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.

Bookwrack wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:

Sphe wrote:When you take a cover save and pass it, it means you didn't get hit. The cover did.

And when you fail it?

I can see it now:

"Alright men! Since we're behind cover, you can take off all of your armor!"

Where do people get such ridiculous ideas from? If you failed your cover save, you would've failed your armor save too, so no, it's not like everyone takes off their armor when they get in tall grass.

Think of it like this:

Your squad of Terminators deepstrike behind a wall. A squad of Chaos Legionnaires start firing into Terminators.

In 5th, you just use the 2+ save. Oookay. What happened to the wall that the Terminators were behind? Did it disappear?

One of the Chaos Legionnaries whips out a Plasma pistol and fires. Now the Terminators are using the wall for a cover save, hoping against hope that they make that 4+ cover save.

If this seems odd, it's because it is.

There's really not that much odd about it at all. Rolling a 1 on your 2+ save would fail just as hard if you were using the wall for cover. If the shot was good enough that you took the wound even through your best save, then what do the lesser ones really matter? It's an abstraction that doesn't have any noteable drawbacks to it.

Lanrak wrote:Hi Bookwrack.
So if the cover is just obscuring the target, like long grass.
NOT hard cover like a bunker.

Then because the projectile passes straight through the long grass it automatically penetrates body armour?

Of course it does. Or do you think that the long grass absorbed enough of the energy from that lascannon shot that it should no longer count as AP2?

Maybe it's Catachan Laser-Eating Grass?

HI all.
The point I was trying to make is curently in 40k there is NO distiction between cover that just make a target harder to see, (used to be a BS mod) to cover that actualy provides protection.(Armour mod.)

Therefore the system is rather abstract.Which fits in with the rest of the abstract 40k rules.

Is it better to over 'simplify' by abstracting rules to the point of being nonsensical, and needeing lots of additional exceptions to try to simulate expectation.
(40k rules. )

OR to write inclusive rules that simulate expectation in the first place?
(Most 'modern' rule sets. )

TTFN
lanrak.

It doesn't help to phrase things in way of a false dichotomy.

Hi Bookwrack.
I apologise for over simplifiying the argument to how the 40k rule set is written VS how other rule sets are written .

But unless you have other game systems and methods to compare 40ks methods to.How can you reach an objective discussion of alternatives?

Most other systems let 'cover' modify the 'roll to see' or 'the roll to hit'.And if the cover offers physiscal protection adds this to the targets 'protection value', (in some cases.)
Eg the effects of cover are modeled to work in the same way as real world counterparts work.
This simple simulation style of game development usualy results in straight forward rules that are easier to learn because they follow preconceptions, ergo are intuitive.

40k appears to just tie everthing into a poorly thought through basic concept determined by a D6 roll, without any graduation in effects.Then clumsily bolt on exceptions that try to get the clunky method to follow preconceptions more.

So for a '...'fun' dice rolling game for ages 11 and up..' the current 40k rules are 'good enough'.
(Only 'fun' if you like 'rolling handfuls of dice at your opponent,'' sort of way. )

Are you saying that a - 1 to hit if target is in light cover, -2 to hit if target is in heavy cover, is far too difficult for 40k players brains to handle.And GW had to adopt a simple dice roll driven cover save instead?


TTFN
lanrak.

If I wrote the rules, I would declare that when you are wounded, you try to make a cover save, then try to make any armour save. Instead of the projectile, after it his hit me from behind the building, magically ignoring my armour.

Didn't 2nd or 3rd edition of 40k have that same WH-esque save system? Cover, then armor, then invul? If memory serves, this made MEq armies all but impossible to kill and games against them took forever due to having at least two saves per squad.

I'm often not a huge fan of the multi-rolling in WH due to how blindingly difficult it is to kill certain things (see also: VC Lord with 2+ armor, 4+ ward and regeneration). Now, it's not too terrible because it's only for Heroes, Lords, and special characters (Daemons excluded). But now give the same thing to an entire MEq army, a little excessive.

