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.

Negatives to hit are a problem on a D6 system, to me though this only applies where there is no system to counter it.

ideal would be adding a "Sz" stat to everything, "size" which is a basic to hit modifier. tanks could be something like +5, default infantry +0, larger infantry (custards, terminators etc) +1, maybe really small stuff known for hiding as -1

then provide a further +1 to hit a stationary target and similar


Automatically Appended Next Post:
key to me though is cover needs to do something or may as well get rid of it

all it really can do is provide protection and get in the way

blocking shooting through area terrain totally makes sense and is simple enough, the ability for some cove to give a negative to hit (e.g. smoke, blind effects etc), which may or may not stack with other effects - personally I'd go with "cover" effects being "pick any one that applies"

so if you are behind a wall for -1 to hit, the fact you also have smoke for -1 to hit doesn't matter

then provide the AP bonus for actual protection - a wall being maybe a +1, smoke being zero

The real crazy thing is, in 8th you can add whatever terrain rules your playing group likes. Shocker! If you think one of the suggestions upthread is better than the BRB/CA? Use it instead!

Our group already uses:

- Touching counts as in (to speed up the Jenga Phase! No one needs to spend time balancing dudes)
- Barricades count as -2” movement to cross (to save measuring up and over each time - again a speed-up change)
- Lower levels of Ruins without doors/windows *can’t* be walked through by INFANTRY (to stop Fire and Fade silliness, and to match the terrain we have - walking through solid walls with no holes in breaks immersion)

In my experience, what you want terrain to do for your game (as well as the visual aspect) is to provide a benefit and/or provide or force manoeuvring opportunities. What you don’t want is nine layers of rules to remember or to disadvantage one army disproportionately. Keep it simple and focus on what terrain you use.

The bigger problem with terrain as GW sells it is that it doesn’t do much in the way of LOS or mobility blocking. Gaps everywhere, rules allowing guys to just wander through, weird 6” gantries on spindly legs. Homemade or MDF terrain options can provide very different tactical challenges than stock GW stuff. Bigger buildings you have to go over or around change things up so much, very glad I made some. The vertical dimension and the LOS-blocking are great. Try some hills with a few tiers too... so many entirely flat battlefields out there. Our Eldar player hates hills with a passion as they always seem to block his LOS at a crucial moment! And this from a guy who can largely fly or sprint over them!

Honestly, I just don’t get the constant “terrain rules suck” as the core of them is sound. It’s often the actual terrain you’re using that does nothing for 8th.

the_scotsman wrote:

Nurglitch wrote:
Really? I thought everyone hates those 'regular shooting attacks but with all the risks of psychic powers' things. Novas were cool though.

I mean, I didn't. Just increase the relative power for the points in exchange for the risk, or replace the to-hit roll with the psychic test or something. I dunno. I'm really bored of mortal wound powers personally, they basically all have to be the same.

I really enjoy mortal wounds, as I think it's important to have a way around invulnerable saves. I could do without special snowflake psychic powers though, as this game has so many rules now.

 Crimson wrote:
Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.

It is a gamey exploit. But assault is so gakky in 8th that it's basically a mandatory skill.

Maybe three-pointing could be improved as a more deliberate mechanic, by going over the charge/pile-in/consolidate rules, along with morale casualties and cohesion.

The core concept isn't so bad. If you don't have an open path to retreat, you shouldn't be able to fall back. Getting overrun = lethal. The issue is the mechanics feel gamey, not the concept.

Quick thing, terrain adds character to the game. Making meaningful choices on deployment and movement and game pace. At least it should, the terrain as it is currently is too light and a little meh. I can get that you don't want to bog it down but a better system adds a lot for both the competitive player and the more narrative driven as it makes the game more robust in the playing and adds a certain nice element to it.

Terrain is a lot like the tapestry that you paint on during the game play. Making it better can only give a certain feel back to the game beside point and click which it increasingly feels like these days.

Nurglitch wrote:Cover allowing stuff to survive mind-bullets isn't ideal. FNP is more of something about the target being able to ignore debilitating wounds

You could phrase it so that the cover FNP doesn't apply to mortal wounds, between that and stuff that ignores cover bonuses "real" FNP would still stand apart as providing enhanced durability.

