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.

designing a tabletop game is not software. While that advice is true for software where you have reasonable expectations of how people will use it, I'm generally somebody hitting that edge case is only going to do something to themselves and no one else in which case they just open a bug and you look at it or manually resolve it for that user so they can get back to work It is not good for a game where it's going to be open to abuse and bog things down at best or cause arguments at worst.

I've seen the very same reasoning used by bad software developers for why they wrote terrible and unnecessarily software to handle edge cases which will never be relevant.

On top of that your argument not just wrong, but the reverse is true, as you can talk to your opponent about unhandled edge cases, while usually software will not change no matter how much you want it to.

You are also wrong about the impact of software compared to impact of game rules. There is software which can destroy companies, hurt or maim people or cause natural disasters by malfunctioning. Doesn't really compare well to getting an unjustified -1 to AP, does it?

So, despite your lack of actually addressing the point, you are also wrong in all your attempts at deflection.

Designing a system is the same as designing a system. Claiming otherwise just shows that you are a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Good enough for a second try?

 Jidmah wrote:

designing a tabletop game is not software. While that advice is true for software where you have reasonable expectations of how people will use it, I'm generally somebody hitting that edge case is only going to do something to themselves and no one else in which case they just open a bug and you look at it or manually resolve it for that user so they can get back to work It is not good for a game where it's going to be open to abuse and bog things down at best or cause arguments at worst.

I've seen the very same reasoning used by bad software developers for why they wrote terrible and unnecessarily software to handle edge cases which will never be relevant.

On top of that your argument not just wrong, but the reverse is true, as you can talk to your opponent about unhandled edge cases, while usually software will not change no matter how much you want it to.

You are also wrong about the impact of software compared to impact of game rules. There is software which can destroy companies, hurt or maim people or cause natural disasters by malfunctioning. Doesn't really compare well to getting an unjustified -1 to AP, does it?

So, despite your lack of actually addressing the point, you are also wrong in all your attempts at deflection.

Designing a system is the same as designing a system. Claiming otherwise just shows that you are a victim of the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Good enough for a second try?

To add to this, are there any real world examples of these edge cases, I'm talking personal experience, not some random historical diorama photo off Google etc.

 catbarf wrote:

Voss wrote:

Tyel wrote:
Presumably there will be times when you get to shoot 3+ save models with AP-1 when they don't benefit from cover...

I suspect they didn't like the feel/look of the tournament tables packed to the gills with blocking walls, so we're going to see the pendulum swing back on terrain. It would be pretty easy to create a table where infantry qualifies for 'Benefit of Cover' roughly 90% of the time, at least outside 6"

I expect official guidelines of 'Some, but not too much, but not Planet Bowling Ball but not so much you always have cover, but enough that we came move some terrain kits.'

Personally I'm 300% okay with this approach. Scatter terrain has a reason to exist again, and tables won't have to be packed so wall-to-wall that tanks can hardly maneuver in order for units to benefit from cover.

My only substantial complaint is that I also feel that woods ought to prevent shooting all the way through them, rather than just giving cover to guys on the other side. Easy enough houserule with like-minded friends, of course.

Same, it'll be nice for scatter terrain to have a purpose besides making the battlefield nice, and I'm happy that large and or spiky models will be easier to maneuver with less walls and giant ruins on every piece of the board.

I'm surprised they're not letting rules obstruct line of sight, unless they plan on having two types of terrain for woods, one where fire will get through and one that's a dense jungle and you can't even see the enemy.

 Jidmah wrote:
I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.

GW has you covered. Tho I can't [edit: mistyped, oops] remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.

It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.

GW has you covered. Tho I can remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.

It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.

These "cliffs" are barely 3" tall and I doubt it would have any impact on the rules as they are presented

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.

GW has you covered. Tho I can remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.

It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.

I have played literally hundreds of games on that board and those cliffs aren't high enough to cause the issue. Even the tallest ones (the two on the left side) are barely as high as your average infantry model. A primaris marine on a tactical rock can probably easily look onto them. There is no way to have a ground floor as high up as 6" on this board. Assuming you have a ruin that fits on them in the first place.

See here:


Note that these are the old ruins, if I remember correctly, each of their floors was slightly more than 3" tall.

