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'm alittle tired so this might be idiotic, but I prefer the "in addition to" saves of the advanced rules. However i think they do make for nasty situations (ala Terminators) so i have tried to think of a way to balance things. Its simple, so only a brief explanation is needed.

Targets in Cover: When a unit fires, the number of hits show how many where able to fire successfully in the vacinity of the Target. When such a target is within cover, there is a risk even these shots might strike a wall or other item.

All successful hits are re-rolled, needing a roll of 6 minus the cover value to actually strike the target.

Examples for comparison...10 Tau firing at Space Marines in 4+ cover. 

Current = 5 hit, 3.4 wound, 1.1 Kill.

Advanced 40k = 5 hit, 3.4 wound, 1.7 after cover saves, 0.6 Kills.

My way = 5 hit, 4.2 pass cover, 2.7 wound, 0.9 dead.

Theres only a 0.2 discrepancy between the current and my way changes, while advanced gives a rather large 0.5 shift.

Personally for me the problem is not the actual cover save, but the fact its taken as a cover save AFTER wounds when in reality shots would not wound first, then bounce off cover. Instead i've tried to factor cover into the number of shots fired at a squad, before wounds....resulting in a small, but valuable reduction in Kills.

The 6 rather than 7 is just to make cover useful while not being a key game factor, even though it negates 5+ cover (using a basic 7- to allow 5+ saves would result in a 0.7-8 result.).

Anyway, something to ponder over.

To make all cover useful we can shift cover values.

Forests = 4
Buildings = 3
Fortified locations = 2

Fences and other silly things won't stop a 20th century bullet, never mind a charged pulse shot or HE tipped bolters, only count for terrain not cover.

AC (anti-Cover for simplicity) is a label given to certain weapons. Such weapons fire as if cover was not present. These can include flamers, weapons whose strength is 4 or more points higher than their AP value (punch right through the cover) etc.

Personally for me the problem is not the actual cover save, but the fact its taken as a cover save AFTER wounds when in reality shots would not wound first, then bounce off cover. Instead i've tried to factor cover into the number of shots fired at a squad, before wounds....resulting in a small, but valuable reduction in Kills.

Kills = Shots x Hits x Wounds x (1-Saves)

Now under normal circumstances it doesn't matter whether to wound or saves are rolled first.

1/2 x 1/3 = 1/3 x 1/2

What I think the main problem is, cover saves are not really realistic or indicative of how things would really work.

Marines in 5+ cover still only get a 3+ save. Now what should happen is they should get a 5+ cover save if the Ap is 6 then a 3+ armour save. This takes into account the type of cover and weapons Ap but also makes going into cover a better tactic against lower Ap weaponry.