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?

Oaka wrote: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?

Unlike with wrecked results, the DE codex specifically tells you what you are to do;

place a small blast marker or similar and it is treated as impassable terrain.

The circumference passes the test when you apply the small blast maker or similar standard, the height does not. So while you have explicit permission to apply the limited edition WWP's circumference, you do not have permission to apply the height.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the standard that you want that the WWP limited editpn model dictates the rules, Tyberius the Red Wake get 4D6 AP with his special lightning claws because the model has chainswords on each hand.

Melt down a WWP and figure out its volume (or displace water) then use that ....

Failing that a 3" diameter cylinder with a 6ft height.

I think the real thing is the size of the foot print has to be the right size..height has nothing to do with it.

There where alot of webways when they had the ulthwa strike force and they where flying stands glued upright to 40mm bases and then painted. is that a wrong model? No the foot print was still right.

TLOS is over used. How is one little 40mm based size thing going to give any body cover(unless it is a single model). Will it cover more then half of a vehicle? NO! Will it cover most of a squad? NO! Will it cover 50% of a Monsterous Creature? NO!

So if you ask me there is no problem with useing the model that GW them selves made nor anyother model that anyone has come up with as long as it has the right foot print. ie, 40mm Base size.

Oaka wrote: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.

You don't place a marker in that situation. You place a piece of difficult terrain.

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

But still just a 'marker'

Night's Blood wrote:The official model makes it clear the WWP should have height, it is treated as impassible terrain, therefore should block LOS.

How does being treated as impassable terrain mean that it should block LOS?

Also, for all of the "TRUE LOS!!!" players:

What about the Watcher in the Dark, or other models that tell you to ignore them for all game purposes? Or banners? Or any of the other numerous things you are told to ignore when checking LoS?

You're never actually told to ignore banners for LOS purposes... just for checking LOS to the model with the banner.

Shrike325 wrote:Also, for all of the "TRUE LOS!!!" players:

What about the Watcher in the Dark, or other models that tell you to ignore them for all game purposes? Or banners? Or any of the other numerous things you are told to ignore when checking LoS?

This relates to WWP how? They never tell you to ignore them for LoS purposes.

they also never tell you it counts as terrain, or a model, or anything that blocks line of sight or grants cover. The BRB has rules for models blocking line of sight and terrain, the wpp is neither. it is a marker. there are no rules in the BRB for markers blocking LOS so unless the wwp rules specifically state it blocks LOS it RAW may not regardless of if the actual physical wpp on the table does.

The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

Then it says to treat it as impassible terrain. So the webway would follow the rules of terrain.

Since GW released a model for the webway portal (limited or not), it is what should be used in all its dimensions. So any custom models should fill the required dimensions of the model they made for the webway. Anything bigger or smaller is modeling for an advantage. (I would like to see through my own webways from the ground level, but the webway can block my line of site).

So if you do use a marker for it, the correct half dome dimensions of the GW model should be used for whether or not it is blocking line of site.

insaniak wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:The official model makes it clear the WWP should have height, it is treated as impassible terrain, therefore should block LOS.

How does being treated as impassable terrain mean that it should block LOS?

Because it means it has a tangible footprint, quite different from the "cotton blumes" you were associating with it.
Being impassible terrain means we should treat it as such - terrain. Therefore, the official GW "marker" would indeed block LOS.

Blitz100 wrote:The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

Then it says to treat it as impassible terrain. So the webway would follow the rules of terrain.

Since GW released a model for the webway portal (limited or not), it is what should be used in all its dimensions. So any custom models should fill the required dimensions of the model they made for the webway. Anything bigger or smaller is modeling for an advantage. (I would like to see through my own webways from the ground level, but the webway can block my line of site).

So if you do use a marker for it, the correct half dome dimensions of the GW model should be used for whether or not it is blocking line of site.

Wrong.

You can use the limited edtion webway portal as per the standard set in the DE codex. The model does not dictate the rules. The rules are specific as to what is to represent a webway portal. The model that GW releases could be a lifesize Elmo doll, but you are still restricted to the rules set forth in the DE codex.

Show me where in the DE codex are you given permission to use the height value of the limited edition webway portal. I know it isn't in the codex, there has not been a FAQ, there has not been a Errata, the product does not come with permission, and the description at the webstore does not give permission. So please, show me where you have any permission to deviate beyond the dimensions of the small blast marker or similar.

I am aware old faqs are not precedent for rules nor are old codex however the old wwp FAQ ruled the portal does not block line of sight,

It's is a counter placed on a table, there are mo rules for counters blocking line of sight or counting as terrain. Given the rules for the wwp in the codex specify that it counts as impassable terrain for movement, but makes no comment on line of sight there is no permission for it to block line of sight from the brb or it's own specific codex ruling, and it should not block line of sight to or from models on the other side

Brother Ramses wrote:

Blitz100 wrote:The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

Then it says to treat it as impassible terrain. So the webway would follow the rules of terrain.

Since GW released a model for the webway portal (limited or not), it is what should be used in all its dimensions. So any custom models should fill the required dimensions of the model they made for the webway. Anything bigger or smaller is modeling for an advantage. (I would like to see through my own webways from the ground level, but the webway can block my line of site).

So if you do use a marker for it, the correct half dome dimensions of the GW model should be used for whether or not it is blocking line of site.

Wrong.

You can use the limited edtion webway portal as per the standard set in the DE codex. The model does not dictate the rules. The rules are specific as to what is to represent a webway portal. The model that GW releases could be a lifesize Elmo doll, but you are still restricted to the rules set forth in the DE codex.

Show me where in the DE codex are you given permission to use the height value of the limited edition webway portal. I know it isn't in the codex, there has not been a FAQ, there has not been a Errata, the product does not come with permission, and the description at the webstore does not give permission. So please, show me where you have any permission to deviate beyond the dimensions of the small blast marker or similar.

Wrong.

Released models always indicate the scale and size of any model for game purposes. (can you imagine all the chaos on the tabletop if it didnt?) Any changes to that is modeling for an advantage in game. Nowhere in the description does it give you the dimensions of the portal, saying instead to place something similair to a blast marker in size. So if you do not have one, you are allowed to proxy one with a spare blast marker.

You are allowed use a small blast marker or other similair sized counter if you choose, Or you just use the released model for it. Once placed it acts as impassible terrain, and last I checked if impassible terrain blocks line of sight, it blocks line of sight.

Show me where it says you can see through impassible terrain, and I am game.

It seems some people are a little bent out of shape that if you don't own a webway portal, you can use a marker in its place.

Wouldn't a deep lake constitute impassable terrain that doesn't block LoS? I mean if you're on one side and the target is on the other and neither of you is in a ditch then you should be able to see/shoot each other.

"Similarly sized" does not mean "equally sized." The marker counts as impassible terrain. Therefore the GW marker can block los and/or provide cover. Relevant sections of the BRB include pg. 16, second main text paragraph, first sentence; same page, inset: Line of Sight, second sentence; and page 21, under the "When are models in Cover?" heading.

As for the "why does this matter" questions, please refrain from asking them. The model that has the WWP is probably carrying a fair amount of points besides the Portal, and would probably like his cover save, should the need arise. If you have a question like that, try to think of every possible circumstance before asking it.

EDIT: @Leo_the_Rat: of course you'd be able to see if your line of sight wasn't blocked by the terrain. In this case, as should be obvious by looking at the marker, los could be potentially blocked or obscured.

All of this arguing over something that according to the guidelines for cover would likely only provide at best a 5+ or far more likely a 6+ cover save?

Similar does not equal the same, but if the webway portal marker limited edition piece is "similarly sized" to a small blast marker, than I am "similarly sized" to a telephone pole or hundred year old maple tree.

The point here is that it does NOT appear to be the intent, nor the strict meaning, of the rules that the webway be able to block LOS. If you hold that it is the intent for the limited edition portal to do so, than that seems rather unfair to everyone who was unable to buy them.

@ solkan: Again, refer to the second part of my post. The answer is Yes because it can decide games, however unlikely you think that scenario might be.

EDIT: @ Mannahnin: I believe that's why the call them "limited edition" markers. It's unfortunate that not everyone in a Blood Angels army gets the Red Thirst, but that doesn't mean that they should. As for the extent of "similar," if this came up in a tournament and the discretion was up to the TO as to which WWP was modeling for advantage, do you think he would rule against the GW model or the telephone pole? Until GW makes an offical ruling/errata for RAW, the TO is who decides. Furthermore, as to intent, GW released a marker, classified as terrain, that was capable of blocking los according to their rules set. If you want to argue RaI, I think my argument is stronger.

This is the exact entry in the DE codex.

"This is a portable for of the portals used to link together places via webway. Once per game in your shooting phase, a model with webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing. PLACE A SPARE SMALL BLAST MARKER OR SIMARLY SIZED COUNTER in base contact with the bearer when he activates the portal...blah blah blah...THE PORTAL COUNTS AS IMPASSABLE TERRAIN and can not be destroyed."

So a similarly sized counter, or a spare blast marker. And with games workshop if they release it its legal, those are officail gw tourney rules in most cases. The new storm of magic vortex markers are the same size as the WWP and they are actually a tiny bit smaller then a small blast template. So if you want to argue about it, it's a SIMILARLY SIZED MARKER. Similarly is generally around the same size, and it would block LOS if a marker does IMO. The logic of it is also sound, your trying to shoot through a portal. It will either: A-Be lost in the webway.
or B-Go into Corammagh.

GW made everything for warhammer, if they release something to represent it, its legal.

Blitz100 wrote:Show me where it says you can see through impassible terrain, and I am game.

Hey you asked, I just answered the challenge.

Blitz100 wrote:The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

So a blast marker or a counter placed to mark the WWP is not a marker?

Seriously?



-edit for spelling, since I'm apparently hopeless this morning...

Markers and counters hav the sampe number of rules for blocking line of sight. Which is none.

I am not sure why people keep trying to classify the WWP as something it is not. Using a blast template or another counter is nothing more than a legal proxy for the real thing, which has been released.

There are no rules for markers or counters to block line of sight, but there is for terrain, which a WWP is considered.

Am I "similarly sized" to a forty foot birch?

Blitz100 wrote:I am not sure why people keep trying to classify the WWP as something it is not. Using a blast template or another counter is nothing more than a legal proxy for the real thing, which has been released.

