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

I 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.