After playing a fair bit with obstacles and obstructions scattered across the field, I’m wondering how different would the game be if Cover grants +2 DEF bonus instead but is stackable with Concealment.
Models on top of buildings usually have some cover due to the nature of the building. Combing with Elevation bonus in the way above, you wouldn’t get the awkward +6 DEF bonus unless you really stack it all up (concealment + cover + elevation).
I dont hate it, but i think at that point whats more likely is everything becomes “concealment” and it just stacks. It seems like it would be difficult to pull off on the table imo, but not a bad idea.
Here’s a thought: Concealment is +2, and cover is actually +2+2. It’s already a stacked bonus that’s been short-handed for us. Cover is really just concealment + a hard surface to hide behind. A trench obscures someone (+2), and bullets also hit the dirt (+2 more). A wall conceals someone (+2) and a bullet hits rock (+2 more). Fog just conceals (just +2). So really, we already have a series of +2 bonuses, and cover is already a stacked bonus.
I’m a proponent of +2DEF concealment, +4 DEF Cover, and both stacking with elevation (the way it is currently). I think that ranged attacks are very powerful, and need a way to counter them. A high defense model behind cover and elevation is going to be really hard to hit. Of course, a blast might kill them. But having to meet that first challenge of a successful hit is helpful for a defending player, especially if they’re going second.
Cover + elevation for a +6 is fair, in my opinion.
I agree with this. Though I do really find the element of breaking up the cover bonus into 2 parts, it seems interesting to me from a game design perspective and leaves the story potential there for you to ignore one part or all of it for specific reasons
Splitting cover into concealment + extra would make concealment-ignoring effects and abilities even stronger than they are now, and I’m not sure whether that would be good.
Can you give an example of when concealment-ignoring effects would be strong in this case?
It’s mostly just that (in this hypothetical world), if a model gets to ignore concealment, they would also be ignoring a portion of cover. That in and of itself would make concealment ignoring abilities stronger, provided they don’t already just ignore cover too
It would effectively give models with e.g. Eyeless Sight +2 to hit against models in cover. And cover is currently the most important defense against Eyeless Sight.
what if cover gave you concealment +2 ARM?
As all sorts of models (except huge bases) can gain a Cover bonus, adding another stackable ARM bonus to something like shielded heavies could lead to ridiculously high ARM values with the proper spell buffs etc.
The rules for cover have been pretty much the same (just streamlining the rules when you gain the bonus) for four editions. I don’t really see a need to start changing it now. Especially not with more complexity now that the game is trying to keep it simple (or as simple as the game can be and still be Warmachine).