Something interesting to consider is, that while unlikely, an infantry unit could claim the benefit from area terrain (such as ruins) and obstacles (such as a barricade). As light cover specifies "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". So if you have 2 instances of terrain giving you the benefit of light cover, you get +2 (+1 for ruins, +1 for barricades).

RAW, there is nothing stopping a unit receiving multiple instances of light cover.

The rules use the wording 'this terrain feature', rather than 'any terrain feature' (so each terrain feature provides the benefit), there is no inherent cap, and there is nothing to either say that the benefits are capped to +1 or that a unit can only recieve benefits from one terrain feature at a time.

I believe that the RAIs should be:

1. 'receiving the benefits of cover from any terrain feature with this trait'

Which would inherently cap light cover to +1 no matter how many sources.

JakeSiren wrote:
Something interesting to consider is, that while unlikely, an infantry unit could claim the benefit from area terrain (such as ruins) and obstacles (such as a barricade). As light cover specifies "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". So if you have 2 instances of terrain giving you the benefit of light cover, you get +2 (+1 for ruins, +1 for barricades).

No it doesn't stack you could receive light cover from baricades and area terrain

It does not matter how many sources you receive the benefit once


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dammit wrote:
RAW, there is nothing stopping a unit receiving multiple instances of light cover.

The rules use the wording 'this terrain feature', rather than 'any terrain feature' (so each terrain feature provides the benefit), there is no inherent cap, and there is nothing to either say that the benefits are capped to +1 or that a unit can only recieve benefits from one terrain feature at a time.

I believe that the RAIs should be:

1. 'receiving the benefits of cover from any terrain feature with this trait'

Which would inherently cap light cover to +1 no matter how many sources.

Except stupidity

E.g a defence line consists of 8 models each confiring light cover if your close enough

I assemble mine in a perfectly rectangle I am now receiving +8 to my sv from 8 instances of light cover # yeah right

The rare rules section is pretty clear in its clarification that rules like stealthy mean that you gain the benefits if cover "even when you are not in cover" this does not stack with cover

Unless you can show me where I am wrong you're agreeing with me.

In saying your answer is stupid and leads to situations that are self evidently stupid providing examples of this createing +8 cover sv's shows that your outcome is wrong.

The argument that if I can't show you where your wrong im agreeing with you is not really an argument I've shown you your arguments output is wrong i don't need to correct your working.

Sure you can argue what you want with respect to the RAW no TO is ever going to back you.

My RAW argument is you can't stack them because no rule gives you permission to stack them. If you can provide a rule directly stateing that you can I will agree with you if not you agree with me

"Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)."

There it is. Thats the rule that lets you stack.

See the different word used here:
"Defensible
If every model in an INFANTRY unit is on or in an Area Terrain feature with this trait, then it can either Hold Steady or it can Set to Defend (see below) when an enemy unit declares a charge against it."

An and this are different words with different meanings.

I've told you my RAI matches yours, but you seem convinced that your RAI is RAW when it isn't.

So we agree that you're agreeing with me.

I agree that, RAW, you can get it more than once as long as it's coming from multiple sources (isn't there a rule that the same ability can't stack? That might negate getting it from two pieces of terrain, but terrain + stealthy would still work).

U02dah4 wrote:
In saying your answer is stupid and leads to situations that are self evidently stupid providing examples of this createing +8 cover sv's shows that your outcome is wrong.

Unfortunately, argumentum ad absurdum doesn't work here, because sometimes GW's rules lead to stupid outcomes.

While I agree that the benefit SHOULDN'T stack, we're discussing here whether or not it DOES.

U02dah4 wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:
Something interesting to consider is, that while unlikely, an infantry unit could claim the benefit from area terrain (such as ruins) and obstacles (such as a barricade). As light cover specifies "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". So if you have 2 instances of terrain giving you the benefit of light cover, you get +2 (+1 for ruins, +1 for barricades).

No it doesn't stack you could receive light cover from baricades and area terrain

It does not matter how many sources you receive the benefit once

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)."


Do you have a rules reference stating that benefits of cover don't stack? Because "stealthy" is not the same "terrain feature" giving the benefit as the light ruins you are in.

dammit wrote:
"Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)."

There it is. Thats the rule that lets you stack.

See the different word used here:
"Defensible
If every model in an INFANTRY unit is on or in an Area Terrain feature with this trait, then it can either Hold Steady or it can Set to Defend (see below) when an enemy unit declares a charge against it."

An and this are different words with different meanings.

I've told you my RAI matches yours, but you seem convinced that your RAI is RAW when it isn't.

So we agree that you're agreeing with me.

You have shown me what a model benefitting from light cover benefits from

I concead that terrain grants the light cover rule

You have not shown me that a model can benefit from more than one instance of the light cover rule


In essence a model with stealthy = light cover
a model within terrain with the light cover rule has light cover

We know thanks to the rare rules section these can't overlap stealthy type rules give light cover "even if the model is not in terrain"

A model that would benefit from light cover from multiple sources from terrain still only benefits from light cover and when you apply that rule it does what it says in that quote

You have shown nothing that says otherwise and the onus iof proof s on the player that says something does something not on the one saying theirs no evidence of that

U02dah4 wrote:
You have shown me what a model benefitting from light cover benefits from

I concead that terrain grants the light cover rule

You have not shown me that a model can benefit from more than one instance of the light cover rule

"Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)."

Emphasis mine. This seems to suggest that, as long as the benefits of cover come from different terrain features, the benefits of cover stack.

EDIT: Which would also neatly defang the Imperial Defence Line problem, since that's one terrain feature, though it is multiple models.

Congratulations your argument is that stealthy and all their ilk does nothing because their not related to a terrain feature

You also haven't shown that you can benefit from more than one instance of light cover just that light cover from terrain only benefits the models receiving cover from that terrain not the whole unit if you read the whole clause and not 3 cherry picked words out of sequence.

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature,"

This is important when resolving light cover from obstacles

U02dah4 wrote:
Congratulations your argument is that stealthy and all their ilk does nothing because their not related to a terrain feature

I don't... think that's true? Since the special rule for Stealthy (and I presume its ilk) specifically states it grants the benefits of light cover. Saying terrain features grant Light Cover doesn't mean nothing else does, just that they do.

You also haven't shown that you can benefit from more than one instance of light cover just that light cover from terrain only benefits the models receiving cover from that terrain not the whole unit if you read the whole clause and not 3 cherry picked words out of sequence.

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature,"

This is important when resolving light cover from obstacles

It's the "THIS" terrain feature that implies, but does not state, that multiple terrain features can grant multiple benefits of cover. I can honestly see it either way.

As a side note, your tone is coming off as hostile - I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just arguing what I think the rules say. Just a point to consider.

 Octopoid wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Congratulations your argument is that stealthy and all their ilk does nothing because their not related to a terrain feature

I don't... think that's true? Since the special rule for Stealthy (and I presume its ilk) specifically states it grants the benefits of light cover. Saying terrain features grant Light Cover doesn't mean nothing else does, just that they do.

You also haven't shown that you can benefit from more than one instance of light cover just that light cover from terrain only benefits the models receiving cover from that terrain not the whole unit if you read the whole clause and not 3 cherry picked words out of sequence.

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature,"

This is important when resolving light cover from obstacles

It's the "THIS" terrain feature that implies, but does not state, that multiple terrain features can grant multiple benefits of cover. I can honestly see it either way.

As a side note, your tone is coming off as hostile - I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just arguing what I think the rules say. Just a point to consider.

Quote 1 - Its obviously not true - which was my point - with respect to criticising the reasoning of that argument because it would be true were that reasoning correct.

Quote 2 The "this" implies nothing of the sort it is a reference to the model being required to be near the terrain feature to benefit excluding models in the same unit a distance away from the feature. It makes no reference to the rule stacking.

You can't take one word in isolation and infer multiple sentences of unspecified text from it - it doesnt work for "this" anymore than it does for "anywhere" in the last terrain thread

I thought you couldn't place two pieces of terrain within 9" of another piece? If you are saying a unit could be in multiple pieces of terrain, then you are wrong. Unless that unit is a 40 man blob of Conscripts, which I could see stretching 9 inches, however, you would:

1. be out of coherency,
2. Only certain models would receive the benefit of specific cover.

Unless there is a model that adds +1 to cover rolls for being IN COVER, I don't see the argument here...?

U02dah4 wrote:

 Octopoid wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Congratulations your argument is that stealthy and all their ilk does nothing because their not related to a terrain feature

I don't... think that's true? Since the special rule for Stealthy (and I presume its ilk) specifically states it grants the benefits of light cover. Saying terrain features grant Light Cover doesn't mean nothing else does, just that they do.

You also haven't shown that you can benefit from more than one instance of light cover just that light cover from terrain only benefits the models receiving cover from that terrain not the whole unit if you read the whole clause and not 3 cherry picked words out of sequence.

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature,"

This is important when resolving light cover from obstacles

It's the "THIS" terrain feature that implies, but does not state, that multiple terrain features can grant multiple benefits of cover. I can honestly see it either way.

As a side note, your tone is coming off as hostile - I'm not trying to be antagonistic, I'm just arguing what I think the rules say. Just a point to consider.

Quote 1 - Its obviously not true - which was my point - with respect to criticising the reasoning of that argument because it would be true were that reasoning correct.

Quote 2 The "this" implies nothing of the sort it is a reference to the model being required to be near the terrain feature to benefit excluding models in the same unit a distance away from the feature. It makes no reference to the rule stacking.

You can't take one word in isolation and infer multiple sentences of unspecified text from it - it doesnt work for "this" anymore than it does for "anywhere" in the last terrain thread

Okay. Have a nice day.

FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
I thought you couldn't place two pieces of terrain within 9" of another piece? If you are saying a unit could be in multiple pieces of terrain, then you are wrong. Unless that unit is a 40 man blob of Conscripts, which I could see stretching 9 inches, however, you would:

1. be out of coherency,
2. Only certain models would receive the benefit of specific cover.

Unless there is a model that adds +1 to cover rolls for being IN COVER, I don't see the argument here...?

That rule refers to self placed terrain purchased with points not terrain on a board to begin with so technically it could happen if you had neutral obstacles on the verge of area terrain but that's the only instance as area terrain cannot be on area terrain

I've also got in my head its 3"but I would have to check

U02dah4 wrote:
Congratulations your argument is that stealthy and all their ilk does nothing because their not related to a terrain feature

You also haven't shown that you can benefit from more than one instance of light cover just that light cover from terrain only benefits the models receiving cover from that terrain not the whole unit if you read the whole clause and not 3 cherry picked words out of sequence.

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature,"

This is important when resolving light cover from obstacles

It indicates that that +1 benefit from light cover is specific to each source of the benefit of the cover. Stealthy is not the same source as being in ruins.

Sorry that you think people are "cherry picking"words when the phrase is actually important to the rule itself.

It only does so if the assumption is correct that you can stack light cover. If that is not correct then it does no such thing. "This" doesn't state one way or another. As it is valid for either interpretation.

Stealthy doesn't stack with being a ruin thats evidenced in the rare rules section where there is a clarification reguarding such rules. Meaning that they " gain the benefits of cover even if not in terrain" no reference to stacking

U02dah4 wrote:
It only does so if the assumption is correct that you can stack light cover. If that is not correct then it does no such thing. "This" doesn't state one way or another. As it is valid for either interpretation.

Stealthy doesn't stack with being a ruin thats evidenced in the rare rules section where there is a clarification reguarding such rules. Meaning that they " gain the benefits of cover even if not in terrain" no reference to stacking

Please quote the evidence in the rare rules section. (It's a serious request, not trying to be snarky. If there's a rule that can put this whole stacking thing to bed, the better off we all are seeing the rule.)

"Sometimes a rule will tell you a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even when they are not on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the light cover terrain trait (pg263) for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule,add 1 to the saving throw against this rule (invulnerable saves are not effected)

If a model or unit has a rule that only applies whilst it is receiving the benefits of cover then this rule will apply while that model or unit is under the effects of any rule that states it gains the benefit of cover whether or not they are entirely on or within a terrain feature"

Their is no mention of stacking in the clarification especially in the second part where it refers to benefitting from any rule where as if those rules could stack you would expect wording to that effect

U02dah4 wrote:
" gain the benefits of cover even if not in terrain"

That doesn't specify one way or another whether the benefits of cover stack if received from multiple sources. If there is something stating, "Cover bonuses do not stack," please quote that. If not, we may have to accept that this is nebulous.

U02dah4 wrote:
" gain the benefits of cover even if not in terrain"

How is that evidence that they don't stack? The rule for cover talks about specific terrain pieces, which indicates that if there's a way to have 2 pieces give the benefit of cover they would stack. There would need to be a rule that specifically says that bonuses of the same type in general don't stack, or a rule specifically stating that cover bonuses don't stack. What you quoted doesn't match up with either of those requirements.

You need to show you can stack ambiguous means you have no permission to do so as the default is you can't do something unless a rule gives you permission.

Try reading the full quote two back

Isn't it just common sense? The rule doesn't say +1 to save, it says gains light cover. Light cover is a +1 to your save. Having access to light cover a million times is still only light cover, which is still only +1

That's my interpretation anyway. I'm not sure if it even needs to be clarified

MODIFYING CHARACTERISTICS
Many rules modify the characteristics of models and weapons.
All modifiers to a characteristic are cumulative; you must
apply division modifiers before applying multiplication
modifiers, and before applying addition and then subtraction
modifiers.

This shows that modifiers can stack, and are cumulative. Now, please show that cover bonuses explicitly state they do not stack.

Their is no question that modifiers can stack its not relevant modifiers can

The question is can light cover stack

Yes light cover leads to a modifier and yes if light cover can stack the modifiers would therefore stack

Noone has shown a rule stateing light cover can stack none of the clarification makes reference to stacking.

U02dah4 wrote:
Their is no question that modifiers can stack its not relevant modifiers can

The question is can light cover stack

Yes light cover leads to a modifier and yes if light cover can stack the modifiers would therefore stack

Noone has shown a rule stateing light cover can stack none of the clarification makes reference to stacking.

We don't need an explicit rule stating light cover can stack, since we have the general rule that modifiers can stack. What we NEED for clarity is something stating the benefits of cover DON'T stack. This isn't a permissive ruleset issue, since we have permission to stack. We need limits on what we can or cannot stack.

