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.

One rule that bothers me the most is the cover save or armor save rule. If my space marines are in cover, I should be entitled to a cover save and an armor save, if the cover save fails. Just because I have heavy armor doesn't mean I'm gonna sit in the open. I think this rule should be changed, unless there is a logical reason to this.

Some other games have cover work as a To Hit modifier, which makes a lot more sense.

The problem is that roll modifiers on a 1D6 system like 40k are much more swingy than on a 2D6 system like warmahordes. So it's not easy to just port across the mechanic.

Arson Fire wrote:
Some other games have cover work as a To Hit modifier, which makes a lot more sense.

The problem is that roll modifiers on a 1D6 system like 40k are much more swingy than on a 2D6 system like warmahordes. So it's not easy to just port across the mechanic.

Pretty much this. Unfortunately, such a change cannot work in the current iteration of 40k's mechanics without making armies such as the Space Marines dreadfully overpowered compared to other armies who don't benefit from good armour.

Yeah the logical reason is called game balance. Letting cover stack with armor just makes units exponentially more durable Your Space Marines in a ruin basically get 4+ FNP for free. The Wraithknight that gets obscured by a ruin gets 4+ FNP on top of its regular FNP for free. The 2++ rerollable deathstar gets 4+ fnp for free.

It may not be "realistic" (which i always find a funny argument since you are playing a game of giant robots, immaterial daemons, and dedicated melee unit in modern warfare), but it sure is less broken game wise.

AFAIK, every war game I have played ,(including earlier editions of 40k.)

Simply let cover make the target harder to hit.As this is the most intuitive way of dealing with it.

The fact the current rules for 40k can not use these sorts of straightforward intuitive methods , just shows how messed up the current rules really are.

A slightly other topic concerning cover, which I would like to hear your opinions about:

I've always felt that there should be a difference between being behind much cover and being behind less cover, so I've come up with rules which take care of this, but am I alone on this? Do you think that it's not necessary to differentiate between "much" and "less" cover?

Chaospling wrote:
A slightly other topic concerning cover, which I would like to hear your opinions about:

I've always felt that there should be a difference between being behind much cover and being behind less cover, so I've come up with rules which take care of this, but am I alone on this? Do you think that it's not necessary to differentiate between "much" and "less" cover?

You mean light and heavy cover?

Don't we have something along that line already with saves relative to certain pieces of terrain?

There should be, yes. I don't think that has changed. Walls still grant 4+, light terrain still grants 5+, bunkers give 3+, etc

What has changed though is how shooting through intervening units work. In 4th ed you can't iirc, 5ed it was 4+ cover and I think its 5+ cover now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Arson Fire wrote:
Some other games have cover work as a To Hit modifier, which makes a lot more sense.

The problem is that roll modifiers on a 1D6 system like 40k are much more swingy than on a 2D6 system like warmahordes. So it's not easy to just port across the mechanic.

Seems to work in Dropzone commander, WHFB battle, Mantic's systems and Bolt Action. I don't buy the whole "modifiers don't work with a d6" argument because there are games that use modifiers and d6s just fine.

Don't forget Flames of War as well - that even has range modifiers on a D6

Even so, I'm an advocate for a bigger dice, at least for a game like 40k where factions vary massively in terms of what their units do and how they act on the field.

 General Annoyance wrote:

Chaospling wrote:
A slightly other topic concerning cover, which I would like to hear your opinions about:

I've always felt that there should be a difference between being behind much cover and being behind less cover, so I've come up with rules which take care of this, but am I alone on this? Do you think that it's not necessary to differentiate between "much" and "less" cover?

You mean light and heavy cover?

Don't we have something along that line already with saves relative to certain pieces of terrain?

I mean right now, it's just at least 25 % behind cover and that's it.

If there was rules which differentiated between, say, at least 25 % and at least 75 % cover, would you welcome such rules to simulate reality that much better or would you say that it's not necessary?

(I'm also an advocate for bigger dice - that's why my alternative rule set is based on D10 - interested in trying them out? )

Chaospling wrote:


I mean right now, it's just at least 25 % behind cover and that's it.

If there was rules which differentiated between, say, at least 25 % and at least 75 % cover, would you welcome such rules to simulate reality that much better or would you say that it's not necessary?

