Lance845 wrote:
Consider what happens when something like tzeetch daemons with a herald. 5++ becomes a 4++ because of ethereal form. Becomes 3++ with herald. Add a 5+ fnp to that.

That turns even the crappiest infantry into immovable bulwark of durability.


There is a good reason why cover is a bonus to sv and directly countered by ap.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I like the idea of a fnp for terrain as it protects from damage instead of whole wounds meaning ap- and ignore terrain aren't the same buff. Because ats and 4 ml should not be equivalent.

Also as we have seen, terrain as armor just doesn't work for many situations. My concern is how will it affect the models that have fnp already? Demons currently have no concern for cover but nurglings would love going up to 4+++. I don't want to see more situations where models don't care by having them not stack though.

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I like the idea of a fnp for terrain as it protects from damage instead of whole wounds meaning ap- and ignore terrain aren't the same buff. Because ats and 4 ml should not be equivalent.

Also as we have seen, terrain as armor just doesn't work for many situations. My concern is how will it affect the models that have fnp already? Demons currently have no concern for cover but nurglings would love going up to 4+++. I don't want to see more situations where models don't care by having them not stack though.

 Redbeard wrote:
Proposed house rules, streamlined, in accordance with the cut-down nature of the edition, to make this game more tactical.

1) New terrain keyword that can be applied to any piece of terrain: Difficult: Each inch of movement (rounded up) through difficult terrain counts as 2" of movement for units without Fly.

Reason: bring back the idea that some terrain types slows movement down. Allow shooty players the ability to deploy in places that may actually be harder to get to.
Examples: Changing elevation on hills, swamps, loose sand.


2) Cover for obscured models. If you cannot see 50% of a model (or unit), it gets +1 to its saves. If you cannot see 25% of a model (or unit), it gets +2 to its save.

Reason: Make deploying a tank hull-down behind a hill, or a dreadnought advancing with a rock for cover mean something. Note, also, intervening models will provide cover this way. This also helps large infantry units that can't easily completely occupy terrain pieces.


3) Limit to cover: No model's saves can be better than a 3+ due to cover bonuses, after all modifiers are applied (AP and cover).

Reason: If you're wearing ceramite plate armour, hiding behind a bush shouldn't make you a terminator. But, hiding behind a bush should help negate the denial of your armor from a plasma gun (the shooter may not hit you well).


4) No shooting through your own units. Note - shooting over the top of your own units is acceptable - hills, larger models, etc.

Reason: Sometimes what you can't do makes a game as interesting as what you can do. This forces people to think about positioning, and reduces the gameyness of "bubble wrapping" units. Realism rational - pretty much the same as why you can't shoot units within 1" of your own models - you might hit your own guys.


5) Models with airborne are considered 12" further away for purposes of targeting with shooting attacks. Models with supersonic are considered 12" further away for purposes of assaults.

Reason: This is largely about preventing small-arms fire (including flamers) from shooting down airplanes. And really fast airplanes shouldn't be getting charged too easily.

 Talamare wrote:
I explained the FNP style save for Cover suggestion to my game group. These were the 3 main concerns.

"That doesn't make sense."
"I don't know it sounds kinda of OP? Like my plague marines would just become immortal."
"I don't want to game taking even longer because of even more rolls."

1 - After discussion I asked him, What if you rolled the FNP Cover BEFORE your Armor Save... to represent the Cover literally CATCHING the shot

"Oh, yea I totally see that now. That would work."

2 - I basically used math to show that his Plague Marines would die FASTER than they currently do.

3 - No answer for this one, more rolls would mean more potential time. However, I did tell him mathematically a lot of incredibly difficult things to kill would die a lot faster which might also mean faster games.

