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.

I listened to the most recent Independent Characters #157 and though the three often sound like what a GW flavored glazed donut might taste like there seemed to be general agreement that terrain and cover in new hammer are less than ideal. Other podcasts report similarly. Some suggestions included adding rules for cover generating -2 modifiers to hit for example. But this ends up benefitting models with already good armor saves in a rather unrealistic way... Also there is the trouble with LoS and vehicles especially. Anyways point here is that if the voices wearing perhaps the rosiest of the rose colored glasses can spot room for improvement with genuine consensus then maybe it is time to sort out how to solve the obvious problem. So this thread is to sort out a Dakka approved house rule re terrain and cover. Open to suggestions. I will compile suggestions and from this feedback try to develop a poll. We may even end up with more than one way to play, with this suite of rules Dakka approved depending on how everyone feels about that. Given this role, I will keep my proposal to myself unless invited.
Please, then, succinctly state your suggestions.

Should be in YMDC, but I'll bite.

Vehicles and Cover
Any unit with the Keywords: Vehicle, (whatever the words for MC, GMC and SHV are) do not benefit from cover unless one or more of the following is/are true:

- They are at least 50% obscured from the firer's point of view (if it is not clear that they are exactly 50% obscured, give the benefit of the doubt and grant the cover)
- They are under the effects of an item, power, or terrain that specifically states they get the benefit of cover

 Selym wrote:
Should be in YMDC, but I'll bite.

Vehicles and Cover
Any unit with the Keywords: Vehicle, (whatever the words for MC, GMC and SHV are) do not benefit from cover unless one or more of the following is/are true:

- They are at least 50% obscured from the firer's point of view (if it is not clear that they are exactly 50% obscured, give the benefit of the doubt and grant the cover)
- They are under the effects of an item, power, or terrain that specifically states they get the benefit of cover

I think that's mostly reasonable, except that I'd broaden it a little, to "Any unit that does not have the INFANTRY keyword...", but keep your rules from there, and clarify that being 50% obscured is sufficient and the model does not also need to be in base contact with the base of a terrain piece (as now). (The current requirement to be in a terrain piece in addition to being obscured creates weird perverse cases where a tank can claim cover because it's touching a crater and there's a ruin obscuring it 50% from the other tank that's shooting it - but if it weren't touching the crater, no cover for some reason.)

Honestly, the 50% thing is the one you want to get away from if you want to make cover something that works fluently. The proposed things here are basically just better wordings of the current rule. And the current rules for cover are messy at best.

In Malifaux anything blocking gives cover if it's between you and the target and the target is within 1 inch of it. It can get silly when you're shooting him through a tiny window that's set up between you, but it makes for very fluent rules. There are no question marks. You're either in cover or not.

Thanks for the feedback. I am reading other posts in other threads too and will wait for a few days to try to get all suggestions lumped in this thread so that I can then analyze the suggested rules and sort them into families and then into coherent accounts and then repost this set as a poll to see which sets of rules get the most dakka approval. We are off to a good start.

By the way if this thread is better posted in proposed rules then I wonder if a mod can move it for us?

Personally I don't like either the way cover is determined (which can often leave units out of cover when they should be in cover, and occasionally the other way round), OR the way it benefits a unit (which makes if very good for MEQ, but 6+ armies hardly notice it. Daemons are the most extreme case; most of their units (including all the "grunt" infantry) literally cannot benefit from cover. It is important I think to keep to the spirit of 8th edition of keeping the rules simple, so any house rules for cover should not be too complex...

Perhaps in terms of effect, cover should MAKE our armour save x+ (determined by terrain type, so woodland would be 5+, stone/rock 4+, proper steel fortifications 3+), OR give +1 to armour save if the save would be equal/better than the cover save. Also units should get cover for being behind stuff in general (don't have time right now to come up with the proper wording for this). I am in the tiny minority of gamers who actually likes TLOS anyway....

Mark.

I agree that anything more than 50% obscured should get the benefit of cover, not having to be "within" the actual terrain. It is hard to be within a wall for example, unless you are Kitty Pride ofc. But I think that a larger question is what the benifit of cover should be? A +1 to save is good to have, but I still think that an ork barely visible behind the thick stone walls of a ruined building should be harder to kill than one standing in the middle of a soccer field, if I am firing a plasma gun at it.

