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.

 Peregrine wrote:
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.

This is a rules debate in a rules forum.
No one suggested actually playing it that way.
It's a shame you lost sight of that.

I know i'm chiming in here late but here is my 2 cents. I have taken my custom Aegis Defence Line (which is a plexiglass one way force field) for Eldar to 5 Tournments and not a single player has even suggested that it acted different that a normal Aegis. Every Judge has made postive comments on how they look and has allowed them to be playede as is

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:
I know i'm chiming in here late but here is my 2 cents. I have taken my custom Aegis Defence Line (which is a plexiglass one way force field) for Eldar to 5 Tournments and not a single player has even suggested that it acted different that a normal Aegis. Every Judge has made postive comments on how they look and has allowed them to be playede as is

Which is fine, and I'm sure every person here would play it that way.

But this is a rules forum, not a "how I would play it" forum. And going by the strict word of the rules, they are not obscured as you can see right through it, therefore cannot grant a cover save.

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.

Which is entirely debunked by the fact that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window".
So as you can see, there are different ways of hiding.
That's why dictionary definitions aren't allowed by the YMDC-tenets, since the rules from the BRB overrule the definition.

In the real world 'Line of Sight' is when you can see something.
In WH40k 'Line of Sight' is when you can draw an unblocked and straight line.

The result is that in WH40k you have line of sight even when the room is too dark to actually see the object!
It also results into transparent objects blocking line of sight.
From a Real-World-POV that's not right, but that's why this is not the real world.

 grendel083 wrote:
This is a rules debate in a rules forum.
No one suggested actually playing it that way.
It's a shame you lost sight of that.

Yes, and even in a rules forum you don't waste time on obviously absurd interpretations of those rules. The purpose of a rules forum is to help people understand the rules so they can play the game, not to win rule debates. If someone asks a question about LOS it's a pointless waste of time to tell them about how their question is irrelevant because their space marine (wearing a helmet) doesn't have eyes to draw LOS from. That argument is so obviously stupid and irrelevant that discussing it has no purpose besides "winning" a forum argument, and people legitimately participating in the thread would be entirely justified in telling whoever mentioned it to STFU and go away.

This is the same. Even if you believe (and I don't) that the rules say the clear plastic ADL doesn't grant a cover save nobody is ever going to play it that way, and even in a rules debate in a rules forum claiming that interpretation is not a constructive argument. This entire thing is based on a nitpicking the exact wording of a dictionary definition (and not even a complete one) that will not be relevant to anyone actually playing the game.

 Peregrine wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
This is a rules debate in a rules forum.
No one suggested actually playing it that way.
It's a shame you lost sight of that.

Yes, and even in a rules forum you don't waste time on obviously absurd interpretations of those rules. If someone asks a question about LOS it's a pointless waste of time to tell them about how their question is irrelevant because their space marine (wearing a helmet) doesn't have eyes to draw LOS from. That argument is so obviously stupid and irrelevant that discussing it has no purpose besides "winning" a forum argument, and people legitimately participating in the thread would be entirely justified in telling whoever mentioned it to STFU and go away.

This is the same. Even if you believe (and I don't) that the rules say the clear plastic ADL doesn't grant a cover save nobody is ever going to play it that way, and even in a rules debate in a rules forum claiming that interpretation is not a constructive argument. This entire thing is based on a nitpicking the exact wording of a dictionary definition (and not even a complete one) that will not be relevant to anyone actually playing the game.

That is an extreamly hostile attitude to bring to a debate.
I'm sorry not everyone agrees with you, but labling people and their arguments as "absurd" and "obviously stupid" simply because they wish to discuss the actual rules (and not just how they would play it) is not acceptable behaviour.
No one here is trying to "win a forum arguement" but instead present the correct rules as they are written.
If you don't like debates on rules, and consider them "irrelevent" then simply don't participate. State your case as HIWPI and move on.

 grendel083 wrote:
I'm sorry not everyone agrees with you, but labling people and their arguments as "absurd" and "obviously stupid" simply because they wish to discuss the actual rules (and not just how they would play it) is not acceptable behaviour.