 Actinium wrote:
Just make some terrain keywords; blocking, obscuring, fortifying, area, difficult, impassable, dangerous, etc. and come up with some definitions for those like obscuring gives -1 to hit while fortifying gives +1 armor save or difficult reduces move characteristic by 2" for anything moving or assaulting through this terrain's base while impassable can't be moved on or through and so on.
Then as you place terrain just decide with your opponent what keywords a terrain has. This forest is obscuring area difficult, this bunker is fortifying blocking, this razorwire is difficult dangerous, this hill is blocking difficult. Have vehicles/monsters ignore cover bonuses and difficult/dangerous tests unless the terrain has some kinda 'huge' keyword like for specific fortifying huge tank pits and difficult huge tank traps which in turn don't effect infantry.

warpedpig wrote:
yeah the current terrain LOS and modifiers are horse crap.

Terrain / including the angle you shoot at things in terrain/cover should determine the "to hit" modifier.

I think infantry should get a blanket -1 to hit in light terrain, and a -2 to hit in heavy terrain/cover. So infantry becomes extremely difficult to shoot at, which is realistic because when you cant see infantry then you cant really take a good shot at them. I spoke with a friend who was in desert storm and fought in baghdad against the iraqi republican guard, and he told me that in combat you might see the bad guys for the first second or two, but thats it. Everyone runs for cover and keeps their head down. Everyone finds cover, ANY cover, even squeezing themselves into a tight little package behind their own rifle. if thats all they have.

So right now in 40K you see light infantry as being practically useless unless youre spamming tiny units just to get a heavy weapon or a special weapon, or unless youre a horde army and you need 20+ or 30+ models to swarm the enemy with trash infantry and drown them in your own units blood. You rarely see a line of tactical marines with bolters, or a line of guardians, or whatever - because the elite options and fast attack and all that are vastly superior for survivability and speed and power.

So if terrain/cover rules were better, you would see something more like this...

Light infantry models would get a -2 to hit from enemy shooting at them when in cover.
Heavy infantry models (terminators, wraithguard, crisis suits, and other powered armor) get -1 to hit against all enemy fire.

These bonuses only work against incoming fire coming in from a front 90 degree arc.
Enemy units that have flanked the infantry that are in cover, and have gotten beyond that 90 degree arc, ignore all cover saves.

This would emphasize getting your units to flank the opponent / makes infantry much more survivable and therefore more useful, and leave us with more balanced forces on the board. Its not that these cover hit modifiers would make infantry impossible to kill, it would just make them very tough to kill FROM THE FRONT. Meaning you would see much more rapidly moving forces attempting to outflank one another. Too many games are very static, predictable, and boring. Combat should be about fire and maneuver and position/power.

 yakface wrote:


Well, here's my take on what you did. Its a little closer to GW's book rules, although I do personally think that charging through area terrain (forests/ruins) should slightly slow models down (and as such have added that).

Spoiler:

TERRAIN TYPES


SOLID TERRAIN

Solid terrain is anything with heft enough to block visibility through it, like barricades, rocks, pipes, intact buildings, hills, statues, pillars, obelisks, fuel tanks, etc.

Movement: A model is able to climb over solid terrain, but must count the vertical movement both up and/or back down again when it does, unless the model can FLY. INFANTRY is able to climb solid terrain of any height, while non-INFANTRY is limited to climbing solid terrain that is no taller than itself.

Hills: Hills follow the rules for solid terrain, except that any type of model (not just INFANTRY) is able to climb a hill, even when the hill is taller than the model. Of course, if a hill has sheer vertical sides, it can instead be designated as impassable terrain (see IMPASSABLE TERRAIN below) if desired.

Shooting: An INFANTRY model within 1" of solid terrain, and behind it from the point of view of the attacker, gets the benefit of cover unless the attacker also happens to be in contact with that same solid terrain. In addition, if an INFANTRY model is more than 1" from solid terrain, it can still get the benefit of cover from the solid terrain, but only when the model is at least 50% obscured by it. All other types of models can only get the benefit of cover from solid terrain when at least 50% obscured by it. If an attack does not require visibility to its target, then only models within 1" of solid terrain can get the benefit of cover from it.

Charging: Models charging over solid terrain follow the solid terrain movement rules presented above.


AREA TERRAIN

Area terrain is when multiple terrain elements are mounted together onto a base, such as with woods and ruins. The edges of an area terrain feature are clearly defined by its base while the actual position of individual elements on it (like trees and walls) are slightly less important.

