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.

Does anyone else use different cover rules for casual play / house rules?

Having not played the game since 2nd edition, I'm really impressed with how streamlined the rules are. However one of the things that I just can't take seriously is that a cover save can't be taken in addition to of an armour save. It just defies all common sense! After all a space marine firing from behind a 5 foot wall is indeed harder to hit (and therefore to kill) with a lasgun, than one standing in the open, right? I'm aware that this mechanic was introduced as a balancing mechaic for light infantry, but I'm amazed that in 4 subsequent editions no attmept has been made to implement something slightly more logical. 2nd edition was about as sane as a Khorne berserker - assault cannons were 9 shot rocket launchers, and a single close combat phase could take an hourto work out, - but I think it handled cover better.

I know what a lot of you are thinking: I shouldn't be concerning myself with realism in what is a very unrealistic universe. I'm just looking to tweak this one rule for the purposes of casual games amongst my group, because its somethign that really bugs us! I realise that allowing both a cover and armour save woudl throw points values, diminshing the value of light troops and improving heavy infantry.. so was wondering has anyone comw up with any "balanced" cover system that they don't mind sharing.

Thanks

We use

6+ cover = no penalty
5+/4+ = -1 BS
3+/2+ = -2 BS
1+ or more = -3 BS

Works mostly well. Blasts become too strong, though. Working on that.

 Ashiraya wrote:
We use

6+ cover = no penalty
5+/4+ = -1 BS
3+/2+ = -2 BS
1+ or more = -3 BS

Works mostly well. Blasts become too strong, though. Working on that.

Thanks for posting, that's good and simple too boot , nor would it slow the game down much.

From playtesting, did you find that those rules reduced the overall game performance of lightly armoured troops? My logic being that clearly part of their points value of guard, orks, nids, etc is that with the 40k rules they beneift from cover far more than marines do, wheras with the kind of rules me or you are proposing, they lose that particular advantage over marines, as everyone will benefit equelly from coveer. Which is as it should be, but means i might need to reduce points values for anything with light armour 5+ or 6+. What do you think?

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
We use

6+ cover = no penalty
5+/4+ = -1 BS
3+/2+ = -2 BS
1+ or more = -3 BS

Works mostly well. Blasts become too strong, though. Working on that.

Thanks for posting, that's good and simple too boot , nor would it slow the game down much.

From playtesting, did you find that those rules reduced the overall game performance of lightly armoured troops? My logic being that clearly part of their points value of guard, orks, nids, etc is that with the 40k rules they beneift from cover far more than marines do, wheras with the kind of rules me or you are proposing, they lose that particular advantage over marines, as everyone will benefit equelly from coveer. Which is as it should be, but means i might need to reduce points values for anything with light armour 5+ or 6+. What do you think?

The majority of lightly armoured troops in our battles are Orks, and they actually benefit somewhat from these rules. They can never have their BS reduced below 1, meaning that cover better than 4+ becomes 4+ against their shots. It works well against most weapons, but as said, blasts slaughter them far too quickly. What do you say, how should cover affect blasts in this case?

Blast are supposed to be good against cover, one of the reasons grenades exist. I am trying to get a hom rule going that if a cover save can go to one up the unit cannot be targeted.

 The Home Nuggeteer wrote:
Blast are supposed to be good against cover, one of the reasons grenades exist. I am trying to get a hom rule going that if a cover save can go to one up the unit cannot be targeted.

Yay for invincible Pathfinders in a bunker?

We just take cover saves in addition to armour saves.

OP- What you're saying makes logical sense, but I have trouble remembering all the rules as they are. Adding house rules makes it even harder.

 Random Dude wrote:
OP- What you're saying makes logical sense, but I have trouble remembering all the rules as they are. Adding house rules makes it even harder.

I hear you. Though having read through the 7th ed rulebooks, its a real treat compared to 2nd edition. I kid you not, you needed a degree in wargaming to play 2nd ed! That, or a very good memory. Every vehicle had a profile with up to 10 or 12 different armour values depending on where it was hit, and had unique damage charts. Individual weapons had hit modifiers at long and short range, and armour penetration for vehicles involved every manner of dice known to man! It was fun, but it was messier than a Chaos stag party!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:
We just take cover saves in addition to armour saves.

That might be the best option, as its the one which conflicts the least with other game mechanics like blast and scatter. Thanks


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:


The majority of lightly armoured troops in our battles are Orks, and they actually benefit somewhat from these rules. They can never have their BS reduced below 1, meaning that cover better than 4+ becomes 4+ against their shots. It works well against most weapons, but as said, blasts slaughter them far too quickly. What do you say, how should cover affect blasts in this case?

Ok well that's somwhat reassuring about the orks. I think I'l playtest with higher bs values say guards and aspect warriors pitched aginst marine, in various cover. a bit of a number crunching exercise, to see how it effects them.

