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's a 17% increment on the die. That doesn't translate to any particular situation.

Here is what I"m going for:

1) 10 hits incoming all wound on a 3+ AP 0 (or AP -) to make it easy.

Old cover:

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills in cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills in cover

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills out of cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills out of cover

This makes sense because cover was taken in lieu of armor in all cases.

Current cover:

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.5)= 3.3 kills in cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.1666)= 1.1 kills in cover

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills out of cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills out of cover

Notice that the guardsmen are getting a benefit of 25% reduction in kills whereas marines are getting a 50% cut. Nowhere does 17% come into this math.

My proposal:

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)*0.8= 3.5 kills in cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)*0.8= 1.76 kills in cover

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills out of cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills out of cover

Both units are taking 20% less damage in light cover, not 25% and 50%. The cover is equally beneficial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even though cover is +1 to all cover saves in the current system, not all armor types benefit equally.

The current cover system is probably "more fair" than the old one in a world with the new ap system. Personally the old one made more sense, but I could see a shift to making it negate ap being a good way of working.

Imo it's fine for mooks to have more real term benefit from cover, that's just tactics and playing to your armies weaknesses.

Just have it stop a percentage of hits. Round up or down. Done.

Martel732 wrote:

Spoiler:

It's a 17% increment on the die. That doesn't translate to any particular situation.

Here is what I"m going for:

1) 10 hits incoming all wound on a 3+ AP 0 (or AP -) to make it easy.

Old cover:

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills in cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills in cover

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills out of cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills out of cover

This makes sense because cover was taken in lieu of armor in all cases.

Current cover:

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.5)= 3.3 kills in cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.1666)= 1.1 kills in cover

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills out of cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills out of cover

Notice that the guardsmen are getting a benefit of 25% reduction in kills whereas marines are getting a 50% cut. Nowhere does 17% come into this math.

My proposal:

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)*0.8= 3.5 kills in cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)*0.8= 1.76 kills in cover

Guardsmen take (10*0.666*0.666)= 4.4 kills out of cover
Marines take (10*0.666*0.333)= 2.2 kills out of cover

Both units are taking 20% less damage in light cover, not 25% and 50%. The cover is equally beneficial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Even though cover is +1 to all cover saves in the current system, not all armor types benefit equally.

Okay, but why? Why this particular thing, particularly in a thread which is bemoaning Marine stats? The only appreciable benefit I'm seeing with this system is that cover provides protection to 2+ saves against AP-0. Otherwise the minor shift in kill percentages is fairly negligible, imo.

So marines going from a 50% reduction to a 20% reduction in light cover is minor? 1.1 to 1.76 is NOT minor. This will get marines out of cover like in 7th, but still give them some benefit if they happen to be in cover.

Martel732 wrote:
So marines going from a 50% reduction to a 20% reduction in light cover is minor? 1.1 to 1.76 is NOT minor. This will get marines out of cover like in 7th, but still give them some benefit if they happen to be in cover.

But Marines will still get appreciable save improvement against higher AP weapons, which are the marine killers anyways. In 7th, marines still often stuck to cover because the high-AP weaponry was so prevalent. I'm not convinced Marines are going to start flying out of cover or anything.

Also, how do you handle a 20% reduction if a single Lascannon hits the unit. The technique used to calculate the reduction seems very game-able with small numbers of weapons. Are you calculating by weapon type? Or AP type? Like, my Tac Squad with a Las, Plasma, Combi-plas, and Bolters fire at you. How do you handle that? Does your method mean I'm incentivized to use a Combi-grav instead, in order to bypass a shot being lost by the calculation? Or is your method incentivising me splitting my shots carefully between units to get the minimum "dropped shots"?

I'm also just shocked that you would be advocating for a system change that benefits Guardsmen in the great Guardsmen vs. Marines match up.

 Insectum7 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
So marines going from a 50% reduction to a 20% reduction in light cover is minor? 1.1 to 1.76 is NOT minor. This will get marines out of cover like in 7th, but still give them some benefit if they happen to be in cover.

But Marines will still get appreciable save improvement against higher AP weapons, which are the marine killers anyways. In 7th, marines still often stuck to cover because the high-AP weaponry was so prevalent. I'm not convinced Marines are going to start flying out of cover or anything.

