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. |
|
|
2018/02/06 19:25:14
Subject: Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Battlefortress Driver with Krusha Wheel
|
I've been thinking about this edition and its cover the last few editions and their cover. It's clear that cover favours some armies more than others (marines get a 2+ while orks get a 5+). But what if we went back to the old system and made it where cover just offers a 5+ invulnerably?
|
|
|
|
2018/02/06 19:33:44
Subject: Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Nope. Marines need access to the 2+ to have a chance against DICE SPAM.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/06 21:13:35
Subject: Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Pyromaniac Hellhound Pilot
|
I'm a fan of making them two saves - roll cover, then roll armor.
If light cover is nominally 5+, Marines get 5+ then 2+, where the Ork gets 5+ then 5+. If heavy cover were 4+, it would just be the same but at 4+.
I had used these in 3e/4e, actually, with one local player - we rather liked this system. I think we actually used 6+ for light "concealment", 5+ for light "cover", 4+ for "heavy cover".
Unfortunately this adds a roll and slows down the game too much for modern times.
|
|
|
|
|
2018/02/06 23:21:30
Subject: Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Clousseau
|
I'm on board with keeping it the way it is. It's a good system.
|
Galas wrote:I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you
Bharring wrote:He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic. |
|
|
|
2018/02/07 00:08:49
Subject: Re:Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Omnipotent Necron Overlord
|
I kind of like it where it is. The game really needs less invulnerables.
|
If we fail to anticipate the unforeseen or expect the unexpected in a universe of infinite possibilities, we may find ourselves at the mercy of anyone or anything that cannot be programmed, categorized or easily referenced.
- Fox Mulder |
|
|
|
2018/02/07 00:54:23
Subject: Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Wicked Warp Spider
|
Infantryman wrote:I'm a fan of making them two saves - roll cover, then roll armor.
If light cover is nominally 5+, Marines get 5+ then 2+, where the Ork gets 5+ then 5+. If heavy cover were 4+, it would just be the same but at 4+.
I had used these in 3e/4e, actually, with one local player - we rather liked this system. I think we actually used 6+ for light "concealment", 5+ for light "cover", 4+ for "heavy cover".
Unfortunately this adds a roll and slows down the game too much for modern times.
This is how I play "myhammer" - cover is separate roll before armour save/ inv save is rolled. It doesn't slow game all that much if you just use rolling tray and not throw your dice around entire table in fancy ways and then waste time gathering all that dice. This is the only way cover is equally usefull for anyone, no matter if their base save is low/high armour or inv save.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/07 01:50:59
Subject: Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Commander of the Mysterious 2nd Legion
|
Marmatag wrote:I'm on board with keeping it the way it is. It's a good system.
me too it means cover is useful to EVERYONE. it also means that cover isn't perfect, a heavy weapon will simply punch through a building
|
Opinions are not facts please don't confuse the two |
|
|
|
2018/02/07 05:05:52
Subject: Re:Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant
|
Or maybe just impose a -1 to hit penalty against those units wholely in cover during the shooting phase. It is more realistic then making cover a "save". Done.
|
|
|
|
2018/02/07 05:09:05
Subject: Re:Cover saves as invulns?
|
|
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon
|
Neophyte2012 wrote:Or maybe just impose a -1 to hit penalty against those units wholely in cover during the shooting phase. It is more realistic then making cover a "save". Done.
Maybe for city fight sub rules but not for main rules.
|
|
|
|
|