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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
[Yes, you need to be able to draw a line, What kind of line? A Line of Sight..

A line.
This line: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Line_%28geometry%29
Or this line: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/line
Any line! Except for a sight-line, since those go through objects.

This is the context you are ignoring.

RAW doesn't give a feth about implied context.

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

Yes, a line of sight is not blocked by transparent objects.
A normal line however IS blocked by transparent objects.

And we've been going through this since the beginning of the thread.
So either quote the words that allow you to use a 'line of sight' to determine 'line of sight' or stop this.

Ignoring for a second that the BRB is actually talking about a line segment, and not a line:

1) line of sight = Sightline...

2) it is not implied context, it is actual context present in the sentences written in the BRB.

3) Well since we are talking about line of sight, and not a normal line, then it is not blocked by transparent objects.

4) Did you seriously just say "quote the words that allow you to use a 'line of sight' to determine 'line of sight' '"

Of course you have to use a line of sight to determine, wait for it, line of sight.

Any other reading is a failure to understand the English language.

This point has yet to be refuted as well: The unbroken line referenced in the rule refers to a models Line of Sight

If you think I'm trolling, then I am sorry. I am quite serious. 3rd party terrain is not 'legal' to use in 40k. When you get into the counts as line of thinking your already house ruling how something is suppoed to work unless your making it exactly the same as the piece of terrain it is emulating.

However like I also pointed out, nowhere in the rules does it determine that a line of sight passes through solid objects. Infact it indentifies line of sight as a line drawn between two models. Intervention of an object regardless of wether it is transparent or not would interfere in any such line and thus still provide a cover save as the rules explicitly say.

However, the opposite is true aswell, whereas the gunslits in an aegis defence line allow a uit to draw the line through them, these substitutes don't have any such slits and thus would by RAW most likely be providing your enemy wirth a cover save more often then the normal ADL.

Simply treating it as a normal aegis defence line is a good rule of thumb, and I would personally not mind playing these at all. But by RAW these are not ADL and not even legal fortifications so how they work by RAW is irrelevant, and you will need to work it out between yourself and your opponent if and how you play this terrain.

NickOnwezen wrote:
If you think I'm trolling, then I am sorry. I am quite serious. 3rd party terrain is not 'legal' to use in 40k. When you get into the counts as line of thinking your already house ruling how something is suppoed to work unless your making it exactly the same as the piece of terrain it is emulating.

However like I also pointed out, nowhere in the rules does it determine that a line of sight passes through solid objects. Infact it indentifies line of sight as a line drawn between two models. Intervention of an object regardless of wether it is transparent or not would interfere in any such line and thus still provide a cover save as the rules explicitly say.

However, the opposite is true aswell, whereas the gunslits in an aegis defence line allow a uit to draw the line through them, these substitutes don't have any such slits and thus would by RAW most likely be providing your enemy wirth a cover save more often then the normal ADL.

Simply treating it as a normal aegis defence line is a good rule of thumb, and I would personally not mind playing these at all. But by RAW these are not ADL and not even legal fortifications so how they work by RAW is irrelevant, and you will need to work it out between yourself and your opponent if and how you play this terrain.

I underlined your failure to understand what the BRB says.

The unbroken line references Line of Sight, meaning you have to have an unbroken line of sight to a model.

I disagree Death reaper, It tells you to trace a line from the models eyes. A line of sight is not traced. The rules refer to the physical act of traceing a line wether you do this by fingers through air, using a ruler or measuring tape from the eyes of the model or even the magic sharpy that can write on air. It tells you to preform an action to DETERMINE LINE OF SIGHT. You cannot use a line of sight to determine line of sight. That statement is flawed.

Let me get this straight.

The premise of cover in the literal sense is that objects on the battlefield can spoil or interfere with a unit's ability to hit a target with their weapons. This is abstracted by providing the unit a cover save if they're partially visible, and preventing them from being shot if they're not visible.

Since the rules do not tell us what to do in the specific case of transparent objects, we are going to assume one of the following:
a) A model behind a transparent object gains no "physical" protection from it (even if fully behind the object) because it can be seen. Ergo, all weapons can pass through any part of any object that is at least translucent.
b) A model behind a transparent object gains protection from it because models cannot see through transparent things. Ergo, nothing is transparent or translucent, even if it is.

