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.

The current cover system in 40k has always been just a little bit lacking to me. For example, think about a squad of marines in a forest. Realistically the enemy is going to have a harder time shooting at them, but the game only gives them some 5+ cover save. They have power armor, they'll never use that cover save till some ap 3 weapon comes along. In my opinion, the current cover system is overly simplified and incomplete.

In coming up with a solution I wanted it make sure it would be simple, nobody wants to add more complex rules that they'll forget. The other parameters are that it would be reasonable and universal. With this in mind, here is my solution:
All cover now has 3 possible attributes: Protection, Visual Obstruction (or Hide for short), and Hide Range.

Protection: This attribute simply gives the unit in cover an armor save. ex. A fortified wall may have a 4+ save while a wooden fence may have a 6+ save. Protection saves can be negated by a weapon's AP value just like a normal armor save. Protection is when a model uses cover as a shield to stop rounds intended for him.

Visual Obstruction (Hide): This attribute will reduce the BS of the models firing at the unit in cover. ex. An area with thick mist will have a Hide value of 1, so all units firing at enemies in the mist will fire at -1 BS. Hide is when a model uses cover to remain unseen, or to make it harder for the enemy to see where he is.

Hide Range: The hide attribute can be denied when within a specific range. If the enemy gets too close to your hiding spot, they will be much more likely to see you. Hide Range is a value given in inches. When the unit firing is within this distance, no Hide bonus is given to the unit in cover. ex. Tall brush may have a Hide Value of 1, and a Hide Range of 12". When the enemy is beyond 12", they fire at -1BS, but if they get within 12", they fire at normal BS.

Stealth and Shrouded:
Shrouded now gives the unit +1 to their Hide Value
Stealth now make the Hide Range 0", which means their Hide Value bonus can never be negated by an enemy getting too close.

Back to my example of the space marines in the forest. With these new rules, they forest would give them a Protection save of 5+, and a Hide value of 1. The protection save still isn't going to help them, if its going to punch through their armor, than those trees sure don't stand a chance. But because they are hidden in the forest, they will be harder to see, so the enemy will be firing at - BS. This will give them a reason to actually use cover.

Here are some examples of cover types to give you an idea of how this would look in-game: Sv = Protection Save, Hide= Hide Value, Range= Hide Range
Forest: Sv: 5+, Hide: 1, Range: 8"
Brush: Sv -, Range 8"
Building: Sv: 5+, Hide: 1, Range 0"
Ruins: Sv: 5+, Hide: a, Range 6"
Aegis Defense: Sv: 4+, Hide: 1, Range 0"
Boulder: Sv: 4+, Hide: -, Range: -
Units Blocking: Sv: -, Hide 1, Range: -

If you ever decide to use these rules in a friendly game (Which would be awesome of you), let me know how it goes!

Everytime this comes up I have the same things to say.

In the 40k system you cant really have bs modifiers. It imbalances the game too much for armies that fire lots of shots versus elite armies. Orks are used to needing massed fire and so are cheap and throw out lots of shots. It's the same with guard. We can throw out enough shots to mitigate a drop in accuracy.

Space marines though, pay points for hitting more often. Dropping from hitting 2/3 of the time to only half is a massive statistical difference. It will hurt elite armies that pay for good bs.

The other thing is having ap deny cover saves can hurt some armies lots too. Now my lascannon ignores jink skimmers will die a lot easier. The cover save is not always a representative of stopping the bullets. It's just sometimes harder to hit them but used in a way that doesn't unbalance a game.

Your idea works in other games but these are games where everything hits on the same value no matter the cost.

Edit: also how do you propose ignore cover works. Things like templates are already within the distance of the hide values and don't need bs to work anyway.

I'm all for the old wfb to hit modifiers and the 7+ to hit roles. It makes much more sense then marines gaining nothing by seeking cover and it would close the gab between invisibility like effects, shrouding and cover.

Here is what we are currently trying out for our house rules.

Light cover -1 to hit.(Target is hard to see, long grass smoke etc.)
Hard cover -2 to hit .(Target gets a level of physical protection that can deflect or absorb incoming shots, eg stone walls buildings trenches, bunkers etc.)

Rather than roll 6s, followed by 4+ for '7+ to hit.'We just halve the number of 6s rolled to hit .(It gives the same result but cuts out the additional dice rolls.)

I knoiw this is not as complicated as the OP ideas.But they do seem to add a bit of tactical diversity...

Flat to hit modifers really mess up Orks with their base BS2. It also makes high armor units incredibly powerful while not really benefiting armies that rely on terrain and less so armor or invuln saves for shooting protection. Dramatic changes to the cover system would need an across the board codex rebalancing. I like the idea of modifiers but 40K isn't currently designed to handle that very well and would need major work done to make it functional.

@Vankraken.
Orks have been given high volumes of fire to make up for their poor BS.
This is why I suggested keeping half the number of 6s rolled for any to hit score of 7 or more .
As it follows the rolling bucket full of dice to get a few hits Ork players are used to...

However, I agree that a complete re-write of the rules and all new codex books is the only way to fix the many issues that plague 40k rules .

Thanks everyone for sharing your opinions here. You all made some good points.

 HANZERtank wrote:
Everytime this comes up I have the same things to say.

In the 40k system you cant really have bs modifiers. It imbalances the game too much for armies that fire lots of shots versus elite armies. Orks are used to needing massed fire and so are cheap and throw out lots of shots. It's the same with guard. We can throw out enough shots to mitigate a drop in accuracy.

Space marines though, pay points for hitting more often. Dropping from hitting 2/3 of the time to only half is a massive statistical difference. It will hurt elite armies that pay for good bs.

The other thing is having ap deny cover saves can hurt some armies lots too. Now my lascannon ignores jink skimmers will die a lot easier. The cover save is not always a representative of stopping the bullets. It's just sometimes harder to hit them but used in a way that doesn't unbalance a game.

Your idea works in other games but these are games where everything hits on the same value no matter the cost.

Edit: also how do you propose ignore cover works. Things like templates are already within the distance of the hide values and don't need bs to work anyway.

First just to clarify, the Hide bonus wouldn't reduce the firer's BS to 1, it reduces it by one i.e. BS 4 goes down to 3. So unlike snap shots, this debuff is more universal when applied to higher BS models verses low bs, lots of shots units. In response to what you posted about the affects of -bs on different unit chemistries, I started crunching some numbers to see how it would play out. I tested large scale shots, to just a handful of shots all at different bs to test this effect. The result actually showed that my new method makes cover a little better at protecting its inhabitants across the board. Regardless of shot # and Bs you could expect to see about 1-3 fewer casualties than traditional cover would provide.

As for Template weapons, I should've mentioned this in the OP, but I assumed they would ignore the Protect value (flames shoot through brick ect) and would also ignore the Hide value as the wielder is toasting an area, rather than trying to just get an obscure model. Also all Barrage weapons would ignore the Hide value. Normal blast weapons would not however, they'd take the -BS on their scatter role. Also the Jink rule would not be changed. Since it really only applies to fliers and skimmers, its kinda a nitch save that already functions well.

Again, thank you all for your opinion, it always helps to bounce around ideas to solve problems!

 Vankraken wrote:
Flat to hit modifers really mess up Orks with their base BS2. It also makes high armor units incredibly powerful while not really benefiting armies that rely on terrain and less so armor or invuln saves for shooting protection. Dramatic changes to the cover system would need an across the board codex rebalancing. I like the idea of modifiers but 40K isn't currently designed to handle that very well and would need major work done to make it functional.

This may be off topic, but I'm curious because this thread comes up rather often now. What would have to be done to make it functional? Would elite armies need to get a point cost reduction? would horde armies get a point increase or would that increase in points need to be so drastic that they would no longer feel like horde armies?