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 have an Energy Field (Aegis Line) that I'm currently working on. My initial steps were to measure the height and length of the actual ADL pieces... And none of my Tau Force Field parts exceed those of the ADL.
Haven't had anyone have an issue with it yet because all the dimensions are the same.

I can imagine though, that there's someone out there who would have problems with home made or alternates models.

 Akula wrote:
I can imagine though, that there's someone out there who would have problems with home made or alternates models.

There's always one
By strict RAW they shouldn't give a cover save, but there's no way I'd enforce that in an actual game.

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

This is true, until you paint the energy fields so they are no longer transparent. But of course you knew that.

The rules seem silly at times, but they are an abstraction, and need to be so, to make the game playable.

Peregrine, I take it you have conceded the point?

 DeathReaper wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

This is true, until you paint the energy fields so they are no longer transparent. But of course you knew that.

Since I used the word "transparent" yes, I do know that.
And translucent is debateable - since only details are obscured but I can still see the entirety of the model, is it really obscured?

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

Obscured can also mean 'hidden'.
To obscure means 'to hide', it also means 'to cover something'.

Aren't they hiding being the 'invisible' wall?
Aren't they taking cover behind the energy field?

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And in the BRB you only get a cover save if your model is obscured by 25% or more. Since the transparent walls do not obscure at all, you do not meet that criteria.

Obscured can also mean 'hidden'.
To obscure means 'to hide', it also means 'to cover something'.

Aren't they hiding being the 'invisible' wall?
Aren't they taking cover behind the energy field?

To hide is to keep out of sight; conceal. Nope, doesn't work with a transparent wall.
"take cover" has a much more ambiguous definition... and since cover is defined in the BRB as +25% obscurement...

Interesting discussion, to clarify, I am not promoting the idea of disallowing cover. I was actually interested in building some energy fields of my own and wanted to know other players' thoughts on the matter.

If anyone recalls the Ork player who wanted to build steps behind his Ork defense lines so that his Grots would be able to shoot over it, most of us said it was modelling for advantage. Surprisingly, if he decided to build a Big Mek Force Field defense line instead, it seems like that becomes acceptable?

Hiding doesn't have to be out of sight.
But now we are starting about logic and dictionary-definitions, they don't like it when we do that.

Anyway: LoS rules say that you must trace an unblocked line from the eyes to a part of the model.
There is a wall in its way, so it's not unblocked.


PS. Would you argue that the following models don't block LoS?
http://www.roughneckjoe.com/mini/tau/stealth/DSC08085.jpg

Kangodo wrote:

PS. Would you argue that the following models don't block LoS?
http://www.roughneckjoe.com/mini/tau/stealth/DSC08085.jpg

Haha, good point. I would probably not be able to see anything behind these models, regardless of how transparent they are, especially the one on the left. Now, a true Stealth Suit (a round base with nothing on it) wouldn't block line of sight!

Kangodo wrote:Hiding doesn't have to be out of sight.

It pretty much does - by definition.

Anyway: LoS rules say that you must trace an unblocked line from the eyes to a part of the model.
There is a wall in its way, so it's not unblocked.

So you can't shoot through windows then either?

PS. Would you argue that the following models don't block LoS?
http://www.roughneckjoe.com/mini/tau/stealth/DSC08085.jpg

No - models always block LoS. Since that's what the rules say anyway.

Oaka wrote:Interesting discussion, to clarify, I am not promoting the idea of disallowing cover. I was actually interested in building some energy fields of my own and wanted to know other players' thoughts on the matter.

If anyone recalls the Ork player who wanted to build steps behind his Ork defense lines so that his Grots would be able to shoot over it, most of us said it was modelling for advantage. Surprisingly, if he decided to build a Big Mek Force Field defense line instead, it seems like that becomes acceptable?

As long as he doesn't try and shoot through the defence line, sure. If you don't see the difference there you're fooling yourself.

rigeld2 wrote:
It pretty much does - by definition.

So you cannot hide behind bulletproof glass?
If some maniak starts unloading his AK47, I will hide behind bulletproof glass. No matter what your definition of hiding is.

So you can't shoot through windows then either?

http://search.games-workshop.com/search?locale=nl&keywords=
Can you find the window that has glass in it?
And even if you make your own building, you either have to houserule it or act like it's bulletproof glass.