Let's assume light cover does stack for the sake of argument. It's still just light cover though, right? And Light cover is, explicitly, +1 to armour saves.

Cynista wrote:
Let's assume light cover does stack for the sake of argument. It's still just light cover though, right? And Light cover is, explicitly, +1 to armour saves.

Well, technically, we're discussing the benefit of light cover, and whether or not that stacks, because a model could have the benefit of light cover by being in light cover, and also the benefit of light cover by having the Stealth special rule.

Do they stack? I lean toward "no," but I'm looking for something in the rules that says as much.

Cynista wrote:
Let's assume light cover does stack for the sake of argument. It's still just light cover though, right? And Light cover is, explicitly, +1 to armour saves.

If it stacks, then it's +1 for each one stacking.

 Octopoid wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Their is no question that modifiers can stack its not relevant modifiers can

The question is can light cover stack

Yes light cover leads to a modifier and yes if light cover can stack the modifiers would therefore stack

Noone has shown a rule stateing light cover can stack none of the clarification makes reference to stacking.

We don't need an explicit rule stating light cover can stack, since we have the general rule that modifiers can stack. What we NEED for clarity is something stating the benefits of cover DON'T stack. This isn't a permissive ruleset issue, since we have permission to stack. We need limits on what we can or cannot stack.

Light cover is not a modifier it is therefore not granted permission to stack by that rule

Light cover causes a modifier their is a difference

You have not shown permission to stack so we do not need a rule stateing cover doesnt stack until you produce one


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Let's assume light cover does stack for the sake of argument. It's still just light cover though, right? And Light cover is, explicitly, +1 to armour saves.

If it stacks, then it's +1 for each one stacking.

Agreed. However you have to prove the if. Should you not do so he is correct and no matter how many instances you benefit once

 doctortom wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Let's assume light cover does stack for the sake of argument. It's still just light cover though, right? And Light cover is, explicitly, +1 to armour saves.

If it stacks, then it's +1 for each one stacking.

But why? My interpretation is that no amount of light cover can infer a greater benefit than is stated in the light cover rule. Because you're still only gaining light cover, regardless of how many times you have gained it. I know it's semantics, but isn't that the point

You are correct unless they prove it can stack

Cynista wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

Cynista wrote:
Let's assume light cover does stack for the sake of argument. It's still just light cover though, right? And Light cover is, explicitly, +1 to armour saves.

If it stacks, then it's +1 for each one stacking.

But why? My interpretation is that no amount of light cover can infer a greater benefit than is stated in the light cover rule. Because you're still only gaining light cover, regardless of how many times you have gained it. I know it's semantics, but isn't that the point

That's kind of what the discussion is about. Being in Light Cover (meaning your model is located within terrain designated as Light Cover) grants a +1 bonus to armour saves. Having the Stealth special rule grants the benefit of being in Light Cover, which is a +1 bonus to armour saves. I can see interpretations either way; either they're two modifiers from two different rules, and thus they stack, or they're not - they just both grant the condition "in Light Cover" - and thus do not.

Light cover does not modify the save characteristic, so the “modifying characteristics” rule does not apply. Light cover provides a +1 to save rolls. The distinction is important since modifying the save characteristic leads to unintended consequences. The original rules for Bladeguard Veterans were Errata’d because of this.

Aash wrote:
Light cover does not modify the save characteristic, so the “modifying characteristics” rule does not apply. Light cover provides a +1 to save rolls. The distinction is important since modifying the save characteristic leads to unintended consequences. The original rules for Bladeguard Veterans were Errata’d because of this.

Fair point.

So, it's a bonus to a roll for being in Light Cover. Also a bonus to a roll for having Stealth, which treats you as in Light Cover. Do we have rules for bonuses stacking?

We have rules that some don't such as FNP their is no blanket ruling for all bonuses

U02dah4 wrote:
We have rules that some don't such as FNP

There's a specific rule saying you can't stack FNP's though, that you can only use one.

I suppose I just thought of that as the exception to the general rule that they don't stack unless a rule tells you that they do. Either way the accurate answer is theirs no blanket ruling

You would think a unit either receives the Benefits of Cover or doesn't regardless of the number of ways it might be gaining that advantage. A true or false test rather than a how many times test.

This appears to be a rule writing oversight on GW's part in the part of the Stealthy rule. Most such rules stipulate the unit gains the benefit of cover when not in terrain. Stealthy's failure to state that leads to the question of whether they get the benefits twice.

Its not really a hard thing to figure out.


Does this unit benefit from light cover? Yes


What does light cover grant? +1 save




The unit can have Light cover 3-99 times, but only gets +1 to save.


Modifiers stack, light cover does not. You cant say I have 10 light covers for +10 to save.
You can say, I benefit from light cover 10 times so I get the benefit of light cover for +1 save.


If you get other sources of +1 to your saving throw (such as the Take Cover stratagem) or various psychic buffs, they stack since they are different.

 Eihnlazer wrote:
Its not really a hard thing to figure out.


Does this unit benefit from light cover? Yes


What does light cover grant? +1 save




The unit can have Light cover 3-99 times, but only gets +1 to save.


Modifiers stack, light cover does not. You cant say I have 10 light covers for +10 to save.
You can say, I benefit from light cover 10 times so I get the benefit of light cover for +1 save.


If you get other sources of +1 to your saving throw (such as the Take Cover stratagem) or various psychic buffs, they stack since they are different.

That's an entirely too simplistic view and not consistant with the rules.

Let's take an example of Ruins (area terrain, scalable, breachable, light cover, defensible, and obscuring), and barricades (obstacles, defence line, light cover, heavy cover, defensible, unstable position, and difficult ground).

On page 260 of BRB, we have the dot point "Some models can gain the benefits of cover from some terrain features".

Ok, so we have two types of terrain in our example. For area terrain Infantry models receive the benefits of cover if they are in it. For obstacles infantry receive the benefits of cover while within 3" (with some exceptions).

For this discussion I am assuming the model meets the eligibility requirements from both the ruins and the barricade.

So, an enemy unit shoots at your model and we determine what effects the terrain has. Let us check first the barricades, so the only one that affects the model is light cover, so "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature (the barricades), add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". Ok, awesome, we add +1. Now, let us check what the ruins do for us. So they are obscuring, but we are inside it, so we don't get the benefit from that. They are also light cover, so "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature (the ruins), add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". Ok, awesome, we add +1.

Now we have 2 instances of +1 to our saving throw for a net +2 to our armour save.

No you have to sources of light cover and light cover gives +1 no matter how many sources

U02dah4 wrote:
No you have to sources of light cover and light cover gives +1 no matter how many sources

Back up your claim. I walked through and quoted the rules explaining how you are permitted to get +2 to your armour save if you are benefiting from cover from two different terrain pieces. Just saying "No" is lazy.

You have only shown that modifiers can stack and light cover can be received from multiple sources you have shown no rule stateing that light cover can stack and until you do the default is you can't do something unless a rule gives you permission to do so

Everything you wrote is based on the assumption it can stack and unless you provide a quote showing that the assumption is true your argument is wrong

No is lazy but until you address the only salient point there is no question to answer and you cannot address that point because their is no such rule

You have only shown that modifiers can stack and light cover can be received from multiple sources you have shown no rule stateing that light cover can stack and until you do the default is you can't do something unless a rule gives you permission to do so

Right, and the rules give you permission to add +1 to your saving throw for being within 3" of an Obstacle that offers Light Cover, and also to add +1 to your saving throw for being within a piece of Area Terrain that offers Light Cover. There are no rules that tell you not to follow the instructions in either case in these circumstances so you do not.

In the same way that we do not need an explicit rule to tell us that a model that Advanced and is firing an Assault weapon at a target benefitting from Dense cover suffers a -2 penalty to Hit(although only -1 of that may apply). There is not a rule that tells us to "stack" those two modifiers and yet, because of what the actual rules are we must.

No the rules for obstacles and the rules for area terrain give you light cover

having light cover gives you +1 to the saving throw

No where does it say light cover can stack

The reason dense cover and assault -1 to hit stack (with final hit capped at +-1) is because their is an explicit rule that covers hit roll stacking - which is what you need - you quote that you don't need an explicit rule then utilise a specific rule lol (pg18 core rules hit roll subheading)

U02dah4 wrote:
You have only shown that modifiers can stack and light cover can be received from multiple sources you have shown no rule stateing that light cover can stack and until you do the default is you can't do something unless a rule gives you permission to do so

Everything you wrote is based on the assumption it can stack and unless you provide a quote showing that the assumption is true your argument is wrong

No is lazy but until you address the only salient point there is no question to answer and you cannot address that point because their is no such rule

No, I am following what is written in the permissive ruleset as I outline in my previous post. Let me spell it out.

Your normal saving throw is d6.

Lets start with this one.
"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature (the barricades), add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack"

The barricades tell you to add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack. So your saving throw becomes d6 + 1


"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature (the ruins), add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack"

Then you have the ruins, which also tell you to add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack. So your saving throw becomes d6 + 1 + 1

The rules have granted the permission. You insist they don't stack, but you have failed to quote any such restriction.

The baricades and terrain tell you that you benefit from cover and according to the light cover rule a unit benefitting from light cover gives you +1

the barricades explicitly do not say they give you +1sv that is a lie if they said that it would stack they do not they say they give you the benefits of cover

unless you show otherwise with a rule stateing that it can stack- it does not matter how many sources of cover you have when you resolve the saving throw you apply the light cover rule which gives you +1sv not +1sv per source of cover

Your skipping steps to ignore the raw and make your answer work which only proves your answer wrong and again have not addressed the salient point i have quoted the restriction repeatedly- no rule gives you permission to do it so you can't do it.

Your inability to quote a rule giving you permission is proof the rule does not exist.

U02dah4 wrote:
The baricades and terrain tell you that you benefit from cover and according to the light cover rule a unit benefitting from light cover gives you +1

the barricades explicitly do not say they give you +1sv that is a lie if they said that it would stack they do not they say they give you the benefits of cover

unless you show otherwise with a rule stateing that it can stack- it does not matter how many sources of cover you have when you resolve the saving throw you apply the light cover rule which gives you +1sv not +1sv per source of cover

Your skipping steps to ignore the raw and make your answer work which only proves your answer wrong and again have not addressed the salient point i have quoted the restriction repeatedly- no rule gives you permission to do it so you can't do it.

Your inability to quote a rule giving you permission is proof the rule does not exist.

Citation needed. Which steps to you think I'm ignoring? Here is my initial explainer post with rule quotes so you can enlighten the rest of us.

The part your skipping is when you outright LIE and state that "barricades tell you to add 1 to the saving throw" they explicitly do not they tell you that they tell you "receive the benefits of cover"

I cannot provide a citation stateing that there is no rule giving you permission to stack cover saves as that would be proving a negative which is impossible.

I however do not need to because the absence of such a citation provided by you is proof that you are wrong

You cannot do something you don't have permission to do and no citation is needed for that - it is the premise that all games work under

so provide a direct citation giving you permission to stack cover or anything else you say is redundant and just proves you wrong

Entertainingly your link takes you to a very nice description of how it works

" Eihnlazer wrote:
Its not really a hard thing to figure out.


Does this unit benefit from light cover? Yes


What does light cover grant? +1 save




The unit can have Light cover 3-99 times, but only gets +1 to save.


Modifiers stack, light cover does not. You cant say I have 10 light covers for +10 to save.
You can say, I benefit from light cover 10 times so I get the benefit of light cover for +1 save.


If you get other sources of +1 to your saving throw (such as the Take Cover stratagem) or various psychic buffs, they stack since they are different."

no rule you have quoted contradicts this explanation

U02dah4 wrote:
The part your skipping is when you outright LIE

I am discussing in good faith and don't appreciate the accusation. I consider this as bad faith on your behalf. I will address the rest of what you have said for the benefit of others.

U02dah4 wrote:
The part your skipping is when you outright LIE and state that "barricades tell you to add 1 to the saving throw" they explicitly do not they tell you that they tell you "receive the benefits of cover"

I cannot provide a citation stateing that there is no rule giving you permission to stack cover saves as that would be proving a negative which is impossible.

I however do not need to because the absence of such a citation provided by you is proof that you are wrong

You cannot do something you don't have permission to do and no citation is needed for that - it is the premise that all games work under

so provide a direct citation giving you permission to stack cover or anything else you say is redundant and just proves you wrong

Sorry for short handing for ease of comprehension.

At the start of the game you and your opponent build the battlefield and assign traits to each terrain piece. I used Barricades and Ruins as defined in the BRB.

Barricades have the Obstacle terrain category. "An Infantry, Beast, or Swarm model receives the benefits of cover from an obstacle while it is within 3" of that terrain feature...". So even before we determine what these benefits are, we know that a infantry unit within 3" of a Barricade will be getting the benefit of cover from that Barricade. To know how this affects the model, we need to look at the terrain traits of that Barricade. One of the interesting things about terrain traits is that you don't need to be receiving the benefit of cover for the terrain traits to have an effect. Obscuring is a good example of this. But in this case the barricades have the terrain trait "Light Cover" (among others). Light cover reads "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature (the barricades), add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". This means our saving throw goes from d6 to d6 + 1.

Now let's look at what happens when we are interacting with a second piece of terrain at the same time, in this case Ruins.

Ruins have the Area terrain category. "Infantry, Beast, or Swarm models receive the benefits of cover from Area Terrain features while they are within it". So even before we determine what these benefits are, we know that a infantry unit on Area Terrain will be getting the benefit of cover from that Ruin. To know how this affects the model, we need to look at the terrain traits of that Ruin. But in this case the ruins have the terrain trait "Light Cover" (among others). Light cover reads "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature (the ruins), add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack". This means our saving throw goes from d6 + 1 to d6 + 1 + 1.

So again you have established that you can receive light cover from more than one source and again you have skipped a step stateing that you can add them together and provided no quote showing you can stack cover

Since you provided no quote showing you can stack cover your argument proved you couldn't

Obstical = light cover ruin = light cover obstacles + ruin = two sources of light cover

By your own quote you don't check cover till your wounded at that point if you have light cover then you get +1 to your sv the rule makes no mention of stacking or +1 sv per source of cover


No rule has been cited showing light cover can stack so highlighting more than one source can providing it is not relevent no one contests this. citing than modifiers can be added together is not relevent modifiers can their is a rule that says so no one contests this.

