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 dont get why they allow you to block your model in front of your other models

to get a cover save for them.

They should get damage too!!
Like this:
fire point


XXXXXXXXXX
YYYYYYYYYYY

Y=one unit

X=another unit

And Y can get a healthy save without X getting harmed

Its just stupid

I dont understand either , they should make it that for every cover safe one gets , the unit providing cover should take an auto wound ( with saves allowed )

A shot lost to a cover save is not necessarily physically blocked by the cover, it may have obscured the firer's shot long enough to prevent him firing at all, or made hit shot off centre enough that it was not lethal, etc...

/fluff

Game wise would you really want me able to get twice at much damage on your army by firing on the back unit and knowing I'd get free hits on the front one too?

Jackmojo wrote:A shot lost to a cover save is not necessarily physically blocked by the cover, it may have obscured the firer's shot long enough to prevent him firing at all, or made hit shot off centre enough that it was not lethal, etc...

/fluff

Game wise would you really want me able to get twice at much damage on your army by firing on the back unit and knowing I'd get free hits on the front one too?

Nono , auto hit as in after you "hit" the ones you are aiming for first.

So say you score 10 hits and then 3 wounds got through , and enemy choose to use cover saves ( failed or not no matter )

then the unit infront giving cover takes 3 auto wounds .

It's better than 4th's cover system though

An ankle high wall counted as size 1, infantry is size 1. Therefore if they managed to stand completely behind that ankle high wall they could not be seen. At least that's what I remember of that annoying system.

I guess the one you mentioned just takes into account that they're not actually standing still and everyone is moving around.

The way I have understood it, you have decided to focus your fire at a specific, harder to hit, target behind another potential target. So rather than trying to hit the forward unit, you have decided to save your shots to shoot the back unit.

So with the forward unit milling about, doing their own thing, you will avoid wasting your ammo on them and hold your fire when you don't have a clear enough shot at the back unit. Basically, its supposed to force players to make choices and balance decisions; shoot at the target out front so the unit out back doesn't get the save, or shoot at a more specific unit of tactical importance and risk shots missing.

Does it make perfect sense? No, but the game is an abstraction of reality, not a perfect fit.

It says in the rule book that it should be imagined that the intervening models throw the shooting units aim off as they get distracted by the more immediate threat. Not that the unit is physically taking bullets for them.

While i agree with both facts i think that if you want to play the rule that the unit in front takes the hits you can as long as everyones savy and same for the other rule. I think the rule was designed to be as simple as possible so there are as little complications as possible.

Yep, it would usher in a whole new style of gaming, lining up your shots on the most distant target possible and firing through as many intervening enemy squads as possible.

Let's think about this fluff-wise. You are a Guardsman operating a Lascannon platform. You're given the command to open fire on the Pink Horrors in the distance. Between you and the Flamers is a screaming mass of bloodletters who want your blood for the blood god. You know that in a few short moments those daemons will tear you limb from limb but orders is orders and your CO wants those Pink Horrors dead before their Bolt of Change wipes out another Valkyrie.

The 4+ cover save conferred to the Horrors in this scenario doesn't mean the Gaurdsman is hitting a Bloodletter instead, it represents the distraction and difficulty in aiming at the proper target.

what about intermingling squads where the diagram is

XYXYXYXYXYX
YXYXYXYXYXY
YXYXYXYYXYX
y=one unit
x=another unit

how do you explain that one fluff wise

Dont fret, just drop a template on the lot o them

well that doest really answer the fluff thing...

That tactic (while valid rules wise) is unworkable in game terms. Do a quick search through the forums about unit weaving and you'll see what I mean. Besides, the rules don't represent fluff nor will they ever.

I didn't like this rule either, if you want to represent the target as being harder to hit then the target should be harder to hit, the squad that is firing shoots at a -1 BS modifier. This makes sense fluffwise because a squad of Orks will not have the skill to shoot through one squad and hit another but a highley trained SM would be a trick shooter, and it still recognises blind luck. GW please stop adding dice rolls where they do not need to be.

I realise that this drastically changes the math of this situation but the whole meat-shield-as-an-invulnerable-cover-save just bothers me and slows down the game.

deffskullz wrote:what about intermingling squads where the diagram is

XYXYXYXYXYX
YXYXYXYXYXY
YXYXYXYYXYX
y=one unit
x=another unit

how do you explain that one fluff wise

Well, fluff is one thing, but being slowed it another.

If XYXYXYXYXYXXYXYXYXYXYXY granted a cover save, it would be abused, and would make 40k terrible.

One of the main things that I would like changed in 6th is this, lower the screening models cover save to 5+. It shouldn't be just as hard to shoot through a crowd of orks at a crowd of orks as it is to shoot at an ork in a building.

