Switch Theme:

Proposed Cover fix  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Here is just my thoughts on the very much argued and discussed cover issue.

I think that cover should be done the following way. "If you can draw a straight line from the firing MODEL to the enemy UNIT without crossing any intervening terrain, than that unit is not in cover to that MODEL" or an alternative way of saying this would be "If when you draw a straight line from the firing MODEL to an enemy UNIT, if that line must cross any terrain feature, than the enemy UNIT counts has having cover from that MODEL". Yes this would mean that sometimes a unit would have cover from only some models in a firing squad, so you would need to roll the shooting from models that are not going into cover separate from models shooting that are going into cover, but I don't think this would be overly complicated that it would hurt GW's need to keep the game simple. The other thing I would do is have three classes of units in relation to cover. Infantry/Bikes/Calvary would always have cover from terrain. Vehicle/Monsters/Chariots would only get cover from terrain that is agreed before the battle as providing cover the vehicles. I would give examples like Walls/Obstacles that are taller than an infantry model, Ruins, Forests, etc. Finally, I would have a keyword for what were once "super heavy vehicles" (if they don't, I don't know if they do) and super heavy vehicles would never get cover. Even if they are like 90% obscured, that is still a hell of a lot of model still showing from the perspective of an infantry model. Also it simplifies the issue of such a large model being blocked by a very small piece of terrain. Again I don't think that any of this would add a level of complexity that would be unacceptable for 8th edition, and it greatly improves cover (which would help with the alpha strike issue) and gets rid of any "is it or isn't it 50% obscured" and makes all cover issues basically objective. And of course you could have terrain with its own rules like craters you have to be in the crater to get cover etc. This is must my thoughts on the matter feel free to tear it apart.
   
Made in us
Death-Dealing Ultramarine Devastator






I agree with GW's " the floor is lava" rules. I have had waaaaaay too many arguments about cover and I haven't even played 7th that long
   
Made in us
Potent Possessed Daemonvessel





Slows down the game too much to do cover by firing model. You need to trace a line for each model in a unit and because cover is +1 save now it matters for every gun against every unit. Then you need to roll non-cover shots separately from cover shots.

Cover should always be unit to unit.

The real solution would have been for GW to have put size stats into the game, then terrain could be assigned sizes (using abstract terrain because TLOS is an abomination.) and then there would be no arguments about what does and does not get cover or what does and does not have LOS. Other games do this and it is much easier.

   
Made in gb
Rampaging Khorne Dreadnought





Why Aye Ya Canny Dakkanaughts!

Seems like it could get complicated real quick, take this scenario:

2 space marines shooting at two Orks.
Under your system SM 1 can see both Orks without cover, SM 2 can see one Ork in cover and one Ork out.
Now does the SM get to choose which order his SMs shoot in in order to negate cover?
If this example is taken with larger squads (20+ man squad), do the players have to roll each dice individually and make it very clear which SM is firing at which Ork?

Just being devils advicate here, I have no idea what to do with cover.

Ghorros wrote:
The moral of the story: Don't park your Imperial Knight in a field of Gretchin carrying power tools.
 Marmatag wrote:
All the while, my opponent is furious, throwing his codex on the floor, trying to slash his wrists with safety scissors.
"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine. 'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so f***ing what." - Stephen Fry
 
   
Made in us
Slaanesh Havoc with Blastmaster




Why not unlt to unit? If any models are obscured from any models then they get benifit of cover? To imitate tactically advancing and let large units get benifit of cover?

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: