Saturday, August 14, 2010
The cover system for 40K is terrible
So I played a game yesterday with my friend Adam and he was using Tyranids vs. my Blood Angels. The game was really fun and we went to 7 rounds.. ending up with a draw at the end. One of the things that came up during the game was when 13 Gaunts were behind cover and 12 of them weren't. Now I don't know about you guys, but I find it extremely.. extremely frustrating when something that looks completely unrealistic like that gets a 4+ cover save because the rules say so. All his gaunts were wildly spread out, maintaining the bare minimum of 2" coherency just so they can milk that cover rule. Not only did it look visually unappealing, but the rules looked really written.
Personally, I'm not a fan of the cover system in 40K at all. The fact that everything fits under the 4+ cover category is mind-boggling stupid. Now I'm not saying this just to get at his Gaunts, I would say the same thing about my Space Marines if they were visually unappealing and taking advantage of such rules. I mean, look at current 8th Ed. Fantasy. They have soft cover and hard cover that reduces your BS by -1 or -2 depending on what type of cover you're in. Does it reduce the number of possible wounds you can inflict? Yes. Will it work in a system like 40K? That's debatable.
In my opinion, the vast majority of the cover saves in 40K should of been 5+, with anything better than that being 4+. It's far more realistic than having half of your wounds being cut simply because the units you're shooting at says so. What do you guys think? How do you think the metagame will change if the majority of cover saves are 5+ instead of 4+? How would the game change if we switched to soft and hard cover? You tell me.