(I'm also an advocate for bigger dice - that's why my alternative rule set is based on D10 - interested in trying them out? )

I'd go with half and full cover, sure. But I've given up on 40k's rules anyway in favour of my own.

I'll have a look at it if you PM it to me. Would it bad if I said that my own set runs on a D100?

 General Annoyance wrote:

Chaospling wrote:


I mean right now, it's just at least 25 % behind cover and that's it.

If there was rules which differentiated between, say, at least 25 % and at least 75 % cover, would you welcome such rules to simulate reality that much better or would you say that it's not necessary?

(I'm also an advocate for bigger dice - that's why my alternative rule set is based on D10 - interested in trying them out? )

I'd go with half and full cover, sure. But I've given up on 40k's rules anyway in favour of my own.

I'll have a look at it if you PM it to me. Would it bad if I said that my own set runs on a D100?

Well if you and your group already have an alternative rule set written by yourselves, my rule set will probably not be fulfilling. Damn... D100... It's not often you see them outside role playing games.

I'm still working on it before I do some proper tests with it and post it here for people to try. D100 is actually fine most of the time since you'll probably only have to roll one D10 per model for their attacks, and if you do need the second digit to determine if an attack hits or misses, you just pick up the D10 again and roll

Send the rules over anyway; always pays to learn from someone else/give feedback

 General Annoyance wrote:

Chaospling wrote:


I mean right now, it's just at least 25 % behind cover and that's it.

If there was rules which differentiated between, say, at least 25 % and at least 75 % cover, would you welcome such rules to simulate reality that much better or would you say that it's not necessary?

(I'm also an advocate for bigger dice - that's why my alternative rule set is based on D10 - interested in trying them out? )

I'd go with half and full cover, sure. But I've given up on 40k's rules anyway in favour of my own.

I'll have a look at it if you PM it to me. Would it bad if I said that my own set runs on a D100?

How do you roll a bunch of those 0_o

Eh, to me 75% obscured should pretty much block LoS. I mean, on most models 75% is just the arm or something showing, right?
50% would be more like it. That should give a better save / modifier.

@General Annoyance:
I'm also still working on it but I'm almost there. When it's finished I have a group which will play test and when they've done that I'll start a thread about it.

@Cthululs Spy:
Yeah I know but if you say at least 50 % then what should light cover be? At least 25 %? That's very close to each other, I think.

In my case I've chosen at least 30 % and 70 % obscured, and I'll probably add some "author's note" stating that player's can replace the 30 and 70 % with less and more obscured, if they want to make the definitions more casual.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Cthululs Spy:
Also, regarding that 75 % obscured should almost block line of sight: I'll try to let the players remember that they should view the game as dynamic and not as "old school role playing game" static; this means that the shots could have been fired sooner or later where the target were more clear to the attacker. I'm also using this reasoning to replace running with a Focused move.

Arson Fire wrote:
Some other games have cover work as a To Hit modifier, which makes a lot more sense.

The problem is that roll modifiers on a 1D6 system like 40k are much more swingy than on a 2D6 system like warmahordes. So it's not easy to just port across the mechanic.

The "swingy" problem was overcome by also having hit bonuses; I can't remember exactly how 2nd edition did it, but Necromunda has hit bonuses at half range, and so cover is less of an advantage at close range, because good cover is a -2 to-Hit, but your pistols at half range (and ranges are longer in Necromunda) are +2 to-Hit so it cancels out, though obviously someone in the open is still easier to hit.

I always liked that system; some people think it's too complex, because you have to add up modifiers, but aside from an initial learning curve to remember the relevant bonuses I never found it that hard to get used to.

There are also games that would stagger the to hit chart and have cover modify the bs, instead of the roll. Like, bs4 and bs5 would both hit on unmodified roll of 4+, but if the target is in -1 cover, then bs4 would have to go down to bs3 and hit on 5+ while bs5 would only be reduced to bs4 and so it's 4+ to hit would not change.

Chaospling wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Cthululs Spy:
Also, regarding that 75 % obscured should almost block line of sight: I'll try to let the players remember that they should view the game as dynamic and not as "old school role playing game" static; this means that the shots could have been fired sooner or later where the target were more clear to the attacker. I'm also using this reasoning to replace running with a Focused move.

