peter.cosgrove

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

The Guardian Cup, the GG tournament, isn't run by the store. We have non-paid gamers dedicating their time to running the event. Though I could be wrong, you'd have to ask CaptainA about running those.

The GC we pay for the space. That's imbedded in the entry fee. Which includes pizza. And prizes.

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

And, for the record, the $10 GG league. None of the money goes to GG, per say. It goes to prizes and terrain maintenance. Prizes are GG gift cards, so it goes to the store in that respect, but the league doesn't have a fee for the use of their tables. And they do allow pick up games for non-league members during the same time slot, just no prize support for people not in the league.

It's hard for people who don't have the experience of seeing the GG monthly league to it's conclusion to see how the league is done. It is a very good system. For those people who don't know, you pay 10$ to play for generally 4-5 weeks at 1 day a week. On the league day (Wednesday)GG gives a discount to the players for warhammer purchases at the counter. At the end of the month there is a prize draw. The tickets for the prize draw: When you play a game you get 1 ticket, so you are guaranteed 4 tickets if you play all 4 weeks. If you win you get 1 ticket. Best painted army, voted by the players, gets 5 tickets at the end of the month. Best sportsman, voted by the players in a combination of gaming demeanor/bearing and table manners (measuring accuracy/time management) , gets 5 tickets. Warlord (most wins) gets 5 tickets. All the tickets go into the draw and the draw prizes are GG gift certificates for amounts which very closely total match the overall amount paid by the players at 10$ per person. At the end of the month the prize draw is done. First ticket drawn gets the highest gift certificate, and generally theres about 2 gift certificates for every 3-4 players. Once you have gotten a certificate in the draw you can't get anymore if your ticket is drawn. In that case a ticket is continued to draw until a player who has not already gotten a certificate gets drawn. And so on.

The gift certificates ARE for GG, so eventually, yes, the money goes to the store.

2 hours ago, paxmiles said:

No, table space is much cheaper elsewhere. I can play in my home, or at some resturaunt or bar. I've even debated playing at the local library. Heck, with good weather, I could even play on a table in the park.

well, sure, kind of. Each type of location has it's own unique challenges. It's always been a go to to play at a church, churches always have tons of space and always have tables and chairs. You do have to be a member of a church to bypass the rental of the facility and with enough standing to either have the keys to the church or compel either by scheduling/availability a facility manager to be present to open the facility. The same thing applies to  rental or HOA communities that may have a community event building available. Playing in a library generally has space challenges, given that the vast majority of floor space is dedicated to shelving. Libraries do usually have a small room available for events that can be requested on a weekly basis and have the parking availability (same with churches and rental/HOA facilities). Playing at home, that's a bit different. To have 12+ players playing on 6+ tables at 4x6 feet per table requires having the aforementioned 400 square feet relatively clean/neat/tidy plus the capital cost of building 6+ tables. 400 square feet of empty space dedicated to just gaming with the lighting/heating/cooling is just another form of opportunity cost imbedded in the rent/mortgage of the home. and you have the additional parking challenge. 12+ vehicle parking at one home.

A restaurant or bar will generally require either an up front fee for the space for 12 people at 6 tables or require that the organizer of the event, to reserve that much space, guarantee a certain amount of purchased product. And you have the additional requirement of both transporting/set up of the 6+ tables, adding the tabletop to make the 4x6 board for games and figuring out how to protect the tables from incidental damage, either by using the facilities tablecloth/aprons or bringing your own. A restaurant or bar also may or may not have the parking available. depending.

Playing in a park. Bob will get you, every time. It's always been a thing to play, for example, chess or checkers in a park. Some parks even have small areas dedicated to playing these games with permanent tables/seating. Chess pieces are relatively small, cheap and weatherproof. But playing in the wind with lots of little breakable pieces and paper that can get soggy in the rain and, most importantly, the lack of security addressing interesting bystanders who may or may not have nefarious intentions especially when considering a game that charges 40$ for only 5 pieces... 

Union halls, granges, dance halls and armories, always an option. Colleges and universities, also an option. Again you usually have to be a member with standing to utilize the facility w/o having to pay a rental fee. And you may be faced with at least a damage deposit and event insurance requirements.

