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.

Cover rules are totally screwed up...
I'm looking for a consistent way to play both at my local stories and in tournaments.

In these situations, does the Doomsday Ark get to claim +1 armor save due to cover if it is 75% obscured from the targeting enemy?

Situation 1 :

DDA flying base is 50% on the base of a ruin.

Situation 2 :

Hull of the DDA is over the base of the ruin (say it's a V-shape, and is mostly over the ruin, but the DDA base itself is not touching the base of the ruin).

Situation 3 :

Base of the DDA is entirely on the base of the ruin, but some of the hull sticks out, not over the ruin.

Discussion :
GW, in their attempt to answer the question, only muddied the water IMO. They FAQd what "wholly within" means, and then wrote the "entirely within".
Does entirely equal wholly, or does it mean all models from that unit need to be (partially) within?
For vehicles with flying bases, what does "on or within" even mean if it's referring to the hull?
For non-flying vehicles, does that only count the treads which are touching the terrain (treads), or a silhouette/shadow of the vehicle?
If the answer to situation 1 is "no" then, a swarm model, who has a base just slightly off the terrain base, but is 99% hidden would not benefit from a cover save.

Errata

Change the third paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely
on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at
least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of
view of the shooting model.’

FAQ

Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’
and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects models that are ‘wholly within’
then it only applies if every part of the model’s base (or
hull) is within. If a rule says it affects models that are
‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the
model’s base (or hull) is within.
If a rule says it affects units that are ‘wholly within’ then
it only applies if every part of every model’s base (or hull)
in that unit is within. If a rule says it affects units that are
‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of any
model’s base (or hull) in that unit is within. If a rule says
it affects units if every model in that unit is ‘within’ then
applies so long as any part of every model’s base (or hull)
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.

1: No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

2. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

3. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1: No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

2. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

3. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

Can you explain why you interpret the quoted text that way. Is it because you see wholly and entirely as synonymous or are you arriving at this conclusion by some other route?

Entirely would be the equivalent of Wholly in the statement.

As an example of this, let's say we have a ruin that measures 1" square. A Baneblade drives up and parks the middle of the tank on the terrain. Would you expect the 1 square inch piece of terrain to provide cover for the Baneblade with the Baneblade covering the entire piece of terrain? Now, imagine the exercise so that the ruin is larger, and may barely be 50% of the toral size of the Baneblade. You still have half the tank hanging outside the ruin, so it is far from entirely within the run.

A unit being on an entire ruin is not the same as a unit being entirely on the ruin.

I think that the rules are pretty simple, if not entirely sensible or logical.

"Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

"Entirely" refers to the entire unit, every model within it must be in the required state.

For infantry every model in the unit must have a part of it's within the ruin, because it doesn't say wholly within the whole base (or hull if there isn't a base) of every model doesn't need to be within the ruin.

And it's the same for other units, with the additional proviso that the unit must also be 50% obscured. This leads to slightly "odd" scenarios where if you have a tiny bit of a Rhino in a ruin and you also get that 50% obscuration from something (which doesn't have to be that ruin) then you get cover. An even sillier scenario would be three Baneblades parked next to each other that are all 50% obscured from a firing unit. One of the Baneblades is parked entirely on a postage stamp sized ruin underneath it somewhere where no one can see it, it gets cover. The second Baneblade has one inch of it's hull parked over the edge of another ruin that isn't blocking the line of sight, it too gets cover. The third Baneblade, despite being as obscured as the rest of them, does not get cover.

Very, very simple. But, as said, slightly daft.

In a game I'd be more than happy to discuss this and house rule how it works, but by the rules that's how I understand it to be.

 Uther wrote:
I think that the rules are pretty simple, if not entirely sensible or logical.

"Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

"Entirely" refers to the entire unit, every model within it must be in the required state.

For infantry every model in the unit must have a part of it's within the ruin, because it doesn't say wholly within the whole base (or hull if there isn't a base) of every model doesn't need to be within the ruin.

