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 was thinking, that if a space marine as in a stand of trees giving a 4+ cover, shouldn't he have a chance of the tree blocking a shot as well as if the round hits him, the armor has a chance to save him? And if a guardsman is in some crater he doesn't strip naked because their is a chance that the cover will save him! Wouldn't it make sense if the cover save is rolled, and all failed saves are taken as armors? Also on another note some weapons should be able to AP cover, a lascannon will go through a tree or shrub, it will not bounce off. I would propose a rule that if a weapons AP is 2 greater than the save the cover would give you, it ignores that cover, because it goes right through it. Lemme know what you guys think!

A core principle of wargaming is keeping dice-rolls to a minimum. Here in PR, we've gone over this concept a few times - It usually ends up evolving into something similar to warhammer fantasy, where cover provides a to-hit modifier instead of a save.

For example, A space marine, BS4, fires at a guardsmen in some trees down-range. The guardsman is well aware that a bolt shell is going to rip him apart, so instead of trying to tank it with his armour, he uses the trees to obscure his position; the marine subsequently has to guess where the guardsman is, and even with his decades of experience, it reduces his BS to 3.

I still, however, believe that Going to Ground should provide a 4+ cover save while in terrain, 6+ in open ground, as the decision to go to ground is made AFTER you check wounds.

I agree with your suggestion lakemacleod. One of my house rules is to roll for cover saves first, then armor/invulnerable saves. However, before the game each piece of cover is designated as heavy cover (5+ save) or light cover (6+ save). Also, any weapon with AP1 ignores cover saves, providing a small bonus to AP1 weapons over AP2 weapons.

Sock wrote:I agree with your suggestion lakemacleod. One of my house rules is to roll for cover saves first, then armor/invulnerable saves. However, before the game each piece of cover is designated as heavy cover (5+ save) or light cover (6+ save). Also, any weapon with AP1 ignores cover saves, providing a small bonus to AP1 weapons over AP2 weapons.

How thas it normally work out, doesn't it nerf a bit small arms fire?

This has been brought up before. Simply put, it would break the game. It favours high save models, and nerfs shooting way too much.

In fact, with the prevalence of cover, it would make shooting armies perform so underwhelmingly terrible, you'd be forced into bringing fast, assaulty armies to be remotely competitive.

Save modifiers and roll modifiers are the way to go to represent this, but then you'd need to rebalance the entire game. Tweaking core game mechanics is never a good idea as you can't predict how it will affect every codex and every build from each codex and how they will interact with eachother.

So, in short, no.

Regardless of the number of dice you have to roll, rolling 2 saves (cover then armor) radically impacts the effectiveness of the shooting.

To start, let's see what the odds are for a guardsman in the open being shot by a marine with a bolter (S4, AP5)

To hit roll: 3+ = 66%
To Wound: 3+ = 66%
Armor save: none
Result: Odds of dead guardsman is 44.4%

Not too shabby.

Now let's put that guardsman behind a tree.

To hit roll: 3+ = 66%
To Wound: 3+ = 66.7%
Cover save: 4+ = 50%
Armor save: none
Result: Odds of dead guardsman 22.2%

Under RAW:
To hit roll: 3+ = 66%
To Wound: 3+ = 66.7%
Cover save: 4+ = 50%
Result: Odds of dead guardsman 22.2%

Essentially no change here.

Now, let's say cover was a BS modifier of +1, as chrisrawr suggested.

To hit: 4+ = 50%
To Wound: 3+ = 66.7%
Armor Save: none
Result: Odds of dead guardsman 33.3%

Now, he is actually easier to kill.

If the To Hit modifier was +2:
To hit: 5+ = 33%
To Wound: 3+ = 66.7%
Armor Save: none
Result: Odds of dead guardsman 22.2%

About the same

So, what have we learned?

By using 2 saves, you've increased the time it takes to play (multiple saving rolls).

By using a To Hit modifier of +1 we've eliminated one choice from our possible saves (makes decisions easier) while making it easier to die.

By using a To Hit modifier of +2 we've still eliminated a choice, and the game mechanics are about the same.

***********

Now, let's run the numbers for MEQ on MEQ

To hit roll: 3+ = 66%
To Wound roll: 4+ = 50%
Armor save: 3+ = 33.3%
Result: Odds of dead meq is 11.1%

Now let's put that MEQ behind a tree.

