Cover in wargames

The short answer is "Better", because using true line of sight is a violently retarded idea and cover saves were always a dumb mechanic.

For a medium answer you only need to look to other editions of 40k or WHFB, where you assigned every piece of terrain a certain height, and every unit within a certain distance to it profited from cover, and cover often making a unit harder to hit by applying a negative modifier to hit rolls.

Isn't covering a core mechanic in infinity? From what I understand infinity maps need to be crowded to cover or else the game will be unpleyable.

>>51852181
I'm more a matter of LoS than cover.
Infinity has weapons that will wreck anyone's day from the other side of the map, so you need alternate pathways unless you want to turn the game into camper vs. camper.

>>51852181
Cover in infinity is the most basic mechanic ever- it gives bonus to armor and negative to hit to the shooter. You need to be in base and it has to cover certain portion of miniature, cause Infinity uses "almost-true" LOS which is somehow even more awkward than GW's TLoS.

>>51852723
You still want partial cover (even low scatter will do in a pinch) to win firefights or survive the hits.

>>51851880
>The short answer is "Better",

This.

Asking about cover and LOS systems is like asking about movement systems; hundreds of games use hundreds of different mechanisms.

Still the choice made by GW is the worst one they could have made given the scale, scope, type, etc. of the game.

>>51851179
In most wargames cover is just moving a unit into a terrain feature that either blocks line of sight, imposes a penalty to hit, or both.

Whether every actual miniature is actually physically obstructed by the terrain objects from the facing direction of the incoming fire is immaterial outside of skirmish games, and sometimes even then.

The exception is games like Crossfire and Infinity, where physical lines of sight take on additional significance since those games are based on arcs of fire and interrupting your opponent when you have an opportunity to shoot at them. Even then, the actual rules for cover are pretty generous, nobody is going to quibble about how many models in a rifle squad are actually obstructed by the miniature trees if the whole base is in a forest.

But basically how do they deal with units half in half out, or a monster with the toe in cover?

>>51851880

Necromunda cover worked much like that, where cover and stealth/camouflage gave negative modifiers to the shooter's attack roll.

They also did AP the same as well, where Armor Penetration was much more limited, granting negative modifiers to their target's armor save. Dedicated anti-armor weapons like Melta and Power Weapons had -2/3, while a few weapons and some special ammo options gave a modest -1. Most stuff was a flat modifier of 0. I think "Rend" works the same way in Age of Sigmar.

>>51857294
Many games will go with half/over half in cover, some will go with "one dude in cover=unit in cover". Heck, some games like Tomorrow's War assume that ground isn't flat table cloth, and soldiers who don't move will automatically hug any cover there is and any immobile unit is automatically in basic cover.

>>51857464
That is the problem of half in/ half out. It is never a perfect system and I am not sure how to deal with it.

I am writing a game with a friend. That is why I am asking.

True /tg/