Switch Theme:

Can you get the benefits of light cover twice ?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






"conferred a cover" is a meaningless phrase with no rules support. We don't need to bridge that gap because it doesn't exist. We know the rules for terrain having the Light Cover trait, and that is:
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).

When terrain has the Light Cover trait, then, when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from that terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack. That's the rule. Terrain having the Light Cover trait does not "confer Light Cover" - that phrase doesn't exist or mean anything. The rule would state "Terrain features with this trait confer Light Cover" and then Light Cover would be defined elsewhere as giving +1 to armor save rolls when a unit has it, or something similar to that.

There is no leap if you read the actual rules.

The *only* ambiguity here is whether or not the benefits of cover from a terrain feature are an aura ability or not. Please email 40kfaq@gwplc.com so we can hope to see a clarification in a future FAQ/errata release.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 20:40:23


I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://makethatgame.com

And I also make tabletop wargaming videos!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






The rules for light cover literally says "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 can play semantics/grammar police all you want but in order to claim the benefits of cover, you need to be RECEIVING the benefits of cover in the first palce.

Go check the rulebook when a model is considered to be "receiving the benefits of cover".

And please cite me where it states you can receive the benefit of same type of cover multiple times.

It doesn't (therefore you cannot make the assumption they do). The terrain traits simply determine the conditions for claiming the benefits of cover. Depending on whether or not that condition has been fulfilled, you move onto determine what type of benefits you gain. In cover or not in cover is a real thing covered by the book (no pun intended).

This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2021/03/15 21:12:42


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 skchsan wrote:
The rules for light cover literally says "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 can play semantics/grammar police all you want but in order to claim the benefits of cover, you need to be RECEIVING the benefits of cover in the first palce.

Go check the rulebook when a model is considered to be "receiving the benefits of cover".


"...from this terrain feature" The answer is literally right there in the rule you quoted but you've decided to ignore part of it for some reason. You get the save bonus "from this terrain feature" which means if you have multiple terrain features providing the bonus you get multiple bonuses.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Why does everybody opposing the idea always forget to highlight "from this terrain feature"?

Imagine reading the reiver rule:

Terror Troops (Aura): While an enemy unit is within 3" of this model, subtract 2 from the Leadership characteristic of models in that unit.

And trying to read it without "of this model".
While an enemy unit is within 3"! It says it right there! 3" of what? nevermind that, that doesn't matter.


Leaving out the "from this terrain feature" would mean that one could read that whenever a model is receiving the benefits of cover, they are always in Light Cover. whether the terrain they are receiving the benefits of cover from has the Light Cover trait or not.

The terrain traits simply determine the conditions for claiming the benefits of cover

To be completely clear, that is the Terrain Type, not the Terrain Traits.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/15 21:15:33


I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://makethatgame.com

And I also make tabletop wargaming videos!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not. Status of being in cover is what grants you the modifiers.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 21:15:50


 
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not.


Please provide a rules citation, as the Terrain Traits are very clear about which bonuses they do, in fact, grant. And never mention granting any "status". There's also no mention of "in cover" being a status (not that there is a mention of statuses any where).

A model benefits from cover from a terrain feature while on or within it (if it is area) or within 3" of it (if it is an obstacle). When a terrain feature has the Light Cover trait, while a model benefits from cover from that terrain feature, it gets +1 to armor save rolls. Nowhere is it stated it gains any sort of status called "in cover" or not, and even if you want to argue that that's semantics, nowhere does it refer to "receiving the benefits of cover" as a "status" let alone it being a "status" that can only be gained once.

"benefits of cover" isn't even a standalone thing. It's something you receive from a specific terrain feature. You can receive the benefits of cover from multiple terrain features at once, or abilities that provide the benefits of cover without being in a terrain feature. (Assuming they are not aura abilities)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 21:20:24


I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://makethatgame.com

And I also make tabletop wargaming videos!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".


Why not? If you receive the benefits from cover from a second piece of terrain, that piece of terrain is also giving you a +1 bonus. You have both pieces giving a +1 modifier, and we have been told modifiers are cumulative. We are not told that the bonuses are not cumulative in this case.



 skchsan wrote:
Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not. Status of being in cover is what grants you the modifiers.


You are granted the status of being in cover due to that piece of terrain. The wording they use has each piece of terrain specifically giving you a bonus, not just a generic bonus for being in cover.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps






Quick question, skchsan... are you referring to 9th edition or 8th edition rules?
You earlier made a comment about reiver rules, company ancient rules, and chapter ancient rules which are from the 8th edition codex.

Your interpretation of cover rules would also be correct under 8th edition.

