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.

Oaka wrote:Let me use a more relatable example, since we seem to be throwing around the term 'markers' quite a bit. When a vehicle is destroyed, the rules aren't specific as to what to use to represent the difficult terrain marker. Some people just use a footprint to represent difficult terrain:



Others will purchase a nice looking marker:



And some players have extra models lying around that they convert into wrecked vehicles:



Obviously, these different methods provide differing amounts of cover and block LOS in different ways. How can you pick any of these options as being more legal than the others?

Unlike with wrecked results, the DE codex specifically tells you what you are to do;

place a small blast marker or similar and it is treated as impassable terrain.

The circumference passes the test when you apply the small blast maker or similar standard, the height does not. So while you have explicit permission to apply the limited edition WWP's circumference, you do not have permission to apply the height.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the standard that you want that the WWP limited editpn model dictates the rules, Tyberius the Red Wake get 4D6 AP with his special lightning claws because the model has chainswords on each hand.

Melt down a WWP and figure out its volume (or displace water) then use that ....

Failing that a 3" diameter cylinder with a 6ft height.

I think the real thing is the size of the foot print has to be the right size..height has nothing to do with it.

There where alot of webways when they had the ulthwa strike force and they where flying stands glued upright to 40mm bases and then painted. is that a wrong model? No the foot print was still right.

TLOS is over used. How is one little 40mm based size thing going to give any body cover(unless it is a single model). Will it cover more then half of a vehicle? NO! Will it cover most of a squad? NO! Will it cover 50% of a Monsterous Creature? NO!

So if you ask me there is no problem with useing the model that GW them selves made nor anyother model that anyone has come up with as long as it has the right foot print. ie, 40mm Base size.

Oaka wrote:Let me use a more relatable example, since we seem to be throwing around the term 'markers' quite a bit. When a vehicle is destroyed, the rules aren't specific as to what to use to represent the difficult terrain marker.

You don't place a marker in that situation. You place a piece of difficult terrain.

Miraclefish wrote:Thing is, if GW release it as an official WWP, it is a legitimate WWP marker.

But still just a 'marker'

Night's Blood wrote:The official model makes it clear the WWP should have height, it is treated as impassible terrain, therefore should block LOS.

How does being treated as impassable terrain mean that it should block LOS?

Also, for all of the "TRUE LOS!!!" players:

What about the Watcher in the Dark, or other models that tell you to ignore them for all game purposes? Or banners? Or any of the other numerous things you are told to ignore when checking LoS?

You're never actually told to ignore banners for LOS purposes... just for checking LOS to the model with the banner.

Shrike325 wrote:Also, for all of the "TRUE LOS!!!" players:

What about the Watcher in the Dark, or other models that tell you to ignore them for all game purposes? Or banners? Or any of the other numerous things you are told to ignore when checking LoS?

This relates to WWP how? They never tell you to ignore them for LoS purposes.

they also never tell you it counts as terrain, or a model, or anything that blocks line of sight or grants cover. The BRB has rules for models blocking line of sight and terrain, the wpp is neither. it is a marker. there are no rules in the BRB for markers blocking LOS so unless the wwp rules specifically state it blocks LOS it RAW may not regardless of if the actual physical wpp on the table does.

The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

Then it says to treat it as impassible terrain. So the webway would follow the rules of terrain.

Since GW released a model for the webway portal (limited or not), it is what should be used in all its dimensions. So any custom models should fill the required dimensions of the model they made for the webway. Anything bigger or smaller is modeling for an advantage. (I would like to see through my own webways from the ground level, but the webway can block my line of site).

So if you do use a marker for it, the correct half dome dimensions of the GW model should be used for whether or not it is blocking line of site.

insaniak wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:The official model makes it clear the WWP should have height, it is treated as impassible terrain, therefore should block LOS.

How does being treated as impassable terrain mean that it should block LOS?

Because it means it has a tangible footprint, quite different from the "cotton blumes" you were associating with it.
Being impassible terrain means we should treat it as such - terrain. Therefore, the official GW "marker" would indeed block LOS.

Blitz100 wrote:The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

Then it says to treat it as impassible terrain. So the webway would follow the rules of terrain.

Since GW released a model for the webway portal (limited or not), it is what should be used in all its dimensions. So any custom models should fill the required dimensions of the model they made for the webway. Anything bigger or smaller is modeling for an advantage. (I would like to see through my own webways from the ground level, but the webway can block my line of site).

So if you do use a marker for it, the correct half dome dimensions of the GW model should be used for whether or not it is blocking line of site.

Wrong.

You can use the limited edtion webway portal as per the standard set in the DE codex. The model does not dictate the rules. The rules are specific as to what is to represent a webway portal. The model that GW releases could be a lifesize Elmo doll, but you are still restricted to the rules set forth in the DE codex.