Re: Blast wepons, I see what you mean: Even if you applied your proposed BS modifiers effecting scatter, this will be far outweighed by the lack of a cover save on models that end up under the remplate. Yeah that's a tough one.

I came up with this along the same principles of what you suggested for regular shooting:
1)Place the blast marker and toll scatter dice as per the original rules
2 Roll a D6 to hit each model under the template. The following rolls is needed to hit, based on cover.
No cover or razor wire (auto hits-no need to roll) My logic is that this cover is too sparse to block a signifcant amount of flying shrapnel or concussive force.
Forests /hedges / area terrain 3+ to hit
Walls / trenches 4+ to hit
Fortifications 5+ to hit

I realise this is a bit messy, implementing a roll like this just for blasts, but it plugs the gap so to speak. Also i came up with those numbers pretty quickly. They're probably too favourable to the target...

To keep it simple we just add a -1 to Hit for any target in cover.

Why not combine what you've done with cover saves?

Non-blasts - reduce bs.
Blasts - additional save.

Additional save should be a bit tamed to be 5+ at best.

However, note that it will make games much less ballanced. Cause the value of ignore cover weapons will SIGNIFICANTLY increase. They're allready too good.

I like +1 cover for every normal thing cover would give. down to 2 or 3. These days i play normal rules, but I enjoy my guys who sit behind all the other units getting additional cover saves.

I think that the problem with realism is that there are too many variables to make a straightforward game, i mean if cover were realistic, we would have to measure what percentage of the model is obscured, what percentage of the unit is even visible, the material of the building/species of plant the defenders are hiding behind, ability of the marksman, reflexes of the defenders, strength of the weapon, resilience of the armour and what actually happens to the terrain once it's hit by too many stray explosive-tipped bolter shells.

So in short, i find that cover (if made more realistic) would just cause be a little overpowered and cause an overflow of ignores cover weapons into the meta and assault (a big part of all my armies) will fail to be of any use when the big scary marksmen units are all i cover tearing the close combat specialists running towards them in the open apart with lead and plasma.

 koooaei wrote:
Why not combine what you've done with cover saves?

Non-blasts - reduce bs.
Blasts - additional save.

Additional save should be a bit tamed to be 5+ at best.

However, note that it will make games much less ballanced. Cause the value of ignore cover weapons will SIGNIFICANTLY increase. They're allready too good.

Yes that woud be an alternative option, as its clear the "BS penalty" system doesn't work with blasts. I'd be wary of limitng the cover save to 5+ max though. The poor guardsmen would suffer. But I see your point. Allow full cover saves for blasts in addition to armour saves would make marines very powerful and terminators would be laughing at battle cannon shots. I'll need to playtest a few of these options.


The other option which Lord Blackfang put forward is to just plain allow cover saves in addition to armour saves, but I've crunched numbers with it - its far too favourable to heavy infantry.

 thegreatchimp wrote:

The other option which Lord Blackfang put forward is to just plain allow cover saves in addition to armour saves, but I've crunched numbers with it - its far too favourable to heavy infantry.

That's a good thing!

BS penalties rub me the wrong way as they affect different armies differently. -1 BS on Eldar will hardly be felt while -1 BS on Orks cuts their firepower in half.

 blood guard26 wrote:
I think that the problem with realism is that there are too many variables to make a straightforward game, i mean if cover were realistic, we would have to measure what percentage of the model is obscured, what percentage of the unit is even visible, the material of the building/species of plant the defenders are hiding behind, ability of the marksman, reflexes of the defenders, strength of the weapon, resilience of the armour and what actually happens to the terrain once it's hit by too many stray explosive-tipped bolter shells.

So in short, i find that cover (if made more realistic) would just cause be a little overpowered and cause an overflow of ignores cover weapons into the meta and assault (a big part of all my armies) will fail to be of any use when the big scary marksmen units are all i cover tearing the close combat specialists running towards them in the open apart with lead and plasma.

I know, I share the same concerns, and am wary of introducing anythinhg overly complicated, or majorly game altering. Trying to come up with something that works is proving to be a headache -maybe thats why GW did away with it all in 3rd ed!

Cover was well represented in 2nd edition. -1 penalty to hit for light cover, -2 to hit roll for hard cover, -1 for fast moving target. slightyl countered by bonuses like +1 for for shooting at large targe. But the cover penalties were needed in addiion to armour saves because armour in 2nd editon was generally crappier (with the exception of TDA) due to almost every weapon, including a humble lasgun, having an armour save modifier of at least -1.That meant power armour only saved on a 4+ vs a lasgun, instead of a 3+.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:

The other option which Lord Blackfang put forward is to just plain allow cover saves in addition to armour saves, but I've crunched numbers with it - its far too favourable to heavy infantry.

That's a good thing!

BS penalties rub me the wrong way as they affect different armies differently. -1 BS on Eldar will hardly be felt while -1 BS on Orks cuts their firepower in half.

Fair point, hadn't considered that. mathamatic. a 5+ to hit being reduced to a 6+ is a much bigger penalty than a 3+ being reduced to a 4+.

This is one of those things that I love about Fantasy more than 40k. First off, Ward saves (Invulns) can be taken after your armor save. Like, actually using a magical shield to deflect stuff. And, the cover rules. Hi, I'm Longstrike. Oh, you're 60" away in a ruin at night with models in the way? I'm hitting on a 2+ ignoring all of your saves. Suck it. Yeah no, in Fantasy you get penalties to hit based on NUMEROUS factors, and it makes perfect since. I wish 40k were more like that.

An observation on this: One thing I've realised is that certain units, typically, marines or aspect warriosin the tabletop game are "toned down" so as a practical and enjoyable tabletop game can be played. If they were as powerful in the game as they're portrayed in the novels, backstory and fluff, then they'd have a statline that'd make them 80-100 points each, and armies of more basic troops like guard would need to consist of 7-10 times as many figures. So I suppose GW limiting certain advatages such as cover benefits to heavy infantry / armoured elite troops, was an attempt at balancing. I'm not a game designer, but I'm guessing if they could takefull advantage of cover as I'm suggesting then the realistic points value of an MEQ could be as much as doubled...

Why not just let cover make units harder to hit ?
Eg soft cover -1 to hit, hard cover -2 to hit.

Blast/chemical weapons ignore soft cover, and count hard cover as soft cover.

This way you do not meed to muck about with separate cover saves.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:

The other option which Lord Blackfang put forward is to just plain allow cover saves in addition to armour saves, but I've crunched numbers with it - its far too favourable to heavy infantry.

That's a good thing!

BS penalties rub me the wrong way as they affect different armies differently. -1 BS on Eldar will hardly be felt while -1 BS on Orks cuts their firepower in half.

On the other hand, -3 BS affects Eldar heavily whereas it is much less problematic for Orks.

Lanrak wrote:
Why not just let cover make units harder to hit ?
Eg soft cover -1 to hit, hard cover -2 to hit.

Blast/chemical weapons ignore soft cover, and count hard cover as soft cover.

This way you do not meed to muck about with separate cover saves.

OK. Just thinking outside of the box here, I'm wary of giving blast weapons an advantage, but a -1 or -2 penalty to BS translates as an extra 1" or 2" average scatter distance. I wonder would that be a sufficient penalty? Maybe.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ashiraya wrote:

 lord_blackfang wrote:

 thegreatchimp wrote:



On the other hand, -3 BS affects Eldar heavily whereas it is much less problematic for Orks.

Yes, assuming a 6 always hits, regardless of the penalty, the orks might actually relish this rule.

Lanrak wrote:
Why not just let cover make units harder to hit ?
Eg soft cover -1 to hit, hard cover -2 to hit.

Blast/chemical weapons ignore soft cover, and count hard cover as soft cover.

This way you do not meed to muck about with separate cover saves.

I prefer this solution, just because it's that much simpler. Trees, high grass, water, etc. are -1. Ruins, rocks, buildings, etc. are -2. Less confusion over what is what. Building fortifications can stay as is either with defense lines conferring a -2 or working like immobile transports.

Blast weapons are often more effective in enclosed spaces as the concussive pressure is focused in a tighter space, and a blast weapon firing at troops in light cover isn't going to be much affected.

Stealth/Camo: provide an additional -1 to hit. Cumulative with any other benefits. Effect cannot reduce BS below 1.

Shrouded: units cannot be targeted when more than 24" away.

This whole topic is basically an argument for To Hit modifiers to be reintroduced- a measure I would be strongly in favour of. But it does go both ways- if you're going to have cover give penalties to hit than you should also look at things which positively affect shooting, such as targeters, remaining stationary or the size of the target. It'd also be a neat way to diversify weapons too beyond the STR/AP chart. It may well be worth taking a less powerful weapon if it hits more often. Likewise powerful weapons may be rendered less accurate to the point they're not worth deploying against cover.

All that said, there's no need for 100% realism but the current set up is terrible. It would lead us to believe the opening battles of the Heresy were largely devoid of cover, with marines just standing around in the open firing bolters at one another because until a plasma or melta shows up cover apparently is of no use.

I do like the idea of taking Cover in addition to Save (Invun still being and either/or choice) as a mechanic, the problem is that point costs have been based on that very much not being the case. I'm not sure what sort of proportionate increase would be required to reflect the increased survivability of heavier infantry.

Termi vs Bolter was 1/6 chance of wound, even in cover. That would become 1/9 chance of unsaved wound, I think.

Termi vs Lascannon was 4/6 chance of unsaved wound in cover before. Would become 4/9 chance.