Perhaps a simple -1 to hit would be better, although that would make the new Raven Guard almost invincible!

Cheeslord wrote:

Perhaps in terms of effect, cover should MAKE our armour save x+ (determined by terrain type, so woodland would be 5+, stone/rock 4+, proper steel fortifications 3+), OR give +1 to armour save if the save would be equal/better than the cover save. Also units should get cover for being behind stuff in general (don't have time right now to come up with the proper wording for this). I am in the tiny minority of gamers who actually likes TLOS anyway....

I agree with you here. Getting +1 or +2 to saves heavily benefits MEQ's (giving them 2+ saves, doubling durability from the 3+), but often leaves light infantry high and dry with 6+, 5+ or 4+, which is usually a much lesser increase than for MEQ's.

Cover Types

If a unit benefits from cover, identify the type of cover it appears to be, and apply the relevant defensive benefit:

Area Terrain - Grass: Grants a -2 to hit (up to a 6+)
Area Terrain - Ruin: [Insert something here]
Area Terrain - Crater: [Insert something here]

Solid Terrain - Wire Mesh: Grants an unmodifiable 6+ Armour Save
Solid Terrain - Plasteel Barricade: Grants a 4+ Armour Save
Solid Terrain - Ferrocrete Blastwall: Grants a 2+ Armour Save

Or something like that, maybe.

Only change I'd consider is granting stuff a cover bonus if they're 50% obscured even if they're not within the area of the terrain.

+2 save bonuses and hit modifiers some people here are suggesting would inevitably cause a lot of unintended consequences. Those are not good ideas.

If you can't see the target of your shooting attacks, you suffer a -1 penalty to hit. For example, any weapon that doesn't require line of sight, should suffer a -1 penalty to hit if indeed it doesn't have line of sight.

 Selym wrote:
Should be in YMDC, but I'll bite.

Vehicles and Cover
Any unit with the Keywords: Vehicle, (whatever the words for MC, GMC and SHV are) do not benefit from cover unless one or more of the following is/are true:

- They are at least 50% obscured from the firer's point of view (if it is not clear that they are exactly 50% obscured, give the benefit of the doubt and grant the cover)
- They are under the effects of an item, power, or terrain that specifically states they get the benefit of cover

IMO the problem with cover like this is the inclusion of "at least 50% obscured from the firer's point of view". The reason this was largely removed from 8th edition is because its a point of contention. There's no good way to objectively solve arguments between players who disagree on weather or not something is "obscured" given that definition. Add in people's tendency to get real nit-picky when a decision gets important (when having cover can save your land raider from destruction, you want the cover to count even if it's only 45% obscured).

IMO, cover will work best when it's completely binary. Just remove any and all references to "X% obscured" and rely on pre-game player agreement and cover definition.

Example:
I'd say define multiple types of cover, and simply be specific. Light Trees should be different from Heavy Trees, and one of the ways they could be different could be LoS checking for vehicles where if any LoS from the shooter to any part of the target vehicle went through Heavy Trees, the vehicle counts as in cover. Likewise, because facing and turret-origin is no longer a thing, if LoS from any part of a vehicle to the vehicle's target had to go through Heavy Trees, the target would be granted cover as well.

Of course, vehicles could never enter heavy trees because they're too big, so they would be unable to claim the benefits of being inside area terrain. That's an infantry advantage. Not a landraider or dakajet advantage.

Finally, how do you tell the difference between light and heavy trees?

Easy. Both players decide what the trees are before the game begins. If an agreement was not reached before the beginning of turn 1, all cover is automatically light.

I'd do as follows:

If Line of Fire can be traced unobstructed from the firing model to the target model, then the target model has no cover bonus. If the line of effect is fully obstructed, such as by a solid wall, that model auto-passes it's saves. If the target model is partially obstructed, such as by being on the other side of a copse of trees or a window, then it gains the bonus to cover indicated by the thing that's obstructing it. A unit takes the worst possible save it may be eligible to.

