>>97226946
As I'm sure you're aware, anyone playing wargames are going to insist on absolutely autistic specificity when it comes to rule descriptions. There can be no room for misinterpreting the rules.

In general, if there are different circumstances that can apply the same condition, split these up into different sentences.

So, to start, there's no such thing as "reasonably be said to be to be completely inside the area terrain". You must absolutely define what "completely inside the area terrain" means.

Rather than saying "you may always ignore the physical terrain features". Just define "cover from area terrain" as a "model within the footprint of the area terrain" (however you want to define "completely within" is up to you).

The "sometimes a model's pose or base (results in) parts stick(ing) out. In this circumstance treat the model as though it were fully inside the area terrain" could be re-worded this way. Even so... you need to clarify what you mean by "fully within the terrain". Imagine your game being adjudicated at a tournament run and played by filthy autistic Yu-Gi-Oh players.

When firing at targets behind (but not inside) the area terrain, does *any* part of the model count? So if I am able to hide a nubbin of my model behind area terrain, does it get the benefit of cover if the target model cannot be completely seen by the shooting model?

I'd rework the models shooting "through' section to read something like: "Models within area terrain may shoot out of area terrain as long as the line of sight drawn to the target passes through less than 6" of area terrain. Line of sight cannot be drawn through more than 6" of area terrain. Line of sight cannot be drawn through multiple footprints of area terrain if it includes more than 6" of area terrain."

In both the original wording and blue wording it's a bit unclear about what happens when models are firing at each other within the same area terrain.

>>97226946
Lastly, I'm a little confused by LOS can't be drawn through more than 6" of area terrain. So if the unit being targeted *behind* the area terrain is sitting behind a piece of area terrain with a footprint greater than 6", they cannot be targeted? This might get confusing, especially if the footprint has different widths.

For instance, in the picture, are you okay to shoot so long as ANY part of the target is not protected by 6" of area terrain depth? What if the distance measured to the target model to pass through <6" area terrain is outside of range, however, the closer distance (through >6" area terrain) is within range?

You have to prepare yourself for utterly autistic navel gazing.

>>97227068
>anyone playing wargames are going to insist on absolutely autistic specificity when it comes to rule descriptions
This cannot be understated. "Autism" isn't even a strong enough word to describe it, "Literal Lawyer from Hell" isn't enough to describe it, I would sooner trust a fucking gypsy to return a £10 note the next day than to trust a wargamer to follow the intention of a clearly-written rule.