To hit roll: 3+ = 66%
To Wound roll: 4+ = 50%
Cover save: 4+ = 50%
Armor save: 3+ = 33%
Result: Odds of dead MEQ 5.5%

Under RAW:
To hit roll 3+ = 66%
To Wound roll: 4+ = 50%
Armor save: 3+ = 33% (using armor instead of cover)
Result: Odds of dead MEQ 11.1%

It is almost twice as hard to kill the MEQ in cover with the extra save.

Now, let's say cover was a To Hit modifier of +1, as chrisrawr suggested.

To hit: 4+ = 50%
To Wound roll: 4+ = 50%
Armor Save: 3+ = 33%
Result: Odds of dead MEQ 8.3%

This time, the odds are slightly in the tree huggers favor vs RAW.

If the To Hit modifier was +2:
To hit: 5+ = 33%
To Wound roll: 4+ = 50%
Armor Save: 3+ = 33%
Result: Odds of dead MEQ 5.5%


***********

Analysis:
Changing anything away from RAW will radically jack with the game. MEQs become harder to kill; everything else becomes easier. In other words the only time you would want to use cover is if you were a marine or better. Otherwise you had a much better chance of living while out in the open.

Lets look at guardsmen shooting terminators in cover for fun
To hit, 4+: 50%
To wound, 5+: 33%
Cover save, 4+: 50%
Armour save, 2+: 83.33%
Total Wounds per shot: 1.388%
Hilarious it takes almost 100 shots to kill a single terminator. That is about 11 squads of guardsmen at 24-12" costing a total of 550 points to drop a sinlge terminator.

Updated my previous numbers. Somehow I forgot about the To Wound roll. .

Regardless, cover saves operate completely differently from armor saves.

Armor saves can be ignored by weapons whose AP value is less than or equal to it. Whereas cover can pretty much always be taken (unless a special rule is in place to ignore it). Often this is a model's only defense.

By dropping cover saves and simply modifying the To Hit role, you eliminate the biggest effect of a cover save: getting to take a save of any kind in the first place.

However, by taking cover AND armor saves you cause marines to become even more powerful against non-MEQ armies.

Going further, if you declare that weapons of a certain AP type always ignore cover, then, again, you are upsetting the game mechanics in favor of MEQ armies.

Ultimately, I think jacking with any of that without also adjusting the points values of MEQ's upwards is a bad bad idea.

Perhaps instead of trying to alter the core mechanics of the game, we could focus on Going to Ground, which in my experience goes totally unused in most games. Maybe if Going to Ground or being Pinned allowed you to take your armor save AND cover save, it would get used more often? I'd really like to see suppression of enemy units play a larger role in the game.

To add to that, I know this would make it harder for small arms to dislodge enemy units who are intent on holding their ground, but really it SHOULD be hard.

If I may be so rude: Try playing it, you know it will suck.

One of my first 'real' games my opponent did exactly the same. In 500 points, he brought 5 terminators. He had a 2+ armour save. If he failed that one, he was allowed a 3+ inv. save. And if he was in cover, he was allowed that save too. Needless to say that they were unbeatable at that point level.
Heck, it was one of my first games. I was proud that I was able to put 500 points of IG on the table, thus I didn't know much of the rules.

Thats a good idea, i think i may use that in the future

Sock wrote:I agree with your suggestion lakemacleod. One of my house rules is to roll for cover saves first, then armor/invulnerable saves. However, before the game each piece of cover is designated as heavy cover (5+ save) or light cover (6+ save). Also, any weapon with AP1 ignores cover saves, providing a small bonus to AP1 weapons over AP2 weapons.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why would someone cheat you on your first gaem? How does that help anyone? That guy sounds like a prick.

loner wrote:If I may be so rude: Try playing it, you know it will suck.

One of my first 'real' games my opponent did exactly the same. In 500 points, he brought 5 terminators. He had a 2+ armour save. If he failed that one, he was allowed a 3+ inv. save. And if he was in cover, he was allowed that save too. Needless to say that they were unbeatable at that point level.
Heck, it was one of my first games. I was proud that I was able to put 500 points of IG on the table, thus I didn't know much of the rules.