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.

Cool and effective..I sense imminent nerfhammer dropping on the beloved hellhound in the next codex...

Nurglitch wrote:Maybe use Hellhounds...?

Obviously Hellhounds are good. Nowhere in my post did I mention any problem with Hellhounds. But hellhounds are not Leman Russ, nor are they Ordnance, nor are they AP3, or 72" range like the Battle Cannon, and they cant double out T4. I was not discussing Hellhounds, I was discussing the further nerfing of IG ordnance in relation to the constant 4+ cover everywhere. The 5+ instead Scott is suggesting would do alot for balance.

I suppose it also depends on what type of game you play. In my FLGS no one has tried to use snaking large units. We just play the game, competitivly, but with a little common sense. It doesn't just seem very orky to say" You boyz waits ova der so we don't get whacked." That is totally un orky. No self respecting ork would ever do that. I agree that some fields and some areas of non cover providing difficult terrain such as loose rock, mud etc, as well as dangerous terrain would go a long way to helping to create more tactical decisions. I have been building stepped hills, solid mountain like rocks and such for my local game store and it has changed the game there... in fact, it is now very easy to tell which gamers want to win at any costs regardless of having a fun, balanced game because they HATE any terrain that blocks line of sight completely. Even just one little 6" peice that you don't even know whose side it is going to be on.

As new books get released I think we will continue to see units with abilities to negate cover. Marines can now negate cover with Flamers, scout hellfire heavy bolters, sterguard ammo, whirlwinds, redeemers, etc. I think other armies will begin to see toys similar to these to help.

Outside of tournaments, if you are not having fun talk to the players in your group or in yoru local area and decide to alter the way you play. I don't mean change the rules, I mean agree not to snake units for a game or two and see what happens, or agree to play with more or less terrain that usual for a few games. Alter things until you find a balance that gives you an exciting challenging game fore everyone, or at least a change that doesn't always favor one style of play or army.

Anyway, thats my take on things. I am mostly pretty happy with 5th edition ... even the cover saves. So far 5th edition and the books produced with it in mind are fun, and not locked into the this-is-the-only-way-to-build-your-army syndrome. My only gripe is the no ravening hordes type list to level the playing field for all the armies, but not much to do about that right now. I think that time will break some of the people holding on to 4th edition habits and expectancies and new army books will level the field back to some sort of balanced.

Meph

Raon:

Sure, but what if you used Hellhounds to clear away screening units, or units in cover, and used the Leman Russ' afterwards to mop up units that have had their screening units cleared away or forced out of cover?

I mean, suppose a screening unit has most of its models in cover and then gives another unit cover by standing in front of most of its models. Hit the screening unit with a couple of Hellhounds. If they want to keep cover, they'll have to take casualties from the models screening the unit, and if they want to keep screening the unit, you can clear the unit with a Battle Cannon big blast.

Abbadon will trash them. So will Blood Crushers.

G

Nurglitch, I believe you are a bit missing on the info, He was using sisters in baltimore, not orks. I understand the elimination of screening squads and the proper use of hellhounds against orks, however, it didnt apply in this case.

He had a squad of 20 sisters, some were out of los, some werent. The blast landed on ones in los in no cover, which in previous editions would have meant death (or an Act of faith). Inferno cannons still give them their 3+ save, which is even better than the 4 up cover. We were discussing this exact subject of the 4+ cover save as the game progressed, and he was adamantly against it, stating pretty much the same thing as here, that a hot dice hand can ruin other people's day, and that 4+ should be reduced to 5+. Orcs arent the only armies that can get big squads!

Raon:

Okay, so how would that Sisters squad having a 5+ saving throw for the models outside of cover rather than a 4+ saving throw make a lick of difference if the player has a hot dice hand?

Going back to Orks momentarily, I played a shooting Ork army back in the day with the 3rd edition codex and I was pretty successful because although I didn't hit much on average, the good throws, especially early in the game when I'd wipe out a unit, had such great knock-on effects that occasionally being lucky was better than almost always doing average. It was like going from Lewis (Dark Eldar) to Butterbean.