I say no, absolutely not, do you have any idea how much that would screw up the game?

I just think cover saves is a dumb mechanic. A spacemarine hiding behind a tree will find said tree has a 50% chance of saving him from a Lascannon shot but has absolutely no effect on a lasgun shot, so the tree of might knocks away Lascannon shots but is powerless against the "mighty" tourch light?

What was wrong with to hit modifiers? It gave a benefit to high Bs and makes sense a piece of cover gives you the same prtection from each type of gun rather than being no use against light arms but magically effective against AT weapons?!?!

Well lasguns are known for their tree destroying abilities, so you might be using the wrong example.

If we ride in the way-back machine, we'll find a time when all saves were used for all wounds. The problem was; you couldn't kill anything! It just got ridiculous. So while I was a bit disappointed with the change, but it did make shooting actually a plausible way to play, rather than just a version of FB where people carried firearms that never really did much of anything, and magical powers came from tanks rather than just from sorcerers. Is it perfect? No. Is it realistic? Not really. Does it work? Yes.

I wouldn't mind going to hit modifiers, but the problem would be everyone would need a big boost in BS, or a completely ass-backwards system, and the game would be really jacked up for a long time while GW fixed it all. I would rather motivate high armor units to use their armor and move around, rather than just sitting behind cover pinging rounds and conferring another save like they had been.

Zarynterk wrote:Dont fret, just drop a template on the lot o them

Amen


-edit- as stated before, the idea is the difficulty of getting a clear shot on the unit. So a space marine is going to happily stand there barely obscured by the "mighty lascannon soaking tree" when being shot by a lasgun, but he is going to be ducking and dodging and being as sneaky as he can when the Lascannon shots start raining in. (this is the best i can come up with quickly as we all know that if you really really really want to figure out the way the rules work in "real" life in 40K, your head will explode/you will be eating nice "happy pills" down at the mental ward)

Wow, I've been out of the game a long time. Reading this though, the rule does seem silly. Back in second ed it used a simple modifier to the to hit roll.

Soft cover (bushes etc)= -1
Hard cover (stone walls, immobilised vehicles etc) =-2

For the cover to count, the mini had to be at least half obscured from the POV of the firing mini/squad. If you need to change rules for cover in your games I doubt you'll go far wrong with a variation of this.

I wouldn't mind going to hit modifiers, but the problem would be everyone would need a big boost in BS,

Why? It worked fine in 2nd Ed. In fact in 2nd Ed. Shooting was the way to go and a much better game winning tactic than now.

You'd just have to change how the cover system worked (which they just did fo rthe last edition). Make cover harder to get and then default most cover to -1, have a view bits of -2 cover and then in a fortified wall you get -3. You'd have to put a bit in overriding codexes which states any +1 to cover save, now mean an extra -1 to hit modifier.

2nd Edition and 2nd Edition "Codices" were also totally different animals. Even with a -2 for "medium" but unfortified cover, that means practically no Ork shooters will be able to hit a target, no chance. Even Orks have a chance to hit. Fortified cover means Guardsmen, Tau, some Eldar, Orks, and anything BS3 will also never hit.

Modifiers, in my experience, usually only work with systems with high stat values. If we did something similar with armor values, Guardsmen would have to be bumped to Sv4+, for instance, just for their to be a noticeable difference in play.

2nd Edition and 2nd Edition "Codices" were also totally different animals. Even with a -2 for "medium" but unfortified cover, that means practically no Ork shooters will be able to hit a target, no chance. Even Orks have a chance to hit. Fortified cover means Guardsmen, Tau, some Eldar, Orks, and anything BS3 will also never hit.

Why would they never be able to hit? What are you on about?

because, orks have BS2, and when they shoot at models in cover using those rules, then the orks BS would equal 0.
but when BS3 units attack medium cover, their BS gets reduced to 1 because of the -2 cover modifier.

that make things clearer?

because, orks have BS2, and when they shoot at models in cover using those rules, then the orks BS would equal 0.
but when BS3 units attack medium cover, their BS gets reduced to 1 because of the -2 cover modifier.

that make things clearer?

Why would their Bs change? It is a to hit modifier. It would modify the result of the to hit dice not their Bs so I don't see why they would not be able to hit?

ok then, i want you to try rolling a 5, then taking 2 off that score, the highest you can get is a 4.

treat it like WHFB

you need a 5 to hit, so with a -2 modifier you need 7+ to hit (so a 6 followed by a 4+)
the mechanics are there and yes you wont be hitting as much but... the enemy wont have cover saves so more hits will kill.

ok then, i want you to try rolling a 5, then taking 2 off that score, the highest you can get is a 4.

But a 6 is always a hit regardless of modifiers so again I don't see why they can't hit?