I've noticed a lot of homemade Tau, Eldar, and Necron Aegis Defense Lines are beginning to use the 'energy field' appearance for games of 40K. I was curious as to how this may affect the rules on LoS and gaining cover? These fields are usually projections that allow the entire model to be seen, but are counted as being in cover, as well as allowing the models to fire through them. Are these just house rules at this point? Could someone argue that the following models are not in cover because they aren't obscured by any terrain?

I'm sorry, but you've got to be just about the lowest class of player if you'd seriously have an issue with not allowing someone to use those. Maybe the clear ones would be annoying as they are kind of hard to see, but why would anyone have issues with anything else?

If I were using such a model, I would say that the "energy field" part cannot be seen through, just like a normal ADL. This would affect both my and the enemy's models. If it CAN be seen through, then it does not grant cover to either side.

There is nothing in the rules that allows you to draw LOS through transparent terrain. A piece of clear terrain blocks LOS exactly like a piece of opaque terrain.

Depends, if they are the same (or very, very close) to the same dimensions as the aegis line then there wouldn't be an issue.
However, if they are noticeably larger than the aegis, then that's modeling for advantage.

 Peregrine wrote:
There is nothing in the rules that allows you to draw LOS through transparent terrain

Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

A piece of clear terrain blocks LOS exactly like a piece of opaque terrain.

No it actually does not.

Oh my really.

If a dude was using these as an ascetic substitute for an ADL, then I would and you should allow them the same rule set for the ADL from the brb. Sad just sad.

The models are count-as ADL pieces and should be assumed to have the same dimensions and properties.

I'm just waiting for the day someone makes terrain out of mirrors.

I don't really have a problem with a counts-as ADL so long as it's treated as such, but the principle of "I can see you but you can't see me" through the same terrain is fundamentally problematic.

In the first pic, they obviously have both cover, and LOS over the top to fire (and be shot in the face, in turn).

The 2nd pic's angle is bad, but it seems to be the same story... they're shooting over the top of the barrier, and can thus also be shot in the head.

The other pics are hard to guess the size of, so anyone's guess on how a model stacks up against it...

... but, yeah, I'd allow these to be played exactly as an ADL or similar fortification.

Well, the actual ADL has murder slits, so I assume that anyone up against it can still fire through it normally. That's just the way I've always seen every reasonable person play it.

These are totally legit as ADL pieces, assuming they aren't a different profile. (The yellow ones look a little too tall to me, but that might just be me being tired...)

If the energy field was clear I would use a wash or something to make it opaque enough to obscure the models so it would work as intended.

The local Eldar player that has a similar ADL counts-as does that(clear plastic with a wash to make it opaque)

 Grey Templar wrote:
If the energy field was clear I would use a wash or something to make it opaque enough to obscure the models so it would work as intended.

The local Eldar player that has a similar ADL counts-as does that(clear plastic with a wash to make it opaque)

I'm guessing one of those newer Glazes would be perfect for this.

And lets not forget that there are terrain rules for shield generators. Those fantastic terrain pieces could be used as that. But I'm more than happy to play against a power field ADL, they look great and fit the army much better than the imperial eagle covered GW one.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

Specific citation please. The LOS rules require a "straight unblocked line", and a line through a piece of partially-transparent plastic is not unblocked.

Also, let's look at all of the definitions: c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>. A model behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic (for example, the first picture) is not clearly seen so RAW it gets a cover save.

WAACAH

@OP: How do you draw Line of Sight from a model with a helmet on?

Seriously, I have no respect for people who would seirously do this and try to get an advantage over someone who prefers to use well-looking and fitting terrain pieces - it's just sad and extremely poor sportsmanship.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

Also, let's look at all of the definitions: c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>. A model behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic (for example, the first picture) is not clearly seen so RAW it gets a cover save.

That is great, but does not apply as the models are not drawings on a cave wall. Context is important.

obscure

verb
[with object]
keep from being seen; conceal
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obscure?q=obscure

Specific citation please. The LOS rules require a "straight unblocked line", and a line through a piece of partially-transparent plastic is not unblocked.

Here you go

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8) (Emphasis mine)

The part that says "they must be able to see their foes through...the battlefield terrain" tells us that they can indeed see through the terrain if they can actually see through the terrain such as windows, clear pieces of aluminium that hold whales in their tanks etc...

Indisputable proof of my earlier statement.

As you like to point out so often, Deathreaper, context is important.

I think every rational player realizes that when Games Workshop says "see through terrain" they mean seeing through gaps within the terrain such as windows, murder slits, cracks, or blast holes. If I bring a piece of terrain made from clear, thick material designed to look like a giant transparent diamond, or a huge clear piece of ice, no one is going to argue that since they can see their foes through the terrain that they can draw LOS.

Now, if you wanted to argue a strictly RAW interpretation, without context, you might have some ground to stand on with your argument, but I still don't think anyone is going to see that as a reasonable way to play the game.

 Jimsolo wrote:
That is great, but does not apply as the models are not drawings on a cave wall. Context is important.

Err, lol? Even the dictionary definition is very clear that "obscured" does not mean "100% invisible", regardless of whether you're talking about objects that are behind something/in smoke/etc or faded markings or any other thing where visibility is hindered.

I think every rational player realizes that when Games Workshop says "see through terrain" they mean seeing through gaps within the terrain such as windows, murder slits, cracks, or blast holes.

This. The rulebook even gives a specific example of LOS that appears to be blocked initially but when you bend down and look at the model's eye view you can see part of the target model through gaps in a forest.

There is no transparent energy field in the fortifications section of the BRB. So if it is on the table then it is a 'counts as ADL' meaning you treat the proxy as if it were an ADL, for height, width, LoS, etc.

 deviantduck wrote:
There is no transparent energy field in the fortifications section of the BRB

Try the terrain section:
Shield Generators (p105)
Force Dome Generator (p106)
Psionic Shield Generator (p107)

 Jimsolo wrote:
As you like to point out so often, Deathreaper, context is important.

I think every rational player realizes that when Games Workshop says "see through terrain" they mean seeing through gaps within the terrain such as windows, murder slits, cracks, or blast holes. If I bring a piece of terrain made from clear, thick material designed to look like a giant transparent diamond, or a huge clear piece of ice, no one is going to argue that since they can see their foes through the terrain that they can draw LOS.

So you can't see through the windows of a ruin to shoot the guys on the other side?

Oh wait, you can, as you mentioned. Why can a model see through a window and not that piece of terrain that is essentially a giant window made to function as an ADL?

Citation needed, and please be consistent.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Jimsolo wrote:
I think every rational player realizes that when Games Workshop says "see through terrain" they mean seeing through gaps within the terrain such as windows, murder slits, cracks, or blast holes.

This. The rulebook even gives a specific example of LOS that appears to be blocked initially but when you bend down and look at the model's eye view you can see part of the target model through gaps in a forest.

So you are arguing intent, not RAW, got it...

Unfortunately we have no idea what they meant, so we have to go with what is written.

and as RAW if you can see through it, the model on the other side is not obscured.

I would let an opponent use those pieces, and claim the cover save as if my models line of Sight was obscured, if it was behind the clear energy field wall looking thing, but that is a houserule to allow opponents to use the terrain they made without having it be useless.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

Specific citation please. The LOS rules require a "straight unblocked line", and a line through a piece of partially-transparent plastic is not unblocked.

Also, let's look at all of the definitions: c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>. A model behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic (for example, the first picture) is not clearly seen so RAW it gets a cover save.

When I look out my nice clean completely transparent front window, do I have LOS to the street; or is my vision somehow blocked by the clear glass?

Unblocked does not mean that there is nothing between the the firing model and the target model; it means that the view itself is unblocked(meaning there is nothing preventing you from seeing the target)

And the not clearly seen argument really does not mean anything as DR was countering your assertion that a transparent piece of terrain blocks LOS(which is 100% not the case).

 grendel083 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
There is no transparent energy field in the fortifications section of the BRB

Try the terrain section:
Shield Generators (p105)
Force Dome Generator (p106)
Psionic Shield Generator (p107)

All very true. The OP was referring to ADL proxies, though. The ones you listed are objectives/artifacts. However, they are an interesting point in dealing with LoS. All of the LoS rules are models eyes to target and it doesn't make any mention of materials you actually see through. Its pretty much the opposite of the newly FAQd blast marker debate. You can wound targets out of line of sight, but how do you figure out the cover save of a target you can't see? This conundrum is the inverse, how do you figure out the cover save of a model you can see, but don't have an unobstructed path to?

 deviantduck wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:
There is no transparent energy field in the fortifications section of the BRB

Try the terrain section:
Shield Generators (p105)
Force Dome Generator (p106)
Psionic Shield Generator (p107)

All very true. The OP was referring to ADL proxies, though.

Sorry, I could have sworn I read someone suggest using them as standard terrain. Thought that's what you were replying to. Wasn't quite awake at the time.

 deviantduck wrote:
Its pretty much the opposite of the newly FAQd blast marker debate. You can wound targets out of line of sight, but how do you figure out the cover save of a target you can't see? This conundrum is the inverse, how do you figure out the cover save of a model you can see, but don't have an unobstructed path to?

Just as you would for a normal model, maybe I do not understand the question.

If you trace a Line of Sight to a completely obscured model, then that model is "at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer" (18 Determining cover saves).

So whatever is blocking the line of sight is the cover you use. A ruin, 4+, a tree/forest 5+, a wooden fence 6+ Etc...

This matters in the case of using Look out sir to pass the wound to a model behind the wall of a ruin but completely out of Line of Sight of any of the firing models. amongst others.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

Specific citation please. The LOS rules require a "straight unblocked line", and a line through a piece of partially-transparent plastic is not unblocked.

Also, let's look at all of the definitions: c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>. A model behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic (for example, the first picture) is not clearly seen so RAW it gets a cover save.

When I look out my nice clean completely transparent front window, do I have LOS to the street; or is my vision somehow blocked by the clear glass?

Unblocked does not mean that there is nothing between the the firing model and the target model; it means that the view itself is unblocked(meaning there is nothing preventing you from seeing the target)

And the not clearly seen argument really does not mean anything as DR was countering your assertion that a transparent piece of terrain blocks LOS(which is 100% not the case).

Exactly this. the view itself is unblocked even though there is a window in the way.

You guys are arguing about obscurement, while ignoring the concept of "cover". In a fire fight, "obscurement" blocks line of sight, "cover" stops or reduces incoming fire. In the case of the transparent fields being used to represent cover, if the goal is to stop or reduce incoming damage, then the cover save provided is correct regardless of whether or not you can see through it. In context of the game, percentage of obscurement is used as a way of determining cover save, not as a method of denying a save due to "I can see him behind the clear energy barrier, therefore my bullets ignore the barrier" argument. Its a barrier regardless of transparency, where its overall shape and dimensions matter, not the material its modeled from.

SJ

And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

I have an Energy Field (Aegis Line) that I'm currently working on. My initial steps were to measure the height and length of the actual ADL pieces... And none of my Tau Force Field parts exceed those of the ADL.
Haven't had anyone have an issue with it yet because all the dimensions are the same.

I can imagine though, that there's someone out there who would have problems with home made or alternates models.

 Akula wrote:
I can imagine though, that there's someone out there who would have problems with home made or alternates models.

There's always one
By strict RAW they shouldn't give a cover save, but there's no way I'd enforce that in an actual game.

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

This is true, until you paint the energy fields so they are no longer transparent. But of course you knew that.

The rules seem silly at times, but they are an abstraction, and need to be so, to make the game playable.

Peregrine, I take it you have conceded the point?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

This is true, until you paint the energy fields so they are no longer transparent. But of course you knew that.

Since I used the word "transparent" yes, I do know that.
And translucent is debateable - since only details are obscured but I can still see the entirety of the model, is it really obscured?

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

Obscured can also mean 'hidden'.
To obscure means 'to hide', it also means 'to cover something'.

Aren't they hiding being the 'invisible' wall?
Aren't they taking cover behind the energy field?

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

Obscured can also mean 'hidden'.
To obscure means 'to hide', it also means 'to cover something'.

Aren't they hiding being the 'invisible' wall?
Aren't they taking cover behind the energy field?

To hide is to keep out of sight; conceal. Nope, doesn't work with a transparent wall.
"take cover" has a much more ambiguous definition... and since cover is defined in the BRB as +25% obscurement...

Interesting discussion, to clarify, I am not promoting the idea of disallowing cover. I was actually interested in building some energy fields of my own and wanted to know other players' thoughts on the matter.

If anyone recalls the Ork player who wanted to build steps behind his Ork defense lines so that his Grots would be able to shoot over it, most of us said it was modelling for advantage. Surprisingly, if he decided to build a Big Mek Force Field defense line instead, it seems like that becomes acceptable?

Hiding doesn't have to be out of sight.
But now we are starting about logic and dictionary-definitions, they don't like it when we do that.

Anyway: LoS rules say that you must trace an unblocked line from the eyes to a part of the model.
There is a wall in its way, so it's not unblocked.


