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

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

3) you are never told to do that

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is literally right there.

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

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

It is not proof light cover can stack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDIT:

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

It is not proof light cover can stack

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

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

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

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

It is not proof light cover can stack

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

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

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

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

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

You do not have two modifiers to add together

Unless light cover can stack

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

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

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

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

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

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

You do not have two modifiers to add together

Unless light cover can stack

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, RAW looks like Light Cover can stack.

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

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

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

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

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

Do those not stack either?

HIT ROLLS

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

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

Exactly. Unless otherwise stated, modifiers stack.

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

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

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

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

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

Cover has no such rule

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

However, the rules are actually set up like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Terrain traits bestow additional rules

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

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


Their is no rule granting permission for light cover to stack

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

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

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

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

For the umpteenth time, this is the rule:

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

You seem to be reading it as

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

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

See above for full explanation sorry it took a while type

That is not what I read

See above you have no permission to stack


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually We've been thick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Light cover therefore can only ever apply from one source

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

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

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

No aura abilities are defined by

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

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

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

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

So in the case at hand

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


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

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

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

We see they appear in the abilities section of the datasheet

The same is true on the faq to the Sacriston forgeshrine

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

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

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

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

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

Terrain isn't a unit.

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

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