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.

 Lord Damocles wrote:
New cover good because new. Old cover bad because old.

I think it's more that "people will complain about anything and find something to complain about if there isn't a valid complaint".

It's not like we don't also have people saying new is bad because old is old, therefore good. Or complaining because it doesn't benefit the army they want it to in the way that their head thinks is should. Or people trying to complain that elevation rules are a problem in magical tables with a basketball sized dip in the middle.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
It's remarkable to read that the old cover saves were terrible because they affected different factions differently and the new system is realistic because it affects different factions differently.

It's because realistically, cover should do three things simultaneously:

1. Make you harder to spot
2. Make you harder to hit
3. Make you more resistant to being hit.

1. Does not really exist in the game rules in a way defined by cover rules, as the game relies on actual LOS between physical models instead and has no general concept of units awareness of each other outside of specific examples

2. and 3. are used interchangingly between editions, with the added resilience due to cover being modelled in various ways. In general, having all three aspects of cover represented on the board would make it extremely powerful, which would be fitting for e.g. a squad combat simulation between human forces, but 40k wants their 'cinematic' walking tanks and rushing hordes, so they're hobbling themselves on purpose here, because cover-hugging Marines would be 'realistic', not 'realistic' for the 40k universe as it exists in their minds.

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
New cover good because new. Old cover bad because old.

I think it's more that "people will complain about anything and find something to complain about if there isn't a valid complaint".

It's not like we don't also have people saying new is bad because old is old, therefore good. Or complaining because it doesn't benefit the army they want it to in the way that their head thinks is should. Or people trying to complain that elevation rules are a problem in magical tables with a basketball sized dip in the middle.

Basketball sized dip... mild incline from one end to the other... either or :shrug:

cover hugging Marines is not really realistic as they have their armour to protect them so don't need cover to do it

hence why thy can use the bright chapter colours instead of camo, they don't need to hide or take cover but can walk seen by all across the battlefield

so a cover system that affects the lower armoured models in the game but the heavy armoured ones don't need it while the heavy armour has the same protection as light armour+cover would be "realistic" for 40k

 kodos wrote:
cover hugging Marines is not really realistic as they have their armour to protect them so don't need cover to do it

hence why thy can use the bright chapter colours instead of camo, they don't need to hide or take cover but can walk seen by all across the battlefield

so a cover system that affects the lower armoured models in the game but the heavy armoured ones don't need it while the heavy armour has the same protection as light armour+cover would be "realistic" for 40k

Yes, that is exactly what i am saying: the writers have a vision for in-universe 'realism' that is notably different from real-world 'realism. They want the cover system to represent the way it works in 40k novels and stories, not how a real military conflict would go down. The rules, in their view, should conform more to the conventions of the setting than to logic.

 Lord Damocles wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
New cover good because new. Old cover bad because old.

I think it's more that "people will complain about anything and find something to complain about if there isn't a valid complaint".

It's not like we don't also have people saying new is bad because old is old, therefore good. Or complaining because it doesn't benefit the army they want it to in the way that their head thinks is should. Or people trying to complain that elevation rules are a problem in magical tables with a basketball sized dip in the middle.

Basketball sized dip... mild incline from one end to the other... either or :shrug:

If it's a 6"+ incline I foresee lots of stuff falling over. I also am not aware of having ever seen a table long incline. These are still "looking for something to complain about" concepts.

Tsagualsa wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying: the writers have a vision for in-universe 'realism' that is notably different from real-world 'realism. They want the cover system to represent the way it works in 40k novels and stories, not how a real military conflict would go down. The rules, in their view, should conform more to the conventions of the setting than to logic.

I think you're attributing them too much competence. If they put that much thought into it we wouldn't need a full rewrite 6 years into the "ultimate edition that will never need changing"

 lord_blackfang wrote:

Tsagualsa wrote:
Yes, that is exactly what i am saying: the writers have a vision for in-universe 'realism' that is notably different from real-world 'realism. They want the cover system to represent the way it works in 40k novels and stories, not how a real military conflict would go down. The rules, in their view, should conform more to the conventions of the setting than to logic.

I think you're attributing them too much competence. If they put that much thought into it we wouldn't need a full rewrite 6 years into the "ultimate edition that will never need changing"

They can think about it as hard as they like, it doesn't mean the end results will be the "best" iteration. It's not strictly a competence issue either, it's potentially being down to the time scales and pressures on the writers. Good old good, fast, cheap triangle.

 kodos wrote:
cover hugging Marines is not really realistic as they have their armour to protect them so don't need cover to do it

Unless they are attacked by a Guardsman on a second level, in which case they suddenly do!
"Brother Thesus, we shall attack through open ground as the Guardsmen surely can't penetrate our mighty power armor with their flimsy lasguns!"
"But Brother Raziel, they have the high ground!"
"OH NO! GET TO COVER!"