PS. Would you argue that the following models don't block LoS?
http://www.roughneckjoe.com/mini/tau/stealth/DSC08085.jpg

Kangodo wrote:

PS. Would you argue that the following models don't block LoS?
http://www.roughneckjoe.com/mini/tau/stealth/DSC08085.jpg

Haha, good point. I would probably not be able to see anything behind these models, regardless of how transparent they are, especially the one on the left. Now, a true Stealth Suit (a round base with nothing on it) wouldn't block line of sight!

Kangodo wrote:Hiding doesn't have to be out of sight.

It pretty much does - by definition.

Anyway: LoS rules say that you must trace an unblocked line from the eyes to a part of the model.
There is a wall in its way, so it's not unblocked.

So you can't shoot through windows then either?

PS. Would you argue that the following models don't block LoS?
http://www.roughneckjoe.com/mini/tau/stealth/DSC08085.jpg

No - models always block LoS. Since that's what the rules say anyway.

Oaka wrote:Interesting discussion, to clarify, I am not promoting the idea of disallowing cover. I was actually interested in building some energy fields of my own and wanted to know other players' thoughts on the matter.

If anyone recalls the Ork player who wanted to build steps behind his Ork defense lines so that his Grots would be able to shoot over it, most of us said it was modelling for advantage. Surprisingly, if he decided to build a Big Mek Force Field defense line instead, it seems like that becomes acceptable?

As long as he doesn't try and shoot through the defence line, sure. If you don't see the difference there you're fooling yourself.

rigeld2 wrote:
It pretty much does - by definition.

So you cannot hide behind bulletproof glass?
If some maniak starts unloading his AK47, I will hide behind bulletproof glass. No matter what your definition of hiding is.

So you can't shoot through windows then either?

http://search.games-workshop.com/search?locale=nl&keywords=
Can you find the window that has glass in it?
And even if you make your own building, you either have to houserule it or act like it's bulletproof glass.

But good attempt at derailing the thread and ignoring the statement (Y)
So again: You need an unblocked line, a wall (transparent or not) blocks that line.

rigeld2 wrote:

As long as he doesn't try and shoot through the defence line, sure. If you don't see the difference there you're fooling yourself.

But that's the whole point of these energy field defense lines. They're currently being used as terrain that doesn't block LOS but grants cover.

Kangodo wrote:
So you cannot hide behind bulletproof glass?
If some maniak starts unloading his AK47, I will hide behind bulletproof glass. No matter what your definition of hiding is.

Real life does not = the rules of the game...

Last I checked there were no rules for bulletproof glass in the BRB.

Kangodo wrote:
You need an unblocked line, a wall (transparent or not) blocks that line.

You didn't read the whole thread did you?

This was debunked...

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
When I look out my nice clean completely transparent front window, do I have LOS to the street; or is my vision somehow blocked by the clear glass?

Unblocked does not mean that there is nothing between the the firing model and the target model; it means that the view itself is unblocked(meaning there is nothing preventing you from seeing the target)

And the not clearly seen argument really does not mean anything as DR was countering your assertion that a transparent piece of terrain blocks LOS(which is 100% not the case).

As Kel said "it means that the view itself is unblocked" The line of sight needs to be unblocked. Transparent windows do not block anyones line of sight.

 Oaka wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

As long as he doesn't try and shoot through the defence line, sure. If you don't see the difference there you're fooling yourself.

But that's the whole point of these energy field defense lines. They're currently being used as terrain that doesn't block LOS but grants cover.

Which is a house rule, because the rules tell us that those models in the second pic are not 25% or more obscured...

Uh, yeah they are. 25% of a humanoid model is, like, its knees down. If you wanted to argue "total mass", then it'd be the waist down.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Real life does not = the rules of the game...

Just like dictionary definition does not equal the rules of the game.

You didn't read the whole thread did you?
This was debunked...

"You are wrong!" is not how we debunk things in YMDC.
You quoted a small description of what Line Of Sight is.
Now the actual rule: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."

Do you have an unblocked line?
Guess not, so it's not in full Line Of Sight.

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Real life does not = the rules of the game...

Just like dictionary definition does not equal the rules of the game.

You didn't read the whole thread did you?
This was debunked...

"You are wrong!" is not how we debunk things in YMDC.
You quoted a small description of what Line Of Sight is.
Now the actual rule: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."

Do you have an unblocked line?
Guess not, so it's not in full Line Of Sight.

Yes you do have an unblocked line of sight. Transparent windows do not block a line of sight because you can see through them...

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)

The underlined is the important bit you missed.

In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"

Debunked quite nicely.

 Psienesis wrote:
Uh, yeah they are. 25% of a humanoid model is, like, its knees down. If you wanted to argue "total mass", then it'd be the waist down.

25% of the eldar models in the second pic are not obscured.

I can see the whole model for every model behind that clear plastic. (Provided they are all one unit).

For what a model being 25% obscured looks like, check out the pics and explanation on page 75

Unless you're looking at a different picture than I am, those Eldar are covered anywhere from shoulders down to waist down.

Obscured? No, the energy field is transparent.

Covered? Yes, the energy field counts as an ADL.

If it's just being used as some form of terrain... I'd discuss it with your opponent and come to some agreement about how to treat it. Lots of the posters here have good ideas about different ways you can deal with transparent/translucent terrain.

However, if it's being used as an ADL or as a proxy for some fortification, object, or unit that has a defined profile and specific rules, then I would treat it as having the exact proportions and qualities of the standard GW model or the closest representation thereof. This is the proper procedure for "proxy" models (of anything) and I see no reason other than petty pedantry why it shouldn't be applied here, same as always (excepting case 1 above).

 Psienesis wrote:
Obscured? No, the energy field is transparent.

Covered? Yes, the energy field counts as an ADL.

According to Page 18 "Determining Cover Saves"
Which one of the above is required to get a cover save?
Obscured or Covered?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Oh wait, you can, as you mentioned. Why can a model see through a window and not that piece of terrain that is essentially a giant window made to function as an ADL?

Because most windows in ruins are empty air, not clear plastic.

So you are arguing intent, not RAW, got it...

No, I'm arguing RAW which is backed up by the statements of intent. You're the one making stuff up about being able to draw LOS through partially-transparent plastic because you can kind of see the models on the other side of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Peregrine, I take it you have conceded the point?

No, I just haven't been here to answer it. But thanks for trying to take the easy way out and "win".

And no, I don't concede anything. Your entire "argument" is based entirely on an incorrect dictionary definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"

Debunked quite nicely.

No, because you're ignoring the example where "through" means "through small gaps in what initially appeared to be a solid forest", not "I can kind of see that model through the sheet of partially-transparent plastic in front of it".

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It pretty much does - by definition.

So you cannot hide behind bulletproof glass?
If some maniak starts unloading his AK47, I will hide behind bulletproof glass. No matter what your definition of hiding is.

Sure, if you make up your own definitions of words, that works fine. Using the actual definitions, it doesn't.
Playing hide and go seek, it makes sense to hide in a glass box?

So you can't shoot through windows then either?

http://search.games-workshop.com/search?locale=nl&keywords=
Can you find the window that has glass in it?
And even if you make your own building, you either have to houserule it or act like it's bulletproof glass.

First, we aren't addressing GW models at all.., that's kind of the point of the thread (maybe you should re-read it?)
Second - correct, it'd have to be house ruled to apply a cover save.

But good attempt at derailing the thread and ignoring the statement (Y)
So again: You need an unblocked line, a wall (transparent or not) blocks that line.

No, to be blocked its have to be stopped. A transparent object does not stop line of sight.
If I can get down behind my model (as I'm directed) and see 25% or more of your model (hint: behind a transparent wall I can) you're not obscured. You could be 100% covered, but since that's not what the actual rules care about, it's an irrelevant thing to bring up.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes you do have an unblocked line of sight. Transparent windows do not block a line of sight because you can see through them...
"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)
The underlined is the important bit you missed.
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"
Debunked quite nicely.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
How many times do I have to repeat it before you stop ignoring it?
Do you have an unblocked line? No, you don't have an unblocked line; So it blocks line of sight.

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure, if you make up your own definitions of words, that works fine. Using the actual definitions, it doesn't.
Playing hide and go seek, it makes sense to hide in a glass box?

And how exactly does that counter the argument that you can hide behind bulletproof glass

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes you do have an unblocked line of sight. Transparent windows do not block a line of sight because you can see through them...
"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)
The underlined is the important bit you missed.
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"
Debunked quite nicely.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
How many times do I have to repeat it before you stop ignoring it?
Do you have an unblocked line? No, you don't have an unblocked line; So it blocks line of sight.

Stop ignoring the context of that quote.

You do have an unblocked line (Of sight) from its eyes...

Clearly the section is talking about line of sight being unblocked... Ohh wait you even quoted the Context (Emphasis mine)

Claiming that you have a blocked line of sight to the models in the second pic is just, well, a complete and utter misunderstanding of what line of sight means.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"

Debunked quite nicely.

No, because you're ignoring the example where "through" means "through small gaps in what initially appeared to be a solid forest", not "I can kind of see that model through the sheet of partially-transparent plastic in front of it".

The example is just that, a single non-exhaustive instance, in the overall rules. the single situation does not encompass all situations.

There are other examples, like being able to see through a window, they they did not mention, but are all still 100% within the rules.

Why is this line even in the BRB then: "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," (8)

However for a model to be granted a cover save that model needs to be 25% or more obscured from at least one firing model. Those Eldar are most definitely not obscured as you can see 100% of them...

Your argument falls short and has been debunked. Thanks for the debate.

 Oaka wrote:
Interesting discussion, to clarify, I am not promoting the idea of disallowing cover. I was actually interested in building some energy fields of my own and wanted to know other players' thoughts on the matter.

If anyone recalls the Ork player who wanted to build steps behind his Ork defense lines so that his Grots would be able to shoot over it, most of us said it was modelling for advantage. Surprisingly, if he decided to build a Big Mek Force Field defense line instead, it seems like that becomes acceptable?

That was me. I never built the line, but the players and TOs I spoke to in my area unanimously agreed it was *not* MFA should I decide to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why is this line even in the BRB then: "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," (8)

Because most windows in ruins do not have glass in them. Look at the standard GW ruin. See those holes in it? That's a window. You can see a model through it.

However for a model to be granted a cover save that model needs to be 25% or more obscured from at least one firing model. Those Eldar are most definitely not obscured as you can see 100% of them...

Only because you make a ridiculous (and incorrect) dictionary argument that "obscured" means "100% invisible". If, like everyone else, you use the standard definition of "obscured" you're allowed to count things as obscured if something is in the way even if you can kind of see through that something. Which, coincidentally, lines up very well with GW's definition of LOS which requires an unblocked line.

Your argument falls short and has been debunked. Thanks for the debate.

Your argument isn't based on the same language that everyone else uses and has been debunked. Thanks for the "debate".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why is this line even in the BRB then: "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," (8)

Because most windows in ruins do not have glass in them. Look at the standard GW ruin. See those holes in it? That's a window. You can see a model through it.

Which of course does not matter as you can see through a window with glass just the same...

 Peregrine wrote:

However for a model to be granted a cover save that model needs to be 25% or more obscured from at least one firing model. Those Eldar are most definitely not obscured as you can see 100% of them...

Only because you make a ridiculous (and incorrect) dictionary argument that "obscured" means "100% invisible". If, like everyone else, you use the standard definition of "obscured" you're allowed to count things as obscured if something is in the way even if you can kind of see through that something. Which, coincidentally, lines up very well with GW's definition of LOS which requires an unblocked line.

The oxford british dictionary defines it as hidden, so if a model is 25% or more hidden then it can claim a cover save. those models in pic 2 are not at all hidden, as we can see all of the model, and those models are not behind something that is "kind of see through"... Understand the difference.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument isn't based on the same language that everyone else uses

That is because I am using the common british english definition (You know the same that the rules were written in) therefore that definition has to be correct.

and that says obscured = keep from being seen, a transparent piece of terrain does not keep a model from being seen...

 Peregrine wrote:
and has been debunked. Thanks for the "debate".

You are not using the correct british english definition, therefore your argument has no merit.

and you still have no actual rules basis for the following at all.

 Peregrine wrote:
A piece of clear terrain blocks LOS exactly like a piece of opaque terrain.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure, if you make up your own definitions of words, that works fine. Using the actual definitions, it doesn't.
Playing hide and go seek, it makes sense to hide in a glass box?

And how exactly does that counter the argument that you can hide behind bulletproof glass

If you're hiding in a glass box, you'll be found easily since you're not actually hiding by any definition of the word.
Hiding means conceal from view; put out of sight. A clear piece of material does neither of these things.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're hiding in a glass box, you'll be found easily since you're not actually hiding by any definition of the word.
Hiding means conceal from view; put out of sight. A clear piece of material does neither of these things.

What does hiding have to deal with it? We're talking about cover, not concealment. A clear piece of material potentially blocks a shot just like an opaque one, which is why the rules specify that LOS is an unblocked line, not "can you see it".

Perhaps read what I'm responding to instead of taking it out of context? That's the polite thing to do.

And no, we're not talking about cover. We're talking about cover saves which in 40k is granted based on obscurement. So actually it's 100% based on "can you see it". Perhaps you should read the actual rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which of course does not matter as you can see through a window with glass just the same...

