Line of Sight and Bikes

[jubei124]

Now the rules for LOS seem pretty clear about the whole must see any part of the body... And I didn't see anything in the bikes section on this. So if I have a bike peeking out from behind something that blocks LOS it can't be shot at if the "body" cant be seen. Is this right? To me it seems like this is how it would work with the current rules but I'd really like to know if this is correct or if I've been reading into the rules a little too much.

[Praeger]

The "body" of a bike is not the literal body of the biker.

 

A bikes body is the section from the front wheel to the back wheel. This is the "body" of a bike.

 

Notice that the rule says body of the model - with bikes the model is a biker, with a biker riding it. Body of the bike, not body of the biker :confused:

[eyescrossed]

EDIT: Never mind, think that's a bit rude.

[Steelmage99]

If we really get into it, then the "body" of the model is defines as being head, torso, legs and arms. Since a bike has neither LOS cannot be drawn to the bike itself, only the rider.

[jubei124]

If we really get into it, then the "body" of the model is defines as being head, torso, legs and arms. Since a bike has neither LOS cannot be drawn to the bike itself, only the rider.

 

This is how I understand it. Since theres nothing in the bikes entry for unit types that would change it.

[Oldenhaller]

In the unit descriptions it states that they have a combined profile for bike and rider. To me it suggests that any LoS ought be drawn to the bike as they are all part of the same target - the bikes toughness and wounds etc are thos of the rider. To have the bike described as 'an ornament' for a bike squad might be stretching it a little under the LoS rules ;)

 

~O

[Frosty the Pyro]

If we really get into it, then the "body" of the model is defines as being head, torso, legs and arms. Since a bike has neither LOS cannot be drawn to the bike itself, only the rider.

Your right, though im with olden in that its very odd. hopefully they will errata that cus i figure having your bike shot out from under you would be a real pain.

[PirateRogue]

Bikes don't actually have vehicle specs so you shoot at them like a regular infantry rather than a vehicle (with the exception being the special bike only rules). I would say that the cover save rules apply to the entire model bike and rider.

[greatcrusade08]

The bike and biker are not two seperate models, if you can see it, you can shoot it regardless of how much of the bikers torso can be seen...otherwise im converting all my bikes into high fronted choppers, to remove the bikers bodies from LOS.....

 

A modicum of sense is required here IMO, if he were riding a horse we would say if the horses 'body' were visible you could shoot, lets just translate that into bike dynamics and say that if the main structure of the bike is visible you can shoot it etc..

 

GC08

[Steelmage99]

We can do that, as long as we realize that it is a houserule and we might run into somebody who plays it differently.

[nighthawks]

if the rule is that you can only shoot the biker's body, not the bike, than the rule is broken and stupid. bullets hurt bikes, and can take the "vehicle" and the rider out of the fight. either works for game purposes.

 

LOS is drawn to any part of the model.

[Steelmage99]

IMO it should be played so that LOS is drawn to any part of the model.

 

Fixed it for ya.

[Subutai Khan]

Clearly it's possible to interpret the poor wording in the rules so no matter how anyone tries to scream, argue or yell there will always be different opinions about it. Thanks GW.

 

Myself, I think LOS should be drawn to bike and rider as it always has been... however it's always up to the players of a friendly game to decide until there's an official FAQ for it. (or roll a dice if you can't agree)

 

As for tournament play, it's up to the tournament organizers.

[DevianID]

otherwise im converting all my bikes into high fronted choppers, to remove the bikers bodies from LOS.....

 

Remember the rule stating you cant take your cover with you, thus any bike modeling that you do is ignored for determining if the model can be seen--you could model your bike as a giant rolling spheres around the model, aka super monkey ball, and it would be ignored when determing LOS.

 

I actually like that rules catch about LOS and bikes, as this way impressive bikes, such as the master of the ravenwing's bike, are not penalized--as that bike can be seen from space!

 

Also, think about the flipside... where do you check the bikes LOS from? You still check from the biker model's eyes, not from weapon mounts on the bikes hull, right? Thus, if the model riding the bike is completely obscured but the front end containing the twin linked bolters and wheel are exposed, the biker cant shoot as his eyes are obscured (despite the bolters being unobscured) but neither can he be shot at because the bike is not a part of him.

