[Elchimpster]

One of the things that kills me about 40k is that really, you only get one save.

One thing I've thought about doing is stacking saves (to a point).

Cover would have two values:
Stand Alone and Cumulative.
Stand alone would be if it is the only save taken. IE, no armor save.
Cumulative would be if the models have an armor save.

So a 4+ save for a model in a building would be a +2 bonus to the Armor Save of whoever is in cover:

A gaunt with a 6+ gets a 4+ save in cover.
An eldar guardian with a 5+ save gets a 3+ in cover.
A space marine ends up with a 2+
Saves can't get any better than 2+

Basically half the normal cover save becomes a bonus to the armor save to a max of 2+.

What does this do?
It makes characters value cover for a change.
IMO it makes the game play a bit more like the novels...everyone uses cover.

Discuss.

 

[Gore Hunter]

Except if you have FNP.

 

[Ubiquitous]

I don't see what fnp has to do with it, that happens after armor saves anyways.

I think this is a good idea, but it may be a little overpowered? I mean, 10pt ork 'ard boy models getting a 2+ save in cover? Would these saves still be negated by low AP? Say a guardsmen gets a 3+ cover in a building and someone shoots a plasma gun at him, does he get a 5+ cover save or no save at all?

 

[Mad King George]

i don't like this idea at all what do pathfinders get in cover ?? cant be killed ?

maybe

normal save
then cover save

or

normal
invulnerable
cover

not adding bonus's to cover saves

 

[Galahad]

He did mention that no save could be better than 2+

The idea of rolling saves in sequence is tempting, but it makes models almost impossible to kill if they take cover or have an invulnerable save or, god forbid, both.

If my chaplain got to roll both his armor and invul save then he would save about 84% of the time against normal attacks, and 92% of the time if he was also inside a ruined building. (As opposed to making 66% of his armor saves or 50% of his cover or invul saves)

 

[Mad King George]

yeah but giving marine in POWER ARMOR a +2 save in cover is stupid.. marines are huge and chunky not much to hide behind to get a cover save .

 

[Ubiquitous]

so if a marine ducks behind a cement barricade he can be killed just as easily as if he was standing out in the open waving a flag? Apparently that's what GW thinks, because the made their game work that way. Having saves stack with the way the game works currently wouldn't work very well. The system is set up assuming that you will only be able to take one save. For instance: Think of how badly guard would be shafted by this. Say they get into a fire fight with some space marines. The space marines can take advantage of cover AND their ungodly armor, while the guards saves would be negated by the bolters, leaving them with nothing but a cover save. Or plague marines in cover, say ruins. 3+ armor, 4+ cover, 4+ fnp, they just wouldn't ever die. EVER. I think that it is a good idea to try to do something different with cover, but I don't think that some simple homebrew rules will fix it. It would take something close to a complete overhaul of the game to make it work.

 

[Mad King George]

if i got a +2 armor save in cover thats where my marines would stay

 

[Silb]

perhaps it would be a good idea if cover would affect to hit rolls instead of armor saves (ex. a ruined building makes you have to roll a 5+ to hit instead of a 3+ with a marine). This would make enemies a lot easier to kill than if the enemy had 2 or 3 saves, but still have cover make a decent effect (I mean, if someone's inside a ruined building it seems like they would be harder to aim at).

 

[Elchimpster]

perhaps it would be a good idea if cover would affect to hit rolls instead of armor saves (ex. a ruined building makes you have to roll a 5+ to hit instead of a 3+ with a marine). This would make enemies a lot easier to kill than if the enemy had 2 or 3 saves, but still have cover make a decent effect (I mean, if someone's inside a ruined building it seems like they would be harder to aim at).

Now a bad idea at all.

Someone mentioned that if they had space marines with 2+ saves they would stay in cover the whole time. In my thinking, in combat you SHOULD try and stay in cover. Ever watch the DoW intro movie? Everyone's behind cover. That makes sense. Only time you should be out of cover is to be moving/ charging.

Stacking...well...simple stacking: as in taking one save then another just isn't feasible. It makes it impossible to kill some figs. However the idea of cover adding to your save IMO makes sense. Everyone should gain some benefit of cover, regardless of their armor.