It wasn't that rolling more dice made me lucky, but it meant that getting lucky rolling lots of dice made my Orks hit really hard (back in the day when you could min-max big shootas, admittedly).

Anyhow, my point is that such an argument isn't an argument against 4+ saving throws, it's getting a cover save. If you don't get a cover save, the dice won't save you, but if the dice can save you then a hot hand of dice will ruin tactics that cannot affect how many dice you roll.

scotts problem then seems to be about the new rules defining when you get a cover save rather than the value of that save. But then the fault seems to be his (or more appropriately his opponent's, credit where credit due) for letting most of that squad get out of his line of fire.

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

I will see it as vindication.

WRT the OP, I'm OK with the 4+, and nothing says that all cover needs to be 4+. Certainly, for the Grot example, I'd argue it, so they only get the 5+ that you suggest as fair.

Raon wrote:I was discussing the further nerfing of IG ordnance in relation to the constant 4+ cover everywhere. The 5+ instead Scott is suggesting would do alot for balance.

Or perhaps Russes can gain S6 AP4 5" Blast "Inferno" ammo that negates cover saves...

That works just as well for Guard.

Actually, it works *better*, as Camo is still 3+.

I'd expect Hellhounds to get something more like the Whirlwind Castellan munitions, to streamline the rules rather than the hybrid ordnance/template weapon it has.

Yes, Whirlwinds ought to be 24" Ordnance Barrage. It would simplify things immensely.

Do you mean Hellhounds? Curious cases of alliteration all 'round though.

Yes and yes! And yes, indeed!

(oops)

Elite armies were good in 4th, so it's the hordes turn. Welcome to Warpendilum.

Nurglitch wrote:Raon:

Okay, so how would that Sisters squad having a 5+ saving throw for the models outside of cover rather than a 4+ saving throw make a lick of difference if the player has a hot dice hand?

scotts problem then seems to be about the new rules defining when you get a cover save rather than the value of that save. But then the fault seems to be his (or more appropriately his opponent's, credit where credit due) for letting most of that squad get out of his line of fire.

Because it is less chance that he has to make the save?
Letting the squad get out of my line of fire? Are you serious? I know to move to get better fields of fire, but in this situation, there was no opportunity to, unless I moved about 2 feet away. I dont need you trying to analyze my play style and tell me I dont know how to play, thanks. I was giving you an example of what he stated, some of the models are in cover, 49% were out of cover, and the entire squad gets a 4+ save. Obviously, good rolling hurts anyone's plans, but it hurts a little less when not everything gives a 4+ cover.

As it is ingrained into the new rules, it is doubtful they will remove the cover saves entirely. His conversation was also about reducing it from 4+ to 5+, to help balance things, especially with the amount of cover on the board in Baltimore that gave 4+ saves.

There really is no discussing anything with you, is there? I see why people have you on ignore now.

I don't think you've read the cover save rules very well. with good maneuvering you can negate most saves.

Raon:

So far as I can tell the people that have me on ignore are the people that can't sit down and have a reasonable discussion like an adult. How about setting aside your feelings and talking about this rather than resorting to "Nyah, I don't like you, I'm not going to listen to you!". I'm certainly willing if you are.

Maybe I'm radically misinterpreting what you're saying, but having less chance to make a save is irrelevant if the argument is that a hot dice hand makes cover a problem. I'm supposing that by "hot dice hand" you've meant making most of the saving throws you're required to make. So regardless of whether a saving throw is 5+ or 4+, a hot dice hand will have the same effect. Making a hot dice hand less likely to happen doesn't change what scott seemed to find problematic about the rules, and given that these values are already ingrained in the rules, they'll change about as much as the conditions for gaining cover.

That's not to say that players can't agree to go with weaker saving throws. After all the rulebook encourages players to make that decision, despite acknowledging that most will use the values suggested by the rules as their official value. It's just to say that the problem isn't the game, it's the tactics.