There are no rules for markers or counters to block line of sight, but there is for terrain, which a WWP is considered.

true.

but impassable terrain does not block line of sight or grant cover by the impassable terrain rule on their own, only area terrain, and models.

@ balcktoof: No. If you read the sections of the rulebook I denoted several posts ago, you will read that only the obscurity of the target determines whether or not a model is in cover. It has nothing to do with terrain (unless terrain happens to be the thing that's doing the obscuring, as in the current case).

Blitz100 wrote: Using a blast template or another counter is nothing more than a legal proxy for the real thing, which has been released.

The 'real thing' was a limited release extra for those who wanted it. The actual rules for it do not say to use the Webway Portal Marker. They instead tell you to use a blast marker or other similarly-sized marker.

So in this particular case, the actual WWP marker is the proxy. The 'real thing' that we are supposed to use is a regular blast marker.

BloodGenisis wrote: This is the exact entry in the DE codex.

"This is a portable for of the portals used to link together places via webway. Once per game in your shooting phase, a model with webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing. PLACE A SPARE SMALL BLAST MARKER OR SIMARLY SIZED COUNTER in base contact with the bearer when he activates the portal...blah blah blah...THE PORTAL COUNTS AS IMPASSABLE TERRAIN and can not be destroyed."

So a similarly sized counter, or a spare blast marker. And with games workshop if they release it its legal, those are officail gw tourney rules in most cases. The new storm of magic vortex markers are the same size as the WWP and they are actually a tiny bit smaller then a small blast template. So if you want to argue about it, it's a SIMILARLY SIZED MARKER. Similarly is generally around the same size, and it would block LOS if a marker does IMO. The logic of it is also sound, your trying to shoot through a portal. It will either: A-Be lost in the webway.
or B-Go into Corammagh.

GW made everything for warhammer, if they release something to represent it, its legal.

This is true.

anyone claiming otherwise needs to prove why the official GW model is false, which, in itself is a self defeating argument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blitz100 wrote:
Wrong.

Released models always indicate the scale and size of any model for game purposes. (can you imagine all the chaos on the tabletop if it didnt?) Any changes to that is modeling for an advantage in game. Nowhere in the description does it give you the dimensions of the portal, saying instead to place something similair to a blast marker in size. So if you do not have one, you are allowed to proxy one with a spare blast marker.

You are allowed use a small blast marker or other similair sized counter if you choose, Or you just use the released model for it. Once placed it acts as impassible terrain, and last I checked if impassible terrain blocks line of sight, it blocks line of sight.

Show me where it says you can see through impassible terrain, and I am game.

It seems some people are a little bent out of shape that if you don't own a webway portal, you can use a marker in its place.

Night's Blood wrote:

BloodGenisis wrote:
GW made everything for warhammer, if they release something to represent it, its legal.

This is true.

anyone claiming otherwise needs to prove why the official GW model is false, which, in itself is a self defeating argument.

<snip>

It seems some people are a little bent out of shape that if you don't own a webway portal, you can use a marker in its place.

But the RULES don't tell you the exact dimensions. Does it say the DE raider is 7.5 inches long? No. We use the models provided by use by GW. The model provided fits within the rules (small blast ) and is spherical for a reason.

Again, you need to prove WHY the GW model is wrong. Claiming the official model is a proxxy is quite ridiculous...

Night's Blood wrote:But the RULES don't tell you the exact dimensions. Does it say the DE raider is 7.5 inches long? No. We use the models provided by use by GW. The model provided fits within the rules (small blast ) and is spherical for a reason.

Again, you need to prove WHY the GW model is wrong. Claiming the official model is a proxxy is quite ridiculous...

The rules tell you to use the small blast marker.

we can measure the size of said marker.

Thus the rules tell you the dimensions the marker should be. Anything that is not similarly sized should be ignored because you are told what to use as the portal.

This is why the GW model is wrong, it is not a similarly sized marker. It fits with the circumference but not with the height of the blast marker so it is not similarly sized.

If the rules told you to use a 60mm base for something, and you used a dreadnought on a 60mm base, would you consider them similarly sized, even though the dreadnought is much taller than it?

DeathReaper wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:But the RULES don't tell you the exact dimensions. Does it say the DE raider is 7.5 inches long? No. We use the models provided by use by GW. The model provided fits within the rules (small blast ) and is spherical for a reason.

Again, you need to prove WHY the GW model is wrong. Claiming the official model is a proxxy is quite ridiculous...

The rules tell you to use the small blast marker.

we can measure the size of said marker.

Thus the rules tell you the dimensions the marker should be. Anything that is not similarly sized should be ignored because you are told what to use as the portal.

This is why the GW model is wrong, it is not a similarly sized marker. It fits with the circumference but not with the height of the blast marker so it is not similarly sized.

If the rules told you to use a 60mm base for something, and you used a dreadnought on a 60mm base, would you consider them similarly sized, even though the dreadnought is much taller than it?

You know that telling us that the official model from the company that wrote the rules for it"is wrong" is hilarious, right?

Alkasyn wrote:You know that telling us that the official model from the company that wrote the rules for it"is wrong" is hilarious, right?

It's not a model. It's a marker.

It's also a limited edition (so not readily available to everyone who would need one) and not what the actual rules say to use.

Edit - Just for clarity: I don't see a problem with using the marker, for the reasons I've already stated. Just pointing out why people are taking exception here.

You know telling us that the official marker from the company that wrote the rules is "wrong" is hilarious, right?

The adjective "limited" is irrelevant in this discussion, as it has no bearing on the rules.

And if you call it a "marker" which doesn't block LOS, as insaniak suggested, then there isn't a problem. Because the WWP terrain being marked by the marker is no different whether the marker has an appreciable height.

If you want to say the marker is the WWP then there is a problem. Not much of one granted. But enough for a RAW argument against it.

Having not actually seen the Limited Edition WWP "in the flesh", I feel compelled to ask a question -

If one of the points of contention is the height of said dome, just how tall IS the limited edition marker ?

An answer would be useful in forming my own opinion here - better yet a photo with the small template for scale would be nice

DeathReaper wrote:It fits with the circumference

So, it has a similarity?

Again, without any official ruling explaining how similar the marker must be to a small blast marker, we have to make a judgement call. This means that it will be a case by case ruling according to various TOs, and I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of them will rule that the GW marker, as well as anything made to resemble the "official" marker, is legal.

Night's Blood wrote:The adjective "limited" is irrelevant in this discussion, as it has no bearing on the rules.

Pointing out that the marker was a limited release isn't intended to have nay bearing on the rules. It's simply a reason that people are questioning the idea that it's supposed to be the 'official' marker, rather than just something pretty GW released for those who want such things.

The actual rules on this are clear, and do not tell you to use the WWP marker. The one that people are claiming is official.


Again, I have no problem with you using it... but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use.

insaniak wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:The adjective "limited" is irrelevant in this discussion, as it has no bearing on the rules.

Pointing out that the marker was a limited release isn't intended to have nay bearing on the rules. It's simply a reason that people are questioning the idea that it's supposed to be the 'official' marker, rather than just something pretty GW released for those who want such things.

The actual rules on this are clear, and do not tell you to use the WWP marker. The one that people are claiming is official.


Again, I have no problem with you using it... but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use.

I feel compelled to claim that that is pure speculation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kmdl1066 wrote:And if you call it a "marker" which doesn't block LOS, as insaniak suggested, then there isn't a problem. Because the WWP terrain being marked by the marker is no different whether the marker has an appreciable height.

If you want to say the marker is the WWP then there is a problem. Not much of one granted. But enough for a RAW argument against it.

And what RAW are you drawing this assumption?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, this is a very trivial issue that will indeed be decided on a case by case basis, and i have no desire to turn this into a flamewar.

I believe those claiming it does not block LOS are speculating as to what Phil Kelly believed.

I, however, have the Codex ( released design is the same diameter as small blast) and the official model to aid in my opinion.

Night's Blood wrote:I feel compelled to claim that that is pure speculation.

There is no speculation here. The codex tells us to use a blast marker or similar, and does not mention the 'official' WWP marker at all.

No speculation required there.

I believe those claiming it does not block LOS are speculating as to what Phil Kelly believed.

No, those pointing out that it doesnt block LOS are doing so on the basis that markers are just markers, and have no effect on the game beyond those explicitly stated by their own rules.

As such, the WWP marker is counted as impassable terrain, but is otherwise ignored, because it is not a model, or terrain, but is in fact just a marker.

Your exact words were "but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use." That's speculation.

His rules, specifically those that outline the shape, are completely in line with the marker created by GW. Hence, the speculation.

Again, you are adding rules that do not exist. You do not ignore the WWP as it counts as impassible terrain, meaning, it has a tangible footprint in the game itself.
The rules only state the diameter of the WWP, and nothing else, and since the GW model makes it clear that the WWP should indeed have height, it proves the WWP does indeed block LOS.

Night's Blood wrote:Your exact words were "but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use." That's speculation.

Reading what is actually written in the codex is not speculation. I don't have to speculate to interpret 'use a blast marker' to mean 'use a blast marker'...

His rules, specifically those that outline the shape, are completely in line with the marker created by GW. Hence, the speculation.

Yes, of course they'e in line with a marker that was made with the same diameter as a small blast marker. However, they don't actually mention that marker.

Again, you are adding rules that do not exist. You do not ignore the WWP as it counts as impassible terrain, meaning, it has a tangible footprint in the game itself.

So you're going to also start counting smoke clouds as blocking LOS? What about if I use GW's bolter-shell water cup to denote 'stunned' status on my vehicles? Does that block LOS? After all, it's an official GW release.

The rules only state the diameter of the WWP, and nothing else, and since the GW model makes it clear that the WWP should indeed have height, it proves the WWP does indeed block LOS.

It's not a model.

Speculation is interpreting meaning that is not specifically stated. The speculation arose from claiming the author never intended the WWP to have height. It does not mention height, only diameter. The GW model has height. It is, indeed, speculation.

Again, smoke clouds and cups are not IMPASSIBLE TERRAIN. This is the key difference. I specifically mentioned this to you earlier.


<needless insult removed. Please don't insult other users like that in future please. Ta. reds8n >

Night's Blood wrote:Speculation is interpreting meaning that is not specifically stated.

Like ignoring the part where it says to use a blast marker or similar, and claiming that you're actually intended to use a 3D marker that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules and hasn't been available to buy since about a week after the codex's release, and claiming that this 3D marker should affect LOS?

