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 guys, I am going to play-test a house rule...
Cover doesn't give a save, but lowers the firer's Bs:
6+ cover --> no effect
5+ cover --> -1 to Bs
4+ cover --> -2 to Bs
3+ cover --> -3 to Bs
2+ cover --> -4 to Bs

If your Bs is 0 after all modifiers, set it to 1 instead. If your Bs is reduced to -1 or less, you can't target the enemy.
Having a Bs above 5 doesn't do anything anymore (it's still useful because when reduced, you'll still have a high Bs).
When firing snap shots, if the modified Bs is 0 or higher, the unit shoots at Bs 1 (so a unit doesn't snap shoot at units it can't shoot at normally).

Example: A guardsmen shoots at a unit of cultists in ruims (4+ cover), so he shoots with a Bs 1 (base Bs 3, -2 from the cover).
Example 2: A space marine shoots at a unit of plague bearers in a crater, (6+, 4+ because of shrouded) who go to ground, making their cover a 2+. The space marine has a Bs of 0 (base Bs 4, -4 from the cover), so he shoots at Bs 1. If the guardsman would've shot at the same plague bearer, he'd have Bs -1 and wouldn't be able to kill anyone.

I think this has some pros:
* Blast weapons become better, since they still have a 1/3 chance to get a direct hit.
* Armor becomes more useful (an armoured unit in cover still has a use for its armor even when shot with a weapon without an AP value).
* Models with a high Bs are better at killing something in cover.

There's also a number of cons:
* Isn't barrage too strong with this change?
* Same goes for Large Blasts. They can obliterate large squads in cover (is this a bad thing?)

But there are also a number of questions:
* What to do with Jink?
* What to do with different Ignore Cover weapons?
...

Anyone want to help me think this out?

Thething is ignore cover weapons are allready very powerful. And now you won'd be able to deal with nurgle DP or basically any bikers without ignore cover weapons at range.

 koooaei wrote:
Oh, cool! Ork bikers will get free invisibility!

This is why I think the Jink rule would need to be changed. It also wouldn't do much for flyers.

Anyone got any bright ideas?

And what about shrowded and stealth?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
40k used to have to-hit modificators akin to FB. But it was -1 at best. And even so, it had a significant effect making ranged units wonder why haven't they taken bp+ccw instead. Now we have access to many powerful long-ranged weapons, so -1 wouldn't have that much effect on them. On the other hand, it strongly nerfs small arms fire.

Imagine you have a bunch of tacticals and the opponent is hiding in a ruin with his 4+ armor guyz, let's say ork 'ard boyz. You now need 2 times more marines to kill a single ork.

I mean, you can certainly playtest it but you'll quickly notice that even -1 to hit modificator will shift the ballance towards mellee infantry as you won't be able to reliably kill anything at range when you need to. Whereas only tau with their markerlights, serp spam eldar and alike won't be troubled much by it.
And orks won't be able to shoot stuff in 3+ cover whatsoever.

And what about my poor orks? BS2. That would mean that I wouldn't be able to shoot at anyone in good cover..ever

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And what about my poor orks? BS2. That would mean that I wouldn't be able to shoot at anyone in good cover..ever

Orkz shoot?

Nah, just kidding. I think the rule suggestion is terrible.

Even a small change like this would require drastic and fundamental changes to the core rules....which would be a good thing.

I totally want to-hit modifiers returned, but not this way. Yech.

We have been using something similar to the old 2nd ed. It is in two tiers. Cover 6 or 5 then -1 to hit, cover 4 or better then -2 to hit. A natural 6 still hits no matter how much cover. As far as blast markers go we threw out scatter a long time ago - too many arguments. We place the blast template with the hole over one model, count how many are touched, then role to hit for each one using the above modifiers if any. If the base is bigger than 25mm then you get rerolls to hit with blast markers as you are less likely to miss something that big and scatter would probably have caught a piece of it anyway. Weapons that ignore cover still do.

 Ghazkuul wrote:
And what about my poor orks? BS2. That would mean that I wouldn't be able to shoot at anyone in good cover..ever

The other way around, if you'd let anything snap shoot the least, Orks would almost always be shooting at 50% effect while others would shoot at much worse percentages.