The necessity then, will be that the organizer of the event at any of these locations, as opposed to a gaming store, BECOMES the event coordinator and must thereby assume the duty of bringing together the multiplicity of players and resources. Of course, modern media and automation is a great assist. Personally I would rather not, given that a game store will do it for me. 3.3 dollars a day fee for someone else to handle all the resource and facilities management and event coordination is more than worthwhile.

1 hour ago, paxmiles said:

the game store really doesn't offer anything that the gamer can't get elsewhere for cheaper. Almost all games can be purchased cheaper online and gaming space certainly doesn't require a game store.

Except... for table space. Most particularly, table space for multiple games at the same time. That is the unique characteristic of gaming stores.

In order to take full advantage a game store must needs develop a mature systematic approach to having as many people playing games at one time, and across multiple time blocks in the business week. Generally by offering a mutiplicity of games and supporting each game with additional stock/shelf space/gaming time blocks. And paying very close attention to both mature and new gaming systems to ensure maximum exposure and density to both. The failure of which can break a game store operator.

yes, game stores are like the military or opera. Game stores don't make money, they are what you spend money on.

Misconception though, I wouldn't necessarily agree. I would say that game stores have a life cycle. Once they pay off the business loan to start the business which generally takes 3-4 years they have a choice to make, either keep going or stop. Once a game store no longer has that additional drain of the loan they can generally keep going for as long as they want to. That first 4 years though is drainingly harsh on whoever has signed the loan.

The outliers of the business model usually include people who are gamers who want to start a game store, start a game store, and then about 2 years in figure out how hard it is on them in person and in resources to keep it afloat. 

I do think it's appropriate to state that generally game stores have a high turnover rate right about that 4 year/paying off the loan mark. The parking requirements alone can make/break a game store based on location.

you mean like.. paying 20 dollars for a 6 week tournament? maybe?

And, no, I don't think people are getting it because my original comment of "that doesn't even make the table rent for the floor space" was somehow turned into "game stores charge a table fee to play." Which if you actually pay attention to the use of English i/e english comprehension, you will find actually isn't the case. That's why I specifically used the term "floor space".

The floor space is rented, the game store has to rent that floor space, the floor space is used to place tables, ergo the tables have a table rent which is an opportunity cost.

My follow-up comment regarding the 3.3 dollars per person per week not meeting that floor space cost was referring, I suppose a bit too generally, given the audience, in hindsight, to the perceived context that the game store operator was putting together an event to support the gaming community and was charging a nominal fee. The nominal fee being charged was considered to be a point of contention. I was interjecting into the discussion, perhaps a tad lacking objectivity, I will admit, that the nominal fee, in my humble opinion, was an honorable fee for the support of the community event and was using as a supporting viewpoint, perhaps causing a bit of obfuscation, given the audience, that the nominal fee did not cover the cost to the game store operator for the amount of additional floor space necessary for the game store operator to place the tables for people to play the community event on. I have always felt this was a universally known concept among gamers, that it is important for gamers to support game stores with their business as game stores support their gaming community by utilizing their resources (manpower, money, material, time and space) to bring a multiplicity of gaming individuals together for said community events, because otherwise the game store will go out of business because of the unique financial challenges typical of a game store with tables.

I will obviously have to adjust any further discussion points of mine to accommodate the fact that there seems to be people who lack this rather fundamental concept of the relationship between game stores and gamers.

I will, however, conclude by saying that one of the known results of charging people a certain amount of monetary assets for a community event is the concomitant effect that people, after being charged for an event, as opposed to a free to play event, are more likely to carry their participation throughout the event to it's conclusion. Which has the known effect of reducing the amount of frustration to the players in the community event by ensuring players are available to play.

you guys aren't getting it. That's a table fee, not the cost of renting a table. A table fee is where you pay an amount, say 2 to 5 dollars per day of gaming to play a game at a table. Table rent is the cost of putting additional tables into a store for people to play at.

when you play pool at a bar for 50 cents or 75 cents or a dollar, or 5 dollars an hour that's a table fee.

