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 recently got back in to 40K the last time I played was 2nd edition. One rule change that really has bothered me is the way cover is used. In 2nd edition it was a modifier on the to hit roll instead of a saving throw. The problem with the saving throw is it only effects weapons with high AP. This seems backwards to me.

What if there were 2 types of cover.

1. Soft cover - (ruins) this would give the shooter a -1BS. So a SM shooting at a squad of Orks in some ruins would have a modified BS of 3.

2. Hard cover - (Fortifications) this would give the shooter a -2BS.

The BS could never be modified below a 1.

Trees and plant life would not modify at all as they are only concealment meaning you can hide behind it and prevent LOS but a tree is not going to stop a bolter round.

I also think this would better balance the game between shooty and assault armies.

What do you think?

They use these modifiers in fantasy. Honestly its more realistic to have cover reduce the chances of getting hit, however, such a method favors armies that already have lower BS over high BS armies.


To make it accurate it would be as you say, however the piece of cover would have to slowly degrade and weaken the more dmg it stops. i.e. For every 2-3 shots that i miss because of the cover, the cover itself looses a wound until it is gone completely.

This increases game length and complexity alot, and thus isnt used.

speaking of cover, would it be better to have cover saves and THEN armor saves? cover save= bullets pinging off ruin walls. armor saves= bullets pinging off armor??

 raiden wrote:
speaking of cover, would it be better to have cover saves and THEN armor saves? cover save= bullets pinging off ruin walls. armor saves= bullets pinging off armor??

It would not be better and I will use the same example as everyone else who has answered why. Assault terminators. Assume they are partially hidden, that's a 5+ cover save, followed by a 2+ armour save, followed by a 5+ invul save. Not cool. I admit what we have now isn't realistic, but in an age of space robots and giant green fungus monsters sometimes realism will suffer.

I wasn't suggesting to make the game in to an all out simulation with degrading cover. You could just as easily say the shooter missed just because he was shooting at a smaller target. I do see how lower bs armies would be penalized less but as it is armies with power armor have no reason to hide behind cover unless being shot at with heavy weapons, this gives the advantage to armies that wear less armor.

It is difficult to balance. Either heavily armoured troops gain little benefit from cover, or they become far too tough when they actually are in cover, or high BS armies are penalized.

GW's choice is as good as any other, it is down to situations.

 ALEXisAWESOME wrote:

 raiden wrote:
speaking of cover, would it be better to have cover saves and THEN armor saves? cover save= bullets pinging off ruin walls. armor saves= bullets pinging off armor??

It would not be better and I will use the same example as everyone else who has answered why. Assault terminators. Assume they are partially hidden, that's a 5+ cover save, followed by a 2+ armour save, followed by a 5+ invul save. Not cool. I admit what we have now isn't realistic, but in an age of space robots and giant green fungus monsters sometimes realism will suffer.

I gotta agree with this. I hate the cover system but giving dudes a routine 3-4 different saves will slow the game down heaps.

Would probably work fine in skirmish scale variations of the game.

Also, in response to OP's "a plant won't stop a bolter round" man honestly thats some naive gak right there =/ Making someone unaware or uncertain of your location is a fantastic way to avoid being shot by them.

I admit cover can be annoying when you are playing an elite any and your opponent makes all his saves on a 4 up or even 5 up when otherwise they would have just died. Maybe cover could reduce the strength of the weapon or negate or take off wounds like in Dust Warfare? Or just decrease the cover saves. To many things get the stealth or shrouded special rule sometimes both! Also going to ground in area terrain grants +2 to the cover, damn heck yeah reduce the cover saves.

+1 to most cover, +2 to area terrain only.

And no way, cover saves are one of the few tactical elements left in the game. Your elite infantry get to be tough as nails in the open, so don't complain when my crappy infantry can be resilient hiding behind heavy fortifications

no no I mean only stack the cover not the invuln. 5+ cover then the 2+ armor only. unless there is a FnP involved.

The way The Hobbit does it is an In The Way roll for every object between the shooter and the target, except like a wall the shooter is hiding behind etc.

Well fortifications is another story and aegis defense lines are cool, I am mainly talking about how there is so much terrain that grants cover in a game, forests and ruins are the two most used pieces in the games I play in. And its stupid to take them out then the table looks crappy. Its just it seems cover saves are such a big deal in this game. If you use preset terrain and roll off for sides and both tables were set up to be even but then deployment type changes it when the one person picks the corner with a ruin and the other guy gets forests and boulders its a game changer.

I play Eldar and Marines and my Eldar live off cover, but I still think its to strong of a game aspect.