My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Why make terrain and cover less relevant ?

See, this is an issue of mine, we play a highly lethal wargame, right? So to migitated there are mechanics like armor and invuls, etc. But more importantly the most relevant factor should be terrain, cover and manouvre by extention.
Why not run a dual system that provides a cover safe respectilvly improves an armor save if you have better armor?

that way you'd incentivise shocktroops / heavy troops, transports, and weaponry to dig enemies out of cover like artillery, nades and flamers without artificially poking holes in the rules that are breaking the inuniverse consistency?

f.e.
light cover 5+ coversafe/ + 1 to armorsave
heavy Cover 4+ coversafe/ +2 to armor.

If you run that with area cover or true los is irrelevant, but atleast it would lower lethality and make terrain even if one can draw los through it, more relevant / binary.

 Jidmah wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:
I would love to see some pictures of all those beautiful mountainside gaming boards which can fit a whole ruin inside a 6" deep depression.

GW has you covered. Tho I can remember if the Realms of Battle cliffs were so tall.

It also feels really weird to link official GW terrain the second time for a "this terrain setup surely doesn't exist!" complaint.

I have played literally hundreds of games on that board and those cliffs aren't high enough to cause the issue. Even the tallest ones (the two on the left side) are barely as high as your average infantry model. A primaris marine on a tactical rock can probably easily look onto them. There is no way to have a ground floor as high up as 6" on this board. Assuming you have a ruin that fits on them in the first place.

See here:

Spoiler:

Note that these are the old ruins, if I remember correctly, each of their floors was slightly more than 3" tall.

The "cliffs" are also very notable as a hill and the GW wording of the board was that they can be used to create a hill, which is in turn, a defined terrain type.

I went googling for examples, there is this, which is explicitly not a 40k board, but for wild west exodus:



This has a similar elevation, but the raised areas are very clearly NOT the "ground floor" so no real complexity:



And a personal favourite of mine that I've experienced first hand, which would admittedly be confusing in current rule, but is arguably not a 40k table:

Dudeface wrote:


And a personal favourite of mine that I've experienced first hand, which would admittedly be confusing in current rule, but is arguably not a 40k table:

Spoiler:

All of these examples are very cool, especially the last one, but that is what i meant by 'fully modelled table' - in this case, you need to discuss how you handle stuff beforehand, and there is no really realistic way how ruleswriting could have prevented that discussion, at least not without becoming very wordy.

Very cool table in #3 Dudeface

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Very cool table in #3 Dudeface

Looks cool but it's not very practical! It's at warhammer world and intended more for necromunda/kill team.

Dudeface wrote:


To add to this, are there any real world examples of these edge cases, I'm talking personal experience, not some random historical diorama photo off Google etc.

this is the map they've been playing on :

Dudeface wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Very cool table in #3 Dudeface

Looks cool but it's not very practical! It's at warhammer world and intended more for necromunda/kill team.

Boarding action would probably work fine on it.

Dudeface wrote:

 The Red Hobbit wrote:
Very cool table in #3 Dudeface

Looks cool but it's not very practical! It's at warhammer world and intended more for necromunda/kill team.

yeah, i would looove to play a skirmish game on that, reminds me of infinity tables a bit

 Insectum7 wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:
Those pieces of terrain have stuff on top that would obscure the model thereby granting cover. Ruins grant cover.

Neither scenario precipitates worrying about a forest between two buildings except in the narrowest of cases and its such a weird hill ( pun intended ) to die on.

https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/battlezone-mechanicus-galvanic-magnavent-2021
https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/battlezone-mechanicus-transterranic-gantries-2021
Lots of space in between those tiny barricades!

Oh no. This massive flaw totally ruins the game. Except those aren't enclosed buildings or a hill. But you know - discuss the type with your opponent.

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights

A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and

B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.

 Eldarsif wrote:
I guess you are talking about Horus Heresy? Balancing game options is pretty much more linear when you can expect a majority of factions to be mirror battles.

I am getting tired of people believing that 40k is only a Space Marine game. There are ton of xenos, daemons, and other big monsters that are not in Horus Heresy. If you'd give them the same things as Horus Heresy you'd see an explosion of options that would be nigh impossible to balance.

