Has anyone else felt that cover rules render cover as protection as bit on the light side - has anyone tried improving the efect of cover in the game?

cheers

Foxxy

Not sure I really follow what you're getting at. There's lots of ways to improve your chances when getting shot at from the bits of cover themselves to specializations and figures that grant additional defensive dice.

I'm good with the way cover works myself.

Foxxy,

I agree with kaufschtick and personally wouldn't change the cover rules, though I understand how you feel. Sometimes the dice just don't roll in your favor and it feels like cover doesn't do anything. ToI can be a pretty bloody game and I've watched entire MG teams in a building or a full squad of elites hiding in a forest hex disappear in one roll.

However, I've found that it often takes just a single cover save to keep a squad from being completely destroyed (and thereby successfully holding onto an important objective) or a vehicle suffering only light damage instead of being heavily damaged - and that can make all the difference in winning a game.

If you're thinking about altering the cover rules to make it more effective, an easy way is to just lower the dice score needed to save. You could make all cover (and armor) save on 4+, but I fear that would add a fair amount of time to each game. For another, more complicated option, you could make the cover roll an inverse of the roll needed to hit. So hits at close range save on 6+ while hits at long range save on 4+.

Whenever defending, there's never enough cover ; )

7times7is49 said:

Yes!

A couple Murphy's laws of combat seem appropriate here:

"Never share a foxhole with anyone braver than yourself." and;

"Try to make yourself look unimportant to the enemy, they may be low on ammo."