Switch Theme:

Terrain/Cover Fixes  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
Which of these terrain/cover mechanics would you like to see implemented in some way or other?
Current rulebook cover and terrain rules are fine. Ain't broke, no fixin'.
To hit modifier of -1 should be applied for any and all models 50%+ obscured regardless of distance from intervening terrain.
To hit modifier of -2 should be applied to any and all models 75%+ obscured regardless of distance from intervening terrain.
Light infantry (guard, termagants) receive an additional -1 to hit while in cover due to their ability to find cover anywhere possible where larger less flexible models cannot.
Infantry (including marines and "heavy" infantry) receive an additional -1 to hit in all situations, whether in cover or not, due to stature relative to tanks and other larger units (so, -1 also in the open, -2 while in cover).
Cover/terrain has wounds, so that an Imperial Guard player might take down the building rather than target the Primaris marines inside it (as these may be benefitting from -2 for being in cover, see above) possibly wounding them in the process.
All infantry units within 1" and behind terrain receive benefits as if fully obscured by said terrain.
Infantry units can climb vertically (walls and sheer cliffs) but must count movement up and down as if moving normally.
Infantry units can climb vertically (walls and sheer cliffs), must count movement as if moving normally, and cannot climb anything taller than its movement stat.
Infantry units can climb vertically (walls and sheer cliffs), must count movement as if moving normally, and cannot climb anything taller than the model itself.
Area terrain (woods, jungle) = -2" charge distance
Dense area terrain = fully obscures models behind it regardless of TLoS.
Infantry can move through area and dense area terrain (ruins, forests) without penalty (unless moving vertically, see above) while non-infantry cannot (or suffers penalties) unless they can FLY.
Index terrain effects to keywords such as "obscuring" = -1 to hit.
Index terrain effects to keywords such as "fortifying" = +1 to armor saves.
Index terrain effects to keywords such as "difficult" = -2" movement.
Some terrain affords something like a feel no pain save, for example representing the interceding trees luckily deflecting the bolter shell that would have hit and wounded the marine behind the wall, taken after other cover/armor saves fail.
Rather than a bonus to armor saves, all terrain affords something like a feel no pain save, with hardened cover affording a better save than light forest, for example.
All terrain must have a base, and any model receiving benefit from cover must be wholly within this base.
All terrain must have a base, and any model receiving benefit from cover must be 50%+ within this base.
All terrain must have a base, and any model receiving benefit from cover must be minimally touching this base.
Each inch of movement in "difficult" terrain counts as 2".
Each inch of movement in "difficult" terrain counts as 2", including vertical movement.
Intervening models can obscure target models (with appropriate penalties determined according to other terrain/cover rules.
Charging a unit in difficult terrain penalizes chargers (specific rules to be determined).
Charging a unit in difficult terrain rewards entrenched defenders (specific rules to be determined).
Armor saves cannot be adjusted by terrain/cover more than +3.
No shooting through one's own unit(s), regardless of obscurement. None. Ever.
Add 12" to range when targeting flyers moving at "supersonic" speeds.
Add 12" to range when targeting flyers.
Vehicles models gain cover if they are at least 50% obscured from the firer's point of view (if it is not clear that they are 50%+ obscured, give the benefit of the doubt and grant the cover)
Rather than a bonus to armor saves (buffing models with already good armor saves), different types of cover afford different armor saves on their own - e.g. hardened 3+, brick/rock 4+, dense forest 5+, light wall, light forest 6+ for examples.
All units should gain benefit of cover for being behind stuff in general, whether this be from obscurement or benefitting from armor saves or armor save modifiers or feel no pain type saves.
Indirect fire weapons suffer -1 to hit for firing indirectly (in the cover rules because sometimes units hide behind walls and in bushes).
Armor saves and armor save modifiers apply ONLY if a model is fully in the base of a terrain piece (to hit modifiers apply for all intervening terrain, regardless of distance from target models, however).
All terrain counts as area terrain, and afford a +1 armor save modifier if an attacker shoots through or into said terrain.
For units spread out across different terrain/cover types, saves against wounds are taken from least obscured/in cover first, and most in cover/obscured last.
Use city ruins rules from Cities of Death.
Use height advantage from Cities of Death.
Use fire in the hole from Cities of Death.
Rather than armor saves, or armor save modifiers, cover affords invulnerable saves depending on cover type in addition to normal armor and possible to hit modifiers. So, a hardened wall may afford a 4++, a dense forest a 6++, to be determined.
All units in the open (not obscured at all by any intervening terrain or models) are targeted with a +1 modifier to hit with shooting attacks.

