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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rozgarth wrote:

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

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

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

DeathReaper wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

pg.16

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

pg.21

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

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

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

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

bushido wrote:

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

pg.16

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

pg.21

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

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

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

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

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

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

balsak_da_mighty wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

and I think you are not understanding what similar means.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is stretching the definition by anybody's standards.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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



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

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

enjoy.

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

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

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

Interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Seems like there are two camps,

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

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