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.

1. If you are in area terrain which provides heavy cover, are you considered to be receiving the benefit of heavy cover during the shooting phase, even though the benefit of cover has no effect?

2. If you're in area terrain which does not have any of light/dense/heavy terrain traits, but does have another trait (difficult ground/defensible/exposed etc), are you receiving the benefits of cover?

For me:
1. There is nothing in the book that states that benefits of cover only apply to certain phases, you are always receiving them. While heavy does nothing during the shooting phase, it is still there. Some rules allow shooting in the fight phase, and light cover would apply to those attacks so the reverse makes sense to be true.

2. If there are no traits on a terrain piece, benefits of cover do not exist, and exposed position prevents benefits of cover when on top of the piece.

Certain models receive the benefits of cover from some terrain features. The benefits gained depend on the terrain traits that the terrain feature in question has (if it has none, then no benefits are gained).

Models never receive the benefits of cover while they are on top of this terrain feature, but they can gain the benefits of cover while they are behind it.

However, nothing in the rules states that the terrain piece must have one of light/heavy/dense to convey the bennefits of cover, only be in the correct position, eg.

INFANTRY, BEAST and SWARM models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it.

So it is my opinion that an obstacle that allows a unit to set to defend, for instance, and that is the only trait it has, you are receiving the benefits of cover. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if the only trait the terrain has is exposed, and you are not on top of the terrain piece, you are receiving the benefits of cover, even though there are no benefits to be received.


Thoughts?

What question is this leading toward? I can’t see anything that’s really a question needing an answer so far.

Is there some weapon interaction you’re looking to check out?

There are two questions clearly listed there.

1. Yes.

2. No.

1) I agree with Johnny hell why is it relevant if a rule exists and no rule interacts with it is it still a rule. ANSWER = Yes

if a model has light cover it has light cover and all rules interacting with light cover apply same is true for dense etc. There are plenty of instances where out of phase cover matters such as out of phase shooting

It sounds like your wanting to do something gamey. If you have a proper question ask don't ask tangential questions.


2) Terrain has the benefits of traits and in some circumstances rules. These tell you what it does. Is a trait required No a rule could tell you. If no rule or trait tells you it does not do that

Can model have exposed position and no traits - no exposed position is a trait

If your obstacle only has defensible that is all it does. Give it light cover etc if you want to have it do more. If it does not have any cover rules it does not provide cover in the same way a model that does not have a lascannon cannot fire a lascannon

Their are no set rules for terrain you set them up as you agree with your opponent or according to house rules of an event you should be discussing this pregame

dammit wrote:
There are two questions clearly listed there.

I can read, thanks, I’m just asking what the real question is if there’s a follow-up, no need for snark.

Like if a model is benefitting from cover that doesn’t take effect in a phase, there’s no impact so why does it matter? What’s the game-y application and I might be able to help you verify/validate.

There are units in the game that say "as long as X is benefitting from cover, they recieve X"


So yes, if a unit is somehow recieving heavy cover from a terrain piece and not light cover they would enact certain situations even in the shooting phase.


The only time this would not apply is with dense as the unit is (while techniqually recieving a benefit of cover) not actually recieving a benefit of cover.

Dense is a penalty applied to the shooting unit, not a buff to the unit getting shot at.

Yeah this is what im getting at: what’s the follow-up Q that hinges on an interpretation of the OP?

 Eihnlazer wrote:

The only time this would not apply is with dense as the unit is (while techniqually recieving a benefit of cover) not actually recieving a benefit of cover.

so sisters retributors don't ignore dense?

dammit wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:

The only time this would not apply is with dense as the unit is (while techniqually recieving a benefit of cover) not actually recieving a benefit of cover.

so sisters retributors don't ignore dense?

Correct. The Terrain rules define “benefits of cover” as a bonus to the unit, not a to hit penalty for other units.

(but also note that any rule that ignores the benefits of cover, or that ignores the benefits of cover that impose a penalty on hit rolls, would still ignore that penalty).

That's completely not true and I'm not sure if I can continue to value your input on rules queries.

Are you referring to me? Fair point, missed the FAQ that does contradict the core rule. But I did almost directly quote from the Core Rules so no lie. Boy, this thread is a chore. Indirect questions, rude replies, flat-out insults? Most abrasive OP for a while.

Dammit do not come to a rules forum if you are going to ignore the correctly stated answer and insult the person who took the time to answer you because you don't like their answer.

There is a word for someone who deliberately ignores the rules to their advantage.

I asked two questions and then was asked what my 'actual question' was. I was then given factually wrong answers to an unrelated question.

People still haven't answered my questions. Removed - rule #1

dammit wrote:
I asked two questions and then was asked what my 'actual question' was. I was then given factually wrong answers to an unrelated question.

People still haven't answered my questions. Removed - rule #1

I think that's because most people's answer to your questions in your first post would be "who cares?" Which is why the first response asked what the ultimate question here actually is. There's not much point looking too deeply into something where the answer doesn't matter.

Also, assuming the Adam Johnson you're referring to is who I think it is you're way, way, way out of line comparing anyone to a convicted paedophile.

dammit wrote:
I asked two questions and then was asked what my 'actual question' was. I was then given factually wrong answers to an unrelated question.

People still haven't answered my questions. Removed - rule #1

Multiple people have clearly answered your questions.

Therefore either you don't like the answer in which case it's not our problem if you don't accept it you have it and repeatedly asking won't change that.

Or your question is wrong and you need to go back take a long look at it and ask the actual question about the specific interaction that matters to you.

Either way getting abusive at the people trying to help is just rude and I would refer you to tenats of ymdc.