 

The end result is that bikes behave more like infantry than vehicles. I am ok with this... and on a related note, nobody takes issue with a large jump pack/wings not counting when determining LOS on a jump infantry model, right? Same issues with a bike being shot would apply to a jump pack being shot, and same with large wings as well. But the RAW seems to tell us not to count that stuff, so we dont.

[rat of vengence]

Hold on, are people actually advocating we play that the bike can't be shot unless you can see the body of the rider?

 

Can someone PLEASE ask for a reality check on this! Seriously, I would pack up my models if my opponent tried this out. Can we PLEASE play the game of toy soldiers without looking for every exploit we can, no matter how ridiculous? It is getting pathetic...

 

/rant

 

RoV

[greatcrusade08]

Yeah im with ROV, an ork isnt gunna hold fire because a space marine cant be seen but his bike can, hes gunna shoot at the bike.....the two have the same profile, hence the higher toughness...if you shoot and kill one the other dies (or is removed)

 

GC08

[WarpSpawn]

I'm in the common sense over RAW camp on this one. I am pretty sure the rules were not written with the intention of giving mechanical mounts, such as bikes, a massive LoS advantage over organic ones such as horses (and oddball stuff like Khorne Juggers), by virtue of not having torsos, heads, legs, etc.

 

It is not hard to imagine what should be considered the "body" of the bike. Just disregard weapons, banners, antennae, etc, just as you would for infantry. Just about anything else is fair game (I'm saying include the wheels but others may disagree).

[DevianID]

Wow you guys get pretty animated over this... let me ask--how do you feel about the large wings that many flying models have?

 

Would you refuse to play someone if you could draw LOS to the oversized wings, and only the wings, and your opponent pointed out that you cant take the shot because the impressive wings dont count as part of the models body?

[WarpSpawn]

Well, as someone has already pointed out, you cannot take your cover with you. You would in effect have to ignore the wings for all purposes pertaining to line of sight. If the wings are blocking your view of the model's "body", you should behave as if the wings were not there at all and make believe you have LoS.

[DevianID]

Yeah I did mention about the wings and it was me who said that you cant take your cover with you. I didnt mean the wings block LOS to the model's own body, I mean the wings stick out like a sore thumb, as they are usually giant extended 'mid flap' poses combined sometimes with models on elevated flying bases. Consider a model with huge wings, like a daemon prince, hiding behind a land raider. Normally a stock daemon prince is completely obscured by a land raider, but with the addition of the wings, the wings now extend WELL above the land raider and can be seen by all.

 

However, despite the fact that in real life shooting the wings off a bird would be fatal, just like destroying the bike but missing the rider might be fatal, in 40k we are told not to penalize such models for their impressive nature and instead use a simplified core that can be applied to each model in the game regardless of the unit type or how the model is mounted, bike/wings/etc. Yes this is a simplification, but the mechanic is in place for a reason. Saying that the bike counts as the models core when being shot at, but not for when the owning player gets to shoot may instill a resentment towards the models for their ungainly oversized shape that degrades from their performance. It would be ill advised to make that cool conversion on your model, because for example said conversion would only hinder the unit. In fact, the rules go so far as to say if a conversion would alter the models 'core' either use an unmodified model for determining where the core is or get permission from your opponent to use the model with the modified 'core'

 

Lets face it, as a rule the models are grosely oversized/undersized and nothing is to proper 28 mm scale to begin with. The game is not meant to be accurate in that way though! Giant armored bikes (sometimes flying!), 12 inch wingspans, 8 inch tall banners, unarmored guardsmen the same model size of powerarmor clad super humans, I think is fair to say that the LOS core mechanic they developed in this rulebook is more than fair for handling the absurdely cool looking models GW produces.

[WarpSpawn]

I doubt shooting a wing would be instantly fatal to most models in Warhammer and 40K as most have reasonable ground mobility as well. Even shooting a bird's wing would likely not be instantly fatal, unless the bird is flying at the time. There is also the simple fact that the creature represented would probably not be sticking the wings up in the air whilst it is on the ground. Yes, they would no doubt be moving around much more than the model's pose demonstrates but it would not be fair to always treat them as if they are sticking out every extremity they have for anyone to shoot it off. There has to be a compromise somewhere.