DominayTrix wrote:Maybe +1 Toughness could work? People use heavier weapons against squishy targets behind cover in warfare all the time. Weak things are more likely to slam into cover and stop while heavier weaponry simply powers through the cover.

Good potential in this idea, would it work the same for tanks (once they are X% concealed by the terrain)?

A Bonus to Toughness is just a problematic as a Bonus to Save. Some times that one point just doesn't matter. Adding 1 Toughness to a T3 model makes not difference against S 5 or S 8+ attacks, just like adding +1 Save to a 5+ Save model makes no difference against AP -3 or better.

I think a better rule, that doesn't have to deal with the already existing -1 Hit rules would be something like the following:

All units in or obscured by cover get +1 to their Save roll

A unit/model counts as obscured by Terrain if LOS to it's core components are partially hidden by the terrain. I would define the "core" as head, torso, legs, and hull (including fixed wings), turrets and wheels/tracks with exception on the data sheet.

Each type of terrain also provides an Invulnerable Save of varying level

When that Invulnerable Save is granted depends upon the type of terrain, which could not be negated by special rules. Sometimes you must be in the cover and a specific type of unit, such as Infantry in a crater. Other times, being obscured by the terrain is enough to grant the Invulnerable save, such as any unit obscured by Ruins

Other existing terrain rules remain.

The result would be a greater impact of terrain against shooting attacks as no unit benefitting from appropriate cover would ever be denied at the minimum an Invulnerable Save.

So if the rules for Ruins were the same as they currently are with the addition of "Infantry unit within and all units obsurced by Ruins gain a 5+ Invulnerable Save", the impact would be far reaching for many units, from vehicle and monster behind them to poor save units hiding in them.

What about different stuff getting different buffs. Infantry could get a cover save of some sort. Vehicles or monsters could get +1T. this way we could avoid vehicles with super resiliance, while infantry could get substential buffs, but in exchange for being glued to a terrain.

would also mean that cover ignoring rules wouldn't wreck terrain as a whole, because it would only be a boon vs infantry, while vehicles would still be getting their +1T.

I'm actually impressed by the constructive discussion going on here and some of the great ideas being thrown around.

The cover providing a bonus to toughness idea isn't bad. The hit or miss nature of the toughness bonus versus certain strengths is just part of life with the current wounding chart. It is still much more fair and even compared to +1 to armor save. I like this thematically too.

Feel no pain type cover save is also great. It already exists in the game, they already can't be stacked so I don't see much of a problem here either.

A FNP type cover is basically the same thing I proposed in another thread, albeit slightly differently :

"Right now cover favors heavy armoured units. Older systems favored lightly armored units. I think cover should favor all equally. How does it work ? 

Light cover : "when a unit benefits from light cover (wooden fence, hedge, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1. After that, proceed to wound as normal." 
Heavy cover : ""when a unit benefits from heavy cover (ruin, barricade, etc...), roll to hit as normal. Pick up all the successes and roll them again : discard any roll of 1 and 2. After that, proceed to wound as normal." 

This way, anyone benefiting from light cover gets -16.66% damage and anyone benefiting from heavy cover gets -33.33% damage."

So back to cover saves?

 catbarf wrote:

 Amishprn86 wrote:

 Crimson wrote:
Three pointing always seemed to me like a gamey exploit. It shouldn't exist and the normal rules for fleeing from combat should be more restrictive instead.

Yeah its an exploit, in the same way putting a unit of snipers high on a building is an exploit.

I can think of what putting snipers on a tall building is supposed to represent in real-world equivalence.

I can't think of what putting exactly three guys around an enemy combatant and then deliberately not killing him so that his compatriots can't fall back is supposed to represent.

That's why it's 'gamey' and feels like an exploit- it's a strategy that arises purely from the rules, not from logical real-world tactics.

So b.c you think being surrounded on all sides is not real world applicable for a game about aliens and psychic powers it must be gaming? Oh ok, gatcha. Especially if you are trying to run away from 3 guys when you have pistols and can fight! OFC you can't run, you are scared of 3 guys

 alextroy wrote:
A Bonus to Toughness is just a problematic as a Bonus to Save. Some times that one point just doesn't matter. Adding 1 Toughness to a T3 model makes not difference against S 5 or S 8+ attacks, just like adding +1 Save to a 5+ Save model makes no difference against AP -3 or better.