Guess the increase in modifiers is a bit too harsh.

I think I'll still try it and see how it plays. Doesn't really matter if it affects the game in a big way, I only play with friends so we'll find a way to keep it fun.

by your system though if they are in 3+ terrain or 4+ with a cover modifier my orks won't get to shoot them. ever. That means I would HAVE to drive up their and hit them a few times with my Choppas to make them understand how to fight like an ork.

It sounds good in theory, because I think it's dumb that Space Marines in cover are just as hard to kill with Bolters as Space Marines that aren't in cover. And I like how cover works in Fantasy, but they'd have to remake pretty much everything in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
That being said, I think there should be modifiers. Soft cover and Hard cover. -1 and -2 BS respectively. And then other modifiers, like range and night fighting.

I like the idea of cover affecting BS, but not as powerful as the OP suggested, and it would still need some other mechanic to counter balance it.

6&5+ would instead have a -1 modifier to BS
4&3+ would instead have a -2 modifier to BS
2+ & Invisibility would instead be a -3 modifier to BS.
(Minimum BS1 to represent the chance to hit by firing blindly)

Example:
A Space Marine Scout would in what is currently 5+ cover would benefit from -1BS on shots directed at them, but if they are given Cammo Cloaks, they would benefit from -2 BS for shots directed at them (Because the 5+ would become a 4+ which is the next tier).

Some units would have special rules (either base or as optional upgrades) that give bonuses against Cover.

Example:
If Space Marines have a +1 against cover, and they are shooting against the afore-mentioned Scouts, they would not be penalized by the Scouts without cloaks (+1 & -1 cancel out), but they would have their normal BS4 reduced to BS3 by the Scouts with Cammo Cloaks (+1 & -2 = -1).

 Bill1138 wrote:
I like the idea of cover affecting BS, but not as powerful as the OP suggested, and it would still need some other mechanic to counter balance it.

6&5+ would instead have a -1 modifier to BS
4&3+ would instead have a -2 modifier to BS
2+ & Invisibility would instead be a -3 modifier to BS.
(Minimum BS1 to represent the chance to hit by firing blindly)

Example:
A Space Marine Scout would in what is currently 5+ cover would benefit from -1BS on shots directed at them, but if they are given Cammo Cloaks, they would benefit from -2 BS for shots directed at them (Because the 5+ would become a 4+ which is the next tier).

Some units would have special rules (either base or as optional upgrades) that give bonuses against Cover.

Example:
If Space Marines have a +1 against cover, and they are shooting against the afore-mentioned Scouts, they would not be penalized by the Scouts without cloaks (+1 & -1 cancel out), but they would have their normal BS4 reduced to BS3 by the Scouts with Cammo Cloaks (+1 & -2 = -1).

I think that's a good starting point, but I worry that ruins are still reducing BS3 armies to snap shots against average joes. Maybe add something to the effect of "Models firing their weapons at half range or closer reduce the penalty to their BS by 1." So marines firing at something in ruins while within rapid-fire range are still hitting on 4s and things in twisted copses on 3s. It offers hordes really potent protection for hugging cover as they advance up the table, but it doesn't make anything standing near a venomthrope a super-tank. Of course, even with relatively reigned in changes, this would still dramatically alter the costing of things.

OP Started a thread about this a while back -feel free to take a read. http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/606078.page

Using modifiers instead of separate resolution is a much better design option.

However, to implement it properly, units need to have their ability to'avoid being hit' represented in some way.
EG a Ratling sniper should be harder to hit than a LemanRuss in the basic resolution .
And modifier for close range for small arms would also help.

The real problem is to get all the ideas that arrive at straight forward intuitive play to fit into the current 40k rules.You more or less have to re-write the whole rule set.

So, what if the initial chalenge rating (what roll is needed to hit) rather than being Ballistic Skill was determined by comparing the shooter's precision to the target's evasion, and using a chart to determine what roll was needed. Units like Scouts would have higher values, and units like Land Raiders would have much lower values.

You'd incorporate cover giving negative modifiers to the Shooter, Special Rules and Wargear (like Stealth and Cammo Cloaks) giving positive modifiers to the Target, and new special rules or Wargear that give positive modifiers for the shooter. You could also include positive modifiers for shooting at closer ranges, or give penalties for shooting at longer ranges.

The idea is there may be a bit of adding or subtracting for the shooter and target stats, but then you'd just look at the chart, and that would show what you need to hit.

Well, let's look from a real life perspective. Let's say I shoot at someone who is inside a bunker. The fact that they are in a bunker does not make me any worse at shooting, but the concrete can protect them from my shot.

natpri771 wrote:
Well, let's look from a real life perspective. Let's say I shoot at someone who is inside a bunker. The fact that they are in a bunker does not make me any worse at shooting, but the concrete can protect them from my shot.

If less of a person is visible, there is less to target, which makes it more difficult. The penalty to BS isn't saying the unit is worse at shooting, just that the shot is more difficult than it would be under optimal conditions.

How about:

If a model is in cover, when it is targeted by a ranged attack, a roll that is above the cover threshold hits the model, and if it is less than the cover threshold it strikes the cover before the model and has the attacks Strength reduced by the thresholds amount. Soft cover is Threshold 1, hard cover is 2, and maybe fortified cover a 3. A roll of 5 would beat the Threshold, so the attack strength would be unmodified.

So a BS 4 model shooting into hard cover Threshold 2 rolls a 3 to hit, which still hits, but does not beat the cover threshold, reducing the attack strength by 2.

An Orc BS 2 needs a 5-6 to hit, and can not beat the threshold, but could still hit the target model.

Still needs a bit more tweaking, but hopefully the intent comes across.

You could get a similar outcome to what the OP is describing by just taking the cover save, then taking the model's armor/invuln save. This represents the chance for the cover to take the hit instead of the model, and then the armor or other protection of the model can still stop the shot. This makes sense, as nobody removes their armor when they dive into cover, and even if the shot misses the cover, that doesn't mean it will immediately find a weak spot on the armor.

To illustrate why I think it is the same idea.

If a unit goes to ground for 6+ cover, under the OP suggestion units shooting at them lose 1 BS. This means there is a 1 out of 6 lose to successful rolls (SM hit on 4s, not 3s, Guard hit on 5s, not 4s, etc.). Then the unit takes any saves they are allowed. If 10 Marines were firing 10 shots at that unit, you would get 5 hits (from BS3), which then get other saves.

In the same situation, if you don't modify the BS, but instead roll the cover save before other saves, you would get 6.66 hits (from BS4), then 5.55 hits passed the cover (6+ cover), then take saves.

The difference between the systems gets bigger as the save improves, but I think this has some great advantages over the original idea:

1. It uses a mechanic that is already in the game, so there is no need for additional tables, formulas, or weapon characteristics in a game that already has a lot going on.

2. No army will ever be reduced to zero chance to hit something that it can see (as it can shoot at it) and is in range. Higher BS means that you have a better chance to hit the area that the enemy is sheltering, so they still get an advantage on their roll, but even the worst shot has a chance to get lucky.

3. We don't have rewrite the way that cover giving special rules are worded (like Jink, Stealth, or Shrouded).

The only downside is that you are rolling more dice, but I would take that over needing to have a set of charts or tables permanently out while I play just for cover.

 rhinosaur wrote:
We have been using something similar to the old 2nd ed. It is in two tiers. Cover 6 or 5 then -1 to hit, cover 4 or better then -2 to hit. A natural 6 still hits no matter how much cover. As far as blast markers go we threw out scatter a long time ago - too many arguments. We place the blast template with the hole over one model, count how many are touched, then role to hit for each one using the above modifiers if any. If the base is bigger than 25mm then you get rerolls to hit with blast markers as you are less likely to miss something that big and scatter would probably have caught a piece of it anyway. Weapons that ignore cover still do.

This i really like the idea of.

Well, you're up for FB / Mordheim shooting system here, guyz

It's like this:
Any cover gives -1 to hit
If shooting over half of the weapon's range gives -1 to hit
Large targets give +1 to hit. Large is a special rule - different creatures like trolls and giants have it. Trolls are ~the size of 40k termies.

Note that something like a bunch of tactical marines trying to shoot down any infantry with 4+ armor behind a rock more than 12" away from them will result in 2 times less casualties.

There is also such primitive solution: to allow to roll armour save after failed cover saves if it is allowed by AP of the weapon shot. This is more rolls granted, but will represent better protection and lower casualities rates for covered units.

For small games (500-800 points) that's will not be a problem, but at larger scale people will start to complane I think.

I've thought long and hard about implementing a better cover system and its a tricky one

If you allow separate armour and cover saves then heavy infantry, particularly termies, become very difficult to kill if dug in (marine firing bolter at a terminator in 3+ cover would afford a 1.8% chance of a kill. Clearly going to cause gameplay issues)

Hit modifiers are more complex and should take into account additional negative modifers for fast moving / jinking / smoke / holo-fields, as well as being counterbalanced by positive ones for firing at short range, large targets. Some guns should also incorporate hit bonuses / at short range e.g. shotguns. Elevated troops should perhaps also have a bonus against targets below them. A problem with applying this mechanic to the current hit roll system is that even a -1hit modifier reduces a BS2 troop to rolling 6s to hit, which is a full 50% loss of accuracy, whereas a BS4 marine will be much less effected by a -1 to hit. Those modifiers can also stack pretty quickly (hard cover+smoke+fast moving) so to deal with those 2 problems, hit modifiers would be best represented on a D10 system, and that requires a re-write of the current rules. It would be worth it though I think.

Another simpler solution I thought of using the current system is allow a save bonus for cover, whereby if a model is in cover and is hit by a weapon which doesn't negate its armour save, it can ad a bonus of 1 to its cover save, or vica versa. (Lasgun "hits" guardman behind wall. Guardman gets 4+ for cover and his flak (5+) is also applicable against the shot, so the lower of the 2 available saves is improved to a 3+. Not perfect but it would add a dose of realism...without requiring a re-write of the rules.

Again: TEQ.

Are they gonna have 1+ save? Rerolls on 6+?

How about a tweak on that suggestion with Hard Cover and soft Cover?

Hard Cover gives a bonus to the Armor Save, Any points of Hard cover beyond the model's 2+ save counts as Soft Cover.

Soft Cover gives a penalty to the shooter's Ballistic Skill. A Ballistic Skill reduced to 0 or below means there is no clear shot.

Example: A Space Marine Tactical Squad is in ruins, and are being shot at by a Veteran Squad. If the Ruins are Hard Cover and grant a +2, the first +1 would raise the Space Marines' Armor save to a 2+ (maxed), so the second would count as a -1 to the Veterans' Ballistic Skill, reducing them to BS3, hitting on 4s. If the Space Marines were targeted by an AP3 weapon while in the ruins, they would still receive their 2+ armor save thanks to the cover bonus.

I figure Hard Cover would be things that can potentially stop, deflect, or slow a shot enough to save the unit behind it.
Soft Cover would be visual obstructions such as foliage, cammo cloaks, etc.

 Reinokarite wrote:
Again: TEQ.

Are they gonna have 1+ save? Rerolls on 6+?

Fair point. 1+ would be OP. Rerolls on 6+ (or possibly a 5+) is a very good idea, thanks. That way cover would give heavy infantry a much deserved boost and still remain of higher benefit to lightly armoured troops, which is appropriate, because they're nimble and compact enough to make better use of cover.

I think it would work well because a similar approach us used very successfully in D&D to prevent characters being nigh-on invulnerable: A character's Dexterity (more like Agility) stat and the physical armour they're wearing both contribute a negative modifier whenever an enemy makes an attack roll, but heavier armours limit the dexterity bonus to a maximum amount, whereas light flexible armours don't. The idea being - there is little benefit to a thief wearing full plate armour, because he can't avail of his lightning fast reflexes while wearing it.