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 always found it strange how a piece of masonry could have a 50% of completely blocking a hit from something like a rail gun (you know, something that is designed to kill tanks)
It's really odd to see half a squad hiding in a forest, and half of them surviving a direct hit from a Doomsday cannon, or a vindicator round

So I came up with several ideas to "fix" this. The most balanced (and logical) ones I came up with were these.

Modifying cover saves

AP of 3 and better modifies the save by the following

AP3 = -1
AP2= -2
AP3 = -3

or

S of 6 and better modifies cover

S6 = -1
S7 = -2
S8 = -3
S9 = -4
S10 = -5

I agree with your point about railguns. My friends and I usually play where AP1 attacks ignore cover saves completely.

Remember that both terrain and your models are abstractions of what's really happening; that forest area terrain might be a huge, sprawling woodland - your troops are spread out throughout it - ducking behind cover, dodging bullets, and using electronic warfare to scramble your enemy's targeting systems.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As such, it makes more sense for things like high-strength and blast weaponry, rather than AP weaponry, to damage a unit's cover save.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:I always found it strange how a piece of masonry could have a 50% of completely blocking a hit from something like a rail gun (you know, something that is designed to kill tanks)
It's really odd to see half a squad hiding in a forest, and half of them surviving a direct hit from a Doomsday cannon, or a vindicator round

So I came up with several ideas to "fix" this. The most balanced (and logical) ones I came up with were these.

Modifying cover saves

AP of 3 and better modifies the save by the following

AP3 = -1
AP2= -2
AP3 = -3

or

S of 6 and better modifies cover

S6 = -1
S7 = -2
S8 = -3
S9 = -4
S10 = -5

I think for the fairness of the game cover needs to be there, there's a chance when units would never get a save otherwise and this means that they actually get a chance to survive. what you are saying also means that Smoke and Disruption pods would cease to work if you got shot by an AP1 weapon and all this would make killing a lot easier. I think the cover save system is fine as it is and if anything i think that the strength of a weapon is more likely to determine cover save reductions as it will punch through more terrain, rather than the AP as I really can't see a Plasma gun punching through 5 trees to kill someone!

HI all.
What was wrong with;-
light cover = -1 to hit .
heavy cover =-2 to hit.

Making obscurement effect the to hit roll, rather than offering another level of physical protection, makes far more sense IMO.

because it alters your ratio of bullets to wounds too much. Intermediary modifiers are easier to balance and fine-tune, and much more 'realistic'-feeling than altering a stat that represents a unit's ability to shoot at things during realistic conditions.

I'm not arguing against ballistics skill modifications - I'm saying they have no place in cover calculation *in my opinion
.

With the new leaked rumors of 6th ed, i'd like to see cover simply modify evasion value.