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.

The errata for the core rulebook updates the entry for ruins to read “Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover.”

The errata also clarifies "within" and "wholly within":
Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’ and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the unit/model is within.

The errata for ruins doesn't use the word "wholly". So, in theory, if every model in an infantry unit has at least a part of their base in the ruin then they get cover.

However the errata added the word "entirely", it used to just say "on or within". That, to me, suggests that every model needs to have its entire base within the ruin to get cover.

So how do most people tend to play it?

Yes the cover rules are questionable but all I want to know is what is the most common way that people play this rule.

Option 1) Every model must have every part of its base in the ruin
Option 2) Every model must have at least a part, even just a tiny part, of its base in the ruin.

 Uther wrote:
The errata for the core rulebook updates the entry for ruins to read “Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover.”

The errata also clarifies "within" and "wholly within":
Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’ and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the unit/model is within.

The errata for ruins doesn't use the word "wholly". So, in theory, if every model in an infantry unit has at least a part of their base in the ruin then they get cover.

However the errata added the word "entirely", it used to just say "on or within". That, to me, suggests that every model needs to have its entire base within the ruin to get cover.

So how do most people tend to play it?

Yes the cover rules are questionable but all I want to know is what is the most common way that people play this rule.

Option 1) Every model must have every part of its base in the ruin
Option 2) Every model must have at least a part, even just a tiny part, of its base in the ruin.

Option 2. It doesn't say they have to be entirely wholly within. The errata was to stop the fact that "within" only means a single model has to be on. Now it says entirely, it means every model must be "on or within" to benefit.

Agreed, option 2 - each model has to be at least partially within.

 Uther wrote:
The errata for the core rulebook updates the entry for ruins to read “Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover.”

The errata also clarifies "within" and "wholly within":
Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’ and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the unit/model is within.

The errata for ruins doesn't use the word "wholly". So, in theory, if every model in an infantry unit has at least a part of their base in the ruin then they get cover.

However the errata added the word "entirely", it used to just say "on or within". That, to me, suggests that every model needs to have its entire base within the ruin to get cover.

So how do most people tend to play it?

Yes the cover rules are questionable but all I want to know is what is the most common way that people play this rule.

Option 1) Every model must have every part of its base in the ruin
Option 2) Every model must have at least a part, even just a tiny part, of its base in the ruin.

the full paragaph you quoted:

"Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’
and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects units/models that are ‘wholly
within’ then it only applies if the entire unit/model is
within. If it just says ‘within’, however, then it applies so
long as any part of the unit/model is within.

For example, units gain the benefit of cover if every
model in the unit is either on or within terrain. So long
as all the models in that unit are either on or partially
within the terrain, they gain the benefit of cover."

I think the example helps to clarify that they do indeed intend that partially within for all models in a unit is enough for cover. However they FAQ'd all deployment rules to read "wholly within", in that regard we all agree you can't be only partially within deployment zones. In my printing of the rule book deployment simply said "in", "within" wasn't used.

then there is this in the same FAQ:

"Q: Do units that are not Infantry (Vehicles, Monsters,
etc.) gain the benefit of cover from woods, ruins etc. if they are at
least 50% obscured by that piece of terrain but are not actually
on or within it?

A: No. Unless they are Infantry, such a unit must meet
the two following conditions to gain the benefit of cover:

• All of its models must be either on or within
the terrain.

• The unit must be at least 50% obscured from th...."

in that qoute they don't use the words wholly or entrirely

lastly they changed in the same errata rules for ruins and craters. ruins read "entirely on or within" and craters just read "entirely within"
Internet tells me entirely and wholly are synonyms. So they have three types of rule quotes in the same errata for cover:1 quote say "partially within" is good in general, 1 quote say "within" is good in general, quote for ruins says "entirely on or within", and lastly craters says "entirely within" is necessary. Some of these statements contradict each other so I would say they have just messed up. How me and my friends play it is that all cover (ruins, craters, woods etc) gives cover if the corresponding units are "all models partially within". It feels more intuitive if all terrain peces had similar rules. Statues for examples only has "within" as a qualifier. I don't think there is one answer that is technically correct here, similar to assult weaons rule there are some contradictions here. Could be that the specific rules for terrain pieces overrules the general ones here though...

How is something even entirely on?

A vehicle may be smaller than the terrain piece so that when you set it up it is entirely on that piece of terrain.

as per normal 8th edition, every model of the unit must be touching or inside the piece of terrain to get the cover bonus.



I personally choose to go the ITC route and say models that are 50% obscured from the firing unit get the cover bonus, whether they are in a terrain piece or not. I am however an older player who's been doing so since 3rd edition.

Thanks for all the responses, Option 2 (Every model must have at least a part, even just a tiny part, of its base in the ruin.) is a resounding winner.

Thank you all.

I'm from an RPG background so I'm happy to fluff up all sorts of extra details in some games but I am trying to teach someone else how to play and also play in stores so I'd like to know what the actual rules of it are.