Hyperbolic drivel never aids debate.

If you can't make your point in a civil fashion, I would recommend taking a step back and re-evaluating just how important it is for you to make that point in a discussion about toy soldiers.

Night's Blood wrote:His rules, specifically those that outline the shape, are completely in line with the marker created by GW. Hence, the speculation.

Again, you are adding rules that do not exist. You do not ignore the WWP as it counts as impassible terrain, meaning, it has a tangible footprint in the game itself.
The rules only state the diameter of the WWP, and nothing else, and since the GW model makes it clear that the WWP should indeed have height, it proves the WWP does indeed block LOS.

The WWP does not block LoS, its a marker to denote the spot where units can come in from reserves.

somerandomdude wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It fits with the circumference

So, it has a similarity?

Again, without any official ruling explaining how similar the marker must be to a small blast marker, we have to make a judgement call. This means that it will be a case by case ruling according to various TOs, and I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of them will rule that the GW marker, as well as anything made to resemble the "official" marker, is legal.

A Dreadnought sized model has a similarity in that the dreadnought has a base that is about the same circumference as a small blast marker. but it is much taller, just like the WWP compared to the blast marker.

The WWP is to be represented by the small blast marker or similar.

is a building that is 20 foot square and 10 feet tall similar to a 20 foot square 225 foot tall building?

As a Marker for the WWP would you consider a dreadnought model similar?

Even if you did, that is fine because Markers do not block Line of Sight.

insaniak wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:Speculation is interpreting meaning that is not specifically stated.

Like ignoring the part where it says to use a blast marker or similar, and claiming that you're actually intended to use a 3D marker that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules and hasn't been available to buy since about a week after the codex's release, and claiming that this 3D marker should affect LOS?

Hyperbolic drivel never aids debate.

If you can't make your point in a civil fashion, I would recommend taking a step back and re-evaluating just how important it is for you to make that point in a discussion about toy soldiers.

Like ignoring the official model created by the corporation who creates the rules?

I have been making my point in a civil fashion, my point was to do let this devolve into ridiculous exaggeration, a prime example comparing impassible terrain to smoke clouds. Do you know what that is called? hyperbole.

On another note, could it not be completely possible that the codex was written before any of the models were created? The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
The WWP is to be represented by the small blast marker or similar.

is a building that is 20 foot square and 10 feet tall similar to a 20 foot square 225 foot tall building?

As a Marker for the WWP would you consider a dreadnought model similar?

Even if you did, that is fine because Markers do not block Line of Sight.

Markers are not impassible terrain. I have stated this practically a dozen times now. It is a key difference. Terrain does indeed block LOS.

My question is what if Gw just said to use a marker. Then they put out the "limited Ed. Portal". Would there be a problem from somebody making a marker that is bigger or smaller then the one they put out?

I feel that it really isn't that big of a deal to be argueing this point. Use a blast marker dont use a blast marker I don't think that would change the game either way.

If I want to take a styrofoam ball and cut it in half and make a replica of the "limited ed Marker". How would you know it wasn't the real thing? Sees to me that you can't say I can't use it as it follows the right size or similar size of what they say to use.

Night's Blood wrote:I have been making my point in a civil fashion, my point was to do let this devolve into ridiculous exaggeration, a prime example comparing impassible terrain to smoke clouds. Do you know what that is called? hyperbole.

Yeah, referring to someone's post as 'Hyperbolic drivel' is not responding in a civil fashion.

On another note, could it not be completely possible that the codex was written before any of the models were created?

Of course that's possible. Which simply adds another point in favour of the marker that is not referred to at all in the codex not being something officially intended for use with that codex, but instead being something fun added later.

The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.

It's not a model. It's a marker.

Markers are not impassible terrain.

The WWP marker appears to be.

IMHO as long as it is the same diameter as the blast marker and the height wasn't abusive anything can be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wasn't referring to your entire post, only the comparison of terrain to smoke.

Stop ignoring the thrust of my posts by pointing out semantic discrepancies.

I'll post it again to get a proper response. The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.

Night's Blood wrote:Stop ignoring the thrust of my posts by pointing out semantic discrepancies.

The thing is, in this case the 'semantic discrepancy' makes all the difference.

A model blocks LOS. A marker is just a marker.

I'll post it again to get a proper response. The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.

I'm ignoring it because it in turn is ignoring the fact that the marker is not a model. It's a marker.


In this particular instance, the marker has an additional rule that causes it to act as impassable terrain... because in the last codex it didn't (at least initially, from memory they eventually FAQd it in there) and as a result people kept claiming that they could park on it in order to prevent Dark Eldar from coming on through it.

It's not (in my opinion, obviously) intended to count as an actual terrain piece, because that would be pointless given that we're supposed to be just using a blast marker to represent it. And we know that we're supposed to be using a blast marker to represent it because that's what the codex says to do.

It's just a marker, whose edge counts as impassable terrain. It doesn't block LOS, because it isn't actually terrain... it's just a marker that you can't walk on.

That is the perfectly reasonable explanation for the other side of this issue, i was really getting confused as to what exactly you meant by a marker.

I still disagree, but the extrapolation of your case helped immensely.

By this argument, any unit from any codex that does not have a GW model would never be able to be played... as we do not have dimensions for them.

This argument smacks of TFG-syndrome.

Play with the marker as GW released it. It is a game.

The point is we don't need to know the models dimensions...we have the models. The difference is that the dimensions given in the codex are very different to those of the marker that was released.

And on the fact that markers don't block LoS and we have a curious problem. The marker is also classified as counting as impassable terrain so which is it? A marker that does not block LoS, regardless of dimensions, or a piece impassable terrain that does.

I like to see it as immovable object meets unstoppable force. Though

Well they say to use the Blast marker or similar.

lets talk similar.

The Blast Marker measures 3 inches in diameter, and about 3/32 nds high.

something that is say 10% bigger or smaller I would consider similar, seeing as a bigger my 10% marker ends up being 3.3 inches across, which adds about 5/16 ths of an inch, and 3.3/32 nds high, which adds less than 1/32 nd of an inch to its height.

anything more than 100% bigger I would not consider similar.

Seeing as the Limited edition model is more than 100% taller than the marker they tell you to use, It would not be of a similar size.

armbarred wrote:Play with the marker as GW released it.

So what is anyone just now starting Dark Eldar supposed to use?

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.

- Removed by insaniak. Let's keep it civil and on topic, folks -

Ok, honestly, I dont think I would ever hide behind the WWP in the first place, as it is meant to get you into combat that much quicker, IMHO. However, just because I love to play devils advocate, and its something noone has thrown out there......

Lets take the blast marker, and not the limited edition release by GW. We have the exact specifications of its size thanks to DeathReaper, and if it counts as impassable terrain, for the sake of my example, we are going to say it blocks LOS. So where in the rules does it tell you that you have to lie it flat on the table?? Why cant you "place"(as it says in the codex IIRC) the blast template on the table with a piece of tack putty or something and make it stand upright, have you not also fulfilled the dimensions of the portal and also made it into LOS blocking terrain? As I said, I would never hide behind my portal, as I use them to get into the opponents lines as fast as possible, but it is just a query.

Reaper6 wrote: - better yet a photo with the small template for scale would be nice

I would be happy to oblige! There is a Haemonculus hiding out behind the GW model, sneaky sneaky!



And for another example, I tacked a venom as far low to the flying base as it could go.



Note that the images were taken 8 inches away from the portal at a height of 4 inches, so true LOS from different models during a game would differ greatly. But, if you're a footslogging trooper in rapid fire range, this is about what you would be looking at.

I personally don't care how tall it is, as long as the foot print is around the right size. If someone wanted to make some big looking teleport homer kinda looking thing with a big anttenna on it and callit the webway then thats fine with me. For one its a game and it really doesn't matter and two its not like he can hide a whole squad behind it anyways...

I really don't see the big deal..

This is about as damning a comparison that can be made. One of the above is supported completely by the DE codex, one is not.

Seriously there are a few of you that keep claiming that the model was released by GW, you can now make up new rules for the dimensions of the WWP. I present again that by that argument, Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightning claws, because despite the rules only giving you 2d6, the OFFICIAL GW model has 2 chainfists.

What the codex says is a guideline, not set in stone. If GW whats to release another webway that is 15 inches tall but blast template footprint guess what it is legal to use, because that is there choice. After all its there game and they are the ones that made up the rules. How can you jutify saying well they didn't say it so you cant use it.

So what if it has 2 chain fists. You only get the ability once. The extra benefit that you get is an extra CC attack. Ok so if I have 2 wolf claws can I have one claw say I am rerolling the to hit, while the other I am going to choose to reroll wounds? NO! That is just a silly idea and shame on you for thinking you could.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:What the codex says is a guideline, not set in stone. If GW whats to release another webway that is 15 inches tall but blast template footprint guess what it is legal to use, because that is there choice. After all its there game and they are the ones that made up the rules. How can you jutify saying well they didn't say it so you cant use it.

So what if it has 2 chain fists. You only get the ability once. The extra benefit that you get is an extra CC attack. Ok so if I have 2 wolf claws can I have one claw say I am rerolling the to hit, while the other I am going to choose to reroll wounds? NO! That is just a silly idea and shame on you for thinking you could.

The point being is that people like you are claiming that because the model came a certain way, despite what the rules for the models says, you are going to create a different way to play it based on how it looks.

And last I checked, there was no FAQ or Errata included with the limited edition WWP package that explained or justified the new dimensions. Barring that you default to the guideline set in the codex which would be a small blast marker or similar.

The codex is just a guideline. So no it doesn't have to be exact.

The LEWWP is a model that GW produced so that gives the guideline of what it might/should look like. After all they created it for that purpose. Now others can build there own to a similar size (hence from the dex).

Why does there need to be a FAQ. Its plan and simple, but the problem is there are rules lawyers (I am guessing such as yourself) that nit pick every little thing that isn't writtin to the letter.

My question is whom of you that think the GW model shouldn't be used goes to tournaments? I am guess 99% of you. Its the tournament people that are bringing this game to where it is and I feel that is the major problem. Its a game first and formost go to the tournament to have fun not to brow beat others down with rules and interpritations of the rules. Have some common sense about it and everyone will have more fun at it. I stopped going to tournaments because of that fact. Every little rule dispute interupted the game and we never got anything accomplished.