 AtoMaki wrote:

 kodos wrote:
cover hugging Marines is not really realistic as they have their armour to protect them so don't need cover to do it

Unless they are attacked by a Guardsman on a second level, in which case they suddenly do!
"Brother Thesus, we shall attack through open ground as the Guardsmen surely can't penetrate our mighty power armor with their flimsy lasguns!"
"But Brother Raziel, they have the high ground!"
"OH NO! GET TO COVER!"

'Get to a slightly raised, but otherwise totally exposed walkway!'

It's like playing The Floor Is Lava.

 lord_blackfang wrote:
I think you're attributing them too much competence. If they put that much thought into it we wouldn't need a full rewrite 6 years into the "ultimate edition that will never need changing"

the current re-write could be because the last base version was done by different people and the new designers want the game to be their version instead of just patching someone else game

hence 9th was a paid alpha test to so how the community reacts to different things (what they like and don't like) and how different ideas work out
I mean that 9th will be the edition of "adding a crazy idea every 2 minutes to the game" was said in the 9th launch interview/stream

I would give them the credit that this Edition is again one that was thought about rather than adding random stuff to an old base, which is also a reason why we see stuff that was already there before but removed to patch problems that had a different source (like change core rules for faction problems)

question is really just, how far into the future they planned and how long the base will hold and how many army books we see until the game breaks again

 kodos wrote:

I would give them the credit that this Edition is again one that was thought about rather than adding random stuff to an old base

Honestly, 10th edition does feel like adding random stuff to an old base.

 kodos wrote:
cover hugging Marines is not really realistic as they have their armour to protect them so don't need cover to do it

hence why thy can use the bright chapter colours instead of camo, they don't need to hide or take cover but can walk seen by all across the battlefield

so a cover system that affects the lower armoured models in the game but the heavy armoured ones don't need it while the heavy armour has the same protection as light armour+cover would be "realistic" for 40k

Yeah its shown exactly this way in the Astartes vid - cover is irrelevant unless there are heavy weapons etc engaging them

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Also, how come plunging fire only works if the attacking unit is in a ruin, and the target is at ground level?

Does the fire plunge less from a cliff, or from the 3rd floor of building A to the 1st floor of building B?

6" is a lot. Only ruins realistically can reach that height. . .

Nobody remembers the Imperial Bastion?

I loved that terrain piece. The Firebase too. I should look into building those...

 Scottywan82 wrote:

 Insectum7 wrote:

Spoletta wrote:

 Lord Damocles wrote:
Also, how come plunging fire only works if the attacking unit is in a ruin, and the target is at ground level?

Does the fire plunge less from a cliff, or from the 3rd floor of building A to the 1st floor of building B?

6" is a lot. Only ruins realistically can reach that height. . .

Nobody remembers the Imperial Bastion?

I loved that terrain piece. The Firebase too. I should look into building those...

I got so many Bastions for the flgs terrain. Combined kits to make them two or three Bastions wide, just had to get some Diamond plate plasticard to make additional floors.

 Mr Morden wrote:
Yeah its shown exactly this way in the Astartes vid - cover is irrelevant unless there are heavy weapons etc engaging them

but but but the multilaser doesn't have AP! /s

 AtoMaki wrote:

 kodos wrote:

I would give them the credit that this Edition is again one that was thought about rather than adding random stuff to an old base

Honestly, 10th edition does feel like adding random stuff to an old base.

Seems to me more like they pulled the game apart and put it back together in a new format. The old ideas are still there, but assembled in a different manner. Hopefully, they will find the fortitude to stick to their stated and unstated design goals for the edition rather than turning abruptly to a new paradigm half way through the edition.

I believe cover should just be a save that you take instead of your normal armour save. (Like in older editions)

Light cover for a 5+ save.

Heavy cover for a 4+ save.

Weapons with strenght 6 or more ignore light cover by default or something like that. So a fence doesnt block a Shadowsword cannon but a bunker helps agaisnt it.

The problem of this is mixing it with the new AP system because a guardsmen doesnt get any benefit from cover agaisnt ap0 weapons for example.

 Galas wrote:
I believe cover should just be a save that you take instead of your normal armour save. (Like in older editions)

Light cover for a 5+ save.

Heavy cover for a 4+ save.

Weapons with strenght 6 or more ignore light cover by default or something like that. So a fence doesnt block a Shadowsword cannon but a bunker helps agaisnt it.

This would be my preference. I'd add an ability for flamers and such to ignore cover (or maybe even get a bonus against units in cover if they have no AP).

 Galas wrote:

The problem of this is mixing it with the new AP system because a guardsmen doesnt get any benefit from cover agaisnt ap0 weapons for example.

Orks would benefit, though. As would the nid critters. And IG would benefit against any weapon with AP.