In this thread we are discussing 9th edition rules. To be clear.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 21:28:38


I'm on a podcast about (video) game design:
https://makethatgame.com

And I also make tabletop wargaming videos!
https://www.youtube.com/@tableitgaming 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut



Glasgow

@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/15 21:25:52


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






Rihgu wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not.


Please provide a rules citation, as the Terrain Traits are very clear about which bonuses they do, in fact, grant. And never mention granting any "status". There's also no mention of "in cover" being a status (not that there is a mention of statuses any where).
Because it doesn't matter if you're receiving the benefit of cover (by fulfilling the conditions for claiming it) if the said terrain didn't have any of light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it. If an area terrain does not have any of either light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it, then units inside the said area terrain does not get any modifiers based on being inside the area terrain.

This shows that "being in benefit of cover" and "claiming the effects of the benefit" are two distinct mechanics. Former is a check to see whether the latter's effect is in play or not.

"Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition (you have it or you don't) for claiming the effects of the terrain trait. It's a simple if-then conditional logic - "if [receiving the benefits of cover] = true, then [effects of the terrain trait] is effective."

Let me reiterate my initial stance: the claims that bonuses conferred by terrain traits stack per RAW is a reasonable assumption, but nonetheless unsubstantiated. Therefore discuss with opponent prior to game.

This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2021/03/15 22:06:38


 
   
Made in au
Dakka Veteran




Rihgu wrote:
"conferred a cover" is a meaningless phrase with no rules support. We don't need to bridge that gap because it doesn't exist. We know the rules for terrain having the Light Cover trait, and that is:
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).

When terrain has the Light Cover trait, then, when an attack made with a ranged weapon wounds a model that is receiving the benefits of cover from that terrain feature, add 1 to the saving throw made against that attack. That's the rule. Terrain having the Light Cover trait does not "confer Light Cover" - that phrase doesn't exist or mean anything. The rule would state "Terrain features with this trait confer Light Cover" and then Light Cover would be defined elsewhere as giving +1 to armor save rolls when a unit has it, or something similar to that.

There is no leap if you read the actual rules.

The *only* ambiguity here is whether or not the benefits of cover from a terrain feature are an aura ability or not. Please email 40kfaq@gwplc.com so we can hope to see a clarification in a future FAQ/errata release.

On the point of whether or not the benefits of cover from a terrain feature are an aura ability or not it actually is simple to determine.

Assume Light Cover is an ability for the sake of argument. Let's look at terrain that is Area Terrain with the Light Cover trait.

Further assume we have two models, A, and B. Model A is on top of the Area Terrain. Model B is touching, but not on the Area Terrain. For all purposes they are 0.0" away - they are the same distance from the Area Terrain.

Aura abilities state "Some abilities affect models or units in a given range – these are aura abilities". Despite both models being the same distance, only one is affected by the Light Cover Trait. Ergo, the Light Cover Trait is not an Aura ability.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
Rihgu wrote:
 skchsan wrote:
You can be receiving the benefits of cover from multiple sources, but it doesn't logically extend as to mean "all effects are cumulative".

Terrains themselves do not grant bonuses. They grant the status of being 'in cover' or not.


Please provide a rules citation, as the Terrain Traits are very clear about which bonuses they do, in fact, grant. And never mention granting any "status". There's also no mention of "in cover" being a status (not that there is a mention of statuses any where).
Because it doesn't matter if you're receiving the benefit of cover (by fulfilling the conditions for claiming it) if the said terrain didn't have any of light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it. If an area terrain does not have any of either light/heavy/dense cover trait assigned to it, then units inside the said area terrain does not get any modifiers based on being inside the area terrain.

This shows that "being in benefit of cover" and "claiming the effects of the benefit" are two distinct mechanics. Former is a check to see whether the latter's effect is in play or not.

"Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition (you have it or you don't) for claiming the effects of the terrain trait. It's a simple if-then conditional logic - "if [receiving the benefits of cover] = true, then [effects of the terrain trait] is effective."

Let me reiterate my initial stance: the claims that bonuses conferred by terrain traits stack per RAW is a reasonable assumption, but nonetheless unsubstantiated. Therefore discuss with opponent prior to game.

While I don't agree that "Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition, I think the bigger issue with the logic you presented is that it is flawed. Examples such as obscuring and dense cover prove that it's not that simple to determine if the traits of terrain come into effect. Rather you have to check each trait on each piece of terrain and see if the conditions for the trait to activate are met. And if so, apply the trait's effects.

