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 believe the constant 4+ cover save is the weak link in 5th edition. I said it to Studio members when I playtested the new rules and I still find it to be true. With terrain and units providing constant invulnerable saves much of the positive friction and intensity of on the spot decision making is lost. Good gameplay choices are too often not rewarded and poor decisions and mistakes of the moment can be rectified with a hot dice hand. Large armies with cheap models are rewarded and elite armies that pay for things like a good armor save are heavily penalized. In effect, all the trees in the forest are now the same height. I just have 100 more of them than you. High point, low AP weapon systems are also severely impeded. Loss of good friction and intensity robs all of us of a better game experience whatever our motivations for playing.

This single issue is the key to current Ork dominance IMO. The Ork book was written, (marginally) tested and completed while the 5th edition rules were still a work in progress. When we were testing the 5th rules I went on a bit of a rant on the Studio boards that the cover save thing would break the Ork book and in the hands of a good player the Ork book would be close to unstoppable. I got the same reply privately that Jervis is so fond of publicly, "...oh you tournament guys...". Never mind that balance rewards all types of player with a more enjoyable experience (the 'balance is good' issue has been beaten to death in many other posts so I'll leave it alone here).

The question, to me, is not more or less terrain. With the ubiquitous 4+ save in force the shifting of terrain quantities in either direction doesn't do much to alter the gameplay dynamic. The game needs a reasonable amount of large, 100% LOS blocking terrain to be tactically interesting. The game also needs movement and distance impeding stuff (woods and such) to cause maneuver and partial LOS type friction. These two issues are, however, completely trumped by 'the save'.
The constant, everpresent 4+ COVER save is itself the problem.

TRY THIS:
(Really, try it. I have. Don't speculate, fantasize, mathhammerize, theorize. Try it.)

1) Play a couple games with zero terrain on the board and employ these two conditions:
Every unit on the board gets a 4+ COVER save always.
Every vehicle is obscured on a 4+.

~I did this a couple of times. Minus the occasional LOS being blocked issue the game played out close to exactly the same as with terrain. My current experiments with this matched my results back when I was Techpriesting.

THEN TRY THIS:

(reference page 21 in the rulebook)
All Cover Saves = 5+
Fortification Cover Save = 4+

Put a lot of terrain on the board and give it a try, I have. Watch your game come alive. Be amazed as horde and trick cover save armies fall back into balance. Be astounded as relative points values for armor saves and AP exist for a reason. Be mystified as LOS blocking terrain actually makes a HUGE difference as to where you put your units.

Whether or not this is 'the fix' the 4+ COVER thing is, to me, the core problem with 5th 40K.

my .02cents

I have to say, as ork player, I rarely get a chance to use cover saves. Having over half of a huge mob blocked by terrain is nearly impossible to achieve, and all of the terrain that gives cover is difficult as well.

I always thought the big advantage of orks was having too many mobs of cheap infantry to kill, and their lootas being 15 to a squad.

Also, why do people insist on calling cover saves "invulnerable saves?" They are not the same thing, and I only see it done to better whine about how broken they are. Flamers do not ignore invulnerable saves. Psycannons do not ignore cover saves (not anymore at least). You do not get cover saves in close combat. Everyone who plays this game knows what a cover save is, so if you actually use the word correctly they'll still know what you're talking about. :S

NOTE: My post edited per Orkeosaurus' 'cover' comment.

I have to say, as ork player, I rarely get a chance to use cover saves. Having over half of a huge mob blocked by terrain is nearly impossible to achieve, and all of the terrain that gives cover is difficult as well.

Tell me you are kidding. Here are some examples of what I see all the time (and what I did with my Orks at Chicago GT):

Gretchin unit strung out in a long line hooked around (any) terrain feature. More Gretchin behind the features than in open. The unit snakes forward and wraps around succesive terrain features as it advances. All mobs behind get 4+ cover save from the Gretchin (and possibly terrain). The Gretchin get 4+ cover save from terrain features. Any horde can do this. Not much fun or interesting to play against in my opinion.