The point is you're assuming that "see through a window" means "see through clear glass in a window" rather than "see through the hole in the ruin representing what used to be a window". Since most ruins terrain, including all ruins produced by GW, have holes for windows and no "glass" in them there is no reason to assume that it's giving you an extra level of shooting permission beyond "you can shoot through the hole".

That is because I am using the common british english definition (You know the same that the rules were written in) therefore that definition has to be correct.

And you're ignoring the fact that "obscured" is often used to describe situations where something is visible, but not perfectly clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, I'm done with this. The rules for this situation are obvious, and I'm tired of going in circles over a ridiculous dictionary nitpick. This is on the same level as the "your model is wearing a helmet so you can't draw LOS from its eyes and can't shoot". Even if you can somehow interpret the rules to work that way the appropriate response to someone saying you can't get a cover save because your ADL model uses clear plastic is still going to be to pack up your models and never play against such an unreasonable person.

 Peregrine wrote:
Even if you can somehow interpret the rules to work that way the appropriate response to someone saying you can't get a cover save because your ADL model uses clear plastic is still going to be to pack up your models and never play against such an unreasonable person.

This is a rules debate in a rules forum.
No one suggested actually playing it that way.
It's a shame you lost sight of that.

I know i'm chiming in here late but here is my 2 cents. I have taken my custom Aegis Defence Line (which is a plexiglass one way force field) for Eldar to 5 Tournments and not a single player has even suggested that it acted different that a normal Aegis. Every Judge has made postive comments on how they look and has allowed them to be playede as is

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I know i'm chiming in here late but here is my 2 cents. I have taken my custom Aegis Defence Line (which is a plexiglass one way force field) for Eldar to 5 Tournments and not a single player has even suggested that it acted different that a normal Aegis. Every Judge has made postive comments on how they look and has allowed them to be playede as is

Which is fine, and I'm sure every person here would play it that way.

But this is a rules forum, not a "how I would play it" forum. And going by the strict word of the rules, they are not obscured as you can see right through it, therefore cannot grant a cover save.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're hiding in a glass box, you'll be found easily since you're not actually hiding by any definition of the word.
Hiding means conceal from view; put out of sight. A clear piece of material does neither of these things.

Which is entirely debunked by the fact that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window".
So as you can see, there are different ways of hiding.
That's why dictionary definitions aren't allowed by the YMDC-tenets, since the rules from the BRB overrule the definition.

In the real world 'Line of Sight' is when you can see something.
In WH40k 'Line of Sight' is when you can draw an unblocked and straight line.

The result is that in WH40k you have line of sight even when the room is too dark to actually see the object!
It also results into transparent objects blocking line of sight.
From a Real-World-POV that's not right, but that's why this is not the real world.

 grendel083 wrote:
This is a rules debate in a rules forum.
No one suggested actually playing it that way.
It's a shame you lost sight of that.

Yes, and even in a rules forum you don't waste time on obviously absurd interpretations of those rules. The purpose of a rules forum is to help people understand the rules so they can play the game, not to win rule debates. If someone asks a question about LOS it's a pointless waste of time to tell them about how their question is irrelevant because their space marine (wearing a helmet) doesn't have eyes to draw LOS from. That argument is so obviously stupid and irrelevant that discussing it has no purpose besides "winning" a forum argument, and people legitimately participating in the thread would be entirely justified in telling whoever mentioned it to STFU and go away.

This is the same. Even if you believe (and I don't) that the rules say the clear plastic ADL doesn't grant a cover save nobody is ever going to play it that way, and even in a rules debate in a rules forum claiming that interpretation is not a constructive argument. This entire thing is based on a nitpicking the exact wording of a dictionary definition (and not even a complete one) that will not be relevant to anyone actually playing the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
This is a rules debate in a rules forum.
No one suggested actually playing it that way.
It's a shame you lost sight of that.

Yes, and even in a rules forum you don't waste time on obviously absurd interpretations of those rules. If someone asks a question about LOS it's a pointless waste of time to tell them about how their question is irrelevant because their space marine (wearing a helmet) doesn't have eyes to draw LOS from. That argument is so obviously stupid and irrelevant that discussing it has no purpose besides "winning" a forum argument, and people legitimately participating in the thread would be entirely justified in telling whoever mentioned it to STFU and go away.

This is the same. Even if you believe (and I don't) that the rules say the clear plastic ADL doesn't grant a cover save nobody is ever going to play it that way, and even in a rules debate in a rules forum claiming that interpretation is not a constructive argument. This entire thing is based on a nitpicking the exact wording of a dictionary definition (and not even a complete one) that will not be relevant to anyone actually playing the game.

That is an extreamly hostile attitude to bring to a debate.
I'm sorry not everyone agrees with you, but labling people and their arguments as "absurd" and "obviously stupid" simply because they wish to discuss the actual rules (and not just how they would play it) is not acceptable behaviour.
No one here is trying to "win a forum arguement" but instead present the correct rules as they are written.
If you don't like debates on rules, and consider them "irrelevent" then simply don't participate. State your case as HIWPI and move on.

 grendel083 wrote:
I'm sorry not everyone agrees with you, but labling people and their arguments as "absurd" and "obviously stupid" simply because they wish to discuss the actual rules (and not just how they would play it) is not acceptable behaviour.

Good thing I didn't say that. I said that the "helmet = no LOS = can't shoot" argument is obviously stupid, because it is. Fortunately nobody here is making it.

If you don't like debates on rules, and consider them "irrelevent" then simply don't participate. State your case as HIWPI and move on.

I love rules and consider them entirely relevant. The problem here is that sometimes discussion of the "rules" goes beyond asking what the rules are trying to say and into nitpicking the exact dictionary definitions of words to support an argument that is so far outside of what anyone would ever play by that there's no point to it. Like with the helmet argument, regardless of what the words on the page are it's absolutely clear that a space marine wearing a helmet draws LOS from the eye lenses on the helmet. The word "eye" must clearly be defined more broadly than a literal dictionary definition in this context, and arguing otherwise is not helping anyone.

That's the case here. If you have an "ambiguous" statement in the rulebook with two possible options, one which produces a straightforward result that matches up with how virtually everyone will play it, and one which depends on picking a specific dictionary definition to produce a result that nobody will ever accept in a real game, it ceases to be HIWPI vs. RAW and becomes RAW vs. dictionary. The entire argument comes down to "the dictionary I found doesn't explicitly state that 'obscured' can cover less than 100% concealment even though people commonly use the word that way" instead of using the more appropriate definition for 'obscured': "something is in the way".

And yes, it's just a dictionary argument. If you use the definition of 'obscured' that I'm saying you should then RAW the transparent ADL works exactly the way everyone wants it to.

Jesus Christ...

 aliusexalio wrote:
Jesus Christ...

I couldn't find that term defined anywhere in the BRB.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're hiding in a glass box, you'll be found easily since you're not actually hiding by any definition of the word.
Hiding means conceal from view; put out of sight. A clear piece of material does neither of these things.

Which is entirely debunked by the fact that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window".
So as you can see, there are different ways of hiding.
That's why dictionary definitions aren't allowed by the YMDC-tenets, since the rules from the BRB overrule the definition.

Cite the BRB definition that supports your statement. There isn't one - you've invented it. Nothing has been "debunked" except for you saying its true.

In the real world 'Line of Sight' is when you can see something.
In WH40k 'Line of Sight' is when you can draw an unblocked and straight line.

And how do you block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

The result is that in WH40k you have line of sight even when the room is too dark to actually see the object!
It also results into transparent objects blocking line of sight.
From a Real-World-POV that's not right, but that's why this is not the real world.

The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?
You have zero rules support for your stance that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window". Correct?

Could I throw something into the debate for my own amusement?

One of the meanings of 'obscure' in the English language is 'reduce the perception of detail'. You can obscure something by flat out hiding it, but you can also obscure something in a different medium, like fog or mist. Therefore any aegis substitute that is using translucent plastic that is not 100% transparent can be said to be obscuring the model behind it.

A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

Only if I can see 100% of the model's detail. If I can't see detail then no, incorrect. Some of the detail has been obscured. Both the first and third examples in the OP obscure the models behind them. The second example is hard to tell from a photo.

Dream and Death wrote:
Could I throw something into the debate for my own amusement?

One of the meanings of 'obscure' in the English language is 'reduce the perception of detail'. You can obscure something by flat out hiding it, but you can also obscure something in a different medium, like fog or mist. Therefore any aegis substitute that is using translucent plastic that is not 100% transparent can be said to be obscuring the model behind it.

You are refering to Opacity.
That's a tough one to calculate.
If 25% of a model is obscured by glass that is 50% Opaque, then is the model only 12.5% Obscured?
Or would you consider 50% Opaque to count as being able to fully obscure a model?

Even a completely transparent piece of plexiglass has a refractive index that would somehow distort the apparent position to a viewer on the other side from nearly any angle. If it was constructed out of quartz or sillimanite or lead crystal you would definitely be able to see the distortion. So if you want a physically applicable reason why a transparent custom ADL line would provide cover, that would be it.

If you want another reason, I'm pretty sure there's also a rule written in the BRB about opponents agreeing on what provides what cover before the game. That rule is as important as all the definition of obscurement, etc. being discussed in this thread.

i'd have an issue with the clear one simply because i didnt even SEE it at first lol. I looked at it and went "Thats his wall? Dude, theyre tiny! ...o wait theres a plastic shield there"

The LOS difference between the wavy ADL and the forcefield thing is so minor i sincerely doubt anyone would care. Long as they werent like 2" tall or something unusual like that lol

Dream and Death wrote:
Could I throw something into the debate for my own amusement?

One of the meanings of 'obscure' in the English language is 'reduce the perception of detail'. You can obscure something by flat out hiding it, but you can also obscure something in a different medium, like fog or mist. Therefore any aegis substitute that is using translucent plastic that is not 100% transparent can be said to be obscuring the model behind it.

A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

Only if I can see 100% of the model's detail. If I can't see detail then no, incorrect. Some of the detail has been obscured. Both the first and third examples in the OP obscure the models behind them. The second example is hard to tell from a photo.

It has to be obscure more than 25% of the model. The detail of the model is not 25% of the model.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the BRB definition that supports your statement. There isn't one - you've invented it. Nothing has been "debunked" except for you saying its true.

So you want me to "CITE THE BRB" for a discussion about the real world definition of 'hiding'?
You might have been overusing your catch-phrase.

And how do you block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

The BRB doesn't care about blocking line of sight.
The BRB cares about blocking the line that goes from eyes to model.

The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

In real life: Yes.
In Warhammer: No, since there is no rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects.

You have zero rules support for your stance that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window". Correct?

That was about the definition of the word 'hiding'.
Getting a little slow, aren't we?

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

In real life: Yes.
In Warhammer: No, since there is no rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects.

Your warhammer answer is incorrect.

It should be:

In Warhammer: Yes, since there is rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects found here:

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)

Q: Unblocked line of what?
A: Unblocked line of sight from its eyes to the target...

Unblocked line, in the context of the sentence, means unblocked line of sight.

Transparent windows, by definition, do not in any way block someones line of sight to an object.

Except for the part where it doesn't say "line of sight", it only says line.
"Hey, my view of this ruling is correct when we insert these words in the rule!"
Yeaah, it doesn't work like that. Do I really need to respond to that?

Talking about rules..

Transparent windows, by definition, do not in any way block someones line of sight to an object.

You can't use definitions nor real life examples in YMDC.

Unblocked line, in the context of the sentence, means unblocked line of sight.

Aah, in the context?
So you are using RAI instead of RAW?

Kangodo wrote:
Except for the part where it doesn't say "line of sight", it only says line.
"Hey, my view of this ruling is correct when we insert these words in the rule!"
Yeaah, it doesn't work like that. Do I really need to respond to that?

So you are ignoring the context of the sentence? That is why you are not understanding the rule.

It says unblocked line, but what do they mean by that, unblocked line of what? String?, Washing powder?, titanium?, Dice?, models? Clearly there must be some context we can garner some understanding from...

Talking about rules..

deathreaper wrote:Transparent windows, by definition, do not in any way block someones line of sight to an object.

You can't use definitions nor real life examples in YMDC.

Umm... If you do not understand what is wrong with your sentence, than No one here is going to be able to help you understand, like at all, ever.

We need to use the standard British English definitions of words that are not defined in the BRB to even be able to understand the rules at all. Unless you can find a definition of Through,, ended, or completing in the BRB.

Plus you can use dictionary definitions in YMDC, under certain circumstances. You are correct about the " real life examples" though, so you got at least one point for that.

deathreaper wrote: Unblocked line, in the context of the sentence, means unblocked line of sight.

Aah, in the context?
So you are using RAI instead of RAW?

No, I am using RAW. Context is important to RAW, and sentences in general. Taking rules out of context is a bad thing.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the BRB definition that supports your statement. There isn't one - you've invented it. Nothing has been "debunked" except for you saying its true.

So you want me to "CITE THE BRB" for a discussion about the real world definition of 'hiding'?
You might have been overusing your catch-phrase.

You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And how do you block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

The BRB doesn't care about blocking line of sight.
The BRB cares about blocking the line that goes from eyes to model.