Both of these seem utterly absurd, and neither seems like a fair solution for both players. I'd repeat my suggestion of decide with your opponent before the game begins. Or, if proxying, use the physical properties of the object being proxied.

But by all means, let's continue to go in circles talking about how lines are drawn through 3D space and whether we use photons or air molecules as our basis for abstract object permeability...

 DeathReaper wrote:
This point has yet to be refuted as well: The unbroken line referenced in the rule refers to a models Line of Sight

That's quite easy to refute: It says LINE, nothing else.

ITT: DeathReaper continually moves the goal posts.



But seriously, the line of sight argument is silly as hell.

It's a count-as ADL, use the ADL rules if the proxy matches the proportions. If it doesn't, don't use it.

 DeathReaper wrote:
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.

No, because that would be a circular definition: "you draw line of sight by drawing line of sight from the model's eyes to the target". Since the rule in question is defining what "line of sight" means in 40k the "line" must use the basic definition for the word. And that means a geometric line which is "blocked" if it intersects any object, transparent or not.

 Extreaminatus wrote:
It's a count-as ADL, use the ADL rules if the proxy matches the proportions. If it doesn't, don't use it.

Nobody is arguing that point. If it is a count-as ADL then a model that is at least 25% behind the clear part gets a cover save. The discussion is on whether or not clear plastic/glass blocks LOS.

I get that, I've read this ridiculous-ass discussion. Really, this comes down to something you should agree upon before playing your opponent. But, if there's no consensus to be reached (say Peregrine and Dark Reaper are playing against each other), then here's my $0.02:

There's a clear delineation of where those clear ADL pieces in OP stop and start, and from the picture, it doesn't look to be clear plastic as the surface is roughed up slightly (you can see it in the orange light and some of the models have a hazy outline), so you can tell where the obscuring starts and stops. It's kind of like those shower stall doors in that you can see through, but the thing behind it is obscured because it's hazy. I say allow the cover save.

If it's just a big 'ol piece of clear plastic someone put up in the middle of table, then no, it probably shouldn't block LoS because that would be dumb.

It's. About. Context.

 Xca|iber wrote:
Let me get this straight.

The premise of cover in the literal sense is that objects on the battlefield can spoil or interfere with a unit's ability to hit a target with their weapons. This is abstracted by providing the unit a cover save if they're partially visible, and preventing them from being shot if they're not visible.

Since the rules do not tell us what to do in the specific case of transparent objects, we are going to assume one of the following:
a) A model behind a transparent object gains no "physical" protection from it (even if fully behind the object) because it can be seen. Ergo, all weapons can pass through any part of any object that is at least translucent.
b) A model behind a transparent object gains protection from it because models cannot see through transparent things. Ergo, nothing is transparent or translucent, even if it is.

Both of these seem utterly absurd, and neither seems like a fair solution for both players. I'd repeat my suggestion of decide with your opponent before the game begins. Or, if proxying, use the physical properties of the object being proxied.

But by all means, let's continue to go in circles talking about how lines are drawn through 3D space and whether we use photons or air molecules as our basis for abstract object permeability...

The point is that to determine a cover save, line of sight has to be drawn to a model and it must be at least 25% obscured which is defined as at least 25% of the model is behind an object that intercedes between the firer and the target, and thus your option B is actually much more fair then option A. Because a cover save is nothing more then a CHANCE for the item thats in the way to interfere with the shooting models abillity to hit. A transparent object, in this case an energy field SHOULD provide that chance of protection despite the fact you can see through it. because its a physical object that blocks the bullet! However if a model is 100% behind the transparent energy field it SHOULD not be able to be shot at, even if you can see it through the item. Because it is fully behind a wall of energy that will protect it. Ergo it makes more sense for objects in the way of line of sight to interfere despite beeing transparent then it does NOT to. and it just so happens that the rules actually support this as written.

Also note that the rule was written for a much more black and white scenario. Is there scenery in the way, then yes you get a cover save. This is because there are to my knowledge no citadel terrain pieces in production (concurrent with 6th edition) that have transparent windows, just EMPTY window stills. So this situation was not intended to be coverd by the rules, hence why the rule book reference the line sight of method for determining a cover save. Even SO the method they describe for determining line of sight still lets transparent objects function correctly, despite death reapers vehement protests in reading something the book does not actually say.

