Line of Sight and Bikes

[WarpSpawn]

Isiah,

 

You are on very dodgy ground arguing anything of the sort in terms of intent. To flog the horse example a bit more (it's not dead yet, honest), you could then say if the horse was a valid target, it should have it's own profile.

 

Although 2nd edition did have armour values for bikes, multi part, models, especially those mixing model types, are essentially a thing of the past (not sure if there are any exceptions). It is seriously flawed to suggest a more complex model, such as a bike, should revive this anachronism, if they intended for you to shoot the bike.

 

Yes RAW is a bit iffy here but I think intent is almost definitely the opposite to what you say.

[Isiah]

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?

 

 

Maybe, but I don't write the rules – only try and make sense of them :P. Besides rule 'expectations' are hard to second guess.

 

Just as an aside, bikers have two toughness characteristics, which is explained on p53 under "Additional Protection" which reflects the bike's natural or added shielding's capability to deflect/absorb shots aimed at the rider. This suggests to me that the rider is the target, the bike of secondary importance.

 

However it's hardly conclusive.

[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.

 

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?

 

GW took the obvious way, as they do with all their rules, and told us what we are allowed to do (ei. target head, torso, legs and arms).

 

It would be insane to expect them to list all the things you can't target (like banner, weapons, wings, whips, barrels, rocks, bikes, wings on boots and so on).

 

The list of things excluded by the targeting rules are just examples to help people understand the rule. A wasted effort in some cases, it seems.

[elijahdprophet]

If the front and rear of the bike are not targetable, does that mean the rider himself needs to be under a blast template for the hit to count? Do you measure from rider to rider for coherency?

[WarpSpawn]

Just as an aside, bikers have two toughness characteristics, which is explained on p53 under "Additional Protection" which reflects the bike's natural or added shielding's capability to deflect/absorb shots aimed at the rider. This suggests to me that the rider is the target, the bike of secondary importance.

 

To be honest, I would say the increased toughness indicates absolutely nothing about LoS and simply demonstrates that either the bike is tougher to damage than the rider, or that it is harder to get ahit that wounds the rider when the bike is hit instead.

[dragonlady]

If the front and rear of the bike are not targetable, does that mean the rider himself needs to be under a blast template for the hit to count? Do you measure from rider to rider for coherency?

 

Nope, AOE hits as long as it touches the base of the model (for based models), and coherency is measured from base to base (just as infantry).

 

Now that Bikes are based (unlike the old days), rules have been simplified immensely.

 

For the old guard folks that have yet to base their bikes, you would measure from the hull of the bike for AOE and coherency, which only really screws themselves in most instances.

 

Bike, just as infantry models measure from the base to determine distances from and to them for weapon ranges.

 

Rather simple really. Remember that in most rules, Bike units are infantry for most rules, NOT Vehicles.

[DevianID]

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.

 

As mentioned, a model can not take cover with them. Thus, their own bike, and of course all the other biker models in their own unit, is/are ignored when drawing LOS to a biker model/unit.

[rat of vengence]

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

Actually, you need to consider how it plays in the game. That is what the rules are for isn't it? ;)

 

I was merely trying to make the point that pulling this one in a tournament would get you laughed out of the place, and rightly so. A friendly would quickly become less so.

 

The RULES on p16 say that things such as wings, tail, banner etc are classed as ornament. How is the bike a bliddy ornament? :)

These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, magestic wings etc.

We don't have to guess intent of this rule, it is clearly stated there for us on p16. As for saying the rules 'intend' the bike to not be a target, where is that in the rulebook?

 

And you think this gives you a loophole to exploit? :)

 

Oh, you and Isiah say you can only target the head, torso, arms legs of a target. Damn! How am I going to blow up that Landraider now? RAW say I can only shoot at body parts!

 

So, to sum up, the rules you quote

 

1) are to make sure impressive modelling doesn't penalise your maodel

2) obviously don't limit all shooting to body parts.

 

 

RoV

[DevianID]

Oh, you and Isiah say you can only target the head, torso, arms legs of a target. Damn! How am I going to blow up that Landraider now? RAW say I can only shoot at body parts!

 

As has been mentioned already in this topic, shooting at vehicles (models with an armor value) use different rules then shooting at non vehicles. Thus this example is invalid, which makes

2) obviously don't limit all shooting to body parts.

invaild as well.

 

As for saying the rules 'intend' the bike to not be a target, where is that in the rulebook?

 

The parts of the model you draw LOS to are explicitly defined as arms, torso, legs, and head. 'Bike' does not make that list, nor does the absence of the ability to draw LOS to the bike in any way make the biker unit unplayable. This was also already mentioned in this topic.

