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:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Look at the rules, they say to get a models eye view, and see what the model could see.

And the rules specify that "seeing" in 40k consists of drawing a straight unbroken line to the target. You are breaking the rules of YMDC and bringing in a real-world argument by assuming that "seeing" means "look with your eyes" instead of "draw a straight unbroken line".

Either you've failed to read his posts or the rules - one of the two, because I refuse to believe you'd lie like that.
I recommend doing both.

Pretty sure I can trace a straight, unbroken line to the models in pic. 2 using a laser pointer. The material is transparent, which by definition means that anything behind it can be seen.

I could also argue that I can draw line of sight to a head or arm outside of them being behind the material, making the LoS argument irrelevant anyway. Once I have that, we then determine if the model taking a wound is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least 1 firer, in which case (by definition of obscured) they are not.

Either way, I wouldn't deny a cover save, but RAW I think Rigeld and DR are correct in that they wouldn't receive a cover because (at least in the second pic) the models aren't obscured from the point of view of the firer.

 NickTheButcher wrote:
Pretty sure I can trace a straight, unbroken line to the models in pic. 2 using a laser pointer.

So what? You don't use a laser pointer to determine LOS, you use a straight unbroken line. A line that intersects a piece of plastic is not "unbroken" by any reasonable definition of the word, the fact that a beam of light (which is NOT a line) can pass through it is irrelevant.

Once I have that, we then determine if the model taking a wound is at least 25% obscured from the point of view of at least 1 firer, in which case (by definition of obscured) they are not.

Except they are because in 40k "seeing" is defined by drawing an unbroken line, and the firing model can not draw an unbroken line to 75% or more of the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DeathReaper wrote:
I am not bringing in a real world argument, I have cited the rules that back my claim...

Yes you are. You are making a real-world argument that "seeing" in 40k consists of "can the model's eyes see anything along this line" instead of "can I draw an unbroken line". The rules clearly define LOS in 40k as an unbroken line, not "can my eyes see this". The only way to argue that the line through the clear plastic is not "unbroken" is to bring in a real-world argument that we're talking about seeing a target instead of reading only the rules.

You must have missed my post full of quotes that backs my claim.

I saw it. None of them have anything to do with the issue here, that LOS is defined as an unbroken line.

If you do not ignore the context you can draw a straight unbroken line of sight through that ADL model.

"Context" does not magically change what "unbroken" means. Nor does it allow you to make a circular definition like "you check LOS by drawing a LOS to the target".

 Peregrine wrote:
Except they are because in 40k "seeing" is defined by drawing an unbroken line, and the firing model can not draw an unbroken line to 75% or more of the model.

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

Reading the rules is important. Ignoring that it's been pointed out is rude.

edit: Having line of sight != drawing a line of sight.

Just like "point" changes based on how you use the word, line of sight does as well.

rigeld2 wrote:
Reading the rules is important. Ignoring that it's been pointed out is rude.

I did read the rules. This statement is not relevant because it is not the one that tells you how models "see" in 40k. It only tells you that you sometimes need to check LOS by changing your viewing angle to accurately see the line that you are tracing instead of just standing above the table and approximating it, just like you wouldn't try to make a precise measurement by putting the ruler next to the object and reading it from across the room. The sentence that tells you HOW to check LOS once you have positioned yourself to do it accurately is the one in bold at the top of the page.

And it tells us, if you take the context into account, that transparent objects do not break the line, as the line is imaginary because it is a line of sight.

Covered extensively here:

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/120/548687.page#6014084

(Most notably this quote: "Naturally, you can't ask your models what they can see...- therefore, you'll have to work it out on their behalf." (8)). This is what you are doing when tracing a straight unbroken line of sight to an enemy model. If the model can see the target he has line of sight to the target.

people seem to miss the point of this article.
If your substituting these shields for aegis lines that's fine, providing that they follow the same criteria. Rules, Size both in length and height etc.
The murder slits on an aegis barrier can be considered a slight disadvantage when compared to these energy fields, but I would cry about someone using them.
There is several units that can benefit/take advantage of the aegis pieces of cover anyway, eg ork big guns, so lets face it, lets not get too overly critical.
I have a set of ork barricades that i have built from scraps that are similar size and length to aegis lines, I would be disappointed with my opponent if they refused to let me use them because of a stupid technicality!
..... As always on dakka, its the usual debates on bending the rules or adhering to them so stringently it's just sad!
I play for fun, not to win by stupid, petty, cheeky, tactics.... or to lose to them either!

