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.

what if we went back to a multiple saves system, like fantasy, but made cover saves alot poorer like 4+ is the best a cover save will get naturally

units take saves in the following order, cover, armor or invuln

say some tactical marines are in a forest(now 5+ cover) they are hit with bolters and take 3 wounds. they take their 5+ cover save and any that fail now take their armor save. now say they are hit with some plasma shots and take 2 wounds. they would only have the cover save.

same situation, but with TH/SS termies. they are wounded with 3 bolter shots. they take the cover and may choose to take either their invuln save or their armor save, armor is better so they take that. if they were wounded with plasma they would take the Inv save instead because their armor is useless


this would still make AP relevent and would make models hug cover more. in reality SMs would hug cover even if their armor is better.

my point is models should take cover and one other save. prehaps make cover harder to get with rules

what if we went back to a multiple saves system, like fantasy, but made cover saves alot poorer like 4+ is the best a cover save will get naturally

units take saves in the following order, cover, armor or invuln

This could work. Make the "normal" cover save only 6+ though then good cover 5+ and then fortified cover (or stealth and good cover) 4+.

It would unfortunately do horrible things to game balance. Armourde warriors would become more powerful and stealthy cover dependant models would become comparatively far easier to kill...

That would be my issue it would alter game balance too much and require a re-write on all codexes.

it actually would only require a rules book rewrite.

models with special rules that increase their cover would still have the extra protection.

Template weapons would still have a place in ignoring cover


i don't see how balance would be affected. cover would have to be made not really good like i suggest.

LoS woods, shrubs, hills = 6+ cover

LoS buildings, LoS rocks, area terrain = 5+ cover

fortified buildings, defensive walls = 4+ cover

this would make MEQs harder to kill, but i don't think it would change much. MEQs would only have a maginally better chance against small arms fire and would actually make heavy weapons more practical against them because cover is now worse then before.

Kroot an dPathfinders are reliant on cover saves for instance reducing them would reduce their survivability whilst armoured targets would get more survivable. Except against IG MEQ will rarely be facing much firepower that punches through their armour and Terminators would become basically immune to everything! So whilst most units would become harder to kill low arnmour units and units that rely on cover would become easier to kill thus effecting game balance.

*sigh*

i guess if it ain't broke don't fix it

So basically what you're suggesting, FlingitNow, is that with the ubundance of cove in the current edition, but revising the system to allow modifiers, BS1 would be just as good as B3/4? If we are assuming plenty of 4+/3+ cover (which is pretty reasonable).

It seems to me that either allowing both Cover and Armor/Invulnerable saves or To Hit modifiers with the current system would just really up-end the current game mechanics (as much as I would prefer To Hit modifiers). To Hit modifiers would cause BS balance to be blown apart, as you have an easily attained minimum (BS1-2 has just as much chance of hitting as BS3-2, and BS1-3 is just as good as BS4-3). And double saves would mean everyone would most definitely ALWAYS hug cover to protect against shooting, making assaults even MORE effective than they currently are.

Just imagine if shooting was more useless than it is now, as both suggested cases would do.

hmm, what about the races that dont do close combat very often, like tau?

i have thought to hit modifiers would be simple with natural 6s hitting no matter of modifiers.


fantasys system works for it pretty well, but shooting is all but useless for many armies.

hmm, what about the races that dont do close combat very often, like tau?

Well if you want a shooting army should be playing Fantasy Battle, 40K is about CC not guns...

I take the points on board I like the AP system and once you introduce that you have to have the cover save system as is or armoured targets just become too survivable. The old armour save system was fine to me with to hit modifiers and everything worked fine.

FlingitNow wrote:

hmm, what about the races that dont do close combat very often, like tau?

Well if you want a shooting army should be playing Fantasy Battle, 40K is about CC not guns...

I take the points on board I like the AP system and once you introduce that you have to have the cover save system as is or armoured targets just become too survivable. The old armour save system was fine to me with to hit modifiers and everything worked fine.

Me thinks FlingitNow has had too much of the liquor of the Gods. 40k is very CC these days, but shooting is still a valid means of combat. A 40k battle with very little shooting still has far more shooting than the most you'll usually see with Fantasy! A To Hit modifier system just won't work without a whole lot of overhauling the current system. Or else I think FlingitNow might just be trolling....

Me thinks FlingitNow has had too much of the liquor of the Gods. 40k is very CC these days, but shooting is still a valid means of combat. A 40k battle with very little shooting still has far more shooting than the most you'll usually see with Fantasy! A To Hit modifier system just won't work without a whole lot of overhauling the current system. Or else I think FlingitNow might just be trolling....