[rat of vengence]

Oh, you and Isiah say you can only target the head, torso, arms legs of a target. Damn! How am I going to blow up that Landraider now? RAW say I can only shoot at body parts!

 

As has been mentioned already in this topic, shooting at vehicles (models with an armor value) use different rules then shooting at non vehicles. Thus this example is invalid, which makes

2) obviously don't limit all shooting to body parts.

invaild as well.

I know. I was trying to point out how equally ridiculous the idea of bikes not being a target is by selective use of rules.

 

As for saying the rules 'intend' the bike to not be a target, where is that in the rulebook?

 

The parts of the model you draw LOS to are explicitly defined as arms, torso, legs, and head. 'Bike' does not make that list, nor does the absence of the ability to draw LOS to the bike in any way make the biker unit unplayable. This was also already mentioned in this topic.

Yes it was already mentioned, and yes I already quoted the part of the rulebook that explains that rule. I notice you ignored the rule quote about how the bits you can't target are ornaments. ;) You are using the bit of the rule you like to further the cheesefest, and ignoring the inconvenient bit that explains the reason for the rule and how it applies. Read it again.

These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, magestic wings etc.

 

You show me where in the rules it says the bike is an ornament, and I will concede your point. Until then, you are not following the rules as stated on p16.

 

RoV

[nighthawks]

quick one:

 

BEASTS (as in beasts and cavalry) have bodies, and LOS must be drawn to them.

 

Cavalry are typically models on beasts, called "mounts". would LOS need to be traced to the rider's body or the mount's body, or both?

 

the bike is the mount of the biker. how is this different than cavalry, if you believe that LOS to the mount is sufficient? if you do not, then how is it that 2 simillarly sized models that have the same rules subset (beasts and mounted cavalry) can use different LOS rules when being targeted?

 

answer carefully, the rules for bikes and beast/cavalry are almost identical in these regards - they include no special rules to accommodate the mount with respect to LOS when receiving fire in the shooting phase, and by the logic of many here, the cavalry rider would need to be seen in order to target the model. as I have shown with the beast - the rules are too vague here.

 

it's pretty simple - the LOS rule sin the shooting section refer to a model by arms/leg/head/etc.. as most models are infantry. in fact ALL of the rules are specific to infantry UNTIL you get to the special units section, where you find bikes, and vehicles, which I add for completeness but have no relevance here. the special units need to have some logic applied as RAW, in this case, is not only wonky, it is non-existent given the nature of the arrangement I have pointed out.

[WarpSpawn]

Thankyou Nighthawks, my point exactly.

 

I am also pretty sure that the list of body parts is a guide only and is not exhaustive for all models. After all, the rules exclude things like tails for targeting purposes, yet what would happen if they made a model of a snake (at least one model springs to mind where there are already no legs and a long tail instead)? This would have no distinct start/end point for the body, no legs, no arms. Would some honestly argue you can only target the head because it is the only part clearly identified by RAW?

 

Like many things in the book, the LoS rules appear to be a guide only, with common sense required when dealing with more complex or unusual models.

[Oldenhaller]

GW took the obvious way, as they do with all their rules, and told us what we are allowed to do (ei. target head, torso, legs and arms).

 

Very true, I'm glad you've just made gun drones invulnerable to anything except AoE's as they cannot be targetted. Or are both of these simply an omission from the simplified wording which often crops up in GW rules?

 

It would be insane to expect them to list all the things you can't target (like banner, weapons, wings, whips, barrels, rocks, wings on boots and so on).

 

I'm hard pressed to believe that you believe that there are more models out there with any of the above than bikes. If they're going to give exceptions then one would suggest that a whole 2 types of units (bikes and jet bikes) would be erroniously left out from this generalisation.

 

The list of things excluded by the targeting rules are just examples to help people understand the rule.

 

Very true - as possibly are the areas which can be targetted?

 

A wasted effort in some cases, it seems.

 

blithe backhanded insults...are they really needed? play nice B)

 

~O

[WarpSpawn]

Very true, I'm glad you've just made gun drones invulnerable to anything except AoE's as they cannot be targetted. Or are both of these simply an omission from the simplified wording which often crops up in GW rules?

 

QFT

 

This has inspired me to look at some of the other targeting oddities that will also arise if you view the LoS limitations as exhaustive lists.

 

- Daemon HQs on chariots. You would only be able to target the rider, plus any creatures modeled as pulling it (not even sure if this is a requirement so model for advantage people!), no matter how bulky the chariot model may be.

 

- Flamers of Tzeentch. Not sure what the bottom of those things counts as but it ain't legs. Not even clear where the torso begins.

 

- Necron destroyers become rather more difficult to draw a bead on as that bulky thing that forms a big part of them cannot really be viewed as a torso or legs.