Either you can stack light cover via explicit rule or you can't their is no grey - provide the rule and we except your position state anything else and your explanation is wrong.

U02dah4 wrote:
So again you have established that you can receive light cover from more than one source and again you have skipped a step stateing that you can add them together and provided no quote showing you can stack cover

Since you provided no quote showing you can stack cover your argument proved you couldn't

No, I haven't skipped a step. I quoted the rules as is. A model receives the benefits of cover from a terrain piece. What that means depends on the traits the terrain piece has, and for the light cover trait it applies per piece. I've shown you the permission. I don't need any further permissions beyond that.

Light cover is not a trait that gets applied to a model or unit.

Agaib you lie. Provide a citation explicitly stateing that it applies per peice.

Thats all you have to do

All you have provided is evidence that each piece of terrain provides you light cover

Not that applies per piece since you have not provided that just stated it and it goes to the crux of the argument you have proved yourself wrong

U02dah4 wrote:
Agaib you lie. Provide a citation explicitly stateing that it applies per peice.

Thats all you have to do

BRB - Light Cover wrote:When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack

Highlighted it for you.

So if I have 2 pieces with the light cover each one provides +1 to the save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, to help make it painfully clear

"When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack"
So if I'm receiving the benefits of cover from barricades, and the benefits of cover from ruins, I get +1 from the barricades, and +1 from the ruins.

Again you have proved that a model benefitting from light cover gets +1sv

You have not provided a rule stateing that it stacks

Only a rule that the cover applies to the model receiving the benefit of cover fron the terrain not the unit. Indeed many of the sources of cover do not come from a terrain feature and that this is checked after a modal has been wounded

1) Does the unit have light cover rule

2) if yes has a modal been wounded

3) is the particular modal benefitting from it via the terrain feature if so +1tosv

U02dah4 wrote:
Again you have proved that a model benefitting from light cover gets +1sv

You have not provided a rule stateing that it stacks

Only a rule that the cover applies to the model receiving the benefit of cover fron the terrain not the unit. Indeed many of the sources of cover do not come from a terrain feature

Why would I want to try and prove that? As I said before "Light cover is not a trait that gets applied to a model or unit."

I get that you can't find fault with what I posted, but it's poor form to straw man like that.

I don't know its all you have proved and i keep telling you its not relevant

I have not straw manned anything im not sure you understand what that means and throwing statements incorrectly just makes you sound stupid.. the only weak argument here is yours because you keep ignoreing the step you need to prove

I'll try again


You have proved

1) Does the unit have light cover rule

2) if yes has a modal been wounded

3) is the particular modal benefitting from it via the terrain feature if so +1tosv

What you need to prove is


1) Does the unit have light cover rule

1A) for each instance of the light cover rule

2) if yes has a modal been wounded

3) is the particular modal benefitting from it via the terrain feature if so +1tosv

I have robustly proven you wrong and you have no answer to 1A nothing you have stated proves it. All you have proved is 1 2 and 3 and until you prove 1A your argument has no case

How can you have two pieces of cover within 9 inches of each other?

Stealthy trait + ruin would be sufficient

U02dah4 wrote:
I have not straw manned anything im not sure you understand what that means


You have proved

1) Does the unit have light cover rule

2) if yes has a modal been wounded

3) is the particular modal benefitting from it via the terrain feature if so +1tosv

What you need to prove is


1) Does the unit have light cover rule

1A) for each instance of the light cover rule

2) if yes has a modal been wounded

3) is the particular modal benefitting from it via the terrain feature if so +1tosv

If those are the questions you are asking then I think you need to read the rules. Your understanding is flawed - terrain never gives a unit the light cover rule. That's a trait of the terrain.

Now that is a strawman

Terrain traits are rules

Rules that are expressly stated to effect units

No technically those rules do not normally sit on the datasheet they sit on the terrain but it is not relevant the impact is on the unit impacted by the light cover rule regardless of its source stealthy, ruin, or obstacle and yes stealthy does sit on the unit

When it comes to resolution if you have not proved 1A you only get +1SV

Since you have not proved 1A or provided anybl evidence of it you have no argument

This is why you strawman

U02dah4 wrote:
Now that is a strawman

Terrain traits are rules

Rules that are expressly stated to effect units

No technically those rules do not sit on the datasheet they sit on the terrain but it is not relevant the impact is on the unit impacted by the light cover rule regardless of its source stealthy, ruin, or obstacle and yes stealthy does sit on the unit

When it comes to resolution if you have not proved 1A you only get +1SV you have not proved 1A proving you wrong

No, it is very important.

Terrain A gives +1 to armour save roll if the unit is getting the benefit of cover from it (and specifically it).
Terrain B gives +1 to armour save roll if the unit is getting the benefit of cover from it (and specifically it).

That's the rules for each terrain piece, not the unit affected by it.

No terrain states unit "receives benefit of light cover"

The Light cover rule gives +1 to sv if your modal has been wounded and is receiving the benefit of the terrain

It would only do what you say if light cover can stack. you have not shown this. stateing that it occurs for each peice is a circular argument predicated on the assumption it stacks and you have not proven that assumption


You can make the circular argument all you want your wrong each time till you prove the assumption.



You also realise that this is not a rare thing it is a regular tournament situation that stealthy type rules interact with terrain and it is always resolved the same way and not in your arguments favour. you can of course keep maintaining that all the organised events get it wrong and that you are right because you magically know that your assumptions are right and don't need to evidence them and can just skip to the stacking modifiers but you won't convince the majority of players to change what they currently do without proof given this is something that is resolved ubiquitously to not stack

U02dah4 wrote:
No terrain states unit receives benefit of light cover rule

I'm glad we agree on this item.

U02dah4 wrote:
Light cover rule gives +1 to sv

No it doesn't, terrain doesn't have a save characteristic.

U02dah4 wrote:
It would only do what you say if light cover can stack. you have not shown this. stateing that it occurs for each peice is a circular argument predicated on the assumption it stacks and you have not proven that assumption

Why would I need to prove light cover stacks? It wouldn't make sense to have barricades to have the light cover trait twice.

But you know what does stack? The effects of light cover - which is +1 to a units saving roll.

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Light cover rule gives +1 to sv

No it doesn't, terrain doesn't have a save characteristic.

What does the terrain not having a save characteristic have to do with anything?

Light Cover rules in the BRB wrote:
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack

Light cover gives +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover"

Why are you talking about the terrain not having a save characteristic? it is nonsensical.

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Light cover rule gives +1 to sv

No it doesn't, terrain doesn't have a save characteristic.

What does the terrain not having a save characteristic have to do with anything?

Light Cover rules in the BRB wrote:
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack

Light cover gives +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover"

Why are you talking about the terrain not having a save characteristic? it is nonsensical.

Because what U02dah4 said was nonsense and incorrect. The rule "light cover" is a terrain trait. Him claiming that it gives +1 to sv is nonsense because terrain doesn't have a save value. So I was pointing that out.

Also, to be clear, light cover does not give +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover", rather the wording is +1 to the saving roll, a subtle, but important distinction.

JakeSiren wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Light cover rule gives +1 to sv

No it doesn't, terrain doesn't have a save characteristic.

What does the terrain not having a save characteristic have to do with anything?

Light Cover rules in the BRB wrote:
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack

Light cover gives +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover"

Why are you talking about the terrain not having a save characteristic? it is nonsensical.

Because what U02dah4 said was nonsense and incorrect. The rule "light cover" is a terrain trait. Him claiming that it gives +1 to sv is nonsense because terrain doesn't have a save value. So I was pointing that out.

Also, to be clear, light cover does not give +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover", rather the wording is +1 to the saving roll, a subtle, but important distinction.

Except he said "Light cover rule gives +1 to sv" which, as I provided a quote for, that is exactly what the Light cover rule does. It gives +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover" (Saying +1 to the SV is shorthand for +1 to the SV roll)

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

Spoiler:

 DeathReaper wrote:

JakeSiren wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Light cover rule gives +1 to sv

No it doesn't, terrain doesn't have a save characteristic.

What does the terrain not having a save characteristic have to do with anything?

Light Cover rules in the BRB wrote:
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack

Light cover gives +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover"

Why are you talking about the terrain not having a save characteristic? it is nonsensical.

Because what U02dah4 said was nonsense and incorrect. The rule "light cover" is a terrain trait. Him claiming that it gives +1 to sv is nonsense because terrain doesn't have a save value. So I was pointing that out.

Also, to be clear, light cover does not give +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover", rather the wording is +1 to the saving roll, a subtle, but important distinction.

Except he said "Light cover rule gives +1 to sv" which, as I provided a quote for, that is exactly what the Light cover rule does. It gives +1 to the SV of a "model that is receiving the benefits of cover" (Saying +1 to the SV is shorthand for +1 to the SV roll)

The shorthand is incorrect then. A simple example would be grav, which cares about the save value. A unit with a 4+ armour doesn't suddenly get hurt more because they are in cover. So no, that is not exactly what the Light cover rule does.

And the version of the post currently up by U02dah4 has been edited 6 times. The version I read and responded to is what I had quoted - I just split it up for convenience of response. If U02dah4 needs to edit their posts that many times while making substantial changes, then maybe they should slow down and think about what they are posting first rather than writing nonsense.

It is not incorrect, it is just normal parlance.

People say +1 to SV when they mean +1 to the Sv roll. This is because very little actually adds a +1 to the Sv value of a unit.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not incorrect, it is just normal parlance.

People say +1 to SV when they mean +1 to the Sv roll. This is because very little actually adds a +1 to the Sv value of a unit.

I'll accept that, but I think in a rules discussion we shouldn't be taking shortcuts like this that could be misunderstood.

You are deliberately misunderstanding to avoid that you cannot address the only salient point

U02dah4 wrote:
You are deliberately misunderstanding to avoid that you cannot address the only salient point

And you haven't provided any rules citation that says you can't stack the +1 bonus from multiple sources of cover. If I'm in a position to claim the light cover bonus twice, which rule, specifically, prevents me from getting +2 to my save?

I don't need to. No one has provided a citation saying that you can and until you do the default is you can't do something you don't have permission to do. You can show that more than one source is granting you light cover noone has shown you have permission to benefit from light cover rule more than once only that if you could you could stack modifiers - its the middle step between those two that is Crucial

It is not possible to provide a citation proving that no such citation exists. I mean I could quote the entirety of the rules but that would be a rather large quote. Instead I take it as sufficient evidence that it does not because noone has posted it and if it existed someone would have

Provide such a citation i accept your position as correct the absence of such a citation proves your position wrong their is no middle ground here.

How about we all agree this is muddy has heck and that either of you could be right? GW is notoriously bad at technical writing, so even as they attempt to get better we end up with messy things like this. We are not sure if 'benefits of cover' are meant to be true/false or additive.

Its not muddy at all its black and white either a rule exists allowing you to stack cover or it doesn't

It doesn't as noone has produced one

Intention is not relevant

U02dah4 wrote:

The reason dense cover and assault -1 to hit stack (with final hit capped at +-1) is because their is an explicit rule that covers hit roll stacking - which is what you need - you quote that you don't need an explicit rule then utilise a specific rule lol (pg18 core rules hit roll subheading)

This section?

1. HIT ROLL
When a model makes an attack, make one hit roll for that attack by rolling one D6. If the result of the hit roll is equal to or greater than the attacking model’s Ballistic Skill (BS) characteristic (if the attack is being made with a ranged weapon) or its Weapon Skill (WS) characteristic (if the attack is being made with a melee weapon), then that attack scores one hit against the target unit. If not, the attack fails and the attack sequence ends.

If an attack is made with a weapon that has an ability that says it ‘automatically hits the target’, no hit roll is made – that attack simply scores one hit on the target unit. An unmodified hit roll of 6 always scores a hit, and an unmodified hit roll of 1 always fails. A hit roll can never be modified by more than -1 or +1. This means that if, after all the cumulative modifiers to a hit roll have been calculated, the total modifier would be -2 or worse, it is changed to be -1. Similarly, if, after all the cumulative modifiers to a hit roll have been calculated, the total modifier would be +2 or better, it is changed to be +1.

No where does it give an explicit rule saying that modifiers can stack. It tells us some limitations on cumulative modifiers but because the way modifiers work are we follow the instructions on them (Assault Weapons have -1 to hit after Advancing, and Dense Cover gives us -1), there is implicit stacking.

If two rules tell us to add +1 to our save roll, we follow both of them and add a cumulative +2 to our save roll.

You have yet to cite a rule that either disallows the implicit stacking (if there is a rare rule, for example) or shows that Light Cover is a "state" that is applied and goes against it's own written rules.

I cannot provide a citation stateing that there is no rule giving you permission to stack cover saves as that would be proving a negative which is impossible.

I however do not need to because the absence of such a citation provided by you is proof that you are wrong

Well, shucks. Here's the thing: this is not a case of looking for permission to do something. We already have implicit permission, because we just follow the rules. We see that one terrain which we are benefitting from the cover of gives us +1 to armor save rolls, and apply that, and then we see that a second terrain which we are benefitting from the cover of gives us +1 to armor save rolls, and apply that, for a cumulative +2. This is no different from applying the Assault weapon negative modifier and the Dense cover negative modifier because there is no third rule telling us that these 2 things are cumulative - they just are, because we apply each rule. So what you do need to provide in this case is a citation of a rule that says to ignore 1 or more applicable rules.

You cannot do something you don't have permission to do and no citation is needed for that - it is the premise that all games work under

Correct, and you cannot NOT do something you are told to do, for example, add +1 to your armor save roll and then add another +1 to your armor save roll, unless you're told not to.

so provide a direct citation giving you permission to stack cover or anything else you say is redundant and just proves you wrong

Show us where we are given permission to stack the -1 to hit rolls from Assault Weapons and -1 to hit rolls from Dense Cover. Also show us where we are allowed to stack the +1 to save rolls from Storm Shields and the +1 to save rolls from Light Cover.

Edit: In previous editions I believe they had rules saying that you can't benefit from the same source of buff (or suffer from the same debuff) twice. I would expect that to be a rare rule in 9th but do not see it.