Good thing I didn't say that. I said that the "helmet = no LOS = can't shoot" argument is obviously stupid, because it is. Fortunately nobody here is making it.

If you don't like debates on rules, and consider them "irrelevent" then simply don't participate. State your case as HIWPI and move on.

I love rules and consider them entirely relevant. The problem here is that sometimes discussion of the "rules" goes beyond asking what the rules are trying to say and into nitpicking the exact dictionary definitions of words to support an argument that is so far outside of what anyone would ever play by that there's no point to it. Like with the helmet argument, regardless of what the words on the page are it's absolutely clear that a space marine wearing a helmet draws LOS from the eye lenses on the helmet. The word "eye" must clearly be defined more broadly than a literal dictionary definition in this context, and arguing otherwise is not helping anyone.

That's the case here. If you have an "ambiguous" statement in the rulebook with two possible options, one which produces a straightforward result that matches up with how virtually everyone will play it, and one which depends on picking a specific dictionary definition to produce a result that nobody will ever accept in a real game, it ceases to be HIWPI vs. RAW and becomes RAW vs. dictionary. The entire argument comes down to "the dictionary I found doesn't explicitly state that 'obscured' can cover less than 100% concealment even though people commonly use the word that way" instead of using the more appropriate definition for 'obscured': "something is in the way".

And yes, it's just a dictionary argument. If you use the definition of 'obscured' that I'm saying you should then RAW the transparent ADL works exactly the way everyone wants it to.

Jesus Christ...

 aliusexalio wrote:
Jesus Christ...

I couldn't find that term defined anywhere in the BRB.

(sorry, couldn't resist)

Kangodo wrote:

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.

Which is entirely debunked by the fact that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window".
So as you can see, there are different ways of hiding.
That's why dictionary definitions aren't allowed by the YMDC-tenets, since the rules from the BRB overrule the definition.

Cite the BRB definition that supports your statement. There isn't one - you've invented it. Nothing has been "debunked" except for you saying its true.

In the real world 'Line of Sight' is when you can see something.
In WH40k 'Line of Sight' is when you can draw an unblocked and straight line.

And how do you block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

The result is that in WH40k you have line of sight even when the room is too dark to actually see the object!
It also results into transparent objects blocking line of sight.
From a Real-World-POV that's not right, but that's why this is not the real world.

The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?
You have zero rules support for your stance that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window". Correct?

Could I throw something into the debate for my own amusement?

One of the meanings of 'obscure' in the English language is 'reduce the perception of detail'. You can obscure something by flat out hiding it, but you can also obscure something in a different medium, like fog or mist. Therefore any aegis substitute that is using translucent plastic that is not 100% transparent can be said to be obscuring the model behind it.

A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

Only if I can see 100% of the model's detail. If I can't see detail then no, incorrect. Some of the detail has been obscured. Both the first and third examples in the OP obscure the models behind them. The second example is hard to tell from a photo.

Dream and Death wrote:
Could I throw something into the debate for my own amusement?

One of the meanings of 'obscure' in the English language is 'reduce the perception of detail'. You can obscure something by flat out hiding it, but you can also obscure something in a different medium, like fog or mist. Therefore any aegis substitute that is using translucent plastic that is not 100% transparent can be said to be obscuring the model behind it.

You are refering to Opacity.
That's a tough one to calculate.
If 25% of a model is obscured by glass that is 50% Opaque, then is the model only 12.5% Obscured?
Or would you consider 50% Opaque to count as being able to fully obscure a model?

Even a completely transparent piece of plexiglass has a refractive index that would somehow distort the apparent position to a viewer on the other side from nearly any angle. If it was constructed out of quartz or sillimanite or lead crystal you would definitely be able to see the distortion. So if you want a physically applicable reason why a transparent custom ADL line would provide cover, that would be it.

