Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Hi all

Quick question in light of the new stratagem "Prepared Positions". That stratagem provides that all units receive "the benefit of the cover" on the first turn. This has made me think of a few abilities, stratagems, traits, etc. that make either effect units "in cover", or units with "the benefit of cover".

The Deathwatch FAQ appears to draw a distinction between these two states when discussing Dragonfire bolts. The Dragonfire bolt special ammunition rule provides "Add 1 to the hit rolls for this weapon when targeting a unit that is in cover" and the Deathwatch FAQ states:

Q: How do Dragonfire bolts behave when shooting units that
aren’t in cover, but have a rule that means they have ‘the
benefit of cover’ (e.g. Jormungandr units with the Tunnel
Networks ability)? Would you still add 1 to the hit rolls for
Dragonfire bolts?
A: No. You add 1 to the hit rolls against units that are in
cover (i.e. entirely on or within a terrain feature). Units
receiving the benefit of cover while not being in cover do
not count.

If that is the case, would things that in some way benefit against units in cover (e.g, +1 to hit, +1 to wound, ignore cover), not benefit against a unit that is both (a) not in a terrain feature/in cover; but does have (b) the benefit of cover.

And if that is so, then the following wouldn't effect Prepared Positions (despite what Warhammer Community said):

Imperial Fists "Siege Masters" chapter tactic (Enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by IMPERIAL FISTS models with this tactic.);

Iron Warriors "Siege Lords" legion trait (Enemy units attacked by units with this trait do not gain any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover.);

No. 4 on the Tau markerlight table (The target unit does not gain any bonus to its saving throws for being in cover.) etc.

They don't benefit against anything using Prepared Positions, Jormungandr units (A unit with this adaption...always has the benefit of cover for the purposes of shooting), Dal'yth sept (A unit with this tenet receive the benefit of cover) as they are gaining the "benefit of cover" and not "in cover". Is that right?
Cheers for all the help.

Edit: typos

Atticus wrote:
Hi all

Quick question in light of the new stratagem "Prepared Positions". That stratagem provides that all units receive "the benefit of the cover" on the first turn. This has made me think of a few abilities, stratagems, traits, etc. that make either effect units "in cover", or units with "the benefit of cover".

The Deathwatch FAQ appears to draw a distinction between these two states when discussing Dragonfire bolts. The Dragonfire bolt special ammunition rule provides "Add 1 to the hit rolls for this weapon when targeting a unit that is in cover" and the Deathwatch FAQ states:

Q: How do Dragonfire bolts behave when shooting units that
aren’t in cover, but have a rule that means they have ‘the
benefit of cover’ (e.g. Jormungandr units with the Tunnel
Networks ability)? Would you still add 1 to the hit rolls for
Dragonfire bolts?
A: No. You add 1 to the hit rolls against units that are in
cover (i.e. entirely on or within a terrain feature). Units
receiving the benefit of cover while not being in cover do
not count.

If that is the case, would things that in some way benefit against units in cover (e.g, +1 to hit, +1 to wound, ignore cover), not benefit against a unit that is both (a) not in a terrain feature/in cover; but does have (b) the benefit of cover.

And if that is so, then the following wouldn't effect Prepared Positions (despite what Warhammer Community said):

Imperial Fists "Siege Masters" chapter tactic (Enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover against attacks made by IMPERIAL FISTS models with this tactic.);

Iron Warriors "Siege Lords" legion trait (Enemy units attacked by units with this trait do not again any bonus to their saving throws for being in cover.);

No. 4 on the Tau markerlight table (The target unit does not gain any bonus to its saving throws for being in cover.) etc.

don't benefit against anything using Prepared Positions, Jormungandr units (A unit with this adaption...always has the benefit of cover for the purposes of shooting), Dal'yth sept (A unit with this tenet receive the benefit of cover) as they are gaining the "benefit of cover" and not "in cover". Is that right?
Cheers for all the help.

It comes down to whether it says "in cover" or "benefit of cover".

The former only works against actual honest-to-goodness cover, while the latter works against both honest-to-goodness cover and any other effect that grants the benefit of cover.

The first one says "benefit [...] cover" so it works against anything, while the Iron Warriors one is ambiguous (thanks GW, though I would say that bonus and benefit are interchangeable here and it works on anything granting cover) and Markerlights only work against honest-to-goodness cover. I wonder if that FAQ was made by the same writer who was shocked that rules didn't work the way he think they worked when questioned at a tournament. Seems to over-complicate things given 8th design ethos, but since it could go either way because GW can't write rules, it's nice to have some form of clarificatory FAQ, even if it only technically applies to Deathwatch.

Thanks for the response.

I don't agree with the distinction between the Iron Warriors and markerlight rules. While the wording of each rule starts slightly differently, I don't feel that makes any difference to the latter part of both rules that are identical (both say "not gain any bonus to its saving throws for being in cover."). Therefore, I would say that neither rule effects units with the benefit of cover that are outside of a terrain feature/honest-to-goodness cover (again, despite what the Warhammer Community post from Big FAQ 2 said about Iron Warriors).

I take your point on the Imperial Fists chapter tactic, but I don't think using "benefit" in the same sentence means it applies to units that have the benefit of cover. The rule book notes that you gain a benefit for being in cover (Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight Phase p. 181), whether that is in cover or benefit of cover states. However, based on the Deathwatch FAQ, there is still a distinction to be drawn between these two states and therefore a distinction has to be drawn between the benefits you gain from rules that only effect units that are in cover vs. the benefit of cover. While the Imperial Fists rule states that enemies do not receive a benefit to their saving throws (as all cover states provides a benefit), it appears to only apply to units that are in cover, and not the distinct state of units that have the benefit of cover as it makes no reference to that distinct state. This sounds mad, but if benefit of cover is really distinct from in cover as per the Deathwatch FAQ, the Imperial Fists rule should be interpreted as identical to the Iron Warriors and markerlight rules as it only effects units in cover.

Regardless, I 100% agree with you on the rules writing point. The fact that I am having to ask this is maddening. I see no benefit in making this distinction if the aim of 8th edition was to simplify the game. Even if rules writers wanted to make this distinction, they should change the wording so that the distinction is clearer (maybe rather than referring to things having the benefit of cover they could have said such units are Dug-In or something. Dug-In would then be clearly distinct from being in cover). The mind boggles.

Based on the FAQ answer in Deathwatch, this is correct.

I think the GW rules writers have forgotten they put that particular ruling in and are thinking that abilities that ignore cover as working against abilities that cause a unit to gain the benefits of cover.