View results
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

So, I solicited and sourced posts proposing terrain/cover fixes, with the promise to put them together into a poll.
That thread is called Dakka approved terrain fixes.
Here it is.
All options had been proposed by Dakka members.
Vote for as many as you might like to see implemented in one way or another.
If you want something added or removed or edited, write about it.

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/08/05 11:51:32


   
Made in gb
Norn Queen






tl;dr

Not to be glib, but that's way too much text to be bothering reading.

Personally, I think the cover system in 8th is fine. It would be nice to have intervening terrain/50% LOS give cover too but it's not a dealbreaker.
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 BaconCatBug wrote:
tl;dr

Not to be glib, but that's way too much text to be bothering reading.

Personally, I think the cover system in 8th is fine. It would be nice to have intervening terrain/50% LOS give cover too but it's not a dealbreaker.


I tried to replicate every unique suggestion.
If it is too much trouble to read then imagine mine to make it.

You will notice that what you want is an easy to find option in the poll.
But if too busy...


   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





Polls are better when the respondents are not suffering from "information overload". You give people too many options are they become much more likely to not respond. If KFC asked what you'd like to see next on their menu, they do not give people the options of Stuffed Salmon on Rice or Cheese Souffle, because those aren't really applicable to their brand.

In this situation, you'd probably be better in breaking things down into categories like:

#1 - How should cover affect armour saves?
option a
b
c
d
e

#2 - How should cover affect movement?
option a
b
c
d
e

Etc.

 Galef wrote:
If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors.
 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Yarium wrote:
Polls are better when the respondents are not suffering from "information overload". You give people too many options are they become much more likely to not respond. If KFC asked what you'd like to see next on their menu, they do not give people the options of Stuffed Salmon on Rice or Cheese Souffle, because those aren't really applicable to their brand.

In this situation, you'd probably be better in breaking things down into categories like:

#1 - How should cover affect armour saves?
option a
b
c
d
e

#2 - How should cover affect movement?
option a
b
c
d
e

Etc.


I simply reproduced as many novel suggestions as were submitted or that I found on my own here on Dakka.
Too many choices?
Well this poll shows just how many different ways there are to see the problems and solutions.
Sorry if it isn't convenient for the short of attention.
I am trying to do a service here.
Not trying to sell something...

   
Made in us
Focused Fire Warrior




NY

I appreciate that you show all the options people have been bickering over. Really its not that hard to check off each item you dont disagree with.
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Shas'O'Ceris wrote:
I appreciate that you show all the options people have been bickering over. Really its not that hard to check off each item you dont disagree with.

Thanks man.
That was the goal.
I made it as easy as I thought I could.
Easier than collecting all the options and typing them out in the first place anyhow...

   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Interesting to note so far that only three options have zero votes, with two involving all or nothing cover save effects. That indicates that some sort of TLoS is favored by all respondents thusfar, as expected, and contrary to recent rules abstractions.

   
Made in gb
Hooded Inquisitorial Interrogator






I posted in another thread, but my current house-rule for both terrain and screening of characters is that you can't target something more than 75% obscured, and anything more than 50% obscured is -1 to-Hit. -2 to-Hit for 75%+ might be reasonable though. Anything that is obscuring your intended target is said to be intervening, and includes terrain and units. This would totally replace current terrain and character targeting rules; anything that allows you to target a character even if it's not the nearest instead reduces the to-Hit penalty by 1 (so eliminating the 50% obscured penalty completely).

I'm thinking of then combining this with 1's to-Hit instead hitting the nearest intervening unit; this means that firing past allies carries some risk; with 75% obscurement being -2 to-Hit I'd increase that to 1's and 2's. Weapons that automatically hit must roll to determine whether this happens (i.e- they're treated as weapons that normally hit on a 1+, but the 1's and 2's against intervening units overrides this).

On defended obstacles I'm leaning towards eliminating strike first for chargers; it's the simplest rule and I think makes the most sense. This also gives a slight extra advantage to Slaaneshi Daemons and Howling Banshees etc., who will be one of the few units that could still strike first anyway without being put to the top of the fight order.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/08/15 08:33:22


   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 Haravikk wrote:
I posted in another thread, but my current house-rule for both terrain and screening of characters is that you can't target something more than 75% obscured, and anything more than 50% obscured is -1 to-Hit. -2 to-Hit for 75%+ might be reasonable though. Anything that is obscuring your intended target is said to be intervening, and includes terrain and units. This would totally replace current terrain and character targeting rules; anything that allows you to target a character even if it's not the nearest instead reduces the to-Hit penalty by 1 (so eliminating the 50% obscured penalty completely).

I'm thinking of then combining this with 1's to-Hit instead hitting the nearest intervening unit; this means that firing past allies carries some risk; with 75% obscurement being -2 to-Hit I'd increase that to 1's and 2's. Weapons that automatically hit must roll to determine whether this happens (i.e- they're treated as weapons that normally hit on a 1+, but the 1's and 2's against intervening units overrides this).

On defended obstacles I'm leaning towards eliminating strike first for chargers; it's the simplest rule and I think makes the most sense. This also gives a slight extra advantage to Slaaneshi Daemons and Howling Banshees etc., who will be one of the few units that could still strike first anyway without being put to the top of the fight order.


These are some new ideas not reflected in the poll.
Interesting.
Seems that the auto hit weapons like flamers would be better off just using templates.
If the template passes over any part of any friendly model, then the shot might have to be forbidden.
But, then again, templates are gone, and your fix seems reasonable in this case.

   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

Glad to see we are still getting some votes trickling in...

   
Made in gb
Purposeful Hammerhead Pilot





Hit modifiers are a terrible idea for cover as they affect some factions way to much. Guard orks and tau for instance get totally shafted by -1 to hit modifiers whereas eldar and space marines are nowhere nearly as badly affected. The cover system now is good except intervening terrain and models should afford a cover save if you are 50% obscured even if not "fully in" the terrain piece
   
Made in ca
Ork Boy Hangin' off a Trukk





I hate the fact that if you are shooting through terrain, I get less cover than if I was in the same terrain. I could see it if units that were in terrain had an option to go to ground for an extra save amount, but couldn't move/shoot next turn.

I really like the idea of invuln saves in cover. Not too much, 6++ for soft cover like woods, and 5++ for hard cover like rock or brick. That helps everyone a bit, and the models that have really good armour saves already don't become OP, but they can find cover useful against AP weapons.
   
Made in us
Sneaky Striking Scorpion




Seattle Area

There's a lot of good options on this list, but I feel like the volume of options makes unpacking the data difficult.

The poll tries to address a couple different issues, which really ought to be separate topic imo:

Terrain and Movement
Terrain and Cover Benefits from Shooint
Terrain and Line Sight
Terrain and Assault (Charging)

I think it might be helpful to separate out these concepts and help focus the conversation.

Froth at the top, dregs at the bottom, but the middle - excellent 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 znelson wrote:
There's a lot of good options on this list, but I feel like the volume of options makes unpacking the data difficult.

The poll tries to address a couple different issues, which really ought to be separate topic imo:

Terrain and Movement
Terrain and Cover Benefits from Shooint
Terrain and Line Sight
Terrain and Assault (Charging)

I think it might be helpful to separate out these concepts and help focus the conversation.


Why not do it?
I would love to see a few different polls come from this one.

What I did was run another thread first, asking for suggestions.
Then, I simply compiled those suggestions into this list/poll.

The point was pretty much to illustrate how spread out people's opinions really are/were.

As for how the poll hangs together, well, it is all about cover and terrain, and how these affect shooting and saves, movement and close combat.
Broad, but this is the theme.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




biggest beef with the current iteration of cover rules for 8th is the fact that it gave a HUGE buff to elite armies like Space Marines and a HUGE nerf to horde armies like Orkz.

None of these options really address this much without causing further headaches for the have not codices, like Orkz and Nidz. -1 to hit or -2 sounds great in theory, but since some factions already have -1 and others already have -2, you basically just ignore the shooting from entire armies.

Giving the +1 to armor sounds good in theory, but again, that makes Tactical Marines into Terminators and makes Ork Boyz into....slightly better Ork boyz, where as before it gave Space Marines a 4+ invuln save against AP3 weapons and gave Orkz a 4+ armor save in general.

The one thing I did like though was the idea that "light" infantry can move through terrain without any difficulty.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in us
Screaming Shining Spear





USA

SemperMortis wrote:
None of these options really address this much without causing further headaches for the have not codices, like Orkz and Nidz. -1 to hit or -2 sounds great in theory, but since some factions already have -1 and others already have -2, you basically just ignore the shooting from entire armies.



