Help support TMP


"8th Edition Cover" Topic


10 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the Warhammer 40K Message Board



518 hits since 10 Sep 2017
©1994-2017 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Sep 2017 3:31 a.m. PST

Anyone else disappointed with the cover rules in 8th Edition? While I like the simplicity, the idea that basically if you get the cover benefit it is a +1 to your saving throw and that's it. So, if I'm standing inside a patch of woods I get the same protection as it I'm in a heavily constructed bunker with force fields and blast doors. Seems like some special rules for fortifications and such are needed.

Personal logo Pictors Studio Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Sep 2017 4:33 a.m. PST

Yeah, we don't do that. We add more or less depending on the type of terrain on the table. So if it is all buildings then we add a +1. But if it is buildings and woods or buildings and rubble we do +2 for the buildings, +1 for the rubble or woods.

Generalstoner49 Supporting Member of TMP11 Sep 2017 9:13 a.m. PST

It streamlines the game. It also prevents one person feeling particular cover save is worth +2 when another thinks it is worth only a +1.

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP11 Sep 2017 11:14 a.m. PST

Well, with any game the players are supposed to agree on what the terrain is before the start of the game. If both players agree that certain cover gives a bigger bonus, I don't think there would be any problem with that.

Generalstoner49 Supporting Member of TMP11 Sep 2017 5:23 p.m. PST

I agree. I would think things like the wall of martyrs or even defense fortifications like the bastion should provide more than a +1 save. Maybe when the fortifications get fleshed out a little more we will see things like this.

kallman13 Sep 2017 10:50 a.m. PST

While so far there is more I like about 8th than dislike, the current cover rules is of those things that makes me go…huh?

I don't think GW ever fully play tests their rules if at all. After all how else do you end up with 8editions of a rule system? Regardless, the cover rule is one of those things I feel was done purely for the sake of being a game mechanic to expedite speed of play. Yet 40K goes into great detail in terms of weapon systems and armor types. Which makes the game seem somewhat schizophrenic at times.

Centurio Prime13 Sep 2017 10:54 a.m. PST

Playtesting was done by several groups such as Frontline Gaming and the crowd that puts on the Nova Open.

The +1 cover can really make a big difference. For marines, it double the chance of them making a save vs bolter/lasgun fire.

I'm not saying there couldn't be a better system, but +2 modifier would make power armored marines way too tough.

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Sep 2017 3:16 a.m. PST

Space Marines can NEVER be too tough! :) But seriously, if you had higher modifiers for cover and just say that a roll of a '1' always fails I think it would work.

Centurio Prime14 Sep 2017 3:33 a.m. PST

I think that a 1 always does fail (at least in matched play).

ScottWashburn Sponsoring Member of TMP14 Sep 2017 5:12 a.m. PST

So that would work. Heavier cover would benefit lightly armored troops and also heavily armored troops when fired on by heavy weapons with big AP ratings. Basically, only 'luck hits' would take them out and that's as it should be.

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.