As of such, this leads us to the result of being able to apply the +1 to SV roll effect multiple times *if* we meet the Light Cover trait conditions on multiple pieces of terrain (a +1 sv roll modifier applying if you are receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature)

I do however totally agree about discussing anything pre-game with your opponent if you have the expectation that it could cause issues or conflict.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/16 08:45:46


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






I wonder if there is also some misunderstanding of the term "terrain feature".

A feature of the terrain would be its rules - in this case "light cover".

"Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" could mean "receiving the benefits of cover from light cover".

Then we have 2 instances of rules which cause the unit to "receive the benefits of cover from this terrain feature". This would mean that they are "receiving the benefit of cover from light cover" in both instances, which further reinforces that "has light cover" and "hasn't" is a binary condition.

Either way, they are benefiting from the exact same rule - not 2 different rules which both confer +1 to saves (which would, as we all agree, work). They receive the same rule from two different sources. Which means that they have the rule, and do so even if one source is no longer applied.

It's like if you had an aircraft hanger with a house in it. You go into the aircraft, and you're inside. you then go into the house, and you're inside. If you leave the house, you're still inside.

Now replace the hanger with Stealthy and the house with Cover.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:
I wonder if there is also some misunderstanding of the term "terrain feature".

A feature of the terrain would be its rules - in this case "light cover".

"Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature" could mean "receiving the benefits of cover from light cover".


terrain feature is the defined model/region that is conferring the benefits of cover. Terrain trait is what those benefits of cover are. Light cover is a trait, so "receiving the benefits of cover from light cover" is not "Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain feature", it's "Receiving the benefits of cover from this terrain trait".

More importantly, the benefits of cover for a terrain feature with the light cover trait is not 'light cover', its '+1 to save rolls against ranged weapons. Stop making the mistake of saying that light cover is something that a unit gains.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






dammit wrote:


More importantly, the benefits of cover for a terrain feature with the light cover trait is not 'light cover', its '+1 to save rolls against ranged weapons. Stop making the mistake of saying that light cover is something that a unit gains.


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.


I agree then that light cover is a terrain trait and not a terrain feature, but your last point is definitely wrong. Otherwise, Stealthy could not give the unit "the benefits of light cover", as you are saying that this is something a unit cannot gain.

Look at it another way - If a model with the FLY rule gains some ability which gives it the FLY rule, it doesn't become super-fly. It gains nothing, because it already had the rule. It's the same thing.


Stealthy says that the unit "is treated as having the benefits of light cover".

"Light Cover" takes place when the unit is the target of a ranged attack that hits.

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).


So when an attack hits, you check to see if the unit is in light cover. Stealthy means it is, and being in cover means it is, so it is in light cover. Then you apply the light cover rules. You don't apply them twice, any more than a flying-flying model gets to extra-fly.

I think the important part is in the rare rules section where it states "That model is assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the light cover trait".

If the model also happens to be on or within a terrain feature with the light cover trait, then they are both on or within light cover and assumed to be on or within light cover. Nothing says that this is two different pieces of cover!

If a model is assumed to be something that it already is, it doesn't become more something because of the assumption.


It's important to break down the exact route through the chaotic wording:

actually being in cover:
• the unit is on/in light cover

Stealthy:
• The unit gains the benefits of light cover
• This means they are assumed to be on/in light cover, as per rare rules

By these two combined - the unit is on/in light cover when the shot is resolved. similies include assuming a flying model is flying, or assuming a model that didn't move, didn't move.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 some bloke wrote:

Look at it another way - If a model with the FLY rule gains some ability which gives it the FLY rule, it doesn't become super-fly. It gains nothing, because it already had the rule. It's the same thing.


Not really. FLY doesnt come with a modifier, which might stack, or not. Thats the question here.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 p5freak wrote:
 some bloke wrote:

Look at it another way - If a model with the FLY rule gains some ability which gives it the FLY rule, it doesn't become super-fly. It gains nothing, because it already had the rule. It's the same thing.


Not really. FLY doesnt come with a modifier, which might stack, or not. Thats the question here.


That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




 some bloke wrote:

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.


I agree then that light cover is a terrain trait and not a terrain feature, but your last point is definitely wrong. Otherwise, Stealthy could not give the unit "the benefits of light cover", as you are saying that this is something a unit cannot gain.


the rule book tells you exaclty how to interpret that though, and it does not put the unit into a light cover state.

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).
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






dammit wrote:
 some bloke wrote:

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.


I agree then that light cover is a terrain trait and not a terrain feature, but your last point is definitely wrong. Otherwise, Stealthy could not give the unit "the benefits of light cover", as you are saying that this is something a unit cannot gain.


the rule book tells you exaclty how to interpret that though, and it does not put the unit into a light cover state.