This shouldn't be hard, because if I draw a line across the board, it should be fairly apparent if it passes over a wall, through trees, or through a window.

In this manner, if a someone let fly at a squad of Guardsmen, which was strung out in a Ruin, Woods, and a few guys in the open, Then they'd take 5+ saves until the guys in the open died, then they'd take 4+ saves until the guys protected by the trees die, then they'd take 3+ save until the guys firing from the windows of the Ruin die, then the remaining guys behind the solid wall of the Ruin auto-pass. The defender could chose to remove a guy hiding in full cover instead of a guy in the open after failing a 5+ save if that guy was important, but it's the price you pay for preserving that one guys, and that way it prevents one model from being in the woods and granting the rest of the guys in the open cover as a result.

Hi Jeff, as per your suggestion:

Terrain should do more.

I understand if your in a pile of rock terrain you can jump up and down behind the actual rocks. If you are on the field on the far side of the rocks, they enemy may have a hard time seeing you but you don't actually have any rocks to jump behind to benefit your saving throw.

So since we are revivint 2nd ed stuff in 8th. Lets time warp when cover ONLY was a modifier to hit rolls (3rd ed added cover as a saving throw).

So if that hill, ruin, woods or whatever blocks 50% of your model the enemy gets a -1 to hit. AND if you are actually in that terrain feature your guys can duck behind it and get the benefit to the save.

So when the next guy says he don't understand the FAQ or main rules that say a vehicle must be in terrain AND get 50% los blocking to benefit from the terrain, IT will be much simpler for that guy to understand since Obscurement would already be a part of the mindset about being in terrain vs being behind it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IF there is both Modifiers to hit for Obscurement AND saving throw bonuses for units that can jump behind the logs/rocks they are standing in does 2 things.

First it keeps the RAW the same.

It just adds 1 new Advanced Terrain Rule that covers Almost ALL terrain. So not much needs to be changed.

It does go a long way to make cover 'better' or of some use than how now it seems to not be very intuitive to the gameplay or the reality of it all.

I really like that GW is getting away from TLOS, even if just a bit. Area cover is so much simpler.

I do wish they'd simply said that area terrain creates a -1 cover save when you shoot into or through it. That would be the simplest and easiest. I like being able to play a 40k game in 2-3 hours, thank you.

 argonak wrote:
I really like that GW is getting away from TLOS, even if just a bit. Area cover is so much simpler.

I do wish they'd simply said that area terrain creates a -1 cover save when you shoot into or through it. That would be the simplest and easiest. I like being able to play a 40k game in 2-3 hours, thank you.

Good for you i guess.

I don't like it. The Cover/LOS rules in the current edition lead to a lot of wierd and akward situations.

I really wanna know how they playtestet all this...
Nm that, i actually think the playtesters did mention theese wierd and akward situations, but GW just didn't listen...

Some very good suggestions so far.
Seem to fall into two camps, one that enjoys more abstract and another which likes more realistic terrain and cover rules.
The history of changing editions and with them changing cover/terrain mechanics is something to keep in mind, for sure.

One question: Why don't we assume that people have laser pointers? If a laser pointer is placed behind the head of a firing model, then it is pretty easy to see who and what is actually obscured and by how much. Of course, laser pointers can be dropped into a rum and coke, or forgotten at home, so sometimes we have no benefit but, should rules and LoS mechanics be considered as if laser pointers exist? Frankly, I was always waiting for the templates with lasers around the outside edge to make it obvious who and what was in or out, and maybe someday, but this is beside the point.

 jeff white wrote:
and by how much.

Really? You have a pointer that measures how much of a model is obscured?

So far, the best suggestion I've seen was what Argonak mentioned. There's no room for arguments, and it's completely obvious whether or not you're in cover. Done and done. Maybe add that firing across a crater doesn't give cover, but sitting in one does.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
I'd do as follows:

If Line of Fire can be traced unobstructed from the firing model to the target model, then the target model has no cover bonus. If the line of effect is fully obstructed, such as by a solid wall, that model auto-passes it's saves. If the target model is partially obstructed, such as by being on the other side of a copse of trees or a window, then it gains the bonus to cover indicated by the thing that's obstructing it. A unit takes the worst possible save it may be eligible to.