So what does "hot dice hand" mean to you?

Where are people getting all these cover saves?

LOS blocking terrain is important- people have already said that-

but just as important is not playing like a chump (as the gamers around here say)

What that means is the challenge of the tactical game has changed- getting the positioning to get those shots so that they don't get their 4+ cover save from intervening units or from snaking though cover- thats actually the important thing now.
Concentrating fire from multiple units- to force them to lose their save, blocking your own LOS so you can pick on the ones you can see also helps.

I've not found the cover saves a problem because i've been viewing them as a new kind of tactical challenge and adapted my style of play- and it seems to be paying off.

scotts wrote: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...".

And as long as they hold this view, no matter how much or how often they change the rules, they'll never improve them.

Spot on Scott. The cover save thing in 5th is absurd. It turns everything into a game of 50/50. Might as well start flipping coins...

BYE

It is a little over the top but a lot of people are still holding on to the 'old way' of building lists. The rules of the game have changed and we're stuck with them for a long time.

There has been an outcry for better terrain at the major tournaments for years and to my knowledge this has never changed.

The problem compounds with True Line of Sight and other units giving the cover save with no penalty.

I do agree with the suggestion that some terrain should be put on the tables that actually does block line of sight even if it is just 'declared' it does so before the game starts.

JohnHwangDD wrote:Yes, Whirlwinds ought to be 24" Ordnance Barrage. It would simplify things immensely.

Yes 'cause the current system is so utterly complex that it takes... oh... several full seconds to figure out. And who's got that kind've time, really?

BYE

As I understand it, the OP is talking about the easy availability to horde style armies of the 4+ cover save from cheap units giving an LoS screen. Is that correct?

In other words the amount of cover on the table is relatively unimportant whether blocking or not, since the horde army carries its own cover with it.

This factor combined with the speeded up movement of infantry and reduced movement of tanks has changed the game dynamic in favour of horde assault armies.

that is a no brainer. I am in favor of the 4+ since a 5+ is as worthless as tits on a bull.

G

@fly

I think that your comment did not hep the discussion atall, but if you are trying to say that a 5+ save is worthless, I think that is a baseless statement. Having that 5+ is what makes DP's and Termies different units, the chance to walkaround outside of cover with a 33% chance to shrug off anything.

Scott’s talking about several factors. The two biggest are: 1. Almost all cover being 4+ (substantially better and more powerful than 5+), and 2. The current rules for determining who gets cover (especially with the present GT terrain) allow for some pretty powerful maneuvers to make large squads get cover very easily.

People need to be a bit more specific when talking about GT terrain and complaints. This varies widely from country to country, and the nature of the complaints varies as well. When I played at the Baltimore GT in 2001, and at the Boston GT in 2004 (the last 3rd ed one), some tables had good terrain, but others were very open shooting galleries. In 3rd edition a lot of people’s complaints about tournament terrain were this type- that tournaments had too little. Last year at Baltimore, OTOH, I found that they had great terrain, and plenty of it- in fact maybe a little too much, as witnessed when a Tyranid opponent of mine was able to keep most of his monstrous creatures in 4+ cover the entire game while still moving where they needed to be to fight.

This year I felt the terrain mix was better- the fact that Area Terrain doesn’t block LOS completely made the tables a bit more open, albeit with a good amount of cover saves. I was using the Lash and several flamers to counter the cover though, so my experience is probably not indicative of every army. If I were playing codex marines, for example, I don’t know if I could have come up with enough firepower to beat Orks. TH + SS termies are almost the only thing I can think of regular marines have to really counter them.

I'm going to toss my $0.02 for the 5+ cover save as the default that includes any "intervening models giving cover" saves, with excessively light cover (like fences) being 5+ and extensively hard cover cover (buildings, hills, fortifications) being 4+. If you have to have a further category I'd give a 3+ save for hard bunkers. Area Terrain should just be 5+ cover for anyone inside it.

Then there needs to be an increase in 100% LOS-blocking terrain on most tables, to actually block field of fire in some common cases.