Closer to Codex Proposition: Cover Save

I submitted a closer to perfection codex suggestion in this thread but in order to not derail the topic of that thread, I started a new one. The proposition begins with the problems arose from the implementation of cover that provides protection against ranged damage for the affected units in the current built.

1. Covers, both light and heavy variants, provide 33% and 50% ranged damage reduction, representing 5+ and 4+ cover saves, respectively.
   
2. Specialized weapons that fall into the "Template Weapon" category are directly affected by the damage reduction. They all do wrong damage against units taking cover. The worst thing is that Template weapons are not the only weapons doing subpar damage. Read point 3 to find out more.
   
3. All other weapons that do not have the "ignore cover saves" rule do wrong damage to units in cover whose armour cannot be fully pierced by the weapons. For example, a space marine tactical bolter should be doing 5.082 dps against a XV8 Crisis suit in heavy cover, instead of 2.541 dps as it happens now in the current built. A Guardsmen lasgun should be doing 5.566 dps to a Stormboy in light cover instead of just 3.584 dps.
   
4. Abilities that affect cover saves like Stealth special rule cannot be properly implemented
   

It is clear now that the current implementation of the cover rule is vague, unsubtle, inextensible, deceiving or misleading. To solve the problems, the cover system has to be redesigned. Here is what I proposed, given the restrictions of the engine:

1. Remove all the ranged damage reduction properties in both types of cover.
   
2. Unify both types of cover. For example, we assume both light and heavy covers are treated as a single type of cover that provides a 5+ cover save.
   
3. Add a new set of armour type and inherit them to the weapon armour piercing table. This set accounts for the cover save similar to those that accounts for invulnerable save. For example, tp_cover_4_5.lua, tp_cover_3_5.lua etc.
   
4. Assign the appropriate second armour type to all applicable units. If the unit's default invulnerable save is better than cover save, use the invulnerable save. Also take into account special rules like Stealth and Swarms.
   
5. Recode all the modifiers of the cover extensions of the unit blueprints such that the second armour type of all units will be activated when they are in cover.
   
6. Units that have the second armour type already occupied by armour improvement research options and at the same time do not have a better invulnerable save such as Space Marine Librarian should not have enable_armour_2 modifier in their blueprint's cover extension. Instead, they received ranged damage reduction similar to the current built but those damage reduction multipliers must be estimated to be as close as if they had cover saves using least-squared-error method or whatever suitable.
   

If these are realized, then the following new line can be proudly added to all template weapons, using the tool tip of a flamer for example:

• Upgrades one of the squad member to the indicated special weapon.
  
• Hand-held flame-thrower.
  
• Short range.
  
• Effective at breaking morale.
  
• NEW: Ignore cover!
  

Same can be done to Big Mek's Kustom force field by tweaking it to enable the second armour type instead of providing a ranged damage reduction multiplier.

sounds great to me

I've been wanting cover to take a more prominent part of the game for a while, making stealth resolve around it adds, making weapons to specifically counter it does too.

we are very aware of all of these points and understand your complain, now understand that the game engine is full of limitations, trust me that we have used that engine(hard coded stuff) to the limits to try to represent the TT rules, but some are just impossible. "armour_2" is strictly reserved for specific inbound units armour saves, we have opted to put cover saves as plain damage reductions, that yes we know that often times the damage received result is wrong to TT percentages but the hell is better than anything, also while you SM example could be done there are a lot of units that couldnt have it done that way, firewarriors for example, because they already have an armour_2, so we are gonna keep cover saves as is, though the other armour saves such as force fields and etc....yes they should be changed to armour_2 if possible, i think big mek has already an armour_2 so :\ sorry.

Ignore cover saves and template weapons dmg unaffected by covers: cant be done unless we stick a modifier in the weapon file that makes multiplies for 1 range damage received x1 and has "exclusive = true" tag. but then all any other bonus using that modifier would be disabled, bad thing! not mentioning that then ALL weapons attacking the affected unit will ignore covers as well, thrust me we already thought that. So to add something to these weapons we had decided to make them do morale damage (though we may have sliped some weapons, MK has the luas now )

Unify both types of cover. For example, we assume both light and heavy covers are treated as a single type of cover that provides a 5+ cover save.

this no way!, different types of covers give very much flavor to maps.

Swarms rule....ive tried to find a feasible way to represent it, that keeps current things implemented but cant find any, so i guess it will remain on the things Undoable with this engine.

also these kind of changes that affect almost all units are a shit load of work that i wouldnt like to take and think that neither MK.

Im sorry homer but your proposal is rejected.

Homer, your ideas are great in theory but due to engine limitations they're really not doable.

You'll have to wait until DoW40k 2 I'm afraid.

Click below to show my stand on my proposal:

Spoiler:

What do you mean by reserving armour_2 to INBOUND units armour saves? Furthermore you claim that units such as Firewarriors already have an armour_2 and thus cannot be done. But I have already told you using the space marine Librarian for example, that these units, which are very few compared to others with no armour_2, are the exceptions and in their individual blueprints, a ranged damage reduction modifier should be added to their cover extensions instead of armour_2, but the multiplier has to be estimated using least-squared-error method, Gaussian, Interpolant or whatever suitable instead of this random 50% or 33% multipliers. Estimating for a few units is a sane job but not for all other units. Do you understand me?

Big Mek has no armour_2 and even if he had it can be simply solved by filtering the force field ability and incorporate new armour type and child ability for him.

You also mention that you have tried other methods to simulate "ignore cover" rule but to no avail. Of course I trust you have done that. But those are not our concern aren't they? My proposal has nothing to do with those failed alternatives. Have you tried implementing my suggestion? No.

Different types of covers give very much flavor to maps. How many types of cover are there? I only talk about the light and heavy variants, just these two. They are not that significant in terms of what they can offer. Try considering the benefits and gameplay fun of the implementation of my proposal could bring compared to the lost of one of the two random cover types. This is DoW engine types of cover, not those of CoH Essence engine that really blocks bullets from hitting your troops taking cover (which make 1 hitpoint unit, 1 damage weapon viable).

You claim that rules like Swarms, which is Stealth in effect, Cameleoline cloaks etc cannot be coded to behave like the codex counterpart. My proposal allows all these special rules to be correctly implemented and is always readily to be expanded for future rule changes or additions. Now this boils down to just workload. Click the spoiler below if you are not Guyderue :p

Spoiler:

I have already tested my proposal and it is doable like no tomorrow! Unless you tell me that the engine cannot handle an additional 8 or more armour types, your mod will be the first to have imba-ignore-cover-save flamers! Do you really want me to write a detailed proposal in LaTeX like writing a university report or a thesis?

Do not simply accuse my idea for not being practical. Whatever I said and posted were always verified/validated or else I would specifically label it "Not verified. I'll test to find out later"! How many times do you want me to repeat that?

Well, well, well look who can code. Sounds great Homer I hope you get this going!

Homer - feel free to reach me on MSN so we can discuss this

mirageknight32@htomail.com

If you really want to help, I'm willing to see what you have to offer and try it out.

havent tested if the max count of armour type has been reached, but there is a max of 31-32 display units in the army painter regardless of editing tables max count and such, so it would just have need to test if additional armours can be added, if so there are a few more armours that should be added like invuln_0_3 (power armour with new storm shield, wraith phase shift and etc) invluln_2_3 (termie and storm shield), invuln_3_6 (new combat shield), daemon_0_5 (for filtering some inquisition psychic powers), though7_squig (gargantuan squiggoth T7 Sv 4+)

Firewarriors have Sv 4+ and get inv4+ with a shield drone attached, this is applied to most tau units and gets armour_2 activated when have a shield drone attached, librarians have 3+ and get 2+ with artificer armour upgrade (thought is a non codex wargear for them...could be removed), assault and assault vet sarges have the inv save of the combat shield enabled when in cc and so should the company champ but somehow ive always forgotten to fix it ...hehe, i think i could go on with more units but let resume that most commanders have an armour_2 already in use. The swarm units could also be achieved with adding more armours yes, but when i think in covers thats something i reproach from GW.....why covers dont allow a separate roll as they did in 2nd edition? i mean its something external that is giving the unit a cover defense..... if you can penetrate that cover it shouldnt necessarily mean that the armour of the unit wont save him......probably GW would answer they did to simplify rules and make gameplay faster and etc......so in kinda of way i like the fact that covers in fok are an additional defense bonus outside of units normal and inv saves.

so id like that the armour types i posted would have more priority if new ones can and are gonna be added. if such thing of having like 50+ armour types then well i think we can proced with homer idea but that kind of change would have to be post SS version of FoK and will have need of editing all weapons, abilities, all files with damage tables in effect which are near or even more of the 50% of the code files.

BTW if you are gonna help coding thats good news cause im gonna take a very long break, might work on some textures here and there but i wont be coding anything. until late december or around

*Finally Homer calms down

Your reasoning about the GW's 2nd edition cover save rules is a good one. Like in CoH, if the bullet hit the ground because the target is hiding in a crater formed by a previously missed cannon, the target is considered successfully making a cover save in TT terms and receive no damage. But even if the bullet managed to hit the target (depending on the firing angle), the bullet must be able to penetrate the armour of the target in order to finally kill the target. Yes, I also mod CoH :p

I'm totally fine with that if you and the other testers would prefer this approach than the one I suggested. Just keep in mind that my suggestion would further improve the gameplay realistically in a way that raining hot, burning fuel completely ignores cover like in real life (in CoH you receive extra damage if you stay in cover!). I would also like to remind you that in TT, you are given the choice to either take a cover save or use the unit's armour save, whichever is the best in your sane judgement. This is naturally inherited in my proposal.

Nevertheless, several preliminary tests have to be performed. If they show negative results (can't handle extra armour type etc) I would debar my plans and that's it. If it is successful, I'll continue working with it so that I have something to show to you and to MK when we finally meet together and discuss.

As for temporary taking over the WHOLE coding job from Melooo, very unfortunately and regrettably, my schedule won't allow this no matter how I wish I could.

Homer wrote:As for temporary taking over the WHOLE coding job from Melooo, very unfortunately and regrettably, my schedule won't allow this no matter how I wish I could.

We're not asking for that - just a little help would be appreciated

FYI: Melooo and I are taking turns doing the bulk of the coding for the mod. My turn now it seems

Btw, I also mod for CoH...

Preliminary Test Phase 1 Status: Successful
Test Description: Coded extra ten armour types to ten distinctive Servitors and it worked flawlessly in-game.

Preliminary Test Phase 2 Status: Failure
Test Description: Weapons, abilities, mine field and so fourth cannot cause damage to armour types number 32 and beyond. This is the saddest thing ever happened to me in my life.