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.

With the rumoured change from AP to Save modifiers coming in 8th I was wondering if this would be something which could also move move to cover saves and invulnerable save.

Now the below values are just for examples but do people think this would work.

AP5 = -1
AP4 = -2
AP3 = -3
AP2 = -4
AP1 = -5

Now cover saves and invulnerables could then be used as a kind of anti AP
5+cover = +1
4+cover = +2
Flying = +3 (replaces snapfire)

Save rolls of a 1 always fail, saves including cover/invulnerable always pass on a 6.

So for example a Guardsmen with a 5+ save in defence line is shot at by a bolter would be 5 -1 + 2 = 4+ save, the same Guardsmen shot with a Lascannon would be 9+ save, but due to cover gets a 6+ save. Finally, if the Guardsmen is in the open and shot by a heavy bolter would get no save.

A Flying Hive tyrant shot by a Multi Melta would have a save of 3+, reduced to 8+ from the MM (-5), improved to 5+ for flying (+3) and then 4+ due to it's current invulnerable (+1) save (or 3+ if its currently a 4+ invun - not got the codex to hand)

Current weapons with Skyfire would ignore the flier modifier but all other units count as being in Hard cover (+2), Ignore cover still does that and removes the minimum 6+ save and weapons such as shield breaker rounds would ignore invulnerable bonuses.

Would something like this work?

I could see something like that working in theory. The only thing you proposed that I find lacking is the Flyer save, but that is entirely subjective due to how one envisions Flyers as working on the battlefield.

As a modifier to the save, it kind of works. I would prefer it be a modifier to the shooting unit's ability to hit.

"Oy, we can't see da git, Boss!"
"Keep firin', ya grots!"
"Dakka dakka!"

Think of how cover works: you hide behind something that takes the hit for you (like a brick wall), or you are hiding behind something that is obscuring the vision of your attacker, making you harder to hit (like camouflage or smoke screens). Wearing leaves on your suit doesn't protect you from a hit, but that brick wall might. We see this implemented a way in Warmahordes, but both end up providing the same mechanic: a modifier to the attack roll.

How about something like:

Concealment - penalty to attacker's shooting ability, as the target is harder to hit

Cover - bonus to save based on physical terrain, as they have better physical protection

This would give opportunities for heavy versions as well, such as the difference between hiding behind a plywood sheet or a tank. A shield generator could provide both to various degrees. And it would make AP/Rending values on weapons more important as it has to punch through the cover as well.

I can see where you're coming from but for somethings I think a to hit modifier might be a bit too harsh.

Just using some rough examples, most Orks would find it near impossible to hit a Stealth unit (currently +2 cover save) but then it might make sense for shooting at fliers (maybe -2 for FMC or Bombers, -3 for attack craft and -4 for interceptors)

I too think that if cover saves are likely to be made into 'to hit' modifiers instead. It would cut down on the amount of rolling, however with AP being amour save modifiers, you may still get a roll for Armour when before you might not. For example, a model with a 2+ amour might now get a 6+ against AP2

If the goal is to simplify the mechanics, Cover could simply be a BS modifier for the shooter, instead of a save for the target.
Maybe all cover (terrain/intervening models, etc) gives -1BS, Stealth is an additional -1 and Shroud is -2. At this point, Stealth and Shroud really should not stack. Snap Firing could provide an additional -1BS
If BS can never go below 1 due to modifiers, than the best "cover" something can ever get is being hit on 6's

For Orks, that means almost nothing since they are built to roll lots of shots rather than be accurate.
This would only promote melee armies, which currently is a good thing.

-

I guess it works. I could see cover being important but not as cheesy as it is.

How would stealth/shrouded work?

 gnome_idea_what wrote:
How would stealth/shrouded work?

I explained above:
Cover (of any kind) -1BS
Stealth -1 no longer stacks with Shroud
Shroud -2 no longer stacks with Stealth
Snap shots (from over watch, at Flying targets, etc) -1

Since most shooting models have BS3 or BS4, multiple cover stacking would become pointless as a max of -3BS is about all you need to make a unit hit on 6's.
2+ re-rollable cover saves would be a thing of the past and things like Ravenwing and Ghostkeels would get an errata for some special adaptation of their rule.

-

I imagine that if they are going the same route as aos, modifiers will be kept simpler than that. I'm guessing that you wont see a rend greater than -3 and cover will only ever be +1.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
I imagine that if they are going the same route as aos, modifiers will be kept simpler than that. I'm guessing that you wont see a rend greater than -3 and cover will only ever be +1.

Also keep in mind that the No Save option is still present in AoS via the Mortal Wounds mechanic (which is then countered by the "Saves versus Mortal Wounds" Special Rule some characters have).

I would be ok if cover saves went back to being a to hit modifier.

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
I imagine that if they are going the same route as aos, modifiers will be kept simpler than that. I'm guessing that you wont see a rend greater than -3 and cover will only ever be +1.

I always felt like WHFB had lower armor penetration values than 40k, I sincerely hope they crank up the rend values in 8th ed versus AOS.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Venerable Ironclad wrote:
I imagine that if they are going the same route as aos, modifiers will be kept simpler than that. I'm guessing that you wont see a rend greater than -3 and cover will only ever be +1.

I always felt like WHFB had lower armor penetration values than 40k, I sincerely hope they crank up the rend values in 8th ed versus AOS.

Str 6 usually was able to negate the Armour of most infantry, and turned a lot of Cavalry. The most common weapon that could do almost as good was the Handgun at Str 4 and Armour Piercing, Modifying the Save by -2. Of course, a lot of Cavalry Attacks were the same on the Charge, but better on the Wound (Human with Lance, Saurus with Spear).

As I said, its a feeling I have, never played the game. The rest of the feeling stands, however, I'd hate to have to deal with Scions that wound anything on a 5+ with only -1 or -2 rend.