And I'll say this to Deathreaper, because he is so fond of pointing out that we must read context. Anything you infer from context is an interpretation of how you WANT to play the rules. It is NOT the rule as it is written. Most intresting, the rules actually support the transparent ADL working mostly as intended (By providing cover) yet your arguing things that are not RAW to invalidate something that appears to be working. Do you honestly intend to play it so that these aegis defence lines do not work? Or is this you playing devils advocate, because i had the impresson you were always on the righteous side of don't let the RAW spoil how things should be played with a little common sense. So I'm a little confused at the stance you are taking here.

While I agree in principle that a "transparent energy shield" should provide a cover save in the same manner as a solid object, I am opposed to the argument that it does so because it "blocks line of sight."

Why? Because if I want to use a non-shooting ability, like a Malediction psychic power, it doesn't make sense that I should treat a clearly visible model as "out of line of sight" (if it's fully behind the transparent piece).

If I had to choose how to play it, I'd treat it as solid (i.e. cover providing) against anything with a weapon profile and transparent (i.e. not LOS-blocking) against everything else in general. Of course, as this is totally outside of either RAW interpretation, I'd have to agree with my opponent first. In this case though, I'm skeptical that any consensus on RAW can be reached, due to the level of abstraction involved in the mechanics.

EDIT: If they were using it as an ADL, I would treat it as an ADL in all respects (as I said before).

Kangodo wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
This point has yet to be refuted as well: The unbroken line referenced in the rule refers to a models Line of Sight

That's quite easy to refute: It says LINE, nothing else.

And what kind of line is it referring to? Looking at the context, it is a line of sight you are tracing... (Note the underlined from the quote below).
(Peregrine is ignoring this as well and has for the entirety of the thread).

"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)

Proof that models must be able to see their foes through the battlefield terrain, which of course includes windows...

your infering that its a line of sight because they tell you what a line of sight is. However they are telling you two seperate things.

1) how to determine line of sight. (by drawing an unbroken line) to abstractly represent a models line of sight.

2) And thus your point, what the line of sight you just determined is abstracted to represent.

At no point does the abillity to trace line of sight through terrain (think of a forest with gaps between trees, buildings with holes or open window stills, collapsed walls in ruins etcetera) actually directly supersede the fact that your NOT allowed to trace your line if it is broken by terrain. Which if your able to trace it through holes in the terrain, it is not.

What line? A normal line.
Do you still not understand that?

It CANNOT be a line of sight because:
a) It does not say 'line of sight' < strongest argument so far, yet you seem to ignore what the BRB actually says.
b) It says straight and unblocked; People don't say "straight and unblocked" line of sight, because a line of sight is per definition straight and unblocked.

And that quote means what exactly?
The quote says that models must 'see' their foes.
The straight, unblocked line is there to determine what they would see, because plastic models don't have real eyes.
And straight lines get blocked by transparent objects.

Have I been playing terrain incorrectly? I shoot at a model that's standing in a ruin or forest. I can see the entire model. They would then get no cover, even though they're standing in terrain that grants them cover?

 DeathReaper wrote:
And what kind of line is it referring to? Looking at the context, it is a line of sight you are tracing...

And the context you're ignoring is that the next sentence after the one you quoted tells us how we define "line of sight" in 40k: by tracing a straight unbroken line between the model's eyes and the target. The word "line" in that sentence can NOT be replaced by "line of sight" because that would be a circular definition. You can't define "A" as "that thing that is an A". Therefore the words in that sentence follow their standard meanings, in which a line that intersects a piece of plastic is not unbroken.

If what you were saying was correct then the sentence would say something like "a model has line of sight if, when looking from its eyes, you can see the target". However, it does not say that.

Proof that models must be able to see their foes through the battlefield terrain, which of course includes windows...

And the next sentence tells us how models see their foes in 40k: by drawing a straight unbroken line to them. A line that intersects a piece of plastic, whatever color it happens to be, is not unbroken and therefore a model can not see through it according to how "seeing" is defined in 40k. The fact that "seeing" in other contexts works differently does not change how the rule works in 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

thedunator wrote:
Have I been playing terrain incorrectly? I shoot at a model that's standing in a ruin or forest. I can see the entire model. They would then get no cover, even though they're standing in terrain that grants them cover?

No, because area terrain has different rules and grants a cover save if a model is within the terrain regardless of LOS.