In 2nd edition when -1 -2 -3, etc even -6 was not unheard of and did not make any one army unable to be shot.

 koooaei wrote:
We are rolling so many dice to have less time to realise that there is not much else to the game other than rolling so many dice.
 
   
Made in au
Pestilent Plague Marine with Blight Grenade





 admironheart wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
None of these options really address this much without causing further headaches for the have not codices, like Orkz and Nidz. -1 to hit or -2 sounds great in theory, but since some factions already have -1 and others already have -2, you basically just ignore the shooting from entire armies.



In 2nd edition when -1 -2 -3, etc even -6 was not unheard of and did not make any one army unable to be shot.


A simple line added to the rulebook would solve so many problems with negatives preventing shooting "a natural 6 is always a pass and a natural 1 is always a fail"

"Courage and Honour. I hear you murmur these words in the mist, in their wake I hear your hearts beat harder with false conviction seeking to convince yourselves that a brave death has meaning.
There is no courage to be found here my nephews, no honour to be had. Your souls will join the trillion others in the mist shrieking uselessly to eternity, weeping for the empire you could not save.

To the unfaithful, I bring holy plagues ripe with enlightenment. To the devout, I bring the blessing of immortality through the kiss of sacred rot.
And to you, new-born sons of Gulliman, to you flesh crafted puppets of a failing Imperium I bring the holiest gift of all.... Silence."
- Mortarion, The Death Lord, The Reaper of Men, Daemon Primarch of Nurgle


5300 | 2800 | 3600 | 1600 |  
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

 NurglesR0T wrote:
 admironheart wrote:
SemperMortis wrote:
None of these options really address this much without causing further headaches for the have not codices, like Orkz and Nidz. -1 to hit or -2 sounds great in theory, but since some factions already have -1 and others already have -2, you basically just ignore the shooting from entire armies.



In 2nd edition when -1 -2 -3, etc even -6 was not unheard of and did not make any one army unable to be shot.


A simple line added to the rulebook would solve so many problems with negatives preventing shooting "a natural 6 is always a pass and a natural 1 is always a fail"


Yes.

   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




-1 to hit for Orkz = 50% Reduction in accuracy,

-1 to hit for SM = 25% Reduction in accuracy.

Yeah the -2+ will be wasted on orkz but its still a HUGE Deal. Sorry, but I don't give a rats behind to that idea since it once against destroys the "Have not"s already piss poor shooting phase.

 Tomsug wrote:
Semper krumps under the radar

 
   
Made in kr
Inquisitorial Keeper of the Xenobanks






your mind

SemperMortis wrote:
-1 to hit for Orkz = 50% Reduction in accuracy,

-1 to hit for SM = 25% Reduction in accuracy.

Yeah the -2+ will be wasted on orkz but its still a HUGE Deal. Sorry, but I don't give a rats behind to that idea since it once against destroys the "Have not"s already piss poor shooting phase.

Yes this is a good point.
So back to saves and save modifiers then?
Which options did you endorse?

From past posts,
Maybe you endorse invulnerable saves for cover?

I think that this is best, and a tried and tested straightforward solution.

Still, ones fail and sixes succeed in every case...

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/10/05 23:15:50


   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






Over abundance of roll modifiers on a d6 system is just bad game design. The whole +1 to armor is heavily skewed in favor of high armor models while models with very low armor *cough* orks *cough* gain little to no benefit when half the weapons in the game have some AP modifier that eats both their base armor and the cover bonus. To hit modifiers are also highly problematic as the D6 system doesn't have the granularity to allow for more subtle changes.

As for 8th's cover system I have to say that the entire system needs to be reworked from the ground up and preferably make it more in line with 7th's cover. But really a proper rework of cover would need to rework how weapons/shooting works because those systems are very interconnected.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in gb
Lord of the Fleet






 BaconCatBug wrote:
tl;dr

Not to be glib, but that's way too much text to be bothering reading.

Personally, I think the cover system in 8th is fine. It would be nice to have intervening terrain/50% LOS give cover too but it's not a dealbreaker.

I guarantee we'll see response rate dropping off as you move down the list.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Vankraken wrote:

As for 8th's cover system I have to say that the entire system needs to be reworked from the ground up and preferably make it more in line with 7th's cover. But really a proper rework of cover would need to rework how weapons/shooting works because those systems are very interconnected.

Absolutely. For example, cover for vehicles without fire arcs means that vehicles in cover have zero reduction in effectiveness - is that what we want? If we bring back fire arcs then the current points system falls down.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/10/08 21:09:54


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K Proposed Rules
Go to: