As I noticed,the SFG mentioned that "count as being in cover if they are assaulted".
But I don't see people playing this rule in any batreps I could find, the opponents just go strictly 6" to assault the XV25s. As they are being in cover when assaulted, why didn't the opponents roll for being assault through cover?

Since most of our enemies are "new edition codex" or at least have an option to take assault grenades like Orks, they are fine with the Initiative modifier and have tons of fancy grenades to play with which I don't care much(Our troops're dead almost every time in CC).
But the 2D6 for assault range check really matter, I just watched a batrep by Miniwargaming
http://www.miniwargaming.com/content/orks-vs-tau-waaagh-battle-report-part-14
sure it's not a optimized list and not strategically played, it's just a example provided that no one noticed the SFG make their carriers being in cover when assaulted by others, even they have a Rules You Got Wrong section. Do I over interpreted the SFG rule word "cover"?

As far as I know, it simply gives the XV25:s the Initiative bonus (giving them I:10). As if they had been behind a barricade or likewise.

I found http://www.advancedtautactica.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=17330&hilit=+Stealth+Field+Generator

But I am not convinced by RAW only. It's pretty clear for RAI, otherwise the sentence will make no sense at all and GW should FAQ this out of 5th edition like other 4th edition rules is the codex.

Same argument's been used for the CnC Node.

Currently doesn't do anything. Apparently intentional as it has not been FAQ'd in the last two or three versions that we've seen. SFG does not affect assaults at this point in time.

I've always taken the SFG to provide the cover initiative bonus to the unit equipped with them when being assulted. As the attacker isn't actually moving through cover (assuming that the stealth team isn't in terrain cover itself) there's no difficult/dangerous terrain rolls, but as the XVs/SDTs are still hard to see while they can see the attacker moving in, just as a unit in cover would, so they still count as being in cover and get the initiative bonus like any other unit being assaulted in cover.

As it's not been specifically stated by GW that the SFG no longer affects incoming assaults and our codex very clearly states the SFG giving a modifier to the defending unit it's wrong to assume that it suddenly does nothing.

A Command 'n' Control Node functions only to act as a modifier for the target priority rule which no longer exists - a very different case.

As Mauler already stated: Unless a model is actually moving through terrain in order to assault an enemy unit, there is no need for a Difficult Terrain roll to be made. The SFG does not cause the terrain to become difficult or dangerous. It simply allows the models so equipped to attack first in CC unless assault grenades are available to the attacking unit, in which case the assault will be done according to normal Initiative rating.

SFG therefore does affect things in the current rules, as it has not been changed in any way either by FAQ or by Errata issued by Games Workshop. The Command and Control Node on the other hand was dealt with under a general BRB FAQ question which states:



SFG does not come under this heading.

E.

I hope I don't bring a same old thing to bother all of you with

I will say it's all or nothing.
Because in BRB p.36, under Assaulting Through Cover, the assaulting models Initiative will be lowered to 1 IF they need to take a DiT test or DaT test. that's why Harlequins don't need assault grenades to keep their high I since they have Filp Belts(ignore difficult terrain). If we say assaulting models don't need to take either test for assaulting through/in cover, then they don't even need to bother any penalties.

As I joined this game in 5th edition, I(and everyone) don't need to assume the wording "count as being in cover when assaulted" is a previous edition thing unless the FAQ and ERRATA clarify this(like Priority Test thing).
So why I will suggest the assaulting models need to take the test is because in any circumstances, in 5th edtion, a model(with no special rules helping) assaults through any kinds of covers MUST take a Difficult Terrain Test, no matter the cover is a big building, ruins or just a Razor wire.

And your opponent doesn't need to actually move through any real cover to take the test since we are count as being in cover and in game, "count as" is equal to "actually being". Just like Relentless, when you count as stationary, then you can fire your heavy weapons without physically being stationary.

In conclusion, since the SFG equipped models count as being in cover, then your opponent will need to assault you through cover, so that they need to take a test.

I concur with Duality. The initiative being lowered to 1 is a product of assaulting through cover, as is the DiT test. There's no provision for having just the lower initiative.

If the troops "count as being in cover if they are assaulted", your assaulting into terrain. My way of visualizing it is that the terrain extends just around their base.

Fluff-wise speaking, if your unable to see the enemy cos he's blending in with the terrain, it should make it harder to close in and attack (kinda like the invisible guy in Metal Gear Solid). But many people will argue otherwise that your not "going through" terrain so this is hardly a sure thing.

Duality I see your line of thought but consider this:

Defending model's base is 50% in cover (half is in the ruin half is not). This model is in cover.

The assaulting model moves into base to base with the portion out of cover.

It would not pass through terrain and not be required to take the test. So counting as in cover does not lend itself to an auto test.

Very true, Ambit. I thought of that too, in such a case, the unit will just come out from the cover to engage, and no test/lower ini occurs.

But in your scenario, they count as being in cover when shot at, which i feel is different from "count as being in cover if they are assaulted".

Your argument may very well be correct, but to me, if their still in cover when assaulted (as per the rule), you had to assault 'into' cover.

Yes it does if the situation is like this. But every SFG equipped model is count as being in cover, so I would say even in this scenario, the assaulting model need to take a test because we are 100% in cover unless a non SFG equipped IC is attached to the group and the assaulting model BtB with it.