This shouldn't be hard, because if I draw a line across the board, it should be fairly apparent if it passes over a wall, through trees, or through a window.

In this manner, if a someone let fly at a squad of Guardsmen, which was strung out in a Ruin, Woods, and a few guys in the open, Then they'd take 5+ saves until the guys in the open died, then they'd take 4+ saves until the guys protected by the trees die, then they'd take 3+ save until the guys firing from the windows of the Ruin die, then the remaining guys behind the solid wall of the Ruin auto-pass. The defender could chose to remove a guy hiding in full cover instead of a guy in the open after failing a 5+ save if that guy was important, but it's the price you pay for preserving that one guys, and that way it prevents one model from being in the woods and granting the rest of the guys in the open cover as a result.

A sound plan, although doing it on a model-by-model basis with individual saving throws may increase the time taken by a fair degree.

Mark.

 Purifier wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
and by how much.

Really? You have a pointer that measures how much of a model is obscured?
.

No.
But I have a brain, eyes that work well enough and a knack for civil discourse.

Which of these do you suspect is lacking in the gaming community?

Maybe the only solution is that gw first write the rules and then play the actual games ?...

Two things:
1. Moved to the correct forum.
2. Jeff White, I don't see a problem with what Purifier said, but I do see a problem with what you said. No need to be rude, and you seem to be taking offense to something that isn't offensive. Brusque, yes, but not offensive.

 jeff white wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
and by how much.

Really? You have a pointer that measures how much of a model is obscured?
.

No.
But I have a brain, eyes that work well enough and a knack for civil discourse.

Which of these do you suspect is lacking in the gaming community?

All three. Well, maybe not in truth, but in practice wargamers have a tendency to use any uncertainty as an opportunity to steal even the most minor of advantages. Hence why I wrote into the rule that if there was uncertainty, give the cover anyway.

well laser pointers cost a between a dollar or four in the pet department.

Players have been using pointers for 3+ decades in this game.

The comment was just snarky. Was his counter comment over the top? I guess it depends on if your looking for a serious conversation or just some naysayers.

YOU get what you bring I guess.

the thought is when does miniatures NO LONGER matter in a miniature game?
I have lots of counter/chip games with way better rules than 40K. They take weeks to play and you are very abstract in game play.
If you play 40k chances are you want to utilize a bit of less abstraction than counters/chips/proxy legos,etc.

So if the game is about the models and wysiwyg is a thing that matters, then positioning, tlos, facing, and game effects CAN matter to some players.

GW decides what is and isn't during whatever edition it throws out. Consumers can impact those decisions.

Laser pointers may be important or not. Lets the players decide.

Use battlefield terrain rules.

Use city ruins rules from cities of death.

Expand these rules to work for everything not infantry as well so long as terrain is at least 3 inches tall and 50%+ obscurment. (I.e. a vehicle or monster has cover if a ruin is between the shooting unit and the target vehicle/monster and they are 50% obscured). OPTIONAL: expand these again to cover all terrain at least 3" tall. Woods and gak would work for infantry regardless of obscurment and others with 50%.

Use height advantage from cities of death.

Use fire in the hole from cities of death.

The problem with penalty to hit simulating heavy foliage is the lack of active accuracy changes for range.

Remember, this is the game in which people will miss a non moving, non shooting Baneblade while standing a gun barrel's distance away.

My personal suggestion for Cover is for it to be an additional FNP style save

 Lorek wrote:
Two things:
1. Moved to the correct forum.
2. Jeff White, I don't see a problem with what Purifier said, but I do see a problem with what you said. No need to be rude, and you seem to be taking offense to something that isn't offensive. Brusque, yes, but not offensive.

1: thanks. I should have posted here originally.
2: I understand. Sometimes I get frustrated and this comes out in type. For me laser pointers solve(d) a lot of problems. And I honestly am looking for ways to solve problems that people often complan about. Laser pointers do give us something to look at and then after all we have more to go on before rolling dice or flipping a coin on way or the other. I understand that others are likely equally or more frustrated by the same things. So when I read posts in future I will try to read more charitably and take less offense at posts that may seem dismissive or disrespectful. My bad. Thanks for setting me straight.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Selym wrote:

 jeff white wrote:

 Purifier wrote:

 jeff white wrote:
and by how much.

