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 hated the 40K cover system... In the current ruleset, if you have a good armour, cover is of use only against low AP weapons... this situation is credible only if we imagine all the marines like douches costantly yelling "COVER IS FOR THE WEAK".
So I'd like to try a different system, in which light cover (6+/5+) gives a -1 malus to to hit rolls and hard cover (4+) gives a -2 malus...
Now... of course this system heavily favours MEQs and TEQs over guards, eldars, orks etc... So... what would you do to equilibrate the thing? Increase point cost of armoured infantry? And, if yes, by how much? Also, how would you make it work for area weapons?
I propose +1 point for 4+ armour, +2 for Power armour and +5 for Terminators and I have no idea about area weapons....

What would you do?

My idea would be to add a CP value to weapons, a Cover Penetration stat.

Cuz it makes *NO* sense that Railgun would be stopped by a tree, with that tree not being affected in some way.

If we like the Fantasy Cover rules so much, I think we should also apply the Fantasy Armour and Armour Penetration rules. Since for the purposes of balance both are in Fantasy for a reason.

so... -1 to armor save for every point of strenght above say 5, and give plasma and melta weapons armour piercing.

That would give a Marine a 5+ save against an Auto Cannon.

The reason why they both need to be present is because you are far less likely to be Hit by said Auto Cannon with the cover boosts, but those wounds that you do take will be significantly more powerful. Which makes sense in a way because afterall the Auto Cannon is an anti light vehicle gun, and when it shoots at infantry it will hurt quite a bit- power armour or no.

Or ya know, we could just accept cover as it is. You should still be taking cover with marines, since Plasma and Melta IS so common.

 akaean wrote:
If we like the Fantasy Cover rules so much, I think we should also apply the Fantasy Armour and Armour Penetration rules. Since for the purposes of balance both are in Fantasy for a reason.

so... -1 to armor save for every point of strenght above say 5, and give plasma and melta weapons armour piercing.

That would give a Marine a 5+ save against an Auto Cannon.

The reason why they both need to be present is because you are far less likely to be Hit by said Auto Cannon with the cover boosts, but those wounds that you do take will be significantly more powerful. Which makes sense in a way because afterall the Auto Cannon is an anti light vehicle gun, and when it shoots at infantry it will hurt quite a bit- power armour or no.

Or do it how it worked in RT/2nd edition and give all weapons their own AP. Boltguns would be -1, Heavy Bolters would be -2, Lascannons would be -5, Plasma Guns would be -4, and so on and so forth. Would make for a better system even if stuff did have to be recosted.

Or ya know, we could just accept cover as it is. You should still be taking cover with marines, since Plasma and Melta IS so common.

Kind of like being asked to accept a crappy car with 200k miles on it instead of the Mercedes that you used to have.

 akaean wrote:
If we like the Fantasy Cover rules so much, I think we should also apply the Fantasy Armour and Armour Penetration rules. Since for the purposes of balance both are in Fantasy for a reason.

so... -1 to armor save for every point of strenght above say 5, and give plasma and melta weapons armour piercing.

That would give a Marine a 5+ save against an Auto Cannon.

The reason why they both need to be present is because you are far less likely to be Hit by said Auto Cannon with the cover boosts, but those wounds that you do take will be significantly more powerful. Which makes sense in a way because afterall the Auto Cannon is an anti light vehicle gun, and when it shoots at infantry it will hurt quite a bit- power armour or no.

Or ya know, we could just accept cover as it is. You should still be taking cover with marines, since Plasma and Melta IS so common.

Well, I like the idea but I feel like that only move the problem... instead of solving it. Like Vlad suggested, this requires to recost the weapons instead of the models, and as weapons are much more different, it would be even more difficult to do that ( there is an HUGE variety of weapons, with different combinations of Str and AP, all meant against different targets, while infantry can be roughly divide in MEQ, TEQ and everything else)... So i'd still prefer to recost marines instead of recosting weapons...