1) what do you think cumulative modifiers means if now how to handle modifiers to hit

2) you do not have implicit permission you have shown no rule so the rest of that is rubbish you need a stated rule implicit permission is code for im making it up

3) you are never told to do that

4) you quoted it in 1) when it referred to cumulative modifiers
The second one is covered in the modifiers section under modifiers to sv

U02dah4 wrote:
Its not muddy at all its black and white either a rule exists allowing you to stack cover or it doesn't

It doesn't as noone has produced one

Intention is not relevant

The thing is, it's meaningless to refer to "stacking cover". No-one can produce a rule stating that you can stack cover because that's not how cover works in 9th Edition.

The terrain rules state (emphasis mine):

p. 260, BRB wrote:
Some terrain features have a datasheet and/or terrain traits that will describe additional rules that apply... Certain models receive the benefits of terrain from some terrain features.

p. 262, BRB wrote:
Each terrain feature can have one or more terrain traits, each of which bestows additional rules...

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saves are not affected).

Therefore, the terrain trait "Light Cover" bestows the terrain feature in question with the rules: "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saves are not affected)." Note that the rules explicitly state that having this trait bestows that rule, as quoted, to the piece of terrain.

If you received the benefit of cover from one piece of terrain with the "Light Cover" trait, that terrain piece's rules kick in, giving you a +1 to your saving throw. If you receive the benefit of cover from two terrain pieces with the "Light Cover" trait, each of those terrain pieces' rules kick in, which include two separate instances of rules which give a +1 to your saving throw.

The key thing to note here is that "Light Cover" is a terrain trait that grants a rule to a piece of terrain, not a status that applies to a unit. That's why a unit receiving the benefit of cover from two separate pieces of terrain would get a total of +2 to their save - there are two separate sources of the special rule "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saves are not affected)."

If the rules were written in such a way that "Light Cover" was a terrain trait and then the terrain rules directly stated "If a model is receiving the benefit of cover from a piece of terrain classed as Light Cover, it gets +1 to their saving throws against shooting attacks", you would be right. But that's not what they say.

U02dah4 wrote:
I don't need to. No one has provided a citation saying that you can and until you do the default is you can't do something you don't have permission to do. You can show that more than one source is granting you light cover noone has shown you have permission to benefit from light cover rule more than once only that if you could you could stack modifiers - its the middle step between those two that is Crucial

It is not possible to provide a citation proving that no such citation exists. I mean I could quote the entirety of the rules but that would be a rather large quote. Instead I take it as sufficient evidence that it does not because noone has posted it and if it existed someone would have

Provide such a citation i accept your position as correct the absence of such a citation proves your position wrong their is no middle ground here.

That's just incorrect. The permission to stack is in the rule itself. It says you get +1 for "this terrain piece". Therefore if you're claiming the bonus for more than one terrain piece you get multiple +1 bonuses. That's what the rule says. That's your citation that you have so far failed to argue against. Modifiers stack unless specified otherwise. What people are asking for is either:

1. A rules citation that says modifiers in general don't stack; or
2. A specific exception for light cover as exists for to hit and to wound rolls.

Incidentally, the rules for capping to hit and to wound modifiers are further proof that modifiers do stack by default. If they didn't there'd be no need to call out those types of modifiers for special treatment.

U02dah4 wrote:
1) what do you think cumulative modifiers means if now how to handle modifiers to hit

2) you do not have implicit permission you have shown no rule so the rest of that is rubbish you need a stated rule implicit permission is code for im making it up

3) you are never told to do that

4) you quoted it in 1) when it referred to cumulative modifiers
The second one is covered in the modifiers section under modifiers to sv

1) Exactly. Nowhere does it say to cumulate modifiers in that section.. It just says how to handle modifiers that do accumulate.
2) TOuche, there is explicit permission, see below.
3)Yes, you are. Right here:

When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)

If I have two terrain features which both have light cover, I look at the terrain feature's rules and see this. I follow the instructions given by the rules, and add 1 to the saving throw each time.
4)Incorrect. Especially in the case of save modifiers. Actually wait, I just found the rule

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.

Okay, so we agree that the two modifiers from two different pieces of light cover are cumulative, then? There's the rule. Core rules, "Dice" subheading. If you do not agree, please cite the rule that modifies this rule in this case. Thank you.

@ slipspace as covered thats not proof - I'm not going back over that circular arguent

The onus on you to provide prove until you do that I have nothing to disprove

And no its the opposite if you have a specific rule covering modifiers its evidence you do not have a default and in fact need a specific rule

@rihgu
When you say
"Exactly. Nowhere does it say to cumulate modifiers in that section.. It just says how to handle modifiers that do accumulate." You realise how idiotic you sound right you cannot handle the accumulation of modifiers if they cannot accumulate

3) as covered already there is no proof anywhere in that statement it does not mention stacking

Yes modifiers stack noone has questioned that its irrelevant light cover doesnt stack unless you can reference a rule stateing that it does

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative; you must apply all division modifiers before applying all multiplication modifiers, and before applying all addition and then all subtraction modifiers.

It is literally right there.

edit: Show the rule that says that these two modifiers are not cumulative. Since all modifiers are cumulative, and we are dealing with 2 here.

How is that relevant to anything no one has questioned whether you can add modifiers together

It is not proof light cover can stack

If light cover can stack you can add modifiers together if it can't you only get +1 as you are not dealing with 2 modifiers

U02dah4 wrote:
@ slipspace as covered thats not proof - I'm not going back over that circular arguent

The onus on you to provide prove until you do that I have nothing to disprove

And no its the opposite if you have a specific rule covering modifiers its evidence you do not have a default and in fact need a specific rule

@rihgu
When you say
"Exactly. Nowhere does it say to cumulate modifiers in that section.. It just says how to handle modifiers that do accumulate." You realise how idiotic you sound right you cannot handle the accumulation of modifiers if they cannot accumulate

3) as covered already there is no proof anywhere in that statement it does not mention stacking

Yes modifiers stack noone has questioned that its irrelevant light cover doesnt stack unless you can reference a rule stateing that it does

"Being in light cover" is not, in rule terms, a status that a unit has. Light Cover is a terrain trait that gives the terrain a rule. That rule affects units which benefit from cover from that terrain piece. This has been demonstrated multiple times in this thread.

If a model is being affected by two rules that modify its save - such as one from a terrain piece with the Light Cover trait and one from the unit's Storm Shields - it gets the benefits of both rules. Why does the same not apply to two separate instances of the rule that the Light Cover trait grants?

Until you can answer that question, the onus is on you to prove your point.

EDIT:

U02dah4 wrote:
How is that relevant to anything no one has questioned whether you can add modifiers together

It is not proof light cover can stack

If light cover can stack you can add modifiers together if it can't you only get +1 as you are not dealing with 2 modifiers

As I said last page, the phrase "light cover can stack" is not meaningful in 9th edition. The fact that you keep using that phrase shows that you do not understand what "light cover" actually means now. Please go back and re-read the rules for terrain, in particular the part about what terrain traits actually mean, because until you understand why that phrase is meaningless you'll never be able to understand why you're wrong.

If you're using that as shorthand for "the ability granted to the terrain by the Light Cover trait doesn't stack with separate instances of the ability granted to other terrain pieces"... then we're back to the onus being on you to demonstrate why not.

U02dah4 wrote:
How is that relevant to anything no one has questioned whether you can add modifiers together

It is not proof light cover can stack

If light cover can stack you can add modifiers together if it can't you only get +1 as you are not dealing with 2 modifiers

You are currently questioning whether we can add modifiers together... Light cover provides a modifier. TWO instances of light cover provides TWO modifiers. Those modifiers are cumulative.

edit: Here's another similar situation. A model wields two chainswords. They get to make 2 extra attacks with their chainswords, because each chainsword provides an additional attack with that weapon. The rule/ability/whatever being the same name has no bearing on whether it stacks or not.

If Light Cover was worded as "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from any terrain features with this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)" Then no, the modifiers would not be cumulative because you'd check "is this model receiving the benefits of cover from any terrain features marked as Light Cover? There are 3? Okay, I benefit from the modifier of +1 to my saving throws".

I have not once questioned that you can add modifiers together i have maintained throughout that you can and stated that discussion of modifiers is irrelevant

You do not have two modifiers to add together

Unless light cover can stack

You have not proven that so two instances of light cover provide a single +1 until you do as you do not have permission to benefit from more than one instance of cover

The chainsword example is not comparable it is covered by an faq and has two instances of the rule

That is not true of light cover unless you show it can stack currently no matter how many instances of light cover you receive a single +1.

There are two instances of the rule. As mentioned numerous times throughout the thread.

No their are multiple sources of a model receiving the benefit of light cover a model receiving the benefit of light cover receives +1 - their is no evidence seperate sources stack

U02dah4 wrote:
I have not once questioned that you can add modifiers together i have maintained throughout that you can and stated that discussion of modifiers is irrelevant

You do not have two modifiers to add together

Unless light cover can stack

You have not proven that so two instances of light cover provide a single +1 until you do as you do not have permission to benefit from more than one instance of cover

The chainsword example is not comparable it is covered by an faq and has two instances of the rule

That is not true of light cover unless you show it can stack currently no matter how many instances of light cover you receive a single +1.

I'm just going to drop this in the thread again since you either didn't see it, or are choosing to ignore it because you can't answer the points being made. Either way, there's no point trying to engage until you're able to address the actual arguments being made.

U02dah4 wrote:
No their are multiple sources of a model receiving the benefit of light cover a model receiving the benefit of light cover receives +1 - their is no evidence seperate sources stack

Okay, let's try it this way. Why do you say "a model receiving the benefit of light cover receives +1"? That's not a rhetorical question, I want you to go back to the rules (p.260-265 of the BRB, p. 72-77 of the mini rulebook) and actually quote the rules in question, like the rest of us have been.

U02dah4 wrote:
No their are multiple sources of a model receiving the benefit of light cover a model receiving the benefit of light cover receives +1 - their is no evidence seperate sources stack

This is not the rule. Please quote the actual rule, so that you may present it properly.

Yeah, RAW looks like Light Cover can stack.

Don’t think that’s RAI, and you’re well within your rights to not play by RAW, but the RAW doesn’t seem particularly ambiguous on this point.

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saves are not affected).

Ergo a model benefitting from light cover gets +1 to their saving throw

Their is no mention of or permission to stack unless you have
A rule granting you permission to stack you cannot do it as no rule gives you permission

There’s also no wording that it stacks with a Storm Shield.
Or that two Chainswords grants you two bonus attacks.
Or that -1 to-hit from moving with a Heavy stacks with Dense Cover.

Do those not stack either?

HIT ROLLS

If an attack is made with a weapon that has an ability that says it
‘automatically hits the target’, no hit roll is made – that attack simply
scores one hit on the target unit. An unmodified hit roll of 6 always
scores a hit, and an unmodified hit roll of 1 always fails. A hit roll can
never be modified by more than -1 or +1. This means that if, after all
the cumulative modifiers to a hit roll have been calculated, the total
modifier would be -2 or worse, it is changed to be -1. Similarly, if, after
all the cumulative modifiers to a hit roll have been calculated, the total
modifier would be +2 or better, it is changed to be +1.

Modifiers to hit rolls do stack, but are capped at +/-1. So, there are cumulative modifiers to rolls, at least to hit rolls. But this still doesnt answer whether the benefit of light cover stacks, or not.

Exactly. Unless otherwise stated, modifiers stack.

Even hit and wound modifiers stack, but then they are reduced to +1 or -1 if they’re larger.

@ jna 3 poats ago
Pg 221 section 4 subheading saving throw grants permission for a storm shield to stack

Pg367 weapon abilities "unless otherwise specified the abilities listed on a weapons profile take effect each time an attack is resolved using that profile" chainswords specify otherwise modifying this "each time the bearer fights it makes 1 additional attack with this weapon"

Pg 220 section 1 hit roll grants permission for -1 to hit and dense cover to stack but caps at -1


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JNAProductions wrote:
Exactly. Unless otherwise stated, modifiers stack.

Even hit and wound modifiers stack, but then they are reduced to +1 or -1 if they’re larger.

No their are specific rules granting certain things permission to stack their is no blanket Charactistics, dice rolls, hit roles, wound rolls and save roles and damage all have rules albeit they are not all addictive characteristics and dice rolls are, hit and wound are capped at +-1 and damage cannot be reduced below 1

Cover has no such rule

The actual rule that gives permission for things to stack is in the Core Rules under the Dice subheading, which states All modifiers are cumulative.

Pg220 just tells you how to deal with cumulative modifiers on to hit rolls, because there's a specific limitation that breaks the rule that All modifiers are cumulative.

Ergo a model benefitting from light cover gets +1 to their saving throw

Not what the rule says nor is it a logical conclusion drawn from the rule.

Thats a misquote page 200 dice heading "all modifiers if any to a dice roll are cumulative"

It only applies to dice roll modifiers it has no reference to cover or terrain traits

And yes its a logical conclusion from the rule as its how its played at every tournament and multiple people in this thread have stated

U02dah4 wrote:
Thats a misquote page 200 dice heading "all modifiers if any to a dice roll are cumulative"

And there is the answer. When you roll for saving throws you roll a dice. Light cover is +1 to the saving throw, so its a modifier to a dice roll, and it stacks.

No cover does not stack as no rule gives you permission to do so - so you apply it once. And as you apply it once it grants a single -1 which stacks with storm shields etc due to the saving throw modifiers specific rule and the dice modifiers rule

It does not matter how many sources you have you have not provided a rule granting permission for cover to stack which takes us back to the same chain running through the thread

We have covered 7 different things that stack and all have specific rules governing them and cover does not, ergo it cannot stack This is made clearer because as we contrast dice rolls damage and hit rolls they all have different versions of how they stack their is no default. I mean even if they did stack do we treat them like hit rolls and cap at -1 what about like damage roles can never go below 1 well that would be silly or could we just add them all together we just don't know as their is no rule to govern it. So no you can't stack unless you can provide a rule specific to cover that states it can stack and how it stacks

and no dice modifiers does not come into play until you resolve the light cover rule which if it can stack works and if it can't is capped at -1 it doesnt support either argument. And the rare rules cover modification rules explicitly do not cover it either

U02dah4 wrote:
Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saves are not affected).

Ergo a model benefitting from light cover gets +1 to their saving throw

Their is no mention of or permission to stack unless you have
A rule granting you permission to stack you cannot do it as no rule gives you permission

Okay, so here's the important point: What has that rule?

If you look back at the start of the section about terrain traits, you'll notice that the rule you have quoted has been granted to the terrain piece. In other words, there's no fundamental difference between the terrain piece's rule giving a +1 to the saving throw and a unit with an ability that says "friendly models within 6" of this model get +1 to their saving throw".

