stupid covers

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.

**TopC**

FlingitNow wrote:Here's my two pence on the issue.

I think TopC's reasoning is good but there are situations where simply having an enemy you are not aiming at in the way would put you off and make you miss both or no waste you ammo if you've a high powered weapon. So how about this:

Unit YYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
unit XXXXXXXXXXXX

Firer AAAAAAAAA

A fires at Y. Why gets a cover save. Any sucessful coversaves are transfered to X. X automatically receives a cover save from not being the intended target all other normal saves apply to X.

How about that as a compromise? Workable not really anymore complicated than TopC alerady proposed method. Whilst making meat shield units actual meat shields rather than moving forcefields as they currently are.

Tough I still see the cover save system as inherrently flawed due to the Lasgun can always blow up a tree but lascannon can't space marine conudrum. (I'll have a cover save please Carole)

i likes

Kroot Loops wrote:you're taking an overly simplistic view of it however.

enemy squad AAAAAAA

Enemy Squad BBBBBBBB

Ally Screen XXXXXXXX

Sniper Drone YYYY

So Y fires at A. To make things good and complicated, we'll say three wounds are scored. one is failed by A, and the other two are saved by cover

So here's the issues:
This means one wound each should go to X and B.

Using TopC's argument, the wound to x would be ignored. B would take a wound (AP 3, and their cover save was bypassed by virtue of A failing theirs.)

Now what? Both A and B have to take pinning tests from one squad.

Ork Squad AAAAAAAAA

Ork Squad BBBBBBBBB

firing Squad XXXXXXXX

Firing Squad YYYYYYYY

If squad X rapid fired on Squad B, they'd kill 16 orks. If they rapid fired on squad A, they'd still kill 16 orks, 8 from each squad.

If Squad Y fired on Squad B, they'd kill 4 orks. If Squad Y fired on Squad A, they'd kill 6 orks. 4 wounds are saved in either case, but against squad B all four hits would be negated by Squad X, but against A half of those wounds would shift to B, who don't get a cover save from X because it's been allocated from A.

Clearly this is a broken system

I would use previous one i listed... if firing through own squad enemy does get a cover save, but due to you firing through your own squad it is no longer you hitting enemy models, it is you were afraid of hitting your own guys so you held your fire.

**rocklord2004**

If you are trying to get realism/fluff in there. What about shooting through your own models when your using an army that doesn't care if its own troops survive?