But good attempt at derailing the thread and ignoring the statement (Y)
So again: You need an unblocked line, a wall (transparent or not) blocks that line.

rigeld2 wrote:

As long as he doesn't try and shoot through the defence line, sure. If you don't see the difference there you're fooling yourself.

But that's the whole point of these energy field defense lines. They're currently being used as terrain that doesn't block LOS but grants cover.

Kangodo wrote:
So you cannot hide behind bulletproof glass?
If some maniak starts unloading his AK47, I will hide behind bulletproof glass. No matter what your definition of hiding is.

Real life does not = the rules of the game...

Last I checked there were no rules for bulletproof glass in the BRB.

Kangodo wrote:
You need an unblocked line, a wall (transparent or not) blocks that line.

You didn't read the whole thread did you?

This was debunked...

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
When I look out my nice clean completely transparent front window, do I have LOS to the street; or is my vision somehow blocked by the clear glass?

Unblocked does not mean that there is nothing between the the firing model and the target model; it means that the view itself is unblocked(meaning there is nothing preventing you from seeing the target)

And the not clearly seen argument really does not mean anything as DR was countering your assertion that a transparent piece of terrain blocks LOS(which is 100% not the case).

As Kel said "it means that the view itself is unblocked" The line of sight needs to be unblocked. Transparent windows do not block anyones line of sight.

 Oaka wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

As long as he doesn't try and shoot through the defence line, sure. If you don't see the difference there you're fooling yourself.

But that's the whole point of these energy field defense lines. They're currently being used as terrain that doesn't block LOS but grants cover.

Which is a house rule, because the rules tell us that those models in the second pic are not 25% or more obscured...

Uh, yeah they are. 25% of a humanoid model is, like, its knees down. If you wanted to argue "total mass", then it'd be the waist down.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Real life does not = the rules of the game...

Just like dictionary definition does not equal the rules of the game.

You didn't read the whole thread did you?
This was debunked...

"You are wrong!" is not how we debunk things in YMDC.
You quoted a small description of what Line Of Sight is.
Now the actual rule: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."

Do you have an unblocked line?
Guess not, so it's not in full Line Of Sight.

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Real life does not = the rules of the game...

Just like dictionary definition does not equal the rules of the game.

You didn't read the whole thread did you?
This was debunked...

"You are wrong!" is not how we debunk things in YMDC.
You quoted a small description of what Line Of Sight is.
Now the actual rule: "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."

Do you have an unblocked line?
Guess not, so it's not in full Line Of Sight.

Yes you do have an unblocked line of sight. Transparent windows do not block a line of sight because you can see through them...

"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)

The underlined is the important bit you missed.

In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"

Debunked quite nicely.

 Psienesis wrote:
Uh, yeah they are. 25% of a humanoid model is, like, its knees down. If you wanted to argue "total mass", then it'd be the waist down.

25% of the eldar models in the second pic are not obscured.

I can see the whole model for every model behind that clear plastic. (Provided they are all one unit).

For what a model being 25% obscured looks like, check out the pics and explanation on page 75

Unless you're looking at a different picture than I am, those Eldar are covered anywhere from shoulders down to waist down.

Obscured? No, the energy field is transparent.

Covered? Yes, the energy field counts as an ADL.

If it's just being used as some form of terrain... I'd discuss it with your opponent and come to some agreement about how to treat it. Lots of the posters here have good ideas about different ways you can deal with transparent/translucent terrain.

However, if it's being used as an ADL or as a proxy for some fortification, object, or unit that has a defined profile and specific rules, then I would treat it as having the exact proportions and qualities of the standard GW model or the closest representation thereof. This is the proper procedure for "proxy" models (of anything) and I see no reason other than petty pedantry why it shouldn't be applied here, same as always (excepting case 1 above).

 Psienesis wrote:
Obscured? No, the energy field is transparent.

Covered? Yes, the energy field counts as an ADL.

According to Page 18 "Determining Cover Saves"
Which one of the above is required to get a cover save?
Obscured or Covered?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Oh wait, you can, as you mentioned. Why can a model see through a window and not that piece of terrain that is essentially a giant window made to function as an ADL?

Because most windows in ruins are empty air, not clear plastic.

So you are arguing intent, not RAW, got it...