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).


Going aside for a moment, It occurs to me that that final rule you quotes is entirely irrelevant. I've only just noticed.

The rule covers "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", and Stealthy states:

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.


So Stealthy gives the unit the benefits of light cover, which is therefore the rules specifying the type of cover.

So technically that rule does not apply.

This leaves us in the lurch again that Stealthy gives the unit the benefits of Light Cover, which only allows the unit to benefit from it if they are in terrain.

As such: I think the more we go over this the wider the holes are becoming in the rules writing, and I think it comes down to RAI, which will never be agreed upon online. If someone tried t oclaim double cover, I'd argue against. If they insisted, I'd roll-off for it, and if they refused, I'd pack up.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





U02dah4 wrote:
@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you


Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all the words anyone has written. There's a difference.
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






JakeSiren wrote:
While I don't agree that "Receiving the benefits of cover" is a binary condition, I think the bigger issue with the logic you presented is that it is flawed. Examples such as obscuring and dense cover prove that it's not that simple to determine if the traits of terrain come into effect. Rather you have to check each trait on each piece of terrain and see if the conditions for the trait to activate are met. And if so, apply the trait's effects.
Which brings us right back to my point that it's not the terrain itself that grants the modifier, but the trait is. Traits are generally independent of the terrain type and deals more with actual physical qualities of the terrain, with notable exception being the cover traits (which is dependent on whether or not the terrain type can grant [benefit of cover] in order to trigger the traits). Therefore it's fallacious to say "this terrain gives me +1 to save roll modifier". Rather, it should be said as "this terrain gives me the benefit of cover, which gives me +1 to save roll modifier". Terrain can confer the state of [benefit of cover]; it cannot confer the state of [light cover] because that's not a thing.

dammit wrote:
the rule book tells you exaclty how to interpret that though, and it does not put the unit into a light cover state.

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).
No, but it does tell you that do this and that under the condition when a model or unit gain the [benefit of cover]. Without having received [benefit of cover], being "assumed to be entirely on or within a terrain feature with the Light Cover terrain trait for all rules purposes" means nothing because Light Cover can only trigger if you are receiving the [benefit of cover]. For example, a terrain feature that is a HILL cannot proc Light Cover because the terrain piece in unable to provide the [benefit of cover] as per rules.

The underlying argument here is "can you gain/receive [benefit of cover] multiple times?" or "is [benefit of cover] something we can give multiple times". We know that [benefit of cover] confers certain abilities to modify a roll, and that modifiers stack. What is not factually evident, without a shadow of a doubt, is the claim "you can claim the benefits of cover multiple times from multiple terrain" because the rulebook simply does not cover this area. What we are doing is making a reasonable conjecture based on series of precedents and chain logic, nothing more.

It's not proven to be true, but simply unproven to be false. Therefore, it lies in the realm of HIWPI/RAI.

 doctortom wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you


Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all the words anyone has written. There's a difference.
Well, no it actually does if you're participating in a conversation. You may not agree with "all the words anyone has written", but you do need to read and accept what the others have said, otherwise you're just talking AT people without contributing anything to the conversation.

Slipspace wrote:
"...from this terrain feature" The answer is literally right there in the rule you quoted but you've decided to ignore part of it for some reason. You get the save bonus "from this terrain feature" which means if you have multiple terrain features providing the bonus you get multiple bonuses.
Yes it only reads that way if you cherry pick that particular phrase and apply it to the situation with bias. If you read the whole sentence, it actually means "if the model/unit is receiving the benefit of cover from this particular terrain piece with this particular trait [Light Cover] and not any other terrain piece/rules that is giving benefit of cover." Meaning, you can't claim [benefit of cover] from terrain A, then apply traits from terrain B even if the unit/model is not in range of terrain B since its already receiving [benefit of cover] from terrain A.

This is your logic as presented:

"if you get save bonus from THIS terrain feature, then it means you get save bonus from multiple sources because other multiple sources are nonetheless THIS terrain feature"

I've re-read the whole 6 pages again and found no trace of explanation for this particular logic that's been thrown around. Can you explain to me exactly how this logic establishes itself?

This message was edited 13 times. Last update was at 2021/03/16 20:25:27


 
   
Made in de
Nihilistic Necron Lord






Germany

 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.


Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/03/16 16:08:03


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 p5freak wrote:
 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.


Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?


In my last post, I actually (assuming your quote was word for word, which they usually are from you) proved that Stealthy simply breaks the game, because it isn't covered by Rare rules (which only cover rules which don't specify cover type; stealthy does specify it as light cover, in your quote) and as such the rule for Light Cover only works if it is granted by a terrain feature.

