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.

its literally printed on page 221 of the rulebook

It provides rules for how to roll multiple dice at the same time.

Ergo it is a rule

I do indeed agree that if you arbitrarily consider rules written in the rulebook to not be rules that we probably won't agree but then your answer won't be based in the rules so I'm comfortable ignoring it

 Niiai wrote:
Are you sure about this? This sounds very combersone anf will take a very long time.

Yes. I am sure.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

In fact, if you have a weapon with 3 shots, and the first two kill the models that were clearly not behind dense cover, then the third shot would suffer the penalty.

Irrelevant when fast rolling.

False. You can not fast roll in this case because "they must be affected by the same abilities" the -1 modifier is an ability of the terrain.

They are all equally " not effected " by the same terrain rule.

At that point in time the terrain rule does not apply to any individual model because you can draw an uninterrupted line from each model to a model not in the dense terrain.

I agree models that cant do this are affected by different rules so have to be fast rolled separately

Actually tbf on reflection I’d allow it until such time as GW decide otherwise, it’s a new interaction and I was applying the same rationale as LOS and range are only checked once but saves possibly changing. However we know you can see one model and wipe a squad so I can rationalise its as no different.

(Would help if people didn’t invent reasons and brand them as RAW when unsupported in an effort to lend weight, and tell others people words in the rules quoted don’t exist - cf “similar”. Better discourse needed around here. Let’s try and do better eh?)

 DeathReaper wrote:
False. You can not fast roll in this case because "they must be affected by the same abilities" the -1 modifier is an ability of the terrain.

False. The -1 modifier is a terrain trait, not an ability.

U02dah4 wrote:
its literally printed on page 221 of the rulebook
It provides rules for how to roll multiple dice at the same time.
Ergo it is a rule
I do indeed agree that if you arbitrarily consider rules written in the rulebook to not be rules that we probably won't agree but then your answer won't be based in the rules so I'm comfortable ignoring it

...ok, I do feel responsible for addressing that I'm not just carte blanche ignoring rules for the sake of it.
Fast-rolling really isn't a rule. My own post from earlier in this same thread:

"But take a look at page 195, and the definition for hints and tips (point 5) - they're defined as "not rules per se".
In other words, the entire concept of fast-rolling is meant as guidance, it's not permission to override the basic rules."

And before you say it! ...the use of the words "per se" doesn't invalidate this. "per se" means "by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically."
So by the very rules themselves - fast-rolling is not a rule by or in itself.
You only need to take a look at the other hints and tips (wobbly models, cocked dice) to see that what's included are suggestions, not rules.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
False. You can not fast roll in this case because "they must be affected by the same abilities" the -1 modifier is an ability of the terrain.

False. The -1 modifier is a terrain trait, not an ability.

You are incorrect. Terrain traits are abilities.

 Super Ready wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
its literally printed on page 221 of the rulebook
It provides rules for how to roll multiple dice at the same time.
Ergo it is a rule
I do indeed agree that if you arbitrarily consider rules written in the rulebook to not be rules that we probably won't agree but then your answer won't be based in the rules so I'm comfortable ignoring it

...ok, I do feel responsible for addressing that I'm not just carte blanche ignoring rules for the sake of it.
Fast-rolling really isn't a rule. My own post from earlier in this same thread:

"But take a look at page 195, and the definition for hints and tips (point 5) - they're defined as "not rules per se".
In other words, the entire concept of fast-rolling is meant as guidance, it's not permission to override the basic rules."

And before you say it! ...the use of the words "per se" doesn't invalidate this. "per se" means "by or in itself or themselves; intrinsically."
So by the very rules themselves - fast-rolling is not a rule by or in itself.
You only need to take a look at the other hints and tips (wobbly models, cocked dice) to see that what's included are suggestions, not rules.

They may state that they are not rules per se but they are treated as such my 99% of gamers because they " help games run smoothly."

I mean would the average player be happy at their opponent insisting they roll every dice one at a time throughout the whole game its only a hint and tip certainly would make people clock out T2?

And as to the others

Dice rolling is one and part of that is the instruction to tell your opponent what your rolling before you role, would you be happy with your opponent not telling you throughout the game because its only a hint and tip

And you cant reroll cocked dice only a hint and tip

And I insist you balance your expensive model precariously after all only a hint and tip..... whoops it broke

that would be the worst game ever.

So yeah you can say its not a rule and you might be technically correct but when most people play/tourneys they are not considered suggestions any more than rule of 3 was considered a suggestion in 8th.

I mean if you want to go down that route I'll bring 6 mtg playmats As objective markers for my hoard army because they only recommend 40mm objectives and nothing specifies they must be circular (and no strictly speaking their is nothing saying you have to have terrain on the board and you can place terrain wherever you like, just not on the objectives as theres a rule for that and yes my objectives do cover the whole board so you have to choose to place no terrain... isnt it fun when we don't treat these things as rules


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
False. You can not fast roll in this case because "they must be affected by the same abilities" the -1 modifier is an ability of the terrain.