Gaming stores have a high turnover. One of the reasons for the high turnover compared to other stores is because of the additional cost of having to pay at a loss for the additional space for the tables for people to play at. It's a matter of good intentions = bad business.

umm. In order for a game store to have space for tables generally they are paying rent or lease that would be larger than the typical comic book or game store. They pay that additional rent for places for people to play the games that they buy. They rely on the additional income that they get from people staying to play at the game store by selling small consumables that are consumed while people are playing. It's difficult for game store operators to meet margin and still support events with the higher rent that they generally have to pay for the larger space. Depending on the location you can expect anywhere from 1800 to 2300 for a small game store with table space. Some stores can pay 3k to 5k. A table is generally 3x7, for Warhammer its 4x6, figure 6 tables minimum with ADA compliant spacing 3" between tables, sometimes more for seating. so the additional space for even a small store adds something like at least 400 square feet to the location, not counting the capital cost for the tables/chairs. Since game stores need/want the additional space for the tables they have to pay a higher cost for the space for which they are paying additional rent. The tables and the space that they occupy are a MONEY LOSS for the store. There is no product being shelved in that space to generate the additional income for the space to pay for itself. For a store generally operating 7 days a week, figure  dollars per table per month, 6 tables could be around 400 to 600 dollars opportunity cost per month for the additional table space. At 6.6 dollars per table (two players paying 20$ each across 6 weeks), once a week across 4 weeks is only about 27 dollars. Which doesn't even come close to how much the game store operator has to pay in rent for the additional table space.

So yes.. Tables are rented, people have to PAY for tables to play on.

Ok.. i don't even understand the thought process here.

It's only 20 dollars for 6 games, that's 3.3 dollars a game, that doesn't even make the table rent for the floor space. It's an event by a local game store to support the community. It's a chance to interact with other players. It's a chance to play.

Go, do it. Why even start thinking sour grapes.

ok. is the team comp the current one off the OB website?

I have drill that weekend.

right, except for the word "Entirely" that was the word that confused everyone. Anyway, that's out of the way.

we had a previous discussion thread where everyone pretty much agreed that the entire model had to be inside the terrain to get a cover save. Not just toed in. And if a unit has 2 or more models, with some models being partially in, then only the models that are entirely in the terrain gain a cover save.

nobody understood a word that he said, but we had fun filling out the forms and playing with the pencils

If you are going to have a tournament system, you need to have solid, unbreakeable standards. This ITC rule fails at every level of both quality and quantity, sportsmanship, gamesmanship, modeling, event preparation and planning. 

uh, what's the civilian term for when something has to work here and there? In multiple locations/scenarios? it's not portability. ya. that, whatever it is, This rule fails there too. This rule fails to work in different situations because there's no minimum standards that apply in each for it to work off of. i/e what's to stop someone from having an event that has no terrain whatsoever.

I need to explain this one because it doesn't make sense, even to me.

When you sandbox a build, you mathhammer based on most ideal situation. The most ideal situation doesn't include any terrain effects. Terrain effects detract from any most ideal build, both shooty and assaulty. Terrain reduces both shooting and movement, movement leading to charges, etc. 

If you have a build that works on one table, then for competition parity it needs to work on all tables. You should never be forced into a situation in competition where the tables are so drastically different that you can only lose based on what table you are on.

The easiest way to establish table parity is to completely remove all the terrain off the board and leave it flat. That is a standard.

A route to go from there is to say, Ok. in each 2x2 square there will be a single 1' by 1' centered, multi level ruins. This is a standard.

NOW, from there you can say AND the walls of the first floor of the ruins all block LOS. This is a standard.

And are considered to be 3" (or 4") in height. THIS is a standard.

This ITC rule here, that isn't a standard. Not by a long shot. If the intent was to reinforce parity between shooty and other less shooty armies it doesn't establish a standard on the quality and quantity of parity being given. It's an uneven/lack of quantifiable data standard. It's doesn't have anything to measure it with. it just says.. ruins/wall, any gaps/windows. 

The first thing I'm going to say is, ok so what's the highest wall on the board. Ok, that wall over there (goes over and measures wall), Ok I measured that wall over there and it's 4.5 inches high. so THIS divot/gap here in the wall  here is ALSO 4.5 inches high. Wait, you are saying that this wall here is only 3" high, how come  you get 4.5 high walls and I only get 3" high walls? Ok, wait because you are "discussing" that it's ok that you get higher walls than me, before we start I'm going to move that wall over to my side and give  you the 3" high wall. There now I definitely have 4.5 inch high walls. Wait, what? Ok, fine, Hey TO how come this board is uneven? Look, I measured the table and according to the deployment that side has 27 3/4" of walls averaging 3.85 inches and this side only has 22 1/4" of walls averaging 2.45", it's uneven. Oh, ok lack of terrain, right, but how come one side is higher than the other? Just go with it? But it's uneven. Well can I at least move this piece so it's at least more even? ok, how about this one then? that would make it even more even. Oh, ok. Go pound sand? really? ok, fine. Whatever. Oh, you won the deployment and you want this side.. ok. Well, let me spend the next 5 minutes moving ALL my stuff, my dice, my army boxes, my models that I have set out, my drinks, my glasses, my pencil, my army list, my rulebooks, my other pencil (in case I lose my first pencil), and my ruler OVER THERE and  you move your stuff OVER here. Great. Awesome. Ok, well, let's have a game shall we? Wait, where's my pencil?