Simple fix a +1 or +2 to your save roll. a 1 always fails.

so a terminator hiding in tall grass get no benefit from bolter fire, but get a +1 to his invul vs plasma.

a guardsman would get a 4+ vs boter fire! giving him a save, but still receive nothing vs plasma.

This would make low ap weapons deadly vs anything without an invul save, cuz i can shoot through tall grass with a ball of plazma. But still benefit models that have high costs due to invul saves. Low cost cheap spam infantry would actually benefit vs high ap weapons but get nothing vs low ap. Thus making them the cheap throw away hoards they should be.

I've always looked at two ways to go about this:

1 - lower the BS if their target is in cover.
2 - remake the rulebook and change the stuff that doesn't make sense.

One is much easier than the other that I've spent over 3 weeks on already haha.

I would say you take cover then amour as if it hits the cover it take the velocity out of he shot so even if it pentatrates your cover it might not penertrate your amour so like look out sir
Have your cover then your amour

Cover does actually make sense for stopping a railgun once you think about it. Any intervening object would throw off the shooter's perception and give him blind spots. Cover doesn't mean it stops the projectile, just that the model firing misses the model actively hiding behind another object.

That being said, cover is a huge mechanic to change around. It's the only save for most vehicles and walkers. Some armies rely heavily on it. Maybe a combination of what was already proposed.

Weapons have their own AP values which detract from a models natural armor save.

Cover save is a modifier added to a unit's armor save. Can only be removed by weapons that ignore cover.

Invul saves would be the same.

So a unit of marines in cover get a 2+ save but get hit with a weapon with AP-2 (AP5 currently) bringing their save to a 4+, while marines in ruins would still have 3+ armor.

Just about everything would need to be reworked though. But as it stands, I hate that cover can basically give everything free Flak and Carapace armor. It makes units that pay for Carapace armor silly or even the option to upgrade armor.

Terminators in grass would have a 2+ cover. You'd need AP-4 just to knock them down to a 3+. Plasma with AP-5 (AP2 currently) would only reduce them to a 4+ save.
Guard with flakk would still have a 5+ save from ruins or 6+ from grass from standard weapons.

I actually like the concept, but it needs to really rework a lot just to make sure the balance isn't thrown out off.

Ye but as the brits found out in WW1 grass or corn just gets ripped up so I would say no cove against grass if you fill all the cover across
Shot guns should ignor cover

Well Shotguns have smaller shot with less mass, so less momentum, therefore more easily stopped. And again, cover still works for everything because it obstructs vision.

Lets put it this way. I have a sheet between you and me. Just a plain old sheet that completely blocks my body and makes it impossible to see me. Even if the sun was right behind me and I cast a shadow on the sheet, it takes a bit of work to accurately predict where I am based on the angle of the light.

The same principle applies to grass, razor/barb wire, smoke and everything else. Nobody suggests that smoke will stop lasers or missiles, just that you're going to find a harder time hitting the target.

Instituting a different cover/concealment method would be more to what most people are thinking of. A dense grassland might prevent you from seeing the enemy (concealment) but it isn't going to stop a shot (cover). If each type of terrain provided a score for each you could then apply them differently, or if the same you could apply them differently. Let's take the above example an expound on it. The grassland might have a concealment 4 but a cover of 0. Now concealment could lower a unit's BS by the 4 requiring a higher roll needed to hit but would still not change the unit's save. Cover being a 0 would change nothing but if higher could lend a bonus to armor saves or a negative to AP values of weapons firing into the cover. This wouldn't require a change to any weapons or abilities but would require forethought into what terrain was used. Ruins and building would then lead to moderate concealment and cover values while other types of terrain could fluctuate greatly. Razorwire would provide say Cover 0 but concealment 1. Ruins could provide 2/2 making the unit slightly harder to hit and slightly harder to wound. If you stayed with a single value set each piece of terrain with either a cover or concealment value, then apply them as such. Just an option rather than revamping half the game just change a single aspect and let the rest lie as is.