You seem to think that the rules are set up like this:

Incorrect reading of the rules wrote:
- Terrain pieces have the Light Cover trait
- There is a general rule that if a model is receiving the benefit of cover from Light Cover, they get +1 to their saving throw
- Therefore 'being in light cover' is a yes/no question for any given unit.
- Therefore any given unit can only ever get +1 to their saving throw regardless of how many pieces of Light Cover they are benefitting from.

However, the rules are actually set up like this:

Correct reading of the rules wrote:
- Terrain pieces have the Light Cover trait.
- That means that the terrain piece itself has the rule "Models which gain the benefit of cover from this terrain piece get +1 to their saving throws"
- Therefore, if a unit is receiving the benefit of cover from two pieces of terrain with the Light Cover trait, there are two separate rules giving +1 to their saving throw.
- There is nothing in the rules stating that you should only apply such a bonus once.
- Therefore, the unit in question gets +1 from each of the terrain pieces, for a +2 bonus total.

The first is correct the second is incorrect you have no rule to show that cover can stack or how it stacks. The +1to sv is attached to the light cover rule which applies to the models receiving the benefit of light cover from a piece of terrain with correct type and terrain trait.

You resolve the light cover terrain trait and attach it to the terrain piece and then say it stacks which it does if you preemptively resolve it but the key thing is that you have no permission to do this - the terrain grants light cover to models receiving the benefit of it not the terrain grants +1 to sv of the model gain the benefit of it. We can stack +1s to save we have no rule giving permission for us to stack light cover.

Terrain pieces that have the Light Cover trait.
The terrain piece has a rule governing which models/units it provides cover to varying by terrain category

E.g."infantry and beasts receive the benefits of cover from area terrain when they are within it"

Their is no rule stateing that "the benefits of cover can stack"

Terrain traits bestow additional rules

Light cover - when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model receiving the "benefits of cover" from this terrain feature add 1 to the saving throw

Light cover rule only resolves at the point a model has been attacked by a ranged weapon and resolves on the model receiving the benefits of cover from the terrain not on the terrain


Their is no rule granting permission for light cover to stack

Since you have no permission it cannot stack you therefore resolve it only once

- Therefore, if a unit is receiving the benefit of cover from two pieces of terrain you get +1 to their saving throw.

U02dah4 wrote:
The first is correct the second is incorrect you have no rule to show that cover can stack or how it stacks. The +1to sv is attached to the light cover rule which applies to the models receiving the benefit of light cover from a piece of terrain with correct type and terrain trait.

You resolve the light cover terrain trait and attach it to the terrain piece and then say it stacks which it does if you preemptively resolve it but the key thing is that you have no permission to do this - the terrain grants light cover to models receiving the benefit of it not the terrain grants +1 to sv of the model gain the benefit of it. We can stack +1s to save we have no rule giving permission for us to stack light cover.

For the umpteenth time, this is the rule:

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

You seem to be reading it as

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, that model is said to be benefiting from Light Cover. Models benefiting from Light Cover add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Which, considering I had to change the text of the rule, is not the rule.

See above for full explanation sorry it took a while type

That is not what I read

See above you have no permission to stack


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually We've been thick

Aura abilities
" some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities"

"THE EFFECTS OF MULTIPLE IDENTICALLY NAMED AURA ABILITIES ARE NOT CUMULATIVE (I.E. IF A UNIT IS WITHIN RANGE OF THE MODELS WITH SAME AURA ABILITY,THAT AURA ABILITY ONLY APPLIES TO THE UNIT ONCE)

"Terrain features
The scenery on the battlefield can be represented by modals"

An infantry beast or swarm model receives the benefits of cover while it is within 3"

Infantry beasts and swarm models receive the benefit of cover if they are within it

These are auras as they come from modals and have defined ranges

The benefits of cover do not stack because auras don't stack

Light cover therefore can only ever apply from one source

So their was a rule to govern how they stack.... my mistake

Except it doesn't fit the definition of an aura ability - it's a trait, not an ability.

Yeah. Aura abilities are on data sheets and labeled [Aura]

No aura abilities are defined by

Aura abilities
" some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities"

(their is no requirement for auras to have it stamped on them ( although it is on modern codexs) if it was a requirement admech have no auras in their codex at all which is obviously wrong. Or to be on datasheets.

But as we can see from the aura definition their are only three requirements

Aura abilities
" some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities"

So in the case at hand

Is it an ability - yes*
Does light cover effect modals or units - yes
Is this within a given range - yes


* this is hard to demonstrate because the most recent fortifications since 9th and terrain traits don't have terrain traits per say on the datasheets and GW don't define "abilities" just linking it to an area of datasheets but didn't define it to only occur on that area making what an ability is subjective

but in the SOB battle sanctum which they faq'd to have terrain traits

"*Page 95 – Battle Sanctum, Abilities, Adeptus
Ministorum Structure
Change to read:
‘After this model is set up, it becomes an Area Terrain feature
with the following terrain traits: Breachable; Heavy Cover; Light
Cover; Scalable (see the Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).’

We see they appear in the abilities section of the datasheet

The same is true on the faq to the Sacriston forgeshrine

imperial knights codex Page 101 – Sacristan Forgeshrine, Sector Mechanicus Structure
Change to read:
‘After this model is set up, it becomes an Area Terrain feature
with the following terrain traits: Scaleable, Breachable, Dense
Cover, Defensible (see Warhammer 40,000 Core Book).’

It is therefore reasonable to infer that since on the two sources we have that they appear in the abilities section terrain traits are abilities

No, it is not reasonable to infer that. Terrain Traits are as much aura abilities as shooting is - not at all.

Maybe if you quoted more of the rules it would be clearer

BRB Abilities wrote:Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be described here.

Terrain isn't a unit.

Aura abilities are what is on a datasheet at no. 6, as defined on p. 202/203, its inside the box which is labeled abilities. A terrain treat isnt an ability, its a terrain treat.

Also the rules dont say what is meant by (Aura), its not defined anywhere. But thats another topic.

Abilities are not defined anywhere. The only reference is in relation to datasheets where it says

6. ABILITIES
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be
described here.

That is not a definition of what abilities are. Saying that something has special abilities does not define them or preclude other things also being abilities

I literally quoted the definition of Aura which is clearly defined

"Aura abilities
some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities"

Every datasheet with terrain traits lists them in abilities. - can you show me any model with a datasheet that does not list them in abilities?

So yes they are auras and so can't stack and if you don't accept they are auras then you have no definition of how they stack so they can't stack. Either way they can't stack.

I see we have well and truly entered the clutching at straws phase of this argument.

As has been pointed out, Aura abilities are always part of a datasheet and only apply to units as per the Core rules because datasheets only apply to models. They are only defined in the section on datasheets so we know that's the only place they can appear, as per point 6 of the Datasheets page. Additionally, the Light cover bonus doesn't have a given range and is not noted as an Aura with the "(Aura)" tag. They are not aura abilities by definition.

Also, you keep saying modifiers don't stack and have repeatedly been asked to give a relevant rules reference. You have not given one.

One last time: if I am claiming a light cover bonus from two different sources (the rules say you get the bonus for "this terrain feature") why, specifically with a rules citation, can I not say I'm claiming the bonus from feature A and from feature B?

Terrain features are modals

"Terrain features
The scenery on the battlefield can be represented by modals...."

As to light cover not having a range "the benefits of cover" does and light cover is a modification of this

"An infantry beast or swarm model receives the benefits of cover while it is within 3" "

Their is no rules requirement for their to be an aura tag in the aura definition or anywhere in the rules if so provide a quote
"Aura abilities
some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities" see nowhere does it say must have an aura tag and their are no aura tags in the admech codex anywhere their are plenty of auras


Where in point 6 does it say abilities may only appear on datasheets please provide a quote - it does say they appear on datasheets its not the same thing to say it can't appear elsewhere so provide that quote

And again it doesn't matter how many times you say that you have you have not shown light cover can stack ergo you cannot claim a light cover bonus from two different sources if you could they would stack but you haven't shown this. Please provide the quote explicitly stateing cover can stack or be cumulative not modifiers

I also note you ignore that where traits do occur on datasheets they occur in abilities

There is a picture with a datasheet on p. 203 with numbers from 1-9. What those numbers mean is described on p. 202. No. 6 are abilities, and only those in the box named abilities on a datasheet can be aura abilities, as described on p. 202. Terrain treats aren't there, so they can't be aura abilities.

Not a definition - it doesnt say that" only those "in box 6 are

U02dah4 wrote:
Not a definition - it doesnt say that" only those "in box 6 are

Yes, it does. On p. 202 it says 6. ABILITIES and under that it says aura abilities. On p. 203 the no 6 is right next to the box which is named abilities. Only those abilities listed in the box can be aura abilities, if they match the definition : "Some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities." There are datasheets for certain terrain pieces, but not for ruins.

First, terrain treats arent listed there, thus they arent aura abilities. Second, light cover doesnt say anything about a range. A range is defined in inches.

It doesnt say that they only occur on datasheets please provide a quote tp support that- all you have stated is your inference no rule to back it up

Benefits of cover is defined by range light cover refers to those receiving the benefits of cover

As stated where we have datasheets they are listed there and so are abilities i acknowledge not all terrain has datasheets

Your argument us they are abilities only when on a datasheet and that despite being the same rules do not count as abilities when the model does not have a datasheet. This is not RAW and seems illogical fron a RAI stand point

My argument is we don't know if they are abilities or not absolutely because abilities are not defined but since they are proven to be abilities in some context it is reasonable to assume they are abilities in all contexts- this i acknowledge is RAI not RAW but trying to claim their is RAW on this point is a LIE as abilities are undefined.

I have already quoted the relevant rules. Now i want to see your rule citation that terrain treats are aura abilities. Light cover doesnt have a range. A range is defined in inches. An ability must have a range in inches to be an aura ability : "Some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities."

You get that a quote is when you have a quotation mark then put in the exact text as written no amendments then finish with a quotation mark

As stated the "benefits of cover" does

"An infantry beast or swarm model receives the benefits of cover while it is within 3" "

Light cover has been repeatedly stated as only applying to a model receiving the "benefits of cover"from the piece of terrain

" when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)"

U02dah4 wrote:
You get that a quote is when you have a quotation mark then put in the exact text as written no amendments then finish with a quotation mark

As stated the "benefits of cover" does

"An infantry beast or swarm model receives the benefits of cover while it is within 3" "

This is true, but only for obstacles, and its not an aura ability, because its not on a datasheet.

For area terrain
"Infantry beast and swarm models receive the benefits of cover for area terrain features while they are within it"

This is still a defined range it just varies based on the size of the terrain piece so a 6" by 4" ruin has a 6" by 4" range on the benefits of cover



Again provide a specific quote specifying that abilities can only occur on datasheets if you can you may have a raw case
Note not can occur on datasheets or that rules in section 6 are abilities these would be insufficient the key part is they only or have to be on datasheets

If you can't we have a rai argument and I will point to terrain traits being on some data sheets in abilities as rai evidence

U02dah4 wrote:
For area terrain
"Infantry beast and swarm models receive the benefits of cover for area terrain features while they are within it"

This is still a defined range it just varies based on the size of the terrain piece so a 6" by 4" ruin has a 6" by 4" range on the benefits of cover



Again provide a specific quote specifying that abilities can only occur on datasheets if you can you may have a raw case
Note not can occur on datasheets or that rules in section 6 are abilities these would be insufficient the key part is they only or have to be on datasheets

If you can't we have a rai argument and I will point to terrain traits being on some data sheets in abilities as rai evidence

Regardless of where abilities are noted, terrain traits aren't. The data sheets you quoted have abilities that change the fortification into a category of terrain with traits - not a category of terrain with abilities.

Could you provide a quote stateing that terrain traits don't meet the definition of abilities

Your argument is they have abilities that grant them terrain traits which sit in the abilities section of the datasheet but are infact not abilities - sounds a stretch unless you can provide the first quote demonstrating that they are not abilities as that assumption underpins your argument

Again nothing that a rule saying something is an ability does not preclude something else being an ability

U02dah4 wrote:
Could you provide a quote stateing that terrain traits don't meet the definition of abilities

Permissive rule set. I don't have permission to treat terrain traits as abilities unless the rules tell me that they are abilities.

Your turn. Please provide the rule quote that terrain traits are abilities. If you can't then you don't have permission to treat them as the same thing.

U02dah4 wrote:
Could you provide a quote stateing that terrain traits don't meet the definition of abilities

Abilities appear on datasheets. Not all terrain has datasheets. In fact, the vast majority don't. If I tag my homemade piece of terrain with the Light Cover trait, it doesn't have a datasheet so it can't have any abilities. Also, at no point in the rules for terrain does it refer to a trait as an ability.

It does not define abilities anywhere so by that logic nothing is an ability or by extension an aura.

The only reference to abilities we have is

"Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be
described here."

Which specifies abilities will be described in section 6 of a datasheet but does not specify only abilities will be written there or that abilities can not be located elsewhere or what constitutes an ability

U02dah4 wrote:


Again nothing that a rule saying something is an ability does not preclude something else being an ability

We have a permissive ruleset. You don't get to label something as something else just because the rules don't specifically say it isn't that thing. They'd have to specifically call out traits as abilities for your argument to hold, and the rules do not do that.

You have no rule saying anything is an ability. under RAW the term is undefined so we can only go to RAI. We're we having a RAW argument it would need to specify but there is no RAW when the term is undefined

U02dah4 wrote:
It does not define abilities anywhere so by that logic nothing is an ability.

The only reference to abilities we have is

"Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be
described here."

Which specifies abilities will be described in section 6 of a datasheet but does not specify only abilities will be written there or that abilities can not be located elsewhere or what constitutes an ability

How did you even get to "nothing is an ability" from "Abilities appear on datasheets."

In any event, since you have chosen not to quote the rule that says terrain traits *are* abilities, I will assume no such rule exists and that, due to the nature of a permissive rule set, we do not have permission to treat them as abilities.

Saying abilities will be written here does not define what an ability is only a location where they will be written on datasheets

I've specified the term is undefined this is evidenced by your inability to provide a quote of a definition you cannot provide a definition of a term that is undefined

U02dah4 wrote:
Saying abilities will be written here does not define what an ability is only a location where they will be written on datasheets

I've specified the term is undefined this is evidenced by your inability to provide a definition you cannot provide a definition of a term that is undefined

No, it's defined quite clearly. Abilities are rules that appear on that section of the datasheet. There needn't be any further definition.