Brother Ramses wrote:

This is about as damning a comparison that can be made. One of the above is supported completely by the DE codex, one is not.

Seriously there are a few of you that keep claiming that the model was released by GW, you can now make up new rules for the dimensions of the WWP. I present again that by that argument, Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightning claws, because despite the rules only giving you 2d6, the OFFICIAL GW model has 2 chainfists.

How is the Limited edition WWP not supported by the Codex? Is it not a WWP?

A chainfist gives you an additional d6 of penetration and since its a special weapon, its effect only applies once. Kind of like having two power swords or a lightning claw and a power sword. You choose one weapon to use in the assault phase and use its benefits. They don't stack, otherwise Vanguard veterans would be running around with lightning claws+powerfists and they'd hit at STR 8 with rerollable To Wound, following your reasoning. Your argument is the same as the guy saying that his Storm Bolter is twin linked becasue the model has 2 S.Bolters modelled that posted here on Dakka a while back.

Lawyered.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:The codex is just a guideline. So no it doesn't have to be exact.

The LEWWP is a model that GW produced so that gives the guideline of what it might/should look like. After all they created it for that purpose. Now others can build there own to a similar size (hence from the dex).

Why does there need to be a FAQ. Its plan and simple, but the problem is there are rules lawyers (I am guessing such as yourself) that nit pick every little thing that isn't writtin to the letter.

My question is whom of you that think the GW model shouldn't be used goes to tournaments? I am guess 99% of you. Its the tournament people that are bringing this game to where it is and I feel that is the major problem. Its a game first and formost go to the tournament to have fun not to brow beat others down with rules and interpritations of the rules. Have some common sense about it and everyone will have more fun at it. I stopped going to tournaments because of that fact. Every little rule dispute interupted the game and we never got anything accomplished.

Interesting that now playing by the rules is now rules lawyering. I guess that since you are just arbitrarily making up new rules for a model that does not conform to the existing rules makes you like a rules fairy or rules genie?

I noticed you ducked the Tyberus point now that it has been explained to you exactly in the same context of you creating rules for the WWP based on the model and not on the rules set by the codex. Despite you insisting on calling it a guideline, it is still a rule set in the codex which the limited edition WWP does not conform to at all in the slightest in regard to the height.

At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Alkasyn wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

This is about as damning a comparison that can be made. One of the above is supported completely by the DE codex, one is not.

Seriously there are a few of you that keep claiming that the model was released by GW, you can now make up new rules for the dimensions of the WWP. I present again that by that argument, Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightning claws, because despite the rules only giving you 2d6, the OFFICIAL GW model has 2 chainfists.

How is the Limited edition WWP not supported by the Codex? Is it not a WWP?

A chainfist gives you an additional d6 of penetration and since its a special weapon, its effect only applies once. Kind of like having two power swords or a lightning claw and a power sword. You choose one weapon to use in the assault phase and use its benefits. They don't stack, otherwise Vanguard veterans would be running around with lightning claws+powerfists and they'd hit at STR 8 with rerollable To Wound, following your reasoning. Your argument is the same as the guy saying that his Storm Bolter is twin linked becasue the model has 2 S.Bolters modelled that posted here on Dakka a while back.

Lawyered.

The principal is the same. You are saying that the limited edition WWP blocks LoS based on how it has been modeled, NOT HOW THE RULES SPECIFY IT. I am telling you that based upon YOUR OPINION, I can just as easily say that Tyberus the Red Wake has 4d6 AP based upon how it has been modeled, NOT HOW THE RULES SPECIFY IT.

Reading comprehension FTW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

I already mentioned that there would be no problem using the limited edition WWP marker, as long as you use it to the standard set in the codex. Otherwise you are adding a rule to the model where the the rules do not support said rule by it's own standard.

I think this goes to show that the rules suck for this game. I think they already FAQ'd the answer to this question anyway:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)

A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Well, I suppose there are not two rules that contradict each other but more like the rules are gray.

Kurce wrote:I think this goes to show that the rules suck for this game. I think they already FAQ'd the answer to this question anyway:

Q: When two special rules or effects contradict each
other how is this resolved? (p2)

A: Roll off using ‘The Most Important Rule!’.

Well, I suppose there are not two rules that contradict each other but more like the rules are gray.

I am sure it is going to go each way with various tournament organizers;

1. One person will show the codex with the specific rules.
2. One person will show the limited edition WWP model.

This thread cracks me up. I would think that anything legally on the table (ie. not sodas, cameras, cats....) affects LOS. That was the whole point of true LOS.

Four pages of people desperately trying to convince others that an official GW model/template isn't legal to use in the game and for the army it was created and released for. YMDC has reached an all-time low.

How am I making up new rules..I am just going by what is set for me. Gw produced a model for said wwp so how is that making rules. you are the one making up rules or trying to twist them as you see fit.

You say the rule in the codex is blast template or similar size right. What is similar sized to you? That is what I want to know. I am sorry but to me similar size is the WWP that GW produced. That is a similar size to what they have stated in the dex. To me not a rule but more of a guidline but hey water to wine.

As for the Tyberus point I have allready made a point about that. So I think you need to check out what I said about it..its not hard to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

Forgeworld models are officially made by GW for 40K but plenty of people ban them. So just because it's made by GW for a GW game does not mean that it automatically is usable.

Normally, I would try to break this one down but I think there is nothing to break down here. We have an official model (marker) for the WWP but yet their own model breaks their own rules.

While I honestly feel that using the WWP limited edition model is completely valid and it should provide cover, I do not have any definitive rule or proof that it is valid by the books. Hopefully a FAQ is in the works for this.

Grot orderlies, bomb squigs, ammo runts, grot oilers, eldar weapon platforms, offical GW markers for stunned/shaken/gone to ground/wounds, official GW dice indicating doom/fortune/guidance/mono-filament or any of the above, and any other markers never effect the game in any way. Why should that pretty cereal bowl do so?

The BRB pg.3 defines what a model is, and the special webway portal isn't one. BRB pg. 16 tells us that TLoS cares about "terrain and fighters on the battlefield", no word about markers. So feel free to use a 3 feet pillar as webway portal, it is not blocking LoS.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:How am I making up new rules..I am just going by what is set for me. Gw produced a model for said wwp so how is that making rules. you are the one making up rules or trying to twist them as you see fit.

You say the rule in the codex is blast template or similar size right. What is similar sized to you? That is what I want to know. I am sorry but to me similar size is the WWP that GW produced. That is a similar size to what they have stated in the dex. To me not a rule but more of a guidline but hey water to wine.

As for the Tyberus point I have allready made a point about that. So I think you need to check out what I said about it..its not hard to see.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

By all means then, point out the page number in the codex that has the limited edition WWP specified as the model that you use. By all means, scan us the rule that came with the limited edition WWP that changes the size standard set in the DE codex to that of the limited edition WWP. Until then you are making up rules.

And you refuted my proposition of 4d6 AP for Tyberus the Red Wake by quoting me the rules for close combat weapons. So how is me refuting the height of the limited edition WWP by quoting the rules in the DE codex for the WWP any different?

Brother Ramses wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

I already mentioned that there would be no problem using the limited edition WWP marker, as long as you use it to the standard set in the codex. Otherwise you are adding a rule to the model where the the rules do not support said rule by it's own standard.

My point was, good luck getting either your opponent or the TO to agree with you. If you are still really worried about it, I suggest contacting the TO before the day of the tourney for a ruling.

Homer

augustus5 wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

A marker produced by GW has exactly the same impact as any other marker: None.

Homer S wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

I already mentioned that there would be no problem using the limited edition WWP marker, as long as you use it to the standard set in the codex. Otherwise you are adding a rule to the model where the the rules do not support said rule by it's own standard.

My point was, good luck getting either your opponent or the TO to agree with you. If you are still really worried about it, I suggest contacting the TO before the day of the tourney for a ruling.

Homer

I can just simply point to the rule in the DE codex, present a small blast maker and then ask the person with the limited edition WWP to show me his rules. Seems pretty straightforward.

Jidmah wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

A marker produced by GW has exactly the same impact as any other marker: None.

Except that the webway portal marker actually represents something on the field, much like another model or piece of terrain. Your whole argument rests on the case that markers have no impact. I think that this marker does have an impact. If GW wanted to product a flat marker to represent the webway portal they could have done so. They didn't, and why we are spending time trying to second guess them is beyond me.

augustus5 wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

augustus5 wrote:

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
@augustus5: No I am trying to say it is legal..

My post wasn't directed at those who are arguing in favor of the webway portal marker, but rather at those who say it isn't legal or shouldn't be legal.

@Jidmah: I wasn't aware that GW produced a "three foot tall pillar" webway portal marker.

A marker produced by GW has exactly the same impact as any other marker: None.

Except that the webway portal marker actually represents something on the field, much like another model or piece of terrain. Your whole argument rests on the case that markers have no impact. I think that this marker does have an impact. If GW wanted to product a flat marker to represent the webway portal they could have done so. They didn't, and why we are spending time trying to second guess them is beyond me.

Or as the codex says, the limited edition WWP represents the size of a a webway portal's diamter, but the dome is purely decorative since it is not supported by the codex. It really isn't a hard concept to grasp unless you try to pigeonhole the unsupported height into the codex standard.

augustus5 wrote:Except that the webway portal marker actually represents something on the field, much like another model or piece of terrain. Your whole argument rests on the case that markers have no impact. I think that this marker does have an impact. If GW wanted to product a flat marker to represent the webway portal they could have done so. They didn't, and why we are spending time trying to second guess them is beyond me.

This is wrong, please read the rules I quoted. Any model must be part of a unit, a webway portal can never be part of a unit. It is a marker, the DE codex even says so. Markers are ignored for LoS. Whether you use a blast marker, the half-sphere or a 3-feet pillar has no effect at all. The terrain stays impassible and you can trace LoS through it, as if the marker weren't there.

"I think this marker does have an impact." is not only not a rule, but also in direct contradiction to page 16 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses: The height doesn't matter, as models can't be hidden by markers.

Brother Ramses wrote:

By all means then, point out the page number in the codex that has the limited edition WWP specified as the model that you use. By all means, scan us the rule that came with the limited edition WWP that changes the size standard set in the DE codex to that of the limited edition WWP. Until then you are making up rules.