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

In real life: Yes.
In Warhammer: No, since there is no rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects.

You should re-read the cover rules - hint, your Warhammer answer is incorrect.

You have zero rules support for your stance that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window". Correct?

That was about the definition of the word 'hiding'.
Getting a little slow, aren't we?

Thanks for the insult, but no - you initially offered up that definition of hiding as support for your (incorrect) interpretation of the rules. Want me to quote the conversation from the beginning?

You're using a counts as model to stand in for an ADL. It's treated the same as any other counts as model in that it should be treated as having all properties of the model it is replacing.
LOS is determined based on the actual ADL fortification the counts as piece is replacing. The opaqueness of the stand in piece should be irrelevant.
Think drop pods with doors glued shut. Do they block line of sight?

 grotblaster wrote:
Think drop pods with doors glued shut. Do they block line of sight?

Yes they do. And if i was a TO that is how I would rule it. In a Tournament it is the TO's call, and from what i hear they generally rule that the Pod is treated as if the doors are open. In a friendly game I would play they do not block LOS, unless my opponent wanted to play that way.

 grotblaster wrote:
Think drop pods with doors glued shut. Do they block line of sight?

As HJ said, Yes, drop pods with doors glued shut block line of sight.

If something actually blocks line of sight, then it blocks line of sight.

If something does not block line of sight, then it does not block line of sight as per the Line of sight rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It says unblocked line, but what do they mean by that, unblocked line of what? String?, Washing powder?, titanium?, Dice?, models? Clearly there must be some context we can garner some understanding from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line
Pick one! It's a line, you draw a line. How hard can that be?
You don't need a line of "something", you can just draw a line.

No, I am using RAW. Context is important to RAW, and sentences in general. Taking rules out of context is a bad thing.

And adding words to a written rule so it fits your interpretation is not "taking it out of context"?

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And why exactly do I need to post rulings on the fact that "hiding behind bulletproof glass" is a correct sentence? Since when does the BRB address the English language?

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

No, just a line.
I don't mean this in any way offensive, but I take care of mentally challenged children for a living and they know what a 'line' is.
If your only counter-argument consists of "A line of what?" than it might be better to just ignore you.

I refuse to acknowledge your reality and substitute my own...

....come on guys. This is easily the silliest thread I've seen among people I normally defer to on YMDC. Even if its completely clear, its a counts as ADL... so it counts (follow me here) as a (coming) ADL.

If its a piece of terrain, it follows the rules in the book (the one where before placing terrain you and your opponent decided what type of cover and terrain each piece is). If you are so desperate to argue and waste time over what is "sight" and "obscure", let me send you some of my unpainted marines.

This actually trumps the "are wounds in challenges able to bleed into the surrounding models" debate (which I thought would never happen).

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And why exactly do I need to post rulings on the fact that "hiding behind bulletproof glass" is a correct sentence? Since when does the BRB address the English language?

Because you first tried to use the "hiding" argument here:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

Obscured can also mean 'hidden'.
To obscure means 'to hide', it also means 'to cover something'.

Aren't they hiding being the 'invisible' wall?
Aren't they taking cover behind the energy field?

Since you've attempted to use it to counter an actual rules based argument you have to offer actual rules support. You've refused to do so and are now pretending that *I'm* the one doing something wrong here.
You began this farce - please finish it.

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

No, just a line.
I don't mean this in any way offensive, but I take care of mentally challenged children for a living and they know what a 'line' is.
If your only counter-argument consists of "A line of what?" than it might be better to just ignore you.

You may not mean for it to be offensive, but it is.
And ignore away - your argument has been proven incorrect using actual rules, and the only thing you come back with is insults and non-rules based arguments.

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, I am using RAW. Context is important to RAW, and sentences in general. Taking rules out of context is a bad thing.

And adding words to a written rule so it fits your interpretation is not "taking it out of context"?

I am not adding anything, I am looking at the context of the rule and applying the context.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)

Note the underlined parts they are directly related.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And why exactly do I need to post rulings on the fact that "hiding behind bulletproof glass" is a correct sentence? Since when does the BRB address the English language?

It has to involve the English Language, otherwise we would have no way to interpret the BRB since they do not define every word in the BRB...

Kangodo wrote:

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

No, just a line.
I don't mean this in any way offensive, but I take care of mentally challenged children for a living and they know what a 'line' is.
If your only counter-argument consists of "A line of what?" than it might be better to just ignore you.

Ignore me, and the rules, seems like a fair way to debate.

A line, right, the Line of sight needs to be unblocked.

The rules show us how to find out if your model has line of sight to another model agreed?

With windows the Line is not blocked, as you can see through them. agreed?

Therefore the unblocked line is referencing the line of sight one model has to another model.

Here is the sentence explaining what Line of sight is:
"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)."(8)

and the very next sentence tells us how to find out if our models can see the enemy:
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs)." (8)

 DeathReaper wrote:
A line, right, the Line of sight needs to be unblocked.

Can you quote the part where it says that the "line of sight" needs to be blocked?
Wait, no, I'll tell you: You can't quote that part.
Because the BRB says that it needs to be a line.
By explaining how Line of Sight works in the rulebook, it means that it does not work like in the real world.

The ruling can be interpreted like this: "Line of sight works differently from the real world. In a game of WH40k you draw a straight, unblocked line from the eye to any part on the model. If you can do that you have line of sight."
Nowhere does it say that this "line" is a "line of sight" itself.

The rules show us how to find out if your model has line of sight to another model agreed?

Yes, by drawing a line.
You call it a 'line of sight' that you draw to determine whether you have line of sight. I think that's ridiculous.
That'd be like "For one model to shoot at another, you must be able to shoot at it."

With windows the Line is not blocked, as you can see through them. agreed?

Agreed, seeing as windows in WH40k-models don't have glass in them or anything else that blocks a straight line.
If the windows do have glass, than they block the line and therefore line of sight.
Sure, I will agree that it makes no sense. But they probably never thought about that since the official models don't have glass in the window-frame.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)
Note the underlined parts they are directly related.

They can be related, but they can also not be related. This rule can be interpreted in two ways.
Therefore we have to use the "roll a D6"-rule and nobody wants to roll a D6 for this.

Kangodo wrote:
The ruling can be interpreted like this: "Line of sight works differently from the real world. In a game of WH40k you draw a straight, unblocked line from the eye to any part on the model. If you can do that you have line of sight."
Nowhere does it say that this "line" is a "line of sight" itself.

You do realize they encourage using a laser pointer for LoS checking, right?
And the key word they use is "visible" in all the rules. Is the unit behind the glass visible?

Is the unit behind the barrier? If yes, then the unit has cover from the barrier. What percentage of the model is behind the barrier? Depends on the point of view of the firing model. Does the material the barrier is made of matter? No, just the shape.

Saying a model behind a transparent wall receives no cover save because it can be seen is like saying models under a clear blast marker or template weren't hit because the marker or template were see-thru and therefore not valid.

You'd have a stronger argument against the clear walls if you said, "those aren't a GW product, so can't be used in a GW game."

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize they encourage using a laser pointer for LoS checking, right?
And the key word they use is "visible" in all the rules. Is the unit behind the glass visible?

Can't believe I am actually responding..
Where does the rule mention a laser pointer?
And is that our new standard for LoS: "If the laser pointer works, you have LoS on the model."?

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs)." (8)
Could you also highlight the word 'visible' in that rule?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Is the unit behind the barrier? If yes, then the unit has cover from the barrier. What percentage of the model is behind the barrier? Depends on the point of view of the firing model. Does the material the barrier is made of matter? No, just the shape.

Citation please. Or is this more stuff youve invented to appear correct instead of using actual rules?

Saying a model behind a transparent wall receives no cover save because it can be seen is like saying models under a clear blast marker or template weren't hit because the marker or template were see-thru and therefore not valid.

Perhaps you should re-read the blast rules. What you said has literally zero bearing on how they work.

You'd have a stronger argument against the clear walls if you said, "those aren't a GW product, so can't be used in a GW game."

Considering you haven't come up with an actual rule to prove me wrong, instead inventing silly scenarios, using incorrect definitions of words (and then trying to make it look like it was me doing that), and creating comparisons to rules that don't work the way you think they do...

No, I think my argument is pretty solid right now thanks. Edit: I just realized it wasn't Kangodo responding to me. Ill leave it up because the points still stand, but the wording should be different. I apologize for the mixup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You do realize they encourage using a laser pointer for LoS checking, right?
And the key word they use is "visible" in all the rules. Is the unit behind the glass visible?

Can't believe I am actually responding..
Where does the rule mention a laser pointer?
And is that our new standard for LoS: "If the laser pointer works, you have LoS on the model."?

That specific rule doesn't. They do encourage it in general, however. I didn't say there was rules support for it.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs)." (8)
Could you also highlight the word 'visible' in that rule?

I apologize for a slight misstatement - it's not used in all the rules.
It's used extensively in the next paragraph however. You are required to "see what they[your models] can see". Can they see a model through a transparent barrier? Well, can you?

rigeld2 wrote:
That specific rule doesn't. They do encourage it in general, however. I didn't say there was rules support for it.

Than why bring it up?

It's used extensively in the next paragraph however. You are required to "see what they[your models] can see". Can they see a model through a transparent barrier? Well, can you?

Yes, it's a nice little story.
However: There is only one line that says "Line of Sight = ... " and that talks about a straight, unblocked line. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even mention "line of sight".

In almost every situation I would play it as "line of sight is what they 'can see' on the field".
But if someone tries to claim that "transparent ADL's aren't cover" then I will use the RAW that needs an unblocked line (no matter how different that is from RL-line of sight).

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That specific rule doesn't. They do encourage it in general, however. I didn't say there was rules support for it.

Than why bring it up?

To show that GW obviously disagrees with you. It would be more of an argument of Intent and I should have phrased it so, sorry.

It's used extensively in the next paragraph however. You are required to "see what they[your models] can see". Can they see a model through a transparent barrier? Well, can you?

Yes, it's a nice little story.
However: There is only one line that says "Line of Sight = ... " and that talks about a straight, unblocked line. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even mention "line of sight".

In almost every situation I would play it as "line of sight is what they 'can see' on the field".
But if someone tries to claim that "transparent ADL's aren't cover" then I will use the RAW that needs an unblocked line (no matter how different that is from RL-line of sight).

I wouldn't claim that during a game - that's silly. If it's supposed to be an ADL then it's supposed to be an ADL - as long as it looks cool and isn't some blue-tac/plexiglass pile of fail it's fine.
But you're incorrect based on context as to what the rule says. Since the rules are written in English we have to accept context as rules where required.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
Is the unit behind the barrier? If yes, then the unit has cover from the barrier. What percentage of the model is behind the barrier? Depends on the point of view of the firing model. Does the material the barrier is made of matter? No, just the shape.

That would work wonders if the rules were actually written that way, but alas they are not.

Saying a model behind a transparent wall receives no cover save because it can be seen is like saying models under a clear blast marker or template weren't hit because the marker or template were see-thru and therefore not valid.

Not at all the same situation, you must realize that right?

@Kangodo Please do not ignore the context in which the rule was written.

I will quote again in the hopes that you can better understand the rule.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)

The rules show us how to find out if your model has line of sight to another model, this you have agreed on, making progress.

The sentence about drawing an unblocked line is in the context of how a model goes about figuring out its line of sight agreed?

Clear glass (Or plastic) does not block a line of sight.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules. If you can not debate rules without ignoring the context then there is nothing more we can help you with. the rules in context say one thing and you are ignoring the context to fit your argument, therefore your argument is false.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Clear glass (Or plastic) does not block a line of sight.

Yes it does. Unlike "obscured", LOS is a game-specific term that GW provides an explicit definition for. LOS in 40k is defined by drawing an unblocked line from the eyes (or equivalent vision device, unless you're being stupid for the sake of annoying everyone) of the model to the thing you're checking LOS to. It does NOT say "if the model's eyes can see the thing it has LOS". And, like it or not, a piece of clear plastic blocks a line drawn between those two points.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Clear glass (Or plastic) does not block a line of sight.

Yes it does.

If you can not see the error you just made, then no one here can help you understand.

Also please stop ignoring the context of the rules

In all honestly I can see both sides point.

But what does "unblocked" mean?
Does a distorted image of the model counts as blocked or not? If it does then a cover save otherwise nothing.

This thread just been given all my wuts....

I've got visions of riot shield police and protestors yelling, "those don't protect you from my rocks cause I can see you!!", from reading this thread.

It's an absurdly stupid argument.

And comparing real world situations to actual rules is absolutely stupid.
It's almost like its against the tenets of the forum or something.

No one asked you to post.

Funny how these debates prove who the real trolls are.

Is an ADL a model: yes clear or not.
Do model provide cover to those behind them: yup
Are "counts as" models supposed to be treated the same as the model they "count as": yup

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Funny how these debates prove who the real trolls are.

Is an ADL a model: yes clear or not.
Do model provide cover to those behind them: yup
Are "counts as" models supposed to be treated the same as the model they "count as": yup

1) please try to adhere to the tenets of the forum (#1 be polite)

2) the counts as ADL was figured out a long time ago. Someone made a false claim that

A piece of clear terrain blocks LOS exactly like a piece of opaque terrain.

