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.

 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.