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.

If cover saves represent not hitting your target, does it not frustrate you that a lasgun is just as accurate night or day, whilst the lascannon and its ilk become more innacurate at night?
And I mean this to be a general discussion not a proposed rule, but wouldn't it make more sense to have a futher save against any shot, at a 4+ or 5+, much like fnp without being negated by ID weapons? Rather than shrouded and stealth?

How is a lasgun just as accurate at night? Further than 12" it gets the same +1 to cover saves as any other weapon. Or am I missing something?

Darkness, like mist, smoke, or fog, makes it harder to see the farther away you get. In fog or rain, a handgun is hardly going to be impacted at all, since it's general effective range is pretty short, and the weather isn't going to shorten it a whole lot more. Something that hampers your vision would impact a hunting rifle quite a bit more, at least I'd think it would.

The Night Fighting rules seem pretty intuitive to me. There are several aspects of 40k that remain confusing to me, or at least counter-intuitive, but the Night Fighting rules aren't among them.

Think about shooting at meq for instance... still get a 3+ save against a lasgun, nightfighting doesnt effect the accuracy of the shot. A lascannon however suddenly becomes less accurate as that meq model now gets a save to see if the shot missed. I know this is a problem with ALL types of cover save, but im talking about nightfighting rules in particular...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It all boils down to the problem that you can take an armour save OR cover save, not both. Being able to take both would 1.) Make more sense, 2) give a little shred of fairness back to assault based armies, 3) make people think more tactically and 4) result in more cinematic boards packed with scenery.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and cover would actually benefit teq and meq against small arms fire rather than just giving a benefit to everyone else but them.

Stacking such saves would make entrenched MEQ armies impossible to shift and make small arms fire (and even stuff like Autocannons) largely pointless. It would make more sense logically yes, but from a gameplay perspective, it just makes things too hard to kill.

Admittedly the nightfight rules are kinda weird, especially given that it's in every mission now, but half the time I see people play they forget about it or ignore it entirely

I forget about Night Fighting like, every time.

And imagine Hammernators in cover if you could stack saves.

Your problem really isn't that lascannons become less accurate than lasguns, it's just the way AP values interact with armor saves and the fact you only get your best save. The penalty is exactly the same for both guns it's just that armour overrides it. I agree that it isn't the best system. It is really too bad GW seems to have their heart set on not having modifiers in 40k, because the best solution would be for night fighting to give a -1 or -2 to your HIT roll, rather than give a save to models that might never see the benefit.

Maybe for 7th edition!

No, I tried playing back when terminators got all their saves. It doesn't bother me in the least that you can't take several saves.

 Cryogen wrote:
Your problem really isn't that lascannons become less accurate than lasguns, it's just the way AP values interact with armor saves and the fact you only get your best save. The penalty is exactly the same for both guns it's just that armour overrides it. I agree that it isn't the best system. It is really too bad GW seems to have their heart set on not having modifiers in 40k, because the best solution would be for night fighting to give a -1 or -2 to your HIT roll, rather than give a save to models that might never see the benefit.

Maybe for 7th edition!

I really liked the modifiers in second ed. They made total sense even if slowing down the game for those who struggled with taking away a single digit number from a single digit number. Plus it makes far more literal sense!

I concur Poly. Khorne terminators with a 2+ save on 2d6 was the bomb. Sounds rough to people who didn't play back then but there were weapons that imposed -7 saves. Its what made terminators fluffy and they didn't get invulnerable saves.

I think it should stack for armor as well regardless. I would like a bit more realism.