Show me where in the DE codex are you given permission to use the height value of the limited edition webway portal. I know it isn't in the codex, there has not been a FAQ, there has not been a Errata, the product does not come with permission, and the description at the webstore does not give permission. So please, show me where you have any permission to deviate beyond the dimensions of the small blast marker or similar.

I am aware old faqs are not precedent for rules nor are old codex however the old wwp FAQ ruled the portal does not block line of sight,

It's is a counter placed on a table, there are mo rules for counters blocking line of sight or counting as terrain. Given the rules for the wwp in the codex specify that it counts as impassable terrain for movement, but makes no comment on line of sight there is no permission for it to block line of sight from the brb or it's own specific codex ruling, and it should not block line of sight to or from models on the other side

Brother Ramses wrote:

Blitz100 wrote:The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

Then it says to treat it as impassible terrain. So the webway would follow the rules of terrain.

Since GW released a model for the webway portal (limited or not), it is what should be used in all its dimensions. So any custom models should fill the required dimensions of the model they made for the webway. Anything bigger or smaller is modeling for an advantage. (I would like to see through my own webways from the ground level, but the webway can block my line of site).

So if you do use a marker for it, the correct half dome dimensions of the GW model should be used for whether or not it is blocking line of site.

Wrong.

You can use the limited edtion webway portal as per the standard set in the DE codex. The model does not dictate the rules. The rules are specific as to what is to represent a webway portal. The model that GW releases could be a lifesize Elmo doll, but you are still restricted to the rules set forth in the DE codex.

Show me where in the DE codex are you given permission to use the height value of the limited edition webway portal. I know it isn't in the codex, there has not been a FAQ, there has not been a Errata, the product does not come with permission, and the description at the webstore does not give permission. So please, show me where you have any permission to deviate beyond the dimensions of the small blast marker or similar.

Wrong.

Released models always indicate the scale and size of any model for game purposes. (can you imagine all the chaos on the tabletop if it didnt?) Any changes to that is modeling for an advantage in game. Nowhere in the description does it give you the dimensions of the portal, saying instead to place something similair to a blast marker in size. So if you do not have one, you are allowed to proxy one with a spare blast marker.

You are allowed use a small blast marker or other similair sized counter if you choose, Or you just use the released model for it. Once placed it acts as impassible terrain, and last I checked if impassible terrain blocks line of sight, it blocks line of sight.

Show me where it says you can see through impassible terrain, and I am game.

It seems some people are a little bent out of shape that if you don't own a webway portal, you can use a marker in its place.

Wouldn't a deep lake constitute impassable terrain that doesn't block LoS? I mean if you're on one side and the target is on the other and neither of you is in a ditch then you should be able to see/shoot each other.

"Similarly sized" does not mean "equally sized." The marker counts as impassible terrain. Therefore the GW marker can block los and/or provide cover. Relevant sections of the BRB include pg. 16, second main text paragraph, first sentence; same page, inset: Line of Sight, second sentence; and page 21, under the "When are models in Cover?" heading.

As for the "why does this matter" questions, please refrain from asking them. The model that has the WWP is probably carrying a fair amount of points besides the Portal, and would probably like his cover save, should the need arise. If you have a question like that, try to think of every possible circumstance before asking it.

EDIT: @Leo_the_Rat: of course you'd be able to see if your line of sight wasn't blocked by the terrain. In this case, as should be obvious by looking at the marker, los could be potentially blocked or obscured.

All of this arguing over something that according to the guidelines for cover would likely only provide at best a 5+ or far more likely a 6+ cover save?

Similar does not equal the same, but if the webway portal marker limited edition piece is "similarly sized" to a small blast marker, than I am "similarly sized" to a telephone pole or hundred year old maple tree.

The point here is that it does NOT appear to be the intent, nor the strict meaning, of the rules that the webway be able to block LOS. If you hold that it is the intent for the limited edition portal to do so, than that seems rather unfair to everyone who was unable to buy them.

@ solkan: Again, refer to the second part of my post. The answer is Yes because it can decide games, however unlikely you think that scenario might be.

EDIT: @ Mannahnin: I believe that's why the call them "limited edition" markers. It's unfortunate that not everyone in a Blood Angels army gets the Red Thirst, but that doesn't mean that they should. As for the extent of "similar," if this came up in a tournament and the discretion was up to the TO as to which WWP was modeling for advantage, do you think he would rule against the GW model or the telephone pole? Until GW makes an offical ruling/errata for RAW, the TO is who decides. Furthermore, as to intent, GW released a marker, classified as terrain, that was capable of blocking los according to their rules set. If you want to argue RaI, I think my argument is stronger.

This is the exact entry in the DE codex.

"This is a portable for of the portals used to link together places via webway. Once per game in your shooting phase, a model with webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing. PLACE A SPARE SMALL BLAST MARKER OR SIMARLY SIZED COUNTER in base contact with the bearer when he activates the portal...blah blah blah...THE PORTAL COUNTS AS IMPASSABLE TERRAIN and can not be destroyed."

