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.

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

Can't believe I am actually responding..
Where does the rule mention a laser pointer?
And is that our new standard for LoS: "If the laser pointer works, you have LoS on the model."?

"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)
Could you also highlight the word 'visible' in that rule?

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
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.

Citation please. Or is this more stuff youve invented to appear correct instead of using actual rules?

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.

Perhaps you should re-read the blast rules. What you said has literally zero bearing on how they work.

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."

Considering you haven't come up with an actual rule to prove me wrong, instead inventing silly scenarios, using incorrect definitions of words (and then trying to make it look like it was me doing that), and creating comparisons to rules that don't work the way you think they do...

No, I think my argument is pretty solid right now thanks. Edit: I just realized it wasn't Kangodo responding to me. Ill leave it up because the points still stand, but the wording should be different. I apologize for the mixup.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
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?

Can't believe I am actually responding..
Where does the rule mention a laser pointer?
And is that our new standard for LoS: "If the laser pointer works, you have LoS on the model."?

That specific rule doesn't. They do encourage it in general, however. I didn't say there was rules support for it.

"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)
Could you also highlight the word 'visible' in that rule?

I apologize for a slight misstatement - it's not used in all the rules.
It's used extensively in the next paragraph however. You are required to "see what they[your models] can see". Can they see a model through a transparent barrier? Well, can you?

rigeld2 wrote:
That specific rule doesn't. They do encourage it in general, however. I didn't say there was rules support for it.

Than why bring it up?

It's used extensively in the next paragraph however. You are required to "see what they[your models] can see". Can they see a model through a transparent barrier? Well, can you?

Yes, it's a nice little story.
However: There is only one line that says "Line of Sight = ... " and that talks about a straight, unblocked line. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even mention "line of sight".

In almost every situation I would play it as "line of sight is what they 'can see' on the field".
But if someone tries to claim that "transparent ADL's aren't cover" then I will use the RAW that needs an unblocked line (no matter how different that is from RL-line of sight).

Kangodo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
That specific rule doesn't. They do encourage it in general, however. I didn't say there was rules support for it.

Than why bring it up?

To show that GW obviously disagrees with you. It would be more of an argument of Intent and I should have phrased it so, sorry.

It's used extensively in the next paragraph however. You are required to "see what they[your models] can see". Can they see a model through a transparent barrier? Well, can you?

Yes, it's a nice little story.
However: There is only one line that says "Line of Sight = ... " and that talks about a straight, unblocked line. The rest of the paragraph doesn't even mention "line of sight".

In almost every situation I would play it as "line of sight is what they 'can see' on the field".
But if someone tries to claim that "transparent ADL's aren't cover" then I will use the RAW that needs an unblocked line (no matter how different that is from RL-line of sight).

I wouldn't claim that during a game - that's silly. If it's supposed to be an ADL then it's supposed to be an ADL - as long as it looks cool and isn't some blue-tac/plexiglass pile of fail it's fine.
But you're incorrect based on context as to what the rule says. Since the rules are written in English we have to accept context as rules where required.

 jeffersonian000 wrote:
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.

That would work wonders if the rules were actually written that way, but alas they are not.

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.

Not at all the same situation, you must realize that right?

@Kangodo Please do not ignore the context in which the rule was written.

I will quote again in the hopes that you can better understand the rule.

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

The rules show us how to find out if your model has line of sight to another model, this you have agreed on, making progress.

The sentence about drawing an unblocked line is in the context of how a model goes about figuring out its line of sight agreed?

Clear glass (Or plastic) does not block a line of sight.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules. If you can not debate rules without ignoring the context then there is nothing more we can help you with. the rules in context say one thing and you are ignoring the context to fit your argument, therefore your argument is false.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Clear glass (Or plastic) does not block a line of sight.

Yes it does. Unlike "obscured", LOS is a game-specific term that GW provides an explicit definition for. LOS in 40k is defined by drawing an unblocked line from the eyes (or equivalent vision device, unless you're being stupid for the sake of annoying everyone) of the model to the thing you're checking LOS to. It does NOT say "if the model's eyes can see the thing it has LOS". And, like it or not, a piece of clear plastic blocks a line drawn between those two points.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Clear glass (Or plastic) does not block a line of sight.

Yes it does.

If you can not see the error you just made, then no one here can help you understand.

Also please stop ignoring the context of the rules

In all honestly I can see both sides point.

But what does "unblocked" mean?
Does a distorted image of the model counts as blocked or not? If it does then a cover save otherwise nothing.

This thread just been given all my wuts....

I've got visions of riot shield police and protestors yelling, "those don't protect you from my rocks cause I can see you!!", from reading this thread.

It's an absurdly stupid argument.

And comparing real world situations to actual rules is absolutely stupid.
It's almost like its against the tenets of the forum or something.

No one asked you to post.

Funny how these debates prove who the real trolls are.