It was a sarcastic joke about the current state of affairs in 40k and how CC biased it is getting.

Seriously get a sense of humour.

FlingitNow wrote:

Me thinks FlingitNow has had too much of the liquor of the Gods. 40k is very CC these days, but shooting is still a valid means of combat. A 40k battle with very little shooting still has far more shooting than the most you'll usually see with Fantasy! A To Hit modifier system just won't work without a whole lot of overhauling the current system. Or else I think FlingitNow might just be trolling....

It was a sarcastic joke about the current state of affairs in 40k and how CC biased it is getting.
Seriously get a sense of humour.

Well I apologize, I meant no offense. But in my own defense, you have said some very outrageous things in the past.

FlingitNow wrote:

Me thinks FlingitNow has had too much of the liquor of the Gods. 40k is very CC these days, but shooting is still a valid means of combat. A 40k battle with very little shooting still has far more shooting than the most you'll usually see with Fantasy! A To Hit modifier system just won't work without a whole lot of overhauling the current system. Or else I think FlingitNow might just be trolling....

It was a sarcastic joke about the current state of affairs in 40k and how CC biased it is getting.

Seriously get a sense of humour.

sarcasm is very hard to understand when written so layoff before the thread gets closed by a pissy mod.

But otherwise i think the system of cover is fine; its simple, quick and dirty. It may not be the most realistic system of rules, but w/e I'd rather let my opponent have a 4+ cover save when sitting behind his own units than argue about it and not end up not enjoying the game.
Frankly if it bothers you ask your opponent if they like the rule and if they don't either don't use it. In a tournament accept it and don't argue cause nothing sucks more than an arguementive opponent who makes you lose like half the round saying that its 3 marines in cover not 4

hmm, this thread just gave me an idea, the AV of this thread is 12
AV of my computer 14
AV of Joetaco is 8

Think the point is this
GRoup YYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Group XXXXXXXXXXXXX

Firing
From
here ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

at group Y, you dont give 2 s if you hit group x as they are your enemy as well, so if you inflict 8 wounds, and group Y makes 4 cover saves, Each group should take 4 wounds given you didnt care if your aim was off a little because your going to hit the enemy either way! yea you wanted to hit Y, but X managed to get in the way which is your enemy too and you wouldnt be like ooo ooo im trained on a member of group y..aw crap another enemy came infront of me i cant shoot him.. you pull that trigger anyway and hope the bullet kills both

Imagine war time, you have your rifle, guy comes running at you, but one of his buddies jumps infront of him, you dont say oh my, thats not who i wanted to hit im not going to shoot, you just shoot, someone is going to die regardless and they both want to kill you, so what does it matter?

now if said object were an enemy vehicle, and the group makes cover saves. still the same thing but your small/medium arms fire will most likely have little to no effect..

AV of TopC is over 9000!!!!! (for being right for once)

So if Squad Y is behind Squad X, and Squad Y is already in cover while X is not, why wouldn't Squad Z NOT fire at Y? It would mean all shots at Y that make cover fall onto X! Thus getting around cover saves.

If you want Squad X to be wounded so bad, why not shoot at them to begin with?

shas'o vera wrote:AV of TopC is over 9000!!!!! (for being right for once)

It happens once in a blue moon

Skinnattittar wrote:So if Squad Y is behind Squad X, and Squad Y is already in cover while X is not, why wouldn't Squad Z NOT fire at Y? It would mean all shots at Y that make cover fall onto X! Thus getting around cover saves.

If you want Squad X to be wounded so bad, why not shoot at them to begin with?

Its not a matter of wanting squad X to be wounded, you would PREFER Y to get hit, but instead half of the enemies other squad soaked up the bullets instead. There shouldn't be such a negative impact on the one shooting for the enemy having more models in the way is the point me thinks...

you and your friend both are trying to kill me, your friend has a machete and you have an m4.. we are at range, yea im going to shoot at you, but if your friend gets in the way the bullet magically does nothing? No your friends going to be wounded/die i may not have gotten my intended/target of preferrence but i still managed to inflict damage upon the enemy...

i think its just a matter of why should 50% of wounds be thrown away for no real reason?

TopC wrote:...you would PREFER Y to get hit...

This is the abstract part of 40k. Say you're firing a Lascannon at some Terminators, but there is a squad of Guardsmen in front of the Terminator. Well, I don't want to waste my Lascannon ammunition on stinky little Guardsmen, so I take careful aim at the Terminator! But wait! Those pesky Guardsmen are milling around in front of that Terminator. So at the last moment I have to hold my fire so I don't waste ammo on Guardsmen when I want to kill the Terminator. That's also part of that cover save. Believe me, I argued something similar to what you are TopC when they started this whole "one squad in front of the other" rules system that just doesn't work and makes faaaar too much 4+ Cover Saves. There just isn't a good solution other than to ask people to cooperate about these things. Problem is, everyone is just going to want to hit everything....