If you want another reason, I'm pretty sure there's also a rule written in the BRB about opponents agreeing on what provides what cover before the game. That rule is as important as all the definition of obscurement, etc. being discussed in this thread.

i'd have an issue with the clear one simply because i didnt even SEE it at first lol. I looked at it and went "Thats his wall? Dude, theyre tiny! ...o wait theres a plastic shield there"

The LOS difference between the wavy ADL and the forcefield thing is so minor i sincerely doubt anyone would care. Long as they werent like 2" tall or something unusual like that lol

Dream and Death wrote:
Could I throw something into the debate for my own amusement?

One of the meanings of 'obscure' in the English language is 'reduce the perception of detail'. You can obscure something by flat out hiding it, but you can also obscure something in a different medium, like fog or mist. Therefore any aegis substitute that is using translucent plastic that is not 100% transparent can be said to be obscuring the model behind it.

A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

Only if I can see 100% of the model's detail. If I can't see detail then no, incorrect. Some of the detail has been obscured. Both the first and third examples in the OP obscure the models behind them. The second example is hard to tell from a photo.

It has to be obscure more than 25% of the model. The detail of the model is not 25% of the model.

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the BRB definition that supports your statement. There isn't one - you've invented it. Nothing has been "debunked" except for you saying its true.

So you want me to "CITE THE BRB" for a discussion about the real world definition of 'hiding'?
You might have been overusing your catch-phrase.

And how do you block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

The BRB doesn't care about blocking line of sight.
The BRB cares about blocking the line that goes from eyes to model.

The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

In real life: Yes.
In Warhammer: No, since there is no rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects.

You have zero rules support for your stance that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window". Correct?

That was about the definition of the word 'hiding'.
Getting a little slow, aren't we?

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

In real life: Yes.
In Warhammer: No, since there is no rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects.

Your warhammer answer is incorrect.

It should be:

In Warhammer: Yes, since there is rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects found here:

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)

Q: Unblocked line of what?
A: Unblocked line of sight from its eyes to the target...

Unblocked line, in the context of the sentence, means unblocked line of sight.

Transparent windows, by definition, do not in any way block someones line of sight to an object.

Except for the part where it doesn't say "line of sight", it only says line.
"Hey, my view of this ruling is correct when we insert these words in the rule!"
Yeaah, it doesn't work like that. Do I really need to respond to that?

Talking about rules..

Transparent windows, by definition, do not in any way block someones line of sight to an object.

You can't use definitions nor real life examples in YMDC.

Unblocked line, in the context of the sentence, means unblocked line of sight.

Aah, in the context?
So you are using RAI instead of RAW?

Kangodo wrote:
Except for the part where it doesn't say "line of sight", it only says line.
"Hey, my view of this ruling is correct when we insert these words in the rule!"
Yeaah, it doesn't work like that. Do I really need to respond to that?

So you are ignoring the context of the sentence? That is why you are not understanding the rule.

It says unblocked line, but what do they mean by that, unblocked line of what? String?, Washing powder?, titanium?, Dice?, models? Clearly there must be some context we can garner some understanding from...

Talking about rules..

deathreaper wrote:Transparent windows, by definition, do not in any way block someones line of sight to an object.

You can't use definitions nor real life examples in YMDC.

Umm... If you do not understand what is wrong with your sentence, than No one here is going to be able to help you understand, like at all, ever.

We need to use the standard British English definitions of words that are not defined in the BRB to even be able to understand the rules at all. Unless you can find a definition of Through,, ended, or completing in the BRB.

Plus you can use dictionary definitions in YMDC, under certain circumstances. You are correct about the " real life examples" though, so you got at least one point for that.

deathreaper wrote: Unblocked line, in the context of the sentence, means unblocked line of sight.

Aah, in the context?
So you are using RAI instead of RAW?