So a similarly sized counter, or a spare blast marker. And with games workshop if they release it its legal, those are officail gw tourney rules in most cases. The new storm of magic vortex markers are the same size as the WWP and they are actually a tiny bit smaller then a small blast template. So if you want to argue about it, it's a SIMILARLY SIZED MARKER. Similarly is generally around the same size, and it would block LOS if a marker does IMO. The logic of it is also sound, your trying to shoot through a portal. It will either: A-Be lost in the webway.
or B-Go into Corammagh.

GW made everything for warhammer, if they release something to represent it, its legal.

Blitz100 wrote:Show me where it says you can see through impassible terrain, and I am game.

Hey you asked, I just answered the challenge.

Blitz100 wrote:The webway portal description does not say that a webway portal is a marker. It just says to use the small blast template marker or similiar counter to mark it.

So a blast marker or a counter placed to mark the WWP is not a marker?

Seriously?



-edit for spelling, since I'm apparently hopeless this morning...

Markers and counters hav the sampe number of rules for blocking line of sight. Which is none.

I am not sure why people keep trying to classify the WWP as something it is not. Using a blast template or another counter is nothing more than a legal proxy for the real thing, which has been released.

There are no rules for markers or counters to block line of sight, but there is for terrain, which a WWP is considered.

Am I "similarly sized" to a forty foot birch?

Blitz100 wrote:I am not sure why people keep trying to classify the WWP as something it is not. Using a blast template or another counter is nothing more than a legal proxy for the real thing, which has been released.

There are no rules for markers or counters to block line of sight, but there is for terrain, which a WWP is considered.

true.

but impassable terrain does not block line of sight or grant cover by the impassable terrain rule on their own, only area terrain, and models.

@ balcktoof: No. If you read the sections of the rulebook I denoted several posts ago, you will read that only the obscurity of the target determines whether or not a model is in cover. It has nothing to do with terrain (unless terrain happens to be the thing that's doing the obscuring, as in the current case).

Blitz100 wrote: Using a blast template or another counter is nothing more than a legal proxy for the real thing, which has been released.

The 'real thing' was a limited release extra for those who wanted it. The actual rules for it do not say to use the Webway Portal Marker. They instead tell you to use a blast marker or other similarly-sized marker.

So in this particular case, the actual WWP marker is the proxy. The 'real thing' that we are supposed to use is a regular blast marker.

BloodGenisis wrote: This is the exact entry in the DE codex.

"This is a portable for of the portals used to link together places via webway. Once per game in your shooting phase, a model with webway portal may choose to activate it instead of firing. PLACE A SPARE SMALL BLAST MARKER OR SIMARLY SIZED COUNTER in base contact with the bearer when he activates the portal...blah blah blah...THE PORTAL COUNTS AS IMPASSABLE TERRAIN and can not be destroyed."

So a similarly sized counter, or a spare blast marker. And with games workshop if they release it its legal, those are officail gw tourney rules in most cases. The new storm of magic vortex markers are the same size as the WWP and they are actually a tiny bit smaller then a small blast template. So if you want to argue about it, it's a SIMILARLY SIZED MARKER. Similarly is generally around the same size, and it would block LOS if a marker does IMO. The logic of it is also sound, your trying to shoot through a portal. It will either: A-Be lost in the webway.
or B-Go into Corammagh.

GW made everything for warhammer, if they release something to represent it, its legal.

This is true.

anyone claiming otherwise needs to prove why the official GW model is false, which, in itself is a self defeating argument.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Blitz100 wrote:
Wrong.

Released models always indicate the scale and size of any model for game purposes. (can you imagine all the chaos on the tabletop if it didnt?) Any changes to that is modeling for an advantage in game. Nowhere in the description does it give you the dimensions of the portal, saying instead to place something similair to a blast marker in size. So if you do not have one, you are allowed to proxy one with a spare blast marker.

You are allowed use a small blast marker or other similair sized counter if you choose, Or you just use the released model for it. Once placed it acts as impassible terrain, and last I checked if impassible terrain blocks line of sight, it blocks line of sight.

Show me where it says you can see through impassible terrain, and I am game.

It seems some people are a little bent out of shape that if you don't own a webway portal, you can use a marker in its place.

Night's Blood wrote:

BloodGenisis wrote:
GW made everything for warhammer, if they release something to represent it, its legal.

This is true.

anyone claiming otherwise needs to prove why the official GW model is false, which, in itself is a self defeating argument.

<snip>

It seems some people are a little bent out of shape that if you don't own a webway portal, you can use a marker in its place.

But the RULES don't tell you the exact dimensions. Does it say the DE raider is 7.5 inches long? No. We use the models provided by use by GW. The model provided fits within the rules (small blast ) and is spherical for a reason.

Again, you need to prove WHY the GW model is wrong. Claiming the official model is a proxxy is quite ridiculous...