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.

SS shadow strike ability reads "add 1 to hit roll for attacks for this unit that target a unit in cover"

Now, we have the following piece of information from the rulebook:

Terrain and Cover:The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. Models can take shelter within such terrain features to gain protection against incoming weapons’ fire. If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase (pg 182).

Is being in cover and receiving the benefit of cover the same thing? If it weren't, is a unit in cover if a single model of the unit is within a piece of terrain but would only receive the benefit of cover if it were entirely on or wholly within that piece of terrain (a crater for instance)? If that were the case, would SS get the +1 to hit to their rules conferred by their shadow strike ability in the fight phase?

Or more straight forward... could sbdy explain to me how this ability works?

eparedes0785 wrote:

SS shadow strike ability reads "add 1 to hit roll for attacks for this unit that target a unit in cover"

Now, we have the following piece of information from the rulebook:

Terrain and Cover:The battlefields of the far future are littered with terrain features such as ruins, craters and twisted copses. Models can take shelter within such terrain features to gain protection against incoming weapons’ fire. If a unit is entirely on or within any terrain feature, add 1 to its models’ saving throws against shooting attacks to represent the cover received from the terrain (invulnerable saves are unaffected). Units gain no benefit from cover in the Fight phase (pg 182).

Is being in cover and receiving the benefit of cover the same thing? If it weren't, is a unit in cover if a single model of the unit is within a piece of terrain but would only receive the benefit of cover if it were entirely on or wholly within that piece of terrain (a crater for instance)? If that were the case, would SS get the +1 to hit to their rules conferred by their shadow strike ability in the fight phase?

Or more straight forward... could sbdy explain to me how this ability works?

To answer the highlighted portion in but a single word, no.

Being in Cover and benefiting from cover are not the same. You can "benefit from cover" from other rules without actually being "in cover". Another example are the Deathwatch Dragonfire Bolts that "Add 1 to the hit rolls for this weapon when targeting a unit that is in cover". This means that if a unit is benefiting from cover without actually being in cover (e.g. The SW psychic power Storm Caller), it won't get the bonus.

The SS ability doesn't actually care if it's the Fight Phase and the unit isn't "benefiting from cover", the unit is still "in cover" so the bonus applies.

To summarise:
In Cover = All models of the unit are physically on an area terrain feature.
Benefiting from Cover = Getting the +1 to Save Rolls from the rule saying you get that bonus even though you might not actually be in cover.

How about the AdMech Shroudspalm canticle? It reads:

Affected units gain the bonus to their armour saving throws as if they were in cover. Units already in cover are unaffected.

It seems to say that if a unit were already in cover, be it benefiting or not from it, it'd remain unaffected. It seems to be that in cover and having the benefit of cover are used interchangeably there

eparedes0785 wrote:
How about the AdMech Shroudspalm canticle? It reads:

Affected units gain the bonus to their armour saving throws as if they were in cover. Units already in cover are unaffected.

It seems to say that if a unit were already in cover, be it benefiting or not from it, it'd remain unaffected. It seems to be that in cover and having the benefit of cover are used interchangeably there

By the direct wording of the rule, if a unit is "in cover" it is unaffected by the Shroudpsalm canticle.

eparedes0785 wrote:
How about the AdMech Shroudspalm canticle? It reads:

Affected units gain the bonus to their armour saving throws as if they were in cover. Units already in cover are unaffected.

It seems to say that if a unit were already in cover, be it benefiting or not from it, it'd remain unaffected. It seems to be that in cover and having the benefit of cover are used interchangeably there

Ignoring the fact that Shroudspalm is broken RaW anyway, chalk it down to GW not being able to write rules correctly. We have no idea whether "as if they were in cover" means things that affect units that are "in cover" work or not because GW contradict themselves multiple times on what "as if" entails.

Im curious how this would work vs the new GK tide.

Most traits stipulate "count as in cover" over 12" but the GK one does not. I'm not sure what the actual wording of their new ability is though so cant quote it.

@ OP basically the SS ability will pretty much never come up unless you are assaulting something entirely within cover(entirely on/within a terrain feature.

I'm wondering what the definition of 'a unit in cover' is given that some models in a unit can be in cover whilst others are not. If one model is on cover-granting terrain then is the whole unit in cover or does it have to be every model? How then do abilities that affect 'units in cover' affect units that have some models in cover and some not?

 Bilge Rat wrote:
I'm wondering what the definition of 'a unit in cover' is given that some models in a unit can be in cover whilst others are not. If one model is on cover-granting terrain then is the whole unit in cover or does it have to be every model? How then do abilities that affect 'units in cover' affect units that have some models in cover and some not?

And i wonder why some people dont check the FAQs. FAQs are mandatory, like every other rule, if you want to play 40k. The definition of a unit in cover was added 6 months ago.

 p5freak wrote:

 Bilge Rat wrote:
I'm wondering what the definition of 'a unit in cover' is given that some models in a unit can be in cover whilst others are not. If one model is on cover-granting terrain then is the whole unit in cover or does it have to be every model? How then do abilities that affect 'units in cover' affect units that have some models in cover and some not?

And i wonder why some people dont check the FAQs. FAQs are mandatory, like every other rule, if you want to play 40k. The definition of a unit in cover was added 6 months ago.