 

One difference between the wings example and the bike is that you would not typically use the wings for anything at all, besides looking pretty. They would not in theory effect LoS, measurements or anything else. In the case of mounted models however, I think it is pretty clear the mount does effect the way the model plays. If mounted on a base for example, the bike significantly extends the size of the base required, compared to the same model on foot. If not on a base, the same arguments about what constitutes the "body" admittedly apply but my opinion ain't changing regardless.

 

If you wish to ignore the bike for LoS purposes, you should ignore it for everything. You should not be allowed to pick and choose what you take into consideration on the model, so as to get the biggest advantage from it. I doubt many will only measure from the "core" to contest/claim objective, however.

 

For those in favour of ignoring the bike, I would also like to hear peoples thoughts on the subject of living mounts. A horse does have legs, a head and a body, which can clearly be targeted by RAW. This results in rather alarming inconsistencies if you try and apply the principal of targeting the "core" of the model.

[rat of vengence]

Look, I don't know if this was anyones intention or not, but to say that the bike itself can't be targeted smells of Greek fetta left out in the sun in a plastic bag full of used nappies!

 

It reeks of gamesmanship and wringing the rules for every squeek of advantage, regardless of common sense or reason.

 

Yes, I feel strongly about this, but how many threads have we seen lately with people trying to wrangle an advantage from even slightly ambiguous wording? It's a game of toy soldiers fellas! There is no need for this rubbish!

 

/rant mk2

 

RoV

[Steelmage99]

What are we discussing here?

 

What the rules actually say or how we play it in a real game?

 

This is the forum for the "Official Rules" and as such the default is "what the rules actually say".

ROV, you can feel as strongly as you like, but the wording isn't ambiguous in the least. It is perfectly clear what you are allowed to target.

 

If you feel like playing it in a different way than what is presented in the rules, there is a forum for that...

 

Here

[Isiah]

OK thanks for that Steelmage99.

 

On targeting, the rules are pretty clear as to what constitutes the target when firing at a non-vehicle model (which oddly is what category a bike comes under here as it has no AV values). Thus we are stuck with the line of targtting the "head, torso, legs and arms" disregarding the weapon, antenna, banner, wings and tail and other such items if that is all that can be seen.

 

Personally I see shooting at a bike rather/as well as at than the biker as fair game but realise that this isn't the intention of the rules. If the bike itself was meant to be shot at then it'd have an AV value surely and be classed as 'open topped' maybe. That's a different debate obviously and not one for this topic.

 

Cheers

I

[Oldenhaller]

On targeting, the rules are pretty clear as to what constitutes the target when firing at a non-vehicle model (which oddly is what category a bike comes under here as it has no AV values). Thus we are stuck with the line of targtting the "head, torso, legs and arms" disregarding the weapon, antenna, banner, wings and tail and other such items if that is all that can be seen.

 

In this respect I'd not say they're clear. With what constitute 'the-things-which-mean-you-don't-get-shot-in-the-banner' they're quite specific about large things such as wings which might be shot and are ignored. One would expect that something quite so prevelent as bikes (jetbikes, deffcopetrs etc etc etc) might also be included in this caveat?

 

Personally I see shooting at a bike rather/as well as at than the biker as fair game but realise that this isn't the intention of the rules. If the bike itself was meant to be shot at then it'd have an AV value surely and be classed as 'open topped' maybe. That's a different debate obviously and not one for this topic.

 

I'd say that because that idea hasn't existd since 2nd Ed they're unlikely to go back down that route. If TLoS was intended to shoot people in the legs/feet etc which often can't be seen on a bike rider then there would be a rule specific to it. I can see where the implication of not shooting someone in the bike might come from, however as a bike has a;

 

- Head

- (Swing) Arm

- Body (Kit)

- Handlebar (Moustace)

 

etc etc etc so we could shoot at the bike (especially if we're being silly)

 

~O

 

Edited for spelling