[zarkzervo]

Newb-question:

As I read the rules, if your squad is hiding behind a wall that giver 4+ cover save and they are wearing power armor (CSM) that gives 3+ armor save, you only take the 3+ into consideration?

I.e. if the cover is not a 2+ cover, there is no point in hiding unless for the assault through cover-part of the rules?

 

[zarkzervo]

As in this thread it seems like I've understood the rules correctly and CSM's should only get an advantage of the inferior cover if the opponent uses a AP 3 weapon of sorts?

This seems somewhat strange to me as compared to RL as when we used body armor in the army, we also ducked for cover. Body armor was good for shrapnels, but a direct hit with a gun would penetrate, thus we also took advantage of cover. And cover is described not for the direct armor ability, but the way the target is harder to hit when you don't see it.

But I think I will put this in the "it's just a game" and when we pull in more advanced weaponry in our games, the AP 3+ would probably come up more often. (currently running only small squad-vs-squad-games with CSM to learn the rules.)

 

[Stradius]

Exactly, you always take the best save available - so if your CSM are in cover, they take the 3+ armor save unless hit by something that's AP 1, 2, or 3 (eg Leman Russ' Battle Cannon, Plasma Guns, etc).

 

[Wraith]

This seems somewhat strange to me as compared to RL as when we used body armor in the army, we also ducked for cover. Body armor was good for shrapnels, but a direct hit with a gun would penetrate, thus we also took advantage of cover. And cover is described not for the direct armor ability, but the way the target is harder to hit when you don't see it.

You're thinking about this the wrong way - That's the Imperial Guard way of doing things... If there's cover, use it because it'll take more punishment than your body armour.

Marines?? Think like a Tank crewman. They don't hide from small arms fire because their armour just bounces it off - they're only going to start looking for concealment once the RPG's start flying!

Modern army tactics really fail to encompass the "but what if you're clad in 6 inches of fully sealed, powered, bulletproof adamantium and ceramite composite armour??" aspect of 40K, so they're not much use as a guideline!

 

[Nhyx]

Cover saves are also universal, they're like an invulnerable save. You can always take them, unless a weapon has a special rule saying that it ignores cover saves. It's always good to use cover, even when it would give a worse save than your armor, because you never know when that AP2 weapon or hellfire round will hit your squad.

 

[zarkzervo]

Thanks all three for the clarification.

It's a little difficult to get all the rules before one has played a few rounds, so sometimes things don't seem quite right.

 

[ze_poodle]

This seems somewhat strange to me as compared to RL as when we used body armor in the army, we also ducked for cover. Body armor was good for shrapnels, but a direct hit with a gun would penetrate, thus we also took advantage of cover. And cover is described not for the direct armor ability, but the way the target is harder to hit when you don't see it.

That's perfectly logical for real life, but with Marines we're really thinking less GI Joe and more Iron Man. Do you see Iron Man ducking for cover? No, because nothing short of an anti-tank missile is going to make Iron Man sweat. Funnily enough, I'm listening to Iron Man right now.

Coincidence? I think not.

 

[Lynchpin]

This may make the game too hard but would it not make sense to have shots go through cover SV and THEN try to damage squad hiding there? This is realistic but I agree it makes the game longer and less squishy. Also, I ask if armour saves should be taken BEFORE wounding roll - IE, shots have to go through armour BEFORE doing any damage. eg. Marines get fired at, X number of shots hit, take armour Sv, any that fail save go on to toughness test, fail that and wound.

any applicable AP weapons understandably ignore the required armour SV and go right to toughness test. Again, realistic but maybie it unbalances the game (I havn't done the maths, but how would this affect the potential number of wounds/armour tests needed compared with how the rules affect the tests now?)

 

[Hockeyman506]

This may make the game too hard but would it not make sense to have shots go through cover SV and THEN try to damage squad hiding there? This is realistic but I agree it makes the game longer and less squishy.

If it is done this way we run into game-balancing issues. Something like a ward save in fantasy would make more sense logically, but from a mechanics stand point the "only one save" makes the most sense compared to the rest of the rule set.

Also, I ask if armour saves should be taken BEFORE wounding roll - IE, shots have to go through armour BEFORE doing any damage. eg. Marines get fired at, X number of shots hit, take armour Sv, any that fail save go on to toughness test, fail that and wound.

any applicable AP weapons understandably ignore the required armour SV and go right to toughness test. Again, realistic but maybie it unbalances the game (I havn't done the maths, but how would this affect the potential number of wounds/armour tests needed compared with how the rules affect the tests now?)

Doesn't matter what way you do it, still the same odds of killing something.