U02dah4 wrote:


I've specified the term is undefined

You specifying something doesn't make it the case. Sadly that seems to sum up this entire "debate".

Abilities are defined in the Core rules as point 6 on the Datasheets page. As per that definition an ability is something that appears in the "Abilities" section of a datasheet. What other definition do you need? Anything not meeting that definition is not an ability.

If it is defined please provide the whole quote where it states the definition. if what you say is true it should be easy.

If not we will both know you are lieing

And no quoting 2 words out of context while rewriting the text around it to make it say what you want doesnt count




Yes I agree the entire debate can be summed up by you not providing quotes supporting the assumptions of your argument then demanding the other person disprove a definition that does not exist

So your contention is that the term Abilities is not defined on the page of the rulebook that has a heading for Abilities, along with a definition of the term? That's P7, point 6 of the rules primer. That's unequivocally a definition of what abilities are in 40k. If you have another one feel free to provide it.

If you're just going to argue the rules don't say what they explicitly say then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Proof that Abilities do not need to be located in the Abilities section of a unit datasheet:
1. GW refers to Warlord Traits as abilities
2. Warlord Traits are not in the abilities section of the datasheet
3. Therefore all abilities are not listed in the abilities section of the datasheet
QED

Also there is the Weapon section of the datasheet, which includes an abilities section. It is also not in the Abilities section of the datasheet.

Did I mention that GW refers to Psychic Powers and faction traits as abilities?

This Terrain Traits are not Abilities is a nonsensical argument.

 alextroy wrote:
Proof that Abilities do not need to be located in the Abilities section of a unit datasheet:
1. GW refers to Warlord Traits as abilities
2. Warlord Traits are not in the abilities section of the datasheet
3. Therefore all abilities are not listed in the abilities section of the datasheet
QED

Also there is the Weapon section of the datasheet, which includes an abilities section. It is also not in the Abilities section of the datasheet.

Did I mention that GW refers to Psychic Powers and faction traits as abilities?

This Terrain Traits are not Abilities is a nonsensical argument.

OK, so abilities are either defined on the datasheet page or are referred to as such where necessary. That still doesn't prove Terrain Traits are abilities. As far as I can tell they are never referred to as such anywhere.

No abilities are not defined on the datasheet page evidenced by you being unable to to quote the definition. I mean all it takes is " xxxxxxxxxxx" its not hard if it actually existed.


I take you back to my original statement that there is no definition of abilities ergo no RAW answer.

I mean my guess is gw use ability as a term to refer to a rule attached to a particular model weapon equipment terrain etc. Rather than a general rule But that's an interpretation not raw

Terrain traits could reasonably be considered abilities under RAI supported by the terrain with datasheets having them listing them under abilities in the abilities section of datasheets. which then gives you a clear answer. benefits of cover is an aura you pick 1.

Now the datasheet definition argument had fallen apart by evidence of non datasheet abilities and your inability to provide a definition their isn't really a strong counter RAI

You just dont like the answer

 p5freak wrote:
A SM infantry unit is within a ruin with the light cover terrain treat. The unit also has the stealthy tactic. Do they get +2 to their saving throws, when the attacker is more than 18" away ?

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

The sv is a characteristic, so both modifiers should be cumulative, and the unit should get the +2 ?

I would say that the unit only gets +1 to its save, as it already had the benefit of light cover. Treating something like it has something which it has doesn't mean that it has it any more than it does:

"treat this model as having moved" if the model has moved doesn't mean that it moved any more than it actually did.
"Treat this model as having the benefits of light cover" if the model has the benefits of light cover doesn't mean it has extra benefits.

In essence, it becomes a redundant ability - like painting something red if it was already red.

 some bloke wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A SM infantry unit is within a ruin with the light cover terrain treat. The unit also has the stealthy tactic. Do they get +2 to their saving throws, when the attacker is more than 18" away ?

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

The sv is a characteristic, so both modifiers should be cumulative, and the unit should get the +2 ?

I would say that the unit only gets +1 to its save, as it already had the benefit of light cover. Treating something like it has something which it has doesn't mean that it has it any more than it does:

"treat this model as having moved" if the model has moved doesn't mean that it moved any more than it actually did.
"Treat this model as having the benefits of light cover" if the model has the benefits of light cover doesn't mean it has extra benefits.

In essence, it becomes a redundant ability - like painting something red if it was already red.

The phrase isn't just "receiving benefits of light cover", however, it's "receving the benefits of coverfrom this terrain feature."

You can be receiving the benifits of light cover from two specific terrain features, as demonstrated earlier in the thread (area terrain and obstacle), so each specific piece of terrain would give you a +1 to the save.

Which as shown by auras can't stack and you have produced no rule saying it can so while you can be in range of two sources of cover you only benefit from 1 for a single +1sv

 doctortom wrote:

Spoiler:

 some bloke wrote:

 p5freak wrote:
A SM infantry unit is within a ruin with the light cover terrain treat. The unit also has the stealthy tactic. Do they get +2 to their saving throws, when the attacker is more than 18" away ?

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

The sv is a characteristic, so both modifiers should be cumulative, and the unit should get the +2 ?

I would say that the unit only gets +1 to its save, as it already had the benefit of light cover. Treating something like it has something which it has doesn't mean that it has it any more than it does:

"treat this model as having moved" if the model has moved doesn't mean that it moved any more than it actually did.
"Treat this model as having the benefits of light cover" if the model has the benefits of light cover doesn't mean it has extra benefits.

In essence, it becomes a redundant ability - like painting something red if it was already red.

The phrase isn't just "receiving benefits of light cover", however, it's "receiving the benefits of coverfrom this terrain feature."

You can be receiving the benefits of light cover from two specific terrain features, as demonstrated earlier in the thread (area terrain and obstacle), so each specific piece of terrain would give you a +1 to the save.

Okay, but that's just the source of the benefit, it's not really telling you that it stacks.

If a model is in cover, and is also treated as being in cover, then that extra thing doesn't help. It's like saying "treat Andre the Giant as if he's taller than you". This does not make any difference for anybody who is under 7'4", who will already treat Andre as being taller than them. Andre does not grow because he is treated as being taller.

the phrase "from this terrain feature" is realistically just the proper English way of using the term "receiving the benefit". Benefits are received from somewhere, and in this case it is received from this terrain feature.

So it "Receives the benefit of cover" from this terrain feature, and it "Receives the benefit of light cover" from the rule.

"Light Cover" gives the benefits listed in the OP:

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

and then the stealthy gives the benefits of light cover, which the unit already has because it is in light cover, which means it gains nothing.


Or, if you want to go into utter semantics, anything other than terrain that confers "the benefits of light cover" does nothing (and crashes the game due to syntax errors) because the benefits of light cover involve receiving the cover from terrain. If they aren't receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature then they don't receive the +1.

Or, if you want to go into utter semantics, anything other than terrain that confers "the benefits of light cover" does nothing (and crashes the game due to syntax errors) because the benefits of light cover involve receiving the cover from terrain. If they aren't receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature then they don't receive the +1.

This is actually exactly what happened until they added a rare rule to cover the situation:

BENEFITS OF COVER WHEN NOT IN TERRAIN
Sometimes a rule will tell you that a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

If a model or unit has a rule that only applies while it is receiving the benefits of cover, then that rule will apply while that model or unit is under the effects of any rule that states it gains the benefit of cover even while they are not entirely on or within a terrain feature.

So now it doesn't crash the game due to syntax errors, but it did before.

Applicable Models within area terrain receive the benefits of cover. That’s not an ‘aura ability’ by the rules for aura abilities. Therefore we do not have conclusive proof that terrain traits are aura abilities.

Rihgu wrote:

Or, if you want to go into utter semantics, anything other than terrain that confers "the benefits of light cover" does nothing (and crashes the game due to syntax errors) because the benefits of light cover involve receiving the cover from terrain. If they aren't receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature then they don't receive the +1.

This is actually exactly what happened until they added a rare rule to cover the situation:

BENEFITS OF COVER WHEN NOT IN TERRAIN
Sometimes a rule will tell you that a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

If a model or unit has a rule that only applies while it is receiving the benefits of cover, then that rule will apply while that model or unit is under the effects of any rule that states it gains the benefit of cover even while they are not entirely on or within a terrain feature.

So now it doesn't crash the game due to syntax errors, but it did before.

Ah brilliant, this proves that you only get it once.

Being in light cover means you're actually in a terrain feature which grants cover, as we've discussed.

Stealthy means that you are treated as receiving the benefits of light cover

The above quote states that this means the unit is "assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes". Therefore, as they cannot be on two terrain features at once, they only benefit from it once.

I'm sorry, I can not follow that logic. Why can't a unit be on two terrain features at once? I understand the literal physical impossibility of it, however:
1) There are Obstacle terrain pieces, which give models the benefit of cover when they are within 3" of that Obstacle, so one could theoretically be on a piece of Area terrain and also within 3" of an Obstacle.
2) Units can have rules which offer the benefits of cover without being in terrain features, which because they are treated as being in a terrain feature means they can also stand in a terrain feature and, abstractly, "in" two pieces of terrain at once.

Unless there is a rule that states you cannot be "on" two terrain features at once...


edit: at this point, the "are terrain traits aura abilities?" question is the only ambiguity I see RAW.

1) You cannot be within two area terrains at once you would always be in one or the other or wholey in neither.

You could hypothetically in a ridiculous board set up be in an area terrain while adjacent to defence line - i could see this happening in certain tournaments that remove the terrain limitation via House rule

2) this is covered by the rare rules and explicitly doesn't stack stealthy types are edited to mean has cover when not in cover

i could see this happening in certain tournaments that remove the terrain limitation via House rule

Which terrain limitation?

 alextroy wrote:
Applicable Models within area terrain receive the benefits of cover. That’s not an ‘aura ability’ by the rules for aura abilities. Therefore we do not have conclusive proof that terrain traits are aura abilities.

We have proof that it meets all the aura requirements except the question of if is it an ability and their is no definitive RAW answer to that question as it undefined and so you will not get a raw answer - I would say it is the most probable RAI given the alternative presented was disproved.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rihgu wrote:

i could see this happening in certain tournaments that remove the terrain limitation via House rule

Which terrain limitation?

A lot of the Scottish 9th competative events have ignored the limitation on how far you can place fortifications from other terrain so as to allow players who wish to to play things like battle sanctums that are just impossible to play with it in place

So you could pay points for a defence line at those events to engineer this scenario- still not worth the points and not an argument that it stacks just that the situation could occur

A lot of the Scottish 9th competative events have ignored the limitation on how far you can place fortifications from other terrain so as to allow players who wish to to play things like battle sanctum that are just impossible to play with it in place

Ah, I see. So there isn't actually a limitation like, "cannot have an Obstacle within 3" of Area terrain" or anything?
So one would not have to make a house rule to put an Obstacle within 3" of Area terrain during battlefield setup.

Not all Obstacles are Fortifications. One could put a fence next to a smoking crater on their table and, without breaking any rules, have a situation where a unit is benefiting from cover from both the fence and the crater. It's not some whacky edge case that requires house rules to make happen.

not an argument that it stacks just that the situation could occur

Considering the argument that it doesn't stack right now seems to be "this situation can't occur", it seems extremely relevant that the situation can, in fact, occur.

No but removing the limitation i could purchase an area terrain fortification say a landing pad or sanctum and place it next to your obstacle such as a fence.

As I say I never questioned the possibility you could be impacted by two sources it is just unlikely unless you engineer it
As it doesn't occur in most natural situations like stealthy and a ruin.

It doesnt stack because either auras most likely RAI or if you do not accept the aura interpretation because you have no explicit rule giving you permission to.

Every other effect that can be cumulative has one and without one you have no permission to do so. Even if you could how do you define cumulative because all the other effects that can be cumulative are cumulative in different ways (half of which cap at -1) so even assuming you could add them their would be a 50% chance you were capped at -1 anyway.

So to get it to stack at this point your having to reject the probable RAI hypothesis then ignore the RAW that you don't have a rule telling you cover can be cumulative then dodge the 50% chance that we would be capped at -1 even if it could be cumulative - leaving us with stackable modifiers the others all give you a cap at -1

As I say I never questioned the possibility you could be impacted by two sources it is just unlikely unless you engineer it

Or you have a special rule that always gives you the benefits of Light Cover even when not in any terrain feature, which isn't super engineered and not necessarily rare

That doesn't engineer it because the rare rules overides and says they don't stack it clarifies that those rules mean they grant cover even if not in terrain not that they stack they never stacked

Where in the rare rule does it say that? I must be missing it.

BENEFITS OF COVER WHEN NOT IN TERRAIN
Sometimes a rule will tell you that a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

If a model or unit has a rule that only applies while it is receiving the benefits of cover, then that rule will apply while that model or unit is under the effects of any rule that states it gains the benefit of cover even while they are not entirely on or within a terrain feature.

Benefitting from light cover or not benefitting from light cover is a binary condition, not a summation. The rules don't give you specific clause on summing up the number of instances of 'light cover'. It simply concerns with whether or not you ARE.

If the rules don't tell you that you sum up the number of instances of light cover to determine it's effect on the unit, then you can't do that even if you can artificially come up with a made up scenario that would otherwise ALLUDE to.

Benefits of light cover stacks if and only if the rules explicitly state they stack.

Wait for the "where does the rule book says benefit of light cover is a binary condition?" - the very moment where you have to start relying on argument based on interjections/assumptions is the precise moment you have to stop. All we know is that light cover grants benefits. FULL STOP. If you don't know whether or not the benefit of the light cover stacks or not, then you just don't know. You are limited by the information, or the lack of, in determining the answer to your question. Anything beyond this is HIWPI or RAI interpretation.

The only reason this thread is six pages long is because a solid 3 of those is people repeatedly posting the evidence that they do stack and that benefitting from light cover is NOT a binary condition.

But, hey, sure, I'll catch you up.

When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Each terrain feature adds a +1 modifier to the saving throw made.

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative;

All modifiers are cumulative.

2 pieces of light cover terrain provide 2 +1 modifiers, which are cumulative.