Which of course is not at all true according to the rules of 40K.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I've got visions of riot shield police and protestors yelling, "those don't protect you from my rocks cause I can see you!!", from reading this thread.

It's an absurdly stupid argument.

Your argument/trying to compare it to real life? Yes, because Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC) says:


3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Quick! Someone buy up a bunch of those reflective sunglasses cops wear and make your ADL from the glass. Your troops see through, theirs see a mirror! MFA at its finest!

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Is an ADL a model: yes clear or not.

No an ADL is not a model. It has neither a staline nor a unit type.

Do model provide cover to those behind them: yup

Generally. However, most of the time the model needs to be 25% obscured.

Are "counts as" models supposed to be treated the same as the model they "count as": yup

Yes, and people have already said if they are being used as an ADL they will treat it as an ADL and "pretend" the lower half of the model is not visible.


Treating a clear ADL as a standard ADL is fine. Saying that clear plastic/glass blocks LOS is not. Unless you have rules support.

Which they have, as proven in the last four pages.

rigeld2 wrote:
And comparing real world situations to actual rules is absolutely stupid.
It's almost like its against the tenets of the forum or something.

No one asked you to post.

As stupid as using real world line of sight as an argument to WH-'line of sight'?

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes it does.

I'm afraid I have to agree with DeathReaper.
Transparent objects do not block line of sight.
They do, however, block "line of sight as explained in the rulebook of WH40k".

But until those people understand that LoS and WH-LoS are two different things, this discussion will be a waste of time.

If the clear plastic wall was set up in such a way that the lights of the room were glaring off of it with respect to a firer, then the firer could not see the models behind it, like looking into a window on a sunny day, it doesn't work.

Kangodo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes it does.

I'm afraid I have to agree with DeathReaper.
Transparent objects do not block line of sight.
They do, however, block "line of sight as explained in the rulebook of WH40k".

But until those people understand that LoS and WH-LoS are two different things, this discussion will be a waste of time.

The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Only if you assume that a line is not "blocked" when it intersects a solid object.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

Please stop acting like "context" means "I look up random dictionary definitions and declare victory".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Only if you assume that a line is not "blocked" when it intersects a solid object.

It is not when the context of the rule is talking about a line of sight and being able to see a model behind a transparent piece of terrain...

 Peregrine wrote:

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

Please stop acting like "context" means "I look up random dictionary definitions and declare victory".

1) I never said that

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

3) your argument is incorrect, and had been proven so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not when the context of the rule is talking about a line of sight and being able to see a model behind a transparent piece of terrain...

The context of the rule, the statement in the main rulebook, says nothing about transparent terrain. You're just assuming that "blocked" means what you want it to mean with no actual evidence to support that assumption.

1) I never said that

No, but that's what you've done. You just say "context" like it's a magic word that makes you win the argument.

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

I am taking the context into account, which is why I don't agree with your dictionary definition for "obscured".

3) your argument is incorrect, and had been proven so.

Only if by "proven" you mean "I quoted a dictionary definition that has no support in the rules, but it totally proves you wrong".

I don't understand the point in this topic fact's are very clear. RAW my opponent could claim they have perfect LOS i would then tell them science disproves this as no glass or plastic is perfectly see through therefore you have a distorted LOS on at least 25%of the model so whatever i'm taking my save. I would then proceed to slap them around the face. This very topic shows that there are a lot of things wrong with this forum.

Distorted does not always = Obscured.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not when the context of the rule is talking about a line of sight and being able to see a model behind a transparent piece of terrain...

The context of the rule, the statement in the main rulebook, says nothing about transparent terrain. You're just assuming that "blocked" means what you want it to mean with no actual evidence to support that assumption.

Not at all, the normal English definition of obscured means hidden and since the game is written in English (And translated to other languages) and does not define every word we need to actually understand English to play the game...

 Peregrine wrote:

1) I never said that

No, but that's what you've done. You just say "context" like it's a magic word that makes you win the argument.

No magic word, just the parts of a discourse that surround the passage that can throw light on its meaning, this is what you are missing.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

I am taking the context into account, which is why I don't agree with your dictionary definition for "obscured".

Then you are not understanding the English language, maybe try taking an English class?

 Peregrine wrote:

3) your argument is incorrect, and had been proven so.

Only if by "proven" you mean "I quoted a dictionary definition that has no support in the rules, but it totally proves you wrong".

By proven I mean the normal English definition must be used as they do not define obscured in the BRB...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the normal English definition of obscured means hidden and since the game is written in English (And translated to other languages) and does not define every word we need to actually understand English to play the game...

Except, again:

1) The normal definition for "obscured" includes situations where the thing you are looking at is visible, but not 100% clearly. For example, a person standing in fog is obscured. By that standard a model standing behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic is obscured.

2) 40k's LOS rules (how we "see" in this context) explicitly require an unbroken line, which does not include having a piece of plastic in the way. So a model behind even perfectly clear glass would be hidden in this context because it can not be "seen".

No magic word, just the parts of a discourse that surround the passage that can throw light on its meaning, this is what you are missing.

Fine, let's look at the context:

If we use your definition we are forced to come to the ridiculous conclusion that a transparent ADL does not provide cover, which is an utterly stupid conclusion that nobody will ever play by.

If we use my definition then RAW the ADL functions just like everyone expects it to.

Conclusion: my definition is the appropriate one in the context of 40k.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Distorted doe not always = Obscured.

The fact you chose to nit pick the word distorted pretty much concedes your argument.


tr.v. ob·scured, ob·scur·ing, ob·scures
1. To make dim or indistinct:

To remove light is to dim therefore is to obscure. Feel free to argue against science.


*Edit* This did not quite come out as intended i understand your point as RAW i'm just offering a defense to anyone who happens to come across some one so foolish as to try and take away the cover that their Aegis should provide. I'm a big fan of people's custom work and very against people being punished for being intuitive.

Stratos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Distorted doe not always = Obscured.

The fact you chose to nit pick the word distorted pretty much concedes your argument.


tr.v. ob·scured, ob·scur·ing, ob·scures
1. To make dim or indistinct:

To remove light is to dim therefore is to obscure. Feel free to argue against science.


*Edit* This did not quite come out as intended i understand your point as RAW i'm just offering a defense to anyone who happens to come across some one so foolish as to try and take away the cover that their Aegis should provide. I'm a big fan of people's custom work and very against people being punished for being intuitive.

You've just given me a great idea

Obscured = 'To make dim or indistinct' - In my opponants phase, I'm going to turn the lights off. Is the model 25% obscured? why yes

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Not really.
In the real world you just look and if you see it you have line of sight.
In WH40k the rules say that you need to be able to draw a line.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

I'll do that the moment you stop adding additional words to the rules.

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

This rule works without adding words to it, so we don't need that context.
And if we don't need context, we need to look at the exact RAW.

Question: What does the rulebook say?
A) "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes."
B) "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line of sight from its eyes."
Which one is it?

PredaKhaine wrote:
You've just given me a great idea
Obscured = 'To make dim or indistinct' - In my opponants phase, I'm going to turn the lights off. Is the model 25% obscured? why yes

According to DeathReaper that would work

Page 104 - If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a4+ cover save.

Page 104 - Defence lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls except that a unit that decides to Go to Ground behind a defence line gains +2 to its cover save rather than +l

Page 18 - If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model
recelve a cover save.

Page 8 - For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs).

Regardless of wether you can see through this defence line, were you to take a magic sharpy and actually draw the line in mid air, you will find that you cannot continue the line all the way to the model you are targeting, making whatever procentage of the model is behind the clear plastic obscured from your line of sight.

However!

Page XI - The Warhammer 40,000 hobby encompasses collecting, painting and gaming with Citadel Miniatures.

These 3rd party defence lines are already not tabletop legal to begin with and thus any part of using them nesseciates the use of house rules as you are not expressly given permission to use your model to begin with. Making the entire rules interpretation of how to treat them moot as you need to house rule their workings to begin with.

What is it about a pure RAW discussion that brings the trolls out of the woodwork?

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Not really.
In the real world you just look and if you see it you have line of sight.
In WH40k the rules say that you need to be able to draw a line.

Yes, you need to be able to draw a line, What kind of line? A Line of Sight... This is the context you are ignoring.

How does something block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
[Yes, you need to be able to draw a line, What kind of line? A Line of Sight..

A line.
This line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
Or this line: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/line
Any line! Except for a sight-line, since those go through objects.

This is the context you are ignoring.

RAW doesn't give a feth about implied context.

How does something block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

Yes, a line of sight is not blocked by transparent objects.
A normal line however IS blocked by transparent objects.

And we've been going through this since the beginning of the thread.
So either quote the words that allow you to use a 'line of sight' to determine 'line of sight' or stop this.

Ignoring for a second that the BRB is actually talking about a line segment, and not a line:

1) line of sight = Sightline...

2) it is not implied context, it is actual context present in the sentences written in the BRB.

3) Well since we are talking about line of sight, and not a normal line, then it is not blocked by transparent objects.

4) Did you seriously just say "quote the words that allow you to use a 'line of sight' to determine 'line of sight' '"

Of course you have to use a line of sight to determine, wait for it, line of sight.

Any other reading is a failure to understand the English language.

This point has yet to be refuted as well: The unbroken line referenced in the rule refers to a models Line of Sight

If you think I'm trolling, then I am sorry. I am quite serious. 3rd party terrain is not 'legal' to use in 40k. When you get into the counts as line of thinking your already house ruling how something is suppoed to work unless your making it exactly the same as the piece of terrain it is emulating.

However like I also pointed out, nowhere in the rules does it determine that a line of sight passes through solid objects. Infact it indentifies line of sight as a line drawn between two models. Intervention of an object regardless of wether it is transparent or not would interfere in any such line and thus still provide a cover save as the rules explicitly say.

However, the opposite is true aswell, whereas the gunslits in an aegis defence line allow a uit to draw the line through them, these substitutes don't have any such slits and thus would by RAW most likely be providing your enemy wirth a cover save more often then the normal ADL.

Simply treating it as a normal aegis defence line is a good rule of thumb, and I would personally not mind playing these at all. But by RAW these are not ADL and not even legal fortifications so how they work by RAW is irrelevant, and you will need to work it out between yourself and your opponent if and how you play this terrain.

NickOnwezen wrote:
If you think I'm trolling, then I am sorry. I am quite serious. 3rd party terrain is not 'legal' to use in 40k. When you get into the counts as line of thinking your already house ruling how something is suppoed to work unless your making it exactly the same as the piece of terrain it is emulating.

However like I also pointed out, nowhere in the rules does it determine that a line of sight passes through solid objects. Infact it indentifies line of sight as a line drawn between two models. Intervention of an object regardless of wether it is transparent or not would interfere in any such line and thus still provide a cover save as the rules explicitly say.

However, the opposite is true aswell, whereas the gunslits in an aegis defence line allow a uit to draw the line through them, these substitutes don't have any such slits and thus would by RAW most likely be providing your enemy wirth a cover save more often then the normal ADL.

Simply treating it as a normal aegis defence line is a good rule of thumb, and I would personally not mind playing these at all. But by RAW these are not ADL and not even legal fortifications so how they work by RAW is irrelevant, and you will need to work it out between yourself and your opponent if and how you play this terrain.

I underlined your failure to understand what the BRB says.

The unbroken line references Line of Sight, meaning you have to have an unbroken line of sight to a model.

I disagree Death reaper, It tells you to trace a line from the models eyes. A line of sight is not traced. The rules refer to the physical act of traceing a line wether you do this by fingers through air, using a ruler or measuring tape from the eyes of the model or even the magic sharpy that can write on air. It tells you to preform an action to DETERMINE LINE OF SIGHT. You cannot use a line of sight to determine line of sight. That statement is flawed.

Let me get this straight.

The premise of cover in the literal sense is that objects on the battlefield can spoil or interfere with a unit's ability to hit a target with their weapons. This is abstracted by providing the unit a cover save if they're partially visible, and preventing them from being shot if they're not visible.

Since the rules do not tell us what to do in the specific case of transparent objects, we are going to assume one of the following:
a) A model behind a transparent object gains no "physical" protection from it (even if fully behind the object) because it can be seen. Ergo, all weapons can pass through any part of any object that is at least translucent.
b) A model behind a transparent object gains protection from it because models cannot see through transparent things. Ergo, nothing is transparent or translucent, even if it is.

Both of these seem utterly absurd, and neither seems like a fair solution for both players. I'd repeat my suggestion of decide with your opponent before the game begins. Or, if proxying, use the physical properties of the object being proxied.

But by all means, let's continue to go in circles talking about how lines are drawn through 3D space and whether we use photons or air molecules as our basis for abstract object permeability...

 DeathReaper wrote:
This point has yet to be refuted as well: The unbroken line referenced in the rule refers to a models Line of Sight

That's quite easy to refute: It says LINE, nothing else.

ITT: DeathReaper continually moves the goal posts.



But seriously, the line of sight argument is silly as hell.

It's a count-as ADL, use the ADL rules if the proxy matches the proportions. If it doesn't, don't use it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes, you need to be able to draw a line, What kind of line? A Line of Sight... This is the context you are ignoring.

