Can someone explain the cover rule to me please.
There was me thinking it was gonna be like tactics using blanks and sights but warfare uses just sights ??
Cover explained
Soft Cover means one hit is always cancelled.
Hard Cover means two hits are always cancelled.
You also do an armor roll - you roll the number of dice of the defending unit's armor value (so for Heavy Recon Grenadiers, you'd roll 3 dice), and any targets also cancel hits.
So cover is now a bit simpler (no rolling of dice) but then you add the complexity back in with the armor roll.
What the new system does is change the probability when adding new attack dice - in Dust Tactics, every die you add to the attack adds the same odds of getting a hit (1/3, or less if attacking a unit in cover). In Dust Warfare, the first few dice have barely any chance of getting a hit, but each dice gives better odds the more you add. Basically what this means is that in Dust Warfare, weak units (like an observer squad) are even weaker than in Dust Tactics, but powerful units (Lara plus Heavy Recon Grenadiers) are even more powerful than in Dust Tactics.
It also means that a sustained attack will generally give you better odds for doing more damage than doing 2 separate standard attacks, which is different than in Dust Tactics.
While it is true that the effects-on-fire rules for cover are excellent, I am somewhat miffed at Andy Chambers for what I see as an abrogation of his responsibility as a rules writer in oddly refusing to approach defining what sorts of terrain block LOS, particularly since terrain pieces are often not completely solid. Woods/jungle, for instance, is one of those pieces of soft cover where a unit can (and should) hide, firing out of it. And there are no rules, not even a mention, of how far inside such terrain a unit can be and still fire out while still gaining the cover advantages. The "leave it up to the players" is a sure-fire way of manufacturing pre-game arguments (at best).
I am rather disappointed in Mr. Chambers; this omission makes Dust Warfare a lesser design achievement than his Starship Troopers minis game.
Warboss Krag said:
While it is true that the effects-on-fire rules for cover are excellent, I am somewhat miffed at Andy Chambers for what I see as an abrogation of his responsibility as a rules writer in oddly refusing to approach defining what sorts of terrain block LOS, particularly since terrain pieces are often not completely solid. Woods/jungle, for instance, is one of those pieces of soft cover where a unit can (and should) hide, firing out of it. And there are no rules, not even a mention, of how far inside such terrain a unit can be and still fire out while still gaining the cover advantages. The "leave it up to the players" is a sure-fire way of manufacturing pre-game arguments (at best).
I am rather disappointed in Mr. Chambers; this omission makes Dust Warfare a lesser design achievement than his Starship Troopers minis game.
There is no rule, because there is no limit how far inside you can shoot as this is a true line of sight game. So, you would then follow the rule on page 41:
A unit leader that has its base touching or within an area of terrain ignores that terrain for the purposes of obscured line of sight, but not blocked line of sight..
So, there is no 'fire 6" into cover rule' or some 40k clone rule. If you see your target, you can hit them. They will get soft cover and will not be penalized by obscured line of sight shooting out of the terrain.
And calling Starship Troopers a design achievement is a crime against humanity.
felkor said:
So cover is now a bit simpler (no rolling of dice) but then you add the complexity back in with the armor roll.
What the new system does is change the probability when adding new attack dice - in Dust Tactics, every die you add to the attack adds the same odds of getting a hit (1/3, or less if attacking a unit in cover). In Dust Warfare, the first few dice have barely any chance of getting a hit, but each dice gives better odds the more you add. Basically what this means is that in Dust Warfare, weak units (like an observer squad) are even weaker than in Dust Tactics, but powerful units (Lara plus Heavy Recon Grenadiers) are even more powerful than in Dust Tactics.
It also means that a sustained attack will generally give you better odds for doing more damage than doing 2 separate standard attacks, which is different than in Dust Tactics.
Armor rolls are bad, I think they added them so they could make a differenence in armor on each side of miniature, but Imho the difference is too great, take fireball for example, if you want to atack it head on its got 9 armor saves, from behind none? That mean there will be only one viable way to destroy one, paradrop units behind it. I thought those weapon charts were taking armor into consideration and it was the reason they made them, and now it feels like its another random diceroll added unnecesasrily, I think cover is ok to grant a constant modifier.
You can't shoot twice in Tactics either you shoot once or sustain fire. So there is no choice, what's the point?
blkdymnd said:
Warboss Krag said:
While it is true that the effects-on-fire rules for cover are excellent, I am somewhat miffed at Andy Chambers for what I see as an abrogation of his responsibility as a rules writer in oddly refusing to approach defining what sorts of terrain block LOS, particularly since terrain pieces are often not completely solid. Woods/jungle, for instance, is one of those pieces of soft cover where a unit can (and should) hide, firing out of it. And there are no rules, not even a mention, of how far inside such terrain a unit can be and still fire out while still gaining the cover advantages. The "leave it up to the players" is a sure-fire way of manufacturing pre-game arguments (at best).
I am rather disappointed in Mr. Chambers; this omission makes Dust Warfare a lesser design achievement than his Starship Troopers minis game.
There is no rule, because there is no limit how far inside you can shoot as this is a true line of sight game. So, you would then follow the rule on page 41:
A unit leader that has its base touching or within an area of terrain ignores that terrain for the purposes of obscured line of sight, but not blocked line of sight..
So, there is no 'fire 6" into cover rule' or some 40k clone rule. If you see your target, you can hit them. They will get soft cover and will not be penalized by obscured line of sight shooting out of the terrain.
And calling Starship Troopers a design achievement is a crime against humanity.
blkdymnd said:
Warboss Krag said:
While it is true that the effects-on-fire rules for cover are excellent, I am somewhat miffed at Andy Chambers for what I see as an abrogation of his responsibility as a rules writer in oddly refusing to approach defining what sorts of terrain block LOS, particularly since terrain pieces are often not completely solid. Woods/jungle, for instance, is one of those pieces of soft cover where a unit can (and should) hide, firing out of it. And there are no rules, not even a mention, of how far inside such terrain a unit can be and still fire out while still gaining the cover advantages. The "leave it up to the players" is a sure-fire way of manufacturing pre-game arguments (at best).
I am rather disappointed in Mr. Chambers; this omission makes Dust Warfare a lesser design achievement than his Starship Troopers minis game.
There is no rule, because there is no limit how far inside you can shoot as this is a true line of sight game. So, you would then follow the rule on page 41:
A unit leader that has its base touching or within an area of terrain ignores that terrain for the purposes of obscured line of sight, but not blocked line of sight..
So, there is no 'fire 6" into cover rule' or some 40k clone rule. If you see your target, you can hit them. They will get soft cover and will not be penalized by obscured line of sight shooting out of the terrain.
And calling Starship Troopers a design achievement is a crime against humanity.
"True line of sight game" and "leader touching the base of area terrain ignores it" are contradictory. I think my group will house rule a different line of sight system. And cover as well.
Not contradictory at all. Just gives a bonus for occupying the terrain. The two terms can exist and there was one question about it in our 3rd game, then we figured it out and it's actually kind of a cool way to do it.
Galadhir said:
felkor said:
So cover is now a bit simpler (no rolling of dice) but then you add the complexity back in with the armor roll.
What the new system does is change the probability when adding new attack dice - in Dust Tactics, every die you add to the attack adds the same odds of getting a hit (1/3, or less if attacking a unit in cover). In Dust Warfare, the first few dice have barely any chance of getting a hit, but each dice gives better odds the more you add. Basically what this means is that in Dust Warfare, weak units (like an observer squad) are even weaker than in Dust Tactics, but powerful units (Lara plus Heavy Recon Grenadiers) are even more powerful than in Dust Tactics.
It also means that a sustained attack will generally give you better odds for doing more damage than doing 2 separate standard attacks, which is different than in Dust Tactics.
Armor rolls are bad, I think they added them so they could make a differenence in armor on each side of miniature, but Imho the difference is too great, take fireball for example, if you want to atack it head on its got 9 armor saves, from behind none? That mean there will be only one viable way to destroy one, paradrop units behind it. I thought those weapon charts were taking armor into consideration and it was the reason they made them, and now it feels like its another random diceroll added unnecesasrily, I think cover is ok to grant a constant modifier.
You can't shoot twice in Tactics either you shoot once or sustain fire. So there is no choice, what's the point?
Its 8 saves up front, but I understand your point. I think capping vehicles at 4 armor rolls would have been better, maybe 5. Its still early in the life of the game (Tactics and Warfare), there will probably be a good chunk of stuff released that will make those 7-8 armor rolls harder to come by.
Galadhir said:
felkor said:
So cover is now a bit simpler (no rolling of dice) but then you add the complexity back in with the armor roll.
What the new system does is change the probability when adding new attack dice - in Dust Tactics, every die you add to the attack adds the same odds of getting a hit (1/3, or less if attacking a unit in cover). In Dust Warfare, the first few dice have barely any chance of getting a hit, but each dice gives better odds the more you add. Basically what this means is that in Dust Warfare, weak units (like an observer squad) are even weaker than in Dust Tactics, but powerful units (Lara plus Heavy Recon Grenadiers) are even more powerful than in Dust Tactics.
It also means that a sustained attack will generally give you better odds for doing more damage than doing 2 separate standard attacks, which is different than in Dust Tactics.
Armor rolls are bad, I think they added them so they could make a differenence in armor on each side of miniature, but Imho the difference is too great, take fireball for example, if you want to atack it head on its got 9 armor saves, from behind none? That mean there will be only one viable way to destroy one, paradrop units behind it. I thought those weapon charts were taking armor into consideration and it was the reason they made them, and now it feels like its another random diceroll added unnecesasrily, I think cover is ok to grant a constant modifier.
You can't shoot twice in Tactics either you shoot once or sustain fire. So there is no choice, what's the point?
Galadhir said:
felkor said:
So cover is now a bit simpler (no rolling of dice) but then you add the complexity back in with the armor roll.
What the new system does is change the probability when adding new attack dice - in Dust Tactics, every die you add to the attack adds the same odds of getting a hit (1/3, or less if attacking a unit in cover). In Dust Warfare, the first few dice have barely any chance of getting a hit, but each dice gives better odds the more you add. Basically what this means is that in Dust Warfare, weak units (like an observer squad) are even weaker than in Dust Tactics, but powerful units (Lara plus Heavy Recon Grenadiers) are even more powerful than in Dust Tactics.
It also means that a sustained attack will generally give you better odds for doing more damage than doing 2 separate standard attacks, which is different than in Dust Tactics.
Armor rolls are bad, I think they added them so they could make a differenence in armor on each side of miniature, but Imho the difference is too great, take fireball for example, if you want to atack it head on its got 9 armor saves, from behind none? That mean there will be only one viable way to destroy one, paradrop units behind it. I thought those charts were taking armor into consideration and now it feels like its another random diceroll, I think cover is ok to grant a constant modifier.
You can't shoot twice in Tactics either you shoot once or sustain fire. So there is no choice, what's the point?
I have to agree here.Looking at the axis weapon cahrt, the best weapon against a Armor 7 walker are either the 1/4 or 1/3 attacks or one of the 6/1 or 7/1 attacks. But then the walker gets 7 dice to defend. So not only is it harder to hurt because of its Armor 7, but then it gets a better extra-save. With a 7/1 you are averaging 2 to 3 hits per attack, and with the 7 armor you are defemnding on average with 2 or 3 hits as well. And then you have the 10 wounds. Ouch.
Not saying it doesnt work, or isnt fun, it just seems odd to have armor come into play twice.
Again, as I have said many times, I like it overall, but at time sit seems like Dust Warfare is hindered by its Dust Tactics roots (3 characteristics) with everything else being added to the game in a psuedo minimalist way. Like the were trying to keep the cards in play and when the finally decided to mot keep them in play they still kept the adaptation level at the DT level. They would have benefited by adding morale as a stat and maybe others as well.
blkdymnd said:
Not contradictory at all. Just gives a bonus for occupying the terrain. The two terms can exist and there was one question about it in our 3rd game, then we figured it out and it's actually kind of a cool way to do it.
I think it kind of is, but you know, Im good with it overall. Its a game. Itfs fast, vicsious and fun.
Peacekeeper_b said:
blkdymnd said:
Not contradictory at all. Just gives a bonus for occupying the terrain. The two terms can exist and there was one question about it in our 3rd game, then we figured it out and it's actually kind of a cool way to do it.
I think it kind of is, but you know, Im good with it overall. Its a game. Itfs fast, vicsious and fun.
Word up
blkdymnd said:
Galadhir said:
felkor said:
So cover is now a bit simpler (no rolling of dice) but then you add the complexity back in with the armor roll.
What the new system does is change the probability when adding new attack dice - in Dust Tactics, every die you add to the attack adds the same odds of getting a hit (1/3, or less if attacking a unit in cover). In Dust Warfare, the first few dice have barely any chance of getting a hit, but each dice gives better odds the more you add. Basically what this means is that in Dust Warfare, weak units (like an observer squad) are even weaker than in Dust Tactics, but powerful units (Lara plus Heavy Recon Grenadiers) are even more powerful than in Dust Tactics.
It also means that a sustained attack will generally give you better odds for doing more damage than doing 2 separate standard attacks, which is different than in Dust Tactics.
Armor rolls are bad, I think they added them so they could make a differenence in armor on each side of miniature, but Imho the difference is too great, take fireball for example, if you want to atack it head on its got 9 armor saves, from behind none? That mean there will be only one viable way to destroy one, paradrop units behind it. I thought those weapon charts were taking armor into consideration and it was the reason they made them, and now it feels like its another random diceroll added unnecesasrily, I think cover is ok to grant a constant modifier.
You can't shoot twice in Tactics either you shoot once or sustain fire. So there is no choice, what's the point?
Its 8 saves up front, but I understand your point. I think capping vehicles at 4 armor rolls would have been better, maybe 5. Its still early in the life of the game (Tactics and Warfare), there will probably be a good chunk of stuff released that will make those 7-8 armor rolls harder to come by.
My wife hit my fireball from the front for 5 points of damage in one shot with heavy laser grenadiers. The heavies are definitely tough, but they can be damaged (there's another thread on here that I started that's all about taking out heavies.)
Begging your pardon, but the "3d/true line of sight" excuse is a cop-out. I refrain from any imprecations against those who repeat that mindless bit of prattle; I will not succumb to Internet name-calling protocol.
Instead, I will refer to nature - you know, the semblence that we call reality? Go outside for a moment - yes, I know, it means leaving your keyboard - and find a piece of unmowed woodsy nature. I live in a city where we have a great deal of it (Springfield MO isn't a city so much as it is a super-suburb without a city to form up around). I can go 400m and find spring - and fall, and winter! - foliage that you could hide a Blood Angel inside of, in broad daylight. And he wouldn't have to be very far inside it; perhaps 3m or so.
The problem with the "true line of sight" nonsense is that, in order to model it, it is plain impossible to place figures within it! The entire base, as it were, is entirely covered with tree and bush pieces; any model would have to fit on top…which would only engender more arguments by the specious ("I can see it! It's on top of the tree!"). The only simulation capable of leaving the correct interpenetration is electronic (a genre where two objects can occupy the same space and time, since they're not bound by the physical laws our ostensibly objective reality foists on us). And that's just one argument against the "true line of sight" dodge. As I say, it is a cop-out, evolved as a response to (or evolved directly from) specious rules-lawyer arguments, seeking advantage in bullcrap instead of putting their brains to actual tactics…
As for Starship Troopers, Mr. Chambers achieved a good simulation of a very difficult tactical situation, that is mobile firepower vs. overwhelming and uick-moving numbers. As an old grognard, I was favorably impressed by the game. I'm not surprised there are those who weren't; it's a tough game to play unless you're willing to put some thought and dedication into the tactical learning curve.
I live in the Pacific Northwest, I can go in the forest outside my house (with my iPad, I don't have to drop my keyboard!
). I can go 3' in and you can't see me. I can also go over to where I used to live in Boise where they have veritable forests as well, but much sparser spacing where I could probably go a half mile in and you might still see parts of me. Every environment differs. On top of that, you're simulating a tabletop wargame, where I'll go ahead and use another copout… you can throw all realism out the window. TLOS works in a practical sense, and in this game so far has worked just fine.
And we'll agree to disagree on the utter crap that was Starship Troopers….
Just to point this out. I hit a Vehicle 7 with am attack action, after rolling all my weapon lines, I get a total of 6 hits. My opponent rolls and stops all but one of them. I now get to roll, 6 dice on the Vehicle Damage Table and it can do up to [with 6 hits on the new roll] a Hull Breach!
I think it is actually not to hard to take out those Vehicle 7 walkers out there. Sure, it is only likely to get an external fire or damage a weapon, but still. It can make a difference…
Pg 44 "When a vehicle suffers one or more damage, but is not destroyed, the attacking player rolls a number of Combat Dice on the Vehicle Damage Table equal to the amount of damage dealt to the vehicle before the Armor roll."
Here's my feeling on heavy vehicles:
A: Heavy Walkers will pretty much never get a cover save. The model is too large and the rules for vehicles gaining cover are too restrictive. As well, their size is such that it's easy to draw line of sight to them.
B: All the significant weapons on a heavy walker are front mounted. Meaning the walker needs enough room to turn to bring cannons to bear. If you're playing with 25% terrain coverage like my brother and I do, maneuvering options are limited. A couple march moves are all it takes for a Pounder or Ludwig to get in the side arc of a Punisher, and even less for the side arc of a Fireball.
C: Even if armor absorbs the hits, you can still inflict damage. The first two vehicle damage results are effective suppression, and if you can get a weapon destroyed result there's a good chance you won't need to kill the vehicle. A punisher without a howitzer is just an expensive MG nest.
But yes, heavy walkers dominate the battlefield. There's a good reason for that. For the cost of a Punisher you could run two MCWs and a ranger squad. Any battle large enough to see heavy walkers in common use will also see heavy infantry and dedicated antitank units with strong potential to outflank.
the armor roll are what delayed the game 6 months… and the large walker are 100pts. If a standard tourney size is 300pts, thats 1/3 or your army… i hope its that tuff.
Should be area terrain rules. Not true line of sight. If you are in the area terrain and it is soft, you get soft cover. If you are in area terrain and it is hard, you get hard cover. If you are in no cover you get no cover. If you are a team, increase cover by 1 level, if you go to ground/hit the dirt, increase by a further 1 level. At least then sniper teams could get up to 4 levels of cover if they were hiding in hard cover. Making them actually well defended.
True line of sight should only be used with absolute or solid cover. Behind a building, behind a wall, and so forth. It is the classic cover and concealment argument.
But the game can be played as is, its just not to my preference of terrain and line of sight.
I also think that each model shoul dhave to have one target, different models can have different targets, but I find it wierd that I can fire my UGL at one target and pivot and fire my rifle at another, yet if we are firing rifles we all have to target the same target.
Peacekeeper_b said:
Should be area terrain rules. Not true line of sight. If you are in the area terrain and it is soft, you get soft cover. If you are in area terrain and it is hard, you get hard cover. If you are in no cover you get no cover. If you are a team, increase cover by 1 level, if you go to ground/hit the dirt, increase by a further 1 level. At least then sniper teams could get up to 4 levels of cover if they were hiding in hard cover. Making them actually well defended.
True line of sight should only be used with absolute or solid cover. Behind a building, behind a wall, and so forth. It is the classic cover and concealment argument.
But the game can be played as is, its just not to my preference of terrain and line of sight.
I also think that each model shoul dhave to have one target, different models can have different targets, but I find it wierd that I can fire my UGL at one target and pivot and fire my rifle at another, yet if we are firing rifles we all have to target the same target.
So your cover example above is the way you would like to play, not the way it is, correct? Because a sniper can't make it to level four with the way the rules are written.
As far as all rifles have to fire at the same target, thats not what the rules say. The rules say on page 40 under step 1 Pick a target, "each individual weapon may be declared separately". it even gives an example that 7 M1's could fire each one at a different target.
I think the confusion is with the line above that says "each weapon fired must roll all its Combat Dice against one target". I think this refers to weapons like the MG 44 Zwei against Infantry 2. You roll 4/1. You can't divide the 4 into multiply attacks against mutliply units.
Just my thoughts.