 

- Ork Deffkoptas fall into the same category as being discussed here, except more so. Quite a bulky model but only the ork is a valid target.

 

- Tyranid Raveners. They don't got no legs so anything below the waist is off limits.

 

- Just what part of a spore mine do you intend to shoot exactly? I do not recall "blob" or "tentacles" being mentioned in the LoS rules. It would be a stretch to even describe the top bit as a head.

 

These are just a few I can think of at the moment. I suspect there are more and the potential for conversions and scratch builds will certainly extend the list as well. Want to make your rough riders harder to hit? Just model them on dirt bikes of some sort.

 

I would suggest we all just view the list of legit body parts as non-exhaustive guidelines, as I am 100% certain it is supposed to be. To do otherwise can only lead to madness.

[Oldenhaller]

to add to the list...

 

- any spawn with odd extremities

- Nid bio-weapons...they're arms not Arms...or for that matter the biovore's cannon

- The Talos (if anyone evber fields one)

- Screamers of Tzeentch (that tzeentch chap seems to be causing no end of problems)

- Anyone's flying chairs (that tau[socialist space frog]chap, any slann from warhammer....sure there must be more out there)

- Red Terror - tenticulicious

- Attack Squigs...have body/head and legs and are not a weapon...

 

 

I'm becoming more and more impressed with spore mines - contesting because they're a unit and can't be shot becuase they have no arms legs etc etc etc. I forsee many more nid and daemon victories in Devian's neck of the woods as lots of their units can't be shot :)

 

~O

[Silber]

In my codex the unit is listet as "Bikes", not "Bikers". The bike itself is the model's body, the biker mere ornament. As bikes have neither arms nor heads nor torsos nor legs they are intargetable, except by template and blast weapons - these use the model's base. Of course that again only works for Space Marine Scoutbikes, as they're the only ones supplied with base - the rulebook explicitely states that you have to use the base the model comes with. No base in the box - no base on the model. Invulnerable by template and blast weapons. And no close combat for those little suckers - they can't make base contact....

 

Come to think of it - bolters are arms, aren't they? So no invulnerability for my bikes.... :)

[Oldenhaller]

lol...so close

[Isiah]

So to put this one to bed then, anyone want to sum the OPs question with an answer, or is it going to be yet another OR topic that grinds on with increasing acrimony?

 

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.

 

???

 

Cheers

I

[Oldenhaller]

My summation would be m'lud;

 

As a bike is part of the description of the unit and cannot be described as any part oif the ostentation or frippery which can be ignored it is not. In addition to this as it contributes to thee model's profile it must intrinsically be prt of that profile, even if the rider themself cannot be seen.

 

The counter arguement to this (such as the one you have put forward yourself) falls down in that there are many other models which would not be subject to the targetting rules as they have neither legs arms bodies or heads. Thus the rules which describe what can be shot are a guideline as are the rules as to what cannot be, each could not possibly cover all of the possibilities for tentacles, robot drons and emepherial deeaamon things which might grace a 40k battlefield.

 

I rest my case

 

~O

[WarpSpawn]

Well here's my take on it then:

 

By strict RAW, no, you probably cannot see the model if all you can see is the bike. However, if you wish to adhere to RAW to that extent, at least be consistant in applying it to all other unusual models and be prepared for some bizzarre situations (such as those described above), and more than likely some annoyed opponents.

 

Far more workable is to apply common sense to models such as bikers and try to agree with your opponent what counts as the "body" of the bike. The vehicle rules may be useful for guidance on this, even though the bike is not a vehicle in RAW.

 

Anyone got a better answer?

[Commander Sasha]

How about a practical approach: If you shoot me in the arm, I become less effective, head even more so! Shoot me in the banner I just get upset.

Shoot a bike in the wheel, it won't work anymore, hit the whippy aerial and it will; shoot a horse in the rear it falls over, blow a horn off a demon, it can still fight.

Take the effective action parts of the unit, not the decoration; This is the interpretation that I take :devil:

[rat of vengence]

They've gone all quiet... the lawyers have left the building!

 

I think you put it really well Oldenhaller. Sanity returns at last! ;)

 

RoV

[Baragash]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/body

 

Definitions 3 and/or 6 make the bike "body", and thus RAW-issue is solved?

[Oldenhaller]

I think you put it really well Oldenhaller. Sanity returns at last! ;)

 

The Lunatics Have Taken Over The Asylum!!!

 

not sure I've been refered to as the sensible voice of reason before but thank you all the same RoV :0

 

~O

[jsutter]

I worked at a Body Shop for a few years. We had a truck come in with a bullet hole in the tailgate and into the wheel well. We charged the guy for body work. :)