Movement: An INFANTRY model is not hindered when moving through area terrain at all, except when moving up or down onto elements within the area terrain (such as up onto the upper levels of a ruin), in which case it must count the vertical distance it moves up and/or down unless it can FLY. A non-INFANTRY model cannot be set-up or move on top of elements within area terrain. A non-INFANTRY model is allowed to move completely over an element in area terrain, but only when the element is no taller than the model (like a low ruined wall), and it must count the vertical movement both up and back down again to do so.

Shooting: An INFANTRY model wholly within area terrain gets the benefit of cover. In addition, an INFANTRY model outside of area terrain can get the benefit of cover from it, but only when the model is wholly behind the area terrain feature from the point of view of the attacker. If the attack does not require visibility to its target, then only an INFANTRY model within area terrain can get the benefit of cover from it.

Any other type of model must be at least 50% obscured by terrain elements on an area terrain feature in order to get the benefit of cover from it. If the attack does not require visibility to its target, then only a non-INFANTRY model that is both wholly within the area terrain and be at least 50% obscured by it to get the benefit of cover from it.

Dense Area Terrain:
If both you and your opponent agree before the game, an area terrain feature can be classified as dense. Dense area terrain counts as blocking visibility from one side of the terrain feature to the other side, so a model outside of a dense area terrain feature isn't visible to a model on the opposite side of it. Dense area terrain provides the benefit of cover exactly like standard area terrain, except for the following:
• Models wholly behind a dense area terrain feature from the point of view of an attacker are assumed to be completely obscured by the dense area terrain (and therefore gain the benefit of cover from it) unless the attack does not require visibility to its target.
• Dense area terrain is treated as regular area terrain when checking visibility to and from a model with the Airborne ability or to and from a model that is taller than the tallest height of any individual element in the dense area terrain.

Charging: A model that charges through area terrain (including dense area terrain), must subtract 2" from their charge distance.


OBSTACLE

Obstacles are purpose built defenses: tanglewire & tank traps. Each obstacle must be designated as one or the other before the game.

Movement & Charging: A charging or Advancing VEHICLE or MONSTER model that moves through tank traps must halve how far they are allowed to charge/advance unless they are TITANIC. A charging or Advancing non-VEHICLE/non-MONSTER model that moves through tanglewire must halve how far they are allowed to charge/advance. Note that a model never has to take the vertical height of an obstacle it climbs over into consideration.

Shooting: Tank traps are treated as solid terrain for the purposes of providing the benefit of cover. Tanglewire cannot provide the benefit of cover.


BROKEN GROUND

Broken Ground is terrain that is too low to block visibility, but still impedes movement, such as craters, rubble, swamps, quicksand, acid pools, etc.

Movement: Broken ground does not hinder standard movement.

Shooting: An INFANTRY model wholly within broken ground gets the benefit of cover from it. Non-INFANTRY models cannot get the benefit of cover from broken ground.

Charging: A model that charges through broken ground, must subtract 2" from their charge distance.



TERRAIN EFFECTS


IMPASSABLE TERRAIN

Some terrain is so treacherous, that not even the most brave warrior would dare to cross it.

You and your opponent can both agree before the game that a particular terrain feature (or even just a portion of a terrain feature) is impassable. A model may not move through or be set up in impassable terrain. If desired, you and your opponent can agree before the game to allow a model that can FLY to end its movement or be set up on specific impassable terrain features where it makes sense to do so (like on the roof of an impassable building, for example).


DANGEROUS TERRAIN

The battlefields of the 41st millennium are always hazardous, but some areas can be outright deadly, such as a minefield.

Any terrain feature can be classified as dangerous terrain in addition to its normal terrain type if both you and your opponent agree to it before the game. In fact, you could even choose to classify a terrain feature as dangerous for one type of unit but not others.

