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've searched this forum for threads regarding cover a number of times and there have been some in the past that are close to what I am suggesting here but not exactly and usually the contributors there don't seem to be the currently active crowd. So I'm wondering what your opinions are on this system are. I don't play any other board games but 40K and am completely adverse to over complicating the current system over all.

Proposal: There should be, as the title suggests, a difference between cover and concealment in the game as in real life without burdening the game with too many more rules or dice rolls.

Cover: Any obstacle capable of stopping or significantly deflecting small, medium and heavy arms fire set between the attacker and the target. Cover provides a bonus to existing armor saves to a max of 2+ based on the material that most of the obstacle is made of. If the wound to the unit would normally pierce the units armor then that unit still gets the cover bonus.
Cover Example: A standard Imperial Guardsmen takes a wound that would normally allow for an armor save; because he is in cover in this case behind a concrete wall, he gets a cover save bonus of 2. So his armor save of 5+ becomes 3+. If the wound would normally pierce the Guardsmen armor then he would get a 5+ save instead because the bonus of 2 goes from no save to 5+.

Samples:
Steal\Plastisteal Reinforced bunker or Trench: Value 3
Concrete\Plasticreate wall or Destroyed vehicle hull: Value 2
Sheet metal walls or Pipes: Value 1


Concealment: Any obstruction between the attacker and the target that obscures the attackers view of the target. Concealment reduces the shooters BS by a value depending on the density of the obstruction, a roll of 6+ always hits. Concealment has no affect on template weapons. An Imperial Guardsmen shoots into an area of tall grass with a concealment value of 1 so his to hit roll is taken as if his BS is a 2 instead of a 3 for that turn.

Samples:
Smoke Bomb: Value 3
Thin woods: Value 2
Tall Grass or Swamp Gas: 1

Note that it IS possible to combine the two properties in one piece of cover as long as all players agree on this before the start of the game.

When determining the values of cover consider purposefully made objects to have the highest values, convenient and useful terrain features to be the next highest and possibly useful but not a prime choice to be the least effective cover or concealment. As always these values should be agreed on prior to starting the game.

I can't take full credit for this, I remembered it from a friend of mine back in the day. Let's call him "Sam".

I like it and think that it is important to distinguish the two because they really are different (e.g. a tree won't stop a railgun but a building might, yet they give the same save)

I will have to try playing like this some time soon, assigning the values before the game starts with stuff like a trench giving good bonuses to both while tall grass just gives some concealment.

Agreed

it seems pretty good.

would require a pregame definition.

could make marines very hard to kill. if they were even in light cover they would have a 2+ save.


I like the mechanic overall

Cool, thanks for the feed back everyone. Grey Templar is right this throws off the balance with MEQ's but maybe it will average out?

I remember playing a few small scale battles with these rules, I enjoyed them and I hope everyone else does to.

Grey Templar wrote: if they were even in light cover they would have a 2+ save.

This is precisely why it's unfair; the current mechanic is balanced and this situation is a great example. The benefits offered by a bush and a suit of power armour are very different(if they weren't, the Imperium would stop spending so much money and equip Space Marines with foliage and duct tape). It makes the game flow smoother to assume that the Marine either chooses to stand and rely on his armour or take cover from fearsome armour-piercing weapons, and furthermore, no player in their right mind would choose the 5+ cover save over the 3+ armour unless the Marine's armour had been rendered useless.

You could somehow have lighter cover affect chance to hit, but that brings up all sorts of confusion over which terrain counts as which and over-complicates the game.

the only way i see this working is if there is some sort of cap on the bonus that can stack.

like say the save bonuses can never make the models save better then 4+.

would make it still useful for models with bad armor and make sure models with great armor don't become impossable to kill.

Noooooo modifiers! I had my fill of them in 2nd edition...

People get the wrong idea about cover saves. They categorically do NOT mean that a tree stops a Railgun slug in 50% of cases.

It's far more likely that, for example, the cover of the woods means that the firing unit shoots at what appears to be the enemy but was mistaken by the outline and missed entirely, or even decided not to bother shooting because it wasn't sure it should waste ammo and give up its position for a fairly difficult shot.

@Grey Templar: I'm not adverse to lowering the cover bonus max. to 4+ this would certainly avoid the stalemate scenario where turn after turn no one rolls a one in a shoot out. This is more then fair and it still allows the mechanic to work. This is exactly the kind of thing that should be play tested, great feed back.

@Miraclefish: I know for a fact that the game today is twice as simple as 2nd edition, I only suggest that complicating somethings would lead to a more realistic game. After all no one is suggesting Bad Moon Orks in Power Armor who bear the MoK.

Hi all.
I think the real point is the 40k game has no system in place to allow concealment to be represented by anything other than a physical protection.
(A saving throw.)
Most wargames use a roll to see and /or roll to hit the target, proir to allocating damage.
(And dont determine damage , then reverse it after finding out the armour stopped it after all .)

Having a fixed chance of hitting any target over any distance, with just an arbitary save for interveening obstacles is not that great is it?

I wouild rather use limited modifers to get expected results in a straight froward way,than multiple rules that add complexity in an abstract way.

But that could just be me?

TTFN
Lanrak.