There are none. Yes you are right about there not being a "rule" for the LE WWP. What I am trying to figure out is why it is such a big deal? I don't see how that little model, marker, terrain piece is really that big of a deal to you? If it is because its not in the rules well then that is the deffinition of being a rules lawyer. And I pity you for feeling like that.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:
There are none. Yes you are right about there not being a "rule" for the LE WWP. What I am trying to figure out is why it is such a big deal? I don't see how that little model, marker, terrain piece is really that big of a deal to you? If it is because its not in the rules well then that is the deffinition of being a rules lawyer. And I pity you for feeling like that.

I don't think this is a rules lawyer arguement either way. Also let's not start the name calling and personal attacks. If someone is using a marker for a benefit that it was not intended then arguing the merits is valid.

Every time someone doesn't see the same way they are not a "rules lawyer."

And besides, if they are playing WWPs then they are probably losing anyway.

EDIT:

This is wrong, please read the rules I quoted. Any model must be part of a unit, a webway portal can never be part of a unit. It is a marker, the DE codex even says so. Markers are ignored for LoS. Whether you use a blast marker, the half-sphere or a 3-feet pillar has no effect at all. The terrain stays impassible and you can trace LoS through it, as if the marker weren't there.

"I think this marker does have an impact." is not only not a rule, but also in direct contradiction to page 16 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ramses: The height doesn't matter, as models can't be hidden by markers.

Is it a marker or is it terrain? Surely it cannot be both. It says to treat it as impassable terrain.

Me thinks there is too much reading into the word 'marker', but that is just me.

balsak_da_mighty wrote: If it is because its not in the rules well then that is the deffinition of being a rules lawyer.

No, it's not.

A rules lawyer is someone who twists the meaning of the existing rules in an effort to produce an interpretation of those rules that benefits themselves.

Someone simply suggesting that the actual written rules are more valid than rules you just made up is not a rules lawyer. They're just someone trying to play by the written rules of the game.

This is interesting. I think I'll have to take a bunch of servo skulls to make my models obscured by them, since they're counters that take up the third dimension.

Or as the codex says, the limited edition WWP represents the size of a a webway portal's diamter, but the dome is purely decorative since it is not supported by the codex.

I never noticed any passage in my codex referring to the limited edition webway portal.

Re: Marker vs Terrain
The portal can't be physically put into the gaming table without severe repercussions to the table. The blast marker marks where the impassable terrain is without actually destroying the underlying the terrain. So the limited edition webway portal is a marker showing where the impassable terrain exists on the board. It may or may not be an artistic representation of the energies flowing out of the portal. As has been stated so often before markers can not block LoS.

augustus5 wrote:I never noticed any passage in my codex referring to the limited edition webway portal.

Which is pretty much the point being made by those claiming it's not a legal marker...

This is why i stopped posting in this thread. We have a genuine rift between the two sides that no amount of browbeating is going to fix.

Some point to the codex to specifically state what the WWP is.

Others show the model that GW produced as proof enough to the intent.

We've reached the end of the line people.

I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker. It's one thing to argue something like that on the internet, and another thing altogether to try and argue it with a straight face in person.

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker. It's one thing to argue something like that on the internet, and another thing altogether to try and argue it with a straight face in person.

Preaching to the choir.

Kurce wrote:Is it a marker or is it terrain? Surely it cannot be both. It says to treat it as impassable terrain.

Me thinks there is too much reading into the word 'marker', but that is just me.

The marker and the portal(=the terrain) are not the same thing, see Leo_the_Rat's response. The marker tells you where the terrain is, it is not a piece of terrain itself. None of the movement or shooting rules ever tells us they apply to markers, which would be required in a permissive rule set. Compare to multiple imperial ordinance weapons in apoc that place markers to turn terrain into difficult terrain. These marker have no connection to the terrain, other than marking where it is. Obviously a small blast marker or a small half-sphere are more practical for such a small and invariable area. What people are trying here equates to marking the impact of a tremor cannon with a salad bowl and then claim that the baneblade is out of sight.

augustus5 wrote:

Or as the codex says, the limited edition WWP represents the size of a a webway portal's diamter, but the dome is purely decorative since it is not supported by the codex.

I never noticed any passage in my codex referring to the limited edition webway portal.

Then maybe you should reread it - it says "or similarly sized counter". The limited edition half-sphere is similarly sized, unless you claim it to be blocking LoS. In that case, it would be illegal to use, as it is not similarly sized.

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker.

Of course it's legal. They can use it with the Bonesinger that they also purchased from GW...


Seriously, though, I think the claims about it not being legal are really mostly just in reaction to the idea that a marker should block LOS. If you don't try to do that, you're unlikely to run into anybody having an issue with you using it.

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker. It's one thing to argue something like that on the internet, and another thing altogether to try and argue it with a straight face in person.

They can use it, and it is a legal marker

They just need to realize it is just a marker and it does not block LoS, as per the rule in the DE book.

insaniak wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker.

Of course it's legal. They can use it with the Bonesinger that they also purchased from GW...


Seriously, though, I think the claims about it not being legal are really mostly just in reaction to the idea that a marker should block LOS. If you don't try to do that, you're unlikely to run into anybody having an issue with you using it.

Exactly.

No problem wth using it, but use it as the marker that it is described in the DE codex, not the Limited Editon LoS Blocking Portal of Dooooom (cant figure out how to put the trademark sign with my Droid on that one) you want left under your miniatures bag by the Rules Fairy.

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

DeathReaper wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker. It's one thing to argue something like that on the internet, and another thing altogether to try and argue it with a straight face in person.

They can use it, and it is a legal marker

They just need to realize it is just a marker and it does not block LoS, as per the rule in the DE book.

Exactly, no where does it say that the marker is any type of terrain. Think to the vortex grenade template. I have seen no one claiming the template blocks LOS.

purpleboxbluebox wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker. It's one thing to argue something like that on the internet, and another thing altogether to try and argue it with a straight face in person.

They can use it, and it is a legal marker

They just need to realize it is just a marker and it does not block LoS, as per the rule in the DE book.

Exactly, no where does it say that the marker is any type of terrain. Think to the vortex grenade template. I have seen no one claiming the template blocks LOS.

The Webway portal counts as impassable terrain. That is perfectly fine. However what only counts as impassable terrain is the same size as a small blast marker or similar, NOT the domed part of the limited edition WWP.

The marker is not a piece of terrain, no matter what size it is. Any terrain marked by it is impassible, just like in the examples provided.

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

My bad! I reread your post. I originally got confused by the 2nd part on the chainfists thing as being evidence against.

Sorry,
Homer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

augustus5 wrote:I pray that I get to witness somebody attempt to tell a dark eldar player that the webway portal marker they purchased from GW isn't a legal marker.

Of course it's legal. They can use it with the Bonesinger that they also purchased from GW...

I use the Bonesinger as a Spiritseer. That way, it is obviously different from my other Warlocks.

Homer

I don't understand the confusion. GW has provided a model for the WWP (limited or not) just like any other item from the codex. How is this NOT the official representation of the WWP. Yes, the codex states a small blast marker -OR- similar sized counter. This doesn't make the small blast marker the "official" WWP marker, it just defines the general size of the counter. The "or" in the rule allows for other similar sized types of counters.

As for whether or not the GW model blocks LOS, the TLOS rule dictates if LOS cannot be made clearly, cover is provided. The GW WWP counter/marker blocks LOS thus provides cover. The WWP counts as impassible terrain and terrain does affect LOS.

The "or" is meant to mean that a person could use a cut out the same size as the small blast marker without needing to use the blastmarker itself. What this is all going to boil down it is how people are going to interpet "similar sized".

I think it boils down to do "markers" block LOS. I would so no, they are not terrain and they are not models. If i placed one of those green markers from GW in such a way it blocked LOS to a model would you say that's legal? I would say no.

Homer S wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

My bad! I reread your post. I originally got confused by the 2nd part on the chainfists thing as being evidence against.

Sorry,
Homer



Homer

No problem, I know that refuting such rubbish arguments about 2 Chainfists penetrating for 4d6 might have caught you off guard

No offence taken

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

My bad! I reread your post. I originally got confused by the 2nd part on the chainfists thing as being evidence against.

Sorry,
Homer



Homer

No problem, I know that refuting such rubbish arguments about 2 Chainfists penetrating for 4d6 might have caught you off guard

No offence taken

Exactly. Yet you look at the limited edition WWP and make the EXACT SAME rubbish argument for it to block LoS. I at least know my example for Tyberus the Red Wake is wrong while you flail around drowning in an ocean of ignorance or hypocrisy,

Do GW models block LOS. Does terrain block LOS?

It doesn't matter if the WWP is a marker/counter. The rules state the WWP counts as impassible terrain. GW has provided a model that represents the WWP. Therefor, the GW WWP model (and others similar) block LOS.

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:At this point, I would like to see the OP or Alkasyn go to a tournament or two, heck even a LGS, and try to bar people from using the GW WWP. Let us know how it goes.

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

My bad! I reread your post. I originally got confused by the 2nd part on the chainfists thing as being evidence against.

Sorry,
Homer



Homer

No problem, I know that refuting such rubbish arguments about 2 Chainfists penetrating for 4d6 might have caught you off guard

No offence taken

Actually, let's look at your brlliant line of reasoning;

Why do you think the limited edition webway portal blocks LoS?

GW released the model that has a dome that blocks LoS.. A webway portal counts as impassable terrain, so the domed part of the limited edition webway portal is also impassable terrain. Terrain can block LoS so the domed part of the webway portal blocks LoS. Afterall it is the official model of the webway portal.

Well lets apply that to Tyberus;

Why do you think that Tyberus the Red Wake has 4d6 AP?

GW released the model that clearly has two chainfists on the model and a chainfist gives 2d6 AP so two chainfist must give 2d6 + 2d6 AP = 4d6 AP. Afterall it is the official GW model for Tyberus the Red Wake.

However this game does not consist of made up rules for the appearance of models based on whatever the owning player feels like at the time.

Tyberus the Red Wake follows the rules for speciall close combat weapons for his dual chainfists and lightning claws, THAT is why he does not have 4d6.

The limited edition webway portal follows the rules for webway portals in the DE codex, THAT is why it does not block LoS.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Do GW models block LOS. Does terrain block LOS?