Is an ADL a model: yes clear or not.
Do model provide cover to those behind them: yup
Are "counts as" models supposed to be treated the same as the model they "count as": yup

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Funny how these debates prove who the real trolls are.

Is an ADL a model: yes clear or not.
Do model provide cover to those behind them: yup
Are "counts as" models supposed to be treated the same as the model they "count as": yup

1) please try to adhere to the tenets of the forum (#1 be polite)

2) the counts as ADL was figured out a long time ago. Someone made a false claim that

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

Which of course is not at all true according to the rules of 40K.

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
I've got visions of riot shield police and protestors yelling, "those don't protect you from my rocks cause I can see you!!", from reading this thread.

It's an absurdly stupid argument.

Your argument/trying to compare it to real life? Yes, because Tenets of You Make Da Call (YMDC) says:


3. Never, ever bring real-world examples into a rules argument.
- The rules, while creating a very rough approximation of the real world, are an abstraction of a fantasy universe. Real world examples have no bearing on how the rules work. So quit it.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

Quick! Someone buy up a bunch of those reflective sunglasses cops wear and make your ADL from the glass. Your troops see through, theirs see a mirror! MFA at its finest!

 Steel-W0LF wrote:
Is an ADL a model: yes clear or not.

No an ADL is not a model. It has neither a staline nor a unit type.

Do model provide cover to those behind them: yup

Generally. However, most of the time the model needs to be 25% obscured.

Are "counts as" models supposed to be treated the same as the model they "count as": yup

Yes, and people have already said if they are being used as an ADL they will treat it as an ADL and "pretend" the lower half of the model is not visible.


Treating a clear ADL as a standard ADL is fine. Saying that clear plastic/glass blocks LOS is not. Unless you have rules support.

Which they have, as proven in the last four pages.

rigeld2 wrote:
And comparing real world situations to actual rules is absolutely stupid.
It's almost like its against the tenets of the forum or something.

No one asked you to post.

As stupid as using real world line of sight as an argument to WH-'line of sight'?

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes it does.

I'm afraid I have to agree with DeathReaper.
Transparent objects do not block line of sight.
They do, however, block "line of sight as explained in the rulebook of WH40k".

But until those people understand that LoS and WH-LoS are two different things, this discussion will be a waste of time.

If the clear plastic wall was set up in such a way that the lights of the room were glaring off of it with respect to a firer, then the firer could not see the models behind it, like looking into a window on a sunny day, it doesn't work.

Kangodo wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Yes it does.

I'm afraid I have to agree with DeathReaper.
Transparent objects do not block line of sight.
They do, however, block "line of sight as explained in the rulebook of WH40k".

But until those people understand that LoS and WH-LoS are two different things, this discussion will be a waste of time.

The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Only if you assume that a line is not "blocked" when it intersects a solid object.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

Please stop acting like "context" means "I look up random dictionary definitions and declare victory".

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Only if you assume that a line is not "blocked" when it intersects a solid object.

It is not when the context of the rule is talking about a line of sight and being able to see a model behind a transparent piece of terrain...

 Peregrine wrote:

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

Please stop acting like "context" means "I look up random dictionary definitions and declare victory".

1) I never said that

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

3) your argument is incorrect, and had been proven so.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not when the context of the rule is talking about a line of sight and being able to see a model behind a transparent piece of terrain...

The context of the rule, the statement in the main rulebook, says nothing about transparent terrain. You're just assuming that "blocked" means what you want it to mean with no actual evidence to support that assumption.

1) I never said that

No, but that's what you've done. You just say "context" like it's a magic word that makes you win the argument.

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

I am taking the context into account, which is why I don't agree with your dictionary definition for "obscured".

3) your argument is incorrect, and had been proven so.

Only if by "proven" you mean "I quoted a dictionary definition that has no support in the rules, but it totally proves you wrong".

I don't understand the point in this topic fact's are very clear. RAW my opponent could claim they have perfect LOS i would then tell them science disproves this as no glass or plastic is perfectly see through therefore you have a distorted LOS on at least 25%of the model so whatever i'm taking my save. I would then proceed to slap them around the face. This very topic shows that there are a lot of things wrong with this forum.

Distorted does not always = Obscured.

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
It is not when the context of the rule is talking about a line of sight and being able to see a model behind a transparent piece of terrain...

The context of the rule, the statement in the main rulebook, says nothing about transparent terrain. You're just assuming that "blocked" means what you want it to mean with no actual evidence to support that assumption.

Not at all, the normal English definition of obscured means hidden and since the game is written in English (And translated to other languages) and does not define every word we need to actually understand English to play the game...

 Peregrine wrote:

1) I never said that

No, but that's what you've done. You just say "context" like it's a magic word that makes you win the argument.

No magic word, just the parts of a discourse that surround the passage that can throw light on its meaning, this is what you are missing.

