cover save and MCs

[Nabterayl]

This means it's just an elaboration on cover save, in the same way as it you said 'a jinking skimmer gets a 5+ cover save, as if it was behind terrain' - cover saves can actually come from a variety of sources, but are the same effect.

But that wouldn't be true at all. Being behind "terrain" doesn't tell us anything about the value of the cover save. The only thing that all terrain has in common, cover save-wise, is the 25% rule.

Admittedly, he could (according to my interpretation) have dropped these words altogether without altering the rule. But I don't see any reason why we should assume the rules to be written in the most economical way possible - indeed, it's quite clear just from these few paragraphs that the rules include various pieces of elaboration and rationale that could be dispensed with.

The only profession I know of whose job is to explain what ordinary sentences mean to a native speaker is that of lawyer, and we lawyers have for centuries decided that, if you are literally choosing between two interpretations that are equally probable except that one of them assumes the author put some words in that don't actually mean anything, you should choose the other one. It is only a rule of thumb, so it is not right 100% of the time (sometimes people do put in words just for the hell of it, obviously), but it's intuitively obvious to me that this is a good rule of thumb.

Of course, even if you subscribe to this rule of thumb, the two possible interpretations do have to be otherwise equally probable. So as to your point about the bolded text, I think that the bold stops in the right place even if I am right. I agree with you that the point of the bolding is to let the reader easily locate the main point of the rule, and in most cases all you need to know is that the target is behind an intervening unit. The cases in which the intervening unit is not tall enough to cover 25% of the target model, or that the shooter is high enough that the intervening unit doesn't cover 25% of the target model from the shooter's perspective, are rare.

[daboarder]

If a target is partially hidden from the firer's view by
models from a third unit (rnodels not from the firer's unit,
or from the target unit), it receives a 5+ cover save in the
same way as if it was behind terrain. Similarly, if a model fires
through the gaps between models in an intervening unit, the
target is in cover, even if it is completely visible to the fi.rer.
Note that this does not apply if the shots go over the unit rather
than through it

kinda really says it all, no FAQ because an FAQ is not required

[Anakzar]

Ok so an Example: Tervigon has some termagants right at its feet. Shooter can't see the feet over the termagants so the Tervigon gets its 5+ cover save?

Side note: I would have liked to see Tervigons and termagants become a sort of super Unit. Just introduce a 4+ save made by the Tervigon (look out sir, but called something else). Passing means one termagant within 6 inches s splatted instead of wounding the Tervigon...

[Tynskel]

It is only a rule of thumb, so it is not right 100% of the time (sometimes people do put in words just for the hell of it, obviously), but it's intuitively obvious to me that this is a good rule of thumb.

cf. Dickens.

[Ben_S]

kinda really says it all, no FAQ because an FAQ is not required

I mentioned that passage, above, but as I said there it doesn't actually settle the present issue. Nabterayl allows (I assume) that you can get a cover save even though no part of your model is hidden behind any part of an intervening model. His claim is that you must be 25% obscured by the 'invisible wall' formed out of the intervening unit. That's not contradicted by what you quoted.

The only profession I know of whose job is to explain what ordinary sentences mean to a native speaker is that of lawyer, and we lawyers have for centuries decided that, if you are literally choosing between two interpretations that are equally probable except that one of them assumes the author put some words in that don't actually mean anything, you should choose the other one. It is only a rule of thumb, so it is not right 100% of the time (sometimes people do put in words just for the hell of it, obviously), but it's intuitively obvious to me that this is a good rule of thumb.

Of course, even if you subscribe to this rule of thumb, the two possible interpretations do have to be otherwise equally probable. So as to your point about the bolded text, I think that the bold stops in the right place even if I am right. I agree with you that the point of the bolding is to let the reader easily locate the main point of the rule, and in most cases all you need to know is that the target is behind an intervening unit. The cases in which the intervening unit is not tall enough to cover 25% of the target model, or that the shooter is high enough that the intervening unit doesn't cover 25% of the target model from the shooter's perspective, are rare.

You've never heard of English teachers then? j/k

It's interesting that you're a lawyer. I have no legal training whatsoever, but I still almost brought up a case that was recently in the UK news concerning the interpretation of a will. The point I wanted to make though is that this is accepted practice in legal interpretation, but that doesn't mean that it applies to the interpretation of ordinary English. (Indeed, I'd say it's not an "intuitively obvious" principle of interpretation, or it wouldn't depend on legal training!)

As I pointed out above, GW's rules are clearly not written in the most economical way possible. They're often informal - even 'chatty' in style, they offer explanations or rationales for the rules, examples, etc. There are several examples on this very page, including the bracketed portion of the sentence under discussion. Would the rule change were the bracketed section removed? No. So why is that section there? Because GW's rules are not written by or for lawyers according to the norms of legal language.

So, I think there's no presumption that these words must alter the meaning of the sentence; it's perfectly reasonable to postulate unnecessary verbosity since there are so many other examples of it. But there's still the issue of scope. Do they mean merely that the cover save received is the same as the cover save one gets behind terrain (when one gets a cover save from the terrain), as I suggest, or that the conditions under which one gets the cover save are the same as the conditions under which one gets a cover save from terrain, as you suggest?

I think we can both see where the other is coming from here and agree that, whichever was intended, the rule could have been more clearly written to remove this ambiguity, so neither of us is obviously right or wrong here - so perhaps further discussion will only get (more) repetitive. But I still think that the most natural way to read the sentence - that is, the way an ordinary, competent speaker, not necessarily a lawyer - to read the sentence is as I suggested.

If they meant the 'in the same way' bit to refer to 'partially hidden' then it should appear earlier in the sentence. Moreover, it still seems odd not bold that bit if it is, as you suggest, crucial to the meaning of the sentence, even if it only makes a difference in some cases.

[Tynskel]

I would argue that this isn't 'ordinary english'. Rules for a game is not unlike rules used in a court system. Rules are designed to allow groups of people to interpret a system the same way.

[Nabterayl]

Well, even if it isn't ordinary English, I would certainly concede Ben's point that it isn't legal English, either (I mean, frankly, I think we'd all find it a lot clearer if it were!). And I certainly agree with him that even if one of us is provably right (and I'm not saying that's the case), neither of us is obviously right.