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 playing a small skirmish this evening and got into a discussion of how stupid the current save rules are.

The current rules state you only ever get one save, the best one available to you, now I do understand from the perspective of say a Tyrannid or IG player playing Marines getting into cover gives a save when you would not normally get one it just makes no logical sense from a real world perspective (and yes I understand the irony of saying that about a fantasy sci-fi game )

If a SM Captain is stood in a bunker and a hail of lasgun fire comes in he would currently just get his 3+ but if you are 'forging a narrative' the shots would have to pass - the wall, his Halo force field then his armour if they made it through everything. While I understand stacking 3 saves in a cityfight game could increase the length by quite a bit the fact is it makes no sense to not have cover then armour as your rolls. It would certainly alter games run for the cover when it begins and would to me make it feel more like a real fight going on.

We played a game like this tonight and while it slowed down the rolling process a little it did make the game more interesting, both pushing to take over the bunker in the middle, both working to get units on the flanks to get behind the cover, I really liked the way it played. I think it will be a house rule from now on.

Anyway, just wanted to vent!

I kind of wished Cover worked like it did in fantasy, where it subtracts from the BS value of enemy ranged units. I realized it'd get kind of messy on the tabletop, but IMHO cover should do what it does in real life: Make you less likely to get hit. Not make it so you're magically not taking damage.

Bringing that over into 40k would be cool if difficult to implement without totally skewing game balance. Not that there's much balance left, mind you.

It does make more sense that you would receive a penalty to your BS than a almost impenetrable suit of armour from a very leafy dense tree.

 SRSFACE wrote:
I kind of wished Cover worked like it did in fantasy, where it subtracts from the BS value of enemy ranged units. I realized it'd get kind of messy on the tabletop, but IMHO cover should do what it does in real life: Make you less likely to get hit. Not make it so you're magically not taking damage.

Bringing that over into 40k would be cool if difficult to implement without totally skewing game balance. Not that there's much balance left, mind you.

This is exactly what we are doing. Works well.

Orks have less issues with cover than others because of this and we still need to work it out with snap shots currently (As it makes Evading useless for flyers), but otherwise it is good.

Might try the subtracting from BS in the next game.

Here is how we do it:

6+ = no modifier

5+/4+ = -1 BS

3+/2+ = -2 BS

1+ or better (Say, by having stealth and shrouded in a bunker) = -3 BS

I don't think Cover, Invul and Armour would be balanced and would probably slow down the game (I have some models in my army I that have Stealth, Shrouded a 3+ and an option for a 4++, meaning that to land a wound you'd need to roll 3 times) but I do think that Cover Saves should be done versus hits, with the armour/invul save against the wound itself.

Jefffar wrote:
I don't think Cover, Invul and Armour would be balanced and would probably slow down the game (I have some models in my army I that have Stealth, Shrouded a 3+ and an option for a 4++, meaning that to land a wound you'd need to roll 3 times) but I do think that Cover Saves should be done versus hits, with the armour/invul save against the wound itself.

This is probably the best compromise.

Subtracting BS is possible, but due to the low BS of some units (orks), they wouldn't be able to shoot.

Orks would still get BS1.

On the contrary, they would be less affected than other races.

If you count jink saves out then I think this would be a decent idea.

Jefffar wrote:
I don't think Cover, Invul and Armour would be balanced and would probably slow down the game (I have some models in my army I that have Stealth, Shrouded a 3+ and an option for a 4++, meaning that to land a wound you'd need to roll 3 times) but I do think that Cover Saves should be done versus hits, with the armour/invul save against the wound itself.

Genuinely love this idea.

I have a few ideas to try at the next game but this looks like it could be my new house rule.

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:
Orks would still get BS1.

On the contrary, they would be less affected than other races.

Or we could do like fantasy, were it is 6's followed by 4's.