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.

Voss wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think the cover rules are about as simple as they could reasonably be. Plus at least they kept obscuring (albeit not in name) which is important.

"If you cannot draw a line from base to base that does not intersect with a terrain feature, the target benefits from cover. A unit in cover may chose to get +1 to their saves, the result of that roll can never be better than a 3+"

Thats... awful. As written it gives LOS to everything, and only something fully blocked (ie, completely out of LOS in normal rules) ever gets the benefit of cover.
Not sure why it would be optional, either.

ok make "if you can draw a line that intersects with a terrain feature....."
and its optional so 2+ saves arent magically "forced" to save on a 3+ because theyre in cover



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Necronmaniac05 wrote:
I think the cover rules are about as simple as they could reasonably be. Plus at least they kept obscuring (albeit not in name) which is important.

"If you cannot draw a line from base to base that does not intersect with a terrain feature, the target benefits from cover. A unit in cover may chose to get +1 to their saves, the result of that roll can never be better than a 3+"

Were you attempting a re-write? That misses a bunch of nuance to the current rules and as a result gets it wrong.

roughly.

basically :

if a line between the units crosses terrain, you're in cover. Cover saves can never be better than a 3+ (end result, including AP and everyhing)

 His Master's Voice wrote:
I don't think we've seen the LoS rules yet, but the wording of some of the terrain rules seems to indicate TLOS is still in the game in some capacity at least?

Tlos except for ruins. Pretty much as it's been.

Dense went away, debris got more impact. Apart from that pretty similar to 9e

 Las wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
I'm not sure how plunging fire is supposed to make sense unless the target is almost directly below the shooter?
Does being on the second floor of a ruin rather than the first actually make that much difference if your target is on the other side of the battlefield?

It's a rules abstraction intended to replicate the significant advantage in lethality that firing on an enemy position from above provides.

Well duh. But it's an abstraction which doesn't make much sense unless the target is relatively close.

3rd ed. Cityfight had a better system.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Daedalus81 wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Yes, the consequences of Terminators already having benefitted from cover this edition and not breaking anything?

You are talking about the current edition, which is far more lethal. It wasn't for no reason that many TS players brought several blocks of Scarab terminators.

Probably because Scarabs were explicitly better than regular Rubrics? That has nothing to do with cover I hate to tell you.

dude, cover + all is dust + -1 damage is the thing that made scarabs so good.....

cover was 100% part of the equation

With what was previewed in the article it would seem as though everything terrain related could have been summed up in one rule.

I believe VladimirHerzog was trying to convey this idea as well.

Cover: A model is considered to be in Cover if it is within 1" of a terrain feature and an attacking model is unable to draw a straight line from its base to every part of the targets base without passing over a terrain feature. A model in Cover receives +1 to their save, excluding Invulnerable Saves. A model in Cover can never have its save improved beyond a 3+.

 oni wrote:
With what was previewed in the article it would seem as though everything terrain related could have been summed up in one rule.

I believe VladimirHerzog was trying to convey this idea as well.

Cover: A model is considered to be in Cover if it is within 1" of a terrain feature and an attacking model is unable to draw a straight line from its base to every part of the targets base without passing over a terrain feature. A model in Cover receives +1 to their save, excluding Invulnerable Saves. A model in Cover can never have its save improved beyond a 3+.

exactly this is what i meant basically

Sorry to go back to the transport article amidst all this terrain talk, but I thought it was hilarious that they gave the taurox Rapid Deployment. Who the heck looks at that model and thinks “I bet it’s fast”. 😂😂

Marines not happy about latest article I take it? XD

Muh 2+ saves

Depends how good terminators and other 2+ save units are

I’m reserving judgement on the cover rules for now, but overall am tentatively optimistic. A shame that cover only seems to interact with shooting though - nothing for charging into or out of cover.

 oni wrote:
With what was previewed in the article it would seem as though everything terrain related could have been summed up in one rule.

I believe VladimirHerzog was trying to convey this idea as well.

Cover: A model is considered to be in Cover if it is within 1" of a terrain feature and an attacking model is unable to draw a straight line from its base to every part of the targets base without passing over a terrain feature. A model in Cover receives +1 to their save, excluding Invulnerable Saves. A model in Cover can never have its save improved beyond a 3+.

Your version breaks on the craters.

By your description, you would have the "Toe in cover" issue. Instead, GW wants the model to be fully on the area terrain to benefit from it.

Aash wrote:
I’m reserving judgement on the cover rules for now, but overall am tentatively optimistic. A shame that cover only seems to interact with shooting though - nothing for charging into or out of cover.

There's some core strats we've not seen I think, I'd be amazed if Overwatch isn't one of the reactions and I think Heresy also has Set To Defend.

 bullyboy wrote:
Sorry to go back to the transport article amidst all this terrain talk, but I thought it was hilarious that they gave the taurox Rapid Deployment. Who the heck looks at that model and thinks “I bet it’s fast”. 😂😂

They need to sell that model somehow

Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.
It also reduces the scenarios in which Marines huddle in cover, which is a very un-Marine thing to do.

-

Spoletta wrote:


Your version breaks on the craters.

By your description, you would have the "Toe in cover" issue. Instead, GW wants the model to be fully on the area terrain to benefit from it.

why is that distinction a problem? at the scale of 40k, i don't think such precision is needed

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.
It also reduces the scenarios in which Marines huddle in cover, which is a very un-Marine thing to do.