No, because that would be a circular definition: "you draw line of sight by drawing line of sight from the model's eyes to the target". Since the rule in question is defining what "line of sight" means in 40k the "line" must use the basic definition for the word. And that means a geometric line which is "blocked" if it intersects any object, transparent or not.

 Extreaminatus wrote:
It's a count-as ADL, use the ADL rules if the proxy matches the proportions. If it doesn't, don't use it.

Nobody is arguing that point. If it is a count-as ADL then a model that is at least 25% behind the clear part gets a cover save. The discussion is on whether or not clear plastic/glass blocks LOS.

I get that, I've read this ridiculous-ass discussion. Really, this comes down to something you should agree upon before playing your opponent. But, if there's no consensus to be reached (say Peregrine and Dark Reaper are playing against each other), then here's my $0.02:

There's a clear delineation of where those clear ADL pieces in OP stop and start, and from the picture, it doesn't look to be clear plastic as the surface is roughed up slightly (you can see it in the orange light and some of the models have a hazy outline), so you can tell where the obscuring starts and stops. It's kind of like those shower stall doors in that you can see through, but the thing behind it is obscured because it's hazy. I say allow the cover save.

If it's just a big 'ol piece of clear plastic someone put up in the middle of table, then no, it probably shouldn't block LoS because that would be dumb.

It's. About. Context.

 Xca|iber wrote:
Let me get this straight.

The premise of cover in the literal sense is that objects on the battlefield can spoil or interfere with a unit's ability to hit a target with their weapons. This is abstracted by providing the unit a cover save if they're partially visible, and preventing them from being shot if they're not visible.

Since the rules do not tell us what to do in the specific case of transparent objects, we are going to assume one of the following:
a) A model behind a transparent object gains no "physical" protection from it (even if fully behind the object) because it can be seen. Ergo, all weapons can pass through any part of any object that is at least translucent.
b) A model behind a transparent object gains protection from it because models cannot see through transparent things. Ergo, nothing is transparent or translucent, even if it is.

Both of these seem utterly absurd, and neither seems like a fair solution for both players. I'd repeat my suggestion of decide with your opponent before the game begins. Or, if proxying, use the physical properties of the object being proxied.

But by all means, let's continue to go in circles talking about how lines are drawn through 3D space and whether we use photons or air molecules as our basis for abstract object permeability...

The point is that to determine a cover save, line of sight has to be drawn to a model and it must be at least 25% obscured which is defined as at least 25% of the model is behind an object that intercedes between the firer and the target, and thus your option B is actually much more fair then option A. Because a cover save is nothing more then a CHANCE for the item thats in the way to interfere with the shooting models abillity to hit. A transparent object, in this case an energy field SHOULD provide that chance of protection despite the fact you can see through it. because its a physical object that blocks the bullet! However if a model is 100% behind the transparent energy field it SHOULD not be able to be shot at, even if you can see it through the item. Because it is fully behind a wall of energy that will protect it. Ergo it makes more sense for objects in the way of line of sight to interfere despite beeing transparent then it does NOT to. and it just so happens that the rules actually support this as written.

Also note that the rule was written for a much more black and white scenario. Is there scenery in the way, then yes you get a cover save. This is because there are to my knowledge no citadel terrain pieces in production (concurrent with 6th edition) that have transparent windows, just EMPTY window stills. So this situation was not intended to be coverd by the rules, hence why the rule book reference the line sight of method for determining a cover save. Even SO the method they describe for determining line of sight still lets transparent objects function correctly, despite death reapers vehement protests in reading something the book does not actually say.

And I'll say this to Deathreaper, because he is so fond of pointing out that we must read context. Anything you infer from context is an interpretation of how you WANT to play the rules. It is NOT the rule as it is written. Most intresting, the rules actually support the transparent ADL working mostly as intended (By providing cover) yet your arguing things that are not RAW to invalidate something that appears to be working. Do you honestly intend to play it so that these aegis defence lines do not work? Or is this you playing devils advocate, because i had the impresson you were always on the righteous side of don't let the RAW spoil how things should be played with a little common sense. So I'm a little confused at the stance you are taking here.

While I agree in principle that a "transparent energy shield" should provide a cover save in the same manner as a solid object, I am opposed to the argument that it does so because it "blocks line of sight."

Why? Because if I want to use a non-shooting ability, like a Malediction psychic power, it doesn't make sense that I should treat a clearly visible model as "out of line of sight" (if it's fully behind the transparent piece).

If I had to choose how to play it, I'd treat it as solid (i.e. cover providing) against anything with a weapon profile and transparent (i.e. not LOS-blocking) against everything else in general. Of course, as this is totally outside of either RAW interpretation, I'd have to agree with my opponent first. In this case though, I'm skeptical that any consensus on RAW can be reached, due to the level of abstraction involved in the mechanics.

EDIT: If they were using it as an ADL, I would treat it as an ADL in all respects (as I said before).

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This point has yet to be refuted as well: The unbroken line referenced in the rule refers to a models Line of Sight

That's quite easy to refute: It says LINE, nothing else.

And what kind of line is it referring to? Looking at the context, it is a line of sight you are tracing... (Note the underlined from the quote below).
(Peregrine is ignoring this as well and has for the entirety of the thread).

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)

Proof that models must be able to see their foes through the battlefield terrain, which of course includes windows...

your infering that its a line of sight because they tell you what a line of sight is. However they are telling you two seperate things.

1) how to determine line of sight. (by drawing an unbroken line) to abstractly represent a models line of sight.

2) And thus your point, what the line of sight you just determined is abstracted to represent.

At no point does the abillity to trace line of sight through terrain (think of a forest with gaps between trees, buildings with holes or open window stills, collapsed walls in ruins etcetera) actually directly supersede the fact that your NOT allowed to trace your line if it is broken by terrain. Which if your able to trace it through holes in the terrain, it is not.

What line? A normal line.
Do you still not understand that?

It CANNOT be a line of sight because:
a) It does not say 'line of sight' < strongest argument so far, yet you seem to ignore what the BRB actually says.
b) It says straight and unblocked; People don't say "straight and unblocked" line of sight, because a line of sight is per definition straight and unblocked.

And that quote means what exactly?
The quote says that models must 'see' their foes.
The straight, unblocked line is there to determine what they would see, because plastic models don't have real eyes.
And straight lines get blocked by transparent objects.

Have I been playing terrain incorrectly? I shoot at a model that's standing in a ruin or forest. I can see the entire model. They would then get no cover, even though they're standing in terrain that grants them cover?

 DeathReaper wrote:
And what kind of line is it referring to? Looking at the context, it is a line of sight you are tracing...

And the context you're ignoring is that the next sentence after the one you quoted tells us how we define "line of sight" in 40k: by tracing a straight unbroken line between the model's eyes and the target. The word "line" in that sentence can NOT be replaced by "line of sight" because that would be a circular definition. You can't define "A" as "that thing that is an A". Therefore the words in that sentence follow their standard meanings, in which a line that intersects a piece of plastic is not unbroken.

If what you were saying was correct then the sentence would say something like "a model has line of sight if, when looking from its eyes, you can see the target". However, it does not say that.

Proof that models must be able to see their foes through the battlefield terrain, which of course includes windows...

And the next sentence tells us how models see their foes in 40k: by drawing a straight unbroken line to them. A line that intersects a piece of plastic, whatever color it happens to be, is not unbroken and therefore a model can not see through it according to how "seeing" is defined in 40k. The fact that "seeing" in other contexts works differently does not change how the rule works in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedunator wrote:
Have I been playing terrain incorrectly? I shoot at a model that's standing in a ruin or forest. I can see the entire model. They would then get no cover, even though they're standing in terrain that grants them cover?

No, because area terrain has different rules and grants a cover save if a model is within the terrain regardless of LOS.

A line of sight is a line, but not all lines are lines of sight.

 grendel083 wrote:

It's a shame you lost sight of that.

I see what you did there ..

oh ho ho

So questions:

*If I was playing an eldar with these lines and my grots got super close to this... Would the eldar person be able to target the grots? Grots are normally too short to be seen or see over the stock ADL and can be physically obstructed by these easily. Can you shoot them with 25% cover because they canbe seen or are they unseeable?

*What if someone modeled terrain (like a factory) which had windows. What if the windows had clear plastic to represent glass? Can you see me through those windows and shoot me? Can I see out those windows and shoot you? What if I had a broken civilian truck and I was standing behind the cab, you can see my model through the windows... can you shoot me?

The question is: Can shots fired in a game of 40k pass through any physical mass on the table ever? Or are all physical models (terrain and so on) considered to block shots even if you can see through them?

As for the ADL... I would request we play it as the stock model for all purposes which solves this particular discussion.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs)." (8)

and the very next sentence:

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." (8)

If you are just drawing a line and not a line of sight, how would you know if only a models weapon was visible...

 DeathReaper wrote:
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs)." (8)

and the very next sentence:

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." (8)

If you are just drawing a line and not a line of sight, how would you know if only a models weapon was visible...

As you so often say: *context*.
The rules are talking about visible in the context of how they define LOS.

Right, because the rule on how you determine if a model is visible is ABSTRACTED. How can something you SEE be NOT VISIBLE if you are required to actually use WHAT YOU CAN SEE to determine line of sight. It can't, hence why you use the abstraction that you trace a line between the shooting models eyes and the minature to determine if the miniature is visible. when your abstracting the process of determining visibility it becomes possible to denote certain things as not visible, which if your using purely your eyes, is patently not possible.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you are just drawing a line and not a line of sight, how would you know if only a models weapon was visible...

Because those lines determine the 'line of sight'.
Models cannot see, so they don't have line of sight.
To circumvent this you draw a line and everything in that line is within line of sight.
If it was "line of sight is determined by line of sight" (as you claim it is) than they wouldn't need an entire page to explain it.

The downside is that you cannot "see" things behind windows.
But it also makes sure that you cannot fire at things who are hiding behind "invisible force fields".

Kangodo wrote:
The downside is that you cannot "see" things behind windows.

If you take it out of context, sure.

Adding the context in and you can trace a line of sight through anything that is transparent.

I am still waiting to a quote that literally says that you use a line of sight to determine line of sight. Because that context you keep mentioning, I dojn't see it. Thats an implication that is not in the Rule as it is written.

Line of Sight thru the "transparent" Force feild terrain that counts as ADL ..is Not an issue ..yes they have LOS to it ..
Ergo .you can shoot at it ..Line of Sight Does NOT MEAN Clear shot the bullet can still bounce off the forcefeild..thus representing the cover save As per the ADL

In any event Arguments like this get people tossed out of my events with their models and told never come back ..


.

text removed.

reds8n

NickOnwezen wrote:
I am still waiting to a quote that literally says that you use a line of sight to determine line of sight. Because that context you keep mentioning, I dojn't see it. Thats an implication that is not in the Rule as it is written.

Here is your context, in quotes. The following quotes are all from P.8 of the BRB:

The heading on the section is titled: "Line of Sight"

"line of sight determines what a model can 'see'."

"Naturally, you can't ask your models what they can see...- therefore, you'll have to work it out on their behalf."

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible."

"In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other"

"on those other occasions, where it's not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model's head for a'model's eye view'."

"This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to 'see what they can see'."

"You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model's legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer."

And of course the one that clinches it: "line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy"

What does Line of sight Literally represent? (Answered in the previous quote).

And the rest of that sentence "- they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)."

(All emphasis mine).

Take special notice of the underlined portions.

Transparent objects do not block a line that is used to determine "what a model can 'see'." They have Line of Sight through a transparent objects as "line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy" and a transparent window does not hide a unit from view.

I think its fine.Many tau and eldar players do not want to pop an imperial aegis line down on the table for fluff reasons,so why not have this enrgy field terrain as " counts as " ADL with all the rules that go with it ?

Just off the top of my head,my FLGC has an ork player who " orkified " an imperial aegis with glyphs and such ( not a perfect example i know ) and an eldar player who uses another company's wall terrain as an ADL.
No one has a problem with the legality of either.And surely it is a good thing that terrain is available from other sources that better fit the feel of xeno armies ( tau and eldar in particular ).

If I were to have energy fields with the same dimensions as an ADL and my opponent was trying to tell me I don't get a cover save, I would find a new opponent. I can't believe this thread has gone on for 6 pages.

 Mulletdude wrote:
If I were to have energy fields with the same dimensions as an ADL and my opponent was trying to tell me I don't get a cover save, I would find a new opponent. I can't believe this thread has gone on for 6 pages.

The only reason this has been going on so long is because someone cannot read properly and thinks that "context" is somehow more important than RAW.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Here is your context, in quotes. The following quotes are all from P.8 of the BRB:

I will just requote the relevant parts:
"Naturally, you can't ask your models what they can see...- therefore, you'll have to work it out on their behalf."
"line of sight determines what a model can 'see'."
Followed by the "straight, unblocked line".

Models cannot have a line of sight, as they cannot see.
You have to work out the "line of sight" by drawing a straight, unblocked line.
So unless they bring out a FAQ that changes it into "straight, unblocked line of sight" you are wrong.

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy"

Yes, no-one disagrees with that.
You draw a straight, unblocked line and everything in that line is in their 'line of sight'.
So technically they cannot even see models hiding behind a transparent object.

Again all quotes P.8

If this is true:
"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy"

Then when drawing an unblocked line you ignore transparent objects, as transparent objects do not block your warriors view of the enemy.

remember models need to "see their foes through... the battlefield terrain"

If you "can't ask your models what they can see" and have to "work it out on their behalf.", then if you can see an enemy model, then your models can see the enemy model.

It is just that simple.

"This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to 'see what they can see'" (We can see models behind a piece of glass when we do this, so can our models and as such glass does not block line of sight).

And some more explanation and context to clarify line of sight "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," if you can see something, then your warriors can draw line of sight to it.

Kangodo wrote:
So unless they bring out a FAQ that changes it into "straight, unblocked line of sight" you are wrong.

Actually Page 8 equates the unblocked line with what the models can see, and Line of sight.

a transparent will not block a line of sight.

There seems to be a breakdown with the way you are ignoring the context of the English language written on Page 8, therefore your assertations are fundamentally incorrect.

Yeah, I'm just going to drop this. It's pathetic.. Just one more time before I stop responding:
Context doesn't mean gak in a rulebook. Context is RAI. The rulebook is RAW.
Advocating RAI and claiming it's RAW is not allowed in here.

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy"
Then when drawing an unblocked line you ignore transparent objects, as transparent objects do not block your warriors view of the enemy.

You are saying that anything they can see is within 'line of sight'.
Your quote clearly says that anything within 'line of sight' is what they can see, you cannot just turn that around whenever you feel like.
And 'line of sight' is defined as anything you can draw a straight, unblocked line towards.

So by following those rules, the models cannot see things "behind transparent objects".
Which means that a 'clear ADL' does block line of sight and units CAN take cover behind it.

 Mulletdude wrote:
If I were to have energy fields with the same dimensions as an ADL and my opponent was trying to tell me I don't get a cover save, I would find a new opponent.

Every one here has said they would allow the cover save. No one is disputing that as an ADL "count as" more than 25% of the model is "hidden" behind the plastic.

I can't believe this thread has gone on for 6 pages.

People are not arguing whether or not the models would get a cover save but if strict RAW, clear plastic/glass blocks LOS.

Kangodo wrote:
Yeah, I'm just going to drop this. It's pathetic.. Just one more time before I stop responding:
Context doesn't mean gak in a rulebook. Context is RAI. The rulebook is RAW.

You're absolutely wrong here.
The rulebook is written in the English language. Context is important in the English language.

rigeld2 wrote:
You're absolutely wrong here.
The rulebook is written in the English language. Context is important in the English language.

Well, in that case we can use "context" for every discussion now and claim that anything is possible.
Context can be looked at if the rule itself does not give a decent solution to an issue.
The current RAW gives a clear and definite answer! Can you now stop with making up rules?

And are you really going to argue that the ruling 'says' "straight, unblocked line of sight"?
Because that would be really ridiculous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28grammar%29

Let's just put this all in a simple question: "Can you proof that the 'line' refers to a 'line of sight'?"

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You're absolutely wrong here.
The rulebook is written in the English language. Context is important in the English language.

Well, in that case we can use "context" for every discussion now and claim that anything is possible.
Context can be looked at if the rule itself does not give a decent solution to an issue.

Please, use context to claim that I am allowed to hit you on the head with a rulebook. Show me that "anything is possible".
Or are you making things up? I wouldn't want to accuse you of that without evidence, so please, prove your point.

The current RAW gives a clear and definite answer! Can you now stop with making up rules?

I've invented nothing.

And are you really going to argue that the ruling 'says' "straight, unblocked line of sight"?
Because that would be really ridiculous: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tautology_%28grammar%29

Apparently you're unfamiliar with how English works - it's not a tautological statement.

Let's just put this all in a simple question: "Can you proof that the 'line' refers to a 'line of sight'?"

It's been done, you've claimed otherwise and become very hostile about it. It's not worth spending more time on typing things you'll literally ignore and claim are not true.

Kangodo wrote:
Context doesn't mean gak in a rulebook. Context is RAI. The rulebook is RAW.

You seem to not understand how the English Language works. Context is important, it helps us derive meaning. Seeing as you are in a country where English is not the first language this is understandable.

Advocating RAI and claiming it's RAW is not allowed in here.

That is true. However that is not what I am doing.

You are saying that anything they can see is within 'line of sight'.

Actually the rules say that, I am just regurgitating the information.

Your quote clearly says that anything within 'line of sight' is what they can see, you cannot just turn that around whenever you feel like.

again, the rules state that I am just regurgitating the information.

And 'line of sight' is defined as anything you can draw a straight, unblocked line towards.

within the context of getting down behind the model and trying to "See what they can see"

So by following those rules, the models cannot see things "behind transparent objects".
Which means that a 'clear ADL' does block line of sight and units CAN take cover behind it.

This is incorrect, you have to ignore the context of the rules I posted to come to this conclusion, ergo this conclusion is false.

Kangodo wrote:
Let's just put this all in a simple question: "Can you proof that the 'line' refers to a 'line of sight'?"

I have, right in this post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
[Click my name in this box to see it now]

No, just feth it.
This is getting really pathetic.

morfydd wrote:
Line of Sight thru the "transparent" Force feild terrain that counts as ADL ..is Not an issue ..yes they have LOS to it ..
Ergo .you can shoot at it ..Line of Sight Does NOT MEAN Clear shot the bullet can still bounce off the forcefeild..thus representing the cover save As per the ADL

I'm quoting this because it is absolutely correct.

Also, this argument has gotten p dumb.

Please, use context to claim that I am allowed to hit you on the head with a rulebook. Show me that "anything is possible".
Or are you making things up? I wouldn't want to accuse you of that without evidence, so please, prove your point.

Page 4, the most important rule. If its not clear if a rule allows something and we disagree we roll a die. On a 1, 2 or a 3 i can hit you in the head with the rulebook.

Now this thread has officially sunk to the bottom of the lunacy pile due to useing the MIR. Were done here guys.

I skipped most of the pages on this - I have never seen an argument like this.... don't mean to be impolite but what a waste of time if you ask me.

Forget all the LOS stuff! It.Is.A.ForceField. It isn't glass. as hilarious I thought when I pictured some Eldar lugging big sheets of glass into position, they obviously arent sheets of glass - otherwise I would bet those Eldar are riddled with bullets now.

I can't deny that the LOS rules are correct about cover, but are you really that dumb to believe that, just because you can see all the model, that the forceshield he is behind is useless?!

"Damn! Those pesky Xenos are cowering behind some sort of forcefield!"
"Not to worry sir, we can see them"
"Ah, good point Luietennant. Fire away!"

I think sometimes we have to ignore what a rule exactly says and use our common sense. With the tact everyone is using here who disagrees that the photos on P1 (such among way away now) are AGL's, then Invuln saves thanks to shielding can't exist, and if I hold up a piece of paper that conceals everything except my head, I get a 4+ cover save.

I just feel sorry for poor old Peregrine, and the others who gave up on this thread. They tried to talk sense and were shunned down....

If I was the Original Poster I'd close this thread. If another argument spills because of what I just said then I'm just going to leave this thread, like Peregrine - if this doesn't convince anyone, nothing will. But I'll make one thing clear. If I ever found a player who dared to waste my valuable time I spend to enjoy my life arguing whether or not some poxy shield has the same physical properties as glass and air, I'd slap them across the face, and assure him that he won't be getting many 40k games in with his attitude.

Rant over. Hopefully I've made a point, but I just fear it's everyone else's argument bundles into one, and that probably won't make much difference.

NickOnwezen wrote:

Please, use context to claim that I am allowed to hit you on the head with a rulebook. Show me that "anything is possible".
Or are you making things up? I wouldn't want to accuse you of that without evidence, so please, prove your point.

Page 4, the most important rule. If its not clear if a rule allows something and we disagree we roll a die. On a 1, 2 or a 3 i can hit you in the head with the rulebook.

Now this thread has officially sunk to the bottom of the lunacy pile due to useing the MIR. Were done here guys.

As per the tenets TMIR does not apply to a rules discussion

General Annoyance wrote:
Forget all the LOS stuff! It.Is.A.ForceField. It isn't glass. as hilarious I thought when I pictured some Eldar lugging big sheets of glass into position, they obviously arent sheets of glass - otherwise I would bet those Eldar are riddled with bullets now.

I can't deny that the LOS rules are correct about cover, but are you really that dumb to believe that, just because you can see all the model, that the forceshield he is behind is useless?!

As per the actual rules of the game it is, unless you make a houserule.

I think sometimes we have to ignore what a rule exactly says and use our common sense.

Common sense/Logic/how it works in the real world has no bearing...

Tenets of YMDC wrote:3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument. - The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

If I was the Original Poster I'd close this thread. If another argument spills because of what I just said then I'm just going to leave this thread, like Peregrine - if this doesn't convince anyone, nothing will. But I'll make one thing clear. If I ever found a player who dared to waste my valuable time I spend to enjoy my life arguing whether or not some poxy shield has the same physical properties as glass and air, I'd slap them across the face, and assure him that he won't be getting many 40k games in with his attitude.

The counts as ADL is not the issue, How we would play it, in this case is different from what the rules actually say, but you didn't read most of the thread so you would not know that.

DeathReaper - OK, well now I'm going off to make two AGL's. One is going to be made out of paper, called "Paper Defence lines" for those people who are specially gifted, and give me a 3+ cover save. And after I'll make a force barrier set for those players who understand that the rules of the game will always have some loopholes in and to just ignore them (I.e. people who aren't pathetic about it).

I'll send some photos soon. Toodles!

General Annoyance wrote:
DeathReaper - OK, well now I'm going off to make two AGL's. One is going to be made out of paper, called "Paper Defence lines" for those people who are specially gifted, and give me a 3+ cover save. And after I'll make a force barrier set for those players who understand that the rules of the game will always have some loopholes in and to just ignore them (I.e. people who aren't pathetic about it).

I'll send some photos soon. Toodles!

See that is the thing, if you had read the thread you would know that most in the thread wound count the clear ADL as an ADL if they bought it as an ADL, it would grant a cover save (Which is 4+ for an ADL, not a 3+ By the way) to anyone that is 25% or more behind the Clear energy fileld ADL.

What people do not understand is that the rules allow for a model to draw a line of sight, and if in doing so the line passes through a transparent object, there is no issues as a model can see what a model can see, which includes people behind transparent windows.

It is not a loophole, it is an actual rule pure RAW.

P.S. Nice underhanded insult, it really adds to your post... (The underlined text above, Emphasis mine).

Sometimes RAW can be silly (Like some models without eyes being useless as you can not shoot or charge anything the model can not see, Etc). This is not one of those cases.

 DeathReaper wrote:

General Annoyance wrote:
DeathReaper - OK, well now I'm going off to make two AGL's. One is going to be made out of paper, called "Paper Defence lines" for those people who are specially gifted, and give me a 3+ cover save. And after I'll make a force barrier set for those players who understand that the rules of the game will always have some loopholes in and to just ignore them (I.e. people who aren't pathetic about it).

I'll send some photos soon. Toodles!

See that is the thing, if you had read the thread you would know that most in the thread wound count the clear ADL as an ADL if they bought it as an ADL, it would grant a cover save (Which is 4+ for an ADL, not a 3+ By the way) to anyone that is 24% or more behind the Clear energy fileld ADL.

What people do not understand is that the rules allow for a model to draw a line of sight, and if in doing so the line passes through a transparent object, there is no issues as a model can see what a model can see, which includes people behind transparent windows.

It is not a loophole, it is an actual rule pure RAW.

P.S. Nice underhanded insult, it really adds to your post... (The underlined text above, Emphasis mine).

Sometimes RAW can be silly (Like some models without eyes being useless as you can not shoot or charge anything the model can not see, Etc). This is not one of those cases.

Forgive my underlines - morning and evenings aren't the greatest for your temper

Also, I thought AGL's are fortifications, which means they get a 3+ cover save?

I also said in my first post that "I cannot deny the rules for LOS" so really we are discussing cover here. Usually I would read every page of a thread so my post makes sense, but by about page 3 I got really bored of it. If you made an agreement or drew a line in page 4 or 5, then congratulations!

If RAW is silly at times then, why do we follow it? Surely it would make more sense to say "GW obviously didn't consider field barriers when they made this rule, but if they had then the rule would acompany that?"

All of this has now confused me. Does this thread actually have a point anymore?

As a side note, have you thought of making a tutorial for these wonderful conversions? The world needs more xenos buildings, even if they are "just" defence lines!

General Annoyance wrote:
Forgive my underlines - morning and evenings aren't the greatest for your temper

Well it is a forum rule...

forum rules wrote:Rule 1: Be Polite

This seems obvious, however many folks can sometimes forget that common courtesy goes a long way to lending respect to both you and your opinions. Just because you don't see the other users' faces doesn't mean they don't have feelings and won't be hurt by rude comments or offensive images. When you see something that you find silly, rude or insulting first assume that perhaps there is more to it than you initially thought. Look at it again, keeping in mind that tone and inflection is difficult to convey in a visual format. It may be that the person is attempting a joke or is exaggerating on purpose. It is best to politely request clarification before accusing someone being ignorant, a liar, or worse.