It doesn't matter if the WWP is a marker/counter. The rules state the WWP counts as impassible terrain. GW has provided a model that represents the WWP. Therefor, the GW WWP model (and others similar) block LOS.

So if I place the official GW markers in such a way as I block LOS it's good as well?

The WWP is not a model. Models are required to be part of a unit and to have a stat line.

Thanks Oaka, very helpful

From what I can see, the WWP "Dome" is consistent with a hemisphere based on the template - namely that it's height = it's radius.

Given that fact, I see no reason to use it as is. Does it block TLOS ? Yes IMHO. Is it a legit representation on the table-top ? Yes (again IMHO). Should those same characteristics be applied if only using the template ? Of course, since the template only shows the footprint, then a modicum of common sense should "imply" it's hemispherical nature just by reading the description in the codex.

So, no matter what side you're arguing it boils down to this - the dome IS legit, so stop whining. If you don't own a dome, by a plastic ball and make one, then stop whining. If you're too cheap to make one, make 2 card templates, cut one in half, mount the half vertically on the intact template and... yup... stop whining !


And, for the record, I don't run a DE army, and don't play against anyone who does, so I have nothing to gain or lose on this subject.

Just my 2c worth.

Reaper6 wrote:Thanks Oaka, very helpful

From what I can see, the WWP "Dome" is consistent with a hemisphere based on the template - namely that it's height = it's radius.

Given that fact, I see no reason to use it as is. Does it block TLOS ? Yes IMHO. Is it a legit representation on the table-top ? Yes (again IMHO). Should those same characteristics be applied if only using the template ? Of course, since the template only shows the footprint, then a modicum of common sense should "imply" it's hemispherical nature just by reading the description in the codex.

So, no matter what side you're arguing it boils down to this - the dome IS legit, so stop whining. If you don't own a dome, by a plastic ball and make one, then stop whining. If you're too cheap to make one, make 2 card templates, cut one in half, mount the half vertically on the intact template and... yup... stop whining !


And, for the record, I don't run a DE army, and don't play against anyone who does, so I have nothing to gain or lose on this subject.

Just my 2c worth.

So you ignore the written rules and then just make up rules.

Gotcha.

If the problem here is "counts as" then we have a bigger set of problems. I went through and found "counts as" references from several codexes, and was wondering if the people who think that impassible terrain matters only in terms of movement instead of all game aspects thought about them:

Ironclad Assault Launchers, Aura of Acquiescence, Cloud of Flies, Destroyer Hive, Phantasm Grenade Launcher, Hallucinogen Grenades:
Which parts of these do we ignore? Using the grenades against vehicles or the -1 attack?

Abbadon's Daemon Sword Drach'Nyen:
Should we ignore his doubled strength for characteristic tests? Are his extra d6 attacks not counted for the purpose of rules that count attacks?

Kharn's Blessing of the Blood God:
Should we ignore the fact that turning an enemy force weapon (assuming they have two of them) removes an attack for the purposes of having two of the same special weapon? Should we add an attack if they have a power weapon and a force weapon?

Lucius the Eternal's Lash of Torment:
Should we give him +1 attack because the Lash counts as a close combat weapon, and he carries a power sword?

Doombolt, Bolt of Change:
As this only "counts as" a weapon, should it be able to ignore LoS as well?

Baron Sathonyx:
His Custom Skyboard obviously doesn't block line of sight, but what else doesn't it do according to your reasoning? Does he not get the 5+ save?

Shock Prow:
Does the vehicle that is rammed get to roll against the armor assuming it is d3 higher than normal?

I'm sure there are more, but I got tired of looking. The main question here is, "Why do we have to listen to you as opposed to the rules to determine what facets of the game are influenced by something that 'counts as' something else?"

Furthermore, if the issue is that a "marker" is rather undefined, then I have two more bones to pick. First, look at the rules for things like ammo runts and servo skulls. It's pretty clear that GW is capable of writing in markers that don't do much of anything. In this case, the marker does something specifically. Second, there are other things that aren't even defined models per se that I'm sure you'd agree can't block line of sight either, such as Bjorn's remains, Antaro Chronus (post-tank), downed Necrons awaiting WBB, Ghost Knights created after a battle has begun, Justicar Thawn's counter, Commissar Yarrick before Iron Will activates, etc. Note that if you disagree with anything on this list your position is inconsistent.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:GW has provided a model for the WWP (limited or not) just like any other item from the codex. How is this NOT the official representation of the WWP.

Well...

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Yes, the codex states a small blast marker -OR- similar sized counter.

That's how.

Huge list of "counts as" now just trying to see how it applies to the original point.

It isn't about the webway portal counting as impassable terrain. It is about how much of the webway portal counts as impassable terrain; as described in DE codex or per the dimensions of the limited edition webway portal?

That is the basic question;

What are the dimensions of the webway portal?

Camp A: As described in the DE codex.

Camp B: As measured by the limited edition webway portal marker.

Asking what the dimensions of the webway portal is the basic question. So how do we know what the dimensions of our models are?

By using the models provided of course!

NO codex tells us the dimensions of its models. If I look in a tyranid codex, I won't find the specifications for a trygon model. If I look through a space marine codex, it won't tell me how wide or long a rhino model should be. In the dark eldar codex, the dimensions of a raider are never stated.

So to answer the question: we know because we buy the models GW provides. For units without a model (i.e. tervigons) we're forced to convert things to make a model that would commonly be accepted as a reasonable scale model.

Nowhere in the dark eldar codex does it DEFINITIVELY state any dimensions for the webway portal. By use of the words "or similarly sized", we're left with a vague interpretation of the rules; everyone will read that differently.

Therefore, the Limited edition WWP that Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer 40k, produced is valid in its entirety as a model. It is unimportant that it was a limited edition release; we're hobbyists, we can convert our own. What this shows though is that the webway portal is thought of as hemispherical by GW, and in the codex rules they wrote, it is a marker that counts as impassable terrain, meaning it has the ability to block LOS.

Because GW released it, it shows that they feel that the limited edition WWP is similarly sized to a small blast marker, and if the game's creators think so, then that is good enough for us as the players.

Rozgarth wrote:Asking what the dimensions of the webway portal is the basic question. So how do we know what the dimensions of our models are?

By using the models provided of course!

NO codex tells us the dimensions of its models. If I look in a tyranid codex, I won't find the specifications for a trygon model. If I look through a space marine codex, it won't tell me how wide or long a rhino model should be. In the dark eldar codex, the dimensions of a raider are never stated.

So to answer the question: we know because we buy the models GW provides. For units without a model (i.e. tervigons) we're forced to convert things to make a model that would commonly be accepted as a reasonable scale model.

Nowhere in the dark eldar codex does it DEFINITIVELY state any dimensions for the webway portal. By use of the words "or similarly sized", we're left with a vague interpretation of the rules; everyone will read that differently.

Therefore, the Limited edition WWP that Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer 40k, produced is valid in its entirety as a model. It is unimportant that it was a limited edition release; we're hobbyists, we can convert our own. What this shows though is that the webway portal is thought of as hemispherical by GW, and in the codex rules they wrote, it is a marker that counts as impassable terrain, meaning it has the ability to block LOS.

Because GW released it, it shows that they feel that the limited edition WWP is similarly sized to a small blast marker, and if the game's creators think so, then that is good enough for us as the players.

Convienent that you leave out the preceding part of the statement,

"A small blast marker or similar size."

The standard is set as a small blast marker. Now the picture in the thread shows that the limited edition marker is not similar sized to a small blast marker. Individuals have done the math to show that it is not similar in size. Lastly, game mechanics are affected by one and not by the other, further showing you that they are not similar.

Models in the game and their size not being mentioned is a flawed attempt at misdirection because while some of them lack direction, the DE codex gives specific direction. The DE codex tells you the standard, which if you were to use, would be a 3" column about 1/8" in height. So you want to significantly change the height and geometric shape and still call it similar? So I need to eat a citrus fruit or similar and you bring me an apple?

The standard dimensions, given by the DE codex is a footprint of impassable terrain, is a column approximately 3" in diameter and 1/8" in height. You cannot claim the limited edition webway portal marker is legal based on it's look when the rule specifically contradicts it.

Rozgarth wrote:
Nowhere in the dark eldar codex does it DEFINITIVELY state any dimensions for the webway portal. By use of the words "or similarly sized", we're left with a vague interpretation of the rules; everyone will read that differently.

Therefore, the Limited edition WWP that Games Workshop, the creators of Warhammer 40k, produced is valid in its entirety as a model. It is unimportant that it was a limited edition release; we're hobbyists, we can convert our own. What this shows though is that the webway portal is thought of as hemispherical by GW, and in the codex rules they wrote, it is a marker that counts as impassable terrain, meaning it has the ability to block LOS.

Because GW released it, it shows that they feel that the limited edition WWP is similarly sized to a small blast marker, and if the game's creators think so, then that is good enough for us as the players.

The portal is not similarly sized when compared to the Blast marker.

The Pic a few posts ago shows us this.

something similarly sized would have roughly the same circumference and height.

want to make your own maker out of a 60MM round base? that may be similarly sized, a 25mm round base, definitely not similarly sized.

Anything with a height of more than 1/2 an inch is definitely not similarly sized.

Since GW does not define similar, we have to use the clasic definition for it. Anything not resembling the Blast marker in all dimensions is not similar to what he codex tells us to use.

Please note, Death Reaper, that according to the classical definition from geometry, a similar model could be 500 times the size of the small blast marker, as long as it has the same dimensions. Also, please remember that there have been multiple small blast markers produced by GW over the years. Are you prepared to say that anything similar to any of those blast markers is allowable?

Furthermore, what if the marker is indeed the blast marker, but is placed on a hill and thus makes a model that would normally not get cover suddenly have it? Would you be satisfied then that the model should receive a cover save?

Kitzz wrote:Please note, Death Reaper, that according to the classical definition from geometry, a similar model could be 500 times the size of the small blast marker, as long as it has the same dimensions. Also, please remember that there have been multiple small blast markers produced by GW over the years. Are you prepared to say that anything similar to any of those blast markers is allowable?

Furthermore, what if the marker is indeed the blast marker, but is placed on a hill and thus makes a model that would normally not get cover suddenly have it? Would you be satisfied then that the model should receive a cover save?

How can something be 500 times the size and have the same dimensions? if something is 1 inch across, something 500 inches across does not have the same dimensions. The game world is a 3d environment.

