I didn't say that. If you're going to argue with me, at least argue against what I actually write:



Yes, I certainly see what you did. You added a few words. I fail to see how that undermines my point. If anything, it makes it stronger: clarification is necessary; as it reads now, I am right... and so are you, depending on how you look at it.

My bad. I misread that and should have looked at your reply more closely before I posted. Well, that makes one misquote from each of us, so I guess we're even.


My point was that you used the argument that it doesn't specify, "anywhere on the map." It also doesn't specify that the line of fire has to be drawn through the dynamostat. In the absence of clearer phrasing, you saying that, "If it means x it, should say it" is no more or less valid than if I say the same thing. That's what I was trying to get across there, and why I used the exact same phrasing as you, and only replaced certain words to show the opposing viewpoint.

So, you're point was to argue against someone with the stance, "I have my opinion, you have yours. Without further clarification, we are both correct"? Interesting.

Who's point are you talking about?


If you mean me, I legitmately thought my answer was correct. Harpua's (and other's) way of looking at this didn't even occur to me: the wording is that ambigious. Now that it has been pointed out to me, I can certainly see where a person could think that was the way it worked... but there is nothing that says that their way of thinking is any more correct than mine.

So in absence of further information, I stand by my answer. If this turns out to be incorrect, so be it. But it will take an official ruling/errata from GD to convince me that this is so. As is, I'm right - nyah-nyah

Thats really weird. But Dynamostat is an object not wall or blocking terrain right?

It acts like blocking terrain under certain conditions... hence the discussion

Hence the bolded subtly lol

It is indeed an object. The question is what exactly acting as blocking terrain for line of fire purposes entails. Normalview has interpreted that in a narrow sense of applying only when the line of fire would cross the dynamostat; I interpreted it more broadly, that it would apply anytime you're drawing a line of fire, including to a character in camouflage next to the dynamostat. Hence our disagreement. And it appears that neither of us is likely to change the other's view anytime soon.

What? One says "lines", plural, and the other "line", singular.


If that's all you were pointing out, I guess I don't really see what that really has to do with the current discussion... am I missing something?

I think i just confused myself lol. I was just thinking since its an object that it would not qualify but that may be a black and white interpretation. So i could see where it would be treated as blocking terrain when drawing line of fire to a LoA.

Okay, guys...

Can I or can I *not* use the Dynamostat to boost my LoA army?

Just a YES YOU CAN or NO YOU CAN'T...or TO THE DEPUTY-CAVE!!! will suffice, thanks.

Ask your judge.

What he said. Your judge is always the best person to ask about how anything will be ruled at your venue.

Just this weekend, I had a player want to to put the Dynostat next to SIF so it couldn't be destroyed. I told him it would work due to the wording of the Dynostat card. I guess I should have checked the Player's Guide just to see if it (the Dynostat card) had been worded since it has.

*I'm* the judge