I think a better rule, that doesn't have to deal with the already existing -1 Hit rules would be something like the following:

All units in or obscured by cover get +1 to their Save roll

A unit/model counts as obscured by Terrain if LOS to it's core components are partially hidden by the terrain. I would define the "core" as head, torso, legs, and hull (including fixed wings), turrets and wheels/tracks with exception on the data sheet.

Each type of terrain also provides an Invulnerable Save of varying level

When that Invulnerable Save is granted depends upon the type of terrain, which could not be negated by special rules. Sometimes you must be in the cover and a specific type of unit, such as Infantry in a crater. Other times, being obscured by the terrain is enough to grant the Invulnerable save, such as any unit obscured by Ruins

Other existing terrain rules remain.

The result would be a greater impact of terrain against shooting attacks as no unit benefitting from appropriate cover would ever be denied at the minimum an Invulnerable Save.

So if the rules for Ruins were the same as they currently are with the addition of "Infantry unit within and all units obsurced by Ruins gain a 5+ Invulnerable Save", the impact would be far reaching for many units, from vehicle and monster behind them to poor save units hiding in them.

Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"

I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.

I think that Cover failing to have any effect on a common basis is a sign of a defective system. There should be an impact or it we should not waste time on it. While giving an Invulnerable save to a model that already has one can be a bit problematic, it also has the side effect of making terrain less useful for models that are already hard to kill.

Nurglitch wrote:
So back to cover saves?

Sounds good to me.

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"

I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.

How about a "pick one" rule?
If a unit with the benefit of cover is hit by an enemy unit, you get a choice of a 5++ save (go to ground), +1 to toughness (take cover) or +1 to armor against(brace for impact) against all shots fired by that unit. That would put some reactive strategy to getting shot into the game.

 Jidmah wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"

I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.

How about a "pick one" rule?
If a unit with the benefit of cover is hit by an enemy unit, you get a choice of a 5++ save (go to ground), +1 to toughness (take cover) or +1 to armor against(brace for impact) against all shots fired by that unit. That would put some reactive strategy to getting shot into the game.

Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?

That would work very smooth. And would make all options an actual choice, not that just one is always better and a no brainer.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:

 Jidmah wrote:

 DominayTrix wrote:
Honestly, that was kind of the intention.S5 shooting isn't effected by T3 units taking cover, which is a benefit for using a S5 gun against T3 infantry. They can take cover and it is just as good at killing them. Meanwhile, regular S4 bolters are effected so it is now worth it to take cover beyond "I'll get a slightly less awful save" for guardsmen against bolters. It gives the players choices that impact the game without having to use complicated rules. "Why are you taking cover Pvt. Dingus? That's a heavy bolter it will just shred us like the sandbags do nothing"

I do miss 7th edition cover saves though and your invuln suggestion is effectively an 8th port of cover saves. My main issue with improving the armor save or providing an alternate invuln save is that it makes cover effectively pointless for units that already have invulns. It's kind of silly that a harlequin has 0 clue how to make use of cover beyond "they can't see me so they can't shoot me." Although a combination of the two could work nicely. "Are you in cover?" +1 T "Are you 50% obscured?" You may take a 5++ invuln instead of your regular save if you wish. Prepared positions can even stay unchanged allowing a +1 armor save, but is no longer "counts as in cover." Not sure I would do all three, but there is plenty of space without -1 to hit modifiers which are consistently problematic for balance. Remember why stacking negative modifiers is competitive. "Haha you literally can't hit it or at best you have to go fishing for 6s" isn't very fun.

How about a "pick one" rule?
If a unit with the benefit of cover is hit by an enemy unit, you get a choice of a 5++ save (go to ground), +1 to toughness (take cover) or +1 to armor against(brace for impact) against all shots fired by that unit. That would put some reactive strategy to getting shot into the game.

Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?

tbh I think almost all the time you'd see units taking Brace for Impact unless they literally had no save stat like daemons and harlequins, and even then it'd be better to not have +1T than to have half movement, as almost all those units that rely on invulns happen to be melee units.

