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.

Night's Blood wrote: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...

The rules tell you to use the small blast marker.

we can measure the size of said marker.

Thus the rules tell you the dimensions the marker should be. Anything that is not similarly sized should be ignored because you are told what to use as the portal.

This is why the GW model is wrong, it is not a similarly sized marker. It fits with the circumference but not with the height of the blast marker so it is not similarly sized.

If the rules told you to use a 60mm base for something, and you used a dreadnought on a 60mm base, would you consider them similarly sized, even though the dreadnought is much taller than it?

DeathReaper wrote:

Night's Blood wrote: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...

The rules tell you to use the small blast marker.

we can measure the size of said marker.

Thus the rules tell you the dimensions the marker should be. Anything that is not similarly sized should be ignored because you are told what to use as the portal.

This is why the GW model is wrong, it is not a similarly sized marker. It fits with the circumference but not with the height of the blast marker so it is not similarly sized.

If the rules told you to use a 60mm base for something, and you used a dreadnought on a 60mm base, would you consider them similarly sized, even though the dreadnought is much taller than it?

You know that telling us that the official model from the company that wrote the rules for it"is wrong" is hilarious, right?

Alkasyn wrote:You know that telling us that the official model from the company that wrote the rules for it"is wrong" is hilarious, right?

It's not a model. It's a marker.

It's also a limited edition (so not readily available to everyone who would need one) and not what the actual rules say to use.

Edit - Just for clarity: I don't see a problem with using the marker, for the reasons I've already stated. Just pointing out why people are taking exception here.

You know telling us that the official marker from the company that wrote the rules is "wrong" is hilarious, right?

The adjective "limited" is irrelevant in this discussion, as it has no bearing on the rules.

And if you call it a "marker" which doesn't block LOS, as insaniak suggested, then there isn't a problem. Because the WWP terrain being marked by the marker is no different whether the marker has an appreciable height.

If you want to say the marker is the WWP then there is a problem. Not much of one granted. But enough for a RAW argument against it.

Having not actually seen the Limited Edition WWP "in the flesh", I feel compelled to ask a question -

If one of the points of contention is the height of said dome, just how tall IS the limited edition marker ?

An answer would be useful in forming my own opinion here - better yet a photo with the small template for scale would be nice

DeathReaper wrote:It fits with the circumference

So, it has a similarity?

Again, without any official ruling explaining how similar the marker must be to a small blast marker, we have to make a judgement call. This means that it will be a case by case ruling according to various TOs, and I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of them will rule that the GW marker, as well as anything made to resemble the "official" marker, is legal.

Night's Blood wrote:The adjective "limited" is irrelevant in this discussion, as it has no bearing on the rules.

Pointing out that the marker was a limited release isn't intended to have nay bearing on the rules. It's simply a reason that people are questioning the idea that it's supposed to be the 'official' marker, rather than just something pretty GW released for those who want such things.

The actual rules on this are clear, and do not tell you to use the WWP marker. The one that people are claiming is official.


Again, I have no problem with you using it... but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use.

insaniak wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:The adjective "limited" is irrelevant in this discussion, as it has no bearing on the rules.

Pointing out that the marker was a limited release isn't intended to have nay bearing on the rules. It's simply a reason that people are questioning the idea that it's supposed to be the 'official' marker, rather than just something pretty GW released for those who want such things.

The actual rules on this are clear, and do not tell you to use the WWP marker. The one that people are claiming is official.


Again, I have no problem with you using it... but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use.

I feel compelled to claim that that is pure speculation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kmdl1066 wrote:And if you call it a "marker" which doesn't block LOS, as insaniak suggested, then there isn't a problem. Because the WWP terrain being marked by the marker is no different whether the marker has an appreciable height.

If you want to say the marker is the WWP then there is a problem. Not much of one granted. But enough for a RAW argument against it.

And what RAW are you drawing this assumption?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Again, this is a very trivial issue that will indeed be decided on a case by case basis, and i have no desire to turn this into a flamewar.

