Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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 ?

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.

Light cover doesn't modify the characteristic, just the roll.

True, but do you still get the +2 ?

This has come up in my games before (hypermaterial ablator) and I just assumed it doesn't stack because it wouldn't really make sense.

Light cover is +1 to saves but that doesn't mean having it twice means +2. Would need to be a different rule to gain an extra +1 IMO but I don't know the correct ruling for sure

I think you can't receive the benefit of cover twice. In Rare Rules, Benefits for cover when not in terrain (emphasis mine):

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.

Admittedly, this is referring to units that "gains the benefits of cover", and doesn't say "treated as having the benefits of light cover", but I think this still applies, and as the unit is "assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes" it can't be in a terrain feature twice so only gets the benefit once.

The Rare Rules do cover instances where you can get a +2 from cover, Improving the benefits of cover:

Some models have abilities that improve the bonus a model receives to its saving throw when it is receiving the benefit of cover — for example, ‘add 2 instead of 1 to saving throws for models in this unit while it is receiving the benefit of cover’. If a model or unit with such a rule is receiving the benefits of cover from a terrain feature with the Light Cover or Heavy Cover trait, then this rule is applied as written. If that model or unit is receiving the benefits of cover from any other terrain features with any other terrain traits, you instead add 1 to its saving throws, in addition to any other benefits of cover that are gained from those terrain features. In either case, invulnerable saves are unaffected.

Given the above, in order to receive +2 I think it would need to specifically say so, rather than having a rule saying you receive the benefits of (light) cover and also being in light cover.

That being said, a FAQ would be nice for the sake of clarity.

Yeah its +1

Aash wrote:
I think you can't receive the benefit of cover twice. In Rare Rules, Benefits for cover when not in terrain (emphasis mine):

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.

Admittedly, this is referring to units that "gains the benefits of cover", and doesn't say "treated as having the benefits of light cover", but I think this still applies, and as the unit is "assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes" it can't be in a terrain feature twice so only gets the benefit once.

But the unit is in terrain, so this doesnt apply. And its not in a terrain feature twice, the second benefit of cover is coming from stealthy.

Aash wrote:

The Rare Rules do cover instances where you can get a +2 from cover, Improving the benefits of cover:

Some models have abilities that improve the bonus a model receives to its saving throw when it is receiving the benefit of cover — for example, ‘add 2 instead of 1 to saving throws for models in this unit while it is receiving the benefit of cover’. If a model or unit with such a rule is receiving the benefits of cover from a terrain feature with the Light Cover or Heavy Cover trait, then this rule is applied as written. If that model or unit is receiving the benefits of cover from any other terrain features with any other terrain traits, you instead add 1 to its saving throws, in addition to any other benefits of cover that are gained from those terrain features. In either case, invulnerable saves are unaffected.

Yes, but this is for units which have a rule which gives them +2 when receiving the benefits of cover, which is not the case here. A rule like that would be SM phobos units with camo cloaks.

Camo cloak Each time a ranged attack is allocated to a model in this unit while it is receiving the benefits of cover, add an additional 1 to any armour saving throw made against that attack

U02dah4 wrote:
Yeah its +1

Why ? Reason ? Citation ?

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.