Lanrak wrote:Are you saying that a - 1 to hit if target is in light cover, -2 to hit if target is in heavy cover, is far too difficult for 40k players brains to handle.

And this would improve the game how? Change merely for the sake of some mythical ideal of 'realism' does not inherently make the game better. Is there an inherent flaw to the system so that saying, 'if you fail your best save, you would've failed all the others too?' simply isn't feasible? You can also look at the current system as reinforcing certain motifs within the game - terminators in general do not skulk behind walls ducking bullets, they stride across the field shrugging off fire like so much rain. Until, at least, someone brings out the plasma cannons, in which case then they start ducking behind trees.

Lanrak wrote:Are you saying that a - 1 to hit if target is in light cover, -2 to hit if target is in heavy cover, is far too difficult for 40k players brains to handle.And GW had to adopt a simple dice roll driven cover save instead?

That wouldn't work, orks would automatically miss, nids, guard, tau and eldar would hit on 6s and marines would hit on 5s. That would almost neutralize shooting except for shootas, and add that to the assaulting into terrain rules, and cover would work kind of like it does in real life making it rediculously overpowered.

especially when most assault type units automatically come with Offensive Genades

Lacross wrote:especially when most assault type units automatically come with Offensive Genades

Except big monsters. Sure, they get move through cover because they tear through trees without even flinching. The moment they rush towards an enemy though, they begin to tiptoe and get smacked in the face.

Bookwrack wrote:

Lanrak wrote:Are you saying that a - 1 to hit if target is in light cover, -2 to hit if target is in heavy cover, is far too difficult for 40k players brains to handle.

And this would improve the game how? Change merely for the sake of some mythical ideal of 'realism' does not inherently make the game better. Is there an inherent flaw to the system so that saying, 'if you fail your best save, you would've failed all the others too?' You can also look at the current system as reinforcing certain motifs within the game - terminators in general do not skulk behind walls ducking bullets, they stride across the field shrugging off fire like so much rain. Until, at least, someone brings out the plasma cannons, in which case then they start ducking behind trees.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

The cover save system that you so valiantly defend WAS change for the sake of change. In 2nd and 1st edition, you got minuses to your BS if your target was behind cover. If they were behind more fortified cover, they got an addition to their save I believe.

And there is an inherent flaw to "fail one, fail them all", just like the one I posted above. Because that's not always how it should be. Are you saying that if Terminators fail their save against a bolter, then their invulnerable save wouldn't work either? Because the invulnerable save is supposed to represent their Terminator Honors and the small piece of the Emperor's armor granting them a force field. Not trying to pull a strawman but that's essentially what you're saying.

I'll post my original argument against cover saves again too, just for gits and shiggles.

Some Terminators deepstrike behind a wall, that goes up to their waist, meaning that they'll get a 4+ cover save. Now, some Chaos Legionnaries fire their bolters, and one plasma gun at them. Why is it that the Terminators use their normal save against the bolters but are now using the wall's cover save against the plasma gun? Is the wall for some reason heat resistant, but not against bolter rounds?

In any case, abstraction doesn't help the game that much either. Eg "if you can see one guy standing by a wall, you can shoot the whole squad standing behind the wall."

Personally this game wouldn't work without some abstraction, but too much of anything is a bad thing.

I could see normal cover (grass, small walls, rocks) giving a -1 BS, and then hard cover (ruins, fortifications, forests) giving a -1 BS and a +1 to a save. -2 BS would probably be something for night fighting or for fog or really tall grass.

Of course the game enforces certain things like Terminators being impossibly hard to kill, which I don't mind.

Yes this game is unrealistic, I get it. This isn't for the sake of realism, it's for the sake of making sense. If I shoot at someone in tall grass, they're HARDER TO HIT, the grass doesn't just absorb the hit.

Lacross wrote:especially when most assault type units automatically come with Offensive Genades

Ok i i'll admit that ones true, but i play orks i see how this would make them almost unplayable, automatically miss in heavy cover and only HQs stormboyz and kommandos come with offensive grenades or move through cover.