Movement & Charging: Roll a D6 whenever a model Advances or charges across dangerous terrain. On a roll of 1, that model’s unit suffers one mortal wound. Models that can FLY are only affected by dangerous terrain when they either charge across or finish Advancing on dangerous terrain. Models with the Airborne ability are never affected by dangerous terrain unless both you and your opponent decide otherwise before the game.


EXPLOSIVE TERRAIN

Firefights sometimes occur amongst pipes and containers containing extremely flammable substances.

Any solid terrain feature can be classified as explosive in addition to its normal terrain rules if both you and your opponent agree to it before the game.

Shooting: Roll a dice each time you make a saving throw of 7+ (usually a roll of 6, plus 1 for being in cover) for a model that has the benefit of cover provided by explosive terrain within 1". On a 1, that shot has caused a small explosion and the model's unit suffers a mortal wound.


INSPIRATIONAL EFFIGY

The battlefields of the 41st millennium are often littered with remnants of once proud achievements, reminding the combatants exactly what they're fighting for.

Any solid terrain feature can be classified as an inspirational effigy in addition to its normal terrain rules if both you and your opponent agree to it before the game. You must also agree upon a single Faction keyword that the effigy represents.

Morale: Any units within 3" of an inspirational effigy that share the same Faction keyword as it add 1 to their Leadership.


Note: For all terrain types, anytime the rules mention a model needing to be obscured, that condition must be met for every single model in the firing unit. For example, if a model needs to be at least 50% obscured by terrain in order to get the benefit of cover, then if even a single model in the firing unit can see more than 50% of that model, then it does not get the benefit of cover.

Wagguy80 wrote:
Simple really...

When determining if something has cover attempt to draw LOS from the attacker to the target model. IF LOS cannot be drawn without passing through an area of terrain or obstacle the model receives the benefit of cover.

No debates also no silly I have a barrel sticking around a corner, but I'm in terrain and 50% obscurred so let me fire everything at you.

Additionally flyers can only receive the benefits of cover IF they are hovering, and LOS cannot be draw to the model without crossing through an area of terrain. Otherwise the firer's are just going to shoot it as it fly's through the gaps. It already gets a -1 to hit to represent the difficulty of that.

Edit - Also needs "Models only receive the benefit of cover when targetted by weapons that do not require LOS if they are fully within an area of terrain. I find this the simplest way because it removes GW cover rules because they suck and don't make much sense, and replaces them with something simple that either is a yes or no. You can easily check it with a tape measure to see if you can draw LOS without passing through terrain.

Conversely could add a rule that models only benefit from barricades or walls if they are within 2" of it and fully behind it.

Mezmorki wrote:
Interesting discussion.

I played my first game of 8th edition the other day, as I'm in the process of teaching my younger nephews how to play. I agree with the spirit of this thread that the way cover works just isn't that well balanced or logical. Even my 7 and 9 year old nephews were like WTF - that doesn't make any sense!

There are a number of important design considerations to making any changes though, and this discussion could probably benefit from outlining those at the onset. These include:

#1 - How realistic do you want the cover system to be? How many specific rules vs. general rules are acceptable?

#2 - How much additional time (e.g. die allocation & die rolling) is acceptable?

#3 - How does the cover system affect the overall balance between shooty vs. CC oriented armies?

#4 - How does the cover system deferentially affect certain types of units over others (e.g. vehicles vs infantry, MEQ vs GEQ)

#5 - How does it affect specific tactics and maneuver?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My thoughts are as follows:

#1 - While there are some excellent and detailed suggestions for cover/terrain, I think given the general nature of the 8th edition rules it needs to be pretty simple. If the full set of cover rules can't fit on a single sheet of paper (adding 1 more page to the core rules), then it's probably getting too complicated. That said, some of the "Keyword" based solutions, if paired with simple general rules, could potentially work and would be in alignment with the verbiage and rules approach of 8th edition.

#2 - I think adding 1 extra step (either a wound allocation step, or extra cover phase step, or extra die modifier step) is okay - particularly if the changes result in more tactical depth in the game. Adding 2 or 3 extra steps is probably too much, especially if it doesn't add much tactical depth to the game.

