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.

Abilities are not defined anywhere. The only reference is in relation to datasheets where it says

6. ABILITIES
Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be
described here.

That is not a definition of what abilities are. Saying that something has special abilities does not define them or preclude other things also being abilities

I literally quoted the definition of Aura which is clearly defined

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

Every datasheet with terrain traits lists them in abilities. - can you show me any model with a datasheet that does not list them in abilities?

So yes they are auras and so can't stack and if you don't accept they are auras then you have no definition of how they stack so they can't stack. Either way they can't stack.

I see we have well and truly entered the clutching at straws phase of this argument.

As has been pointed out, Aura abilities are always part of a datasheet and only apply to units as per the Core rules because datasheets only apply to models. They are only defined in the section on datasheets so we know that's the only place they can appear, as per point 6 of the Datasheets page. Additionally, the Light cover bonus doesn't have a given range and is not noted as an Aura with the "(Aura)" tag. They are not aura abilities by definition.

Also, you keep saying modifiers don't stack and have repeatedly been asked to give a relevant rules reference. You have not given one.

One last time: if I am claiming a light cover bonus from two different sources (the rules say you get the bonus for "this terrain feature") why, specifically with a rules citation, can I not say I'm claiming the bonus from feature A and from feature B?

Terrain features are modals

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

As to light cover not having a range "the benefits of cover" does and light cover is a modification of this

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

Their is no rules requirement for their to be an aura tag in the aura definition or anywhere in the rules if so provide a quote
"Aura abilities
some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities" see nowhere does it say must have an aura tag and their are no aura tags in the admech codex anywhere their are plenty of auras


Where in point 6 does it say abilities may only appear on datasheets please provide a quote - it does say they appear on datasheets its not the same thing to say it can't appear elsewhere so provide that quote

And again it doesn't matter how many times you say that you have you have not shown light cover can stack ergo you cannot claim a light cover bonus from two different sources if you could they would stack but you haven't shown this. Please provide the quote explicitly stateing cover can stack or be cumulative not modifiers

I also note you ignore that where traits do occur on datasheets they occur in abilities

There is a picture with a datasheet on p. 203 with numbers from 1-9. What those numbers mean is described on p. 202. No. 6 are abilities, and only those in the box named abilities on a datasheet can be aura abilities, as described on p. 202. Terrain treats aren't there, so they can't be aura abilities.

Not a definition - it doesnt say that" only those "in box 6 are

U02dah4 wrote:
Not a definition - it doesnt say that" only those "in box 6 are

Yes, it does. On p. 202 it says 6. ABILITIES and under that it says aura abilities. On p. 203 the no 6 is right next to the box which is named abilities. Only those abilities listed in the box can be aura abilities, if they match the definition : "Some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities." There are datasheets for certain terrain pieces, but not for ruins.

First, terrain treats arent listed there, thus they arent aura abilities. Second, light cover doesnt say anything about a range. A range is defined in inches.

It doesnt say that they only occur on datasheets please provide a quote tp support that- all you have stated is your inference no rule to back it up

Benefits of cover is defined by range light cover refers to those receiving the benefits of cover

As stated where we have datasheets they are listed there and so are abilities i acknowledge not all terrain has datasheets

Your argument us they are abilities only when on a datasheet and that despite being the same rules do not count as abilities when the model does not have a datasheet. This is not RAW and seems illogical fron a RAI stand point

My argument is we don't know if they are abilities or not absolutely because abilities are not defined but since they are proven to be abilities in some context it is reasonable to assume they are abilities in all contexts- this i acknowledge is RAI not RAW but trying to claim their is RAW on this point is a LIE as abilities are undefined.

I have already quoted the relevant rules. Now i want to see your rule citation that terrain treats are aura abilities. Light cover doesnt have a range. A range is defined in inches. An ability must have a range in inches to be an aura ability : "Some abilities affect models or units in a given range - these are aura abilities."