Could you direct us all to that entry, then, or even quote it, because the only ones I'm aware of that might be what you're describing do not provide a 'definition of a unit in cover', but instead but instead refer to when units 'receive the benefit of cover'.

What I mean is the same you refer to. GW doesn't make the distinction of receiving the benefit of cover and actually in cover.

 p5freak wrote:
What I mean is the same you refer to. GW doesn't make the distinction of receiving the benefit of cover and actually in cover.

Citing any evidence whatsoever in support of this claim might be a great way to advance this discussion towards a definitive end.

Maethbalnane wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
What I mean is the same you refer to. GW doesn't make the distinction of receiving the benefit of cover and actually in cover.

Citing any evidence whatsoever in support of this claim might be a great way to advance this discussion towards a definitive end.

Yes, it would be helpful if someone could cite any evidence when a unit is in cover. As far as I know GW never defined it. Units can only receive the benefit of cover.

 p5freak wrote:

Maethbalnane wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
What I mean is the same you refer to. GW doesn't make the distinction of receiving the benefit of cover and actually in cover.

Citing any evidence whatsoever in support of this claim might be a great way to advance this discussion towards a definitive end.

Yes, it would be helpful if someone could cite any evidence when a unit is in cover. As far as I know GW never defined it. Units can only receive the benefit of cover.

They did for Dragonfire Bolts.

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.

So the rules have depended upon and reminded us of what "in cover" means, and how that's distinct from benefiting from cover, but the rules never actually define the difference?

If that's the case, either "In cover" vs "Benefiting from cover" are "sufficiently obvious" that the players need no help understanding the difference, or the rules themselves simply do not function.

Bharring wrote:
So the rules have depended upon and reminded us of what "in cover" means, and how that's distinct from benefiting from cover, but the rules never actually define the difference?

If that's the case, either "In cover" vs "Benefiting from cover" are "sufficiently obvious" that the players need no help understanding the difference, or the rules themselves simply do not function.

They've defined the benefit of cover as being the +1 bonus. They defined in the main rulebook FAQ (and, as BCB helpfully pointed out, for the Dragonfire Bolts in a FAQ) what you have to do to be in cover and get the benifit of cover.

 doctortom wrote:

Bharring wrote:
So the rules have depended upon and reminded us of what "in cover" means, and how that's distinct from benefiting from cover, but the rules never actually define the difference?

If that's the case, either "In cover" vs "Benefiting from cover" are "sufficiently obvious" that the players need no help understanding the difference, or the rules themselves simply do not function.

They've defined the benefit of cover as being the +1 bonus. They defined in the main rulebook FAQ (and, as BCB helpfully pointed out, for the Dragonfire Bolts in a FAQ) what you have to do to be in cover and get the benifit of cover.

It's hard to claim that it's not clear how we are supposed to play it. Thanks to GW being very clear in Dragonfire Bolts, there really isn't room for confusion on this point anymore.

It's always been annoying when my Scorpions were denied the bonus on the whim of who I've played. I always thought it was clear, but BCB's citation removes any room for doubt.

My point in the quoted post was that one could still *technically* argue that by some readings, RAW, it's still undefined (because BCB's quote was a reminder of how an unquoted rule worked, not a rule unto itself) - but if that's the case, either you default to the natural understanding (which matches the quoted reminder), or you accept that you don't understand the rules well enough to actually play the game. It would be an incredibly strained argument, though, and would either do nothing or break the game.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

eparedes0785 wrote:
How about the AdMech Shroudspalm canticle? It reads:

Affected units gain the bonus to their armour saving throws as if they were in cover. Units already in cover are unaffected.

It seems to say that if a unit were already in cover, be it benefiting or not from it, it'd remain unaffected. It seems to be that in cover and having the benefit of cover are used interchangeably there

Ignoring the fact that Shroudspalm is broken RaW anyway, chalk it down to GW not being able to write rules correctly. We have no idea whether "as if they were in cover" means things that affect units that are "in cover" work or not because GW contradict themselves multiple times on what "as if" entails.

Seems pretty obvious to me. "As if" should mean that they are in cover for all purposes. Though it is interesting and I hadn't thought about this. With vehicles to gain the benefit of cover not only do they need to be in cover - they also need to be obstructed as well. It seems that most players around her just give the vehicles the benefit but that might not be correct. I suppose you are right as have they really have not defined what "in cover" means as that is not how the vehicles rules for cover saves work. I believe the wording there is the vehicle has to be entirely within a piece of terrain. I don't have the rules in front of me though. What do you think?

 Xenomancers wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

eparedes0785 wrote:
How about the AdMech Shroudspalm canticle? It reads:

Affected units gain the bonus to their armour saving throws as if they were in cover. Units already in cover are unaffected.

It seems to say that if a unit were already in cover, be it benefiting or not from it, it'd remain unaffected. It seems to be that in cover and having the benefit of cover are used interchangeably there

Ignoring the fact that Shroudspalm is broken RaW anyway, chalk it down to GW not being able to write rules correctly. We have no idea whether "as if they were in cover" means things that affect units that are "in cover" work or not because GW contradict themselves multiple times on what "as if" entails.

Seems pretty obvious to me. "As if" should mean that they are in cover for all purposes.

That's the opposite of what "As if" means. "As if" means "For this one purpose, despite not actually being". For any purpose outside the one provided, it has no bearing.