 Peregrine wrote:

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

I am taking the context into account, which is why I don't agree with your dictionary definition for "obscured".

Then you are not understanding the English language, maybe try taking an English class?

 Peregrine wrote:

3) your argument is incorrect, and had been proven so.

Only if by "proven" you mean "I quoted a dictionary definition that has no support in the rules, but it totally proves you wrong".

By proven I mean the normal English definition must be used as they do not define obscured in the BRB...

 DeathReaper wrote:
Not at all, the normal English definition of obscured means hidden and since the game is written in English (And translated to other languages) and does not define every word we need to actually understand English to play the game...

Except, again:

1) The normal definition for "obscured" includes situations where the thing you are looking at is visible, but not 100% clearly. For example, a person standing in fog is obscured. By that standard a model standing behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic is obscured.

2) 40k's LOS rules (how we "see" in this context) explicitly require an unbroken line, which does not include having a piece of plastic in the way. So a model behind even perfectly clear glass would be hidden in this context because it can not be "seen".

No magic word, just the parts of a discourse that surround the passage that can throw light on its meaning, this is what you are missing.

Fine, let's look at the context:

If we use your definition we are forced to come to the ridiculous conclusion that a transparent ADL does not provide cover, which is an utterly stupid conclusion that nobody will ever play by.

If we use my definition then RAW the ADL functions just like everyone expects it to.

Conclusion: my definition is the appropriate one in the context of 40k.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Distorted doe not always = Obscured.

The fact you chose to nit pick the word distorted pretty much concedes your argument.


tr.v. ob·scured, ob·scur·ing, ob·scures
1. To make dim or indistinct:

To remove light is to dim therefore is to obscure. Feel free to argue against science.


*Edit* This did not quite come out as intended i understand your point as RAW i'm just offering a defense to anyone who happens to come across some one so foolish as to try and take away the cover that their Aegis should provide. I'm a big fan of people's custom work and very against people being punished for being intuitive.

Stratos wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Distorted doe not always = Obscured.

The fact you chose to nit pick the word distorted pretty much concedes your argument.


tr.v. ob·scured, ob·scur·ing, ob·scures
1. To make dim or indistinct:

To remove light is to dim therefore is to obscure. Feel free to argue against science.


*Edit* This did not quite come out as intended i understand your point as RAW i'm just offering a defense to anyone who happens to come across some one so foolish as to try and take away the cover that their Aegis should provide. I'm a big fan of people's custom work and very against people being punished for being intuitive.

You've just given me a great idea

Obscured = 'To make dim or indistinct' - In my opponants phase, I'm going to turn the lights off. Is the model 25% obscured? why yes

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Not really.
In the real world you just look and if you see it you have line of sight.
In WH40k the rules say that you need to be able to draw a line.

Please stop ignoring the context of the rules

I'll do that the moment you stop adding additional words to the rules.

2) if you do not take context into account you will not accurately be able to address rules questions.

This rule works without adding words to it, so we don't need that context.
And if we don't need context, we need to look at the exact RAW.

Question: What does the rulebook say?
A) "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes."
B) "For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line of sight from its eyes."
Which one is it?

PredaKhaine wrote:
You've just given me a great idea
Obscured = 'To make dim or indistinct' - In my opponants phase, I'm going to turn the lights off. Is the model 25% obscured? why yes

According to DeathReaper that would work

Page 104 - If a model is in cover behind a barricade or wall, it has a4+ cover save.

Page 104 - Defence lines follow all the same rules for barricades and walls except that a unit that decides to Go to Ground behind a defence line gains +2 to its cover save rather than +l

Page 18 - If, when you come to allocate a Wound, the target model's body (as defined on page 8) is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least one firer, Wounds allocated to that model
recelve a cover save.

Page 8 - 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).

Regardless of wether you can see through this defence line, were you to take a magic sharpy and actually draw the line in mid air, you will find that you cannot continue the line all the way to the model you are targeting, making whatever procentage of the model is behind the clear plastic obscured from your line of sight.

However!

Page XI - The Warhammer 40,000 hobby encompasses collecting, painting and gaming with Citadel Miniatures.

These 3rd party defence lines are already not tabletop legal to begin with and thus any part of using them nesseciates the use of house rules as you are not expressly given permission to use your model to begin with. Making the entire rules interpretation of how to treat them moot as you need to house rule their workings to begin with.

What is it about a pure RAW discussion that brings the trolls out of the woodwork?

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
The way Line of Sight is explained in the 40K rulesbook, taken in context, corresponds to real world line of sight, even if people refuse to see that.

Not really.
In the real world you just look and if you see it you have line of sight.
In WH40k the rules say that you need to be able to draw a line.

Yes, you need to be able to draw a line, What kind of line? A Line of Sight... This is the context you are ignoring.

How does something block line of sight? By stopping it. A transparent object does not stop it.