No, I'm arguing RAW which is backed up by the statements of intent. You're the one making stuff up about being able to draw LOS through partially-transparent plastic because you can kind of see the models on the other side of it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Peregrine, I take it you have conceded the point?

No, I just haven't been here to answer it. But thanks for trying to take the easy way out and "win".

And no, I don't concede anything. Your entire "argument" is based entirely on an incorrect dictionary definition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"

Debunked quite nicely.

No, because you're ignoring the example where "through" means "through small gaps in what initially appeared to be a solid forest", not "I can kind of see that model through the sheet of partially-transparent plastic in front of it".

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
It pretty much does - by definition.

So you cannot hide behind bulletproof glass?
If some maniak starts unloading his AK47, I will hide behind bulletproof glass. No matter what your definition of hiding is.

Sure, if you make up your own definitions of words, that works fine. Using the actual definitions, it doesn't.
Playing hide and go seek, it makes sense to hide in a glass box?

So you can't shoot through windows then either?

http://search.games-workshop.com/search?locale=nl&keywords=
Can you find the window that has glass in it?
And even if you make your own building, you either have to houserule it or act like it's bulletproof glass.

First, we aren't addressing GW models at all.., that's kind of the point of the thread (maybe you should re-read it?)
Second - correct, it'd have to be house ruled to apply a cover save.

But good attempt at derailing the thread and ignoring the statement (Y)
So again: You need an unblocked line, a wall (transparent or not) blocks that line.

No, to be blocked its have to be stopped. A transparent object does not stop line of sight.
If I can get down behind my model (as I'm directed) and see 25% or more of your model (hint: behind a transparent wall I can) you're not obscured. You could be 100% covered, but since that's not what the actual rules care about, it's an irrelevant thing to bring up.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes you do have an unblocked line of sight. Transparent windows do not block a line of sight because you can see through them...
"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)
The underlined is the important bit you missed.
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"
Debunked quite nicely.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
How many times do I have to repeat it before you stop ignoring it?
Do you have an unblocked line? No, you don't have an unblocked line; So it blocks line of sight.

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure, if you make up your own definitions of words, that works fine. Using the actual definitions, it doesn't.
Playing hide and go seek, it makes sense to hide in a glass box?

And how exactly does that counter the argument that you can hide behind bulletproof glass

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Yes you do have an unblocked line of sight. Transparent windows do not block a line of sight because you can see through them...
"line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy - they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)." (8)
The underlined is the important bit you missed.
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"
Debunked quite nicely.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes.."
How many times do I have to repeat it before you stop ignoring it?
Do you have an unblocked line? No, you don't have an unblocked line; So it blocks line of sight.

Stop ignoring the context of that quote.

You do have an unblocked line (Of sight) from its eyes...

Clearly the section is talking about line of sight being unblocked... Ohh wait you even quoted the Context (Emphasis mine)

Claiming that you have a blocked line of sight to the models in the second pic is just, well, a complete and utter misunderstanding of what line of sight means.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
In this case the model firing, assuming they are at the camera's position,r are able to "see their foes through...the battlefield terrain"

Debunked quite nicely.

No, because you're ignoring the example where "through" means "through small gaps in what initially appeared to be a solid forest", not "I can kind of see that model through the sheet of partially-transparent plastic in front of it".

The example is just that, a single non-exhaustive instance, in the overall rules. the single situation does not encompass all situations.

There are other examples, like being able to see through a window, they they did not mention, but are all still 100% within the rules.

Why is this line even in the BRB then: "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," (8)

However for a model to be granted a cover save that model needs to be 25% or more obscured from at least one firing model. Those Eldar are most definitely not obscured as you can see 100% of them...

Your argument falls short and has been debunked. Thanks for the debate.

 Oaka wrote:
Interesting discussion, to clarify, I am not promoting the idea of disallowing cover. I was actually interested in building some energy fields of my own and wanted to know other players' thoughts on the matter.

If anyone recalls the Ork player who wanted to build steps behind his Ork defense lines so that his Grots would be able to shoot over it, most of us said it was modelling for advantage. Surprisingly, if he decided to build a Big Mek Force Field defense line instead, it seems like that becomes acceptable?

That was me. I never built the line, but the players and TOs I spoke to in my area unanimously agreed it was *not* MFA should I decide to do so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why is this line even in the BRB then: "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," (8)

Because most windows in ruins do not have glass in them. Look at the standard GW ruin. See those holes in it? That's a window. You can see a model through it.

