>>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.

>>97227068
>>97227080
Thank you for the detailed reply, it took me a while to address your points.

Aurtism-proofing the rules is very hard but I'm slowly working my way through, that's actually kinda what I'm doing here. LoS rules are one of those things that no one ever reads because we all "know how it works", but I still think its important to capture the actual rules correctly on these gritty details that make up the foundation for the game. That said I do think that its a fools errand to object-orient every single detail into keywords like some people try; rules through intent and context are much easier to both understand and learn without a teacher than when the rules come across as a reference document. There is a fine balance I'm trying to walk.

Ill try to go through your points. But lets start with
>reasonably be said to be
For the sake of these line of sight rules, lets establish the assumption that elsewhere I have rules governing the abstraction of a models ability to occupies any of the space that its base resides on. In this regards you could for instance have a small trooper hide up along side a buttress of a ruined building in a manner a larger creature of mech could not.

Similarly the stuff about ignoreing terrain features is covered elsewhere, where it specifies that with area terrain its actually ok to pick up and move about the identifying bits (for instance trees) in order to actually reach and move your models. I should have been more clear about that part, thats why I didnt talk about it in the blue re-write.

>>97227068
>>97227080

>When firing at targets behind (but not inside) the area terrain, does *any* part of the model count?
This is a good point and I will make sure to clean it up. I actually see that what I have is in error with my intent, which is to use the same rules as if it were a brick wall, to say it follows rules for being partially obscured (an already defined term). As they are now you could actually form an edge case where being outside but with your toe behind the feature would grant you protections while stepping your toe in would not. Good catch.

>In general, if there are different circumstances that can apply the same condition, split these up into different sentences.
In this case of line of sight through area terrain, which I define as if a "uniform fog", there are four main cases to think of that I can identify.
>unit A shoots unit B, both in the same area terrain piece.
>unit A shoots at unit B who is within their own area terrain
>unit A shoots at unit B who is behind some intervening area terrain
>unit A shoots from within area terrain at unit B who is exposed.
Of these cases only the last one should result in unit B gaining no benefit from the area terrains protection.
I think the first two cases can be combined into the statement that says so long as the target is within area terrain they gain the bonus, the attackers position is not a variable here.
For case three we need to govern intervening terrain. And the rule for case four which dictates that terrain you (the firer) are within doesnt count as intervening. Since being inside the terrain does not depend on terrain intervening, the rules for case 1 and case 4 do not contradict one another.
The design of the 6" rule is that is to supersede the other rules, which is why I didn't specify that you can shoot out of less than 6" of area terrain.

>>97227068
>>97227080
That said thank you for your suggestion on the through terrain part. I get criticism for being overly verbose so recently I have been trying to prune things down, but that is never worth it if the cost is being confusing.

>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?
The general rules for line of sight in the general principles chapter state that so long as you can draw uninterrupted LoS to part of a target then you are ok. So in this case 6" of area terrain behaves exactly like a brick wall would. To determine LoS you would draw rays from the firer to the target, and if any of them can connect you have LoS. In the case of varying widths (like a roaming forest) I suppose you would just need to measure carefully.