I believe those claiming it does not block LOS are speculating as to what Phil Kelly believed.

I, however, have the Codex ( released design is the same diameter as small blast) and the official model to aid in my opinion.

Night's Blood wrote:I feel compelled to claim that that is pure speculation.

There is no speculation here. The codex tells us to use a blast marker or similar, and does not mention the 'official' WWP marker at all.

No speculation required there.

I believe those claiming it does not block LOS are speculating as to what Phil Kelly believed.

No, those pointing out that it doesnt block LOS are doing so on the basis that markers are just markers, and have no effect on the game beyond those explicitly stated by their own rules.

As such, the WWP marker is counted as impassable terrain, but is otherwise ignored, because it is not a model, or terrain, but is in fact just a marker.

Your exact words were "but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use." That's speculation.

His rules, specifically those that outline the shape, are completely in line with the marker created by GW. Hence, the speculation.

Again, you are adding rules that do not exist. You do not ignore the WWP as it counts as impassible terrain, meaning, it has a tangible footprint in the game itself.
The rules only state the diameter of the WWP, and nothing else, and since the GW model makes it clear that the WWP should indeed have height, it proves the WWP does indeed block LOS.

Night's Blood wrote:Your exact words were "but it is quite clearly not what the writer of the codex is telling us to use." That's speculation.

Reading what is actually written in the codex is not speculation. I don't have to speculate to interpret 'use a blast marker' to mean 'use a blast marker'...

His rules, specifically those that outline the shape, are completely in line with the marker created by GW. Hence, the speculation.

Yes, of course they'e in line with a marker that was made with the same diameter as a small blast marker. However, they don't actually mention that marker.

Again, you are adding rules that do not exist. You do not ignore the WWP as it counts as impassible terrain, meaning, it has a tangible footprint in the game itself.

So you're going to also start counting smoke clouds as blocking LOS? What about if I use GW's bolter-shell water cup to denote 'stunned' status on my vehicles? Does that block LOS? After all, it's an official GW release.

The rules only state the diameter of the WWP, and nothing else, and since the GW model makes it clear that the WWP should indeed have height, it proves the WWP does indeed block LOS.

It's not a model.

Speculation is interpreting meaning that is not specifically stated. The speculation arose from claiming the author never intended the WWP to have height. It does not mention height, only diameter. The GW model has height. It is, indeed, speculation.

Again, smoke clouds and cups are not IMPASSIBLE TERRAIN. This is the key difference. I specifically mentioned this to you earlier.


<needless insult removed. Please don't insult other users like that in future please. Ta. reds8n >

Night's Blood wrote:Speculation is interpreting meaning that is not specifically stated.

Like ignoring the part where it says to use a blast marker or similar, and claiming that you're actually intended to use a 3D marker that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules and hasn't been available to buy since about a week after the codex's release, and claiming that this 3D marker should affect LOS?

Hyperbolic drivel never aids debate.

If you can't make your point in a civil fashion, I would recommend taking a step back and re-evaluating just how important it is for you to make that point in a discussion about toy soldiers.

Night's Blood wrote:His rules, specifically those that outline the shape, are completely in line with the marker created by GW. Hence, the speculation.

Again, you are adding rules that do not exist. You do not ignore the WWP as it counts as impassible terrain, meaning, it has a tangible footprint in the game itself.
The rules only state the diameter of the WWP, and nothing else, and since the GW model makes it clear that the WWP should indeed have height, it proves the WWP does indeed block LOS.

The WWP does not block LoS, its a marker to denote the spot where units can come in from reserves.

somerandomdude wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:It fits with the circumference

So, it has a similarity?

Again, without any official ruling explaining how similar the marker must be to a small blast marker, we have to make a judgement call. This means that it will be a case by case ruling according to various TOs, and I'm willing to bet that a large percentage of them will rule that the GW marker, as well as anything made to resemble the "official" marker, is legal.