Also, how do you handle a 20% reduction if a single Lascannon hits the unit. The technique used to calculate the reduction seems very game-able with small numbers of weapons. Are you calculating by weapon type? Or AP type? Like, my Tac Squad with a Las, Plasma, Combi-plas, and Bolters fire at you. How do you handle that? Does your method mean I'm incentivized to use a Combi-grav instead, in order to bypass a shot being lost by the calculation? Or is your method incentivising me splitting my shots carefully between units to get the minimum "dropped shots"?

I'm also just shocked that you would be advocating for a system change that benefits Guardsmen in the great Guardsmen vs. Marines match up.

This doesn't benefit the marines in the way you're thinking from Martels perspective I don't think.

If cover is more effective for the standard mook who is hiding in a building at present, he's promoting it being less effective for them (fear of hordes) to promote marine movement (suicidal blood angel charges).

Lol the cover save bonus is far better and more fair in 8th edition than it was in 7th.

Also cheap infantry units don't need any further bonuses, they are competitive enough lol

The way cover worked in 7th was incredibly unfair. It doubled the effectiveness of saves for for one army and had no benefit for another.

Ironically it still benefits Guard more. They receive a 50% bonus to their save. (5+ going to a 4+)
Astartes receive a 25% boost (3+ going to a 2+)
Cultists get a 100% boost in cover, effectively doubling the chance for them to make a save against a weapon with no AP.

The cover system currently is a very fair representation of a shot having to penetrator another layer.

^Does not compute? @Dudeface

I'm having trouble parsing your post. I recognize that his proposal makes cover more beneficial for GEQ than MEQ in comparison to the current paradigm.

 Insectum7 wrote:
^Does not compute? @Dudeface

I'm having trouble parsing your post.

I think that's because you're a logical person applying a reasonable perspective. Martel has a history of disliking anything horde related, with cover currently giving a bigger boost to suitability, flat ignoring 20% of wounds against most small arms is actually a downgrade in the ratio of increase in survival for hordes wearing t-shirts. he wants to promote marines getting out of cover, because he plays an assault heavy blood angels army. If the screening hordes are hunkered down in buildings they're not swamping the board waiting to block the charges where they get hit with lots of ap - attacks.

In reality, being in cover should be preferable for all units that don't want to charge and a flat 20% reduction is neither tenable nor a minor improvement for anyone.

Marines use cover in the lore. They aren't mindless berserker who run forwards into a hail of bullets.

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol the cover save bonus is far better and more fair in 8th edition than it was in 7th.

Also cheap infantry units don't need any further bonuses, they are competitive enough lol

The way cover worked in 7th was incredibly unfair. It doubled the effectiveness of saves for for one army and had no benefit for another.

Ironically it still benefits Guard more. They receive a 50% bonus to their save. (5+ going to a 4+)
Astartes receive a 25% boost (3+ going to a 2+)
Cultists get a 100% boost in cover, effectively doubling the chance for them to make a save against a weapon with no AP.

The cover system currently is a very fair representation of a shot having to penetrator another layer.

I am sorry, you're going to have to break this math down here somehow. in what way could you possibly consider going from 3+ to 2+ a 25% boost versus a 5+ to a 4+ being a 50% boost?

50% more what? Saves? no....33% is 50% more than 50%? What are you doing to get here such that 17% is only 25% more than 33%?

Currently, if you shoot space marines out of cover with AP- weaponry, 100% more marines die. This is, I would agree with martel here, the biggest problem with the new cover system, the biggest number where it results in crazy stuff.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines use cover in the lore. They aren't mindless berserker who run forwards into a hail of bullets.

Well unless you're chaos space marines like in Ultramarines

Ishagu wrote:Lol the cover save bonus is far better and more fair in 8th edition than it was in 7th.

Also cheap infantry units don't need any further bonuses, they are competitive enough lol

The way cover worked in 7th was incredibly unfair. It doubled the effectiveness of saves for for one army and had no benefit for another.

Ironically it still benefits Guard more. They receive a 50% bonus to their save. (5+ going to a 4+)
Astartes receive a 25% boost (3+ going to a 2+)
Cultists get a 100% boost in cover, effectively doubling the chance for them to make a save against a weapon with no AP.

The cover system currently is a very fair representation of a shot having to penetrator another layer.

Unless those guardsmen or cultists are being fired on by a faction that automatically gets ap-1 on all their ap- weapons. That's why cover should ignore ap.

Ishagu wrote:Marines use cover in the lore. They aren't mindless berserker who run forwards into a hail of bullets.

No, they aren't, but the tactical advantage of power armour is that it provides enough protection against weapons like las guns and bolters that the wearers can effectively maneuver while being fired on by such weapons. The old system represented this and caused marines to be played appropriately. The current one doesn't.

That said, back on topic: do csm players want primaris or would we prefer another method to improve the faction? I would still prefer something to improve our current choices, preferably along the lines of what we had with the 3.5 codex. A return to veteran abilities and meaning chaos marks.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol the cover save bonus is far better and more fair in 8th edition than it was in 7th.

Also cheap infantry units don't need any further bonuses, they are competitive enough lol

The way cover worked in 7th was incredibly unfair. It doubled the effectiveness of saves for for one army and had no benefit for another.

Ironically it still benefits Guard more. They receive a 50% bonus to their save. (5+ going to a 4+)
Astartes receive a 25% boost (3+ going to a 2+)
Cultists get a 100% boost in cover, effectively doubling the chance for them to make a save against a weapon with no AP.

The cover system currently is a very fair representation of a shot having to penetrator another layer.

I am sorry, you're going to have to break this math down here somehow. in what way could you possibly consider going from 3+ to 2+ a 25% boost versus a 5+ to a 4+ being a 50% boost?

50% more what? Saves? no....33% is 50% more than 50%? What are you doing to get here such that 17% is only 25% more than 33%?

Currently, if you shoot space marines out of cover with AP- weaponry, 100% more marines die. This is, I would agree with martel here, the biggest problem with the new cover system, the biggest number where it results in crazy stuff.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines use cover in the lore. They aren't mindless berserker who run forwards into a hail of bullets.

Well unless you're chaos space marines like in Ultramarines

It's very simple. You're looking at it incorrectly because not every result on a D6 is a success.

If you save improved from a 3 to a 2:

3+ is the result on 4 out of 6 dice. 2+ is the result on 5 out of 6 dice. That's an improvement of 25% (4/4 = 1, 1+4 =5)

5+ is the result on 2 out of 6 dice. 4+ is the result on 3 dice out of 6. (2/2 = 1, 1+2 = 3) So yes, that's an improvement of 50%.

If a 6+ is boosted to a 5+ that's double the chance. An imporovent of 100%.

So yes, trash troops receive a greater bonus to cover in the current system.

Remember the Castellan? When his invul was capped at 4+, that's a 33% reduction in saves as opposed to a 3+. It's why increasing his points was not necessary. He has lost 1/3 of his save durability. Now the unit is no longer seen on tables...

EDIT.

We don't want Chaos Primaris.

What CSM players have been asking for are Renegade Marine Chapters.

I am curious what Agents of Bile will bring us. Got lots of Possessed and Spawn bitz to kitbash.

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

 Ishagu wrote:
Lol the cover save bonus is far better and more fair in 8th edition than it was in 7th.

Also cheap infantry units don't need any further bonuses, they are competitive enough lol

The way cover worked in 7th was incredibly unfair. It doubled the effectiveness of saves for for one army and had no benefit for another.

Ironically it still benefits Guard more. They receive a 50% bonus to their save. (5+ going to a 4+)
Astartes receive a 25% boost (3+ going to a 2+)
Cultists get a 100% boost in cover, effectively doubling the chance for them to make a save against a weapon with no AP.

The cover system currently is a very fair representation of a shot having to penetrator another layer.

I am sorry, you're going to have to break this math down here somehow. in what way could you possibly consider going from 3+ to 2+ a 25% boost versus a 5+ to a 4+ being a 50% boost?

50% more what? Saves? no....33% is 50% more than 50%? What are you doing to get here such that 17% is only 25% more than 33%?

Currently, if you shoot space marines out of cover with AP- weaponry, 100% more marines die. This is, I would agree with martel here, the biggest problem with the new cover system, the biggest number where it results in crazy stuff.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ishagu wrote:
Marines use cover in the lore. They aren't mindless berserker who run forwards into a hail of bullets.

Well unless you're chaos space marines like in Ultramarines

It's very simple. You're looking at it incorrectly because not every result on a D6 is a success.