Nobs from four units on point, centered and somewhat close together. Each unit trails off from the Nob in single file hooking around any available terrain and branching out in many tendrils. Casualties are removed from the rear. 4+ cover guaranteed until each unit is wiped out (or as was the case with my Orks at the Chicago GT in four out of five games) the Nobs and their very large remaining units smash my ofttimes helpless opponent.

Proviso: never go in the cover. You don't need to.

There is also the intertwined unit thing (which I don't do and i think is more than a little exploitative). Two mobs in alternating rows giving each other 4+.

I always thought the big advantage of orks was... ...their lootas being 15 to a squad.

Actually the Lootas are completely unneeded in a dominating Ork army. Most of the successful, heavy hitting Ork armies at Baltimore GT this year had no Lootas at all. Neal's first place Chicago GT Orks had two units of them, one at 12 and one at 13. He left them at home for Baltimore as he felt they were mediocre at best in tournament play.

Scott your cover save rant saturday night was epic.

cover saves are indeed a bit much.

I agree. The 4+ cover save is indeed to much. It will take at least a year of solid Ork Horde wins and domination before anyone across the pond takes the issue seriously and even then they are perfectly willing to say just change the rule in your tournament and we'll keep the rule in the rulebook for everyone else. It's to bad MegaDave didn't take this to Jervis when they played in Chicago a few months back.

Yes cover saves can be negated with flamers, but how many Orks do you kill with that flamer before you are swamped with bodies. Combine this with the new run rule and it is almost impossible to shoot Orks and win.

Snaking huge units around cover? I never even thought of that. The problem with the 4+ cover save seems to be more ingrained in the TLoS rules than in the extent of the cover save itself.

Reducing the cover save to 5+ doesn't stop people from snaking around terrain or intermixing units, but does punish people trying to use cover in a somewhat realistic manner.

skkipper wrote:Scott your cover save rant saturday night was epic.

cover saves are indeed a bit much.

I liked his rant on the butterflied steak better.


I wrote over at the GW cummunity borads this:

#1. Terrain
There has been frequent criticism in the past that there has not been enough terrain at the GTs. Dave has listened to the criticism and has been very pro-active in solving this problem. But it seems to me that the pendulum has swung in the opposite direction and there was a lot of LOS blocking terrain, and terrain that provided a 4+ save.

This greatly helps out assault armies like Orks, Chaos and Demons, (who all did statistically the best in the GT) and hurts static shooting armies like IG and Marines (who did the worst).

With the new 5th edition, the balancing of terrain is going to be very difficult, but maybe some terrain with a 5+ save, or some lessening of the LOS blocking type.

And I hate lootas too because you can't kill them. What IMO makes them broken is their 48" range.

Tournament organizers just need upgrade terrain and not be afraid to use a variety of it. Per our conversation at the Baltimore GT, tournament organizers have a lot of options.

1. Use terrain with other cover saves (ie: 5+ and 6+ terrain). Not all terrain needs to be 4+ cover.

2. Use large blocking LOS terrain that is also impassable. This forces people to move around and can be used more tactically.

3. Use terrain that is designated as dangerous. So if you want to move through a specific area to achieve objectives, then you can take casaulties (ie: mine fields, lava, etc). Maybe we should bring back lava boards with the crazy rules. ;^P

4. Use simple pieces of small rocks, vines, etc that are just difficult terrain, but do not offer any cover save.

The 4+ cover save every where is way too much. Units that do not pay for it get too much of a bonus if everything is a 4+.

I played swarm nids for a stretch now I play gunline marines. I'm not sure where all these 4+ saves are coming from. I never really experienced the wonderous land of saves.

Inquisitor_Malice wrote:Tournament organizers just need upgrade terrain and not be afraid to use a variety of it. Per our conversation at the Baltimore GT, tournament organizers have a lot of options.

1. Use terrain with other cover saves (ie: 5+ and 6+ terrain). Not all terrain needs to be 4+ cover.

2. Use large blocking LOS terrain that is also impassable. This forces people to move around and can be used more tactically.

3. Use terrain that is designated as dangerous. So if you want to move through a specific area to achieve objectives, then you can take casaulties (ie: mine fields, lava, etc). Maybe we should bring back lava boards with the crazy rules. ;^P

4. Use simple pieces of small rocks, vines, etc that are just difficult terrain, but do not offer any cover save.

The 4+ cover save every where is way too much. Units that do not pay for it get too much of a bonus if everything is a 4+.