A line of sight is a line, but not all lines are lines of sight.

 grendel083 wrote:

It's a shame you lost sight of that.

I see what you did there ..

oh ho ho

So questions:

*If I was playing an eldar with these lines and my grots got super close to this... Would the eldar person be able to target the grots? Grots are normally too short to be seen or see over the stock ADL and can be physically obstructed by these easily. Can you shoot them with 25% cover because they canbe seen or are they unseeable?

*What if someone modeled terrain (like a factory) which had windows. What if the windows had clear plastic to represent glass? Can you see me through those windows and shoot me? Can I see out those windows and shoot you? What if I had a broken civilian truck and I was standing behind the cab, you can see my model through the windows... can you shoot me?

The question is: Can shots fired in a game of 40k pass through any physical mass on the table ever? Or are all physical models (terrain and so on) considered to block shots even if you can see through them?

As for the ADL... I would request we play it as the stock model for all purposes which solves this particular discussion.

"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)

and the very next sentence:

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." (8)

If you are just drawing a line and not a line of sight, how would you know if only a models weapon was visible...

 DeathReaper wrote:
"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)

and the very next sentence:

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." (8)

If you are just drawing a line and not a line of sight, how would you know if only a models weapon was visible...

As you so often say: *context*.
The rules are talking about visible in the context of how they define LOS.

Right, because the rule on how you determine if a model is visible is ABSTRACTED. How can something you SEE be NOT VISIBLE if you are required to actually use WHAT YOU CAN SEE to determine line of sight. It can't, hence why you use the abstraction that you trace a line between the shooting models eyes and the minature to determine if the miniature is visible. when your abstracting the process of determining visibility it becomes possible to denote certain things as not visible, which if your using purely your eyes, is patently not possible.

 DeathReaper wrote:
If you are just drawing a line and not a line of sight, how would you know if only a models weapon was visible...

Because those lines determine the 'line of sight'.
Models cannot see, so they don't have line of sight.
To circumvent this you draw a line and everything in that line is within line of sight.
If it was "line of sight is determined by line of sight" (as you claim it is) than they wouldn't need an entire page to explain it.

The downside is that you cannot "see" things behind windows.
But it also makes sure that you cannot fire at things who are hiding behind "invisible force fields".

Kangodo wrote:
The downside is that you cannot "see" things behind windows.

If you take it out of context, sure.

Adding the context in and you can trace a line of sight through anything that is transparent.

I am still waiting to a quote that literally says that you use a line of sight to determine line of sight. Because that context you keep mentioning, I dojn't see it. Thats an implication that is not in the Rule as it is written.

Line of Sight thru the "transparent" Force feild terrain that counts as ADL ..is Not an issue ..yes they have LOS to it ..
Ergo .you can shoot at it ..Line of Sight Does NOT MEAN Clear shot the bullet can still bounce off the forcefeild..thus representing the cover save As per the ADL

In any event Arguments like this get people tossed out of my events with their models and told never come back ..


.

text removed.

reds8n

NickOnwezen wrote:
I am still waiting to a quote that literally says that you use a line of sight to determine line of sight. Because that context you keep mentioning, I dojn't see it. Thats an implication that is not in the Rule as it is written.

Here is your context, in quotes. The following quotes are all from P.8 of the BRB:

The heading on the section is titled: "Line of Sight"

"line of sight determines what a model can 'see'."

"Naturally, you can't ask your models what they can see...- therefore, you'll have to work it out on their behalf."

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible."

"In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other"

"on those other occasions, where it's not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model's head for a'model's eye view'."

"This means getting down to the level of your warriors and taking in the battlefield from their perspective to 'see what they can see'."

"You will find that you can spot lurking enemies through the windows of ruined buildings, catch a glimpse of a model's legs under tree branches and see that high vantage points become very useful for the increased line of sight that they offer."

And of course the one that clinches it: "line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy"

What does Line of sight Literally represent? (Answered in the previous quote).

And the rest of that sentence "- they must be able to see their foes through, under or over the battlefield terrain and other models (whether friendly or enemy)."

(All emphasis mine).

Take special notice of the underlined portions.

Transparent objects do not block a line that is used to determine "what a model can 'see'." They have Line of Sight through a transparent objects as "line of sight literally represents your warriors' view of the enemy" and a transparent window does not hide a unit from view.