And it's the same for other units, with the additional proviso that the unit must also be 50% obscured. This leads to slightly "odd" scenarios where if you have a tiny bit of a Rhino in a ruin and you also get that 50% obscuration from something (which doesn't have to be that ruin) then you get cover. An even sillier scenario would be three Baneblades parked next to each other that are all 50% obscured from a firing unit. One of the Baneblades is parked entirely on a postage stamp sized ruin underneath it somewhere where no one can see it, it gets cover. The second Baneblade has one inch of it's hull parked over the edge of another ruin that isn't blocking the line of sight, it too gets cover. The third Baneblade, despite being as obscured as the rest of them, does not get cover.

Very, very simple. But, as said, slightly daft.

In a game I'd be more than happy to discuss this and house rule how it works, but by the rules that's how I understand it to be.

This seems at odds with the earlier two posters, can you explain why you interpret the quoted text that way. Is it only because you see wholly and entirely as distinct or are you arriving at this conclusion by some other route?

Drager wrote:
This seems at odds with the earlier two posters, can you explain why you interpret the quoted text that way. Is it only because you see wholly and entirely as distinct or are you arriving at this conclusion by some other route?

The rule is:
Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.

And the FAQ example is:
So long as all the models in that unit are either on or partially within the terrain, they gain the benefit of cover.

So "entirely" in the rule means, to me, "all the models in the unit".

Using the original scenarios with explanations, all of which presume the there are no special rules to say use the hull and not the base...

Situation 1 - In cover. The entire unit, the base of one model in this case, is partially within the terrain and it's described as being 75% obscured.

Situation 2 - Not in cover. The entire unit, again the base of one model, is not partially within the terrain.

Situation 3 - In cover. The entire unit, the base of one model in this case, is partially within the terrain and it's described as being 75% obscured.

wholly = 100% of the models base.

entirely = all the models' bases are in the terrain even if part hangs out.

For single units entirely would mean even a sliver of your base has to be in terrain.

wholly for units' bases means all the models have to be 100% in the terrain feature.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1: No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

2. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

3. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

You have not sourced your opinion as to why entirely == wholly.

Do you play that a single swarm that is 90% obscured and 90% on a terrain piece does not benefit from cover?

barontuman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1: No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

2. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

3. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

You have not sourced your opinion as to why entirely == wholly.

Do you play that a single swarm that is 90% obscured and 90% on a terrain piece does not benefit from cover?

Is 90% on a terrain piece entirely on a terrain piece?

Entirely on a piece = 100% on a piece. 90% does not equal 100%


EDIT: Just to help you out, here's the definition of "entirely" from dictionary.com

entirely[ en-tahyuhr-lee ]
adverb
1. wholly or fully; completely or unreservedly:
I am not entirely satisfied with the architect's design.
2. solely or exclusively.

definition 1 should answer your question about entirely meaning wholly.

I read it as.... if all models of a unit are on the terrain (meaning the entire unit is on the terrain regardless of whether each model is 100% or just 1%) on or within the terrain and have more than 50% cover you get cover. I seem to recall reading something like this from some GW commentary supporting this interpretation.

 doctortom wrote:
Entirely on a piece = 100% on a piece. 90% does not equal 100%

Entirely means every model in the unit, it does not mean that every part of every model in the unit must be within the cover, just that every model has some of it within the cover.

Again looking at the FAQ, "so long as all the models in that unit are either on or partially within the terrain, they gain the benefit of cover."

 doctortom wrote:

barontuman wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
1: No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

2. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

3. No. "Other units that are entirely on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of view of the shooting model."

You have not sourced your opinion as to why entirely == wholly.

Do you play that a single swarm that is 90% obscured and 90% on a terrain piece does not benefit from cover?

Is 90% on a terrain piece entirely on a terrain piece?

Entirely on a piece = 100% on a piece. 90% does not equal 100%


EDIT: Just to help you out, here's the definition of "entirely" from dictionary.com

entirely[ en-tahyuhr-lee ]
adverb
1. wholly or fully; completely or unreservedly:
I am not entirely satisfied with the architect's design.
2. solely or exclusively.

definition 1 should answer your question about entirely meaning wholly.