If you save improved from a 3 to a 2:

3+ is the result on 4 out of 6 dice. 2+ is the result on 5 out of 6 dice. That's an improvement of 25% (4/4 = 1, 1+4 =5)

5+ is the result on 2 out of 6 dice. 4+ is the result on 3 dice out of 6. (2/2 = 1, 1+2 = 3) So yes, that's an improvement of 50%.

If a 6+ is boosted to a 5+ that's double the chance. An imporovent of 100%.

So yes, trash troops receive a greater bonus to cover in the current system.

...except that that's just, objectively not how statistics work. Marines out of cover take 15 saves, 5 die - 60pts of models. Marines in cover take 15 saves, 2.5 die - 30pts of models . Orks out of cover take 15 saves, 12.5 die - 87.5 points. In cover, 10 die - 70pts. Cover saves the marines 30pts of casualties, and the orks 17.5pts of casualties. There's no universe where you can argue that that is a greater benefit to the cheap troop than to the elite troop, unless the elite troop is starting at a 2+ in which case they gain no benefit to cover as 1 always fails regardless.

I'm afraid you haven't grasped the concept correctly. The result requirements have different starting points.
A 5+ boosted to a 4+ is factually a 50% increase.

No, it isn't. That isn't how percentages work.

Lol yes it is. If a 33% chance of success becomes a 50% chance of success that's a 50% increase.

This is a fact lol. Sometimes it's hard to admit we make mistakes, yours is a common one.

 Nightlord1987 wrote:
We don't want Chaos Primaris.

What CSM players have been asking for are Renegade Marine Chapters.

I am curious what Agents of Bile will bring us. Got lots of Possessed and Spawn bitz to kitbash.

Yes, some want that. But some of us want rules to improve the legions we already have. Strong legion traits that affect all the units in our armies being a good start.

The old system represented this and caused marines to be played appropriately. The current one doesn't.

I would argue a lot of this also has to do with the other rules as well. On the Imperial side, Intercessors have pretty much replaced Tacs in most cases, and they are, more often than not, rewarded for standing still rather than moving. It's GW's tendency to reward gun lines. They're still making a sci-fi game using a Napoleonic aesthetic. On the Chaos side, you don't see the marines being played that way because you flat out don't see marines being played ....

I would still prefer something to improve our current choices, preferably along the lines of what we had with the 3.5 codex. A return to veteran abilities and meaning chaos marks.

I would love for Marks to mean something again, but I feel like they would need a total rework so that they don't end up like the last few editions - IE., "All Nurgle all the time". They should all be equally good, and allow a player to tailor their army to a play style. Veteran abilities would be great as well, but honestly, I don't think it's enough. Marines, for their points, die so easily now that a 1 wound 3+ save just isn't all that great. To make them worth it, they would need a lot more than some new abilities I think.

I mean the Situation didn't Change now did it , what with slaanesh cacophony.
Still all the Same mark.

Not Online!!! wrote:
I mean the Situation didn't Change now did it , what with slaanesh cacophony.
Still all the Same mark.

True, but I still use Nurgle when I want to be able to play Miasma of Pestilence on something.

EDIT.

Actually when you are rolling enough dice and dealing with enough models you absolutely will see an impact.

You will make 50% more saves for Guardsmen and 25% more saves for Astartes. You're still failing more saves with the Guard but you also have more models that cost a lot less.

Weapons with modifiers do affect this, of course. The maths can be done for that too but you can't argue the basic principle of it.

Basic example: if shooting at Guardsmen in cover with a weapon that has a - 1 AP modifier, being in cover doubles their chances of making a save. A full 100% increase.

If you're shooting at Astartes in cover with the same weapon their chance of making a save is boosted by 33%

EDIT.

I have no idea what you're even arguing about. I'm just illustrating that cover does have an impact, and that in many instances it benefits low quality units more than high quality ones, despite what people might believe.

Ishagu, what you're saying is technically correct, but ultimately pointless.

Against an AP0 weapon, cover (or any other source of +1 to your save) makes Marines or other 3+ armor units take half the casualties they usually would. For a 5+ armor unit, they take three-fourths the casualties they usually would.

Cover disproportionately helps models that already have a good save, until you hit a 2+, where it suddenly does nothing (against AP0, at least).

Erm that's not how it works lol.

 Ishagu wrote:
Erm that's not how it works lol.

20 Marines take 36 AP0 wounds.
Without cover, 12 die.
With cover, 6 die.

40 Guardsmen take 36 AP0 wounds.
Without cover, 24 die.
With cover, 18 die.