Stringent rules arguments are not made in YMDC for the purpose of nitpicking or using such stringent interpretations in actual play. They are made to define what the rules ACTUALLY say so that when the rules wording interferes with your abillity to enjoy a game you can tell your opponent how the book says it should be played and how you would rather play it. considering the people in this thread probably aren't playing against you right now, how you want to play something or how you interpret the rules is less important because you cannot agree to an amicable solution with your opponent if your not playing.

In my opinion. If you agreed on a piece of terrain, its legal. Which it even states in the rulebook. There's no argument. If what you say is true, the ruling would be "you can only use GW terrain and no other" but that's not the case. Though, I'm suprised that GW doesn't have a rule like that, snce they're money raking fiends, lol

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Actually the Line of Sight and cover rules allow this.

(The cover rules also allow this as models behind clear terrain are not obscured. Obscured, according to Oxfords means to keep from being seen, Windows do not accomplish this).

Also, let's look at all of the definitions: c : not clearly seen or easily distinguished : faint <obscure markings>. A model behind a partially-transparent piece of plastic (for example, the first picture) is not clearly seen so RAW it gets a cover save.

That is great, but does not apply as the models are not drawings on a cave wall. Context is important.

obscure

verb
[with object]
keep from being seen; conceal
http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/obscure?q=obscure

Specific citation please. The LOS rules require a "straight unblocked line", and a line through a piece of partially-transparent plastic is not unblocked.

Here you go

"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) (Emphasis mine)

The part that says "they must be able to see their foes through...the battlefield terrain" tells us that they can indeed see through the terrain if they can actually see through the terrain such as windows, clear pieces of aluminium that hold whales in their tanks etc...

Indisputable proof of my earlier statement.

If your points sheet says you have an ADL, the visual fits your army, and you are not trying to model for advantage, then it's an ADL. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and lays eggs like a duck, then it's a duck. Unless its a platypus.

Please read the thread. We've agreed that counts-as ADL is fine. In one of the first couple of pages. Since then it's been a discussion about other terrain being clear (and trolls coming in and not reading the thread and just want to abuse people discussing rules).

Just taken a look at those awesome Energy Shields terrain pieces. I'd say cover saves only IMHO. Reason being energy shields while being cool and all aren't 100% reliable so the odd projectile could conceivably get through. If you wanted, you could give them AV (10/11) and HP (Upto 2-3 maybe depending on the race to give the impression of being cool shiny shields). The game is as fun as you want to make it. Just don't be a douche.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
If I were using such a model, I would say that the "energy field" part cannot be seen through, just like a normal ADL. This would affect both my and the enemy's models. If it CAN be seen through, then it does not grant cover to either side.

Exactly... a non-issue!

This thread is a great advertisement for a) allowing only GW brand terrain and b) avoiding the game entirely. When an arguments drifts into semantics, everyone involved has already lost.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You seem to not understand how the English Language works. Context is important, it helps us derive meaning. Seeing as you are in a country where English is not the first language this is understandable.

Nice condescension, friend.

@Thread:

Kindly tune down the intensity folks. It might be good to read through the thread before participating -- but even if you don't, please remember that Dakka Rule Number One is Be Polite. Thanks!

 Agamemnon2 wrote:
This thread is a great advertisement for a) allowing only GW brand terrain and b) avoiding the game entirely. When an arguments drifts into semantics, everyone involved has already lost.

 DeathReaper wrote:
You seem to not understand how the English Language works. Context is important, it helps us derive meaning. Seeing as you are in a country where English is not the first language this is understandable.

Nice condescension, friend.

I was not being condescending. I was simply addressing how he is in a country that does not have English as a first language.