See? This rule, by ADDING imaginary crap that isn't on the table, will actually ADD bull[big bad swear word] to the game.

Whereas, without this rule see, this happens. 

Ok, Hi, how ya doing. Oh wow, cool board. Looks pretty mirrored, lots of ruins over there in that corner, I'm so glad 8th edition made cover rules simple, Welp. the board looks about as mirrored/symmetric as it can be with the limited amount of terrain we have, Let's have a great game!

1 hour ago, Lord Hanaur said:

Peter is arguing that this creates both an unfairness to an army that decided it wanted to be shooty

No I'm not. I apologize if that's the logical inference. My thoughts have NOTHING to do with shooty armies and unfairness. 

My portion is completely encapsulated around WYSIWYG terrain and why you should have it, completely neutral regarding shooty/assaulty armies.

In 8th edition, if you can see it, you can shoot it. I LIKE that. I like that a lot. I feel that 8th edition really ramps up the requirements for terrain quality and quantity. I feel that 8th edition is best played with lots of terrain on the board. Far more than the 1 square foot per 2x2 feet of table of previous editions. What I don't like is the lack of ands in the ITC rule.

Things like.

AND all walls are considered to be 3" in height (or 4")

AND all tables will be set up with minimum 6 pieces of multi level terrain

AND all tables will be set up so that each 2x2 square will have at least 18" x 18" combined terrain area.

Now, please don't get me wrong. It's a viable rule. It's a cost saving rule. But I can honestly say, across 35+ years experience in the military, it SCREAMS stopgap/pencil whip.

1 hour ago, MikhailLenin said:

Well, LH how do your events tackle massive shooty armies with terrain?

I agree with this. 8th edition really, REALLY brought back the 4th edition Imperial gunline tactic. And made it even more viable across multiple armies because missile launcher/lascannon. I'm doing it. I start my builds thinking "ok, I need 16 lascannons and/or missile launchers. Because 48" is 48" and move/shoot heavy weapons/split fire. And because people are starting to use all the weapons that don't require LOS. This means I am shorting myself because of points on backfield effects. It's easier and more durable to just bring ranged shooty rather than riskier deep strike. 

Now, all that. That's fine. I adjust, I bring longer range shooty, I roll dice, I move on. I'm not going to whine about it. I will still throw Khorne Zerkers or Death Company into the midfield as speed bumps because MMMM Zerker double tap spam is WORTH it. (because Khorne zerkers are also CSM 3rd cheapest troop choice and OBTW death company jump packs are ONLY 3 points???!?!!!)

What I don't like is looking at a piece of terrain and having to conceptualize imaginary lines and hoping that the person I am playing can see the glowy lines in my head so I don't have to explain what I see. I also don't like the ensuing "table discussion" that will happen when they don't. I would much prefer someone just kill my models by rolling dice rather than having to "discuss" why they can't.

That's not simple. That's "extended table discussion". I don't like "extended table discussions"

Ok, I think I got it. Let me see if I do. 

Let's say I have a spehs muhreen model. It's behind a wall with no gaps, windows, doors. Checking the LOS from a firing model and no part of the model can be seen. I park a rhino on the same spot, and because it's slightly higher it can be seen over the wall by the firing model. Therefore the rhino can be shot at, whereas the space marine can't.

Then I place the space marine in a spot behind a wall that has a divot in it. The firing model can see the space marine over the gap in the wall. Therefore it can be shot at. So in ITC does the definition of 1st level follow a straight line across the gap, or does it define the wall as a variable height down into the gap. If a ruin has a wall that has LOTS of gaps/divots adjusting the height is the abstracted height of the wall  defined as the height of the highest portion of the wall across the entire ruin? If the wall is continuous across say, 12 inches and one side is 4 inches high but the other side drops to 2" is the height of the entire wall now considered to be 4 inches? Are all the walls on the table considered to be at least 3 inches high? If I park a rhino behind a section of wall that drops to 2", but the highest portion of the wall is 4" can the rhino be seen, or not?

uh. There is a standard doctrinal and traditional response in the american military to questions like this, I read what you say and it automatically make me do the response.

