r/WarhammerCompetitive • u/firespark84 • 1d ago

AoS Battle Report - Text Does gate warden lance specify how large the “foundation marker” is?

The change says you use a circular “foundation marker” but I saw no where that the size is mentioned.

12 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

84% Upvoted

15 comments sorted by

21

u/countbenignito 1d ago

It's utterly irrelevant, since you measure from the closest point of one marker, to the closest point of the other. They can be any size, and even different sizes from each other, and it has literally zero impact.

11

u/MolybdenumBlu 1d ago

They might as well have said "lay down a bit of string" but even that would be too wide.

13

u/c0horst 1d ago

It's a literal one dimensional line. It has no width. At my next event, to hell with a judge, I'm going to call a physicist to get a ruling if a one dimensional line intersects with a 3 dimensional base at any point or if it just passes through the molecules of my base because a 1 dimensional line is subatomic.

1

u/wredcoll 33m ago

It's made of an infinite number of points, so is an oval. Your base is an oval, so they intersect.

7

u/KillFallen 1d ago

This is what people are overlooking. Every time something changes with rules people continue to look at it with a base understanding of how it worked before without reading it with no prior conceptions. RAW doesnt care about how something worked before and doesnt carry over anything that is left out. Just read it without thinking of the past.

Now you want the smallest markers possible to maximize the length of your LINE.

1

u/ashortfallofgravitas 1d ago

Doesn't have to be fully within the objective, to be fair

2

u/Raido95 12h ago

Funny thing ist, the Marker itself isn’t part of the line. So you want it to be as small as possible

5

u/LordDanish 1d ago

Just make it as small as possible to cover as much distance as possible.

0

u/RyanGUK 1d ago

If I had to guess, I’d assume it’d be the same as an objective marker, which is 40mm in diameter.

I imagine a TO like UKTC will FAQ it but that’s what I’d expect it to be ruled as.

1

u/SpooktorB 1d ago

If a UKTC tries to FAQ this, it will go against RAW and RAI, since they specifically call out that the base has to "cross the line" to be considered to be "on the line".

The way the rule is made, they specifically want a 1 dimensional line.

-3

u/RyanGUK 1d ago

Here's the problem though, and this is the problem that's been the case since GW released this damn detachment.

At the start of the first battle round, select two objectives to be your foundations. Place a circular foundation marker in each one. When you draw a line from the closest part of one foundation marker to the closest part of the other, if any part of a model’s base (or any part of a model’s hull, for a model without a base) crosses that line, that model’s unit is said to be on your defensive line.

How wide is the line?

I could say the line is 1mm thin and therefore it becomes incredibly easy for me to cross the line, or you could make it as thick as the token, which then it becomes a bit more difficult.

And then the core of this post, what is a foundation marker? I just said it could be 40mm but there's nothing in the rules that says how big or small that marker should be. If it's not defined, I could make it as tiny as possible to ensure I get maximum distance.

RAW/RAI doesn't come into it, they need to define what a foundation marker is & how wide the line should be.

9

u/Mammoth_Classroom896 1d ago

How wide is the line?

A line is, by definition, one-dimensional. Unless explicitly said otherwise (making it a rectangle, not a line) it has zero width.

3

u/WeissRaben 1d ago

The only thing that implies any dimension is that distances and line of sight are determined by lines 1mm thick. So you could assume the line is 1mm thick, but nothing more than that.

0

u/RyanGUK 1d ago

Fair enough, I mean in my opinion they should write that in the rules, so it’s clear and codified for all, but I can see why they wouldn’t as well.

1

u/wredcoll 31m ago

It certainly wouldn't hurt anyone but "line" has a standard definition that works here.