Really? You have a pointer that measures how much of a model is obscured?
.

No.
But I have a brain, eyes that work well enough and a knack for civil discourse.

Which of these do you suspect is lacking in the gaming community?

All three. Well, maybe not in truth, but in practice wargamers have a tendency to use any uncertainty as an opportunity to steal even the most minor of advantages. Hence why I wrote into the rule that if there was uncertainty, give the cover anyway.

Yes. This attitude is a source of deep frustration. I do apologize for letting this show.
I also see the virtue in your suggestion and will make a point to recall this when I compile all submitted proposals into families.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:
well laser pointers cost a between a dollar or four in the pet department.

Players have been using pointers for 3+ decades in this game.

The comment was just snarky. Was his counter comment over the top? I guess it depends on if your looking for a serious conversation or just some naysayers.

YOU get what you bring I guess.

the thought is when does miniatures NO LONGER matter in a miniature game?
I have lots of counter/chip games with way better rules than 40K. They take weeks to play and you are very abstract in game play.
If you play 40k chances are you want to utilize a bit of less abstraction than counters/chips/proxy legos,etc.

So if the game is about the models and wysiwyg is a thing that matters, then positioning, tlos, facing, and game effects CAN matter to some players.

GW decides what is and isn't during whatever edition it throws out. Consumers can impact those decisions.

Laser pointers may be important or not. Lets the players decide.

Glorious post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lance845 wrote:
Use battlefield terrain rules.

Use city ruins rules from cities of death.

Expand these rules to work for everything not infantry as well so long as terrain is at least 3 inches tall and 50%+ obscurment. (I.e. a vehicle or monster has cover if a ruin is between the shooting unit and the target vehicle/monster and they are 50% obscured). OPTIONAL: expand these again to cover all terrain at least 3" tall. Woods and gak would work for infantry regardless of obscurment and others with 50%.

Use height advantage from cities of death.

Use fire in the hole from cities of death.

Much less abstract rules then.
Truly there are two camps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talamare wrote:
The problem with penalty to hit simulating heavy foliage is the lack of active accuracy changes for range.

Remember, this is the game in which people will miss a non moving, non shooting Baneblade while standing a gun barrel's distance away.

My personal suggestion for Cover is for it to be an additional FNP style save

Spoiler:

Current +1 Cover
Space Marines going from a 3+ to a 2+
1 / (2/6) = 3
1 / (1/6) = 6

Effectively doubles their survivability!
What if instead they gained an additional 5+ FNP
1 / (1/3 * 2/3) = 4.5

Instead we see only a 50% increase

What about... Orks?
1 / (5/6) = 1.2
1 / (4/6) = 1.5

Wow, current cover rules are almost pointless for Orks.
What if it was a 5+ FNP?
1 / (5/6 * 2/3) = 1.8

That's not bad, definitely worth more than the current.

Final one, how about Imperial Guard,
1 / (4/6) = 1.5
1 / (3/6) = 2

Not bad, but how would the new rule affect them?
1 / (4/6 * 2/3) = 2.25

Definitely an improvement!
Overall this improves the survivability of people with bad armor, while making cover weaker for people who already have Super Armor. As well as it's easily possible for different covers to provide either a 6+++ for a 4+++.

I checked 3+ Armor, 5+ Armor, and 6+ Armor. Let's take a look at 4+ Armor for completion!
1 / (3/6) = 2
1 / (2/6) = 3

1 / (3/6 * 2/3) = 3
Brilliant!

I like what you have done here - novel solution.

 jeff white wrote:
I like what you have done here - novel solution.

Thanks, I wish I could think of a simple solution for the Terminator in Cover Problem.

While it's true that the survivability of Space Marines has been reduced, the Survivability of Terminators in Cover has shot up! From essentially 6 to 9!