I don't understand the nature of the question.

Now, to get away from the conditioned response, what do you mean by "standard of abstraction"? I don't understand what that means besides the basic english.

All this. What you guys are saying. When I read the rule what I see in my head is people just cutting some cardboard and sticking it together with ducktape and throwing it onto the board. In a competitive tournament people care more about what it does than how it looks. I also see people slapping duct tape onto existing terrain to make sure that there is a clear demarcation between "this space has LOS blocked and that space doesn't and we are getting sick and tired of having extended and/or heated "table discussions" about the terrain."

In older editions there was a bunch of meta-game rules like, This area terrain is considered to be ..., models within 2" are considered..., shooting over area terrain.. models moving up and down levels move 3" per level.., models in terrain gain cover, models beyond are blocked.. Template weapons only effect 1 level.. etc etc. I got it, 8th edition got rid of ALL that, this is a GOOD thing.

What I don't see in the ITC rules is how terrain is supposed to be set up. In 'Ard Boys you had to have 6 pieces of terrain, 1 in each 2' square of the 4x6 board, and each piece of terrain had to be at least 1'x1'.

What is going to happen when you build an army that is designed to use a certain amount of "LOS blocking" terrain on the battlefield, painting, basing, packing, list building, etc. And you show up to a table and it has 6 3" cubical rocks on it.

People that have lists that can be played effectively on a neutral board (no terrain at all, just a flat board) i/e gunline tarpits, are going to be more transportable/durable from table to table/tournament to tournament if there isn't a requirement that a certain amount of LOS blocking terrain is placed on the table.

I understand that this rule is supposed to take existing terrain and make it more viable for more armies. I got it, I TOTALLY got it.

BUT I don't like the totality of it. If there's a door or a window through a wall, it's THERE, I can be in the ruins and place a guy that I WANT to shoot through a hole in a wall with it's weapon pointing out of the door or window because I WANT to shoot the weapon.

This brings up the point of "Then just move up to the 2nd level then" OK I got it, I totally got it. AND only infantry can move up there. I got it. But there isn't a requirement that there has to be a certain amount of ruins that HAVE 2nd levels. What if you show up to a table and nothing has a 2nd level. Then what? You are stuck either being in cover that you can't shoot out of or being outside of the ruins (but still get your cover save because you're toed in) BUT you are then more chargeable by other than infantry models (because you are outside the wall now).

At that point you end up back at the same thought of "Well, put more terrain on the board that has 2nd levels" which then loops back to "Well, BUILD more terrain that has 2nd levels" Which THEN loops back to "We need to build more terrain". If you have to build terrain anyway, and you want the 1st level to have LOS blocking, Then just build the terrain so that the 1st level doesn't have any doors/windows/gaps/mouse holes etc etc.

the thing is, I really like 8th edition. I like the cover save/terrain rules. It is simple and there really isn't any argument. Is a portion of your base on the terrain? ok. you get a +1. Roll dice. I see you, you see me. Done.. no more talking.. roll dice. Hard cover/soft cover is gone, To and through LOS blocking is gone, Area/Standard terrain LOS blocking is gone.

I just think a much better solution is just put better terrain on the table instead of forcing even more "table discussion"

Want to initiate a conversation about this.

ITC=Ruins: The bottom level walls of all ruins are considered to block LoS even if they do not actually do so. This means existing openings in them such as those created by windows, doors, bullet holes, etc. block LoS. This rule does not mean the players create walls where none existed. If in doubt as to where to define these barriers, clarify with your opponent before the game begins.

Ok. I got it. I understand why this would be necessary. 8th edition is definitely seeing the return of the 4th edition Imperial gunline and combinational first turn alpha strike/assault charges from 5th edition/Apocolypse in combination with the first turn manipulation embedded in 8th edition that ITC also changed with the +1 to first turn roll off rule. Old school style footslogging has needed to really ramp up the model count of screening forces and tarpitting. I also understand how this rule is supposed to offset some of the overpowering simplified cover rules/360 fire/split fire/move & shoot heavy weapons that are also a part of 8th edition. As a valid replacement for the loss of "Going to Ground" and the horribly broken "Jink" I got it, I understand it.