Skinnattittar wrote:

TopC wrote:...you would PREFER Y to get hit...

This is the abstract part of 40k. Say you're firing a Lascannon at some Terminators, but there is a squad of Guardsmen in front of the Terminator. Well, I don't want to waste my Lascannon ammunition on stinky little Guardsmen, so I take careful aim at the Terminator! But wait! Those pesky Guardsmen are milling around in front of that Terminator. So at the last moment I have to hold my fire so I don't waste ammo on Guardsmen when I want to kill the Terminator. That's also part of that cover save. Believe me, I argued something similar to what you are TopC when they started this whole "one squad in front of the other" rules system that just doesn't work and makes faaaar too much 4+ Cover Saves. There just isn't a good solution other than to ask people to cooperate about these things. Problem is, everyone is just going to want to hit everything....

Dunno man, i spent 2 trips in iraq, i gather your a military man.. dont know how much combat you saw.. but when it hits the fan i'm pretty sure we can all agree that its better to waste a few shots hitting guys you didnt intend to but are still enemies than to hold off till you get just the right shot...

hmm lets try this, your manning the 50.. your orders, your role is to take out vehicles.

wave of infantry come at you..and there is 1 vehicle behind them.. you aim at vehicle and guys keep getting in the way..nope not shooting because i dont want to waste rounds...

efff that just shoot at the vehicle mowing them down like wheat, and when there arent any more guys in the way to spoil your shot, now you blast that car to bits

Because now you've opened a can of worms. What if you're shooting through one of your own squads? Do they take wounds? Are you not allowed to shoot by the same reasoning given for not shooting into combat?

It would change the game to lining up your long range weapons and shooting at the furthest squad possible through as many intervening squads possible.

As to cover, it works fine. Skinn has the right of it, if there is plenty of -2 cover on the field (which there would be) BS 2 and BS 3 would be hitting on 6s, BS 4 would hit on 5+. All shooting in the game just became virtually identical. And unreliable.

Using cover saves as an additional save does nothing but skew the game to making MEQ/TEQ more difficult to kill. even following your 6+ example, you esentially just made every MEQ a 3+/6++, a TEQ a 2+/5++ or 5++/6+++? and TH/SS 2+/3++ or 3++/6+++? Compared to an Ork who's 6++ (technically 6+/6++, but the guns that aren't at least ap6 are to rare to mention).

As a Brettonian player in WFB, I know how useful a 2+ followed by a 6++ is. And 40k armor isn't even reduced by the strength of the attack like fantasy.

*realistically*, cover would save versus hits and not wounds. But again, it's a balance factor. For some armies, cover is what they rely on for their armor. For some armies, it's a supplement in case their armor won't suffice. Having three saves and picking the best for your situation works fine. getting multiple saves just complicates the game (armor, ward, regeneration anyone?)

Ah, but a Ma-Deuce is an automatic weapon with a 100 round ammo can, not a slow shooting lascannon. In the modern age? A target is a target most of the time. But say you are a marksmen and some of those baddies are carrying RPGs. Well, you have a slower reload time and you don't want to let your enemy know that there is a sniper tracking them (or some of those $5 rockets will be coming your way!). So when an AK toting tango dodges in front of your target, you might hold your fire for a moment until he passes, or you re-align your shot.

The thing is, it's an abstract! They have to make up one rule to cover all possibilities. It's not perfect, but imagine GW trying to be? You think the RAW and RAI wars are bad now....

A lot of the guys on here are current or ex military.

40k is not real war nor based on any real version of it, it's a game.

Otherwise in the 41st millennium you'd be blasting each other apart from beyond visual range, not charging into melee with a metal boxing glove.

I've been there too, and I'm pretty confident in saying you didn't do any bayonet charges while you were there.

Ahh but you see as a marksman (sniper) your going to be laying somewhere a very good distance off blending in, w/o the enemy knowing your there, w/ a pre planned escape route to the next firing location.

Killing a couple foot sloggers instead of the vehicle is better than killing nothing.. what if said guy runs up and jumps on your vehicle detonating himself?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kroot Loops wrote:A lot of the guys on here are current or ex military.

40k is not real war nor based on any real version of it, it's a game.

Otherwise in the 41st millennium you'd be blasting each other apart from beyond visual range, not charging into melee with a metal boxing glove.

I've been there too, and I'm pretty confident in saying you didn't do any bayonet charges while you were there.

True, but you still learn H2H for a reason

TopC wrote:True, but you still learn H2H for a reason

Best answer to that ever came from my old first sergeant, who said it was to keep you from embarrassing the unit's name when you got into bar fights

Kroot Loops wrote:

TopC wrote:True, but you still learn H2H for a reason

Best answer to that ever came from my old first sergeant, who said it was to keep you from embarrassing the unit's name when you got into bar fights

meh i just preferred fight night, last weekend of every month we got together and boxed...was..awesome got to hit my butter bars for a few minutes before he quit..ahhhh the joys of enough body shots...*sigh* i miss those days lol

Boxed? Did you get out before the brazilian jujutsu craze swept the military as the official h2h course?

I recall years ago a platoon sergeant saying something along the lines of, when talking about h2h and North Koreans, '...They don't go to the bar after CoB, they don't get weekends off, all they do is get pissed off and train to whip your ass'

Anyway, back on topic. I maintain that it would cause more headaches than it's worth, especially when it came to shooting through your own forces (virtually kills castle deployments and bubble wrapping).

Kroot Loops wrote:Boxed? Did you get out before the brazilian jujutsu craze swept the military as the official h2h course?

I recall years ago a platoon sergeant saying something along the lines of, when talking about h2h and North Koreans, '...They don't go to the bar after CoB, they don't get weekends off, all they do is get pissed off and train to whip your ass'

Anyway, back on topic. I maintain that it would cause more headaches than it's worth, especially when it came to shooting through your own forces (virtually kills castle deployments and bubble wrapping).

personally i would say it like this..

when shooting through your own unit the 4+ cover save is induced by the unit failing to fire due to friendly interviening models.

When shooting through normal cover, save is caused by it hitting said cover.

when shooting through enemy unit, to another enemy unit, this being the only cover save in question that all saved wounds are taken upon front squad. all armor saves allowed to be taken by front squad.

If firing through multiple squads take the number of wounds saved and divide as evenly as possible between all interposing squads if unable to divide evenly place remaining wounds starting from closest to firer and spread evenly inwards to the intended target.


Doesnt make TEQ/MEQ harder to kill as they are still taking 2/3+ saves and the cover doesnt come into play, unless being shot w/ ap3/2/1 weaponry...in which case the same number of meq/teq would die as currently die but you would get some of those low ap wounds to still kill things..

and not firing large weapons to conserve ammo is beyond me, you can fire a las cannon once per round for up to 7 rounds.. 1 shot per turn...so....whats the point of conservation of ammo?


and no, i was in there for it. Took some lessons myself although...i dont think it really suits 6'4'' people w/ long limbs >.< lol although i do admit knowing some stuff is usefull.. especially in preventing someone from doing it to you... i preferr just debilitating someone before they get the chance

Here's my two pence on the issue.

I think TopC's reasoning is good but there are situations where simply having an enemy you are not aiming at in the way would put you off and make you miss both or no waste you ammo if you've a high powered weapon. So how about this:

Unit YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
unit XXXXXXXXXXXX



Firer AAAAAAAAA


A fires at Y. Why gets a cover save. Any sucessful coversaves are transfered to X. X automatically receives a cover save from not being the intended target all other normal saves apply to X.

How about that as a compromise? Workable not really anymore complicated than TopC alerady proposed method. Whilst making meat shield units actual meat shields rather than moving forcefields as they currently are.

Tough I still see the cover save system as inherrently flawed due to the Lasgun can always blow up a tree but lascannon can't space marine conudrum. (I'll have a cover save please Carole)

you're taking an overly simplistic view of it however.

enemy squad AAAAAAA

Enemy Squad BBBBBBBB




Ally Screen XXXXXXXX

Sniper Drone YYYY

So Y fires at A. To make things good and complicated, we'll say three wounds are scored. one is failed by A, and the other two are saved by cover

So here's the issues:
This means one wound each should go to X and B.

Using TopC's argument, the wound to x would be ignored. B would take a wound (AP 3, and their cover save was bypassed by virtue of A failing theirs.)

Now what? Both A and B have to take pinning tests from one squad.


Ork Squad AAAAAAAAA

Ork Squad BBBBBBBBB


firing Squad XXXXXXXX

Firing Squad YYYYYYYY

If squad X rapid fired on Squad B, they'd kill 16 orks. If they rapid fired on squad A, they'd still kill 16 orks, 8 from each squad.

If Squad Y fired on Squad B, they'd kill 4 orks. If Squad Y fired on Squad A, they'd kill 6 orks. 4 wounds are saved in either case, but against squad B all four hits would be negated by Squad X, but against A half of those wounds would shift to B, who don't get a cover save from X because it's been allocated from A.

Clearly this is a broken system