As well as while Light Armor benefits significantly more from this proposed rule, and Space Marines benefit less by it. Space Marines still benefit more from it.
Compared to current
6+ Armor gains 0.3 EHP
5+ Armor gains 0.25 EHP
4+ Armor remains neutral
3+ Armor loses 1.5 EHP
...
and 2+ Armor gains 3 EHP <-- That's a problem.

 Talamare wrote:
The problem with penalty to hit simulating heavy foliage is the lack of active accuracy changes for range.

Remember, this is the game in which people will miss a non moving, non shooting Baneblade while standing a gun barrel's distance away.

My personal suggestion for Cover is for it to be an additional FNP style save

Spoiler:

Current +1 Cover
Space Marines going from a 3+ to a 2+
1 / (2/6) = 3
1 / (1/6) = 6

Effectively doubles their survivability!
What if instead they gained an additional 5+ FNP
1 / (1/3 * 2/3) = 4.5

Instead we see only a 50% increase

What about... Orks?
1 / (5/6) = 1.2
1 / (4/6) = 1.5

Wow, current cover rules are almost pointless for Orks.
What if it was a 5+ FNP?
1 / (5/6 * 2/3) = 1.8

That's not bad, definitely worth more than the current.

Final one, how about Imperial Guard,
1 / (4/6) = 1.5
1 / (3/6) = 2

Not bad, but how would the new rule affect them?
1 / (4/6 * 2/3) = 2.25

Definitely an improvement!
Overall this improves the survivability of people with bad armor, while making cover weaker for people who already have Super Armor. As well as it's easily possible for different covers to provide either a 6+++ for a 4+++.

I checked 3+ Armor, 5+ Armor, and 6+ Armor. Let's take a look at 4+ Armor for completion!
1 / (3/6) = 2
1 / (2/6) = 3

1 / (3/6 * 2/3) = 3
Brilliant!

You see hitting something can be also not missing it. So that lasgun hits the baneblade but just doesn't hit a weak spot. That lascanon hits a marine but on the to wound roll it is a 1.

So in the case of the marine. It isn't that the marine shrugs off the tank killer. Most likely his hand or arm was blown off but he just keeps chugging on.
When you hit the tank or miss it on a 1. It is about where you hit it. Even a tank killer most often needs to hit a good spot.

Minus to hit is good vs flyers at fast speed is good. A tank that is hull down is a good example of minus to hit. The cover thing is actually a whacky device here. Especially if the back of the tank is obscured but the front is wide open to los. The attacker is trying to place that missile in a vulnerable spot and it would be harder to see that spot so harder to hit.[the heavily armored front of the tank would have a better save, but the weaker backside actually is getting the bonus for the shrubs...doesn't make sense]

The first dozen years of the game had to hit modifiers for all cover. When 3rd edition simplified the game is when you had glancing hits and cover saves. It was an added layer that did not exist. 2nd ed players used to complain to me that gamers forgot to do simple math and gw got rid of modifiers to dumb the game down....ofc being snarky.

Modifiers to hit are really simple and there would be -1 or -2 to speed, -1 or -2 for covers and -1 for holofields, cameoline, etc It was actually quite intuitive.

A simple -1 for obscurment for shooting at models in terrain, behind it or hull down is a fairly easy fix and gameplay device.

 admironheart wrote:

 Talamare wrote:
The problem with penalty to hit simulating heavy foliage is the lack of active accuracy changes for range.

Remember, this is the game in which people will miss a non moving, non shooting Baneblade while standing a gun barrel's distance away.

My personal suggestion for Cover is for it to be an additional FNP style save

Current +1 Cover
Space Marines going from a 3+ to a 2+
1 / (2/6) = 3
1 / (1/6) = 6

Effectively doubles their survivability!
What if instead they gained an additional 5+ FNP
1 / (1/3 * 2/3) = 4.5

Instead we see only a 50% increase

What about... Orks?
1 / (5/6) = 1.2
1 / (4/6) = 1.5

Wow, current cover rules are almost pointless for Orks.
What if it was a 5+ FNP?
1 / (5/6 * 2/3) = 1.8

That's not bad, definitely worth more than the current.

