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.

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

Jidmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone willing to reconsider based off of this argument?

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

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

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

Kitzz wrote:

Jidmah wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anyone willing to reconsider based off of this argument?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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