So, technically, RAW all we can do is prove Stealthy doesn't work.

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





 skchsan wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
U02dah4 wrote:
@ doctoromYou really haven't listened to a word anyone has written have you


Yes, I have. That doesn't mean I automatically accept all the words anyone has written. There's a difference.
Well, no it actually does if you're participating in a conversation. You may not agree with "all the words anyone has written", but you do need to read and accept what the others have said, otherwise you're just talking AT people without contributing anything to the conversation.


I can accept that he believes him without accepting what he is saying - that is disagreeing. That means I don't personally accept the words as I'm disagreeing with what he's saying. But, this is taking things off on a tangent.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 p5freak wrote:
 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.


Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?


Well, stealthy says benefits of light cover, and light cover references terrain pieces.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/16 16:16:04


 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 some bloke wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.


Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?


In my last post, I actually (assuming your quote was word for word, which they usually are from you) proved that Stealthy simply breaks the game, because it isn't covered by Rare rules (which only cover rules which don't specify cover type; stealthy does specify it as light cover, in your quote) and as such the rule for Light Cover only works if it is granted by a terrain feature.

So, technically, RAW all we can do is prove Stealthy doesn't work.
It's only broken if you make it.

The rules specify there are more than 1 way (being within range of a terrain that grants benefit of cover) of gaining benefit of cover (i.e. "certain rules and abilities"). The FAQ further clarifies that if the type of cover is unspecified, then it is considered to have the same effect as granted by light cover trait.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/03/16 16:18:17


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut






 skchsan wrote:
Spoiler:
 some bloke wrote:
 p5freak wrote:
 some bloke wrote:

That's fair. But it still comes down to "is the model in light cover" and the answer is "yes" not "Yes, twice!".

they are treated as being in terrain and are in terrain. Therefore the terrain feature they are in is light cover, and therefore they get +1.


Can you show where in the stealthy rule its says that the unit is in terrain, or treated as in terrain ?


In my last post, I actually (assuming your quote was word for word, which they usually are from you) proved that Stealthy simply breaks the game, because it isn't covered by Rare rules (which only cover rules which don't specify cover type; stealthy does specify it as light cover, in your quote) and as such the rule for Light Cover only works if it is granted by a terrain feature.

So, technically, RAW all we can do is prove Stealthy doesn't work.

It's only broken if you make it.

The rules specify there are more than 1 way (being within range of a terrain that grants benefit of cover) of gaining benefit of cover. The FAQ further clarifies that if the type of cover is unspecified, then it is considered to have the same effect as granted by light cover trait.


The rules specify that any unspecified cover-granting is light cover, and is treated as being in or on a terrain feature with this trait. A rule which specifies "the benefits of light cover", RAW, is not covered by the FAQ as that is only for unspecified cover.

As such, specific light cover gains the benefits of Light Cover gains:
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).


Now, we need to consider what "The benefits of" means. Wer'e into the english language here, which is RAI territory - RAW, nothing is specified as "the benefits of light cover", but let's ignore that.

The benefits of Light cover are, really, "add 1 to saving throws against ranged attacks". That's the benefit, the rest is how t oget it, but we skip that by just getting it because stealthy.

Which makes it look like I've proven myself wrong. Good-oh.

So Stealthy gives the benefits of light cover, being +1 to saves, whilst being in light cover gives the benefit of cover and, for light cover, this is "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).".

So it looks like you would, RAWBSOI (Rules As Written But Sort Of Interpreted), get +2 to saves because one gives the benefits of light cover and the other is just light cover.


I still wouldn't play it like that, but I can't prove myself wrong and then refuse my own findings!

12,300 points of Orks
9th W/D/L with Orks, 4/0/2
I am Thoruk, the Barbarian, Slayer of Ducks, and This is my blog!

I'm Selling Infinity, 40k, dystopian wars, UK based!

I also make designs for t-shirts and mugs and such on Redbubble! 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon






 some bloke wrote:
Now, we need to consider what "The benefits of" means. Wer'e into the english language here, which is RAI territory - RAW, nothing is specified as "the benefits of light cover", but let's ignore that.
The [benefit of cover] means that whoever has it can tap into the effect granted by terrain traits light, heavy & dense cover.

[Benefit of cover] by itself has no meaning - which is exactly why the rare rules clarification was necessary. In the same line, [light cover], [heavy cover] & [dense cover] have no effect by itself - it necessarily needs to be tied in with the state of being in [benefit of cover] (i.e. hills cannot provide [benefit of cover] by definition, so assigning any of the three cover traits on it is moot).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/03/17 19:11:48


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: