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.

First, while I like the current cover bonus better than prior editions, it also doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
Why does a model's armour get better if they are behind a bush or wall? If the shot hits said wall, it didn't hit the target.
Also, Flamers no longer ignore the cover bonus, but they should.

So my proposal if for targets fully in cover to gain -1 to be hit instead. This "fixes" the Flamer issue as they auto-hit and thus indirectly would ignore the Cover bonus.

Now there is obviously some other things we need to address with this change. Namely stacking penalties to hit.
Personally, I think stacking is fine, but there needs to get a general rule that unmodified rolls of 6 will still hit for everyone, not just Orks

Also, army-wide traits such as Alaitoc, Alpha Legion and Raven Guard should be changed to one of the following:
A) Models with this trait always count as being in cover if outside 12" of the firing unit. (So basically this brings them back to effectively what they are now) or
B) Models with this trait gain an additional -1 to be hit if actually in cover. So normally -2 to be hit if actually in cover.

Personally. I like option B much better for a few reasons.
First, it requires more tactical movement to get the most out of it. Sure tables with little cover would such, but that is a consistent issue for everyone
Second, it doesn't require the unit to be outside 12" to gain the bonus, just be in Cover.
Third, it meshes quite well with the Prepared Positions Strat. Alaitoc, AL and RG using this would have their whole army with at least -2 to be hit if going second
Finally, it makes far more sense. The reason those armies get -1 to hit is that they are good at using cover and other tactics to "hide" themselves. But something out in the open shouldn't get the bonus

On a very specific note, it would also make certain units that are currently "OP" due to stacking -1s to hit not be able to use the trait as often.
Hemlock Wraithfighters, for instance, don't get cover very often, so they would very rarely get to benefit from being Alaitoc.
Aside from the first turn using Prepare Positions in which they would get a total -3 to be hit, but that requires going second (something Eldar rarely like doing) and spending 2CPs (something Eldar rarely have a ton of that aren't already intended for very specific things)

-

At a glance, I find this idea more mechanically interesting than a bonus to armor saves, but I also worry that it's significantly more powerful and that that may not be good for the game as a whole.

If cover is -1 to being hit and Alaitoc is an extra -1 to that -1, then my dark reapers would basically have perpetual -2 to being hit 90%. And that's before I use CP and/or a psychic power to make that a -3 or -4.

Blobs of fearless models could potentially cause an extra 1/6th of your shots to miss if there's a clump of terrain near an objective. Rangers and cloaked ravenguard scouts would be rocking a -3 to being hit while objective camping.

Basically, I think there's potential, but I also think you'd probably have to re-examine a lot of chapter tactics, stratagems, psychic powers, and other rules to keep the stackable to-hit penalties from becoming too much.

I do like that it would make assault units (that would presumably ignore the pile of to-hit penalties in melee) more useful, but making such units a necessity would just create new problems for shooty armies that lack competitive assault units.

On a related note, I was sort of hoping 8th edition would differentiate between hard and soft cover. Terrain would have one, both, or neither of those two keywords. Terrain with the hard cover keyword would grant a bonus to armor saves (per normal 8th edition cover rules) while soft cover would provide to-hit penalties. So ruins and barricades would keep you safe by effectively making your shields thicker, but bushes would keep you safe by making it more difficult to aim a gun at you.

This would provide more design space to work with, with things like lascannons being good at blasting through hard cover and heavy armor alike while things like template weapons might ignore soft cover.

And just to be nitpicky...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Why does a model's armour get better if they are behind a bush or wall? If the shot hits said wall, it didn't hit the target.
-

Your armor gets better when you're behind a wall because the round that may or may not have enough strength to punch through your ceramite will have even less strength if it has to punch through a foot of concrete (rockrcete?) first. The bushes make that same round less likely to punch through your armor in a meaningful way because the shot aimed at your organs and helmetless head had its aim thrown off when you couldn't see the target clearly or because some of the shurikens zipping towards you bounced off of the intervening trees rather than flying true. Also, yeah. If the shot hits the intervening wall and doesn't punch through, then it doesn't hit the fragile, fragile kneecap behind the wall that it otherwise would have struck thus disabling the kneecaps owner.

Basically, 8th edition takes the approach that "armor" is the pile of hard stuff between your squishy flesh and the bullet. A pile of rocks or trees or metal adds to the amount of hard stuff.

But I still see your point and am intrigued by the idea.

RT and 2nd ed had that rule for both decades they spanned.

-1 to hit in soft cover
-2 to hit in hard cover
-1 to hit if model moved over 10"+
-2 to hit if model moved over 20"+

If you moved at your fastest pace with tanks you had a -1 to hit as well.

If overwatch shot at units emerging or diving into cover there was a -1 to hit.

It was easy and NORMAL to have -2 thru -3 to hit on targets.

Almost all Pistols had +2 to hit at close range. THERE WAS A REASON to shoot pistols!!! (it wasn't some prop for hth combat)





Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galef wrote:

Why does a model's armour get better if they are behind a bush or wall? If the shot hits said wall, it didn't hit the target.
-

Your armor gets better when you're behind a wall because the round that may or may not have enough strength to punch through your ceramite will have even less strength if it has to punch through a foot of concrete (rockrcete?) first. The bushes make that same round less likely to punch through your armor in a meaningful way because the shot aimed at your organs and helmetless head had its aim thrown off when you couldn't see the target clearly or because some of the shurikens zipping towards you bounced off of the intervening trees rather than flying true. Also, yeah. If the shot hits the intervening wall and doesn't punch through, then it doesn't hit the fragile, fragile kneecap behind the wall that it otherwise would have struck thus disabling the kneecaps owner.

.

See I don't like this example. I always looked at it this way. That lascannon just hit that marine. and I rolled a 1 to wound. It probably took his arm off at the elbow...but not enough to kill him and he keeps fighting. If that bush caused the wound to slightly miss or not penetrate his armor then that SHOULD be represented more on the TO WOUND roll. not an armor save as you described.

 admironheart wrote:


See I don't like this example. I always looked at it this way. That lascannon just hit that marine. and I rolled a 1 to wound. It probably took his arm off at the elbow...but not enough to kill him and he keeps fighting. If that bush caused the wound to slightly miss or not penetrate his armor then that SHOULD be represented more on the TO WOUND roll. not an armor save as you described.

I see where you're coming from, but I just see it as a matter of abstraction. It's like when people complain that we roll saves after to wound rolls instead of the other way around. it's not that wearing carapace armor or having ork scrap metal belted to your shoulder causes a bolter wound to suddenly heal Wolverine style. We just understand that the series of to-hit, to-wound, and save rolls we perform as part of the rules of the game represent a series of factors that contribute to a guy being taken out of the fight.

So maybe the lascannon only took off the guardsman's arm (ouch), but I prefer to think that the thick foliage and concrete rubble misdirected/blocked the shot so that it never actually hit in the first place. That way, I don't have to imagine every single to-wound roll of 1 as a minor burn wound, non-lethal act of dismemberment, or miraculous organ-and-bone-missing bullet. But to each their own.

As for the 2nd edition rules you posted, those sound viscerally satisfying, but wouldn't they risk making things way too durable? As much as I like the idea of making my various zoomy eldar night-untouchable as they zip around at break-neck speeds, I doubt my opponent would find it as amusing. Giving some weapons bonuses to hit to counteract the penalties also has an appeal, but I'm not sure I want to juggle 6 different to-hit modifiers every time attacks are resolved. And those same bonuses applied against targets without large to-hit penalties might make some weapons unexpectedly potent. None of which is necessarily a bad thing, but it does all make me wary.

Not enough sources of + x to hit to have -1 to be so widespread, let alone approach 2nd ed level of penalties

 Bobthehero wrote:
Not enough sources of + x to hit to have -1 to be so widespread, let alone approach 2nd ed level of penalties

Yeah also people in s3cond edition could still be hitting on 2+ with minus to hit mods. And a table for 7+ rolls existed, both thing arn't exactlly 8th edition friendly.

People thought orks and guardsmen not veing able to hit units was broken, wait till you can make functionally invisible units in 8th with -5 to hit.

If to-hit was floored at 6+ it might be a good change, but until that happens, the possibility of pushing low BS units off of the to-hit chart entirely makes minus modifiers to hit an entirely bad idea. There is already too many of them in the game already.

I personally think there should be a "cover save" similar to how it worked in 5th edition... except in this instance the cover save would be unaffected by AP modifiers.

I feel that the D6 system is inherently a bad place to use modifiers.

Essentially you have 6 possible options for a roll, between 2+ and 7+ (auto-fail) (assuming 1's always fail).

You cannot push something below a 2+ or above an auto-fail. so, as soon as multiple modifiers start to take effect, it either becomes too powerful or redundant.

The +1 to saves cover sort of works due to it counteracting the -1 to saves from AP, so the two work against each other to a middle ground. However, this means cover is of more use to units with good armour and less to units with no armour - which makes no sense.

Putting a -1 to hit for cover and for fast moving would not have anything to counteract it - everything which affects "to hit" rolls does so by reducing them, as such a fast moving unit behind hard cover with it's own -2 to hit would have -6 to hit - making it impossible.

For this to work, we would need positive modifiers to hit, such a +1 for vehicles & monsters and +2 for titanic units - which I think makes sense. These modifiers would then balance out in the middle-area of the spectrum.

Personally, I would prefer if cover simply gave a save to units, which you can use if it's better than your save, but is still affected by AP. so ruins would be 4+, aegis would be 3+, trenches etc a 2+, trees a 5+. because a tree won't help against a lascannon.

D6 systems are generally better by modifying the amount of dice, rather than the required amount. Or be less generous on the modifiers. Or to put another dice barrier in the way, EG reroll successful hits.

-1 to hit is too strong IMHO, shooting units are already powerful and nasty long distance shooters would be even better.

If cover needs to be re-written into a more powerful bonus I'd make it +2 to the armor save till a maximum of 2+.

Fluff wise being in cover doesn't make the enemy units less accurate, the terrain just soaks some firepower

I'd also give +1 to the armor save to vehicles that are just on a terrain, without the need of being obscured.

I personally like that cover in Kill Team gives a -1 to hit instead of to save. That rule, plus always hit on 6 would be a nice addition to the existing system.

Alaitoc/ravenguard tactics just need an overhaul to something different.

The way I see it is that all the rules are abstracted. especially when we are abstracting things so that the sequence of events happen in turns rather than simultaniously.

So the way it currently works is roughly.

To hit = Is the attack on target or does it go wide?

Armour save = Does that attack actually hit? Maybe it glances off the Armour, maybe it hits the wall, maybe the other guy just happens to drop his head at the last second.

I think both this option and the proposed option work fine they are just different ways of abstracting the same issue.

Why not just use the cities of death rules?
Obscured is -1 to hit. Hard and soft cover have differing benefits to armour. Higher ground benefits from improved ap. 6s always hit no matter the modifier.

Cover being an armor save modifier has a pretty important mechanical benefit. The rule is every model in the unit has to be in cover to benefit from it, but wound allocation and armor saves are done individually. This is most commonly seen when someone has a Storm Shield in the unit, but it applies to cover as well.

Say you have a 10 man unit, with 8 of them being in the ruin but 2 out. Currently, the unit doesn't benefit from cover. The opponent attacks and gets 6 successful wounds on the unit. You can start by allocating them to one of the guys not in cover, then the other, then when you get around to allocating whatever is left to the remaining 8, the whole unit is in cover and benefit from it. So if the first 2 wounds kill the guys out of cover, the remaining 4 saves you roll get the bonus.

It's actually rather cinematically brilliant. It creates a situation where guys left out in the open tend to get picked off first, with the survivors... taking... cover.... Overall, I think it works well and provides an important counterpoint to the new AP system. The main issue is just that the current rules for receiving cover are overly reliant on a mix of rubble templates and walls that completely block LOS; which isn't really something GW has been good about providing with their terrain kits.

They kinda addressed this in CHapter approved 2018. In the cities of death section of narrative play.

Go check it out and you'll see what i mean.

Basically obscurement is -1 but there is the you can always hit on a unmodified 6. There are also a few other things too

check it out

Why not keep the armour save modifier of cover, but give different types of cover a cap on how much the armour can be degraded?

Say:
Concealment: saving rolls of a 6 always succeed. (Fences, bushes)
Light cover: saving rolls of a 5 or 6 always succeed. (Trees, most buildings and terrain)
Heavy cover: saving rolls of a 4, 5, or 6 always succeed. (Purpose-built fortifications)

All would still give +1 to armour.

That would counter some of the lethality of 8th, and make effective cover valuable. It would also raise the importance of melee and anti-cover weapons, which are neglected in many ways.

I feel like cover should give some kind of bonuses to defending from assaults though, like the old initiative rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could come with new general strategems:
"Preliminary bombardment- After deployment, before the first turn, choose D3 pieces of terrain in the enemies deployment zone to reduce from hard to soft cover. This strategem can only be used once. 1CP."

"Smokescreen- Use after deployment, before rolling for initiative. Mark a line up to 18" long on the table. This blocks LoS for the first game turn. This strategem can only be used once. 3CP."

A way to help counter fortified gunlines basically.

mchammadad wrote:
They kinda addressed this in CHapter approved 2018. In the cities of death section of narrative play.

Go check it out and you'll see what i mean.

Basically obscurement is -1 but there is the you can always hit on a unmodified 6. There are also a few other things too

check it out

Yeah. I haven't used those rules yet, but I like them on paper quite a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Why not keep the armour save modifier of cover, but give different types of cover a cap on how much the armour can be degraded?

Say:
Concealment: saving rolls of a 6 always succeed. (Fences, bushes)
Light cover: saving rolls of a 5 or 6 always succeed. (Trees, most buildings and terrain)
Heavy cover: saving rolls of a 4, 5, or 6 always succeed. (Purpose-built fortifications)
All would still give +1 to armour.

So a cover save ala 3rd through 7th edition, but also +1 to saves for feqs and meqs?

I feel like cover should give some kind of bonuses to defending from assaults though, like the old initiative rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could come with new general strategems:
"Preliminary bombardment- After deployment, before the first turn, choose D3 pieces of terrain in the enemies deployment zone to reduce from hard to soft cover. This strategem can only be used once. 1CP."

"Smokescreen- Use after deployment, before rolling for initiative. Mark a line up to 18" long on the table. This blocks LoS for the first game turn. This strategem can only be used once. 3CP."

A way to help counter fortified gunlines basically.

Cool ideas. Some of that is already sort of offered by various stratagems and terrain rules. The smokescreen would basically make mobile dakka platforms untargetable turn 1 if they have second turn, but 40k could stand to have additional interesting terrain rules.

Why not think outside the box.

RT/2nd ed had cover as a minus to hit.

3rd - 8th had cover as a armor save or bonus to save.

why not make cover work on to wounds rolls.

It would be different....would solve some problems and still give a benefit.

that Lascannon normally would kill on a 2+ so now its a 3+ to wound. Those Bolters normally need 3+ to crush those cultist...but due to the barricade they need a 4+ to wipe them out.

The Eldar has a power that does just that in the Fight Phase. So it is already in the rules to some extent.

It would move Cover into a different realm and clean up some of the justifications.

 admironheart wrote:
Why not think outside the box.

RT/2nd ed had cover as a minus to hit.

3rd - 8th had cover as a armor save or bonus to save.

why not make cover work on to wounds rolls.

It would be different....would solve some problems and still give a benefit.

that Lascannon normally would kill on a 2+ so now its a 3+ to wound. Those Bolters normally need 3+ to crush those cultist...but due to the barricade they need a 4+ to wipe them out.

The Eldar has a power that does just that in the Fight Phase. So it is already in the rules to some extent.

It would move Cover into a different realm and clean up some of the justifications.

I like this a lot! I find the current cover rules favour big weapons over weight of fire too heavily, making all but the cheapest troops undesirable choices. As this would cap at a 6+ to wound, it would not affect small arms as much as heavier weapons.

Better cover could give better damage shifts, being in a purpose-built fortification could provide a -3 to wound rolls for example (6+ always wounding of course).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wyldhunt wrote:

mchammadad wrote:
They kinda addressed this in CHapter approved 2018. In the cities of death section of narrative play.

Go check it out and you'll see what i mean.

Basically obscurement is -1 but there is the you can always hit on a unmodified 6. There are also a few other things too

check it out

Yeah. I haven't used those rules yet, but I like them on paper quite a bit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Haighus wrote:
Why not keep the armour save modifier of cover, but give different types of cover a cap on how much the armour can be degraded?

Say:
Concealment: saving rolls of a 6 always succeed. (Fences, bushes)
Light cover: saving rolls of a 5 or 6 always succeed. (Trees, most buildings and terrain)
Heavy cover: saving rolls of a 4, 5, or 6 always succeed. (Purpose-built fortifications)
All would still give +1 to armour.

So a cover save ala 3rd through 7th edition, but also +1 to saves for feqs and meqs?

I feel like cover should give some kind of bonuses to defending from assaults though, like the old initiative rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Could come with new general strategems:
"Preliminary bombardment- After deployment, before the first turn, choose D3 pieces of terrain in the enemies deployment zone to reduce from hard to soft cover. This strategem can only be used once. 1CP."

"Smokescreen- Use after deployment, before rolling for initiative. Mark a line up to 18" long on the table. This blocks LoS for the first game turn. This strategem can only be used once. 3CP."

A way to help counter fortified gunlines basically.

Cool ideas. Some of that is already sort of offered by various stratagems and terrain rules. The smokescreen would basically make mobile dakka platforms untargetable turn 1 if they have second turn, but 40k could stand to have additional interesting terrain rules.

My thinking is that shooting should be much less lethal to units in cover, but slow-moving assault units/flamers then need a buff to be able to deal with gunlines.

This leaves fast assault units as a problem, which is why I thought of giving cover better defensive bonuses against assault. I'm not sure if that would be enough though. Basically, I think the happy middle ground is where units are encouraged to move from their deployment zone, but have to think about hopping from cover to cover in order to survive shooting. This would create more interesting tactical play in my opinion.

Very fast assault units sort of break it, especially with the smokescreen intended to help slower units like footslogging Ork boyz.

 Haighus wrote:


I like this a lot! I find the current cover rules favour big weapons over weight of fire too heavily, making all but the cheapest troops undesirable choices. As this would cap at a 6+ to wound, it would not affect small arms as much as heavier weapons.

Better cover could give better damage shifts, being in a purpose-built fortification could provide a -3 to wound rolls for example (6+ always wounding of course).

Eh. I feel like you don't want my dark reapers sitting on a fortification that takes you from a 2+ or 3+ to wound them to a 5+ or 6+. I know I don't like the idea of having to clear a horde of orks or guardsmen when my bolters and shuriken catapults are wounding them on 5s and 6s instead of 4s just because they're camping an objective near cover. A to-hit penalty might better address your concerns about big guns as weapons that pay more points per shot are impacted by a to-hit penalty more severely than cheap guns.

All for the new CA2018 City Fight rules.

Maybe are not perfect, but are a great step ahead.

 Haighus wrote:

Very fast assault units sort of break it, especially with the smokescreen intended to help slower units like footslogging Ork boyz.

That can easily be solved by restricting the smokescreen to being within 6" of the deployment zone.

Alternatively, to make it a bit more random (which the game is so lacking nowadays) pick 2 models up to 12" apart, then place a smokescreen token 2D6" from them. the two tokens form a line of smoke, either doing -2 to hit or blocking LOS.

so the screen can either be long and right in front of you, or short and further away, depending on what you're trying to do. it could also be short and right in front of you.

smoke needs to be overhauled in general, tanks popping smoke should make an aura. preferably a LOS blocking aura. allow the game to be shaped more by non-attacking actions.

If the edition was built around it you'd have a lot more +1 to hit modifiers, or "ignores cover" rules