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.

Following from a previous post, I wanted to get some feedback on this idea for a revamped approach to cover.

Terrain is now assigned a cover save level as follows:

- Soft cover (5+ cover value)
- Hard cover (4+ cover value)
- Fortified cover (3+ cover value)

When a unit is in cover, they have two advantages:

#1 - If the "cover value" is better than their armor save, they get +1 to their armor save roll for each point of difference. Example: an imperial guard (5+ armor save) in hard cover (4+ cover value) gets to add +1 to their armor save.

#2 - In addition, cover can negate a certain amount of weapon AP depending on its cover value.
- Soft cover = negate 1 AP
- Hard cover = negate up to 2 AP
- Fortified cover = negate up to 3 AP

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are some examples:

Space marines (3+ armor save) never get the base +1 save, since their armor is superior to any forms of cover. However, being in cover can still reduce the effect of high AP weapons. For example, being in Hard cover would allow marines to ignore the AP effects for AP -1 and AP -2 weapons, allowing them to still take a 3+ armor save.

Guardsman (5+ armor save) in hard cover (4+ cover value) would get a +1 to their armor roll and could ignore up to 2 points of AP.

Seems like this is a clean way to avoid having to make additional die rolls. Still allows higher AP weaponry to cut through cover, especially lighter cover. Avoids issues with marines or terminators getting huge boosts whereas other units hardly benefit from cover, especially with mild AP weapons are involved.

Thoughts?

As with every new rule I suggest the following,. Writing it as simple as you can and still get it across to someone who has never seen it before. If it requires you to explain it, it's not a good rule.

This rule is that, it's too complicated. If anything if you want to fix cover or make it better quote end quote. Do it where it either acts as an alternative save still effected by AP. IE ruins provide a 4+ save that is effected by AP. A purchased wall of Martyrs gives a 3+ save they can take instead of their armor .

Or better yet, just have it effect your two hit.

I think the proposed rule is both too complicated, and not well balanced.

Using cover as described penalizes weapons with decent AP. A guardsman in fortified cover would get the same 3+ save against a lascannon and a bolter. This skew would greatly alter the efficiency and value of different weapon, and probably in unforeseen and poorly balanced ways. Necron tesla weapons would look really appealing.

What the above poster said. I have always been of the mind set that being in cover should make your harder to hit, not harder to punch through your armor

Thanks for the feedback.

What are people's thoughts about straight up fixed cover saves (e.g. 4+ or 5+) depending on the type of cover as an alternative to taking a normal armor save? This would be like 5th edition (for example).

You could have AP affect cover saves, but the result is that for lighter covers (e.g. those providing 5+) what's the point of cover for lighter armored models? And if cover doesn't provide any baseline boost, then against zero AP weapons cover is even more pointless.

Maybe the way to do it just adopt the 5th rules?

I will say I don't like cover working as a hit modifier - because it further impacts low BS units.

I think this has potential, if it were toned down a bit. How about this?

Terrain is now assigned a cover save level as follows:

- Soft cover (5+ cover value)
- Hard cover (4+ cover value)
- Fortified cover (3+ cover value)

When targeted by a shooting attack, a unit may replace their armor save with the cover value of any terrain that they are wholly within.
If a unit does not replace their save, then if a model's save is worse than the cover value after Armor Penetration has been applied, that unit adds 1 to its armor save.




This makes heavy terrain somewhat useful for lightly armored units (Orks, Guardsmen, etc,) but limits the amount of benefit that cover offers to Space Marine equivalents - They can still benefit against big, heavy weapons with high AP, but they won't be able to sit pretty with 2+ saves against any anti-infantry weapon that comes their way.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What the above poster said. I have always been of the mind set that being in cover should make your harder to hit, not harder to punch through your armor

Why not both?
Hiding behind a brick wall, mostly obscured, with a spot of tall grass in between, couldn't we see a -1 to hit for the grasses waving around and the target popping in and out around the corner of the wall, and an armor save modifier (or outright "armor" save) representing the projectile/energy potentially having to pass through the wall material as well?

 jeff white wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What the above poster said. I have always been of the mind set that being in cover should make your harder to hit, not harder to punch through your armor

Why not both?
Hiding behind a brick wall, mostly obscured, with a spot of tall grass in between, couldn't we see a -1 to hit for the grasses waving around and the target popping in and out around the corner of the wall, and an armor save modifier (or outright "armor" save) representing the projectile/energy potentially having to pass through the wall material as well?

Negative to-hit penalties are way too common in this game already, at least for some armies. My Orks effectively can't bring guns at this point because there are so many instances where they pretty much can't hit anything. Adding the ability for every single unit to get ANOTHER -1 to hit on top of that would also let players invalidate Guardsmen and other 4+ to hit armies.

It's true that "to hit" penalties penalise 5+ Orks more than anyone else, but the current cover rules benefit 3+ save armies more than anyone else. The only way I can see to make cover equally benefit all armies would be to have a separate cover save (in addition to a regular save), which would not be popular as it adds another dice roll to make.


Mark.

What about simply this:

Units in cover may use the cover save value (3+/4+/5+ depending on cover type) instead of their normal armor save value.
Additionally, units in cover negate one point of AP from weapon fire (e.g. AP -2 becomes AP -1), regardless of whether the armor or cover save was used.

