Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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

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

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

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

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

We've reached the end of the line people.

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

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

Preaching to the choir.

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

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

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

augustus5 wrote:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

They can use it, and it is a legal marker

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

insaniak wrote:

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

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


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

Exactly.

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

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

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

DeathReaper wrote:

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

They can use it, and it is a legal marker

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

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

purpleboxbluebox wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

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

They can use it, and it is a legal marker

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

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

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

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

Alkasyn wrote:

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

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

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

Sorry,
Homer


Automatically Appended Next Post:

insaniak wrote:

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

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

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

Homer

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

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

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

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

Homer S wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

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

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

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

Sorry,
Homer



Homer

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

No offence taken

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

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

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

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

Sorry,
Homer



Homer

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

No offence taken

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

Do GW models block LOS. Does terrain block LOS?

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

Alkasyn wrote:

Homer S wrote:

Alkasyn wrote:

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

Homer

Im pro the WWP. Mixed me up with someone.

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

Sorry,
Homer



Homer

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

No offence taken

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

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

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

Well lets apply that to Tyberus;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks Oaka, very helpful

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

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

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


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

Just my 2c worth.

Reaper6 wrote:Thanks Oaka, very helpful

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

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

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


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

Just my 2c worth.

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

Gotcha.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well...

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

That's how.

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

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

That is the basic question;

What are the dimensions of the webway portal?

Camp A: As described in the DE codex.

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

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

By using the models provided of course!

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

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

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

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

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

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

By using the models provided of course!

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

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

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

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

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

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

"A small blast marker or similar size."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Pic a few posts ago shows us this.

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

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

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

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