A Dreadnought sized model has a similarity in that the dreadnought has a base that is about the same circumference as a small blast marker. but it is much taller, just like the WWP compared to the blast marker.

The WWP is to be represented by the small blast marker or similar.

is a building that is 20 foot square and 10 feet tall similar to a 20 foot square 225 foot tall building?

As a Marker for the WWP would you consider a dreadnought model similar?

Even if you did, that is fine because Markers do not block Line of Sight.

insaniak wrote:

Night's Blood wrote:Speculation is interpreting meaning that is not specifically stated.

Like ignoring the part where it says to use a blast marker or similar, and claiming that you're actually intended to use a 3D marker that is not mentioned anywhere in the rules and hasn't been available to buy since about a week after the codex's release, and claiming that this 3D marker should affect LOS?

Hyperbolic drivel never aids debate.

If you can't make your point in a civil fashion, I would recommend taking a step back and re-evaluating just how important it is for you to make that point in a discussion about toy soldiers.

Like ignoring the official model created by the corporation who creates the rules?

I have been making my point in a civil fashion, my point was to do let this devolve into ridiculous exaggeration, a prime example comparing impassible terrain to smoke clouds. Do you know what that is called? hyperbole.

On another note, could it not be completely possible that the codex was written before any of the models were created? The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
The WWP is to be represented by the small blast marker or similar.

is a building that is 20 foot square and 10 feet tall similar to a 20 foot square 225 foot tall building?

As a Marker for the WWP would you consider a dreadnought model similar?

Even if you did, that is fine because Markers do not block Line of Sight.

Markers are not impassible terrain. I have stated this practically a dozen times now. It is a key difference. Terrain does indeed block LOS.

My question is what if Gw just said to use a marker. Then they put out the "limited Ed. Portal". Would there be a problem from somebody making a marker that is bigger or smaller then the one they put out?

I feel that it really isn't that big of a deal to be argueing this point. Use a blast marker dont use a blast marker I don't think that would change the game either way.

If I want to take a styrofoam ball and cut it in half and make a replica of the "limited ed Marker". How would you know it wasn't the real thing? Sees to me that you can't say I can't use it as it follows the right size or similar size of what they say to use.

Night's Blood wrote:I have been making my point in a civil fashion, my point was to do let this devolve into ridiculous exaggeration, a prime example comparing impassible terrain to smoke clouds. Do you know what that is called? hyperbole.

Yeah, referring to someone's post as 'Hyperbolic drivel' is not responding in a civil fashion.

On another note, could it not be completely possible that the codex was written before any of the models were created?

Of course that's possible. Which simply adds another point in favour of the marker that is not referred to at all in the codex not being something officially intended for use with that codex, but instead being something fun added later.

The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.

It's not a model. It's a marker.

Markers are not impassible terrain.

The WWP marker appears to be.

IMHO as long as it is the same diameter as the blast marker and the height wasn't abusive anything can be used.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I wasn't referring to your entire post, only the comparison of terrain to smoke.

Stop ignoring the thrust of my posts by pointing out semantic discrepancies.

I'll post it again to get a proper response. The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.

Night's Blood wrote:Stop ignoring the thrust of my posts by pointing out semantic discrepancies.

The thing is, in this case the 'semantic discrepancy' makes all the difference.

A model blocks LOS. A marker is just a marker.

I'll post it again to get a proper response. The rule only states the diameter, but the model suggests 3d height and volume. I just think it is disingenuous to completely ignore that part of the discussion.

I'm ignoring it because it in turn is ignoring the fact that the marker is not a model. It's a marker.


In this particular instance, the marker has an additional rule that causes it to act as impassable terrain... because in the last codex it didn't (at least initially, from memory they eventually FAQd it in there) and as a result people kept claiming that they could park on it in order to prevent Dark Eldar from coming on through it.

