How would the game change if...

[minigun762]

I was pondering the state of the game and one of the major factors that seems to be influencing army design and tactics is the assumption that everything will pretty much get a standard 4+ cover save at any given time, especially at long range.

 

So how would the game be different if it was only a 5+ save instead? Would you see more long range weapons like Lascannons? Would template weapons become less significant, would people care as much about leapfrogging armor?

[DarkGuard]

To be honest, I think the whole cover system needs to be completely overhauled to make it fair for all. Like -BS when shooting at units in cover.

 

However, as a Marine player I'd think that 5+ cover is the better way to go.

 

As a Nid player, I'd prefer to keep my 4+ thank you very much.

 

What I'm trying to say, in a roundabout way, is that non power armoured armies would find it harder to compete. While we don't use cover much that's because we don't rely on it, we have a very good armour save. Cover helps even it up for those units that don't have that good an armour save.

 

That being said, I think there shouldn't be a "standard" cover save, and that it would change the game for the better. It would make it more fair, and make more weapons like plasma guns more viable. IMO, ruins, walls and intervening models should be a 4+, craters and woods should be a 5+. I mention these ones because I see these the most.

 

As for whether I'd take lascannons. No, because I prefer autocannons and missile launchers. I would be more likely to use plasma cannons however, and I may even start using plasma guns again :woot:.

[Mysticaria]

yeah, agree. The 3+ armies would become more powerful then they are now. Mech would become even more important. Armies with bad armor saves and no vehicles would be at a disadvantage.

 

-Myst