Your first and third points have all been fought to a standstill. First, cover in shooting has nothing to do with cover in assault.
No Rule has been quoted proving me wrong.
As for what TA pointed out, units assaulting another unit partially in cover don't go through cover because the unit being assaulted piles out of the cover to fight them. I give you this simple counter-argument. If the whole unit is in cover, can you avoid giving the assault through cover?
Yes, a single model unit with 50% of its base in difficult terrain when assaulted by a unit outside of the difficult terrain will not go through anything causing tests.
As for whether assaulting a unit that is always "in cover when assaulted" causes you to trigger the DiT test? I can only say that I feel the rule is there for a reason
We play a game by a common ruleset, not what you feel a rule does. Any discussion to the contrary is pointless.
The SFG ensures that the stealth team is always in cover for assaults, thus this replaces the in/out of cover status derived from the above terrain test. To break it down in my mind:
I have provided a situation when this does not occur, ergo your reasoning cannot be taken as a trueism.
"Models equipped with stealth field generators count as being in cover if they are assaulted." - direct quote, 4E Tax Codex, p27
This is a quote from a 4ed codex which no longer has rules in the BRB to support it, much like other items in the codex.
I would say 'in cover' is not a shooting term only. As you can see, your quote on BRB p.36 is from the title ASSAULT THROUGH COVER. at the first sentence of the second paragraph said
Aside from quoting a title, I have shown you that it is possible to assault a unit in cover without going through difficult terrain. Furthermore, in an example where I shoot a unit at another on the opposing side of a barricare, they will be 'in cover' for shooting. However if assaulted from behind, will not be 'in cover'. There are numerous situations where a unit is 'in cover' but doesn't count as being in difficult terrain (or behind it more importantly) for the purposes of assault.
Then, the writer mindset about 'cover' is clear, which aslo included in Assault Phase.
Not true at all. I don't think there is anything in the book suggesting that cover applies to assault in the way you're hoping. Arguing intent is pointless.
Again, as no one has provided a quote at all to support their opinion, this thread is locked. If someone would like to PM me a real counterargument aside from their beliefs as to RAI, I will reopen the thread.
Nothing has been shown here to indicate that a SFG reduces the I of an assaulting unit or causes them to roll a difficult terrain test.
And in closing, as Eigle posted:
GW FAQ BRB wrote: wrote:
Q: If my Codex includes some options (or other rules) that seem to have no effect in the new edition, are you going to publish an errata to change them to something else that does work?
A: No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no effect, it simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather than change its effects through an errata.
You can choose to believe that the rule isn't "clearly" without effect but again, I can choose to believe that 1+1=3 and that doesn't make it right; that is why RAI/intent arguements are pointless.