It's not (in my opinion, obviously) intended to count as an actual terrain piece, because that would be pointless given that we're supposed to be just using a blast marker to represent it. And we know that we're supposed to be using a blast marker to represent it because that's what the codex says to do.

It's just a marker, whose edge counts as impassable terrain. It doesn't block LOS, because it isn't actually terrain... it's just a marker that you can't walk on.

That is the perfectly reasonable explanation for the other side of this issue, i was really getting confused as to what exactly you meant by a marker.

I still disagree, but the extrapolation of your case helped immensely.

By this argument, any unit from any codex that does not have a GW model would never be able to be played... as we do not have dimensions for them.

This argument smacks of TFG-syndrome.

Play with the marker as GW released it. It is a game.

The point is we don't need to know the models dimensions...we have the models. The difference is that the dimensions given in the codex are very different to those of the marker that was released.

And on the fact that markers don't block LoS and we have a curious problem. The marker is also classified as counting as impassable terrain so which is it? A marker that does not block LoS, regardless of dimensions, or a piece impassable terrain that does.

I like to see it as immovable object meets unstoppable force. Though

Well they say to use the Blast marker or similar.

lets talk similar.

The Blast Marker measures 3 inches in diameter, and about 3/32 nds high.

something that is say 10% bigger or smaller I would consider similar, seeing as a bigger my 10% marker ends up being 3.3 inches across, which adds about 5/16 ths of an inch, and 3.3/32 nds high, which adds less than 1/32 nd of an inch to its height.

anything more than 100% bigger I would not consider similar.

Seeing as the Limited edition model is more than 100% taller than the marker they tell you to use, It would not be of a similar size.

armbarred wrote:Play with the marker as GW released it.

So what is anyone just now starting Dark Eldar supposed to use?

Brother Ramses wrote:

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

It was not released as an "official" WWP marker. It was released as a "limited edition" WWP marker. If it was official then the countless number of people that did not get to buy it due to its limited release would not be able to use WWP in their games as they do not have the official marker.

- Removed by insaniak. Let's keep it civil and on topic, folks -

Ok, honestly, I dont think I would ever hide behind the WWP in the first place, as it is meant to get you into combat that much quicker, IMHO. However, just because I love to play devils advocate, and its something noone has thrown out there......

Lets take the blast marker, and not the limited edition release by GW. We have the exact specifications of its size thanks to DeathReaper, and if it counts as impassable terrain, for the sake of my example, we are going to say it blocks LOS. So where in the rules does it tell you that you have to lie it flat on the table?? Why cant you "place"(as it says in the codex IIRC) the blast template on the table with a piece of tack putty or something and make it stand upright, have you not also fulfilled the dimensions of the portal and also made it into LOS blocking terrain? As I said, I would never hide behind my portal, as I use them to get into the opponents lines as fast as possible, but it is just a query.

Reaper6 wrote: - better yet a photo with the small template for scale would be nice

I would be happy to oblige! There is a Haemonculus hiding out behind the GW model, sneaky sneaky!



And for another example, I tacked a venom as far low to the flying base as it could go.



Note that the images were taken 8 inches away from the portal at a height of 4 inches, so true LOS from different models during a game would differ greatly. But, if you're a footslogging trooper in rapid fire range, this is about what you would be looking at.

I personally don't care how tall it is, as long as the foot print is around the right size. If someone wanted to make some big looking teleport homer kinda looking thing with a big anttenna on it and callit the webway then thats fine with me. For one its a game and it really doesn't matter and two its not like he can hide a whole squad behind it anyways...

I really don't see the big deal..

This is about as damning a comparison that can be made. One of the above is supported completely by the DE codex, one is not.

Seriously there are a few of you that keep claiming that the model was released by GW, you can now make up new rules for the dimensions of the WWP. I present again that by that argument, Tyberus the Red Wake gets 4d6 AP with his special lightning claws, because despite the rules only giving you 2d6, the OFFICIAL GW model has 2 chainfists.