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.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not quite semantically they are not the same thing or else the phrase would be meaningless. It means that they share a commonality but are not the same thing.

Margarine has the same taste as if it was butter. Means that it tastes like butter but is something else. If something feels as if it was fur means that it feels like fur but it's not fur.

The analogies don't matter. The commonality between something in cover and something as if it is in cover is that both function using the rules for cover. In a game such as 40k using that commonality means it functions as being in cover, and you follow the rules for cover with anything as if it is in cover. This means something that ignores cover ignores something that is as if it was in cover. You don't have permission to ignore any rules that ignore cover just because it behaves as if in cover; it follows the rules for cover, which means that things that ignore cover ignore it. You are just ignoring the rules, which you don't get to do.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not quite semantically they are not the same thing or else the phrase would be meaningless. It means that they share a commonality but are not the same thing.

No, you've just defined the word "similar"

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Margarine has the same taste as if it was butter. Means that it tastes like butter but is something else. If something feels as if it was fur means that it feels like fur but it's not fur.

A correct explanation/definition of "as if it was/were" would be 'while being different, is unable to be distinguished from one from the other."

Margarine is not butter, and it is something else - but it is as if it was butter because it has the same texture, color, odor, and flavor as butter to a point they are indistinguishable. (No its not. Please do not mock butter like that)
Faux fur is not real fur, and it is something else - but it is as if it was real fur because (given that the faux fur is of good quality of course) its color, texture, and the feel is the same to a point where the two are indistinguishable.
This chinese knock-off LV bag is not real LV bag - but it feels as if it was real LV bag because its color, material, finishes, embroideries are identical to a point where the two are indistinguishable.

 skchsan wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not quite semantically they are not the same thing or else the phrase would be meaningless. It means that they share a commonality but are not the same thing.

No, you've just defined the word "similar"

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Margarine has the same taste as if it was butter. Means that it tastes like butter but is something else. If something feels as if it was fur means that it feels like fur but it's not fur.

A correct explanation/definition of "as if it was/were" would be 'while being different, is unable to be distinguished from one from the other."

Margarine is not butter, and it is something else - but it is as if it was butter because it has the same texture, color, odor, and flavor as butter to a point they are indistinguishable. (No its not. Please do not mock butter like that)
Faux fur is not real fur, and it is something else - but it is as if it was real fur because (given that the faux fur is of good quality of course) its color, texture, and the feel is the same to a point where the two are indistinguishable.
This chinese knock-off LV bag is not real LV bag - but it feels as if it was real LV bag because its color, material, finishes, embroideries are identical to a point where the two are indistinguishable.

But by that logic Auspex Scan stratagem states you "shoot as if it were the shooting phase." If you can use stratagems in the shooting phase but not during auspex scan then they are distinguishable by that fact.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
But by that logic Auspex Scan stratagem states you "shoot as if it were the shooting phase." If you can use stratagems in the shooting phase but not during auspex scan then they are distinguishable by that fact.

Well that's because Auspex Scan doesn't turn your opponent's "end of the movement phase" (whenthe deepstrikes happen) into your "shooting phase."

It simply allows you to fire with one eligible unit of your choice during your opponents's turn.

 Zarroc1733 wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Not quite semantically they are not the same thing or else the phrase would be meaningless. It means that they share a commonality but are not the same thing.

No, you've just defined the word "similar"

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
Margarine has the same taste as if it was butter. Means that it tastes like butter but is something else. If something feels as if it was fur means that it feels like fur but it's not fur.

A correct explanation/definition of "as if it was/were" would be 'while being different, is unable to be distinguished from one from the other."

Margarine is not butter, and it is something else - but it is as if it was butter because it has the same texture, color, odor, and flavor as butter to a point they are indistinguishable. (No its not. Please do not mock butter like that)
Faux fur is not real fur, and it is something else - but it is as if it was real fur because (given that the faux fur is of good quality of course) its color, texture, and the feel is the same to a point where the two are indistinguishable.
This chinese knock-off LV bag is not real LV bag - but it feels as if it was real LV bag because its color, material, finishes, embroideries are identical to a point where the two are indistinguishable.

But by that logic Auspex Scan stratagem states you "shoot as if it were the shooting phase." If you can use stratagems in the shooting phase but not during auspex scan then they are distinguishable by that fact.