No, because Markers are not allowed to obscure LoS no matter how big they are.

If they did then all shooting is rendered useless, since My smoke marker is a piece of cotton that is 4 feet long by 6 feet wide and two inches think that i lay on my vehicles to mark smoke, now you cant shoot at me and I continue my rhino rush.

Note that smoke markers are specifically mentioned as not affecting game rules, while the marker in question actually has game significance in its description. And apologies for "same dimensions;" I meant to say "same shape."

So you want to significantly change the height and geometric shape and still call it similar?

I don't. I don't really care either way in this since I don't run a WWP army or know anyone who does frequently. However, GW by releasing the WWP marker, acknowledge that it can be used as a viable representation of the portal in games and GW was obviously willing, when they released the marker, to provide a clearer example of what the codex describes somewhat vaguely.

Rozgarth wrote:

So you want to significantly change the height and geometric shape and still call it similar?

I don't. I don't really care either way in this since I don't run a WWP army or know anyone who does frequently. However, GW by releasing the WWP marker, acknowledge that it can be used as a viable representation of the portal in games and GW was obviously willing, when they released the marker, to provide a clearer example of what the codex describes somewhat vaguely.

Here! Here! The marker has been released, is treated as impassible terrain, thus blocks LOS.

DeathReaper wrote:

How can something be 500 times the size and have the same dimensions? if something is 1 inch across, something 500 inches across does not have the same dimensions. The game world is a 3d environment.

No, because Markers are not allowed to obscure LoS no matter how big they are.

If they did then all shooting is rendered useless, since My smoke marker is a piece of cotton that is 4 feet long by 6 feet wide and two inches think that i lay on my vehicles to mark smoke, now you cant shoot at me and I continue my rhino rush.

Rellay? Can you please sight the page number indicating markers/counters are not allowed to obscure LOS, regardless of size, regardless as counting as terrain?

Can you please site the page that does show that WWP can be LoS blocking terrain. As you know this is a permissive ruleset meaning that if it's not in the rules then it is against the rules. Therefore it is up to the player making the rules claim to show that, by the rules their action is allowed. It is your position that a webway portal can block LoS show us in the RAW that this is so. If you can't site a specific page from the rules then you can't use it that way. It's impossible for a person to show a rule that doesn't exist.

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Can you please site the page that does show that WWP can be LoS blocking terrain. As you know this is a permissive ruleset meaning that if it's not in the rules then it is against the rules. Therefore it is up to the player making the rules claim to show that, by the rules their action is allowed. It is your position that a webway portal can block LoS show us in the RAW that this is so. If you can't site a specific page from the rules then you can't use it that way. It's impossible for a person to show a rule that doesn't exist.

pg.16

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).

pg.21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.

Markers are not one of the exceptions to cover listed on page 22.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Here! Here! The marker has been released, is treated as impassible terrain, thus blocks LOS.

Since when does all impassible terrain become blocking? I am pretty sure there can be impassible terrain that is not blocking (ie deep water,lava, waste sludge, buildings with windows that are treated as impassible). Just curious.

bushido wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Can you please site the page that does show that WWP can be LoS blocking terrain. As you know this is a permissive ruleset meaning that if it's not in the rules then it is against the rules. Therefore it is up to the player making the rules claim to show that, by the rules their action is allowed. It is your position that a webway portal can block LoS show us in the RAW that this is so. If you can't site a specific page from the rules then you can't use it that way. It's impossible for a person to show a rule that doesn't exist.

pg.16

Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its head, torso, legs and arms).

pg.21

When any part of the target model's body (as defined on page 16) is obscured from the point of view of the firer, the target model is in cover.

Markers are not one of the exceptions to cover listed on page 22.

That's all well and good but you still haven't shown where in the rules it says that a webway portal is a piece of terrain that blocks LoS. I can show you where it says that it is area terrain (DE p52) but nowhere in that descrpition does it show that the area terrain has height or blocks line of sight. As I, and others, have stated impassable terrain does not necessitate LoS blocking terrain. A piece of terrain 7" across representing a deep lake (impassable terrain) does not keep you from seeing the enemy on the other shore.

Leo_the_Rat wrote: A piece of terrain 7" across representing a deep lake (impassable terrain) does not keep you from seeing the enemy on the other shore.

It does if the lake is modeled with an opaque dome in the middle.

In 40k, LOS is LOS. If you can't see it, you can't shoot it.

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:
Here! Here! The marker has been released, is treated as impassible terrain, thus blocks LOS.

Since when does all impassible terrain become blocking? I am pretty sure there can be impassible terrain that is not blocking (ie deep water,lava, waste sludge, buildings with windows that are treated as impassible). Just curious.

Impassible terrain doesn't necessarily become blocking. An opaque model that IS impassible terrain DOES block LOS.

impassable terrain on its own is not area terrain and only denies movement. a flat blast marker WPP is impassable terrain so denies movement through it but itself does not get cover as there is no rule for it giving cover, and its flat and about 3mm thick so whats getting cover from that?

The actual limited edition WPP model is a half sphere and has the same rules of course but all of the sudden now in reality terms physically blocks line of sight.

However the webway portal represents something completely intangible that has no physical parts that actually grant cover therefore;

for the people that think the WWP grants cover, what cover save do you think it has from the chart on p.21

DR - the WWP model has 2 degrees of similarity to the small blast, length and width - just not height. It is, in geometric terms, a "similar" shape.

What Kitzz meant was as long as you increase all dimensions by the same ratio, then in geometric terms the new object is *similar* to the original one.

So, depending on which definition of "similar" you use, the precise mathematical one or the more common, less precise one will determine how you play this.

And in this case it tells you to use the small blast marker (Which is a column) so it is not a "similar" shape.

If you want to go by Similar shape, then the WWP model would also have to be a column, however the WWP is a Hemisphere, which, as we all know, is not a column.

DR - seriously, I already pointed out the number of degrees of similarity the hemisphere has. This is enough to say, mathematically, that it is a "similar" shape. Note the word "similar" and not "exact"

I think you're not understanding the mathematic terms here.

and I think you are not understanding what similar means.

The WWP is not similar, it is a hemisphere, the small blast marker is a column. its not geometrically similar.

2 out of three dimentions being similar is not what the DE codex calls for.

But all this is moot anyway, since it is just a marker.

No, I do understand what similar means. The maths degree attests to that.

Being similar to even 1 degree makes you MATHEMATICALLY similar; this is ONE definition of similar

Otherwise you are asking the imprecise question "similar enough?"

So something with the same length and width, but it is 100 times taller is similar to the blast marker?

That is stretching the definition by anybody's standards.

Kitzz wrote:I'm sure there are more, but I got tired of looking. The main question here is, "Why do we have to listen to you as opposed to the rules to determine what facets of the game are influenced by something that 'counts as' something else?"

Furthermore, if the issue is that a "marker" is rather undefined, then I have two more bones to pick. First, look at the rules for things like ammo runts and servo skulls. It's pretty clear that GW is capable of writing in markers that don't do much of anything. In this case, the marker does something specifically. Second, there are other things that aren't even defined models per se that I'm sure you'd agree can't block line of sight either, such as Bjorn's remains, Antaro Chronus (post-tank), downed Necrons awaiting WBB, Ghost Knights created after a battle has begun, Justicar Thawn's counter, Commissar Yarrick before Iron Will activates, etc. Note that if you disagree with anything on this list your position is inconsistent.

Could you explain the Ghost Knight/Antaro Chronus thing? They are models with stat lines that are part of a unit, just like spawned gaunts. How are they markers? I agree on everything else, but that one seems strange. Both fit the definition of models in the BRB without contradiction.
Note that if Bjorn becomes a wreck, his wreck would block LoS though, as it counts as terrain.

Also note that "the portal" counts as impassible terrain, not the marker. The portal is the circular area marked by the sphere, blast marker or other substitute is the portal, not the marker itself.

No it isnt stretching A definition at all, you just dont understand where your "common sense" interpretation of the term "similar" and the altogether MUCH more precise mathematical term diverge.

GW (you know...the guys that make the game and write the rules) obviously thought it was "similar" enough to release a model shaped like that.

blaktoof wrote:impassable terrain on its own is not area terrain and only denies movement. a flat blast marker WPP is impassable terrain so denies movement through it but itself does not get cover as there is no rule for it giving cover, and its flat and about 3mm thick so whats getting cover from that?

The actual limited edition WPP model is a half sphere and has the same rules of course but all of the sudden now in reality terms physically blocks line of sight.

However the webway portal represents something completely intangible that has no physical parts that actually grant cover therefore;

for the people that think the WWP grants cover, what cover save do you think it has from the chart on p.21

Can you physically see through the WWP? Truly? Not hypothetically, not abstractly, but truly? This is the criteria for LOS described on page 16 of the BRB. Since the model is opaque and is neither razor wire (and it's ilk) nor high grass, crops, etc., nor a fortification, the cover it grants is 4+ (as defined on page 21 of the BRB).

The cavalry has arrived! This is what i've been saying throughout the entire thread.

Can you physically see through the WWP? Truly? Not hypothetically, not abstractly, but truly? This is the criteria for LOS described on page 16 of the BRB. Since the model is opaque and is neither razor wire (and it's ilk) nor high grass, crops, etc., nor a fortification, the cover it grants is 4+ (as defined on page 21 of the BRB).

I do not think you are right nor are there any rules supporting you in the BRB or Codex entry.

in fact the section you quoted to say its 4+ cover is next to meaningless as you use it because it is nothing like anything that is listed as granting 4+ cover, nor is there a single rule saying "if its not this or that cover its 4+!" like you falsely imply.


there is absolutely no rule in the BRB that supports it being 4+ cover. Just because the cover section lists things that barely cause obscurement and are physical in nature as being 5+ then goes on to say "most other" things are 4+ does not mean ALL other things are 4+. if you look at the guidelines for what they are all those things that are MOST other things that grant 4+ cover those things are actual solid structures in terms of game play, the wwp is impassable terrain but not solid in nature as obviously models can move freely out of it. That said it obviously phsycically exists as a marker on a game table and blocks LOS but does not have "game" physical characterstics which is the sole measurement of what grants cover. there is no way it would fall in the 4+ save category and honestly i doubt it would fall in the 5+, 6+ or 3+ as per the examples. the webway portal is a marker that represent an opening to the webway, it is a marker that represents some opening from realspace to another dimension with no actual physical characteristics. There is no RAW or RAI that supports it granting any kind of cover save.