I just don't think this is the way to do it. To me, 8th edition is supposed to simplify things, make things go MUCH faster. 40k Terrain is SUPPOSED to be thematic, panoramic, and beautiful. Movement to and through terrain is supposed to be relevant. Terrain is supposed to be used as a key portion of how you fight a battle. When I read this rule what I see is, "ok, fine let's just grab some cardboard, duct tape and a knife and hack a bunch of 4" tall strips out, tack it together with duct tape, and throw it on the table." 

To me this rule reeks of laziness and expediency. Instead of taking the time/energy to carefully build the terrain so that it satisfies the perceived necessity instead it's "ok nobodies got time for that, we'll just throw in a meta-game rule that does it instead". In short it makes me uncomfortable. I don't even want to contemplate the intense "Table discussions" this rule will obviously eventuate.

If you want the terrain to provide MORE LOS blocking, then BUILD it that way, and build it pretty. No need to discuss it, it's right there in plain sight. Or not actually, it's not in plain sight, the plain sight is blocked.

Dear GW. Here in America "Entirely" and "Wholly" have the exact same meaning.

But not in GW land.

Had a chance to play ITC today at GG and had a run-in with the cover rules. Turns out our discussion on these forums for both the RAW BRB and FAQ are wrong.

Rule:

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.’

Rule:

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. 

Ok. Here is how it works. Just like the terms "Set up on the battlefield" and "Within 1" the term "wholly within" has a specified ruling and interpretation.

For example: 

Page 269 – Deployment
Change the first paragraph to read:
‘The Defender sets up their army wholly within their
deployment zone. The Attacker then sets up their army
wholly within their deployment zone. 

and:

Pages 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 230, 231, 232, 233,
234, 235, 261 – Deployment
Change ‘A player’s models must be set up within their
own deployment zone’ to read:
‘A player’s models must be set up wholly within their own
deployment zone.’

When this rule says "wholly within" it means the entire model and base must be inside the measurement.

However, when the rules DO NOT say "wholly within" but instead says "within" then the specified rule means  any portion of the model/base.

For example:

Page 226 – Using Tactical Objectives
Add the following to the end of the paragraph:
‘Unless otherwise stated, a player controls an objective
marker if they have more models within 3" of the centre
of it than their opponent.’

And

A: Unless otherwise stated, these new models are placed
anywhere that is more than 1" from any enemy model
and still within unit coherency of a model in its own unit
that was itself on the battlefield at the start of the phase
in which the new model was created. Note that if you
cannot set up a new model on the battlefield because
there is no room, it is simply not set up.

The FAQ even iterates this here:

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 problem is, this clarification just makes it worse, especially for those of us who are still catching up.

So, when GW says "Entirely" they mean the NUMBER count of models in the unit not the entire model/base or entire model/base of each model in a multiple unit model. So if there is 1 model in the unit then "Entirely" means that 1 model. If there are 2 or more models in the unit then "Entirely" means all the models. When GW says "wholly" they mean the measurement for the entire model and base of EACH model in the unit.

here is the confusion:

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.’

Now, the "entirely" word in this paragraph means the full model count, NOT the measurement of each model and base. And this most specifically does NOT say "wholly within"

This starts to make sense when you start looking at THIS paragraph logically:

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.

here's the logic bit. If you have a single infantry model as a unit and that single infantry model has a portion of it's base "toed in" to terrain that gives a cover save then that single infantry model gains a cover save. Because the FAQ specifies "partially within" the terrain. Because the single model is "all the models". The rules clarification does NOT say wholly within, it even doubles down on it by saying "partially within". So if you have 2 or more infantry models and 1 model is "on the terrain" and the other model is "partially on" the terrain, then it doesn't make sense that ONLY the model that is ON the terrain and not the model that is partially on the terrain gets a cover save. Because how can a single model as a unit gain a cover save when the exact same model in the exact same position in a multiple model unit does not.

So, you can toe in to terrain and gain a cover save. You are not required to be "wholly within" just "partially within", however if you have 2 or more models in the unit  each model has to be toed in.

So this means non infantry models such as single model vehicle/monstrous creature units can gain a cover save by just having any portion of their base or hull toed into a piece of terrain that gives a cover save AND the model is 50% obstructed by anything from the shooter's point of view.

Cheers.