I really agree with this. Less 4+ cover save everywhere, and more terrain that actually blocks line of sight. It makes more options available for using terrain to your advantage, and makes units with high armor saves/low AP weaponry more useful.
It still doesn't put an end to wrapping stuff around terrain or intermixing units though. :S

(I don't really agree with the lava table part though. People walking through lava is so stupid I can't even begin to explain it. Well, actually, it's just really, really hot. That's pretty much the explanation. )

::EDIT::

ShumaGorath wrote:I played swarm nids for a stretch now I play gunline marines. I'm not sure where all these 4+ saves are coming from. I never really experienced the wonderous land of saves.

Me neither. I guess we're just lucky or something.

I think I preferred Scotts rant about bringing up Imperial Guard while everyone else was talking about pubs in europe.

There should be an overall 3+ cover save. It won't change much cuz mariens are the dominant army anyway.

stonefox wrote:There should be an overall 3+ invulnerable save. It won't change much cuz mariens are the dominant army anyway.

Fixed your spelling error.
(Unfortunately with the storm shields this might not be too far off.)

I will miss the days of shooting a railgun at a marine commander's face point blank.

I agree with scotts, to a degree.

scotts wrote:The game needs a reasonable amount of large, 100% LOS blocking terrain to be tactically interesting.

This bears repeating. I've come to the tentative conclusion that the reason I seem to be so at odds with many people on these boards because of terrain. I'm used to playing on boards with lots of LOS blocking terrain. I look at pictures from tournaments and battle reports and the boards look like Warhammer Fantasy Battle board, practically empty with LOS available anywhere. Apparently my gaming group is alone in this, which is weird because solid LOS blocking terrain is the easiest terrain to make! Particularly stepped hills, hoodoos, solid buildings, and bunkers.

Breaking up the board this way is essential to any miniature wargame involving guns. scotts suggestion of people playing on blank boards and just giving everything a cover save is not a problem with the saves, it's a problem with people not using enough LOS blocking terrain. GW's official terrain of sparse trees, low hills, craters, and swiss-cheese ruins really doesn't help matters.

This problem can be solved by a few short hours of labour and a couple of bucks at a local hardware store, or even by the lazy expedient of going through the recycling for plastic tubs, glass jars, and used cans. Seriously, breaking up line of sight makes this game tactical.

Now where I disagree is the matter of cover saves.

I don't find the universal cover saves I hear about on these boards in my own games. Units getting cover saves from units is a tactical problem in Warhammer 40k, the solution to which is to either clear the screening unit away, or shoot from an angle that the screening unit doesn't cover, or simply use cover-denying weapons, or some combination (destroy part of screening unit with cover-denying weapons, then use flanking to pour in fire on the screened unit).

That's not to say that units don't get cover saves, but just that it's a tactical problem rather than a design problem. Gaining and denying cover saves are your rewards for using good tactics.

That last sentence is a tautology, or at least it should be if you have terrain that blocks LOS as well as providing a cover save.

Inquisitor_Malice's suggestions are spot on for anyone creating a battlefield for a good game of Warhammer 40k, rather than a crap-shoot.

The universal cover saves I hear about on these boards, I don't find in games.

At the three V5 GT's I have been to all fifteen games I played were dramatically impacted and shaped (in my opinion for the worse) by the current cover save rules. The poor Tau player I played at Chicago (my one Orky indulgence) did all the right things. He moved well and had above average die rolling. The Gretchin thing plus the snaky thing was mathematically impossible from him to break under the best (for him) circumstances. The game was stupid and pointless and couldn't have been fun for him (it wasn't for me). He did 'all the right things' and was helpless. Yuck.

Units getting cover saves from units is a tactical problem in Warhammer 40k

If army books were more carefully balanced against each other I would completely agree with you here. The books are not balanced against each other so we are left trying to find tactical solutions to bad rules. That's how it looks to me.

...the solution to which is to either clear the screening unit away, or shoot from an angle that the screening unit doesn't cover, or simply use cover-denying weapons, or some combination (destroy part of screening unit with cover-denying weapons, then use flanking to pour in fire on the screened unit).

I agree with your concept completely. However, in our current broken incarnation of the rules certain armies are immune to good tactical play and in fact require almost zero tactical decision making to be successful. After my recent experience running Orks at the Chicago GT I am confident I can bring an Ork build to the table that can not only be dominant against most all armies (except other Orks) but that no MEQ can beat under any circumstances (regardless of opposing general). Yeah, I know them's big fightin' words, but that's how it seems to me right now. I would LOVE to be proved wrong.

That's not to say that units don't get cover saves, but just that it's a tactical problem rather than a design problem. Gaining and denying cover saves are your rewards for using good tactics.

To me things don't seem to be playing out this way.

scotts wrote: but that no MEQ can beat under any circumstances (regardless of opposing general). Yeah, I know them's big fightin' words, but that's how it seems to me right now. I would LOVE to be proved wrong.

Just fill your list up with Land Raiders, move over 6" every turn and lol your way to victory.
Of course, this is countering mindless spamming and cheap tactics with more mindless spamming and cheap tactics, and Land Raider spam has drawbacks against other armies as well. It is too hard to really cripple your enemy with skilled tactics in this game. Every unit being so self-sufficient is part of it. The lack of drawbacks to having an unbalanced (in terms of mass hordes, tanks, firebase, etc.) list is another. (I'm kind of getting off here, though.)

scotts:

I clarified what I meant about universal cover saves. I don't find this to be the case in my experience. My point was that when I look at pictures from Grand Tournaments, I see that my experience is unusual with regards to terrain and LOS.

Furthermore I think that the chimera of game balance can be safetly ignored by playing a game of Warhammer 40k solely with two small identical armies of Imperial Guard. I think that since the Imperial Guard adhered closest to the basic rules, such a game (or three) is a good demonstration of why cover is a tactical problem in 40k. I think many people find themselves getting obsessed with balanced armies on these boards because without pictures and diagrams it's hard to discuss tactics on particular boards, so people fall back on what is easy to discuss in the abstract, which is army composition.

If you would like to be proved wrong about the lack of tactical depths in the Ork horde, then I suggest not only trying the 'basic 40k' game with Imperial Guard that I have suggested, but also try some of the less popular choices in the Chaos Codex. In my experience (and remember that my experience is certainly in a minority around here) Ork hordes can be mulched by hordes of Khorne Berzerkers in Land Raiders. Have them led by a Chaos Lord with the Mark of Khorne and a Bloodfeeder, and a Daemon Prince with the Mark of Nurgle and Nurgle's Rot, and you'll see an army capable of tabling Ork hordes.

skkipper wrote:Scott your cover save rant saturday night was epic.

cover saves are indeed a bit much.

It was ( if it was the rant I heard ).

As Gregg points out, a variety of terrain will help. As I brought up, it looks like they are including more anti-cover save weapons in the books....as you pointed out, the earlier books redone ( Eldar etc) do not have anti-cover weapons.

Have faith, I'm sure things will be fixed.

First why would an ork player complain about a 4+? Second you can design your army to deny your opponent cover saves the majority of the time unless they sit still in area terrain or have something that automatically confers one.

G

Just fill your list up with Land Raiders, move over 6" every turn and lol your way to victory.

Please allow me to disagree. I've seen this play out more than a few times. At Baltimore Marc Parker rolled up some Nobs on my running away Land Raider at Baltimore. Four powerfists and 18 or so attacks and boom it was gone on the first assault (even needing sixes to hit). Most Orky types I know bring LOTS of powerfists to the table. At home my buddy Jeff eats copious amounts of AV14 with his Orks. Land Raider spam equals whole lots of points...in a tiny little space. A powerful tournament Ork build can easily out attrition and hammer a Land Raider build in my opinion and experience.

Now, if you are spending your points on Lootas instead of powerfists...

And then there's assault. After all, what else is supposed to shift an entrenched enemy?

if phil Kelly does indeed write the ig dex it will be funny as hell to see people powergaming with IG.

G

scotts wrote:

Just fill your list up with Land Raiders, move over 6" every turn and lol your way to victory.

Please allow me to disagree. I've seen this play out more than a few times. At Baltimore Marc Parker rolled up some Nobs on my running away Land Raider at Baltimore. Four powerfists and 18 or so attacks and boom it was gone on the first assault (even needing sixes to hit). Most Orky types I know bring LOTS of powerfists to the table. At home my buddy Jeff eats copious amounts of AV14 with his Orks. Land Raider spam equals whole lots of points...in a tiny little space. A powerful tournament Ork build can easily out attrition and hammer a Land Raider build in my opinion and experience.

Now, if you are spending your points on Lootas instead of powerfists...

If Nob Bikers are chasing a Land Raider why doesn't Abbadon come charging out of the Land Rasider and obliterate the entire unit of Bikers? For loyalists why don't 4-6 Iron Clads walk right through units of Nobz? The cover save option has more to do with hordes of Ork troops. Now they might be in a list with a few Ork Nob Units, but the Bobz are designed to eliminate static units which would give the troops trouble. Bring a bigger baddy to the table and keep them away. I admit those choices seem to be few and far between in codex's, but Chaos and Loyalists do have a foil. I would think a unit of assault terminators with T-hammers (5-8) would also make short work of the Bob Bikers.

Hmmm, as posts do this one is changing course. Because of my careless post we are now getting into a discussion of unit verses unit minutiae. Please refer to my original post. All I am recommending is that you put a bunch of terrain of all sorts on the board and play with 5+ cover being as good as it gets. What have you got to lose? Try it and see if you like it.

Real life(?) is calling. I've burned a day and a half with Dakka indulgence. I won't be online for at least a couple of days.

scotts wrote:
Put a lot of terrain on the board and give it a try, I have. Watch your game come alive. Be amazed as horde and trick cover save armies fall back into balance. Be astounded as relative points values for armor saves and AP exist for a reason. Be mystified as LOS blocking terrain actually makes a HUGE difference as to where you put your units.

Whether or not this is 'the fix' the 4+ COVER thing is, to me, the core problem with 5th 40K.

my .02cents

Having played the orks extensively in 3rd edition I've got to disagree with your reasoning here. In that edition I pretty much brought my own "terrain" to every match in the form of a grot screen, and still managed to struggle mightily with winning against anybody. Orks are not broken because their chance to make a few saving against shooting has gone from 5+ to 4+, which is at best a 16% difference. It actually works out to less than that when you factor in the ability to negative the cover save in a variety of ways, including templates, flanking, HtH combat, etc.

I agree with Scott here. The constant 4+ cover saves make marine and especially IG shooty lists a joke. The already weak IG list is further limited in 5th by nerfing their IG 'selling point', big nasty tanks, the ordnance Leman Russ or Demolisher (especially with hitting rear armor from any angle in CC, which is absurd). Yes, I know they are getting a new codex....but it will be the same cover rules. There also seemed to be a large amount of terrain in Baltimore.

Before, if something was caught out in the open, and you managed to hit them with a battle cannon shot, you could do some damage. Now, depending on where the squad is positioned, even if it is in the open where the blast lands, the large squads could all get 4+ cover, even if they aren't standing in the multiple terrain pieces. You're probably better off now with multiple shot weapons than ordnance.

I played him in Baltimore, great guy and he played a great game, but as he was stating earlier, anyone with a 'hot dice hand' can pretty much ruin it for the other player, no matter what he does, especially with large squads. Finally rolling a hit on ordnance only to find that even though the shot landed on 7 models in the open (who would have been dead in previous editions), but because some of the rest of the squad are behind los, they all get a cover save was fairly lame. It was then really disheartening to see only 1 of the 7 then fail their cover saves. This kind of thing 3 or 4 more times over the entire game just makes it seem pointless to try such lists, even as a die hard IG player.

````
With the squad providing its own cover save (which is absurd in itself), a scoring TROOPS unit, multiple combats per charge, new deadly combat resolution rules, multiple fists, wound allocation rules, multiple wounds, frigging feel no pain (great idea rules designers) and only being 5 or so kill points total, the Nob biker list is pretty much ridiculous. With the current rule set, other lists wont compare, perhaps with the exception of the zero skill double Lash Chaos list. It is no surprise that both Orks and Chaos did well this year. Honestly, what is the point of even playing anything else?

Maybe use Hellhounds...?