Cover Discussion v2

So. All rules are "treated as having the benefits of [trait] cover" e.g. [7] and [8].
But what is the 'benefits of Light Cover' (in a literal RAW sense)? From [3], the light cover trait is that you get +1 sv when receiving the benefits of cover, which you gain from terrain e.g. [3]. But you're...not actually receiving the benefits of cover (let alone 'from this terrain feature').

Now, taking the position that 'treated as having the benefits of Light Cover' doesn't do anything unless you're standing on terrain isn't reasonable. So, following from that, how could it apply?
- The rare rule [4] applies for the specific case as well as the unspecified case i.e. you count as in a terrain feature with Light Cover
- The specific case gives the benefit of the trait regardless of whether you're actually receiving the benefit of cover

Case 1:
We take the case of the rare rule [4] discussing the "Benefits of Cover When not in Terrain" isn't just talking about rules that give the "Benefits of Cover When not in Terrain" (as it purely talks about in the rare rule), but rather also applies to any rule that gives the "Benefits of Cover" When not in Terrain. This doesn't feel at all RAW, but I'm not sure how stable RAW is regardless here, soo...not what I'd call a slam dunk against.

This  does create the problem of:
"is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes"
and thus would trigger rules which care about the benefit of cover from a terrain feature e.g. [9]. But honestly just a problem with that rare rule in general (see old GK, where this issue definitely arose), so not sure if that should influence anything. It's not doing this interpretation any favours however: GK could've just been '8e' issues, while 9e definitely appears to care about the distinction.

And...after writing all of this out, realised that the big issue is this wouldn't do anything to MCs etc. So I think that kills this interpretation. However I will leave this all here because I think 2A is close enough for this discussion to have merit still.

Bringing this back to the issue at hand: you get the rules that care about receiving the benefits of cover. Presumably this is because you're considered...actually on a terrain feature for all rules purposes (though note this isn't explicit). If the 'benefit of [trait]' means 'standing on [trait] terrain' (or as e.g. 2A, 'receiving the benefit of cover from [trait] terrain), then how would 'ignoring the benefits of [trait]' work? In the context of this case, I feel it follows that it means that they're treated as not receiving the benefits of cover from [trait] terrain (so no longer is "a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature"). Looking at [1] and [3], this still works in a general sense: you're receiving the benefits of cover from a terrain feature with light cover, thus are "a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" and get +1 to armour sv.


Case 2:
Obviously it works, that you receive e.g. +1 sv. But you're not receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature. I can think of two ways to handle this:
2A:
You could be considered to be receiving the benefits of cover just because (either just for the purposes of that trait or not). Still has the issue of 'this terrain feature', at which point it basically goes back to 1, except maybe not for "all rules purposes". e.g. Considered 'receiving the benefits of cover from a terrain feature with the Light Cover trait'. I think this is essentially 1, except without the whole 'doesn't work with MCs etc' bit. Thus see 1 for discussion.

2B:
Or, in annoying GW fashion, diverse it from the rules concept it is mechanically linked with and named similarly, yet separate from: you get the mechanical advantage associated with said trait, so [1] would more helpfully read something like 'Certain models receive the benefits of cover from some terrain features. The advantage gained depends on the terrain traits that the terrain feature in question has (if it has none, then no advantage is gained).'

This sets things up as two different mechanical concepts: the benefit of cover, and the 'benefit' of [trait]. If you take 'ignoring the benefit of cover' to ignore the former, then it turns off 'natural' benefits of cover, but not things that just hand the 'benefit'. Which is not intuitive and doesn't seem to line up with [5] at all. Alternatively, the rare rule [5] says to ignore the benefits of the traits: so you would remove both the natural and ability-given 'benefits' as it says to do, but would do nothing to the benefit of cover itself.
e.g. From [5] if you "[do] not receive the benefit of cover to its saving throw" then you "ignore all benefits received from terrain traits that improve its saving throw". Or written another way, if you "do not receive the mechanical advantage of cover to saving throws" then you "ignore all mechanical advantage received from terrain traits that improve a model's saving throw".

The follow on is that you don't get any 'benefits of cover' bonuses here (which is...maybe supported by the rare rule [6], which only talks about terrain features, but does clash with e.g. [9] specifically calling out terrain features and maybe the 2nd paragraph of [4]. Alternatively you could take the 2nd paragraph of [4] as applying to change how the rule works, rather than clarifying, which also 'fixes' [9], but not sure how happy I am with that).