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.

Hi guys.

I'm sure this has been discussed on numerous boards all over the place, but I just don't get why Cover Saves are not in addition to regular saves, if available.

Cover represents the ability to avoid fire by either the shot impacting and dispersing on a solid object, or said cover obscuring the individual enough so that any shots at the individual through the cover are obscured enough that they may miss.

So it seems a little silly to me that it's either-or when it comes to the saves.

Surely if a bullet DOES get through cover and impact the target, the armour is still there to stop the impact of the shot. Therefore there should still be an armour save, if available.

I get that there may be a balance issue with armies that usually don't get saves/have horrible saves, but cover is a universal rule and better armoured armies are already paying higher points cost per mini.

I may be over-simplifying it a bit - but I'm interested to know what everyone thinks about this one.

It used to in 5th but they changed it to make the game a little quicker

 Robbo97 wrote:
It used to in 5th but they changed it to make the game a little quicker

No it didn't. You'll need to go much further back if you want stacking saves. Maybe 2nd.

Mostly a balance thing.

You could also look at it this way: since you pick the best save, and if the cover is better than your armor, the projectile will also penetrate your armor in addition to the cover.
For example, a Guardsman is behind a aegis defense line, when he is shot at by a Tyranid spike rifle. He has 5+ armor and 4+ cover. If the cover save is not made, the projectile has penetrated the aegis defense line. If the round had enough energy to penetrate a wall of steel thicker than your body armor, then there is little hope that you armor will somehow stop it.

If your standing behind a wall with football pads on when a Bullet is shot through the wall and into you, your armor is not going to help because the wall is much thicker and was unable to stop the bullet.

But again, mostly for balance.

 Der Metzgermeister wrote:
Mostly a balance thing.

You could also look at it this way: since you pick the best save, and if the cover is better than your armor, the projectile will also penetrate your armor in addition to the cover.
For example, a Guardsman is behind a aegis defense line, when he is shot at by a Tyranid spike rifle. He has 5+ armor and 4+ cover. If the cover save is not made, the projectile has penetrated the aegis defense line. If the round had enough energy to penetrate a wall of steel thicker than your body armor, then there is little hope that you armor will somehow stop it.

If your standing behind a wall with football pads on when a Bullet is shot through the wall and into you, your armor is not going to help because the wall is much thicker and was unable to stop the bullet.

But again, mostly for balance.

I mostly meant when it's the other way around, when your armour is better than the cover, hence 2 saves.

His explanation works the other way around as well. If your armour wasn't powerful enough to stop it, why do you think the shrub would be?

Of course, that realism explanation falls apart pretty quickly when you replace the shrub or wall with another marine/guardsman/gaunt/etc. That's why they mention that a successful cover save can mean that the firer never actually took the shot.

The real answer is, and always has been, balance. You may be thinking in terms of power armour marines or guardsmen, but you also need to consider Riptides and Storm Shield Terminators. After all, if you're going to allow stacking of cover on armour because "Realism", you're going to have to allow stacking Invulnerables on as well for the same reason.

Yeah, I can see how balance would be a massive part of it.

I was reading somewhere where someone proposed changing the rules so that saves were never actually rolled, and rather used cover as a modifier for the "to hit" and armour as a modifier for the "to wound" rolls. Certainly an interesting prospect, but could be pretty hard to implement effectively.

Thanks for the responses, guys

For reference, and while I've never actually played it, as far as I'm aware 2nd edition allowed stacking of saves. Effectively anyway. Cover saves didn't exist, instead Cover provided modifiers to the To-Hit roll. You could stack Armour and Invulnerables, but every weapon had an Armour Save Modifier that would reduce your armour save.

Balance is a terrible excuse for the current cover system. I realize what GW was trying to do, keeping well armored units from being dependent on cover and being more mobile, but the level of firepower currently available, in both volume and AP, makes that goal laughable.

What's worse is that the cover system doesn't even adhere to the justifications given for cover. If cover can represent missing due to low visibility of the target, or just not firing at all, why does an ork boy receive a much greater bonus than a space marine in the same cover? They have similar behavior and size characteristics per fluff, yet an ork gets a 5+ save against almost everything that he didn't have to pay for, while the space marine only benefits against anything with AP3 or better weapons.

I'm not a fan of making cover a modifier for BS though, because then weaker units that do need to rely on cover will get no saves at all, making the game a less engaging experience for those playing those armies. If all i'm doing is pulling models off the table and having little say in their fate, i'm not having much fun using those units, even if the math works out to the same.

I'd like to see the save order look something like this:
Cover saves (or Invulnerable saves against ranged attacks)
Armor saves (or invulnerable saves against melee weapons with sufficient AP)
Feel no Pain

This allows units that have invulnerable saves to act like they are surrounded by a force field, essentially granting them mobile cover as you would expect, while fulfilling the intended goal of ensuring certain units are not reliant on cover for protection.

Of course, units that have only an invulnerable save (daemons, LotD) will not be represented properly using these rules, but the AP and armor system needs a complete overhaul too, so those issues could be resolved there.

chuloopa wrote:
Yeah, I can see how balance would be a massive part of it.

I was reading somewhere where someone proposed changing the rules so that saves were never actually rolled, and rather used cover as a modifier for the "to hit" and armour as a modifier for the "to wound" rolls. Certainly an interesting prospect, but could be pretty hard to implement effectively.

Thanks for the responses, guys

Armour is represented as a Toughness bonus in the Lord of the Rings system. People hate it.

Although I think the ideas of stacking cover save with armor save or having cover modify the to hit roll in Cover vs BS chart similar to S v T or WS v WS, I think either would require a complete revamp of a great many things. For one, It will make infantry much more durable and their prices would have to increase to reflect that. This is the opposite direction of the current trend of having cheaper infantry. A marine gone to ground in cover would become nigh un-shiftable by shooting, which would encourage assault ( a good thing ) but on the other hand would make cover ignoring effects enormously more valuable.

I like it, but its too deep of a change to do outside of a complete overhaul.