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.

Hi Mellisa.
I thought the proposal was cover altered the chance to see-hit the target?
And if the attacker scored a sucessful hit the target takes thier saves as normal.

Abstracting cover into an alternative to physical protection is where it goes all wonky.IMO.
So adding cover as a modifier to saves is just as bad if not worse!

Aparently GW wanted to stop SMs skulking about behind cover as it wasnt very fluffy.
So rather than add a special rule like 'ATSKNF'.
EG 'Faith is thier armour', SM will NEVER use cover , as they have total faith in the emperor to guide and protect them.
(Which is easier to belive when you are behind 6" of ceramite armour acording to the IG. )

GW messsed up the whole cover save mecnanic instead.

TTFN

Anything beyond "chose a save and roll for it" is considered too complicated for this game and slows it down.

"but what if we add a modifier if you fail-------" let me stop you right there. too complicated.

Why, do SM really need to be made even better.

No, I don't think there's any change necessary. A toning down of how easy it is to get cover saves, at the most, but that has less to do with cover versus armor and more to do with easy to get cover saves.

Hi mr smith.
I find it quite amusing that GW are supposed to be 'removing complication in the 40k rule set'.
When each edition they are adding more complication in the form of adiitional rules to acomodate the restriction caused by thier own 'simplification'.

If we had an M stat and a simple set of modifiers (as used in WHFB to go with the WHFB game mechanics STILL being used in 40k,) then it would be more intuitive and resquire less USRs and special rules, and therfore be a less complicated rule set than 5th ed 40k is.

And if GW decided to use EA as a basis for the 40k rule set instead of WHFB. we would have far more gameplay and far less complication that currently found in 5th ed 40k.

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

What do you mean by "EA"?

I really think you should be able to take everyy save you have

TNM wrote: I really think you should be able to take everyy save you have

So you want the metagame to devolve into two sides spamming THSS termies hiding behind bushes?

TNM wrote: I really think you should be able to take everyy save you have

i bet it would be really hard to rebalance everything using only 6sided dice though.

Lanrak wrote:Hi mr smith.
I find it quite amusing that GW are supposed to be 'removing complication in the 40k rule set'.
When each edition they are adding more complication in the form of adiitional rules to acomodate the restriction caused by thier own 'simplification'.

If we had an M stat and a simple set of modifiers (as used in WHFB to go with the WHFB game mechanics STILL being used in 40k,) then it would be more intuitive and resquire less USRs and special rules, and therfore be a less complicated rule set than 5th ed 40k is.

And if GW decided to use EA as a basis for the 40k rule set instead of WHFB. we would have far more gameplay and far less complication that currently found in 5th ed 40k.

Happy Gaming
Lanrak.

You know, this seems to make sense until you try to write your own rules, and then you reach a full appreciation of exactly how awesome GW's rules are.

Personally, I like the Necromunda style of rules, but hey, you can't have everything.

They really just need to organize those rules in the rulebook better. its a pain to hunt specific rules in that thing.

Simple answer is balance.

Also your ment to use the best possible save. Which means if your using a cover save, and the weapon is passing that cover save, its passing your armour too.

I dont know how it should be changed, but i am NOT a big fan of the cover rules, invulnerable saves and FNP i dont mind however.

Here is an example situation that i hate:
A bunch of marines in cover get shot by lascannons, and they all duck, and claim cover saves.
Then when they get shot by lasguns, all the lasgun shots miraculously ignore the cover and ALL just hit the power armor.
Yeah, that makes lots of sense.

Hi all.
E.A. is an abreviation of Epic Armageddon , the straighforward rule set for mass battle games in the 41st millenium by Games Workshop.
It has HUGE amounts of tatical game play and a fraction of the rules count of 40k.

Basing 40k on E.A. would allow MORE detail to be used, and still end up with less pages of rules than the current 5th ed.
(Why any one belives using napoleinic game mechanics from the late 1970 for 40k is a good idea is beyond me. )

Mustela.
Necromundis is based on 2nd ed 40k- which was a skirmish game.So perfect chioce for a skirmish game like Necromundia and Mordhiem.
5th ed 40k is a battle game all about unit interactions...
SO using a 'battle game' rule set like E.A. or E.SM to base the rules on makes far more sense.

I have written a rough draught of a new rule set ,using more modern game mechanics .
It covers the basic game play of 40k , but adds a intergrated supression mechanic and command and control . Also there is far more detail covered by the core rules because there are not any special rules , just special abilities!
And its is currently 14 pages of written rules.(Its still under development...its just a part time hobby of mine after all .)

Eg in my rule set all units have a 'Stealth value' the attacker has to roll over the Stealth value of the targeted unit.(Replaced the roll to hit.)
(The higher tha stealth value the harder the unit is to see on the battle field,)

Cover adds 1 to the Stealth value of a unit .
Prepared positions adds 2 to the Stealth value of a unit.

This just makes the units in cover-prepard positions harder to see-hit.
It is an abstraction of reduction in visual arcs and sillouhette(sp) to arrive at a simple 1 or 2 modifier to a abstract value representative of basic battle field cognisance.

It doesnt abstract the interaction between the units to a fixed set of chances for sucess , for the defender to chose from...

TTFN