I play daemons and the problem I have with cover is something is wrong when pink horrors standing in cover and out of cover are no harder to kill.

would it make high ap weapons to powerful if they could get through cover ? If not it seems like adding a -1 to bs would balance it out pretty well.

Actually, there was a time when you took both saves. The problem was it made killing heavily armored units nigh impossible while lighter armored units suffered. It also tended to prolong combat and encourage hand-to-hand. Although I was confused when they got rid of it, I understand the reasoning.

Skinnattittar wrote:Actually, there was a time when you took both saves. The problem was it made killing heavily armored units nigh impossible while lighter armored units suffered. It also tended to prolong combat and encourage hand-to-hand. Although I was confused when they got rid of it, I understand the reasoning.

I agree with that reasoning too. When I was in the process of making a Chaos codex, there was a gift that made one able to take both their normal save and their invulnerable save. It was expensive, and getting inv saves were expensive as well.

And then of course there was Rogue Trader, where you could have a 6+, a 5+, 4+, 3+, and 2+ saves, ALL at the same time.

Missed that one. That one too. That one too. Ah, got that one. Anyone else wanna try and shoot me?

Hi again.
I have to agree with Vladsimpaler that the 40k rules set has got far too abstract.
The dev team has tried to cover everything by 'roll a D6' to determine what happens.
Even if this leads to nonsensical results, Because they just bolt on clumsy poorly thought out special rules.

If you look at the simple game play of 40k , you expect the rules to be similarly straight forward!

Many of the historical games I play are far more detailed and complex than 40k.But have less pages of rules!

Rather than use ONE simple method to cover all units, 40k seems to use multiple methods to achive the same result.(But in a far more counterintuitive way.)

As reguards saves, why not just give all units a armour & resistance to damage value.AR.
This counts ALL protection and toughness of the target.

Class all weapon effects as a 'damage rating.'DR

Now we have 2 sets of numerical values.
EG.
AR 1 to 15
DR 5 to 20.

Simply deduct the AR value from the DR value to determine the save roll required.
Targets are 'invunerable' to DR value is less than thier AR value.
Targets get 'no save' if the DR value is higher than thier AR value.

There are loads of simple alternatives to 40k convoluted and counterintuitive rules.

TTFN
Lanrak.
But GW is not interested in game play, just marketing the latest releases.TTFN.
Lanrak.

5th edition ruled drive me up the wall when it comes to cover, our gaming group decided that instead of the 4+ cover save for EVERYTHING we decided to have have a -1 BS when the unit is partially obscured. We debated the dual cover save/armor save, but unfortunately a friend plays deathwing, and that sounded awful.

Vladsimpaler wrote:
One of the Chaos Legionnaries whips out a Plasma pistol and fires. Now the Terminators are using the wall for a cover save, hoping against hope that they make that 4+ cover save.

Actually only one is using the wall for cover, and if it helps think of it this way, on a 4-6 a bolter hits the cover or is fired where there is no termy because the cover hid the termy, on a 2-3 it bounces off the armor, and on a 1 it kills your termy. Its not supposed to make real world sense, its just supposed to work gameplay-wise.

iamthecougar wrote:

Vladsimpaler wrote:
One of the Chaos Legionnaries whips out a Plasma pistol and fires. Now the Terminators are using the wall for a cover save, hoping against hope that they make that 4+ cover save.

Actually only one is using the wall for cover, and if it helps think of it this way, on a 4-6 a bolter hits the cover or is fired where there is no termy because the cover hid the termy, on a 2-3 it bounces off the armor, and on a 1 it kills your termy. Its not supposed to make real world sense, its just supposed to work gameplay-wise.

Just sounds like more abstractions.

Here's another one that came up in a game last night:

The Avatar of Khaine storms over to a Razorback and with his supernatural strength, destroys it.

A Space Marine squad can only see the arm and leg of the monster, but open fire anyway.

His arm and his leg. That's all they could see. But the Avatar gains no benefit from only having this behind the Rhino. Does this make any sense? All they could see was an arm and a leg. Wouldn't it make more sense to give the Marine a -1 to their BS?