An arguement for total concealment of models behind it possibly, but if it was blocking 50% of a unit there is no way it would give a 4+ cover save as per p.21 of the BRB

The original DE webway portal had a limited edition model that is the exact same one as the current limited edition one, and it was ruled that it did not block LOS. I realize that was a different codex and a different edition but there is no rule for it blocking LOS now other than TLOS and if you try to apply the cover system from the BRB to it there is no way it would grant any sort of cover save.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
btw for anyone looking for a wwp, here is what I use for mine.

http://cooksdream.com/Merchant2/merchant.mvc?Screen=PROD&Product_Code=4930

enjoy.

Blaktoof - actually like all other terrain you would have to agree the cover save; given a ruin or trees give 4+ cover it seems unlikely you could argue it gives anything other than a 4+

Im sorry intanigble darkness that goes into another dimension is not the same as a ruin or tree.

So you dont think it provides as much cover as a sapling?

Interesting.

Still, the point stands: like all other terrain you will have to discuss it before the game.

A female prostitute and a transvestite prostitue are similar in that they both charge for sex, but that hardly makes them interchangable. - George Washington

If we look at the small blast marker and the webway portal supplied by GW, we see that the only visible similarity is the size of the base which is the only real property of either marker that is part of an actual game mechanic of the portal, i.e., you deploy models from the edge of the portal.

Now all the mathematical or visual similarities aside, one marker introduces a game changing mechanic and another does not; blocking LoS versus not blocking LoS. I think that this difference is a huge point against any argument of the webway marker being similar enough to the small blast marker to allow it to be used in that manner.

Introduction of a completely different game mechanic is the kicker in my opinion. It leads to a duality of playing webway portal DE lists depending on the ownership of the limted edition webway portal which I am almost sure GW never would have intended. Homemade webway portals could be made by players not fortunate enough to get the limited editon model, but at any time an opposing player could say that it is not a GW made product and that an appropriate model exists to represent the webway portal and simply hand over a small blast marker.

So realistically looking at the situation as a whole, I would say that the webway marker from GW does not block LoS for the following reasons:

1. The similarity ends at the functioning footprint of both markers(where models using the portal enter play).

2. Introduction of an additional in-game mechanic is a vast difference between the small blast marker and the webway marker.

3. Duality of play between those players that own the limited edition marker, those that do not, and the confrontation that inherently would ensue between those factions and opponents over homemade versions.

Taking the above into account, following the properties of the small blast marker per the Dark Eldar codex for any and all webway markers eliminates the problems arising from trying to put two different types of webway markers into the game.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No it isnt stretching A definition at all, you just dont understand where your "common sense" interpretation of the term "similar" and the altogether MUCH more precise mathematical term diverge.

Except for it to be Mathematically similar the only thing that can be different is the scaling.

The Small blast marker, no matter how big you make it in any direction will never look the same as the limited edition WWP.

Thus it is not Mathematically similar, it is not similar in the "common sense" interpretation either.

Reading back through the thread I get the common theme that people really do not have a rules backed argument for the LoS blocking marker and instead fallback on,

"It was released by GW so it is the official model!"

They want LoS Blocking from an item that never had LoS blocking and are manufacturing a reason. Would they be arguing this vehemently for the limited edition webway marker being the official representation if the situation was reversed?

The DE codex tells you to use the Vortex grenade marker or similar. Then GW comes out with a pretty painted small blast marker labled as, Limited Edition Webway Portal. Would there be support for the, official GW marker?

Seems like there are two camps,

1. Those that want to keep the webway portal as it was with it never blocking LoS.

2. Those that want to change the webway portal from the way is was and is currently described in the Dark Eldar to now blocking LoS.

There is no inherent advantage behind using it as cover, as i've been saying since the first page this is really a trivial debate of rule lawyering. The fact stands that 40k is a "if you can see it, you can shoot it" philosophy. The official model blocks LOS as it is opaque. A 35 point piece of deployable terrain doesn't sound like an advantage to me, i would almost qualify it as a liability.

Jidmah wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I'm sure there are more, but I got tired of looking. The main question here is, "Why do we have to listen to you as opposed to the rules to determine what facets of the game are influenced by something that 'counts as' something else?"

Furthermore, if the issue is that a "marker" is rather undefined, then I have two more bones to pick. First, look at the rules for things like ammo runts and servo skulls. It's pretty clear that GW is capable of writing in markers that don't do much of anything. In this case, the marker does something specifically. Second, there are other things that aren't even defined models per se that I'm sure you'd agree can't block line of sight either, such as Bjorn's remains, Antaro Chronus (post-tank), downed Necrons awaiting WBB, Ghost Knights created after a battle has begun, Justicar Thawn's counter, Commissar Yarrick before Iron Will activates, etc. Note that if you disagree with anything on this list your position is inconsistent.

Could you explain the Ghost Knight/Antaro Chronus thing? They are models with stat lines that are part of a unit, just like spawned gaunts. How are they markers? I agree on everything else, but that one seems strange. Both fit the definition of models in the BRB without contradiction.
Note that if Bjorn becomes a wreck, his wreck would block LoS though, as it counts as terrain.

Also note that "the portal" counts as impassible terrain, not the marker. The portal is the circular area marked by the sphere, blast marker or other substitute is the portal, not the marker itself.

Antaro is never said to be part of a unit, and in no way is the word "model" used in his rules text. The situation is similar with the Ghost Knights, as the ones placed after he takes wounds are not called models either.

On a more general note, to those who still believe that the GW model does not represent what the WWP is supposed to look like, and that the rules state it should be similar to the small blast marker, please note the following circularity in your argument: I submit that the blast marker is produced by GW as well. The only rules definition pertaining to it is that it has a 3" diameter. If we're following your "similar" geometric definition, we don't even have a third dimension to go off of for the blast marker itself, or indeed, a way to interpret whether that third dimension is rounded, flat, or what have you. If the WWP model is 3" in diameter, it is thus similar to the only dimensions we are given, else the small blast marker itself is not supported by the rules and cannot be used in normal games. Furthermore, please note that even though the rules for blasts describe a hole in the center of the marker, we are never given the dimensions of that hole either, which has major rules implications.

Anyone willing to reconsider based off of this argument?

In my opinion, that argument is self-defeating because of the ridiculous conclusion that the GW model does not align with the rules.

Clearly, the vaguely defined "similarly sized" is loose enough to allow the official GW model, as it fits in the requirement of being the diameter of the small blast temp.

You can disagree on the fact that no other marker is currently considered terrain, therefore should not block LOS. But it claim the GW model is illegal is quite another.

Kitzz wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

Kitzz wrote:I'm sure there are more, but I got tired of looking. The main question here is, "Why do we have to listen to you as opposed to the rules to determine what facets of the game are influenced by something that 'counts as' something else?"

Furthermore, if the issue is that a "marker" is rather undefined, then I have two more bones to pick. First, look at the rules for things like ammo runts and servo skulls. It's pretty clear that GW is capable of writing in markers that don't do much of anything. In this case, the marker does something specifically. Second, there are other things that aren't even defined models per se that I'm sure you'd agree can't block line of sight either, such as Bjorn's remains, Antaro Chronus (post-tank), downed Necrons awaiting WBB, Ghost Knights created after a battle has begun, Justicar Thawn's counter, Commissar Yarrick before Iron Will activates, etc. Note that if you disagree with anything on this list your position is inconsistent.

Could you explain the Ghost Knight/Antaro Chronus thing? They are models with stat lines that are part of a unit, just like spawned gaunts. How are they markers? I agree on everything else, but that one seems strange. Both fit the definition of models in the BRB without contradiction.
Note that if Bjorn becomes a wreck, his wreck would block LoS though, as it counts as terrain.

Also note that "the portal" counts as impassible terrain, not the marker. The portal is the circular area marked by the sphere, blast marker or other substitute is the portal, not the marker itself.

Antaro is never said to be part of a unit, and in no way is the word "model" used in his rules text. The situation is similar with the Ghost Knights, as the ones placed after he takes wounds are not called models either.

On a more general note, to those who still believe that the GW model does not represent what the WWP is supposed to look like, and that the rules state it should be similar to the small blast marker, please note the following circularity in your argument: I submit that the blast marker is produced by GW as well. The only rules definition pertaining to it is that it has a 3" diameter. If we're following your "similar" geometric definition, we don't even have a third dimension to go off of for the blast marker itself, or indeed, a way to interpret whether that third dimension is rounded, flat, or what have you. If the WWP model is 3" in diameter, it is thus similar to the only dimensions we are given, else the small blast marker itself is not supported by the rules and cannot be used in normal games. Furthermore, please note that even though the rules for blasts describe a hole in the center of the marker, we are never given the dimensions of that hole either, which has major rules implications.

Anyone willing to reconsider based off of this argument?

By that standard you should then ONLY use the 3" diameter of the small blast marker and the webway poral marker because that is the only similarity between the two and you are not given permission to add an additional dimension.

Night's Blood wrote:In my opinion, that argument is self-defeating because of the ridiculous conclusion that the GW model does not align with the rules.

Clearly, the vaguely defined "similarly sized" is loose enough to allow the official GW model, as it fits in the requirement of being the diameter of the small blast temp.

You can disagree on the fact that no other marker is currently considered terrain, therefore should not block LOS. But it claim the GW model is illegal is quite another.

Note what I typed above. The footprint is similar, no problem using that at all. But where do you get the permission to add an additional dimension and add another game mechanic?

@Grimloth: Very well. There is no legal blast marker. The hole in the center can be whatever size we want it to be. Good luck playing 40k not using templates.

Taking arguments that extra step through to absurd conclusions may be fun, but ultimately it's not particularly useful.

At the end of the day, we are left with two sensible choices (since telling someone they can't use their webway portal marker is, really, a little silly):

1: Assume the webway portal marker is treated as both a marker and a terrain piece, and so blocks LOS... Discuss with your opponent what the appropriate cover save should be.
or
2: Assume that the webway portal marker is just a marker, and the reference to treating it as impassable terrain is purely to stop people from walking on it, in which case it doesn't block LOS.

If in doubt, discuss it with your opponent before the game.


After 7 pages, I think this has gone around in circles more than enough. Time to move on.