UNLESS! Terrain traits are aura abilities, which is ambiguous, in which case the aura rule that says they do not stack would be in play.

Wait for the "where does the rule book says benefit of light cover is a binary condition?" - the very moment where you have to start relying on argument based on interjections/assumptions is the precise moment you have to stop. All we know is that light cover grants benefits. FULL STOP. If you don't know whether or not the benefit of the light cover stacks or not, then you just don't know. You are limited by the information, or the lack of, in determining the answer to your question. Anything beyond this is HIWPI or RAI interpretation.

This isn't how it works. The RAW is above. What you are posting is RAI/HIWPI, because you can't cite rules. Note that because the terrain traits = aura abilities point is ambiguous the situation *is* unresolvable per the current rules.

Rihgu wrote:
The only reason this thread is six pages long is because a solid 3 of those is people repeatedly posting the evidence that they do stack and that benefitting from light cover is NOT a binary condition.

But, hey, sure, I'll catch you up.

When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Each terrain feature adds a +1 modifier to the saving throw made.

All modifiers (if any) to a dice roll are cumulative;

All modifiers are cumulative.

2 pieces of light cover terrain provide 2 +1 modifiers, which are cumulative.

UNLESS! Terrain traits are aura abilities, which is ambiguous, in which case the aura rule that says they do not stack would be in play.

And you need to perform mental gymnastics in order to arrive at your conclusion.

"when in benefit of light cover, add 1 to saving throw - adding 1 to saving throw is a modifier; therefore light cover is a modifier"
This argument assumes that anything that alters a dice roll is a modifier. This is a reasonable assumption but still unsubstantiated by the rulebook. We do not have definition that supports this claim.

 skchsan wrote:
"when in benefit of light cover, add 1 to saving throw - adding 1 to saving throw is a modifier; therefore light cover is a modifier"

You're leaving out some important words. "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" implies that EACH terrain feature grants the benefits. Do they stack? Is it a binary condition?

WE DON'T KNOW. The book does not give us enough information to say.

Then there is no such thing as a modifier within the ruleset at all...

Who is the one doing mental gymnastics here, again?

Also:
Light Cover is not a modifier. Light Cover confers a modifier... the +1 to the armor save is the modifier, not Light Cover.

 Octopoid wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
"when in benefit of light cover, add 1 to saving throw - adding 1 to saving throw is a modifier; therefore light cover is a modifier"

You're leaving out some important words. "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" implies that EACH terrain feature grants the benefits. Do they stack? Is it a binary condition?

WE DON'T KNOW. The book does not give us enough information to say.

A good reason to discuss it with your opponent beforehand, if there's the possibility of it popping up in the game. That way you can tell if you and your opponent have the same interpretation.

Rihgu wrote:
Then there is no such thing as a modifier within the ruleset at all...

Who is the one doing mental gymnastics here, again?

Also:
Light Cover is not a modifier. Light Cover confers a modifier... the +1 to the armor save is the modifier, not Light Cover.

Exactly. We know +1 to save roll is a modifier, and that all modifiers stack. What we don't know is whether or not the "benefit of light cover" is cumulative. We know it's effects are cumulative, but we don't know whether the source that confers such modifier is cumulative, therefore it must be passed onto HIWPI/RAI level.

Generally though, same abilities do not stack unless it specifically states it does (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to maximum of -3)

Yep

Generally though, same abilities do not stack unless it specifically states it does (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to maximum of -3)

This actually isn't the case. Same abilities generally stack unless it specifically states they do not (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to a maximum of -3, or Aura abilities, which explicitly do not).

Rihgu wrote:

Generally though, same abilities do not stack unless it specifically states it does (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to maximum of -3)

This actually isn't the case. Same abilities generally stack unless it specifically states they do not (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to a maximum of -3, or Aura abilities, which explicitly do not).

So I can bring multiple dark shroud to stack -1 to hit to cancel out as much +1 to hits, as long as the last number being applied is -1/+1 to hit as per rules? A single unit can be subject to the same ability once, no matter how many sources of that ability, as far as I know. Please cite relevant sources.

Also, I'm under the assumption that chapter ancient and company ancient abilities do not stack because they are the same ability - one is just the improved version of the other - is this edition lag?

 skchsan wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Generally though, same abilities do not stack unless it specifically states it does (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to maximum of -3)

This actually isn't the case. Same abilities generally stack unless it specifically states they do not (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to a maximum of -3, or Aura abilities, which explicitly do not).

So I can bring multiple dark shroud to stack -1 to hit to cancel out as much +1 to hits, as long as the last number being applied is -1/+1 to hit as per rules? A single unit can be subject to the same ability once, no matter how many sources of that ability, as far as I know. Please cite relevant sources.

No, because that's an aura. Auras explicitly do not stack.

So I can bring multiple dark shroud to stack -1 to hit to cancel out as much +1 to hits, as long as the last number being applied is -1/+1 to hit as per rules? A single unit can be subject to the same ability once, no matter how many sources of that ability, as far as I know. Please cite relevant sources.

Well, no, because that's an aura and aura abilities explicitly don't stack, per a rule.

Also, I'm under the assumption that chapter ancient and company ancient abilities do not stack because they are the same ability - one is just the improved version of the other - is this edition lag?

The two abilities are totally different by name and conferred bonuses/bonii. They stack.

Why are people still saying 'benefit of light cover' when that was debunked? There is no such thing. You can get the benefits of cover from a terrain feature that has the light cover trait.

The terrain has light cover, the unit does not. The only thing the unit gets is a +1 modifier to saving throws against ranged weapons from that particular terrain feature.

 JNAProductions wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

Generally though, same abilities do not stack unless it specifically states it does (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to maximum of -3)

This actually isn't the case. Same abilities generally stack unless it specifically states they do not (i.e. reiver: terror troops - subtract -1 from leadership, to a maximum of -3, or Aura abilities, which explicitly do not).

So I can bring multiple dark shroud to stack -1 to hit to cancel out as much +1 to hits, as long as the last number being applied is -1/+1 to hit as per rules? A single unit can be subject to the same ability once, no matter how many sources of that ability, as far as I know. Please cite relevant sources.

No, because that's an aura. Auras explicitly do not stack.

Just like cover


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dammit wrote:
Why are people still saying 'benefit of light cover' when that was debunked? There is no such thing. You can get the benefits of cover from a terrain feature that has the light cover trait.

The terrain has light cover, the unit does not. The only thing the unit gets is a +1 modifier to saving throws against ranged weapons from that particular terrain feature.

Because the rules explicitly refer to "benefit of cover" and light cover refers to it given that it doesnt stack this is colloquial summed up as the benefits of light cover to differentiate it from say dense or heavy cover

#then benefits of light cover is a shortcut phrase, not a rule. Don't refer to it here.

Just like cover

Ambiguous.

I'd like to take this time to ask if everybody involved in this spirited discussion has sent emails regarding this to 40kfaq@gwplc.com yet? If not, I would highly recommend it. The only way to get ambiguous rules clarified is to have enough people ask them that they release an FAQ/Rare Rule in the next update.

dammit wrote:
The only thing the unit gets is a +1 modifier to saving throws against ranged weapons from that particular terrain feature.

No, the only thing the unit gets is a benefit of light/heavy/dense cover. Cover provides a modifier. We know that modifiers stack, but we don't have the provisions provided in the rulebook to explicitly confirm whether cover stacks. Please direct me to the rule that states, in any remoteness, "Multiple sources of same category of cover stacks." Aura abilities explicitly being stated as to not stack is not the grounds to confirm the assumption "all abilities that are not aura abilities stack". This is a "all rectangles are squares" fallacy.

There is a distinct leap in the logic between "unit is subject to two distinct abilities/rules that confer cover" > "when a unit is conferred (light) cover, it gains +1 to its save rolls" > *leap* > "modifiers are cumulative" > "the unit gains +2 to its save rolls".

You need to somehow bridge that gap with a definitive statement that allows you to stack the status of being conferred a cover. Otherwise, the rule is not resolvable at RAW level and needs to be discussed prior to game.

"conferred a cover" is a meaningless phrase with no rules support. We don't need to bridge that gap because it doesn't exist. We know the rules for terrain having the Light Cover trait, and that is:

When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

When terrain has the Light Cover trait, then, when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from that terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack. That's the rule. Terrain having the Light Cover trait does not "confer Light Cover" - that phrase doesn't exist or mean anything. The rule would state "Terrain features with this trait confer Light Cover" and then Light Cover would be defined elsewhere as giving +1 to armor save rolls when a unit has it, or something similar to that.

There is no leap if you read the actual rules.

The *only* ambiguity here is whether or not the benefits of cover from a terrain feature are an aura ability or not. Please email 40kfaq@gwplc.com so we can hope to see a clarification in a future FAQ/errata release.

The rules for light cover literally says "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)."

You can play semantics/grammar police all you want but in order to claim the benefits of cover, you need to be RECEIVING the benefits of cover in the first palce.

Go check the rulebook when a model is considered to be "receiving the benefits of cover".

And please cite me where it states you can receive the benefit of same type of cover multiple times.

It doesn't (therefore you cannot make the assumption they do). The terrain traits simply determine the conditions for claiming the benefits of cover. Depending on whether or not that condition has been fulfilled, you move onto determine what type of benefits you gain. In cover or not in cover is a real thing covered by the book (no pun intended).

 skchsan wrote:
The rules for light cover literally says "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected)."

You can play semantics/grammar police all you want but in order to claim the benefits of cover, you need to be RECEIVING the benefits of cover in the first palce.

Go check the rulebook when a model is considered to be "receiving the benefits of cover".

"...from this terrain feature" The answer is literally right there in the rule you quoted but you've decided to ignore part of it for some reason. You get the save bonus "from this terrain feature" which means if you have multiple terrain features providing the bonus you get multiple bonuses.

Why does everybody opposing the idea always forget to highlight "from this terrain feature"?

Imagine reading the reiver rule:

Terror Troops (Aura): While an enemy unit is within 3" of this model, subtract 2 from the Leadership characteristic of models in that unit.

And trying to read it without "of this model".
While an enemy unit is within 3"! It says it right there! 3" of what? nevermind that, that doesn't matter.


Leaving out the "from this terrain feature" would mean that one could read that whenever a model is receiving the benefits of cover, they are always in Light Cover. whether the terrain they are receiving the benefits of cover from has the Light Cover trait or not.

The terrain traits simply determine the conditions for claiming the benefits of cover

To be completely clear, that is the Terrain Type, not the Terrain Traits.

You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not. Status of being in cover is what grants you the modifiers.

 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not.

Please provide a rules citation, as the Terrain Traits are very clear about which bonuses they do, in fact, grant. And never mention granting any "status". There's also no mention of "in cover" being a status (not that there is a mention of statuses any where).

A model benefits from cover from a terrain feature while on or within it (if it is area) or within 3" of it (if it is an obstacle). When a terrain feature has the Light Cover trait, while a model benefits from cover from that terrain feature, it gets +1 to armor save rolls. Nowhere is it stated it gains any sort of status called "in cover" or not, and even if you want to argue that that's semantics, nowhere does it refer to "receiving the benefits of cover" as a "status" let alone it being a "status" that can only be gained once.

"benefits of cover" isn't even a standalone thing. It's something you receive from a specific terrain feature. You can receive the benefits of cover from multiple terrain features at once, or abilities that provide the benefits of cover without being in a terrain feature. (Assuming they are not aura abilities)

 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Why not? If you receive the benefits from cover from a second piece of terrain, that piece of terrain is also giving you a +1 bonus. You have both pieces giving a +1 modifier, and we have been told modifiers are cumulative. We are not told that the bonuses are not cumulative in this case.

 skchsan wrote:
Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not. Status of being in cover is what grants you the modifiers.

You are granted the status of being in cover due to that piece of terrain. The wording they use has each piece of terrain specifically giving you a bonus, not just a generic bonus for being in cover.

Quick question, skchsan... are you referring to 9th edition or 8th edition rules?
You earlier made a comment about reiver rules, company ancient rules, and chapter ancient rules which are from the 8th edition codex.

Your interpretation of cover rules would also be correct under 8th edition.

In this thread we are discussing 9th edition rules. To be clear.

@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you

Rihgu wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not.

Please provide a rules citation, as the Terrain Traits are very clear about which bonuses they do, in fact, grant. And never mention granting any "status". There's also no mention of "in cover" being a status (not that there is a mention of statuses any where).

Because it doesn't matter if you're receiving the benefit of cover (by fulfilling the conditions for claiming it) if the said terrain didn't have any of light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it. If an area terrain does not have any of either light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it, then units inside the said area terrain does not get any modifiers based on being inside the area terrain.

This shows that "being in benefit of cover" and "claiming the effects of the benefit" are two distinct mechanics. Former is a check to see whether the latter's effect is in play or not.

"Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition (you have it or you don't) for claiming the effects of the terrain trait. It's a simple if-then conditional logic - "if [receiving the benefits of cover] = true, then [effects of the terrain trait] is effective."

Let me reiterate my initial stance: the claims that bonuses conferred by terrain traits stack per RAW is a reasonable assumption, but nonetheless unsubstantiated. Therefore discuss with opponent prior to game.

Rihgu wrote:
"conferred a cover" is a meaningless phrase with no rules support. We don't need to bridge that gap because it doesn't exist. We know the rules for terrain having the Light Cover trait, and that is:

When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

When terrain has the Light Cover trait, then, when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from that terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack. That's the rule. Terrain having the Light Cover trait does not "confer Light Cover" - that phrase doesn't exist or mean anything. The rule would state "Terrain features with this trait confer Light Cover" and then Light Cover would be defined elsewhere as giving +1 to armor save rolls when a unit has it, or something similar to that.

There is no leap if you read the actual rules.

The *only* ambiguity here is whether or not the benefits of cover from a terrain feature are an aura ability or not. Please email 40kfaq@gwplc.com so we can hope to see a clarification in a future FAQ/errata release.

On the point of whether or not the benefits of cover from a terrain feature are an aura ability or not it actually is simple to determine.

Assume Light Cover is an ability for the sake of argument. Let's look at terrain that is Area Terrain with the Light Cover trait.

Further assume we have two models, A, and B. Model A is on top of the Area Terrain. Model B is touching, but not on the Area Terrain. For all purposes they are 0.0" away - they are the same distance from the Area Terrain.