Please note: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

barontuman wrote:
I'm looking for a consistent way to play both at my local stories and in tournaments.
In these situations, does the Doomsday Ark get to claim +1 armor save due to cover if it is 75% obscured from the targeting enemy?
Situation 1 :
DDA flying base is 50% on the base of a ruin.

Here's a Wave Serpent (sorry I don't own a DoomArk). Does this duplicate your situation?




Here, I would *not* grant the serpent a Cover bonus, because the vehicle's base is not "entirely" in the terrain/ruins, "wholly" or 100%. What we see here is often called 'Toe In' (GW says "within"), which we know works for infantry, but not vehicles.**

barontuman wrote:
Situation 2 :Hull of the DDA is over the base of the ruin (say it's a V-shape, and is mostly over the ruin, but the DDA base itself is not touching the base of the ruin).

Nope. The base has to be in the ruin, entirely, 100%, not 'Toe In'.

barontuman wrote:
Situation 3 :Base of the DDA is entirely on the base of the ruin, but some of the hull sticks out, not over the ruin.

I would grant the Cover bonus. The base is within the terrain, and the vehicle's hull is 50%+ obscured from the Missile Launcher's LOS.

barontuman wrote:
Discussion :
GW, in their attempt to answer the question, only muddied the water IMO. They FAQd what "wholly within" means, and then wrote the "entirely within".
Does entirely equal wholly, or does it mean all models from that unit need to be (partially) within?
For vehicles with flying bases, what does "on or within" even mean if it's referring to the hull?

In my experience in tourneys, players use "Toe In" instead of "within". "Wholly, entirely, 100%" mean every bit of the base is in terrain. That said ....

barontuman wrote:
For non-flying vehicles, does that only count the treads which are touching the terrain (treads), or a silhouette/shadow of the vehicle?

A rhino or other 'tread' vehicle is going to need to be 'entirely' on the terrain to get a Cover bonus.


Here, the Leman Russ is going to get a Cover Bonus, but the Wyvern will not.




From the Fire Dragon's LOS, both tanks are 50% obscured, but because the Wyvern's hull is not 100% in the terrain, it gets no Cover bonus.





This would seem to satisfy the following, yes?

Errata

Change the third paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely
on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at
least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of
view of the shooting model.’

**I gave my answer to the following question above.
Using "Toe In" instead of "within" is clearer. Like the Wyvern.

And then "entirely, wholly and 100%" are all easily placed in the other category, which the Leman Russ fits.

FAQ
Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’
and ‘within’ for rules purposes?

Spoiler:

A: If a rule says it affects models that are ‘wholly within’
then it only applies if every part of the model’s base (or
hull) is within. If a rule says it affects models that are
‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the
model’s base (or hull) is within.
If a rule says it affects units that are ‘wholly within’ then
it only applies if every part of every model’s base (or hull)
in that unit is within. If a rule says it affects units that are
‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of any
model’s base (or hull) in that unit is within. If a rule says
it affects units if every model in that unit is ‘within’ then
applies so long as any part of every model’s base (or hull)
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.

These are the calls I have experienced in California's ITC meta, throughout 8e. Helpful?

For a unit to be “entirely on or within” it just needs every model to at least “toe in”. So for a one model unit that means just that one model needs to “toe in”.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For a unit to be “entirely on or within” it just needs every model to at least “toe in”. So for a one model unit that means just that one model needs to “toe in”.

J.H.,
In the picture above, the wyvern is a one model unit and it is 'Toe In", not GW's "Wholly within". Would you give it a Cover bonus?

 Brothererekose wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For a unit to be “entirely on or within” it just needs every model to at least “toe in”. So for a one model unit that means just that one model needs to “toe in”.

J.H.,
In the picture above, the wyvern is a one model unit and it is 'Toe In", not GW's "Wholly within". Would you give it a Cover bonus?

But the unit is "entirely on or within a ruin" in that case, as every model is on or within the terrain feature.

So yes the wyvern would get cover if it is at least 50% obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.

Therefore your earlier post is not 100% accurate.
.

The wyvern does get cover if its 50% obscured from the firers view.

Now to something different, a more weird situation. I already posted in a previous thread. The dread gets cover because its within the ruin, and at least 50% obscured from the intercessors, when they fire at it. Remember, it doesnt matter what obscures the target.