For that same reason of the game being dynamic, a model should be able to stand in an open window with 0% obscurement and still get cover, doesn't that also make sense?

I think that the amount of cover that a model benefits from should depend on its profile. I play that if the target has cover, anything that has fewer base attacks than its target shoots at bs-1. It seems odd but it means that if you have a basic trooper shooting back and forth against the 2 attack sergeant or elite version (trueborn, chosen, company veteran, veteran sergeant), that the sergeant has a better chance to survive until it can shoot back.

Also I say that if you have cover hit modifiers or if you stack cover and armor saves, then you also should have armor modifiers. The best armor modifiers I have seen are by haravikk, incidentally.

To hit modifiers still provides the problem of giving a stacking save, meaning that it rewards models that already have a better save and punished those who need cover the most. This is particularly true since the current pattern is that those armies with good armor saves also have good stats, so a space marines getting a -1 to BS is far less of a penalty compared to guard or tau (or god forbid orks), while getting a better defense increase in the same comparison

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
To hit modifiers still provides the problem of giving a stacking save, meaning that it rewards models that already have a better save and punished those who need cover the most. This is particularly true since the current pattern is that those armies with good armor saves also have good stats, so a space marines getting a -1 to BS is far less of a penalty compared to guard or tau (or god forbid orks), while getting a better defense increase in the same comparison

I thought about that, but that could actually be the most realistic thing. If you have a normal person and a trained person and they both shoot at a stationary target and afterwards shoot at a moving target, where the normal person only hits half the times compared to when shooting at the stationary target, the trained person maybe wouldn't be affected the same way, maybe only slightly as he has also trained against moving targets. I still keep away from to Hit modifiers because once you've started with these negative modifiers because of Night Fighting, fast moving targets, special wargear, special abilities, psychic powers and maybe more meant that even if only some of these were present in a situation the to Hit possibility were off the chart (easier to explain with an actual rule set).

Chaospling wrote:

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
To hit modifiers still provides the problem of giving a stacking save, meaning that it rewards models that already have a better save and punished those who need cover the most. This is particularly true since the current pattern is that those armies with good armor saves also have good stats, so a space marines getting a -1 to BS is far less of a penalty compared to guard or tau (or god forbid orks), while getting a better defense increase in the same comparison

I thought about that, but that could actually be the most realistic thing. If you have a normal person and a trained person and they both shoot at a stationary target and afterwards shoot at a moving target, where the normal person only hits half the times compared to when shooting at the stationary target, the trained person maybe wouldn't be affected the same way, maybe only slightly as he has also trained against moving targets. I still keep away from to Hit modifiers because once you've started with these negative modifiers because of Night Fighting, fast moving targets, special wargear, special abilities, psychic powers and maybe more meant that even if only some of these were present in a situation the to Hit possibility were off the chart (easier to explain with an actual rule set).

Realism doesn't equal good game design

@CrownAxe.
Lack of realism does not equal good game design either.

Well defined game play, and intuitive player interaction , is a good start for good game design.

If you want a war game , then it is best to define the type of warfare you want to base the game on.
(If you just want to roll dice to randomly generate a story , then its not really a war game is it?)

I would rather learn a few modifiers for combat resolution than 80+ poorly applied special rules in over 200 pages of text...

However, my preferred method would be simply to use opposed stat values on a chart to generate the D6 roll required.
(With a few limited modifiers altering the stats where appropriate.)

EG to hit at range would be BS vs Evade stat.
(Evade is based on target size and steath etc, so a land Raider might have an Evade Stat of 2 and an Ratling sniper a Evade stat of 7.This stat could cover special rules jink and invisibility too....)

Being in cover adds 1 to the targets evade stat.Being in heavy cover adds 2 to the target evade stat.

The new resolution chart allows us to FULLY use the stat range of 1 to 10. and the range of results from automatic success to automatic failure.

A = Active player ,(rolling the dice) Stat.
O= opposing player. stat.