Aura abilities state "Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities". Despite both models being the same distance, only one is affected by the Light Cover Trait. Ergo, the Light Cover Trait is not an Aura ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 skchsan wrote:

Spoiler:

Rihgu wrote:

 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not.

Please provide a rules citation, as the Terrain Traits are very clear about which bonuses they do, in fact, grant. And never mention granting any "status". There's also no mention of "in cover" being a status (not that there is a mention of statuses any where).

Because it doesn't matter if you're receiving the benefit of cover (by fulfilling the conditions for claiming it) if the said terrain didn't have any of light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it. If an area terrain does not have any of either light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it, then units inside the said area terrain does not get any modifiers based on being inside the area terrain.

This shows that "being in benefit of cover" and "claiming the effects of the benefit" are two distinct mechanics. Former is a check to see whether the latter's effect is in play or not.

"Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition (you have it or you don't) for claiming the effects of the terrain trait. It's a simple if-then conditional logic - "if [receiving the benefits of cover] = true, then [effects of the terrain trait] is effective."

Let me reiterate my initial stance: the claims that bonuses conferred by terrain traits stack per RAW is a reasonable assumption, but nonetheless unsubstantiated. Therefore discuss with opponent prior to game.

While I don't agree that "Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition, I think the bigger issue with the logic you presented is that it is flawed. Examples such as obscuring and dense cover prove that it's not that simple to determine if the traits of terrain come into effect. Rather you have to check each trait on each piece of terrain and see if the conditions for the trait to activate are met. And if so, apply the trait's effects.

As of such, this leads us to the result of being able to apply the +1 to SV roll effect multiple times *if* we meet the Light Cover trait conditions on multiple pieces of terrain (a +1 sv roll modifier applying if you are receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature)

I do however totally agree about discussing anything pre-game with your opponent if you have the expectation that it could cause issues or conflict.

I wonder if there is also some misunderstanding of the term "terrain feature".

A feature of the terrain would be its rules - in this case "light cover".

"Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" could mean "receiving the benefits of cover from light cover".

Then we have 2 instances of rules which cause the unit to "receive the benefits of cover from this terrain feature". This would mean that they are "receiving the benefit of cover from light cover" in both instances, which further reinforces that "has light cover" and "hasn't" is a binary condition.

Either way, they are benefiting from the exact same rule - not 2 different rules which both confer +1 to saves (which would, as we all agree, work). They receive the same rule from two different sources. Which means that they have the rule, and do so even if one source is no longer applied.

It's like if you had an aircraft hanger with a house in it. You go into the aircraft, and you're inside. you then go into the house, and you're inside. If you leave the house, you're still inside.

Now replace the hanger with Stealthy and the house with Cover.

 some bloke wrote:
I wonder if there is also some misunderstanding of the term "terrain feature".

A feature of the terrain would be its rules - in this case "light cover".

"Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" could mean "receiving the benefits of cover from light cover".

terrain feature is the defined model/region that is conferring the benefits of cover. Terrain trait is what those benefits of cover are. Light cover is a trait, so "receiving the benefits of cover from light cover" is not "Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature", it's "Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain trait".

More importantly, the benefits of cover for a terrain feature with the light cover trait is not 'light cover', its '+1 to save rolls against ranged weapons. Stop making the mistake of saying that light cover is something that a unit gains.

dammit wrote:


More importantly, the benefits of cover for a terrain feature with the light cover trait is not 'light cover', its '+1 to save rolls against ranged weapons. Stop making the mistake of saying that light cover is something that a unit gains.

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

I agree then that light cover is a terrain trait and not a terrain feature, but your last point is definitely wrong. Otherwise, Stealthy could not give the unit "the benefits of light cover", as you are saying that this is something a unit cannot gain.

Look at it another way - If a model with the FLY rule gains some ability which gives it the FLY rule, it doesn't become super-fly. It gains nothing, because it already had the rule. It's the same thing.


Stealthy says that the unit "is treated as having the benefits of light cover".

"Light Cover" takes place when the unit is the target of a ranged attack that hits.

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

So when an attack hits, you check to see if the unit is in light cover. Stealthy means it is, and being in cover means it is, so it is in light cover. Then you apply the light cover rules. You don't apply them twice, any more than a flying-flying model gets to extra-fly.

I think the important part is in the rare rules section where it states "That model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the light cover trait".

If the model also happens to be on or within a terrain feature with the light cover trait, then they are both on or within light cover and assumed to be on or within light cover. Nothing says that this is two different pieces of cover!

If a model is assumed to be something that it already is, it doesn't become more something because of the assumption.


It's important to break down the exact route through the chaotic wording:

actually being in cover:
• the unit is on/in light cover

Stealthy:
• The unit gains the benefits of light cover
• This means they are assumed to be on/in light cover, as per rare rules

By these two combined - the unit is on/in light cover when the shot is resolved. similies include assuming a flying model is flying, or assuming a model that didn't move, didn't move.

 some bloke wrote:

Look at it another way - If a model with the FLY rule gains some ability which gives it the FLY rule, it doesn't become super-fly. It gains nothing, because it already had the rule. It's the same thing.

Not really. FLY doesnt come with a modifier, which might stack, or not. Thats the question here.

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Look at it another way - If a model with the FLY rule gains some ability which gives it the FLY rule, it doesn't become super-fly. It gains nothing, because it already had the rule. It's the same thing.

Not really. FLY doesnt come with a modifier, which might stack, or not. Thats the question here.

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

 some bloke wrote:

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

I agree then that light cover is a terrain trait and not a terrain feature, but your last point is definitely wrong. Otherwise, Stealthy could not give the unit "the benefits of light cover", as you are saying that this is something a unit cannot gain.

the rule book tells you exaclty how to interpret that though, and it does not put the unit into a light cover state.

BENEFITS OF COVER WHEN NOT IN TERRAIN
Sometimes a rule will tell you that a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

dammit wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

I agree then that light cover is a terrain trait and not a terrain feature, but your last point is definitely wrong. Otherwise, Stealthy could not give the unit "the benefits of light cover", as you are saying that this is something a unit cannot gain.

the rule book tells you exaclty how to interpret that though, and it does not put the unit into a light cover state.

BENEFITS OF COVER WHEN NOT IN TERRAIN
Sometimes a rule will tell you that a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Going aside for a moment, It occurs to me that that final rule you quotes is entirely irrelevant. I've only just noticed.

The rule covers "If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are", and Stealthy states:

Stealthy
Each time a ranged attack is made against a unit with this tactic, if the attacker is more than 18" away, the unit with this tactic is treated as having the benefits of light cover against that attack.

So Stealthy gives the unit the benefits of light cover, which is therefore the rules specifying the type of cover.

So technically that rule does not apply.

This leaves us in the lurch again that Stealthy gives the unit the benefits of Light Cover, which only allows the unit to benefit from it if they are in terrain.

As such: I think the more we go over this the wider the holes are becoming in the rules writing, and I think it comes down to RAI, which will never be agreed upon online. If someone tried t oclaim double cover, I'd argue against. If they insisted, I'd roll-off for it, and if they refused, I'd pack up.

U02dah4 wrote:
@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you

Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all the words anyone has written. There's a difference.

JakeSiren wrote:
While I don't agree that "Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition, I think the bigger issue with the logic you presented is that it is flawed. Examples such as obscuring and dense cover prove that it's not that simple to determine if the traits of terrain come into effect. Rather you have to check each trait on each piece of terrain and see if the conditions for the trait to activate are met. And if so, apply the trait's effects.

Which brings us right back to my point that it's not the terrain itself that grants the modifier, but the trait is. Traits are generally independent of the terrain type and deals more with actual physical qualities of the terrain, with notable exception being the cover traits (which is dependent on whether or not the terrain type can grant [benefit of cover] in order to trigger the traits). Therefore it's fallacious to say "this terrain gives me +1 to save roll modifier". Rather, it should be said as "this terrain gives me the benefit of cover, which gives me +1 to save roll modifier". Terrain can confer the state of [benefit of cover]; it cannot confer the state of [light cover] because that's not a thing.

dammit wrote:
the rule book tells you exaclty how to interpret that though, and it does not put the unit into a light cover state.

BENEFITS OF COVER WHEN NOT IN TERRAIN
Sometimes a rule will tell you that a model or unit gains the benefit of cover, even while they are not entirely on or in a terrain feature. If a model or unit is under the effects of such a rule, and that rule does not specify what the benefits of cover are, when resolving an attack that model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes. This means that when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model under the effect of this rule, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

No, but it does tell you that do this and that under the condition when a model or unit gain the [benefit of cover]. Without having received [benefit of cover], being "assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes" means nothing because Light Cover can only trigger if you are receiving the [benefit of cover]. For example, a terrain feature that is a HILL cannot proc Light Cover because the terrain piece in unable to provide the [benefit of cover] as per rules.

The underlying argument here is "can you gain/receive [benefit of cover] multiple times?" or "is [benefit of cover] something we can give multiple times". We know that [benefit of cover] confers certain abilities to modify a roll, and that modifiers stack. What is not factually evident, without a shadow of a doubt, is the claim "you can claim the benefits of cover multiple times from multiple terrain" because the rulebook simply does not cover this area. What we are doing is making a reasonable conjecture based on series of precedents and chain logic, nothing more.

It's not proven to be true, but simply unproven to be false. Therefore, it lies in the realm of HIWPI/RAI.

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you

Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all the words anyone has written. There's a difference.

Well, no it actually does if you're participating in a conversation. You may not agree with "all the words anyone has written", but you do need to read and accept what the others have said, otherwise you're just talking AT people without contributing anything to the conversation.

Slipspace wrote:
"...from this terrain feature" The answer is literally right there in the rule you quoted but you've decided to ignore part of it for some reason. You get the save bonus "from this terrain feature" which means if you have multiple terrain features providing the bonus you get multiple bonuses.

Yes it only reads that way if you cherry pick that particular phrase and apply it to the situation with bias. If you read the whole sentence, it actually means "if the model/unit is receiving the benefit of cover from this particular terrain piece with this particular trait [Light Cover] and not any other terrain piece/rules that is giving benefit of cover." Meaning, you can't claim [benefit of cover] from terrain A, then apply traits from terrain B even if the unit/model is not in range of terrain B since its already receiving [benefit of cover] from terrain A.

This is your logic as presented:

"if you get save bonus from THIS terrain feature, then it means you get save bonus from multiple sources because other multiple sources are nonetheless THIS terrain feature"

I've re-read the whole 6 pages again and found no trace of explanation for this particular logic that's been thrown around. Can you explain to me exactly how this logic establishes itself?

 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?

In my last post, I actually (assuming your quote was word for word, which they usually are from you) proved that Stealthy simply breaks the game, because it isn't covered by Rare rules (which only cover rules which don't specify cover type; stealthy does specify it as light cover, in your quote) and as such the rule for Light Cover only works if it is granted by a terrain feature.

So, technically, RAW all we can do is prove Stealthy doesn't work.

 skchsan wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you

Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all the words anyone has written. There's a difference.

Well, no it actually does if you're participating in a conversation. You may not agree with "all the words anyone has written", but you do need to read and accept what the others have said, otherwise you're just talking AT people without contributing anything to the conversation.

I can accept that he believes him without accepting what he is saying - that is disagreeing. That means I don't personally accept the words as I'm disagreeing with what he's saying. But, this is taking things off on a tangent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?

Well, stealthy says benefits of light cover, and light cover references terrain pieces.

 some bloke wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?

In my last post, I actually (assuming your quote was word for word, which they usually are from you) proved that Stealthy simply breaks the game, because it isn't covered by Rare rules (which only cover rules which don't specify cover type; stealthy does specify it as light cover, in your quote) and as such the rule for Light Cover only works if it is granted by a terrain feature.

So, technically, RAW all we can do is prove Stealthy doesn't work.

It's only broken if you make it.

The rules specify there are more than 1 way (being within range of a terrain that grants benefit of cover) of gaining benefit of cover (i.e. "certain rules and abilities"). The FAQ further clarifies that if the type of cover is unspecified, then it is considered to have the same effect as granted by light cover trait.

 skchsan wrote:

Spoiler:

 some bloke wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?

In my last post, I actually (assuming your quote was word for word, which they usually are from you) proved that Stealthy simply breaks the game, because it isn't covered by Rare rules (which only cover rules which don't specify cover type; stealthy does specify it as light cover, in your quote) and as such the rule for Light Cover only works if it is granted by a terrain feature.

So, technically, RAW all we can do is prove Stealthy doesn't work.

It's only broken if you make it.

The rules specify there are more than 1 way (being within range of a terrain that grants benefit of cover) of gaining benefit of cover. The FAQ further clarifies that if the type of cover is unspecified, then it is considered to have the same effect as granted by light cover trait.

The rules specify that any unspecified cover-granting is light cover, and is treated as being in or on a terrain feature with this trait. A rule which specifies "the benefits of light cover", RAW, is not covered by the FAQ as that is only for unspecified cover.

As such, specific light cover gains the benefits of Light Cover gains:

Light Cover
When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).

Now, we need to consider what "The benefits of" means. Wer'e into the english language here, which is RAI territory - RAW, nothing is specified as "the benefits of light cover", but let's ignore that.

The benefits of Light cover are, really, "add 1 to saving throws against ranged attacks". That's the benefit, the rest is how t oget it, but we skip that by just getting it because stealthy.

Which makes it look like I've proven myself wrong. Good-oh.

So Stealthy gives the benefits of light cover, being +1 to saves, whilst being in light cover gives the benefit of cover and, for light cover, this is "When an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack (invulnerable saving throws are not affected).".

So it looks like you would, RAWBSOI (Rules As Written But Sort Of Interpreted), get +2 to saves because one gives the benefits of light cover and the other is just light cover.


I still wouldn't play it like that, but I can't prove myself wrong and then refuse my own findings!

 some bloke wrote:
Now, we need to consider what "The benefits of" means. Wer'e into the english language here, which is RAI territory - RAW, nothing is specified as "the benefits of light cover", but let's ignore that.

The [benefit of cover] means that whoever has it can tap into the effect granted by terrain traits light, heavy & dense cover.

[Benefit of cover] by itself has no meaning - which is exactly why the rare rules clarification was necessary. In the same line, [light cover], [heavy cover] & [dense cover] have no effect by itself - it necessarily needs to be tied in with the state of being in [benefit of cover] (i.e. hills cannot provide [benefit of cover] by definition, so assigning any of the three cover traits on it is moot).