If the dread is 0.5" to the left, not touching the ruin, its still 50% obscured for the intercessors, but not within the ruin, no cover.

The cover rule for everything else but infantry is simply ridiculous.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Brothererekose wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
For a unit to be “entirely on or within” it just needs every model to at least “toe in”. So for a one model unit that means just that one model needs to “toe in”.

J.H.,
In the picture above, the wyvern is a one model unit and it is 'Toe In", not GW's "Wholly within". Would you give it a Cover bonus?

But the unit is "entirely on or within a ruin" in that case, as every model is on or within the terrain feature.

So yes the wyvern would get cover if it is at least 50% obscured from the point of view of the shooting model.

Therefore your earlier post is not 100% accurate.

I think you're right.

After really squinting at FAQ 1.5, figuring, counting on my fingers and doing that Bart Simpson "eyes don't track on the same lines", I will change my stance on the Wyvern. It's 'within', which implies even partially. Huh.

Thus:
From the FAQ 1.5, page 2:

Page 248 – Ruins
Change the first paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Unless they can Fly, Vehicles, Monsters, Cavalry
and Bikers can only be set up or end their move on the
ground floor of ruins.’

"Change the third paragraph of rules text to read:
‘Infantry units that are entirely on or within a ruin
receive the benefit of cover. Other units that are entirely
on or within a ruin only receive the benefit of cover if at
least 50% of every model is obscured from the point of
view of the shooting model.’"

then on page 7:
"Q: Can you clarify what the difference is between ‘wholly within’
and ‘within’ for rules purposes?
A: If a rule says it affects models that are ‘wholly within’
then it only applies if every part of the model’s base (or
hull) is within. If a rule says it affects models that are
‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of the
model’s base (or hull) is within.
If a rule says it affects units that are ‘wholly within’ then
it only applies if every part of every model’s base (or hull)
in that unit is within. If a rule says it affects units that are
‘within’, however, then it applies so long as any part of any
model’s base (or hull) in that unit is within. If a rule says
it affects units if every model in that unit is ‘within’ then
applies so long as any part of every model’s base (or hull)
is within."

 p5freak wrote:
The wyvern does get cover if its 50% obscured from the firers view.

Now to something different, a more weird situation. I already posted in a previous thread. The dread gets cover because its within the ruin, and at least 50% obscured from the intercessors, when they fire at it. Remember, it doesnt matter what obscures the target.

If the dread is 0.5" to the left, not touching the ruin, its still 50% obscured for the intercessors, but not within the ruin, no cover.

The cover rule for everything else but infantry is simply ridiculous.

Correction: it’s ridiculously simple. The whole point is to avoid discussions and arguments mid-game, so there are but a couple of easily checkable conditions. Yes, it throws up some unintuitive situations for players of older editions, but it works and keeps things simple.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Correction: it’s ridiculously simple. The whole point is to avoid discussions and arguments mid-game, so there are but a couple of easily checkable conditions. Yes, it throws up some unintuitive situations for players of older editions, but it works and keeps things simple.

Maybe ridiculously simple, but still ridiculous. 50% obscured should be all that matters, get rid of wholly within, or within terrain for non infantry units. Why should the dread get cover when its touching the ruin, and not when its not touching the ruin ? Thats over complicating the game, and its counter intuitive. The ruin doesnt help the dread to get cover. It does not cover the model.

 p5freak wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:

Correction: it’s ridiculously simple. The whole point is to avoid discussions and arguments mid-game, so there are but a couple of easily checkable conditions. Yes, it throws up some unintuitive situations for players of older editions, but it works and keeps things simple.

Maybe ridiculously simple, but still ridiculous. 50% obscured should be all that matters, get rid of wholly within, or within terrain for non infantry units. Why should the dread get cover when its touching the ruin, and not when its not touching the ruin ? Thats over complicating the game, and its counter intuitive. The ruin doesnt help the dread to get cover. It does not cover the model.

People’s preferences and opinions aren’t really on topic for this thread. The rules are the rules. Unless we’re discussing how to play or interpretations thereof there are other sub forums better suited to complaining about how the rules work.