Think about it: you need to be firing AP-3 at guardsmen to make +1Sv not identical to +1T, and AP-2 to make a 5++sv better than +1Sv. Anything with 4+ armor or better would basically never use the rule, and the kinds of units that suffer from the current terrain system the most, i.e. melee-oriented units that can't squat on a piece of cover all game and really REALLY wish cover worked with intervening terrain like it used to, suffer disproportionally more from the movement penalties you propose.

The game does not need more rules that disincentivize movement. We already have a wargame where firing at your absolute maximum range through two ruins, a forest and over a rock is identical to firing at something 2" away standing out in the open, we don't need taking that cover to halve or remove your movement as well.

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?

While I think that your suggestion is very flavorful, any reduction in movement automatically tips the scales in favor of long-range shooting, which is the very thing that cover is supposed to keep in check.
Even without any drawbacks, I think a blanket defensive buff for all units to reduce the lethality of the game would be good thing.

I really do miss the mechanic of giving up movement for defensive buffs though.

Cover should grant defensive buffs, reduce line of sight so you can't be shot in some cases, and impede your movement.

 Jidmah wrote:

 SeanDavid1991 wrote:
Hmmm you could even take this one step further. if you go to ground then that unit might not be able to move next turn as they are picking themselves up. if they take cover they suffer a halved movement. If they brace for impact no penalties?

While I think that your suggestion is very flavorful, any reduction in movement automatically tips the scales in favor of long-range shooting, which is the very thing that cover is supposed to keep in check.
Even without any drawbacks, I think a blanket defensive buff for all units to reduce the lethality of the game would be good thing.

I really do miss the mechanic of giving up movement for defensive buffs though.

Oh It's more you could have a different outcome depending on the type of cover benefit you get. My "suggestions" were just an example of the kind of stuff to do. But make it so it's a tactical choice, the type of cover you take has a different outcome.

 auticus wrote:
Cover should grant defensive buffs, reduce line of sight so you can't be shot in some cases, and impede your movement.

agreed. I think it does one of those things exceedingly poorly right now, and two of them not very well. and the best way to fix that would be to move to an abstracted rather than a TLOS system allowing units to break line of sight more easily.

A few ideas that might make the situation better without dropping TLOS:

1) ranged attacks can only ever kill models in a unit that are within line of sight of the firer. After all models in a unit that can be seen are killed, remaining wounds are lost.

2) line of sight that crosses 2 or more pieces of intervening terrain (ignoring pieces that the firing unit is currently claiming cover from) grants automatic cover to the target.

3) Movement in the movement phase over area terrain types (Craters, Ruins, and Forests) is halved.

4) All weapons, banners, wings, and sculpted terrain on bases is illegal to draw line of sight from or to.

I don't see any any advantage of TLOS over just checking LOS from base to base, sizes or other abstract mechanisms. Close combat is already so abstract, I really see no reason why I'm having these "the tip of my staff can see your boot" discussions.

Draw the shortest possible line from firing unit to the target unit, if something is in on that line, apply that something's cover rules. Done.

The go to ground discussion gives me another idea to help some melee units. Movement bonuses in terrain? Something along the lines of "a unit on a road may add 1 to its move characteristic, advance rolls and charge rolls." A unit that moves and advances effectively gets 2 inches. The benefits are obvious, but it also has a drawback that you are more likely to be successfully charged on a road. So it would like something like this: Tactical marines march up the road moving 7", they are still on the road so they roll to advance and get 4 + 1 for still being on the road. They attempt to charge a unit of fire warriors along the road that is 8.1 inches away and roll a 7+1 so they finish their charge within 1 inch.

 DominayTrix wrote:
The go to ground discussion gives me another idea to help some melee units. Movement bonuses in terrain? Something along the lines of "a unit on a road may add 1 to its move characteristic, advance rolls and charge rolls." A unit that moves and advances effectively gets 2 inches. The benefits are obvious, but it also has a drawback that you are more likely to be successfully charged on a road. So it would like something like this: Tactical marines march up the road moving 7", they are still on the road so they roll to advance and get 4 + 1 for still being on the road. They attempt to charge a unit of fire warriors along the road that is 8.1 inches away and roll a 7+1 so they finish their charge within 1 inch.

My experience with "road" rules in older editions is that the vast majority of boards don't have roads or have roads that aren't leading in the direction you want to be going.