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.

So you could have 'hard to hit (5+)' or 'hard to hit (6+) and then apply it to cover. The number indicates the number you need to roll to hit with. A wall would be the 5+ variant whilst something more substantial would be the 6+. If those numbers are too harsh, maybe a 4+ and a 5+..

This would hugely help out those low model count armies whilst making things like 2+ saves as effective as they should be. This rule wouldn't apply to things like shrouding - it would only be used where physical cover is gained from terrain of some description.

Just for clarity, this rule would replace the current idea of cover saves granted by terrain and is designed to reduce the amount of incoming hits. Normal armour saves would then be required to save wounds.

Oops! I posted this in the wrong forum! Please move it mods!!!

Hmmmm, 2nd ed rules, -1 to hit for partial cover, -2 to hit for hard cover. And no such thing as cover saves back then.

Yeah but since GW don't seem to like BS modifiers per se I thought that this is the best way as with snap fire.

So make it the same for a grot at BS 2 and a character with BS 7 to hit a target just because it is in cover?

Well, a similar thing happens now with snap shots - they don't hurt orks as much as marines. And besides, I did suggest that the rule could require a player to hit on a six...