Hi again.
iamthecougar, I agree most of the rules in 40k 'make no real world sense'.
But why not ?
Its possible to cover the 40k game play more effectivley with simple alternatives, that do make real world sense, (Intuitive.).

As a gamer I prefer games with maximum game play and minimum rules .Thats why I have so many issues with the 40k rules.
(There are more exceptions to the basic rules than there are rules!)

BS mods are the most straight forward solution IMO.(Unless a complete re-write is on the cards.)

TTFN.
Lanrak.

Its also a matter of game balance. If you could take both saves, it would increase the surviablity of of everthing. Thus, shooting would AGAIN be weakend, and combat made better.
Also, MEQ/TEQs would benafit much more from this than GEQs would vs small arms, which would mean points costs became unbalanced (vs heavy weapons they either benafit less [HBolter] or have no change from current rules [Lascannon])

IE
A MEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/3 chance of dieing to a boltgun (wound). With cover, they have a 1/6. Benefit = +100%
A GEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/2 chance of dieing to a boltgun. With cover, they still have a 1/2 chance. Benefit = 0%

A MEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/3 chance of dieing to a Lasgun (wound). With cover, they have a 1/6. Benefit = +100%
A GEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/2 chance of dieing to a Lasgun. With cover, they have a 1/3 chance. Benefit = +66%

A MEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/3 chance of dieing to a HBolter (wound). With cover, they have a 1/6. Benefit = +100%
A GEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/2 chance of dieing to a HBolter. With cover, they have a 1/2 chance. Benefit = 0%

A MEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/3 chance of dieing to a Lascannon (wound). With cover, they have a 1/3. Benefit = 0%
A GEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/2 chance of dieing to a Lascannon. With cover, they have a 1/2 chance. Benefit = 0%

A MEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/3 chance of dieing to a Flamer (wound). With cover, they have a 1/3. Benefit = 0%
A GEQ in 4+ cover now has a 1/1 chance of dieing to a Flamer. With cover, they have a 1/1 chance. Benefit = 0%

[NOTE: These do not factor in chance of hit/wound, as these stay the same]

OR you could make cover give minuses to BS and reduce troop movement by bringing back the move stat and making humans/orks/marines M4, Eldar M5, and Tyranids M6.

More turns to shoot, even with worse BS most of the time, will still result in more casualties and as a result shooting gets better. Case closed.

Truthfully I think it would be better if saves were like this:

If you have it:

Cover Save --> Armor Save --> Invulnerable Save

It's just like if you shoot a terminator with a bolter and it goes through the armor, where is it's shield from the Crux Terminatus?! Did it decide not to work?!

The only problem I can really see with this is how good it would be for things like Terminators that could take a 3+ --> 2+ --> 5+ save vs. most weapons. so 2/3 chance to succede 5/6 then 1/3, but it does make more sense...

I think that if you're going to take more saves, there need to be more save cancellations. I tried that method EzeKK, and it was terrible. NO ONE died.

(first off, i am very tired atm, not thinkin' too hard)

I think the way they have done Commissar Yarrik's force field is an amazing concept to just add to invulnerable saves, and the variability being determined by the strength of the invulnerable save.

Bionic invuls: okay, its harder to wound the Terminator (like the movie) because he is a fething robot and is nigh impossible to harm.

Force field-type invuls: Yarrik.

I know this is a shoddy concept, i am incredibly tired and haven't really thought it out terribly much but it seemed worthy enough to mention.

Hi all.
Why do we have to use multiple seperate saves?

Why not just roll up all the saves into one value ?

And the attacks are modified by this value, dircetly.

Far less time wasted rolling dice , and more time for actual game play!

TTFN
Lanrak.

Exactly, Lanrak.

Nobody really seems to get this.

It's funny, with the minuses to BS, there is actually LESS rolling for the most part.

I am making my own system, and wow the game play speeds up a bunch without the cover saves! Of course then there are dodge saves and stuff so I guess I shouldn't talk.

Cover saves are everywhere in the current incarnation of the game.
A 4+ cover save is too much for my liking, a 5+ save would suffice.
This would cause more damage and more casualties.