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.

I anticipate having to argue against the limited edition WWP marker at an upcoming tournament and am looking at YMDC to examine/poke holes in my stance.

The Dark Eldar codex gives you the standard that the WWP is to be represented by the small blast marker or similiar. Games Workshop has released a limited edition model that is similiar in circumference, but not in height.

Now, there is no addendum or FAQ that changes the standard set by the codex and I have not seen any reference to the 3d model being declared as the official marker for the WWP.

Breaking it down,

1. The standard set by the codex is a small blast marker.
2. The circumference of the small blast marker and the 3D marker is the same.
3. The height of the small blast marker and the 3D marker is not the same.

Therefore,

1. The circumference of the 3D marker passes muster against the standard set by the codex.
2. The height of the 3D marker does not pass muster so you must defer to the standard set by the codex.

Conclusion,

While you can freely use the limited edition 3D blast marker to represent a WWP, you must disregard the height when determining LoS for shooting and taking cover saves.

You don't get to ignore things for LOS just because they give someone an advantage.

Without a ruling from the TO, you're gonna have to argue from the stance that the 3d marker cannot be used.

I agree that the WWP marker cannot be used in games as it is not of similar size to a small blast template.

Technically, sure, the rules tell you to use a blast marker, so the Webway Portal marker that GW have released is just a 'for fun' thing rather than an official game piece.

Having said that, is it really that big an issue? How often is it realistically going to be providing a cover save to anything?

insaniak wrote:Technically, sure, the rules tell you to use a blast marker, so the Webway Portal marker that GW have released is just a 'for fun' thing rather than an official game piece.

Having said that, is it really that big an issue? How often is it realistically going to be providing a cover save to anything?

I also agree with this, despite what I said in my above post, I would have no problem with the marker being used in a game that I am in.

sim·i·lar
1. Having a resemblance in appearance, character, or quantity, without being identical

How similar must they be in order for it to be acceptable? That's a judgment call. Judgment calls are made by judges, and I personally can't expect a judge to rule that a GW product that is marketted as a WWP doesn't count as a WWP.

It could happen, but it would result in a lot of dirty looks.

Being able to block LoS and not block LoS are not similiar in the slightest.

And I have no problem allowing them from using the model as long as it is understood that the 3D dome is a fluff representation of the standard set by the codex and does not block LoS.

Unless you have x-ray vision, it blocks line of sight.

somerandomdude wrote:Unless you have x-ray vision, it blocks line of sight.

Durp-a-durp-it blocks LoS is not a valid argument when the limited edition model does not represent the rules from the codex.

That would be akin to me saying that Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightening claws because that is what is on his model despite the rules saying dofferent,

Playing devils advocate here so not attacking you, just that you are not getting away with a simple LoS claim that is not supported by the standard set by the codex.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In otherwords, if the description in the codex said,

"Use the small blast marker and extend and imaginary dome 3" in height or similiar."

Then the limited edition model would represent the rules AND have the rules to back it up blocking LoS.

Unfortunately your argument stinks of subjectivity.
You can make the argument that it should be ignored for LOS, but you really have no basis other than your opinion.

To be fair, the same can be said about the other side's argument, as it relies on the fact that the WWP design is spherical in nature for a reason - that being it was designed to block LOS.

Night's Blood wrote:Unfortunately your argument stinks of subjectivity.
You can make the argument that it should be ignored for LOS, but you really have no basis other than your opinion.

To be fair, the same can be said about the other side's argument, as it relies on the fact that the WWP design is spherical in nature for a reason - that being it was designed to block LOS.

The standard set IN the codex is not my opinion, that is the rule.

There is no FAQ or Errata telling you that the limited edition WWP model supercedes the standard set in the codex. Again, not my opinion.

However it seems to be YOUR opinion that lacking any direction from the codex, FAQ, or Errata; you have decided that a limited edition model of the WWP supercedes the codex standard.

On thinking about it, I'm not sure that LOS is really even an issue here.


WHile LOS revolves around the actual physical properties of the models and terrain on the table, I see no reason that this should be extended to markers.

It's fairly common to use cotton wool 'clouds' to represent smoke launchers in use, but the general convention is that these clouds are just there as a marker, and have no bearing on LOS. They would have no different effect to placing a token of some kind beside the vehicle.

I see no reason to not treat the WWP the same. Whether you use a blast marker or the tin dome, it's not a phsyical piece of terrain or a model. It's just a marker that says 'Here be a Webway Portal'...

That's some clear thinking there. I can see why they pay you the big bucks.

I agree with insaniak.

There are no rules in the dark elder codex or brb for the wwp blocking line of sight as it is not terrain, a unit, a vehicle etc. The rules for line of sight and cover only relate to those things. As there is no rule for it blocking line of sight it therefore cannot block line of sight.

It is counted as impassable terrain. I'm on the fence to be honest.

It' counted as impassable terrain because it is essentially a board edge. That doesn't make the marker you use to denote its presence a physical feature.

Edit: See it now, nevermind

This one:

It was a limited release.

I'm with Brother Ramses on this one, with a side of Insaniak.

