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.

It just seems to me after playing fantasy that the rules for cover vs 40k's cover rules make so much more sense.

I'm afraid I've no clue what the fantasy rules for cover system is.

Cover in fantasy lowers the BS of the attacking unit instead of providing a cover save for the unit being shot at.

Which I suppose reflects how a target behind cover is much more difficult to score a hit on; which makes sense to me because of how silly it is sometimes when ruins are able to protect a unit from rail guns or lascannons if you understand what I mean.

40k's system is just much more abstract. i.e. if a Grot passes a cover save vs. a railgun in a forest, it's not because a tree got in the way (when realistically the round would just blow through a tree and keep going), it's because the gunner didn't get off a good enough shot thanks to the concealment.

I think a mix of both, like FoW's cover system, more accurately represents reality: there's Concealment, which makes it harder to hit things, and Bulletproof Cover, which requires the shooter to test based on their weapon's Firepower to get through it.

Because fantasy doesn't have terminators

the cover system for 40k is designed around not having the armies with the best armor become even harder to kill.

Actually Fantasy does have Terminators, or at least 2+ armor saves. However, it also has save modifiers, which 40k doesn't have.

Rogue trader and 2nd Eddition did use similar rules to fantasy. with to hit modifiers, save modifiers and such like. The result was that the game could be particularly unwieldy at times. When the game was changed to 3rd eddition, they streamlined the game to an incredible degree, and removed a lot of the aspects that were slowing the game down (modifiers of any kind, overwatch) vehicle rules and armour rules were simplified, save modifiers were replaced with AP and so forth.

Essentially, a 3rd eddition game of similar points value to second ed, had more guys on the field (marines were 30 points in 2nd ed), and was faster to play.

They used to. Infact 40k used to be just fantasy in space with most of the rules being the same. They have changed the rules to make it faster and more exciting.....and they are correct for the most part, but i also think they dumbed the game down alot so that little kids could play.

madtankbloke wrote:
Rogue trader and 2nd Eddition did use similar rules to fantasy. with to hit modifiers, save modifiers and such like. The result was that the game could be particularly unwieldy at times if you weren't capable of doing even the most simplistic elementary math.

FTFY

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
Rogue trader and 2nd Eddition did use similar rules to fantasy. with to hit modifiers, save modifiers and such like. The result was that the game could be particularly unwieldy at times if you weren't capable of doing even the most simplistic elementary math.

FTFY

because the 2nd ed close combat rules were streamlined and efficient, large combats could take 20-30 minutes to resolve, what with fumbles, and parries. lets throw in the fact that there was no limit on the number of saves you could have.

2nd ed 40k was a skirmish game trying to be an army game. the ruleset works fantastically well in necromunda, but the 3rd ed onwards ruleset is more abstract and certainly a lot faster to play

But because 2nd edition had a load of extra counter-rolls which had to be modified, does not mean that completely killing off modifiers in 3+ edition is the better choice.
I find that both cover saves and nightfighting are too abstract and at times serve no purpose. A range unit excessively good at hiding is during night time only as good at hiding as a Leman Russ? A Terminator is only impeded by terrain unless they pack Railguns and that piece of meter-thick fortification covering 90% of their body mean nothing to bolster their defense?
Naturally, modifiers to armour would need to go along with modifiers to cover so as to keep Terminators from becoming extreme - AND to promote the tactical game of using cover.

It would make 40k much less deadlier as models with a good armor save get even stronger protection due to having their armor save AND the enemy getting a lower BF, making TEQ / MEQ even stronger. 40k is supposed to be more deadly (slowed magic in 8th left aside) and I much, much prefer how 40k handles the issue.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It would make 40k much less deadlier as models with a good armor save get even stronger protection due to having their armor save AND the enemy getting a lower BF, making TEQ / MEQ even stronger. 40k is supposed to be more deadly (slowed magic in 8th left aside) and I much, much prefer how 40k handles the issue.

Unless you couple it with armour modifiers as well. 2+ armour against what is now AP3 would become a 5+ or 6+ save. You'll need cover.

madtankbloke wrote:

 Vladsimpaler wrote:

madtankbloke wrote:
Rogue trader and 2nd Eddition did use similar rules to fantasy. with to hit modifiers, save modifiers and such like. The result was that the game could be particularly unwieldy at times if you weren't capable of doing even the most simplistic elementary math.

FTFY

because the 2nd ed close combat rules were streamlined and efficient, large combats could take 20-30 minutes to resolve, what with fumbles, and parries. lets throw in the fact that there was no limit on the number of saves you could have.

2nd ed 40k was a skirmish game trying to be an army game. the ruleset works fantastically well in necromunda, but the 3rd ed onwards ruleset is more abstract and certainly a lot faster to play

>Thread is about cover from shooting
>Uses example about close combat which did not use the fantasy cover system to illustrate his point

Ok then? Also close combat didn't take that long unless you had around 10 combatants per side, which was not very common.

If I recall correctly, when they went to the current cover save and AP system in 3E, at least one designers stated in WD it was so that heavily armored units, specifically Space Marines, would benefit less from skulking in cover since it wouldn't help against small arms fire at all. They wanted them out boldly facing down their foes, etc etc.