-

Agreed.

Marines are supposed to be armored like walking tanks. Against small arms, they should just be strolling across the battlefield, zero bothers given. (Obviously due to game balance, not 100% on the table)

But sometimes a little rubble will disperse that plasma enough to give the power armor more of a chance then a direct impact. When the fit hits the shan, even marines will duck and take cover vs. actual threats.

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.
It also reduces the scenarios in which Marines huddle in cover, which is a very un-Marine thing to do.

-

If Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, how come those same walls can suddenly withstand the same hits when something not in power armour is behind them?

Still think that 2ed (cover gives -tohit) was the best version. Its just the most intuitive.
A bit sad about GW both reducing cover back to basically "just" the -1ap AND keeping the amount of rules text 9th had.

Also: +1AP when 6" above ground. GW terrain is 5" per level...sounds sus.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

Spoletta wrote:


Your version breaks on the craters.

By your description, you would have the "Toe in cover" issue. Instead, GW wants the model to be fully on the area terrain to benefit from it.

why is that distinction a problem? at the scale of 40k, i don't think such precision is needed

It is very much needed, the gameplay difference between allowing and not allowing the "Toe in cover" is huge.

It's the difference between fitting 5 models in a crater or 30.

 bullyboy wrote:
Sorry to go back to the transport article amidst all this terrain talk, but I thought it was hilarious that they gave the taurox Rapid Deployment. Who the heck looks at that model and thinks “I bet it’s fast”. 😂😂

Passengers are desperate to get out of the thing and not be associated with it, they'll jump out at high speed if necessary.

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

CoALabaer wrote:
Still think that 2ed (cover gives -tohit) was the best version. Its just the most intuitive.
A bit sad about GW both reducing cover back to basically "just" the -1ap AND keeping the amount of rules text 9th had.

Also: +1AP when 6" above ground. GW terrain is 5" per level...sounds sus.

-1 to hit is another bad mechanic for cover. It is particularly punishing to Orks who normally hit on 5s, so cover would remove fully half of their shots and less punishing to marines.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

When you are working on a d6 scale, yes, it should do nothing. It might give the marine a little edge on the armor save, but not enough to push them to a 2+

Not a lot of granularity to work with.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

You're not explaining why it should, only you don't want the specific benefits.

If the fence won't help a Marine, it won't help a Cultist. Or does a bullet know it needs try harder against any 3+?

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

You're not explaining why it should, only you don't want the specific benefits.

If the fence won't help a Marine, it won't help a Cultist. Or does a bullet know it needs try harder against any 3+?

A Marine is so well-armored that the meager increase of a fence isn't going to affect the odds of saving.
In a more granular game, I could see a Marine going from saving on a 34+ on d100 to 33+ or 32+, but in a d6 system? Not nearly enough of a boost to matter.

Whereas a Cultist has much worse armor-a bullet that shoots directly through the fence might make the difference between a grazing wound and a lost arm.

I mean, I would assume the stats work closer to logarithmically, than linearly.
S8 is not twice as strong as S4 in-universe, it's many MANY times as strong.
A 3+ armor is not four times better armored than a 6+, it's dozens of times better.

Edit: Why is the current, 8th and 9th cover system, better than the 3rd-7th one?
10th looks to improve it slightly, but it's still counter-intuitive.

 TedNugent wrote:
Marines not happy about latest article I take it? XD

Muh 2+ saves

Though they do get to keep their 3+ against AP1 as I understand it. Still something my poor ork armour dreams of.

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Galef wrote:
Thematically, I'm digging the terrain rules. They are basically saying that Marine armour is tougher than cement walls, so those walls shouldn't improve the Marines armour.

-

Soooooo it does nothing to stop bullets normally but suddenly boosts Carapace armor to the same level?

Just because you're a normally clean person, it doesn't mean you don't wash your hands after using the restroom.

A Marine behind a fence shouldn't double their durability against Bolters.

But should the fence do nothing?

For a Marine? Yeah. It shouldn't make them any more durable.
For a Cultist, wearing scraps of leather and a stiff t-shirt? It should.

The 3rd-7th system might feel less intuitive, but its RESULTS were better. Marines ignored cover when faced with Lasguns, Bolters, Multilasers... But were forced to hunker down or face death in the face of Battle Cannons, Plasma, Melta. Guardsmen, Orks, Cultists, and other lightly armored models needed cover to get a save against even some small arms fire, though obviously Orks could tank it better than Guard if caught exposed.

You're not explaining why it should, only you don't want the specific benefits.

If the fence won't help a Marine, it won't help a Cultist. Or does a bullet know it needs try harder against any 3+?

A Marine is so well-armored that the meager increase of a fence isn't going to affect the odds of saving.
In a more granular game, I could see a Marine going from saving on a 34+ on d100 to 33+ or 32+, but in a d6 system? Not nearly enough of a boost to matter.

Whereas a Cultist has much worse armor-a bullet that shoots directly through the fence might make the difference between a grazing wound and a lost arm.

Look, either a giant concrete barrier helps or it doesn't. You can't just say "only when I feel like it should because D6".

Any problem with Marines benefitting from cover could've been rectified with more options of weapons that ignore cover, or properly boosting melee options for that army. Instead, we get this and dudes higher up gaining deadlier weapons rather than weapons that ignore cover or hit more often.