No, I am using RAW. Context is important to RAW, and sentences in general. Taking rules out of context is a bad thing.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Cite the BRB definition that supports your statement. There isn't one - you've invented it. Nothing has been "debunked" except for you saying its true.

So you want me to "CITE THE BRB" for a discussion about the real world definition of 'hiding'?
You might have been overusing your catch-phrase.

You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And how do you block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.

The BRB doesn't care about blocking line of sight.
The BRB cares about blocking the line that goes from eyes to model.

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

The BRB requires a target to be obscured to gain a cover save. Correct?
A model you can see 100% of is not obscured. Correct?

In real life: Yes.
In Warhammer: No, since there is no rule-support that allows the line to go through transparent objects.

You should re-read the cover rules - hint, your Warhammer answer is incorrect.

You have zero rules support for your stance that you can "hide behind a bulletproof window". Correct?

That was about the definition of the word 'hiding'.
Getting a little slow, aren't we?

Thanks for the insult, but no - you initially offered up that definition of hiding as support for your (incorrect) interpretation of the rules. Want me to quote the conversation from the beginning?

You're using a counts as model to stand in for an ADL. It's treated the same as any other counts as model in that it should be treated as having all properties of the model it is replacing.
LOS is determined based on the actual ADL fortification the counts as piece is replacing. The opaqueness of the stand in piece should be irrelevant.
Think drop pods with doors glued shut. Do they block line of sight?

 grotblaster wrote:
Think drop pods with doors glued shut. Do they block line of sight?

Yes they do. And if i was a TO that is how I would rule it. In a Tournament it is the TO's call, and from what i hear they generally rule that the Pod is treated as if the doors are open. In a friendly game I would play they do not block LOS, unless my opponent wanted to play that way.

 grotblaster wrote:
Think drop pods with doors glued shut. Do they block line of sight?

As HJ said, Yes, drop pods with doors glued shut block line of sight.

If something actually blocks line of sight, then it blocks line of sight.

If something does not block line of sight, then it does not block line of sight as per the Line of sight rules.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It says unblocked line, but what do they mean by that, unblocked line of what? String?, Washing powder?, titanium?, Dice?, models? Clearly there must be some context we can garner some understanding from...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line
Pick one! It's a line, you draw a line. How hard can that be?
You don't need a line of "something", you can just draw a line.

No, I am using RAW. Context is important to RAW, and sentences in general. Taking rules out of context is a bad thing.

And adding words to a written rule so it fits your interpretation is not "taking it out of context"?

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And why exactly do I need to post rulings on the fact that "hiding behind bulletproof glass" is a correct sentence? Since when does the BRB address the English language?

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

No, just a line.
I don't mean this in any way offensive, but I take care of mentally challenged children for a living and they know what a 'line' is.
If your only counter-argument consists of "A line of what?" than it might be better to just ignore you.

I refuse to acknowledge your reality and substitute my own...

....come on guys. This is easily the silliest thread I've seen among people I normally defer to on YMDC. Even if its completely clear, its a counts as ADL... so it counts (follow me here) as a (coming) ADL.

If its a piece of terrain, it follows the rules in the book (the one where before placing terrain you and your opponent decided what type of cover and terrain each piece is). If you are so desperate to argue and waste time over what is "sight" and "obscure", let me send you some of my unpainted marines.

This actually trumps the "are wounds in challenges able to bleed into the surrounding models" debate (which I thought would never happen).

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And why exactly do I need to post rulings on the fact that "hiding behind bulletproof glass" is a correct sentence? Since when does the BRB address the English language?

Because you first tried to use the "hiding" argument here:

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?

Since you've attempted to use it to counter an actual rules based argument you have to offer actual rules support. You've refused to do so and are now pretending that *I'm* the one doing something wrong here.
You began this farce - please finish it.

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

No, just a line.
I don't mean this in any way offensive, but I take care of mentally challenged children for a living and they know what a 'line' is.
If your only counter-argument consists of "A line of what?" than it might be better to just ignore you.

