Can a model take a cover save against a Stomp attack?

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.

**col_impact**

Arkaine wrote:
col_impact wrote:
No. This is the case. Obviously.

Spoiler:

Cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots, enabling them to get their heads down or crawl amongst the ruins and (hopefully) avoid harm.

A case cannot refer to an extraneous element of the grammatical English sentence structure, which a prepositional phrase qualifies as. So does the dependent clause. Seriously, you learn in third grade how to parse long sentences into their simple structure. A sentence is not contingent upon dependent clauses and prepositional phrases in conveying rudimentary meaning. In other words, both can be legally removed according to the rules of grammar and leave us with the most simplified version of the core sentence which will still encompass the message. After removing the prepositional phrase and the dependent clause, you are left with the subject, verb, and direct object. When applied to this sentence you get:

"Cover shields troops."

That is the case being referred to, the subject Cover. The first sentence then explains what is considered being in cover.

"Often, you’ll find enemy models are partially hidden or obscured by terrain, which is also known as being in cover."

Ask your English teacher, you'll learn a bit about grammar.

The case is "cover shields troops against flying debris and enemy shots." I am an English teacher.

**Mr. Shine**

It's hilarious you're accusing me of trying to "obfuscate the issue" when, as pointed out at a level clearly beyond your own understanding by Arkaine, as well as more simply by myself, you clearly quite simply don't understand the structure being used in the rules.

And your retort to us? "No," and, "I don't accept it."

I think we're done here. You've no interest in discussing the matter; you're far more interested in putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring everyone, or worse, shouting them down as you scream, "La la la la la la la."

**insaniak**

I think it's about time that we all just agree that the rules here are a little less clear than they could be.

Discuss with your opponent if in doubt about how they would be likely to play it, because it could clearly go either way depending on personal interpretation.

Moving on.