The major issue is one of balance. Here are some examples. (mathhammer below, all is average results)


1) Orks shooting into -1 BS cover (36 shots)

With no Cover, the orks hit with 12 shots
With -1 BS cover the orks hit with 6 shots

This is a reduction of firepower by 50% (6 of 12 hits lost)


2) Space Marines shooting into -1 BS Cover (36 shots)

With no Cover, the marines hit 24 times
With -1 BS cover, the marines hit 18 times

This is only a 25% reduction of firepower (6 of 24 hits lost)


3) Space marines, with divination re-roll to hit, shooting into -1BS cover (36 shots)

without cover, the marines hit 32 times
With -1 BS cover, the marines hit 27 times

This is a reduction of 15.6% of firepower (5 of 32 hits lost)



Modifying to hit rolls greatly favors units with high BS. It is has a smaller percent impact on BS 4 and 5 (especially TL shots as well) vs. massed low BS firepower.

Fantasy has been balanced such that High BS units are not very common and are very expensive, due to the reduced effect the to-hit modifiers have on them.
40k is not balanced to take this into effect. With BS modifier cover, the game would heavily favor High BS, High Armor armies (basically marines would be very underpriced)


Additionally, high armor units are priced with the knowledge that they benefit less from cover. By having to hit modifier cover, all units would benefit from being in cover equally, making the higher armor save units being more cost effective than they currently are.
This would also make high armor save, high BS units (like Marines) even better.



TO SUM UP:

High BS and TL firepower would almost ignore cover
Low BS firepower would be nerfed hard by cover
High Armor save units get to use cover more

2nd Edition had a lot of cumbersome rules that needed streamlining.


What 3rd Edition did to correct some of them was a hideous over-compensation that removed a ton of the fun and tactics that 2nd Edition had by over-simplifying too many areas of the game.

For example, psychic powers needed a huge overhaul. They got them. That was good.

Close combat needed an overhaul and simplification. What it got was absurdly simplified, and designed to remove as many models in a single turn as possible. That was good and bad.


The shooting rules, however, did not need extensive modification, and shooting was completely neutered. That was bad, and made 40K no longer a game of "modern" (as in guns) combat, but Fantasy innnnnnn Spaaaaaaaace",

the reason that 3rd Edition games went faster was not because the ruleset was better or more efficient. They went faster because the ruleset had been changed to make the units move further (anywhere from two, to four times further, sometimes), and close combat to be resolved in a single turn of simplified dice rolling and mass model removal. Armor saves and cover saves were either removed, or rendered largely irrelevant for a lot of the troops, which was quite unbalanced (a Guardsman gained a huge amount from cover, a Space Marine only did if the enemy had a lascannon).

Basically, 3rd Edition killed everything that 40K was supposed to be, lol.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 svendrex wrote:
The major issue is one of balance. Here are 2 examples.


1) Orks shooting into -1 BS cover (12 shots)

With no Cover, the orks hit with 4 shots
With -1 BS cover the orks hit with 2 shots

This is a reduction of firepower by 50% (2 of 4 hits lost)


2) Space Marines shooting into -1 BS Cover (12 shots)

With no Cover, the marines hit 8 times
With -1 BS cover, the marines hit 6 times

This is only a 25% reduction of firepower (2 of 8 hits lost)



Modifying to hit rolls greatly favors units with high BS. It is has a smaller percent impact on BS 4 and 5 (especially TL shots as well) vs. massed low BS firepower.

Fantasy has been balanced such that High BS units are not very common and are very expensive, due to the reduced effect the to-hit modifiers have on them.
40k is not balanced to take this into effect. With BS modifier cover, the game would heavily favor High BS, High Armor armies (basically marines would be very underpriced)

The problem is that your math forgets that changing the cover rules benefits the Orks on the opposite end, and hurts the Marines on the opposite end. It all balances out.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

The problem is that your math forgets that changing the cover rules benefits the Orks on the opposite end, and hurts the Marines on the opposite end. It all balances out.

1) I have updated the math a bit from when you last quoted me.


2) How does BS modifier cover help orks more than it does marines?


Currently Marines only benefit from cover some of the time (AP3 or less weapons)

Orks currently benefit from cover nearly all of the time (going from no save since most weapons are at least AP6 to a 5+ or 4+)


UNDER CURRENT RULES: Marines shooting at Shoota Orks and return fire

The Orks recieve 33% damage reduction from cover
The Marines get 0% damage reduction from cover

UNDER TO HIT MODIFIER RULES: Marines shooting at Shoota Orks and return fire

The orks receive 25% damage reduction from cover
The marines get 50% damage reduction from cover

It is far worse for the orks under to hit modifier rules, unless i am missing something here.


[Edit: to hit modifier shooting works in fantasy, because High BS and re-rolls to hit with shooting are uncommon and expensive. This system could work in 40k as well, but you would need to re-price all of the point values to take this into account. Shooty orks would have to be dirt cheap, as they are heavily effected by shooting into over. A unit with BS 4 and a re-roll to hit nearly ignores cover and would need to be very very expensive to take that into account.]

What you're missing is exactly what I detailed above, and difficult to cover with your simple math.

The Orks get a cover save from almost every weapon in the game, because their armor sucks. The Marines only benefit from cover against a few select weapons, none of which are ever brought to bear in large numbers.

I think he was implying if there were also armor reduction in 40k, which the marines would be hurt by more than orks in your scenario.

No, he's not. We're only talking about To-Hit modifiers versus Cover Saves.

To-hit modifiers: Reduces accuracy for all troops by an equal amount (1/6 is the same no matter what the original BS was, because the ratio of hits is the same)

Cover saves: Provides greater benefit for some types of troops over others.


There's really no comparison. Space Marines pay more points for their armor saves. They should not be punished for that save they have paid for.

The problem really started when the marines power began to creep. Any body else remember t3 marines that had a 4+ save and only shot once? In second ed marines were t4 with a 3+ save and could shoot twice if they didn't move. Trying to kill marines in bunkers became near impossible. It basically broke the mechanic. Your average ork was hitting a marine in hard cover on 6, wounding on 4 and then failing to wound 1/2 of the time (bolters the ork weapon at the time had a -1 to saving throw).

Guard needed 6 to hit, 5 to wound and failed to wound 2/3 of the time.

The new mechanic is just well, kind of clunky and has no elegance at all, its counter intuitive and really doesn't make much sense. People say its faster, I don't know, maybe for people with poor math skills.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Actually Fantasy does have Terminators, or at least 2+ armor saves. However, it also has save modifiers, which 40k doesn't have.

Yah, pretty much all knights have 1+ sv, and some joyfully days my chaos knights have 0+ sv

To hit cover would benefit things that already have invulnerable saves, the new chaos vehicles for example.

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

To-hit modifiers: Reduces accuracy for all troops by an equal amount (1/6 is the same no matter what the original BS was, because the ratio of hits is the same)

This is where your math is breaking down. -1BS is not the same no matter what BS you start with.

-1BS on BS2 means hitting only half as much.

-1BS on BS4 means hitting 75% as much.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

To-hit modifiers: Reduces accuracy for all troops by an equal amount (1/6 is the same no matter what the original BS was, because the ratio of hits is the same)

This is where your math is breaking down. -1BS is not the same no matter what BS you start with.

-1BS on BS2 means hitting only half as much.

-1BS on BS4 means hitting 75% as much.

I guess you could call that unfair. Except that you pay for a models ballistic skill. Poor ballistic skill is usually a pretty cheap model. So it seams fair.

Looking at cover saves some people get absolutely no use out of them, while other pretty much rely on them. Each model is paying for armor, but a model with no armor gets saves from cover whereas models that pay for armor get no befits from cover. So that doesn't really seam fair. However I don't think the premium you pay for armor is as high anymore either. Your average space marine isn't 30pts any more, but I think everyone's point costs went down as well, I'd have to check but I think IG were about 15pts a piece in first ed.

The old way made more sense to me, and while I may not think the new way is fair (as in doesn't make sense), I think it is actually fairly balanced and works in the game if you can get over the idea that well some armies just don't get cover saves or more accurately don't get the befits of cover saves because their armor is just as good.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 Veteran Sergeant wrote:

To-hit modifiers: Reduces accuracy for all troops by an equal amount (1/6 is the same no matter what the original BS was, because the ratio of hits is the same)

This is where your math is breaking down. -1BS is not the same no matter what BS you start with.

-1BS on BS2 means hitting only half as much.

-1BS on BS4 means hitting 75% as much.

It's irrelevant. Do the real math,

BS of 4 hits 4/6 times, or 6.66 per ten.
BS of 3, hits half the time. Half of ten is 5.
BS of 2 hits 2/6 or 3.33 times out of ten.

The difference is approximately 1.66 per negative modifier. It is irrelevant what percentage of the original is affected, because ultimately, the number of lost hits per negative modifier is identical. Yeah, if your BS is 2, you lose half your hits. But that's half of ~3.33/10, or ~1.66 hits. The Space Marine loses only 25% of his hits, but that 25% is still ~1.6/10 hits.

 Luke_Prowler wrote:
Because fantasy doesn't have terminators

the cover system for 40k is designed around not having the armies with the best armor become even harder to kill.

QFT

I do miss save modifiers, it's annoying nowdays that a S10 AP4 weapon still grants a 3+ it's full save. It'll explode a Landraider but a SM . . . nope, armor is still at full functionality and more durable than av14 in this case Not into the all or none thing, are people's math skills that bad?

but if the bs is lowered wouldn't that make orkis the best shooters because you cant get below bs 1 and for the most part there bs2.

 kwah wrote:
but if the bs is lowered wouldn't that make orkis the best shooters because you cant get below bs 1 and for the most part there bs2.

It was a roll modifier, not a stat modifier, so if after the modifiers you actually needed a 7 to hit, you really just couldn't hit. There were some rules in the back that if you needed a 7 to hit you could role a 6 followed by a 4, but most people didn't really try. Also worth noting Orcs were for the most part BS 3 back then.