#3 - I don't have enough experience with this edition to comment on this, as I don't really know what the overall sense is. I do see a lot of people complaining about 1st turn alpha strikes, so perhaps making cover more useful would benefit gameplay across the board, regardless of whether it's shooty vs. CC or shooty vs shooty.

#4 - MEQ's clearly benefit significantly from the current way cover saves work .... getting a 2+ armor save for all your marines is pretty extreme. Likewise, for a lot of low armor save units, cover is almost pointless and does little to protect units.

#5 - This is where I feel 8th edition comes up short (and maybe why I see people saying this version feels boring?). Part of this is how cover works, but it's also how it interacts with line of sight. TLOS is cool and all, but the cover/terrain system absolutely needs to have a system for stipulating LOS-blocking terrain in a more general manner.

Personally, I also just don't really care for TLOS and especially trying to determine whether things are 50% more/less obscured (based on some of the suggestions here). It just leads to wasted time debating the nuances of LOS (especially with kids), where a simpler system could be used instead (saving time in that area in exchange for adding an extra step in the cover/save system).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's all for now. I want to comb back through the suggestions and think about this all a little more before getting behind any solution in particular.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Okay, here's what I got after a bunch of thinking on it:

First, at the end of the day, all the methods we've discussed involve using cover as means of reducing the number of models removed from the board. While it may make sense logically that cover/obstruction work as a hit modifier vs. armor save modifier vs. FNP save vs. dedicated cover save, etc. doesn't really matter - they all have the same effect of trying to reduce the number of models killed.

Here's my suggestion:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ARMOR & COVER SAVES

Cover comes in three flavors, and players should decide what type of cover each terrain feature provides before deployment:
- Soft Cover
- Hard Cover
- Fortified Cover

Models in cover may either (1) take a cover save OR (2) use cover to augment their normal armor save OR (3) use an invulnerable save if they have one)

(1) Taking a cover save instead of an armor save:
5+ save for “Soft” cover (vegetation, bushes, wooden structures)
4+ save for “Hard” cover (rocks, ruins, walls, metal/concrete obstacles)
3+ save for “Fortified” cover (battlements, bunkers, pill boxes, etc.)
Cover saves are not modified by weapon AP values.

(2) Using cover to augment a models normal armor save
Soft cover can negate up to 1 point of AP
Hard cover can negates up to 2 points of AP
Fortified cover negates up to 3 points of AP

Players will obviously want to use whatever save gives their units the best saving throw.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What does the above do in gameplay terms? Lightly armored units (5+ and 6+ armor saves) get a nice benefit to being in even light cover, since even with a 5+ save it isn't modified by AP. Being in hard cover (ruins, steel walls, etc.) is a significant improvement, although these terrain features would be less common perhaps. Fortifications rarest of all.

For more heavily armored units, a.g. power armor and other 3+ (or 2+ saves) cover helps reduce the impact of getting hit with higher AP weapons while avoiding the current issue with basic marines getting 2+ saves in cover against everything. A Marine in soft cover could take weapon fire with -1 AP still at a 3+ save (as they do under the current rules). But against a 0 AP weapon it would still be 3+ save (not 2+ save). Marines getting into hard cover could negate up to -2 AP and still keep their 3+ armor save. Against higher AP weapons they'd switch to the 4+ unmodifiable save for the hard cover, and so on.

The above seems like a pretty simple approach that doesn't add much overhead to the game at all. Basically, units are going to use the cover save if its better than their normal armor save. Units with better armor saves can derive a little benefit from cover by negating some of the impact of higher AP weapons, but otherwise cover doesn't provide a huge additional advantage.

Thoughts?

 xeen wrote:
In my opinion there are two different elements for cover, and then a third element as to blocking line of site. First is what cover does, and second who gets cover and when. You really have to take these two issues separately.

