord, in an allied contingent, be allowed??

A 5th element is interpretations. Not only which list of interps, but also how knowldegable are the refs? Not covered in the rules, hence, a metagame element.

A 6th element is power creep in the codexes. Got your perfect plan for beating MEQ's? Come September it might not look so good.

A 7th element is 'who is playing and did they know what you would be playing'? At friendly local game store, my son is playing Tyranids. He is invited by a SM player to have a friendly game. OOPS, out come 4 landraiders, which were in the box before. Playing all comers at a tournament is obviously different than playing a challenge match against a known enemy, ditto escalation if players are required to keep a stable core fo units.

So, back to terrain. Can't actually discuss the subject without first knowing which armies are 'strong' in 5th ed. Can't know that until tournament results come in, unless of course you only play friendlies or RTT's. I think there are TWO theories of 40k right now. The first, is that you cannot design an army to perform optimally in all three missions in the rulebook. IG would be an example. Sure you can take advantage of cover, too bad that you army has 25 kill points for the annihilation scenario.

GW thought that the new rules mandating troops to hold objectives would get people to bring and buy new troop units. Too bad that more troops=more easy kill points for the Annihilation scenario...So, some players are suggesting armies heavy in HEAVY TANKS. Sieze ONE objective, use Heavy Tanks to contest the others, tank shock.... If this archetype becomes prevalent, then LASCANNONS may even start appearing in Devastator squads. Weapons which ignore cover saves may become more valuable, they are few and far between.

Other players are moving more to assault armies, assault can negate terrain.

At first it may seem that terrain may be too random an element on which to base a plan. But, since screening equals terrain, I would say that it is now one of the key considerations. Armies with low cost elements will benefit from it, armies with small numbers of elite units will despise it.

sebster wrote:

sourclams wrote:In 4th ed, I'd agree with you. However, in 5th ed, if your board truly has 25% terrain coverage, you should be able to gain the benefit of a cover save just about anywhere from just about any angle. Even if you're using your own men going to ground to provide cover saves, your enemy is going to have to waste shots killing fairly durable throw away units while your actual killers maintain their optimal death range, whatever that might be.

If you spread the cover out across in small, even amounts leaving no open areas or any particularly congested areas, then yeah. But you shouldn't do that, because it results in boring games where everyone gets cover from everywhere else.

What you consider a boring game, I consider an integral part of gameplay leading to tactical options, resulting in an interesting game.

Enjoy playing Napoleonic Stand and Shoot.