 Kojiro wrote:
This whole topic is basically an argument for To Hit modifiers to be reintroduced- a measure I would be strongly in favour of. But it does go both ways- if you're going to have cover give penalties to hit than you should also look at things which positively affect shooting, such as targeters, remaining stationary or the size of the target. It'd also be a neat way to diversify weapons too beyond the STR/AP chart. It may well be worth taking a less powerful weapon if it hits more often. Likewise powerful weapons may be rendered less accurate to the point they're not worth deploying against cover.

All that said, there's no need for 100% realism but the current set up is terrible. It would lead us to believe the opening battles of the Heresy were largely devoid of cover, with marines just standing around in the open firing bolters at one another because until a plasma or melta shows up cover apparently is of no use.

I strongly agree with this, if there is to be a change it should have positives and negatives, but I warn that once again, don't try to make these positives too realistic, because after all, a space marine in the fluff shouldn't be affected by night fighting as they can see in the UV spectrum and have night vision even without helmets , shouldn't suffer difficult terrain and should have the relentless special rule simply because of the sheer weight and power of their armour, should have +1 BS because of their helmet targeters and a lot more, the same principle applies to the tau...

In short, once again if we are to make any changes to cover, it must be in moderation, unless you guys like the sound of an 80 point tactical marine and invincible pathfinders.

~~edit, grammar and typos~~

[quote=Kojiro 606078 7044429 04a9b15e4d738b58d157b3b9aed34ef6.png

All that said, there's no need for 100% realism but the current set up is terrible. It would lead us to believe the opening battles of the Heresy were largely devoid of cover, with marines just standing around in the open firing bolters at one another because until a plasma or melta shows up cover apparently is of no use.

 Ashiraya wrote:
We use

6+ cover = no penalty
5+/4+ = -1 BS
3+/2+ = -2 BS
1+ or more = -3 BS

Works mostly well. Blasts become too strong, though. Working on that.

this is brilliant although I wouldnt go as far as a -3 to BS, its taken straight from the 2nd edition rule book and I always thought it was a shame that they replaced this with cover saves.

I'd like to see the variety of saves made more distinct, and some sort of distinction made between "being hard to see" and "being behind something protective".

Cover would remain a type of save, and it would represent being behind something protective, like a rock, wall, etc.

Concealment would be for things like Night Fighting, smoke grenades, etc, and it would be a penalty to BS (so it would also work to increase scatter distances).

Of course, I'd like to have types of saves, and allow ALL of them to be used. That might take a while, but a Chaplain with a Rosarius and bionics behind a stone wall should be harder to injure than a marine out in the open. I would have:

Armor Saves: reduced by AP

Cover Saves: granted by actual terrain/fortification features, only ignored by Ignores Cover/template weapons

Dodge saves: such as Jink. Only ignored by being completely covered by a template (blast/flame template/large blast/etc.) If your base isn't entirely covered by the template, you can try to dodge it!

Power Field Saves: Invulnerable save only ignored by special weapons which ignore Power/Force Fields. Things like Storm Shields.

I would take all of those BEFORE rolling to wound, except Armor Saves (since that would allow the 'armor piercing' on a 6 weapons to work). That might reduce some dice rolling, since you wouldn't need to roll to wound, then find out the rock wall stopped it before it hit you. This wouldn't be required, but it might interrupt some long dice rolling.

Then, Feel No Pain would be taken afterwards.

This could lead to some ridiculous rolling, if you had, say, an Dark Eldar with a Pain Token, a Dodge and a Shadow Field behind a rock at night, being shot at with a lasgun. There would be a penalty to hit, then if you hit, there would be a roll for the cover, the dodge, and the force field, then a roll to wound, then the armor save, then the Feel No Pain. That would take forever, but it would make Close combat (where Concealment and Cover are ignored) a bit more useful in the game, and it would make positioning and terrain more important again as well. I think both of those would be worth it. Who shoots at a Dark Eldar Wych in cover at night and hits them anyway? You could also reduce some of the saves, since they would be working in concert, rather than functioning independently.

Imagine shooting at hammernators in a bunker at night.

Da Butcha wrote:
I'd like to see the variety of saves made more distinct, and some sort of distinction made between "being hard to see" and "being behind something protective".

Cover would remain a type of save, and it would represent being behind something protective, like a rock, wall, etc.

Concealment would be for things like Night Fighting, smoke grenades, etc, and it would be a penalty to BS (so it would also work to increase scatter distances).

Differentiating between shots missing because of obscurement and striking physical barriers would add a good feel to the game, but require an impressive amount of rules and points changing. the other problem I se is that there are so many defensive rolls there -I can see a terminator chaplain in a bunker soaking up the fire of an entire guard company and not taking a scratch.

I'm aiming for something far simpler, but by all means if you manage to get it to work, please post the rules, It'd be great to see them.