Cadarn Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Just wanted to take a moment to rant here. I've been playing a lot of Fantasy battle and some other games recently and I was once again struck at how infuriating the cover rules are for 40k. I remember back in the days of 2nd Edition, when being in cover meant that you were harder to hit by applying a penalty to the dice roll. This was a straightforward rule which benefited everyone in cover, from marines to gretchin. However, when I came back during 4th edition, something strange had happened. The cover rule had changed to what we know it as today. The sheer illogical reasoning behind this rule boggles my mind. I was given to understand that it was because GW did not want the game to get bogged down in modifiers, so as to speed the game up. However, we now have modifiers aplenty in the form of combat break tests, Tank Hunters, Furious Charge, Stealth etc. So why are we still on this cover save rule? This isn't a rhetorical question, but a genuine query. I was away from the hobby at the time when it changed and it still baffles me why it was done. Aside from the oddness of it from a logical standpoint, it also provides a bonus to certain armies over others. I like playing games in dense terrain, such as cityfights. However, as Marine I am at a disadvantage due to the fact that opponents in the shape of Guard, Eldar and Orks are all gaining free saves against my small arms fire. However, I gain no benefit at all against theirs. "I've paid the points for my good armour save, you cheeky little whelps! How is it fair that you get yours for free?" I fully understand the workings of the rule, I just don't understand the reasoning. It implies that a marine will duck and cover at the first sign of a single plasma gun, but will happily stroll out, waving to passers-by as he gets shot at by 50 lasguns, or bladestormed for 32 shots. Thicker armour does not mean you suddenly don't care about small arms fire! So, rant over, but I would appreciate any insight into why it was made into the way it is now, and whether anyone still house-rules it as it used to be. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother-Chaplain Gaius Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I can't offer any insight into why GW does what they do, we'll never know. I think they're being secretly manipulated by an agent of chaos or something. but yeah :angry: ++ Post edited. Trying to mask swear words by using substitutes is really attempting to by-pass the B&C swear filter. Don't do it please. I ++ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322380 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roachboy Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 A modifier system definitely makes more sense, but then not much does in 40k... Could always house rule it, and I think I might try, although I suspect I'll be accused of whining by my friends (who mainly play Orks and Tyranids = cover saves galore). Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322576 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArmouredWing Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think the key is that although everyone can benefit from a cover save if they are in cover the better armoured forces benefit from not having to hug cover to ensure the survival of their infantry. Needless to say cover is all well and good when it can be used, SM will still benefit when fired upon by low AP weapons but in cover dense terrain it comes down to picking the right tools for the job which are predominatly flamers which grant no cover save what so ever. It's all about the tactical loadout which suits the environment that you may be playing in and if that may include a CoD style table then templates are the way to go. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322640 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadarn Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think the key is that although everyone can benefit from a cover save if they are in cover the better armoured forces benefit from not having to hug cover to ensure the survival of their infantry. Agreed. The trouble is that I pay a lot for each of my marines, and their armour save will account for a considerable amount of that. Those troops with weaker armour get given a free bonus to their save against the overwhelming majority of small arms fire when in cover, while my marines gain no benefit whatsoever. Not especially fair. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322654 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashe Darke Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Just go up to the little whelps and clobber them in combat where the cover means nothing to marines. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322661 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grey Mage Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 Or use those free flamers theyve been handing out at birthday parties to roast them and their trees! Muaahahahahaaa Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322705 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hellios Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I like playing games in dense terrain, such as cityfights. However, as Marine I am at a disadvantage due to the fact that opponents in the shape of Guard, Eldar and Orks are all gaining free saves against my small arms fire. However, I gain no benefit at all against theirs. "I've paid the points for my good armour save, you cheeky little whelps! How is it fair that you get yours for free?" I fully understand the workings of the rule, I just don't understand the reasoning. It implies that a marine will duck and cover at the first sign of a single plasma gun, but will happily stroll out, waving to passers-by as he gets shot at by 50 lasguns, or bladestormed for 32 shots. Thicker armour does not mean you suddenly don't care about small arms fire! So, rant over, but I would appreciate any insight into why it was made into the way it is now, and whether anyone still house-rules it as it used to be. I think the key is that although everyone can benefit from a cover save if they are in cover the better armoured forces benefit from not having to hug cover to ensure the survival of their infantry. Agreed. The trouble is that I pay a lot for each of my marines, and their armour save will account for a considerable amount of that. Those troops with weaker armour get given a free bonus to their save against the overwhelming majority of small arms fire when in cover, while my marines gain no benefit whatsoever. Not especially fair. Oh hello you think you have it bad? I play a pure 1kson force... so I pay for my armour (granted better than most cover saves), I pay for a 4++ which is essentially the same as cover but I don't have to hide (however I'm Slow and Purposeful so it makes no difference except... oh yer your cover save now makes my ap3 bolters useless... good game space marines! I can survive a flamestorm cannon (Flamestorm incinerators still get me :'(). I also play Deathwing... guess what... no sympathy for you... maybe you could try scouts... they are a bit cheaper have less armour although they also lack in other areas. I also play Eldar and Love city fight rules... Harlequins and Pathfinders make me fuzzy inside... I'm not saying the rules are logical... mind you... Also do you suffer from being flamered or heavy flamered in your power armour? Naaah I fought not... wanna try it on the orks Eldar and Guard? I swear they won't like it... Here is my list of burny stuff... Might not have evrything mind you... Sternguard... Heavy flamers... combi-flamers (oh and as I'm talking about burny... Vulkan if you feel mean). Shooty Terminators with heavy flamer... Land Speeder with.... heavy flamer... Dreadnought, Venerable or Ironclad with... Heavy flamer... Legion of the Damned with... heavy flamer... Thunderfire... not a flamer but ignores cover... Redeemer... even spikey marines fear these.... Whirlwind.... not a flamer but... ignores cover... If you feel really spicy.... Chaplain dreadnought with Flamestorm cannon... really big flamer which as mentioned even spiky marines fear... Siege dreadnought with Inferno cannon... long range flame thrower... Land Raider Prometheus... not a flame thrower... but reduces cover saves by 1... for its own shooting. Deathstorm drop pod... not a flame thrower but awesome anyway... I apologise about silly rules but I have no sympathy when you don't have to fear these things like my Eldar army... oh and did I mentioned almost everything else that isn't a vehicle can take a flamer or combi-flamer? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322733 Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 I think cover adds a new tactical edge to the game.. armies with low armour saves hug cover whilst marines can stand out in the open and force these armies to break cover in order to reach them.. also factor in our scouts which need cover and the numerous ways of ignoring said cover (explained above, but add cluster mines) and it makes the game a little less bland IMO Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322922 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadarn Posted March 17, 2010 Author Share Posted March 17, 2010 Don't get me wrong, I'm not against cover in general, and I'm all for the idea of Marines giving a proud middle digit to those who are forced to rely on it. I'm not whining that it doesn't make sense for those with light armour to benefit from cover but I do feel that marines, and scouts, should be able to be gain SOME benefit from cover when trying to keep their heads down against mass small arms fire. Whether this takes the form of penalty to hit, or a bonus to armour save. It could even be half and halved. The rules as they are stay in place, but if the model has an armour save equal to or better than the cover save then they gain a +1 bonus to their save. But that's going into the realms of home-made rules, which is another forum, so I'll stop. :lol: Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322936 Share on other sites More sharing options...
greatcrusade08 Posted March 17, 2010 Share Posted March 17, 2010 i kind of agree with you, all cover does with scouts and marines is to provide saves vs high SP weapons.. armies with 5-6+ saves get a better save.. it should be balanced out...... but then ive not found any difficulties in killing these armies. When i used to play around with tau i used to take 10 kroot for 70 points stick them in wooded terrain and use them as rapid firing MEQs.. in woods they got 3+ cover save and 24" range on S4 rapid fire weapons.. not bad for 70 points Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2322965 Share on other sites More sharing options...
