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.

Well I don't have my rulebook around atm, so I guess I'll just concede that if the standard TLOS rules allow you to trace LOS through solid objects then I'm incorrect.

The whole debate is academic/semantics anyways, since no one I know would play that way.

Yeah thing is the models within the smoke wudnt be able to see what they are shooting at. The reason i started the debate was to grant an excuse for my daemon prince to not only gain a 4+ cover save from the tank but then to gain full cover from the smoke to grant him out of los!

So you admit you were trying to gain an unfair advantage....


If you want to annoy someone, just fire with the troops inside the rhino after popping smoke. Smoke rules say the vehicle can't fire but that doesn't stop the passengers!

Dracos wrote:Well I don't have my rulebook around atm, so I guess I'll just concede that if the standard TLOS rules allow you to trace LOS through solid objects then I'm incorrect.

The whole debate is academic/semantics anyways, since no one I know would play that way.

The LoS rules hold that if you can see a target you can shoot at it.

You can see through windows, so you can shoot through windows.

Glass is solid.

Therefore the standard TLoS rules allow you to trace LoS through solid objects.

... So you can see through cotton balls/wool then?

edit: I guess I should have been more precise and said solid non-transparent objects.

I find this kind of funny, because the way the OP is trying to argue this, I could claim the markers I use for many things could block line of sight.

Moving flat out.

Retreating units.

Immobilized, Shaken, Stunned, Weapon Destroyed, and Wrecked markers.

smoke is translucent, hence the 4+ cover. so imo, even if the smoke marker blocked LoS, it's still representing smoke, which is still translucent, still only giving a 4+ cover save.

Spellbound wrote:If you want to annoy someone, just fire with the troops inside the rhino after popping smoke. Smoke rules say the vehicle can't fire but that doesn't stop the passengers!

GW changed this in the main rulebook FAQ last month. Smoke stops the passengers from shooting now too.

Sebbyp538 wrote:Well im glad ive started such a debate but i never really wanted all this. All i was looking for was a yes/no.

Okay: No.

Everyone in the thread agrees it's a no. A couple of people are arguing that TECHNICALLY one MIGHT be able to justify a marker blocking LOS, but we've all agreed that no one actually plays that way.

Sebbyp538 wrote:At the end of the day there is no rule stating that it obstructs line of site or that it doesnt but for all you people to devote your time to a hobby which represents a battlefield i find it hard that people canot imagine that a cloud of smoke would obstruct line of site.

Of course we can imagine it. But we also are familiar with the game, and with what our opponents will allow or find acceptable, and we all agree that NONE of them are going to be okay with smoke launchers suddenly creating an LOS-blocking cloud. If they were intended to completely hide a unit, don't you think they'd hide the vehicle launching them? But they don't. GW has made rules for them, and those rules state that they give the launching unit a cover save ONCE per game. They don't help or hide other units. And they only work once, so clearly GW thinks that's powerful enough. No need to make up new advantages and effects for them.

Sebbyp538 wrote:Its like when you see people on t.v in the army training by throwing a smoke granade in a room to obstruct the targets view.....same thing...

No, really it's not like that. Back in 2nd edition and earlier 40k had smoke grenades like that, and they removed those rules from the game. Cygnar Trenchers in Warmachine have those kind of smoke grenades. Units in 40k 3rd ed, 4th ed, and 5th ed do not.

Sebbyp538 wrote: Im guessin the guys against it have tanks etc that dont have the smokelaunchers as a weaponary choice.

Are you kidding us right now, or are you actually trying to be insulting? Implying that we're saying it doesn't work because we don't get to use it ourselves is personally insulting to us. And it makes you look like the reason you're arguing for it is to gain advantage yourself. And of course most of us DO have space marine and/or chaos armies, and certainly use smoke ourselves.

Sebbyp538 wrote: Seeing as smoke launchers can be used once and that you represent the smoke within reason i will continue as targets behind tank being out of los and i will allow opponents to use this too.

You can make up whatever rules you like at your house. But the odds of anyone outside your house, at a tournament for example, allowing it are slim to nil.

Sebbyp538 wrote:Makes the gaming experience more true to happenings in a battle field sooo . Case closed.

Ah, if you want "more true to happenings in a battle field", I presume you won't be using that daemon prince either. There are no daemon princes on real life battlefields. Case closed.

The point is that 40k is not meant to be a realistic simulation of a battlefield; and just as we have to suspend disbelief to accept that daemon princes are on the table, and that Frag Grenades don't actually injure anyone, we accept that the smoke launched from smoke launchers doesn't block LOS.

Spellbound wrote:So you admit you were trying to gain an unfair advantage....


If you want to annoy someone, just fire with the troops inside the rhino after popping smoke. Smoke rules say the vehicle can't fire but that doesn't stop the passengers!

Gain an advantage yes, an unfair 1.... Thats debatable, its not a rule that i cud purly use just to myself , i wud allow others to use it against me. It adds a realisum to the game sooo.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sebbyp538 wrote:Makes the gaming experience more true to happenings in a battle field sooo . Case closed.

Ah, if you want "more true to happenings in a battle field", I presume you won't be using that daemon prince either. There are no daemon princes on real life battlefields. Case closed.

The point is that 40k is not meant to be a realistic simulation of a battlefield; and just as we have to suspend disbelief to accept that daemon princes are on the table, and that Frag Grenades don't actually injure anyone, we accept that the smoke launched from smoke launchers doesn't block LOS.

Sebbyp538 wrote:makes sence because 1 realistically you cannot see through clouds of smoke and 2 the rules state if you cannot see something you cannot target it excluding barrage weapons.

Except, of course for the small point that you can see a tank concealed behind smoke. That's why it gets a 4+ cover save.

So if the tank is visible behind the smoke, why should other models be hidden by it?

I just so happened to have a read of the topic at the top of YMDC, and there was this little gem in it:

Lorek wrote:These are some of the basic tenets of You Make Da Call. Some of them clarify the Dakka Rules and some of them are guidelines to ensure relatively smooth rules discussions. If you find someone going against these tenets, feel free to refer them to this post. The Moderation Staff will also use these as moderation guidelines in this forum.

Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC):

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.

Scott-S6 wrote:

Sebbyp538 wrote:makes sence because 1 realistically you cannot see through clouds of smoke and 2 the rules state if you cannot see something you cannot target it excluding barrage weapons.

Except, of course for the small point that you can see a tank concealed behind smoke. That's why it gets a 4+ cover save.

So if the tank is visible behind the smoke, why should other models be hidden by it?

I would infact say that the 4+ save resebles the fact that the opponent is aiming at a clould of smoke and unable to see the tank to aim at, therefore the opponent could hit the smoke but not necessarly hitthe tank

That's nice for you but it isn't how the game works, is it?

Models must be visible to be target-able. As such, popping smoke does not prevent a vehicle from being seen.

As has already been mentioned, once upon a time, way back in the day, smoke did indeed block LOS through it unless you had special sight abilities. Those days are long gone. Forget all your "real world" examples (since you were mostly wrong anyways) and forget how you want it to work. The RULES say that it grants the vehicle a 4+ save. That's it. Nothing about blocking LOS, nothing about affecting or protecting other models.

So all you get is a temporary cover save for the vehicle popping the smoke. And that's really all that needs to be said.

Kids these days.

Because of threads like this, clearly everyone should now carry around a one page rules supplement describing when and how it is permissible to move tokens out of the way during the game, and make sure that your opponent is reasonable enough to agree to those rules before playing. Since the rulebook fails to specify the mechanics of "tokens".

Otherwise, how will you know that you'll get a reasonable answer to the request, "Excuse me, but could you move that smoke token out of the way so that I can check line of sight?" or "Could you move that cardboard box wound token/smoke marker/damage indicator (that just happens to be covering your entire army) out of the way so that I can finish my shooting/assault moves/movement?"

Dracos wrote:Really, can you site a page number where objects denoted as markers do not count for LOS?

Yes, it's on the same page that describes what a table is, how to roll a dice, and that you must actually pack 10 models into a rhino so that they count as embarked.

Oh, wait. There is no such page because the makers of 40k wisely decided not to lard up the rules with explaining every little thing that is already common sense.

There are two ways you can play this game: A permissive ruleset, which says you can do anything you want unless the rulebook explicitly says you may not. The other way is a restrictive ruleset, which indicates you may only do things you are expressly permitted to by the rules. One of these ways leads to a workable game, the other does not.

... Its kinda funny that you would attack what I said.

I'm not at home for the holidays, so I'm paraphrasing.

The rulebook tells you to take a model's eye view to trace LOS. If you are able to see your target, they you have LOS. How can you see your target if its behind a big wall of cotton?

I'm well aware that the ruleset is permissive, so unless the rules are stated such that you ignore any "markers" on the battlefield, you would have to TMIR this to allow ignoring of markers. Of course you have to TMIR the rules for the usage of markers, so its not really a big deal.

I find it interesting how much opposition I received for this, considering that in my original statement I was saying that the use of markers was pretty much invoking TMIR in the first place to allow the use of markers, but then the LOS rules also had to be adjusted slightly to remove in-game effects on LOS.

I'm not saying you should be able to block LOS with markers, just that they do by default of the rules.

Depends on what you define a "marker" as. If you see markers as generally being an aide memoir for players, not a game-object like a miniature, then it reasonably follows that they cannot block LOS.

Or are you saying that if I put a spare tape measure down on the table, it blocks LOS?

Interesting point, but I suppose that is a logical extension of what I'm saying.

According to how LOS is described, IIRC, the tape measure would block LOS in the same way as the cotton would. Of course the common sense/convention would be to move either in order to trace LOS - I just don't remember it describing that in the RB.

Listen guys, I'm just saying it technically tells you to look and see if a model can see stuff. AFAIK it doesn't have a caveat saying that markers, dice, tape measures, books hands and people are ignored when doing this. Ignoring those things is just common sense/convention. I'm not going to defend this position anymore because its purely a technical/semantic result of the rules that has no effect on any game I play, since I also employ common sense.

Understood. That's what I thought you were saying; just figured I'd make sure.