Given that...

Premise 1: The Codex tells you to "place a spare small blast marker or a similarly sized counter".
Premise 2: An object which is the same width as another object but 15-30 times the height is not "similarly-sized".
then...
Conclusion: The limited-edition webway marker does not fit the criteria given in the codex for a legal counter for a webway portal.

That being said, I think Brother Ramses' suggested solution is fair.

Insaniak's rationale would work for me too.

insaniak wrote:On thinking about it, I'm not sure that LOS is really even an issue here.


WHile LOS revolves around the actual physical properties of the models and terrain on the table, I see no reason that this should be extended to markers.

It's fairly common to use cotton wool 'clouds' to represent smoke launchers in use, but the general convention is that these clouds are just there as a marker, and have no bearing on LOS. They would have no different effect to placing a token of some kind beside the vehicle.

I see no reason to not treat the WWP the same. Whether you use a blast marker or the tin dome, it's not a phsyical piece of terrain or a model. It's just a marker that says 'Here be a Webway Portal'...

This is an angle that I had not even considered at all. The rulebook is specific with,

Pg 16;

"Line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foe through, under or over the tangle of terrain and other fighters on the battlefield."

No mention of markers at all being considered to block and/or effect LoS. If that was the case, I could place my rune priest directly behind is Chooser of the Slain, "marker" and claim a cover save from it.

Great points brought up.

I like your interpretations. I will now make my webways with a small blast marker and those new storm or magic templates attached with a dowel (like an umbrella so you can still walk under them) because they wont block LoS.

Thing is, if GW release it as an official WWP, it is a legitimate WWP marker.

I did the math on it some few months back when someone asked a similar question.

If you were to add the height as LOS blocking with the same "But it is a similar sized marker argument"; then I can place a 10" Apoc Blast marker and make the same argument as the total volume of the WWP marker is the same as the 10" Blast marker.

Miraclefish wrote:Thing is, if GW release it as an official WWP, it is a legitimate WWP marker.

It was not released as an "official" WWP marker. It was released as a "limited edition" WWP marker. If it was official then the countless number of people that did not get to buy it due to its limited release would not be able to use WWP in their games as they do not have the official marker.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Miraclefish wrote:Thing is, if GW release it as an official WWP, it is a legitimate WWP marker.

It was not released as an "official" WWP marker. It was released as a "limited edition" WWP marker. If it was official then the countless number of people that did not get to buy it due to its limited release would not be able to use WWP in their games as they do not have the official marker.

Regardless, you can't ignore the official model in use. Adding the description "limited" is completely irrelevant.

The official model makes it clear the WWP should have height, it is treated as impassible terrain, therefore should block LOS.

I would agree with Is, but smokeclouds are not treated as impassible terrain, which in this case is the key difference.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Realistically, this is also an extremely trivial issue. If someone attempts to take advantage of this ( does anyone remember that 3++ article when Dark Eldar came out)? by spamming WWP and making a wall of impassible terrain they will be severely lacking in other departments.

OK, seriously guys, how does this matter?

True LOS is exactly that, true LOS. Whatever you can't see, can't be shot at, and whatever is behind a webway portal would get a cover save if it blocks LOS. If someone uses an OOP land raider model, do you 'pretend' it's a new land raider for LOS? No. Deffrollas, which are not models or terrain, rather a marker to represent wargear, aren't ignored for LOS either. I truly believe the webway portal was designed to be used as deployable cover, considering it is impassable terrain.

Then by all means rectify the codex rule that sets the standard for a webway portal to be the small blast marker. The description of the limited edition webway portal only mentions the 3" template for use in a Dark Eldar army, not the height.

The only possible way to use the limited edition webway portal is as the codex tells you, disregarding the height merely as a decorative with no game effect.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oaka wrote:True LOS is exactly that, true LOS. Whatever you can't see, can't be shot at, and whatever is behind a webway portal would get a cover save if it blocks LOS. If someone uses an OOP land raider model, do you 'pretend' it's a new land raider for LOS? No. Deffrollas, which are not models or terrain, rather a marker to represent wargear, aren't ignored for LOS either. I truly believe the webway portal was designed to be used as deployable cover, considering it is impassable terrain.

And you are misguided with quoting True LoS. You are giving LoS blocking properties to a model based on the false premise that the model is represented by how it looks, not how the rules describe it. Please tell me how a small blast marker blocks True LoS and you will be golden, however you cannot.

By this, do you use empty bases instead of models in your army? Do DE opponents routinely lay down a cluster of these things or is a wart on the table that 2 models *might* be able to hide behind really a game breaker.

Homer

Let me use a more relatable example, since we seem to be throwing around the term 'markers' quite a bit. When a vehicle is destroyed, the rules aren't specific as to what to use to represent the difficult terrain marker. Some people just use a footprint to represent difficult terrain:



Others will purchase a nice looking marker:



And some players have extra models lying around that they convert into wrecked vehicles:



Obviously, these different methods provide differing amounts of cover and block LOS in different ways. How can you pick any of these options as being more legal than the others?