Sorry for the late reply. I'm talking about the homebrew system in my signature, which includes in theory all factions (Custodes and Votan are missing currently as nobody is playing them). While loyal Marines have the biggest selection of things simply because there is so much material out there for them, everybody is getting as much customisability as the previous codizes and fluff allow.

Further examples (note that "weapons" do not include unit specific items like "Earthsaker artillery cannon")
Inquisition:


Necrons:


Imperial Guard:


Speaking from experience and feedback of my local playerbase of ~12-16 regular players, you can have a somewhat well balanced game and variety even with wildly different profiles in each army.

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

I assume for balance reasons. Honestly, I was really hoping they'd go back to old cover rules where it's a separate save and you pick between armor, cover, and invuln. That would have avoided the issue I'm guessing they're trying to avoid (it being undesirably difficult to dig out a well armored unit from cover, making the game too stationary as 3+ armies would prefer sit in cover the whole game if the terrain allows). I'm, of course, speculating on their reasoning though.

It is kind of weird that 40K still has the save/invuln system where you only get one or the other, but they seem adamant on doing something else for cover.

I mean, if you want to poke holes in the logic of the cover mechanics, does it really make sense that putting a protective energy field on a suit of armor doesn't actually make it any more durable against small arms?

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights

A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and

B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.

Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

I assume for balance reasons. Honestly, I was really hoping they'd go back to old cover rules where it's a separate save and you pick between armor, cover, and invuln. That would have avoided the issue I'm guessing they're trying to avoid (it being undesirably difficult to dig out a well armored unit from cover, making the game too stationary as 3+ armies would prefer sit in cover the whole game if the terrain allows). I'm, of course, speculating on their reasoning though.

Somewhat balance reasons. I suspect much of it is trying to drive how people are 'supposed to' play. GW often gets a bug in their ear about space marines in particular aren't being played in the 'right' way, and in some cases have gone off on rants about it. (their first major buff to T4 and 3+ armor, way back in the day, had a lot of weird language about how it wasn't suitable that marines were being overly threatened by the more recent-at-the-time (xenos) army lists).

So I suspect this is someone's solution to the setting narrative that marines are supposed to be aggressive, not cautious and hug cover. Mind you, if there's still a lot of AP>0 weapons out there, they still will, but nevermind.

[It also conflicts with the Phobos marines, who are much more modern special forces in theme than the knight/crusaders theme or the original psycho-tropically altered criminals, and so their de facto operation should be hugging cover and being smart/cautious. But that's a different issue]

I'm happy it seems like it will be much easier to make a variety of different battlefields that also provide cover. Plus there is now a point in making a lot of small nice looking scatter terrain outside of just looks

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

GW haven't confirmed what Torrent does yet, have they? It'll be interesting to see what the full picture is for the Heavy Flamer - and whether IGNORES COVER is going to be a standard ability on Flamer-type weapons.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights

A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and

B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.

Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.

Who should benefit more from cover?
A Marine, clad in power armor; or a Cultist, in a stiff t-shirt and a few bits of metal strapped on somewhere?

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Why make terrain and cover less relevant ?

See, this is an issue of mine, we play a highly lethal wargame, right? So to migitated there are mechanics like armor and invuls, etc. But more importantly the most relevant factor should be terrain, cover and manouvre by extention.
Why not run a dual system that provides a cover safe respectilvly improves an armor save if you have better armor?

that way you'd incentivise shocktroops / heavy troops, transports, and weaponry to dig enemies out of cover like artillery, nades and flamers without artificially poking holes in the rules that are breaking the inuniverse consistency?

f.e.
light cover 5+ coversafe/ + 1 to armorsave
heavy Cover 4+ coversafe/ +2 to armor.

If you run that with area cover or true los is irrelevant, but atleast it would lower lethality and make terrain even if one can draw los through it, more relevant / binary.

Because the most common profile in the game is T4 2W with a 2+ save in cover. It immediately makes any ap0 D1 weapons completely worthless and not worth bothering with. This is why so many weapons gained ap, or have abilities to stack it; so that they can actually deal with Space Marines sitting in Light Cover. The knock on effect of this though is that every other non-power armour faction gets hurt by this more than Marines actually do.

For instance it currently takes 60 lasgun shots to down a single Intercessor in cover. That is an absurdity and it's why Take Aim exists as an order. But now ordinary Guardsmen are doing obscene damage to things like GSC or Eldar units, and worse yet that same order is applying to things like Kasrkin who are now hitting on 2's with ap3 weapons.

The 10th solution is a little awkward, but it actually does address that issue. Ap0 D1 weapons still aren't amazing, especially vs Marines, but they're not completely pointless anymore and so don't require buffs which then endanger other non-Marine factions more.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights

A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and

B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.

Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.

But having more ignores cover weapons (especially if they are not AP0) introduces issues with weakly armored units not being able to take proper advantage of cover. Granted, in the current system, high AP weapons are effectively "ignores cover" anyway...

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights

A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and

B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.

Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.

Who should benefit more from cover?
A Marine, clad in power armor; or a Cultist, in a stiff t-shirt and a few bits of metal strapped on somewhere?

They should both benefit. And honestly, a dude hiding behind a fence in a tshirt isn't going to get much help.

It also doesn't tackle inconsistencies like only some Bullgryns get benefit of cover because they brought the wrong shield.

It also doesn't matter when someone talks about, like in one of the threads, a 3+ to 2+ = a 5+ to 3+, because point cost is still a thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dysartes wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

GW haven't confirmed what Torrent does yet, have they? It'll be interesting to see what the full picture is for the Heavy Flamer - and whether IGNORES COVER is going to be a standard ability on Flamer-type weapons.

We don't need to know what Torrent does: we see it ignores cover, and there's nothing to stop GW to give that to other Flamer based weapons too.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They should both benefit. And honestly, a dude hiding behind a fence in a tshirt isn't going to get much help.

No they shouldnt, cover should have diminishing returns.

If you're wearing a t-shirt, the wooden barricade might slow the bullets just enough so that 1/3 of them don't hit you at lethal speed
If you're clad in armor, it doesnt matter if the bullets are slowed by the wooden barricade, it still wasnt gonna pierce the ceramite armor you're wearing

DeadliestIdiot wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 catbarf wrote:

Not Online!!! wrote:
My question about the whole no armor buff for cover if you have 3+ SV against ap 0 is... why?

Because they probably don't want the noble shining space knights

A. Hiding in cover against small arms in a manner rather contrary to their fluff, and

B. Becoming twice as hard to kill in cover, while the factions that really actually ought to be using cover get much less benefit.

Once again, easily solved via easier access to Ignores Cover weapons or making melee units in normally ranged armies more enticing. Hell, we just had the Heavy Flamer previewed and it does that.

But no, apparently someone here thinks a fence stopping 10% of a force of a bullet is reasonable to stop someone from losing an arm.

But having more ignores cover weapons (especially if they are not AP0) introduces issues with weakly armored units not being able to take proper advantage of cover. Granted, in the current system, high AP weapons are effectively "ignores cover" anyway...

Which created incentive to use Flamer based weapons. Oh look, another problem solved!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

They should both benefit. And honestly, a dude hiding behind a fence in a tshirt isn't going to get much help.

No they shouldnt, cover should have diminishing returns.

If you're wearing a t-shirt, the wooden barricade might slow the bullets just enough so that 1/3 of them don't hit you at lethal speed
If you're clad in armor, it doesnt matter if the bullets are slowed by the wooden barricade, it still wasnt gonna pierce the ceramite armor you're wearing

And 1/3 speed of the bullet doesn't make the Power Armor even more effective against said firearm?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

And 1/3 speed of the bullet doesn't make the Power Armor even more effective against said firearm?

No, because the armor can already tank the full speed bullet.

Look, its clear you just want the tabletop to reflect bolterporn but having an entire faction of semi-elite dude all save on a 2+ by hugging terrain is bad for the game and unfluffy.

Now marines don't need to cower behind terrain when facing AP0 shitters, they can just move towards them and let the ceramite do its thing.

you've been shown the math on how much more space marines benefit from cover right now, going from a 3->2 is muuuuuch more impactful than going from a 6->5 which means its MORE important for dudes wearing portable tanks to cower in cover than for cultists. Completely backwards