That said, I do find myself wondering whether abandoning the old AP system was a mistake. I guess I'm torn because it seems like it worked better with 40k's other rules (whereas the current system seems to create at least as many problems as it solves), but at the same time my favourite faction was forever being buggered by a lack of AP on its weapons.

 alextroy wrote:

 AtoMaki wrote:

 kodos wrote:

I would give them the credit that this Edition is again one that was thought about rather than adding random stuff to an old base

Honestly, 10th edition does feel like adding random stuff to an old base.

Seems to me more like they pulled the game apart and put it back together in a new format. The old ideas are still there, but assembled in a different manner. Hopefully, they will find the fortitude to stick to their stated and unstated design goals for the edition rather than turning abruptly to a new paradigm half way through the edition.

from what we know how the game design worked in the past, the designers get specific elements that must be there, not matter what and the rest is build around that

that USRs are coming is simply because they were never bad, but badly handled before and same for other concepts

 vipoid wrote:

As would the nid critters.

Rippers, Gargoyles and Spore Mines would benefit, but Termagants and Hormagaunts have a 5+ armor save.

 vipoid wrote:
Orks would benefit, though.

Gretchin, maybe, but orks seem to be moving to 5+ armor. I can't think of any other reason why the least dressed model in our line would get a 5+ save otherwise.

 kodos wrote:

I would give them the credit that this Edition is again one that was thought about rather than adding random stuff to an old base, which is also a reason why we see stuff that was already there before but removed to patch problems that had a different source (like change core rules for faction problems)

Oh yes I absolutely prefer a full rewrite to the old system of covering bad design with layers upon layers of band aids.

It's just that every time they say "this time we got it right" and they never do.

 Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

As would the nid critters.

Rippers, Gargoyles and Spore Mines would benefit, but Termagants and Hormagaunts have a 5+ armor save.

 Jidmah wrote:
Gretchin, maybe, but orks seem to be moving to 5+ armor. I can't think of any other reason why the least dressed model in our line would get a 5+ save otherwise.

Huh. Okay, fair enough. I hadn't realised Orks and nid critters had both moved to 5+ armour.

Plunging fire is idiotic because it only works on ruins. There is other terrain which is also 6" high and not a ruin, fortress of redemption, bastion, voidshield generator, sacristan forgeshrine, and probably more. As a defender its easily turned off by just placing one model on a barrel, or somewhere above ground level. Plunging fire requires all attacked models to be on the ground floor.

 Jidmah wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
Orks would benefit, though.

Gretchin, maybe, but orks seem to be moving to 5+ armor. I can't think of any other reason why the least dressed model in our line would get a 5+ save otherwise.

That 5+ might just be the minimum standard for characters. We know that there will be ways to target them within units, and it might have been thought that 6+ makes them too squishy. Especially if most of the weapons able to pick out characters are at least AP1.

 p5freak wrote:
Plunging fire is idiotic because it only works on ruins. There is other terrain which is also 6" high and not a ruin, fortress of redemption, bastion, voidshield generator, sacristan forgeshrine, and probably more. As a defender its easily turned off by just placing one model on a barrel, or somewhere above ground level. Plunging fire requires all attacked models to be on the ground floor.

Most of those will have specific datasheets, and may have plunging fire as part of their specific rules.

Since the preorder preview didn't say anything about another new mini tomorrow it seems like we won't get any anything until the full reveal on Saturday. Not too surprising but would have still been nice to see another Tyranid a little sooner.

Edit: Ignore since the last new40k article already said we would see the Tyranid leader from the trailer this week and that should be about the monday reveal instead of Warhammer fest.
But it does seem like there won't be any additional rules articles this week

I wasn't a huge fan of the old cover. Like yeah, I can see the appeal and even had fun with it back then, but at the end of the day it was just not-invulnerable saves. They worked just like invul saves, but technically weren't.

 p5freak wrote:
Plunging fire is idiotic because it only works on ruins. There is other terrain which is also 6" high and not a ruin, fortress of redemption, bastion, voidshield generator, sacristan forgeshrine, and probably more. As a defender its easily turned off by just placing one model on a barrel, or somewhere above ground level. Plunging fire requires all attacked models to be on the ground floor.

GW's mechanicum and imperialis ruins terrain has the 1st level at about 5" tall. In order to get the benefit of Plunging Fire, you'd need to build or stack the terrain two stories up, putting miniatures 10" above the board.

A lot of the other terrain, such as the Nachmund boxy terrain, munitorum containers, etc, don't get that tall, but there are a couple of combinations of terrain and a handful of kits that get up to the 6" mark.

IIRC, 6" was where the previous set of terrain GW made sat, the old imperial ruins.

For the most part, I doubt we'll see many tables at tournaments where Plunging Fire can even be used, but it's an extra little rule for people with old terrain, that like to build things up higher, and other things.

In other words: not something to be upset about.