You get that a quote is when you have a quotation mark then put in the exact text as written no amendments then finish with a quotation mark

As stated the "benefits of cover" does

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

Light cover has been repeatedly stated as only applying to a model receiving the "benefits of cover"from the piece of terrain

" 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)"

U02dah4 wrote:
You get that a quote is when you have a quotation mark then put in the exact text as written no amendments then finish with a quotation mark

As stated the "benefits of cover" does

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

This is true, but only for obstacles, and its not an aura ability, because its not on a datasheet.

For area terrain
"Infantry beast and swarm models receive the benefits of cover for area terrain features while they are within it"

This is still a defined range it just varies based on the size of the terrain piece so a 6" by 4" ruin has a 6" by 4" range on the benefits of cover



Again provide a specific quote specifying that abilities can only occur on datasheets if you can you may have a raw case
Note not can occur on datasheets or that rules in section 6 are abilities these would be insufficient the key part is they only or have to be on datasheets

If you can't we have a rai argument and I will point to terrain traits being on some data sheets in abilities as rai evidence

U02dah4 wrote:
For area terrain
"Infantry beast and swarm models receive the benefits of cover for area terrain features while they are within it"

This is still a defined range it just varies based on the size of the terrain piece so a 6" by 4" ruin has a 6" by 4" range on the benefits of cover



Again provide a specific quote specifying that abilities can only occur on datasheets if you can you may have a raw case
Note not can occur on datasheets or that rules in section 6 are abilities these would be insufficient the key part is they only or have to be on datasheets

If you can't we have a rai argument and I will point to terrain traits being on some data sheets in abilities as rai evidence

Regardless of where abilities are noted, terrain traits aren't. The data sheets you quoted have abilities that change the fortification into a category of terrain with traits - not a category of terrain with abilities.

Could you provide a quote stateing that terrain traits don't meet the definition of abilities

Your argument is they have abilities that grant them terrain traits which sit in the abilities section of the datasheet but are infact not abilities - sounds a stretch unless you can provide the first quote demonstrating that they are not abilities as that assumption underpins your argument

Again nothing that a rule saying something is an ability does not preclude something else being an ability

U02dah4 wrote:
Could you provide a quote stateing that terrain traits don't meet the definition of abilities

Permissive rule set. I don't have permission to treat terrain traits as abilities unless the rules tell me that they are abilities.

Your turn. Please provide the rule quote that terrain traits are abilities. If you can't then you don't have permission to treat them as the same thing.

U02dah4 wrote:
Could you provide a quote stateing that terrain traits don't meet the definition of abilities

Abilities appear on datasheets. Not all terrain has datasheets. In fact, the vast majority don't. If I tag my homemade piece of terrain with the Light Cover trait, it doesn't have a datasheet so it can't have any abilities. Also, at no point in the rules for terrain does it refer to a trait as an ability.

It does not define abilities anywhere so by that logic nothing is an ability or by extension an aura.

The only reference to abilities we have is

"Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be
described here."

Which specifies abilities will be described in section 6 of a datasheet but does not specify only abilities will be written there or that abilities can not be located elsewhere or what constitutes an ability

U02dah4 wrote:


Again nothing that a rule saying something is an ability does not preclude something else being an ability

We have a permissive ruleset. You don't get to label something as something else just because the rules don't specifically say it isn't that thing. They'd have to specifically call out traits as abilities for your argument to hold, and the rules do not do that.

You have no rule saying anything is an ability. under RAW the term is undefined so we can only go to RAI. We're we having a RAW argument it would need to specify but there is no RAW when the term is undefined

U02dah4 wrote:
It does not define abilities anywhere so by that logic nothing is an ability.

The only reference to abilities we have is

"Many units have one or more special abilities; these will be
described here."

Which specifies abilities will be described in section 6 of a datasheet but does not specify only abilities will be written there or that abilities can not be located elsewhere or what constitutes an ability

How did you even get to "nothing is an ability" from "Abilities appear on datasheets."