If after clarification you still disagree with the person then politely outline your points. Try to avoid name-calling or even implying insults wherever possible. These tactics generally only inflame a situation and lead to what are known as "Flame Wars." Whenever a flame war starts it usually ruins a perfectly good discussion. Others will lose interest in the thread and the site in general if this kind of interchange becomes a common occurrence.

From: http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp

Also, I thought AGL's are fortifications, which means they get a 3+ cover save?

They are fortifications, but they have specific rules that override the general rules. The specific rules give an ADL a 4+ cover save.

If RAW is silly at times then, why do we follow it? Surely it would make more sense to say "GW obviously didn't consider field barriers when they made this rule, but if they had then the rule would acompany that?"

All of this has now confused me. Does this thread actually have a point anymore?

We follow RAW as close as possible so we are playing the same game as our opponent.

There are many things that "GW obviously didn't consider" but that does not mean we create a rule out of whole cloth. We follow the rules striving to "Break No Rule." In every situation, we should strive to follow this principle. If rules appear to conflict each other, there are three possible causes. First, that one rule is more specific, and thus overrides the more general rule. Second, that one rule limits the other. Third (and thankfully, most rarely), the rules are actually in conflict, and it is up to the players to come up with a mutually agreeable solution.

The point of the debate is to determine what the rules actually say so we do not accidentally (and unintentionally) cheat your opponent.

 DeathReaper wrote:

The point of the debate is to determine what the rules actually say so we do not accidentally (and unintentionally) cheat your opponent.

Yeah, but this whole debate just screams "cheating your opponent".

General Annoyance wrote:
Forgive my underlines - morning and evenings aren't the greatest for your temper
Also, I thought AGL's are fortifications, which means they get a 3+ cover save?
I also said in my first post that "I cannot deny the rules for LOS" so really we are discussing cover here. Usually I would read every page of a thread so my post makes sense, but by about page 3 I got really bored of it. If you made an agreement or drew a line in page 4 or 5, then congratulations!
If RAW is silly at times then, why do we follow it? Surely it would make more sense to say "GW obviously didn't consider field barriers when they made this rule, but if they had then the rule would acompany that?"
All of this has now confused me. Does this thread actually have a point anymore?

The specific ADL-rules say it's a 4+ cover save, so that overwrites the general 3+ for fortifications.

Most people don't follow RAW that strictly since a lot of time it makes no sense.
But we like to discuss it here so we are clear on what things are actually RAW and what things are "house-ruled", because those house-rules are more likely to be different in other places.
Luckily for us this entire 'see-through wall' is RAW and they block LOS.
I don't think they intended it to work like that, but it's most likely a case where two wrongs do make a right

 djones520 wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

The point of the debate is to determine what the rules actually say so we do not accidentally (and unintentionally) cheat your opponent.

Yeah, but this whole debate just screams "cheating your opponent".

If you actually think so you have not read the thread.

Do I need to put blackout curtains on my energy fields now?

 Xerics wrote:
Do I need to put blackout curtains on my energy fields now?

Maybe some nice floral drapes.

I think the best way to define Force Shields is that anything behind them gains a 4+ cover save. You can draw line of sight to them, but as long as they are behind it, they get the save.

Tenets of YMDC wrote:3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument. - The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.
Remember: The rules were not written to be "Modern day real world" logical.

The rules are an abstract system used to simulate a battle in the year 40,000.

What would happen in the modern day real world has nothing to do with the RAW, or the simulation of a battle fought 38,000 years from now.

As such they need to have some compromises to make the game playable.

It is absolutely HILLARIOUS to me how you are quoting this, when your argument AGAINST the actual written rule is that you are tracing a line of sight to determine line of sight because you are 'seeing' what your model sees and denying the fact that your drawing a line as an abstraction as dictated by the rules to determine said line of sight. YOU are trying to apply real world physics to this discussion when the rule speccially usews an abstraction to determine a mechanic. You are defining the context that determines how this abstraction relates to the real world situation, to build up an Infered conclusion that is NOT reflected by the way the Rule is written. I am Utterly vexxed at how you can justify your position and think this quote actually helps your point.

My argument coincides with RAW.
Not sure how you are getting that it does not.

Look at the rules, they say to get a models eye view, and see what the model could see.

Clearly a model can see all of the models in that second pic...

I am not "defining the context that determines how this abstraction relates to the real world situation"


The rules do tell us to "drawing a line as an abstraction as dictated by the rules to determine said line of sight." and in the context of the Line of Sight rules, if your model can see it, it is in line of sight.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at the rules, they say to get a models eye view, and see what the model could see.

And the rules specify that "seeing" in 40k consists of drawing a straight unbroken line to the target. You are breaking the rules of YMDC and bringing in a real-world argument by assuming that "seeing" means "look with your eyes" instead of "draw a straight unbroken line".

Clearly a model can see all of the models in that second pic...

Not by the rules of 40k, because it can not draw a straight unbroken line through the ADL model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at the rules, they say to get a models eye view, and see what the model could see.

And the rules specify that "seeing" in 40k consists of drawing a straight unbroken line to the target. You are breaking the rules of YMDC and bringing in a real-world argument by assuming that "seeing" means "look with your eyes" instead of "draw a straight unbroken line".

I am not bringing in a real world argument, I have cited the rules that back my claim...

 Peregrine wrote:

Clearly a model can see all of the models in that second pic...

Not by the rules of 40k, because it can not draw a straight unbroken line through the ADL model.

You must have missed my post full of quotes that backs my claim.

If you do not ignore the context you can draw a straight unbroken line of sight through that ADL model.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at the rules, they say to get a models eye view, and see what the model could see.

And the rules specify that "seeing" in 40k consists of drawing a straight unbroken line to the target. You are breaking the rules of YMDC and bringing in a real-world argument by assuming that "seeing" means "look with your eyes" instead of "draw a straight unbroken line".

Either you've failed to read his posts or the rules - one of the two, because I refuse to believe you'd lie like that.
I recommend doing both.

Pretty sure I can trace a straight, unbroken line to the models in pic. 2 using a laser pointer. The material is transparent, which by definition means that anything behind it can be seen.

I could also argue that I can draw line of sight to a head or arm outside of them being behind the material, making the LoS argument irrelevant anyway. Once I have that, we then determine if the model taking a wound is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least 1 firer, in which case (by definition of obscured) they are not.

Either way, I wouldn't deny a cover save, but RAW I think Rigeld and DR are correct in that they wouldn't receive a cover because (at least in the second pic) the models aren't obscured from the point of view of the firer.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Pretty sure I can trace a straight, unbroken line to the models in pic. 2 using a laser pointer.

So what? You don't use a laser pointer to determine LOS, you use a straight unbroken line. A line that intersects a piece of plastic is not "unbroken" by any reasonable definition of the word, the fact that a beam of light (which is NOT a line) can pass through it is irrelevant.

Once I have that, we then determine if the model taking a wound is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least 1 firer, in which case (by definition of obscured) they are not.

Except they are because in 40k "seeing" is defined by drawing an unbroken line, and the firing model can not draw an unbroken line to 75% or more of the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not bringing in a real world argument, I have cited the rules that back my claim...

Yes you are. You are making a real-world argument that "seeing" in 40k consists of "can the model's eyes see anything along this line" instead of "can I draw an unbroken line". The rules clearly define LOS in 40k as an unbroken line, not "can my eyes see this". The only way to argue that the line through the clear plastic is not "unbroken" is to bring in a real-world argument that we're talking about seeing a target instead of reading only the rules.

You must have missed my post full of quotes that backs my claim.

I saw it. None of them have anything to do with the issue here, that LOS is defined as an unbroken line.

If you do not ignore the context you can draw a straight unbroken line of sight through that ADL model.

"Context" does not magically change what "unbroken" means. Nor does it allow you to make a circular definition like "you check LOS by drawing a LOS to the target".

 Peregrine wrote:
Except they are because in 40k "seeing" is defined by drawing an unbroken line, and the firing model can not draw an unbroken line to 75% or more of the model.

This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to 'see what they can see'.

Reading the rules is important. Ignoring that it's been pointed out is rude.

edit: Having line of sight != drawing a line of sight.

Just like "point" changes based on how you use the word, line of sight does as well.

rigeld2 wrote:
Reading the rules is important. Ignoring that it's been pointed out is rude.

I did read the rules. This statement is not relevant because it is not the one that tells you how models "see" in 40k. It only tells you that you sometimes need to check LOS by changing your viewing angle to accurately see the line that you are tracing instead of just standing above the table and approximating it, just like you wouldn't try to make a precise measurement by putting the ruler next to the object and reading it from across the room. The sentence that tells you HOW to check LOS once you have positioned yourself to do it accurately is the one in bold at the top of the page.

And it tells us, if you take the context into account, that transparent objects do not break the line, as the line is imaginary because it is a line of sight.

Covered extensively here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/548687.page#6014084

(Most notably this quote: "Naturally, you can't ask your models what they can see...- therefore, you'll have to work it out on their behalf." (8)). This is what you are doing when tracing a straight unbroken line of sight to an enemy model. If the model can see the target he has line of sight to the target.

people seem to miss the point of this article.
If your substituting these shields for aegis lines that's fine, providing that they follow the same criteria. Rules, Size both in length and height etc.
The murder slits on an aegis barrier can be considered a slight disadvantage when compared to these energy fields, but I would cry about someone using them.
There is several units that can benefit/take advantage of the aegis pieces of cover anyway, eg ork big guns, so lets face it, lets not get too overly critical.
I have a set of ork barricades that i have built from scraps that are similar size and length to aegis lines, I would be disappointed with my opponent if they refused to let me use them because of a stupid technicality!
..... As always on dakka, its the usual debates on bending the rules or adhering to them so stringently it's just sad!
I play for fun, not to win by stupid, petty, cheeky, tactics.... or to lose to them either!

Stringent rules arguments are not made in YMDC for the purpose of nitpicking or using such stringent interpretations in actual play. They are made to define what the rules ACTUALLY say so that when the rules wording interferes with your abillity to enjoy a game you can tell your opponent how the book says it should be played and how you would rather play it. considering the people in this thread probably aren't playing against you right now, how you want to play something or how you interpret the rules is less important because you cannot agree to an amicable solution with your opponent if your not playing.

In my opinion. If you agreed on a piece of terrain, its legal. Which it even states in the rulebook. There's no argument. If what you say is true, the ruling would be "you can only use GW terrain and no other" but that's not the case. Though, I'm suprised that GW doesn't have a rule like that, snce they're money raking fiends, lol

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

Also, let's look at all of the definitions: c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>. A model behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic (for example, the first picture) is not clearly seen so RAW it gets a cover save.

That is great, but does not apply as the models are not drawings on a cave wall. Context is important.

obscure

verb
[with object]
keep from being seen; conceal
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obscure?q=obscure

Specific citation please. The LOS rules require a "straight unblocked line", and a line through a piece of partially-transparent plastic is not unblocked.

Here you go

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8) (Emphasis mine)

The part that says "they must be able to see their foes through...the battlefield terrain" tells us that they can indeed see through the terrain if they can actually see through the terrain such as windows, clear pieces of aluminium that hold whales in their tanks etc...

Indisputable proof of my earlier statement.

If your points sheet says you have an ADL, the visual fits your army, and you are not trying to model for advantage, then it's an ADL. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays eggs like a duck, then it's a duck. Unless its a platypus.

Please read the thread. We've agreed that counts-as ADL is fine. In one of the first couple of pages. Since then it's been a discussion about other terrain being clear (and trolls coming in and not reading the thread and just want to abuse people discussing rules).

Just taken a look at those awesome Energy Shields terrain pieces. I'd say cover saves only IMHO. Reason being energy shields while being cool and all aren't 100% reliable so the odd projectile could conceivably get through. If you wanted, you could give them AV (10/11) and HP (Upto 2-3 maybe depending on the race to give the impression of being cool shiny shields). The game is as fun as you want to make it. Just don't be a douche.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
If I were using such a model, I would say that the "energy field" part cannot be seen through, just like a normal ADL. This would affect both my and the enemy's models. If it CAN be seen through, then it does not grant cover to either side.

Exactly... a non-issue!

This thread is a great advertisement for a) allowing only GW brand terrain and b) avoiding the game entirely. When an arguments drifts into semantics, everyone involved has already lost.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You seem to not understand how the English Language works. Context is important, it helps us derive meaning. Seeing as you are in a country where English is not the first language this is understandable.

Nice condescension, friend.

@Thread:

Kindly tune down the intensity folks. It might be good to read through the thread before participating -- but even if you don't, please remember that Dakka Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
This thread is a great advertisement for a) allowing only GW brand terrain and b) avoiding the game entirely. When an arguments drifts into semantics, everyone involved has already lost.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You seem to not understand how the English Language works. Context is important, it helps us derive meaning. Seeing as you are in a country where English is not the first language this is understandable.

Nice condescension, friend.

I was not being condescending. I was simply addressing how he is in a country that does not have English as a first language.