First as to what cover does I think the +1 to the armor save is probably the best option to keep the game simple. If you start getting into more complex systems, then you really need to flush out other aspects of the game (like if you have fuller cover rules, you probably need fuller rules for weapons that ignore cover, flamers, grenades etc.). I disagree that cover does not really help lower save models. First IG in cover get a 4+ save. Now that can be reduced, but realistically if someone is shooting a squad of IG, they are probably using small arms such as bolters (ap-0) or heavier multi-shot weapons like heavy bolters that are ap-1 or so. So against small arms (which is what should really scare IG) you are getting a 4+ and against heavier anti-infantry you get a 5+. An remember, that is a 4 point model we are talking about. Part of the reason it is 4 points is because it is going to die pretty easily, so you can take a crap ton. The same logic also helps with 6+ saves as you are getting an improved save against the deadliest of weapons to your squad, small arms. I do think a rule that a save can never be reduced to less than 6+ while in cover would be helpful though, because no matter how big the gun, cover should help to a small extent.

Just a quick aside on the -1 to hit for cover. That is how it was in War hammer Fantasy and 2nd edition worked and the extremes in not being able to hit or easily hitting were not good. Those editions also had a vast amount of ways to get +1 to hit as well. Without more +1 to hit modifiers (like short range) system for -1 to hit for cover will make shooting really difficult, especially since now some armies have -1 to hit army wide. I think if you did this you would need to rethink the shooting rules and any rules that create a -1 to hit otherwise stacked -1 to hit will be really common really quick.

The second issue is who gets cover, which is also two issues. When is cover granted, and what happens when only part of a unit is in cover. This to me partial squads in cover is the most complicated issue, and 8th does not do a great job with it, but better than when granting cover below. However the problem is not really the line of sight issue. The problem has to do with wound allocation. Currently the "all or nothing" cover rule serves to keep the wound allocation issue simple. Right now you shoot, (under current rules) everyone in the unit has the same T and save and so it does not matter what models are actually "hit" the defending player just gets to pick them. If cover allowed for a squad to be part in and part out of cover, then under the current rules wound allocation becomes a problem. If you take the cover save then you need to remove models in cover, but what if the better models are in cover. Then you take your save from the models not in cover, but what happens if you kill more than those not in cover? Do you roll the non-cover first then cover? Also who gets to pick? Why can't the shooting player target non-cover? Without changing the wound allocation it is hard to fix cover for partial units in cover. Based on the current rules, I would say that units fully in cover get a save, units fully not in cover no save, and if 50% of the models or more are in cover, than roll a D6. 1-3 the shooting unit catches them as they are getting set and no cover. 4-6 the unit being shot at gets into the cover and the stragglers out of the cover hit the deck or whatever. Otherwise with the current system I think you need to use an "all or nothing" system.

The there is the issue of when is cover granted. This issues should not be as complicated, and this is probably the main issue with cover in 8th. Realistically, cover should be provided to any unit of infantry if a line of sight is drawn to that unit over ANY terrain feature. Doesn't matter if they are in it, or being shot over it, if you need to cross the terrain with the shot, +1 save. For vehicles, monsters etc, I do think you need some kind of 50% obscured rule. I know a lot of people don't like TLOS but I played 4th with the abstract terrain, and let me tell you there are WAY more fights in that mechanic then TLOS (If you want an example of one, this is real from what I remember, a fight about whether a deamon model was blocked because the hill was a level 3, the the shot was skimming the side of the hill, so was there line of sight or not was not so simple). For the bigger models I would use the same rule, that if they are 50% or more obscured and the line of fire is drawn over ANY terrain feature then +1 save. The rule should be applied liberally, so if you can't agree, that means it is probably obscured, so +1 (This is also a reason to keep what cover does as a simple +1, because against most weapons that are realistically trying to hurt a vehicle or monster, that +1 should not really be ground shaking). BTW I think what I suggest above on the cover is what a lot of people on here are arguing for.

Finally, there is TLOS and being completely out of sight. My experience is most people don't use enough large terrain or use ruins with lots of holes and window. I took my ruins and put some work into them to block windows and holes. I also think that larger models should be hard to hide as they are usually the meanest units anyway and usually pretty tough. This issue is really fixed more with terrain set up than rules per say, especially since I am not a fan of the abstract terrain.

Than is my two cents.