In any event, since you have chosen not to quote the rule that says terrain traits *are* abilities, I will assume no such rule exists and that, due to the nature of a permissive rule set, we do not have permission to treat them as abilities.

Saying abilities will be written here does not define what an ability is only a location where they will be written on datasheets

I've specified the term is undefined this is evidenced by your inability to provide a quote of a definition you cannot provide a definition of a term that is undefined

U02dah4 wrote:
Saying abilities will be written here does not define what an ability is only a location where they will be written on datasheets

I've specified the term is undefined this is evidenced by your inability to provide a definition you cannot provide a definition of a term that is undefined

No, it's defined quite clearly. Abilities are rules that appear on that section of the datasheet. There needn't be any further definition.

U02dah4 wrote:


I've specified the term is undefined

You specifying something doesn't make it the case. Sadly that seems to sum up this entire "debate".

Abilities are defined in the Core rules as point 6 on the Datasheets page. As per that definition an ability is something that appears in the "Abilities" section of a datasheet. What other definition do you need? Anything not meeting that definition is not an ability.

If it is defined please provide the whole quote where it states the definition. if what you say is true it should be easy.

If not we will both know you are lieing

And no quoting 2 words out of context while rewriting the text around it to make it say what you want doesnt count




Yes I agree the entire debate can be summed up by you not providing quotes supporting the assumptions of your argument then demanding the other person disprove a definition that does not exist

So your contention is that the term Abilities is not defined on the page of the rulebook that has a heading for Abilities, along with a definition of the term? That's P7, point 6 of the rules primer. That's unequivocally a definition of what abilities are in 40k. If you have another one feel free to provide it.

If you're just going to argue the rules don't say what they explicitly say then there's no point in continuing this discussion.

Proof that Abilities do not need to be located in the Abilities section of a unit datasheet:
1. GW refers to Warlord Traits as abilities
2. Warlord Traits are not in the abilities section of the datasheet
3. Therefore all abilities are not listed in the abilities section of the datasheet
QED

Also there is the Weapon section of the datasheet, which includes an abilities section. It is also not in the Abilities section of the datasheet.

Did I mention that GW refers to Psychic Powers and faction traits as abilities?

This Terrain Traits are not Abilities is a nonsensical argument.

 alextroy wrote:
Proof that Abilities do not need to be located in the Abilities section of a unit datasheet:
1. GW refers to Warlord Traits as abilities
2. Warlord Traits are not in the abilities section of the datasheet
3. Therefore all abilities are not listed in the abilities section of the datasheet
QED

Also there is the Weapon section of the datasheet, which includes an abilities section. It is also not in the Abilities section of the datasheet.

Did I mention that GW refers to Psychic Powers and faction traits as abilities?

This Terrain Traits are not Abilities is a nonsensical argument.

OK, so abilities are either defined on the datasheet page or are referred to as such where necessary. That still doesn't prove Terrain Traits are abilities. As far as I can tell they are never referred to as such anywhere.

No abilities are not defined on the datasheet page evidenced by you being unable to to quote the definition. I mean all it takes is " xxxxxxxxxxx" its not hard if it actually existed.


I take you back to my original statement that there is no definition of abilities ergo no RAW answer.

I mean my guess is gw use ability as a term to refer to a rule attached to a particular model weapon equipment terrain etc. Rather than a general rule But that's an interpretation not raw

Terrain traits could reasonably be considered abilities under RAI supported by the terrain with datasheets having them listing them under abilities in the abilities section of datasheets. which then gives you a clear answer. benefits of cover is an aura you pick 1.

Now the datasheet definition argument had fallen apart by evidence of non datasheet abilities and your inability to provide a definition their isn't really a strong counter RAI

You just dont like the answer

 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.

 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 "receving the benefits of coverfrom this terrain feature."

You can be receiving the benifits 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.

Which as shown by auras can't stack and you have produced no rule saying it can so while you can be in range of two sources of cover you only benefit from 1 for a single +1sv