The cover system has always been my single biggest gripe with the rules of 40k. Right now there's almost no benefit to cover for a space marines except in rare instances...it takes away a huge tactical mindset that could be taking place each and every game.

FenixZero wrote:
My idea would be to add a CP value to weapons, a Cover Penetration stat.

Cuz it makes *NO* sense that Railgun would be stopped by a tree, with that tree not being affected in some way.

Cover doesn't always represent the shot being stopped, it also represents the aim being off due to the concealment. 40k is an abstract ruleset and one specific rule can represent a variety of things.

Invuln saves can be sorcerous incantations, energy fields, or just quick reflexes.

FnP can be the model simply shrugging off an injury through force of will, medical attention provided by a medic, or an unnatural healing rate.

Poison can be actual toxins and venoms. Or it can also be corrosive acids or other chemicals that eat through flesh as easily as metal.




If you want cover to matter to things with good armor, allow cover and armor saves to be taken against the same wound while increasing the point cost of things with good saves. Like 5 points for 2+ save and 2 points for 3+ saves.

We use sort of a hybrid of cover rules using area terrain. In our version cover will defeat low AP value weaponry from penetrating heavier cover. If the cover save is higher than the AP value, shots get in but can't pass through. For example, a bolter (AP 5) can pass through a forest (cover save 5+) but can only go into a ruin (cover save 4+) and not pass through.

If you are using a shotgun you spray a load of plets in that direction incresing the area of hit
As I said it ignors cover and in grass if your man cannot draw line of site to a part of cover were no one is they get no boost.

wargey wrote:
If you are using a shotgun you spray a load of plets in that direction incresing the area of hit
As I said it ignors cover and in grass if your man cannot draw line of site to a part of cover were no one is they get no boost.

Do you actually understand how a shotgun works?

Because if you truly did, you would know that it should not ignore cover.

In my opinion, if you want to make cover a bit more realistic you have to distinguish between kind of visual cover and physical cover.

like tall grass only blocks sight a little, so it would be -2(BS modifier)/6+(save as normal)
ruins would be broken down into those with loads of space to move in, -2/4+, and ones that wouldn't obscure sight as much, 0/4+
The Aegis Defence Line would be more of a 0/3+ in this system, coz you know where the guy is shooting from, you just can't shoot through the thick metal!

Gtg might add 1 to each value in this case, I haven't really thought it through lol. Just wanted to voice my opinion!

If in the preceding tern the enemy SQ in the cover used a flamer you have -1 insted of -2 to your bs due to you roughly knowing were they are.

What if, as wargey suggested, you take cover, then armour, but to prevent the irritating coverfest that was 5th, each weapon gets a 'Cover modifier' of -0 to -6. A bolter would have Cover modifier (CM) of -1 because it's an exploding bolt, while a frag grenade would have -3. This means that a boltgun shooting into a ruin would give cover of 5+ while a frag grenade would give no cover at all.

The point has been made that cover OBSCURES the target, making it harder to see and therefore harder to hit.

SOFT COVER.
Adding 1 to the score needed to hit on the 'to hit roll' is simple and effective.
(Template and blast weapons 'do not roll to hit' so are not effected by this change.)

SOME cover gives the model behind it some level of physical protection as well as making them harder to see and hit like soft cover does.
HARD COVER,(+1 to the 'to hit score' needed.)
This simply increase the AP value of the weapon by 1.(AP 1 goes to AP 2, AP 2 goes to AP 3. AP 3 goes to AP 4, AP 4 goes to AP 5, AP 5 goes to AP 6.AP 6 goes to AP-)

So this does not make the armour save or AV value of the target any better.
Just reduces the ability of the weapon hit to penetrate armour.(As it was slowed down/deflected by the hard cover , before hitting the target.)

Summary.

