| Tactical Command http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/ |
|
| Proposed cover change http://www.tacticalwargames.net/taccmd/viewtopic.php?f=159&t=32636 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | SquatWarlord [ Fri Sep 08, 2017 5:26 am ] |
| Post subject: | Proposed cover change |
Cover It is annoying in its current form with the second roll to hit. You have in the rules 7 types of different cover one is -1 to hit two are -2 to hit 4 are -3 to hit There are no cover saves currently. So what if all cover was a -1 to hit and gave a fixed save of 5-6. This keeps all shooting to one die. Yes I know it is still a second roll but it feels better and is much easier to remember. Any feedback? I will make weapons work using this |
|
| Author: | MagnusIlluminus [ Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposed cover change |
Disagree. Different sources of Cover should, and currently do, provide different levels of protection. The current system works well in my opinion. Cover Saves are a W40K thing, and not an Epic thing. Epic is not W40K. I don't see the need for it. The penalty to hit is good enough. |
|
| Author: | SquatWarlord [ Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:36 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposed cover change |
The hit penalty is the problem. You should only have to roll one dice to hit. |
|
| Author: | SquatWarlord [ Thu Sep 14, 2017 1:48 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposed cover change |
MagnusIlluminus wrote: Disagree. Different sources of Cover should, and currently do, provide different levels of protection. The current system works well in my opinion. Cover Saves are a W40K thing, and not an Epic thing. Epic is not W40K. I don't see the need for it. The penalty to hit is good enough. Well let us look at what a hit penalty is. It implies cover blocks incoming shots thus making it harder to see/hit the target. A cover save is the same thing it implies that the cover was hit instead of the target. The problem is with the mechanics of the dice rolling to actually hit something. It is clunky. Currently you have 3 levels of cover a -1 or -2 or -3 Example an Standard imperial guard stand hits on a 5-6 Light cover is -1 = roll a 6 (16.67%) Medium cover is a 6 then 4+ 1/6 x 4/6 = 11.12% Heavy cover is a 6 then 5+ 1/6 x 2/6 = 5.56% PD is a 6 then another 6 =2.78% What if all cover shots were -1 that is the same as light cover is now. And we get rid of the second shooting dice for the other 2 Light cover -1 to hit Medium cover would be -1 to hit and give a fixed save of 6 (sorry you hit a rock) Heavy cover would be -1 to hit and a fixed save of 5-6 (sorry you hit a bigger rock) This is simple no? Result light cover is the same 16.67 % Medium to hit chance goes up to 1/6 x 5/6 =13.9% a whole 2.78% more which is offset by the save Heavy cover 1/6 x 4/6 = 11.12% a 5.56% chance higher again offset by the save. The math works and its less clunky than trying to figure out a second to hit roll. Its such a simple change and it is so clean please think about it. Cheers |
|
| Author: | SquatWarlord [ Thu Sep 28, 2017 11:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proposed cover change |
Hi I made simpler Light cover, trees/rubble = 6 save Medium, buildings/trenches = 5+ Heavy cover, bunkers/reinforced buildings = 4+ save |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|