A/O 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1....,4,4,5,5,6,6,n,n.n,n
2.....3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.n.
3.....3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.n.
4.....2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.n.
5.....2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.6.
6.....1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.6.
7.....1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5.5.
8.....1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4.5
9.....1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.4
10...1.1.1.1.1.2.2.3.3.4.
(n= no effect,)

So using this system with a D6 , in a three stage damage resolution would generate over 200 possible PROPORTIONAL results.
Removing the need for multiple resolution systems and lots of special rules to deliver the game play.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
To hit modifiers still provides the problem of giving a stacking save, meaning that it rewards models that already have a better save and punished those who need cover the most. This is particularly true since the current pattern is that those armies with good armor saves also have good stats, so a space marines getting a -1 to BS is far less of a penalty compared to guard or tau (or god forbid orks), while getting a better defense increase in the same comparison

I've never really seen this as a problem; if someone is wearing heavy armour and behind cover, would you not expect them to be less affected by shots that make it through?

The models that need the cover the most are still benefiting from it. Really this is more of an argument for the bulk of Power Armour to be taken into account, for example by having it reduce the effectiveness of cover, so it's easier to a hit a model in power-armour that's trying to hide like a cowardly mortal.

@Harravik.
I totally agree!
A 8 foot tall super human in brightly coloured bulky armour.Is going to be much easier to spot than a Ratling sniper in a camo cloak.

Because of the wide range of units in 40k, you need to use a robust system to cover all units in the same resolution.(Opposed stats with a few modifiers perhaps.)

Or

You adopt a simple system that covers a majority of units, and add in special rules to remove units that fall out side the system.

EG basic cover modifiers of -1 to hit for light cover and -2 to hit for heavy cover.

Power armour etc. could get the 'bulky ' rule that reduces the effect of cover by 1

However , at GW towers it is not allowed to give the poster boy Space Marines ANY 'negative' special rules.

But give boosts to other armies with special rules instead.Then also give them to the Space Marines later....

I'm actually going to speak out in defense of GW's cover system.

A marine that comes under fire from militiamen will get the same save in the open as he would in cover. Sure, it makes no logical sense... but... since he's not going to get any advantage from sticking to cover, that means there's no disadvantage from striding forward like the god of war he's supposed to be. It's even more pronounced with Terminators - their 5+ invulnerable save means that the normal soft cover save (5+) is useless.

Yes, the current cover system doesn't make logical sense. However, it does make cinematic sense, and it does try to incentivize the right kind of cinematic behaviour. Fragile humans should get, and do get, a mechanic that encourages them to hug the dirt. Frickin' [robo-skeletons / hell-demons / super-soldiers / etc] get a mechanic that doesn't penalize them for sticking around in the open against light infantry.

The implementation is shoddy, yes. That's to be expected from GW.

@Mallich.
What do you mean by cinematic?

@Lanrak.
The behaviour seen in generic films, in which characters follow laws of narrative convention rather than laws of physics. Characters will therefore engage in duels with their opposite number, rather than (more realistically) get shot and killed 200 metres away by a generic NPC.

@Mallich.
Thanks for explaining that.

This is probably where the difference of opinion is .
Gaming companies write rules that let players interact within a defined sphere of intuitive tactical and strategic choices.
There is no predisposition to a specific outcome like there is in narrative focused writing.

If I want strong predetermined narrative I would by a novel or watch a film.

Forcing the narrative on the players is not the job of a good war game rule set.
Its letting the players write their own narrative, within the frame work of the tactical and strategic choices the war game rule set presents.

Split cover into just light cover, and heavy cover. Light cover confers a minus 1 BS, and heavy a minus 2 BS.

However, a unit fired at whilst in cover in the following turn has minus 2 BS in light, and minus 1 BS in heavy cover. This represents that the cover doesn't represent the best position to return fire from if they are using it to hide, sort of semi pinning (heavy cover is more stable so can set up to return fire easier than light).

A unit can however choose to fire at full BS, but the following turn they gain no benefit from being in cover (represents going above/out of the cover to fire more effectively).

Vehicles and MC gain no benefit from cover (unless it blocks line of sight), but also don't face any restrictions from it.

I also believe hat the cover system should affect everyone. I find it super dumb when someone targets the toe of a marine sticking out from behind a wall with AP:meh weapons and my advantage for being 99.999999% obscured is a save I can't even take since the armor is better.

What benefit is a space marine getting from a wall if the armor he's wearing is tougher then the wall? The wall should be getting a cover save from the space marine