Soft Cover.
+1 to the 'to hit' score required.

Hard |Cover.
+1 to the 'to hit' score required,+1 to 'actual AP value', (making weapon armour penetration WORSE.)



(PS rabid, this is how I want to resolve cover and hard cover in our rules. )

No matter were they are if you lob a frag grenade in a building and they are in the blast radius they get no cover.
Wepons with melta will cause the ruin or baricade to melt on some one so I think if a rule states melta if fireing into mettle cover (eg ruins adl ect) they have -1BS and -1S.

There are some very neat ideas in this thread, building off what has been posted already, here is what I came up with so far.

concealement:
concealment reduces the shooter's effective BS by the listed value (1-3) to a minimum of BS 1

Example:
a Space Marine with a BS of 4 would normally hit on a 3+, the marine is shooting at
some orks that are partially obscured by terrain with a concealment of 1, in this case
light debris, the Marine is now shooting with an effective BS of 3 (4-1), he now requires a 4 to hit the orks

USR changes:
obscured gives concealment 1 in the open, +1 to concealment score of cover.
Stealth gives concealment (2) in the open, +2 to concealment score of cover.
Acute senses gives -1 to concealment scores of targets.
Nightvision negates any concealment gained exclusively from nightfighting.
Markerlight tokens can by used to reduce the penalty to BS caused by concealment.


Cover:

cover has a chance of stopping a shot altogether and can reduce the damage done by a shot that penetrates through.
all terrain has a cover value of between 6 to 3 (listed bellow)

cover saves are taken before armor saves, and any unsaved shots are applied with the modified S and AP of having passed through cover.
all cover saves failed on a roll of 1 are taken at full weapon S and AP, to represent the shot having found its mark without passing through any cover.

if the AP of the weapon is equal or lower than the cover value, the cover is not strong enough to stop the shots, roll cover saves, every shot that is successfully saved against still hits, but at the reduced S and AP, every failed cover saves against the shots are taken at full S and AP.

Cover 6+: -1S
Cover 5+: -1S -1AP
Cover 4+: -2S -1AP
Cover 3+: -2S -2AP

AP1 weapons are unaffected by cover.
AP2 weapons ignore cover 6+ and 5+, and treat cover 4+ and 3+ as cover 6+ and 5+ respectively.

terrain has both a concealment value and a cover value, represented as concealment/cover

cover types|concealment/cover
Smoke | 2/-
soft cover | 1/-
hard cover | 1/4+
Buildings | 2/5+
light ruins | 1/5+
heavy ruins | 2/4+
fortifications| 2/3+


I am pitching this to my friend for our next game, looking forward to see how this turns out.

*EDIT 2* tweaked the cover rule - weapon AP plays a bigger roll against cover

Sounds nice.

We're also trying this rule out next time... I'm excited!

Multiple Saves rule:
a model is entitled to all its save in the following order
Cover> Invulnerable> Armor> Feel-no-Pain

all weapon USR apply, so, a model getting hit with an AP2 weapon that ignores cover and causes instant death would only be allowed its Invulnerable save.
likewise, a terminator apothecary in cover getting shot at by las pistols would get a save of 5+/5++/2+/5+ fnp

Not sure how we can differentiate between these, but just some real world flavor to add in


In reality, getting cover from a frag grenade is pretty easy. The shrapnel doesn't bounce around at all, so if you have a wall/rock/anything not paper thin between you and the frag you will be totally fine.

What you would use in that situation is something concussive. Unfortunately I have no idea what would fall into that category, or how useful that is haha.


I don't know how useful that is, but at least it's interesting information

Most war games count the concussive blast of the grenade as well as the shrapnel from it, to give a 'Blast' effective area.
So the Blast Templates are a reasonable resolution method.IMO.

(Some warheads are designed to kill with concussive forces, like HESH rounds.)
Not to mention the devastating effect on infantry an 'air burst' barrage does..