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.

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.