Basically this let's you use a cover save if it's better than your armor, but cover saves are still subject to AP modifiers so they are more inline with the 8th edition direction. Space Marines still derive some benefit from cover against weapons with AP, but they don't get the crazy +2 saves as they get now. Cover becomes more beneficial for lighter armored units wearing 5+ or 6+ armor, particularly when they can get into hard cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What the above poster said. I have always been of the mind set that being in cover should make your harder to hit, not harder to punch through your armor

Why not both?
Hiding behind a brick wall, mostly obscured, with a spot of tall grass in between, couldn't we see a -1 to hit for the grasses waving around and the target popping in and out around the corner of the wall, and an armor save modifier (or outright "armor" save) representing the projectile/energy potentially having to pass through the wall material as well?

At the end of the day, the point of these changes is to make being in cover more beneficial and result in less models being removed from the board as a consequence of shooting. While there is realistic logic in having both hit modifiers and armor save modifiers working in tandem, in some fashion, these can disproportionately impact different armies. Orks facing even more -1 modifiers being the big example. But even BS 4+ units are hit relatively harder by hit modifiers compared to BS 3+ units.

Going back to prior 40K editions (3rd/4th/5th) cover saves were 4+ or 5+ invulnerable saves. Marines facing a ton of starcannons (AP3)? Better get in cover. Marines facing tons of small arms fire? Cover is moot because their basic armor is stronger. Lightly armored units? Big advantage for setting up fire lines in cover and/or advancing into melee range under cover. Terrain was super, super important.

My proposal here bridges the gap (simply) between the era of invulnerable cover saves and the new AP system, while retaining the intended battlefield dynamics better than the current rules as written.

Mezmorki wrote:
What about simply this:

Units in cover may use the cover save value (3+/4+/5+ depending on cover type) instead of their normal armor save value.
Additionally, units in cover negate one point of AP from weapon fire (e.g. AP -2 becomes AP -1), regardless of whether the armor or cover save was used.

Basically this let's you use a cover save if it's better than your armor, but cover saves are still subject to AP modifiers so they are more inline with the 8th edition direction. Space Marines still derive some benefit from cover against weapons with AP, but they don't get the crazy +2 saves as they get now. Cover becomes more beneficial for lighter armored units wearing 5+ or 6+ armor, particularly when they can get into hard cover.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jeff white wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
What the above poster said. I have always been of the mind set that being in cover should make your harder to hit, not harder to punch through your armor

Why not both?
Hiding behind a brick wall, mostly obscured, with a spot of tall grass in between, couldn't we see a -1 to hit for the grasses waving around and the target popping in and out around the corner of the wall, and an armor save modifier (or outright "armor" save) representing the projectile/energy potentially having to pass through the wall material as well?

At the end of the day, the point of these changes is to make being in cover more beneficial and result in less models being removed from the board as a consequence of shooting. While there is realistic logic in having both hit modifiers and armor save modifiers working in tandem, in some fashion, these can disproportionately impact different armies. Orks facing even more -1 modifiers being the big example. But even BS 4+ units are hit relatively harder by hit modifiers compared to BS 3+ units.

Going back to prior 40K editions (3rd/4th/5th) cover saves were 4+ or 5+ invulnerable saves. Marines facing a ton of starcannons (AP3)? Better get in cover. Marines facing tons of small arms fire? Cover is moot because their basic armor is stronger. Lightly armored units? Big advantage for setting up fire lines in cover and/or advancing into melee range under cover. Terrain was super, super important.

My proposal here bridges the gap (simply) between the era of invulnerable cover saves and the new AP system, while retaining the intended battlefield dynamics better than the current rules as written.

I see some cover affording a to hit modifier and others a save as in your fourth ed example. I liked that mechanic.

4th Edition didn't have hit modifiers for cover (or any hit modifiers at all outside of some special cases or extra rule sets)

The first posts idea is growing on me but I'm still skeptical. I do not like the revised version where we have to calculate wether or nor we need to do more math.

Making cover universally appealing will be hard, first that shooting and save for SM is too good and orks too bad, and then that daemons are all invulnerables.

The point about affecting hit or save rolls being aesthetically different is true but they are functionally the same. It's all rolls to reduce damage points taken. An issue here is that the d6 system doesn't cover saves well. SM Have as much armor save as most heavy tanks and terminators moreso, but 4+ is common too and there isn't much room to deviate. Negating negatives is a pain and counter intuitive as it hurts bunker busting weapon vs but not light arms fire. Have we considered +1 toughness for being in cover or -1 wound? That would hurt some specialty weapons though like shuriken and splinter.

Why not just return to using the cover system from pre-8th? Just let cover provide a fixed invulnerable save. If your armor is better accounting for AP as normal, just use that.

Stuff that adds to your cover save (cloaks, etc) increase the level of cover by one.

 Mezmorki wrote:
Why not just return to using the cover system from pre-8th? Just let cover provide a fixed invulnerable save. If your armor is better accounting for AP as normal, just use that.

Stuff that adds to your cover save (cloaks, etc) increase the level of cover by one.

I also agree with this. seems much more balanced and doesn't give anyone a specific advantage.