The concept presented here is that 1/2 of the normal cover save is cumulative with your armor save, rounded up (although rounded down would be a reasonable compromise.

Someone brought up low AP weapons like Lascannons etc...
I figure in those cases where the AP equals your armor save, you lose the armor save and just get the cover save. Or possibly even keep the armor save and lose the cover save.

I dunno. I want to give it a shot and see how it goes.
I've always thought the idea of whole armies running at each other in the open to be a bit...odd, and the idea of armies trying to utilizing cover makes a lot more sense. The vast majority of the game IMO should be shooting, and then at the last push an assault, utilizing hills and cover to get in close if possible.

 

[Captain Galus]

why cant you just take cover then armor saves? seems like it would make sense to me...a bullet would have to pass through the cover AND your armor instead of cover OR your armor
that one save rule always seemed a bit tim burton to me

 

[Elchimpster]

why cant you just take cover then armor saves? seems like it would make sense to me...a bullet would have to pass through the cover AND your armor instead of cover OR your armor
that one save rule always seemed a bit tim burton to me

It's a matter of keeping the number of rolls per action minimized. Besides, stacking both saves would be a bit much IMO.

 

[Galahad]

I like the idea of cover making you harder to hit. Concealment should matter

In an action movie the hero hides behind an upturned table not because the table stops bullets (at least not in your smarter class of action films) but because the bad guy can;t see where his squishy pink organs are behind the table. It;s hard to shoot accurately when you can;t see all of the target.

 

[Elchimpster]

Interesting idea...how could that be implemented?
(New Thread?)

 

[Galahad]

Good Idea :wink:

 

[psychomidget99]

I dunno about you, but I feel that it's going to make it even harder to cause noticable damage to Space Marnine units.

psychomidget99

 

[Elchimpster]

I dunno about you, but I feel that it's going to make it even harder to cause noticable damage to Space Marnine units.

psychomidget99

Space Marines in cover SHOULD be nigh un-killable (short of tank rounds and artillery).

Thing is though, it's balances across the board, everyone gets the benefit of cover.

 

[Red Orc]

How did I miss this thread before?

OK, on Gal's 'concealment' thread I propose that there's actually two sorts of cover, 'targetting' cover that makes you difficult to see, and 'shielding' cover that makes you difficult to damage - of course, some types of cover may be both.

It seems logical that, as Silb suggested, 'targetting' cover should affect the ability of the enemy to hit - either as a penalty (say -1 to BS), or a re-roll. 'Shielding' cover should then affect the ability of the enemy to damage you - again either as a penalty or a re-roll (either to your armour save, or to their damage roll).

Space Marines in cover SHOULD be nigh un-killable (short of tank rounds and artillery)...

So... if a power-armoured space marine in cover should be nigh un-killable, should a terminator-armoured space marine in cover be actually un-killable (short of tank rounds and artillery)...? (this is more or less my 'should a terminator in shielding cover be indestructable, except for rending and instant death?' on the other thread.)

Or, and here's an idea that's just occurred to me: when a model would have a 1+ armour save due to shielding cover, they stay at 2+, but get a re-roll?

 

[Elchimpster]

Nah, 2+ is the best anyone can get. 1 is always a hit.

 

[StealingYerMail]

Well I just want to say that this is a bad idea in my opinion.

I always assumed that when a soldier was in cover, he was the one making the jurisdiction of whether or not its best to use the cover or armor save. For example, a Space Marine's Power Armor is pretty sacred, and blessed, and all in all, it's just a beast. I think that the Marines would have enough confidence in their armor so that it could withstand incoming fire. And because of that, the Space Marines really don't need cover -- when a ton of enemy fire comes their way, they don't actually need to "hit the dirt." Why duck if you don't need to? But because of this, the Marines have a higher points cost than pretty much any other standard trooper, and it balances it out to some extent.

I always viewed the 40k universe as having tons of close range firefights, and not very many long range fights, and I just don't think cover should manipulate your save. Cover is cover, and your armor save is all about your armor. In my opinion, they're two different things that shouldn't be combined or work off of each other.

However, I do think that Silb's idea of cover affecting the shooter is a better (and more realistic) idea. I don't think that the bonus to saves is a BAD idea, I just feel that implies that the rounds being fired at those in cover were penetrating both their cover and possibly their armor.