But I sense you're not talking about this, do I get you wrong?

You got me and your visualization is amazing to think of , you make me feel XV15/25 is way cooler even they still compete with the 3 XV8 slots . I feel like to run a SMT in my army list now.

Cover from shooting and cover from assault is different, which in any situations I can think of, being in cover when assaulted is meant to make your opponent harder to attack you.

Please do not double post.

Being in cover is true whether you're 50% in or 100% in; however taking a test is not required in all instances. As this rule doesn't state anything to the contrary (and doesn't conflict with 5ed rules) it does nothing.

Sorry if you don't want it this way; house rule it otherwise. But there is no rule support for it affecting assault with a vehicle.

Actually, they are very different, Ambit. The rules to which you refer are for cover during Shooting.

Ill give a example how its different. If i'm in the same terrain as you and i shoot at you, under the rules you get no cover. But if i assault you, you get your assault through cover bonus.

Might i add that when you assault a unit partially in cover, one of the reasons they don't get cover is when you assault the part of the unit not in cover, which as Duality points out, every stealth suit counts as being in cover.

The real debate here is whether assaulting "into" cover is the same as assaulting "through" cover. I would argue yes, but i grant that you have good grounds for saying no as well.

To trigger ANY effect during an assault move this condition must be met:

BRB 36


Since 'being in cover' does not confer any sort of terrain type there is no effect. Unless you can find some RAW quote to support your argument, this discussion isn't going anywhere.

In addition, the BRB pg 16 lists numerous terrain types including 'clear terrain'. Being 'in cover' is a shooting term and has to do with LoS NOT terrain.

True, this wont go anywhere. Already acknowledged that. If my opponent tries to argue this in a tournament, i might contest it as well if i think im in danger of losing (even though i think it should be allowed).

Being in cover is a shooting term. But yet we have phrasing that directly contradicts that in "count as being in cover if they are assaulted".

So on one hand, if we assume that this rule does anything at all, it should give a DiT and lower ini. Otherwise, it does nothing like you say.

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:



Then, the writer mindset about 'cover' is clear, which aslo included in Assault Phase. And since you can only gain/in cover by being in difficult terrain yourself or the assaulting model moving through the difficult terrain themselves during Assault phase, 'being in cover when assaulted' does mean we are virtually inside a difficult terrain right? I will agree with you if there is no 'when assaulted' wording in our codex.

Or it's just a logical thought and common sense, because we are in it, then if you come to me that you need to pass through it. So if I'm in cover, then you move through cover.

Duality, with all due respect I think you're splitting hairs here based on the term "being in cover", which for all practical purposes in this case is the exact same as saying "having cover".

The difference is that I can have half a squad break enemy LoS and claim a cover save, yet when assaulted, this will do NOTHING to the attacking unit unless the attacking unit physically moves through difficult+ terrain. The terrain triggers the test [p.36 BRB] - not your wargear.

Furthermore, as TA aptly pointed out previously, there exist conditions in which a unit can assault another unit which is in cover, but do so in sich a ways as to not incur a terrain test and therefore suffer none of the penalties associated with it. This would fit that circumstance; since you cannot define the radius or range to which your "virtual" difficult terrain extends, you're going to have a very difficult time convincing me that I need to roll a test to assault XV25's standing on open ground. You're going to argue that you count as being "in" cover.... I'm going to argue that unless I glue my model to your base, he's not passing through it.

Just to throw a spanner into that previous argument, our codex very much specifies 'when assaulted'.

"Models equipped with stealth field generators count as being in cover if they are assaulted." - direct quote, 4E Tax Codex, p27

And a codex always presides over the rulebook. I don't see the difficulty in working it out - the rulebook says that if a unit assaulting through cover had to take a terrain test they have their initiative reduced to 1 for that round of combat. The mechanism to determine if the unit is in cover for that assault is provided by the terrain test. If the assaulting unit had to take a test then the defenders are in cover for the assault and received the I bonus. If there is no test taken then the unit is not in cover for the purposes of that assault and they receive no benefit.

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:

Normal assault sequence
Assaulting unit moves into base contact with defending unit
Are the defenders in cover = terrain test taken = yes
Assaulting unit receives initiative penalty
Resolve combat, etc

Steathed assault sequence
Assaulting unit moves into base contact with defending unit
Are the defenders in cover = stealth field generator rule = yes
Assaulting unit receives initiative penalty
Resolve combat, etc

GW has not said that the SFG does nothing so it must do something. The above is that something.

Your first and third points have all been fought to a standstill. First, cover in shooting has nothing to do with cover in assault.

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?

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. You can argue that the rule isnt worded well and hence it does nothing (which is perfectly fine and i understand your stand), but it doesnt sit well with me. If anyone can suggest a better alternative way of interpreting the rule, please do share.



I think you misunderstand the main issue here. 1) they are arguing whether you need to roll for difficult terrain to see if they can reach the stealth team. 2) the rules for assaulting through cover do not allow for separation of the difficult terrain test and the lower initiative for the attackers.

Other than that, i agree, yes the SFG should do something. but often because of slightly awkwardly worded rules, people will try to make these rules void.