pueriexdeus Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Ahhh yes the antique (2nd ED) to hit modifier. I thought it was appropriate as it actually created a sense of realism. Well as much as could be done on a table top game. I was told the reason behind the removal of the modifiers was to get those math phobic kids into the game. Really some people cant subtract 2 from 4 and realize you need a 5 to hit, way too complex. My understanding of the "Streamlined" 3rd ED was to make the game easier and faster to play. So that's why they (GW) cut the points cost of units in half at the same time. Then instead of taking an hour to play a 1000 point game with 2 xTac Sqds each, it takes 2 hours to play a 1000 point game with 4x Tac Sqds each. Yep that sped things up. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2323383 Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapter master 454 Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Ahhh yes the antique (2nd ED) to hit modifier. I thought it was appropriate as it actually created a sense of realism. Well as much as could be done on a table top game. I was told the reason behind the removal of the modifiers was to get those math phobic kids into the game. Really some people cant subtract 2 from 4 and realize you need a 5 to hit, way too complex. Technically, GW shouldn't be saying +1 in the way they mean, but rather -1 for dice rolls if positive effect and +1 for negative effect. However I side with the OP about cover saves these days, they are given far too freely with the 50% rule (I would be inclined to make it 75%, then it makes far more sense why the cover is having an effect). Orks can just run up conga line style where my flamers do jack. Ork boyz cost 6 points a pop, considering they normally find a way to get a 4+, this means for a THIRD of a space marines price, the orks get a T4 4+ that costs 180 points, thats the same as my missle launcher and plasma gun combo squad of tacticals. Yea I can shoot better but will roughly 14-21 bolter shots plus 2-3 frag blast markers along with some plasma shots even stop the orks charging my marines and killing them with models using 4 S4 attacks that hit on 4+. Statistically I will lose about 2-3 marines, maybe 4. However I do admit to having an INSANE amount of glee when my TFC tore down 15 orks in one shooting because the orks weren't allowed cover saves! Sweet, sweet justice! TFCs, sticking the middle digit up at horde and cover hogs since 5th edition! I still want a dreadnought mounted with one...or two...or...well ok two would do but a third could never hurt!!! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2323396 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashe Darke Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Ahhh yes the antique (2nd ED) to hit modifier. I thought it was appropriate as it actually created a sense of realism. Well as much as could be done on a table top game. I was told the reason behind the removal of the modifiers was to get those math phobic kids into the game. Really some people cant subtract 2 from 4 and realize you need a 5 to hit, way too complex. My mate teaches his beginners what value they need to hit by going 'What is your guys BS? Well find that value on the die and turn it around, that's what you need'. Talk about dumb kids if they can't figure out how to subtract a number from 7. He thinks they should just give a value to hit for BS like it is with a save but it wouldn't work for blast templates. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2323422 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cadarn Posted March 18, 2010 Author Share Posted March 18, 2010 He thinks they should just give a value to hit for BS like it is with a save but it wouldn't work for blast templates. I've recently been teaching others to play and that is exactly what they said. This is a relic from having to use older material. It would be simpler and more logical to do this, but that would involve changing all of the stats in all of the army books as soon as the rule was changed, and I really can't see that happening. A quick fix would be to say that you must roll equal to or under your BS in order to hit. Doesn't allow for every eventuality, but it would be a start. As for cover, I'm going to try houseruling it in some small games and see how it works out. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2323698 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Not especially fair. It's the grim darkness of far future, not the shiny happy future of Playville. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2323876 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reglor Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 Ahhh yes the antique (2nd ED) to hit modifier. I thought it was appropriate as it actually created a sense of realism. Well as much as could be done on a table top game. I was told the reason behind the removal of the modifiers was to get those math phobic kids into the game. Really some people cant subtract 2 from 4 and realize you need a 5 to hit, way too complex. My mate teaches his beginners what value they need to hit by going 'What is your guys BS? Well find that value on the die and turn it around, that's what you need'. Talk about dumb kids if they can't figure out how to subtract a number from 7. He thinks they should just give a value to hit for BS like it is with a save but it wouldn't work for blast templates. I must admit that I never noticed that to hit was 7 minus your BS. One thing I remeber reading in White Dwarf about the reason for the dropping of the to hit modifiers was that you had to calculate it for each shot in 2nd edition. Now I don't know if that was true because I started right when 3rd edition was released but I they said it was to speed up the game. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2324642 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ashe Darke Posted March 18, 2010 Share Posted March 18, 2010 2nd Ed was a lot more in depth. Too be honest I prefer simplification as it's quicker and so it keeps you more interested. Turns end up flowing better as well except when you end up quibbling about silly silly ambiguous rules or whether the tank is getting a cover save or not. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2324734 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Sasha Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I still want a dreadnought mounted with one...or two...or...well ok two would do but a third could never hurt!!! Oooh...want! want! want! Vote CM454 for next codex designer! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2325239 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kephri Posted March 19, 2010 Share Posted March 19, 2010 I certainly think that cover saves have gotten very generous in 5th. I am not opposed to the concept at all, but when 5-6 point models are gaining in essence, a 4+ invulnerable save, I feel that that changes the way the game is played. (and I don't feel that I need to completely re-tool my army to have everything with a flamer to get around this) The only thought that pops into my head, un-tested, and not really thought about at length... What if cover saves were based off of your armor save. "Heavy" cover turns your save invulnerable. Light cover gives you a cover save of "one worse" than your regular save. (6+ as the worst stays 6+) Marines would get a 3+ (heavy) 4+ (light) cover save. Scouts would get a 4+ (heavy) 5+ (light) cover save. Genestealers would get a 5+ (heavy) 6+ (light) cover save. Termagants would get a 6+ cover save for any cover. Either way, I understand that some of the weaker armored armies are at a huge disadvantage. I don't know if their low points cost is the best "balance" solution. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2325496 Share on other sites More sharing options...
chapter master 454 Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 I still want a dreadnought mounted with one...or two...or...well ok two would do but a third could never hurt!!! Oooh...want! want! want! Vote CM454 for next codex designer! Careful, you obviously haven't seen my creations in Homegrown. While I want Matt Ward replaced, if I touched the codex then ultramarines would be put to having just a single planet, have senisible leader who can't one hit avatars, not have silly SCs, have fairly priced models, Art work done in an equal fashion with history having a page deticated to each famous chapter (ultramarines, imperial fists, crimson fists, Iron fists/hands, Blood ravens would too because they have a nice character but a poor author for them (C.S.Goto)) and everything would have been beta tested with the community to ensure things were balanced however I would say this: Anime would get thrown in slightly and I know for a fact that no matter what that it shouldn't be. However vote for me to design the next codex if you can bear the slightest tint of anime in it. I might actually for giggles do some tweaks to the Codex:Space marine for personal amusement but I wouldn't wager on me actually trying to see if GW would let me (Matt Ward seems to print money like nintendo wiis because of his codex creeping) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2326177 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Commander Sasha Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 <_< Back to OP, I agree that cover modifying BS would be more realistic, but I prefer the expediency of the current system, and don't feel it is a ruinous disadvantage to us (or advantage to the bugs and veg). It's all in the strategy. My (low level) game took a big step up when I realised that winning isn't just about list planning, strategic deployment and mid game actions; Setting up the terrain to be mutually agreeable is vital: throwing a load of stuff on the table, letting the bug king fill the middle with trees, and then you saying "yeah, looks fine" is game over. Make sure you have vantage points at all four corners for your Devs, Cannons and snipers, to allow for what the mission and set-up turn out to be. Plan your deployment around LoS blockers, not area terrain. Cluster buildings to hamper horde assaults and bottleneck mobs for template optimisation. Generals throughout history have won against superior armies by putting the enemy when and where they want them. I'm still learning, but read the tactica articles on this and other forums to understand how to use support, reserves and the like to put the enemy where you want him. Hope this hasn't come across as patronising, it's what I am telling myself to do at this early stage of my wargaming career! Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2326213 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted March 20, 2010 Share Posted March 20, 2010 Nice post Commander Sasha. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2326862 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildfire Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 This might go better in another forum. It's not really a rules question, but rather a design question. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2330367 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted March 23, 2010 Share Posted March 23, 2010 I know it's not a question on rules per se but on cover saves' rationale, I think it can stay for the time being providing it doesn't turm into a mud-slinging anti-GW fest - then it'll be closed :) . Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/195119-the-cover-rule-and-its-folly/#findComment-2330410 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.