But we have Leo saying that since it's only as if it was the shooting phase and not actually the shooting phase, you ignore all the shooting rules since they only apply to the shooting phase and not to anything acting "as if" if were the shooting phase. This makes it quite hard to resolve the shooting.

No, I never brought up the shooting phase. This is the thread that contains the shooting phase question and BCB's statement that "as if" is not the same as "is": https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750233.page#9822677

What I've said is that you treat the canticle as, in effect, giving +1 to SV vs ranged attacks and that things that ignore cover do not ignore the canticle since it doesn't grant cover just it's (cover's) effects.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What I've said is that you treat the canticle as, in effect, giving +1 to SV vs ranged attacks and that things that ignore cover do not ignore the canticle.

That isn't what the rule says to do though. Might as well say "Re-roll 1s" lets me "Re-roll All" because it has the word "Re-roll" in it.

 skchsan wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
But by that logic Auspex Scan stratagem states you "shoot as if it were the shooting phase." If you can use stratagems in the shooting phase but not during auspex scan then they are distinguishable by that fact.

Well that's because Auspex Scan doesn't turn your opponent's "end of the movement phase" (whenthe deepstrikes happen) into your "shooting phase."

It simply allows you to fire with one eligible unit of your choice during your opponents's turn.

As if it were the shooting phase. Now I agree with your interpretation actually as being what is intended but there are some serious inconsistencies. The meaning of as if doesn't change because we are talking about cover compared to shooting phase. If I shoot as if in the shooting phase and all applicable rules do not apply, then if I treat my unit as if it were in cover all applicable rules may not apply. How do you determine which rules apply? Would striking scorpions get their bonus since the unit is treated as if it were in cover?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
What I've said is that you treat the canticle as, in effect, giving +1 to SV vs ranged attacks and that things that ignore cover do not ignore the canticle.

That isn't what the rule says to do though. Might as well say "Re-roll 1s" lets me "Re-roll All" because it has the word "Re-roll" in it.

If you do exactly what Shroudpsalm says, then the affected unit gains the bonus to their saving throws as if they were in cover. The bonus is adding 1 to saving throws against shooting attacks. Shroudpsalm only states that they gain the bonus. It does not state that they are granted cover.

If you do exactly what the Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics says, then enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover. It does not state that enemy units do not receive the cover bonus; it specifically states that they don't receive a bonus for being in cover.

Neither side is ignoring the wording of the rule, or pretending that words don't exist. The interpretation is whether "as if they were in cover" means that they are, in fact, in cover, or whether they are not. I argue that the specific wording of "as if" grants the cover bonus, but not cover. Since the Imperial Fists tactic specifically removes the bonus for units in cover, then it does not ignore Shroudpsalm.

Again, by that logic Battle Focus doesn't work because it says you act as if you were stationary, but the rule for advancing says if you advanced you can't shoot.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No, I never brought up the shooting phase. This is the thread that contains the shooting phase question and BCB's statement that "as if" is not the same as "is": https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750233.page#9822677

What I've said is that you treat the canticle as, in effect, giving +1 to SV vs ranged attacks and that things that ignore cover do not ignore the canticle since it doesn't grant cover just it's (cover's) effects.

No, you've never brought up the shooting phase. What you are saying though is that since Shroudpsalm gives a bonus as if the unit were in cover, since the unit is only "as if" in cover and not actually in cover, the rules pertaining to cover and what can modify it don't apply. That's the equivalent of saying that the rules for shooting and what affects it don't apply if you are only shooting "as if" it were the shooting phase.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, by that logic Battle Focus doesn't work because it says you act as if you were stationary, but the rule for advancing says if you advanced you can't shoot.

A good counterpoint.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, by that logic Battle Focus doesn't work because it says you act as if you were stationary, but the rule for advancing says if you advanced you can't shoot.

Actually that's my point. You are not stationary but you do get to act "as if" you hadn't moved. I see nothing inconsistent with this. "As if you hadn't moved" does not equal stationary. It merely gives you the advantage of not having moved it doesn't require that you haven't moved. It's the same as shroudpsalm, it doesn't give you cover but you gain a bonus as if you were in cover.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:
No, I never brought up the shooting phase. This is the thread that contains the shooting phase question and BCB's statement that "as if" is not the same as "is": https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750233.page#9822677

What I've said is that you treat the canticle as, in effect, giving +1 to SV vs ranged attacks and that things that ignore cover do not ignore the canticle since it doesn't grant cover just it's (cover's) effects.