Final one, how about Imperial Guard,
1 / (4/6) = 1.5
1 / (3/6) = 2

Not bad, but how would the new rule affect them?
1 / (4/6 * 2/3) = 2.25

Definitely an improvement!
Overall this improves the survivability of people with bad armor, while making cover weaker for people who already have Super Armor. As well as it's easily possible for different covers to provide either a 6+++ for a 4+++.

I checked 3+ Armor, 5+ Armor, and 6+ Armor. Let's take a look at 4+ Armor for completion!
1 / (3/6) = 2
1 / (2/6) = 3

1 / (3/6 * 2/3) = 3
Brilliant!

You see hitting something can be also not missing it. So that lasgun hits the baneblade but just doesn't hit a weak spot. That lascanon hits a marine but on the to wound roll it is a 1.

So in the case of the marine. It isn't that the marine shrugs off the tank killer. Most likely his hand or arm was blown off but he just keeps chugging on.
When you hit the tank or miss it on a 1. It is about where you hit it. Even a tank killer most often needs to hit a good spot.

Minus to hit is good vs flyers at fast speed is good. A tank that is hull down is a good example of minus to hit. The cover thing is actually a whacky device here. Especially if the back of the tank is obscured but the front is wide open to los. The attacker is trying to place that missile in a vulnerable spot and it would be harder to see that spot so harder to hit.[the heavily armored front of the tank would have a better save, but the weaker backside actually is getting the bonus for the shrubs...doesn't make sense]

The first dozen years of the game had to hit modifiers for all cover. When 3rd edition simplified the game is when you had glancing hits and cover saves. It was an added layer that did not exist. 2nd ed players used to complain to me that gamers forgot to do simple math and gw got rid of modifiers to dumb the game down....ofc being snarky.

Modifiers to hit are really simple and there would be -1 or -2 to speed, -1 or -2 for covers and -1 for holofields, cameoline, etc It was actually quite intuitive.

A simple -1 for obscurment for shooting at models in terrain, behind it or hull down is a fairly easy fix and gameplay device.

To hit mods is another strong group of proposed solutions. I am all for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 admironheart wrote:
Hi Jeff, as per your suggestion:

Terrain should do more.

I understand if your in a pile of rock terrain you can jump up and down behind the actual rocks. If you are on the field on the far side of the rocks, they enemy may have a hard time seeing you but you don't actually have any rocks to jump behind to benefit your saving throw.

So since we are revivint 2nd ed stuff in 8th. Lets time warp when cover ONLY was a modifier to hit rolls (3rd ed added cover as a saving throw).

So if that hill, ruin, woods or whatever blocks 50% of your model the enemy gets a -1 to hit. AND if you are actually in that terrain feature your guys can duck behind it and get the benefit to the save.

So when the next guy says he don't understand the FAQ or main rules that say a vehicle must be in terrain AND get 50% los blocking to benefit from the terrain, IT will be much simpler for that guy to understand since Obscurement would already be a part of the mindset about being in terrain vs being behind it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
IF there is both Modifiers to hit for Obscurement AND saving throw bonuses for units that can jump behind the logs/rocks they are standing in does 2 things.

First it keeps the RAW the same.

It just adds 1 new Advanced Terrain Rule that covers Almost ALL terrain. So not much needs to be changed.

It does go a long way to make cover 'better' or of some use than how now it seems to not be very intuitive to the gameplay or the reality of it all.

So one group of solutions includes both save and to hit mods.

A third includes something like an fnp roll.

I like the idea of a fnp for terrain as it protects from damage instead of whole wounds meaning ap- and ignore terrain aren't the same buff. Because ats and 4 ml should not be equivalent.

Also as we have seen, terrain as armor just doesn't work for many situations. My concern is how will it affect the models that have fnp already? Demons currently have no concern for cover but nurglings would love going up to 4+++. I don't want to see more situations where models don't care by having them not stack though.

Consider what happens when something like tzeetch daemons with a herald. 5++ becomes a 4++ because of ethereal form. Becomes 3++ with herald. Add a 5+ fnp to that.

That turns even the crappiest infantry into immovable bulwark of durability.


There is a good reason why cover is a bonus to sv and directly countered by ap.