You may not mean for it to be offensive, but it is.
And ignore away - your argument has been proven incorrect using actual rules, and the only thing you come back with is insults and non-rules based arguments.

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, I am using RAW. Context is important to RAW, and sentences in general. Taking rules out of context is a bad thing.

And adding words to a written rule so it fits your interpretation is not "taking it out of context"?

I am not adding anything, I am looking at the context of the rule and applying the context.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)

Note the underlined parts they are directly related.

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You keep using "hiding behind bullet proof glass" as defense that hiding != getting out of sight.
You've proffered absolutely no rules support for that statement, and have asserted that it "debunks" your opponent's statements.

And why exactly do I need to post rulings on the fact that "hiding behind bulletproof glass" is a correct sentence? Since when does the BRB address the English language?

It has to involve the English Language, otherwise we would have no way to interpret the BRB since they do not define every word in the BRB...

Kangodo wrote:

What kind of line? Oh, a line of sight. Right.

No, just a line.
I don't mean this in any way offensive, but I take care of mentally challenged children for a living and they know what a 'line' is.
If your only counter-argument consists of "A line of what?" than it might be better to just ignore you.

Ignore me, and the rules, seems like a fair way to debate.

A line, right, the Line of sight needs to be unblocked.

The rules show us how to find out if your model has line of sight to another model agreed?

With windows the Line is not blocked, as you can see through them. agreed?

Therefore the unblocked line is referencing the line of sight one model has to another model.

Here is the sentence explaining what Line of sight is:
"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)

and the very next sentence tells us how to find out if our models can see the enemy:
"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs)." (8)

 DeathReaper wrote:
A line, right, the Line of sight needs to be unblocked.

Can you quote the part where it says that the "line of sight" needs to be blocked?
Wait, no, I'll tell you: You can't quote that part.
Because the BRB says that it needs to be a line.
By explaining how Line of Sight works in the rulebook, it means that it does not work like in the real world.

The ruling can be interpreted like this: "Line of sight works differently from the real world. In a game of WH40k you draw a straight, unblocked line from the eye to any part on the model. If you can do that you have line of sight."
Nowhere does it say that this "line" is a "line of sight" itself.

The rules show us how to find out if your model has line of sight to another model agreed?

Yes, by drawing a line.
You call it a 'line of sight' that you draw to determine whether you have line of sight. I think that's ridiculous.
That'd be like "For one model to shoot at another, you must be able to shoot at it."

With windows the Line is not blocked, as you can see through them. agreed?

Agreed, seeing as windows in WH40k-models don't have glass in them or anything else that blocks a straight line.
If the windows do have glass, than they block the line and therefore line of sight.
Sure, I will agree that it makes no sense. But they probably never thought about that since the official models don't have glass in the window-frame.

"For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes." (8)
Note the underlined parts they are directly related.

They can be related, but they can also not be related. This rule can be interpreted in two ways.
Therefore we have to use the "roll a D6"-rule and nobody wants to roll a D6 for this.

Kangodo wrote:
The ruling can be interpreted like this: "Line of sight works differently from the real world. In a game of WH40k you draw a straight, unblocked line from the eye to any part on the model. If you can do that you have line of sight."
Nowhere does it say that this "line" is a "line of sight" itself.

You do realize they encourage using a laser pointer for LoS checking, right?
And the key word they use is "visible" in all the rules. Is the unit behind the glass visible?

Is the unit behind the barrier? If yes, then the unit has cover from the barrier. What percentage of the model is behind the barrier? Depends on the point of view of the firing model. Does the material the barrier is made of matter? No, just the shape.

Saying a model behind a transparent wall receives no cover save because it can be seen is like saying models under a clear blast marker or template weren't hit because the marker or template were see-thru and therefore not valid.

You'd have a stronger argument against the clear walls if you said, "those aren't a GW product, so can't be used in a GW game."