However for a model to be granted a cover save that model needs to be 25% or more obscured from at least one firing model. Those Eldar are most definitely not obscured as you can see 100% of them...

Only because you make a ridiculous (and incorrect) dictionary argument that "obscured" means "100% invisible". If, like everyone else, you use the standard definition of "obscured" you're allowed to count things as obscured if something is in the way even if you can kind of see through that something. Which, coincidentally, lines up very well with GW's definition of LOS which requires an unblocked line.

Your argument falls short and has been debunked. Thanks for the debate.

Your argument isn't based on the same language that everyone else uses and has been debunked. Thanks for the "debate".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Why is this line even in the BRB then: "You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings," (8)

Because most windows in ruins do not have glass in them. Look at the standard GW ruin. See those holes in it? That's a window. You can see a model through it.

Which of course does not matter as you can see through a window with glass just the same...

 Peregrine wrote:

However for a model to be granted a cover save that model needs to be 25% or more obscured from at least one firing model. Those Eldar are most definitely not obscured as you can see 100% of them...

Only because you make a ridiculous (and incorrect) dictionary argument that "obscured" means "100% invisible". If, like everyone else, you use the standard definition of "obscured" you're allowed to count things as obscured if something is in the way even if you can kind of see through that something. Which, coincidentally, lines up very well with GW's definition of LOS which requires an unblocked line.

The oxford british dictionary defines it as hidden, so if a model is 25% or more hidden then it can claim a cover save. those models in pic 2 are not at all hidden, as we can see all of the model, and those models are not behind something that is "kind of see through"... Understand the difference.

 Peregrine wrote:
Your argument isn't based on the same language that everyone else uses

That is because I am using the common british english definition (You know the same that the rules were written in) therefore that definition has to be correct.

and that says obscured = keep from being seen, a transparent piece of terrain does not keep a model from being seen...

 Peregrine wrote:
and has been debunked. Thanks for the "debate".

You are not using the correct british english definition, therefore your argument has no merit.

and you still have no actual rules basis for the following at all.

 Peregrine wrote:
A piece of clear terrain blocks LOS exactly like a piece of opaque terrain.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Sure, if you make up your own definitions of words, that works fine. Using the actual definitions, it doesn't.
Playing hide and go seek, it makes sense to hide in a glass box?

And how exactly does that counter the argument that you can hide behind bulletproof glass

If you're hiding in a glass box, you'll be found easily since you're not actually hiding by any definition of the word.
Hiding means conceal from view; put out of sight. A clear piece of material does neither of these things.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you're hiding in a glass box, you'll be found easily since you're not actually hiding by any definition of the word.
Hiding means conceal from view; put out of sight. A clear piece of material does neither of these things.

What does hiding have to deal with it? We're talking about cover, not concealment. A clear piece of material potentially blocks a shot just like an opaque one, which is why the rules specify that LOS is an unblocked line, not "can you see it".

Perhaps read what I'm responding to instead of taking it out of context? That's the polite thing to do.

And no, we're not talking about cover. We're talking about cover saves which in 40k is granted based on obscurement. So actually it's 100% based on "can you see it". Perhaps you should read the actual rules?

 DeathReaper wrote:
Which of course does not matter as you can see through a window with glass just the same...

The point is you're assuming that "see through a window" means "see through clear glass in a window" rather than "see through the hole in the ruin representing what used to be a window". Since most ruins terrain, including all ruins produced by GW, have holes for windows and no "glass" in them there is no reason to assume that it's giving you an extra level of shooting permission beyond "you can shoot through the hole".

That is because I am using the common british english definition (You know the same that the rules were written in) therefore that definition has to be correct.

And you're ignoring the fact that "obscured" is often used to describe situations where something is visible, but not perfectly clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You know what, I'm done with this. The rules for this situation are obvious, and I'm tired of going in circles over a ridiculous dictionary nitpick. This is on the same level as the "your model is wearing a helmet so you can't draw LOS from its eyes and can't shoot". Even if you can somehow interpret the rules to work that way the appropriate response to someone saying you can't get a cover save because your ADL model uses clear plastic is still going to be to pack up your models and never play against such an unreasonable person.