If we consider your interpretation, then "as if it were" effects are stronger than "is" effects since "is" effects can be removed/countered by certain abilities, while the "as if it were" abilities cannot be removed/countered unless the particular removal mechanism specifically includes "these include as if it was effects as well."

So, "as if in cover" state cannot be removed by "ignore the effects of cover" abilities, while "in cover" state can be removed by it. Does that sound about right?

I'd like to build an army around the "as if" effects from now on!

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, by that logic Battle Focus doesn't work because it says you act as if you were stationary, but the rule for advancing says if you advanced you can't shoot.

Actually that's my point. You are not stationary but you do get to act "as if" you hadn't moved. I see nothing inconsistent with this. "As if you hadn't moved" does not equal stationary. It merely gives you the advantage of not having moved it doesn't require that you haven't moved. It's the same as shroudpsalm, it doesn't give you cover but you gain a bonus as if you were in cover.

Haha amazing. I don’t agree that’s how it works but by the gods the RAW is on your side. Just odd to see that other chap arguing RAI! Welcome to the other side, we have games that make sense here. :-D

 skchsan wrote:
If we consider your interpretation, then "as if it were" effects are stronger than "is" effects since "is" effects can be removed/countered by certain abilities, while the "as if it were" abilities cannot be removed/countered unless the particular removal mechanism specifically includes "these include as if it was effects as well."

So, "as if in cover" state cannot be removed by "ignore the effects of cover" abilities, while "in cover" state can be removed by it. Does that sound about right?

I'd like to build an army around the "as if" effects from now on!

I wouldn't say more powerful just less easily dispelled. Most "as if" things that I'm aware of either cost CPs or have limited usages. For instance Shroudpsalm can only be picked once per battle or it must be rolled randomly.

Good luck with your army build please share it with all of us when you're done.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

tneva82 wrote:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/750233.page#9822677

Ah so in one case "as if X" doesn't make it X while here suddenly it makes it.

You're comparing Apples to Macro Cannons. Nice e-Stalking though.

The problem with the "as if it were the Shooting Phase" is that the stratagem says it only works in that phase, so 'as if' is not enough. The stratagem is asking a simple question "Is it the shooting phase?" the answer is still "No" outside the shooting phase, even if a unit is acting as if it is the shooting phase.

Ignores Cover, meanwhile, doesn't specify a phase, so it works for all instances of cover.

If you're gonna try and "gotcha", at least try and do it right.

But he's not IN cover as "as if" is not same. Thus weapon that ignores being in cover doesn't work.

I'm just applying your standard evenly rather than double standard jelly picking like you do. If you arque "as if" is not same as "is" then it applies to both. so either cover doesn't get ignored or shooting phase rules are followed. Not one or both.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

 Zarroc1733 wrote:
But by that logic Auspex Scan stratagem states you "shoot as if it were the shooting phase." If you can use stratagems in the shooting phase but not during auspex scan then they are distinguishable by that fact.

Well that's because Auspex Scan doesn't turn your opponent's "end of the movement phase" (whenthe deepstrikes happen) into your "shooting phase."

It simply allows you to fire with one eligible unit of your choice during your opponents's turn.

Yes but as if shooting phase so rules that apply in shooting phase apply there. Or if not then ignore cover doesn't ignore here. It's not cherry picking whatever suits you best but apply it consistently.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
Again, by that logic Battle Focus doesn't work because it says you act as if you were stationary, but the rule for advancing says if you advanced you can't shoot.

Actually that's my point. You are not stationary but you do get to act "as if" you hadn't moved. I see nothing inconsistent with this. "As if you hadn't moved" does not equal stationary. It merely gives you the advantage of not having moved it doesn't require that you haven't moved. It's the same as shroudpsalm, it doesn't give you cover but you gain a bonus as if you were in cover.

Exactly, this is my interpretation as well.

GW just answered this in its FAQ. Ignore cover ignores the canticle.

At least I got a solid answer, not the one I would have made but at least it is an answer.