The cover rule and its folly

[Cadarn]

Hah! If I were to do that then it would just make me a massive hypocrite.

 

"Damn you GW! I hate you and all you stand for! You're a waste of my time and effort and money and ooh look a shiny new Dreadnought!" *drool* ;)

 

I am interested in the idea that the cover rules, as they stand now, give us some benefit over the more lightly armoured foes. There is the argument that the 50% rule is easier for us as we generally have smaller squads, and can cram more into what scant cover there is.

[Isiah]

... that's a tactical issue, best discussed elsewhere.

 

Cheers

I

[Sergio]

First time poster.

 

One simple solution for cover saves and in kind invulnerable saves would also get lumped in, would be to allow one addition save. So instead of choosing your best save, you choose your 2 best saves. So in the case of your basic marine in cover you would roll your armor save first, then if that fails you roll a cover save. Another example would be a terminator getting hit with a AP 1 weapon, you roll a cover save first then if that fails you roll your invulnerable save next. This will make all high armor units in cover harder to kill when being shot at.

[Ashe Darke]

How about stop putting 4+ cover saves all over the place and try having some things only conferring a 5+ cover save.

[Brother-Chaplain Gaius]

I dont place a ton of cover or buildings when i set up

 

just enough to make it interesting, after all the tactically adept and forward thinking Ultramarines wouldn't deploy in the middle of a swamp or in a alleyway somewhere.

 

I hate it when ppl purpously place tons and tons of obstuctions just to bog the game down

[Octavulg]

Why not just have the cover save be taken in addition to the armor save? Much like Sergio suggested (though I think invulnerable saves could still be kept separate - it's a little more justifiable). Seems to deal with most of the problems encountered.

 

You're supposed to cover 25% of the table with terrain. Cover saves are rather prevalent after that.

[chapter master 454]

In other words, due to the increase of AP3 weapons being given out on a 'Buy one get one free' basis these days, us marines should just dump our armour to get back 8 points or so on our guys and we'd have no major difference since we just have to leap frog terrain. Thats my personal opinion but I am still wondering why the 50% rule was introduced, it is a broken concept that allows squads to reach out from terrain while getting a cover save on objectives out in the open (EG, 10 marines can have 5 inside terrain and 5 outside, this means they can reach upto or round about 18" away if stretching out (counting the base as one inch for ease). Cover saves used to be considered useful but not to be relied on, now it's something you have to lean on like an old man or take the unreal amount of shooting armies can do (thus turning the game into who can roll their 4+ cover save better). Thats my personal gripe.

 

I think the cover save should really just be an armour save modifer, and when it goes below 2+ you start rerolling like ballistic skill over 5 (in other words 2+/6+, 2+/5+. Etc.) while AP reduces the armour save given (in this case The modifer would be something like save - (-AP+7)[i/] like BS. AP- doesn't modify the save at all) while invunerables don't improve armour saves or give one but actually negate a set amount of AP (like say, if an AP would reduce the save to 4+ by reducing it 3 and the character had an invunerable that reduces the AP by 2, then the save would be 2+ instead!).

 

Not sure if that would work and might scare away those who can't comprehend negative numbers but I think it would work better and NO, you can't just hide behind cover 50% for the entire squad, each dude that isn't in cover takes a seperate save and any dude that can't be seen can't be hit (so this means one loner ML can't just hide his squad behind a wall and fire while magically the bullets kill off his squad). Then again, thats if I was GW which I ain't!

[Valerian]

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.

 

Hi Cadarn,

 

I've been playing since Rogue Trader, so I was around for the transition for the old design framework (RT and 2nd) to the new framework (3rd through 5th). I think I still remember a little bit about the explanations (primarily found in White Dwarf magazines of the era). The reason for the design of the "modern-era" Cover rule was two-fold: first, by restricting each model to a single Save type per Wounding Hit (either Armour, Invulnerable, or Cover), owning player choosing the best save for the situation at hand, the game would progress much more quickly and would not get bogged down. Second, and just as important to the designers, since the standard Armour Save of Space Marines (and similar model-types with "good" saves) would typically be better than the save that they would get from Cover, the owning player would be less inclined to play them defensively, hiding in cover to maximize survivability. The designers wanted the rule to shape behavior on the battlefield, and wanted to see Marine players play more aggressively.

 

Back in 2nd Edition, when everyone gained a Cover advantage, it was not uncommon to see whole Space Marine armies form a defensive line in Cover, usually starting the game Hidden, and waiting for an opportunity to use Overwatch on any enemy unit that dared to move. Instead of an exciting tactical game of unit maneuver, the game was often reduced to two gun-lines shooting across the field at one another.

 

So, until the game design/framework gets a major overhaul, Marines will rely on their blessed Power and Tactical Dreadnought Armour to protect them from most threats. When targeted by an anti-tank weapon, then they'll scramble for cover.

 

Valerian

[Octavulg]

Wait...

 

40K's an exciting tactical game of unit maneuver?

[Interrogator-Chaplain Ezra]

Wait...

 

40K's an exciting tactical game of unit maneuver?

Stop the presses! This must be brought out to the world! They must be told, it is their right!

[avatar8481]

Of course, there are competing game systems that ARE exciting games of tactics and maneuver as well as having a more reasonable cover/concealment system. I won't say which ones but it rhymes with smore-machine.

[Octavulg]

GW even produces some. It's just that they don't support them any more. :huh:

[Captain Juan Juarez]

GW even produces some. It's just that they don't support them any more. :)

 

The glorious Specialist Games... :P

[Cadarn]

Not even just specialists games. Fantasy Battles uses a modified to-hit roll as it's cover bonus.

[Captain Juan Juarez]

Not even just specialists games. Fantasy Battles uses a modified to-hit roll as it's cover bonus.

 

I'm a little out of date when it comes to WHFB.

[Isiah]

Given that another 'comment' topic in the +OR+ has just been closed, and given that this one's run its course, it's going the same way too.

 

Some useful ideas are in here (somewhere). I suggest someone take the torch and think about the homebrew rules section for further considered development, testing and comment.

 

 

Cheers

I