False. The -1 modifier is a terrain trait, not an ability.

You are incorrect. Terrain traits are abilities.

Terrain traits are defined as additional rules on page 262 not abilities and therefore are arguably irrelevant to fast-rolling unless you accept modifiers to BS under RAI to be relevant. however even then is this context as terrain isnt issueing any modifiers to BS at the point you fast roll

That DOES sound like a horrible way to play. And for the most part, yes, fast rolling is amazing. But my main point is that nothing about fast rolling allows you to override other, actual rules - so you can only really do it when it would make no difference to the outcome.
With Dense cover, it does make a difference, so you can't use it. And yeah, it's a pain in the butt and I really wish GW had figured out some other way of working cover so that fast-rolling could still work (maybe FAQ it?) but as it stands, here we are.
As I say, in a real-life scenario I'd still want to roll all the dice together and apply them from left-to-right, but the wound rolls would still have to be one-by-one in this example.


I'll agree that "abilities" doesn't have enough traction here per RAW, solely because it isn't a defined term anywhere in the rules, except for on a weapon's profile of all places. Another massive oversight by GW, if they're going to use the word they need to give it a strong rules definition.
For the time being we can use the dictionary again, which defines abilities as "possession of the means or skill to do something" - this implies autonomy on the part of the ability holder, so not intangible objects, so that excludes effects of terrain. On that basis though, you can also argue that effects granted by wargear aren't "abilities" either.
That I think would be worthy of its own discussion since let's face it, it's going to affect more than just cover.

U02dah4 wrote:
Terrain traits are defined as additional rules on page 262 not abilities...

Additional rules can be abilities.

The game does not define abilities in the rules terms glossary. So terrain rules can be abilities of terrain.

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Terrain traits are defined as additional rules on page 262 not abilities...

Additional rules can be abilities.

The game does not define abilities in the rules terms glossary. So terrain rules can be abilities of terrain.

They can be, but they arent. Until GW clarifies what abilities exactly are i dont consider terrain traits to be abilities.

 p5freak wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

U02dah4 wrote:
Terrain traits are defined as additional rules on page 262 not abilities...

Additional rules can be abilities.

The game does not define abilities in the rules terms glossary. So terrain rules can be abilities of terrain.

They can be, but they arent. Until GW clarifies what abilities exactly are i dont consider terrain traits to be abilities.

And there is the issue.

Until GW clarifies what abilities exactly are... So GW has not defined abilities. Therefore it is an abilitiy, because it fits the english definition of ability, and GW has not defined it otherwise.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Until GW clarifies what abilities exactly are... So GW has not defined abilities. Therefore it is an abilitiy, because it fits the english definition of ability, and GW has not defined it otherwise.

I've already addressed this - no, it doesn't. The definition of "abilities" requires use of "means or skill to do something", which means taking action - it can't come from intangible objects. Eg, terrain.

@ super ready all the help and tips override rules in some way. You cant pick and choose when to apply them to suit you. You can tell me their not rules all you want but even if Not RAW by your definition certainly RAI.

Abilities are defined as rules appearing on the bottom section of a models datasheet terrain rules have no datasheet (in most cases)

U02dah4 wrote:

Abilities are defined as rules appearing on the bottom section of a models datasheet terrain rules have no datasheet (in most cases)

Also, weapons have abilities. And this :

The Vox Espiritum
PRIMARIS model only. If a model has this Relic, add 3" to the range of its aura abilities (e.g. Rites of Battle). This does not increase the range of psychic powers or Litanies of Battle that are aura abilities.

Some psychic powers, and some litanies of battle are (aura) abilities as well.

U02dah4 wrote:
@ super ready all the help and tips override rules in some way. You cant pick and choose when to apply them to suit you. You can tell me their not rules all you want but even if Not RAW by your definition certainly RAI.

Fair enough, I disagree on this but have nothing more to add.

Abilities are defined as rules appearing on the bottom section of a models datasheet terrain rules have no datasheet (in most cases)

Does this have any backing in the rules, eg page number? I couldn't find a definition for "abilities" but would love there to be one.

P202

Section 6.abilities

Thanks! I have no idea how I missed that before.
It's not quite as strongly defined as I'd hoped - barring aura abilities, which are now a specific thing - but the one thing I take from that description is that it states that units sometimes have one or more special abilities.
To me that still says that benefits of cover and terrain traits aren't abilities, because the terrain pieces providing them aren't units.

 Super Ready wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Until GW clarifies what abilities exactly are... So GW has not defined abilities. Therefore it is an abilitiy, because it fits the english definition of ability, and GW has not defined it otherwise.

I've already addressed this - no, it doesn't. The definition of "abilities" requires use of "means or skill to do something", which means taking action - it can't come from intangible objects. Eg, terrain.

That is 100% false.

The terrain is doing something, applying a -1.

P.S. Special abilities and abilities are not the same phrase.