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.

Hello,

As a Crimson Fists players, I hope this plays out in my favor, but it has been on my mind a little bit. I was wondering which you think may override the other even though I would think it to be Siege Masters, I wanted to see what differing opinions might be out there.

For those who might not know, Siege Masters is the Imperial Fists' Chapter Tactic that allows them to ignore the opponent's benefit of cover. How do you feel this would play out if the opponent spent the 2CP to gain the benefit of cover from Prepared Positions? I assume I would still be able to ignore it but that raises the question of what takes precedence: army tactics or stratagems.

For how this might play out:

Me: Gets first turn as Crimson Fists.

Opponent: Getting second turn, uses Prepared Positions.

Me: Targets and shoots at enemies that have been granted the benefit of cover.

Question: Does Siege Masters still override their benefit?

Thanks for any input!

Because of the wording of the Imperial Fists chapter tactic, it works against both actual cover and the benefit of cover.

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.)

Compare it to something that only works against actual cover (such as Effect 4 on the T'au Markerlight table "The target unit does not gain any bonus to its saving throws for being in cover").

There was a similar discussion earlier: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/764889.page

Thanks for that great thread you linked! It's odd how it comes to that distinction and I wonder if it will be addressed. It seems like a real nuance in language, but I do find it a bit of a frustrating differences between "in cover" and "benefit from cover." They seem only marginally different, but enough so that I do see the difference.

I'm a bit confused though on how you interpreted it. Siege Masters states "in cover" which implies the target is in some kind of terrain. Do you get the benefit from the first part of it? Because if so, then negating the benefit seems contingent on the target being in cover.

I hope that made sense.

Edit for hopeful clarity:

Siege Masters: "Enemy units do not receive the benefit to their saving throws for being in cover"
Prepared Positions: "all units from your army . . . receive the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature"

For Siege Masters to work, it seems to rely upon the target being in cover/terrain while Prepared Positions just grants the benefit freely. Thus, wouldn't Siege Masters not effect those just standing out in the open? Or is it the usage of "does not receive the benefit to their saving throws" that which negates the Stratagem?

Because it negates the "benefit" of being in cover, which means effects that grant "the benefit of cover" are affected by it.

Yes, it's slightly nitpicky but so is the distinction between To Wound rolls and To Hit rolls when you get down to the nitty gritty, and we all know those are different.

Thanks for that! I was also pointed to a news post on the 28th of September that stated, "Costing a couple of Command Points, [Prepared Positions] puts every unit in your army in cover on the first turn (provided they’re not Titanic). If you’re willing to give up a couple of Command Points, you’ll be able to avoid getting caught on the back foot, while armies with cover-ignoring mechanics like the Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors now have a neat tactical niche."

I'm not sure why they wouldn't carry that one sentence over to the FAQ rather than a news piece that will eventually get buried but there's resolution either way!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/28/28th-sept-warhammer-40000-big-faq-2-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1/

 TheGreatBeard wrote:
Thanks for that! I was also pointed to a news post on the 28th of September that stated, "Costing a couple of Command Points, [Prepared Positions] puts every unit in your army in cover on the first turn (provided they’re not Titanic). If you’re willing to give up a couple of Command Points, you’ll be able to avoid getting caught on the back foot, while armies with cover-ignoring mechanics like the Imperial Fists and Iron Warriors now have a neat tactical niche."

I'm not sure why they wouldn't carry that one sentence over to the FAQ rather than a news piece that will eventually get buried but there's resolution either way!

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/09/28/28th-sept-warhammer-40000-big-faq-2-the-low-downgw-homepage-post-1/

Because GW are either incompetent or malicious, and since Kirby isn't at the helm anymore I have to default to the former. This is a GW that caused a months long poopycane because they posted something on Facebook that was incorrect and people accepted it as gospel. I was genuinely surprised when the latest FAQ actually addressed the discrepancy.