Line of Sight and Bikes

[DevianID]

From a RAW standpoint, I think that most agree that a bike is ignored in favor of the rider, but vice versa the rider is the point for determining LOS, not the bike's weapon mounts. Also, I think no one argues that the bike is somehow unplayable if only the rider is targetable--the bike still moves and shoots esactly the same. Thus objections seem to be from a spirit of the rules aspect, or the notion that shooting riders somehow invalidates some other part of the game... while I cant tell you how to play, I can say with certianty that if applying a rule to a model that you would apply to every other model seems to be a problem, make your own house rules and keep playing!

 

While some seem to have personal issues with this, the answer is always play to have fun! If you dont like any rule in the rulebook, feel free to change it till it works! It only becomes an issue if the way you decided to play infringes on how another player decided to play, because the game is a 2 way street. The rules provide a framework to rely on.

 

As someone pointed out, Commander Sasha I believe, you can take a functional approach whereby the question 'will shooting this stop the model' is used, that allows for things like wings and bike tires to be shot, but still does not let tire guards, horns and banners get shot. It is a good aproach to be sure, and I am for common sense.

 

I choose a slightly different approach due to tourney experience whereby RAW is a better arbiter, where I identify the head, body, arms and legs of the model. If a model has no head or arms/legs, then they cant get shot, quite fair I say, as the lack of head/arms/legs is often made up by other things, notably a larger body (see Necron destroyer bodies). But, things like tau drones definately DO have a body, just like they have a point where the tau player can use to check LOS despite the drones having no head. Are tau drones unplayable? No, of course not, not by RAW either.

 

The issue with bikes, though, is this---where is the models body? Yes, you can say (and I agree) that a motorcycle has a body, the defination of body someone put up sees to that. But HOW MANY BODIES does a biker model have based on the defination? 15!?!?! The rider's body, and the bike's body, the body of the drive shaft, the body of each of the the weapon's stock, the body armor, the main body of the helmet, ect ect. In the case of the bike unit (and calvary for that matter) which 'body' is the MOST appropriate one to shoot? Well, the rider, of course, who also has the head, arms, and legs, and seeing that we check LOS from the riders head, not the horses head, we see that even in the case of calvary models with multiple heads, ways for determining which model is the more critical on a fundimental level are present. Even in the case of non-humanoid models, such as tau drones, finding the main body is very easy, especially as the tau drone is a simple model to begin with.

 

PS: there is, to my knowledge, only a single calvary model is in the game, the rough riders; thus it is understandable why there is no seperate rules to determine LOS to calvary models, especially considering that the current rules do not prevent the model from getting shot, only to prevent the horse from getting shot in favor of hitting the model.

 

So, in conclusion, does RAW say that you should draw LOS to the rider and ignore the bike? Yes. Does this rule, which we have been using for all the other models in the game, make the bike unplayable in any way? No. Is it exploitable? No.

 

(Im sorry, if an opponent says that despite me completely hiding a space marine bike rider who is honestly quite large behind a sizable piece of terrain, and then saying that since he can see a small piece of a tire he can shoot the model is such worse cheese than anything you guys are imagining--thus IMHO playing that you can draw LOS to the bike seems incredibly cheesy. Likewise, if I can see the entire rider, but a small piece of tire is behind a rock, and my opponent claims that he gets a 4+ save because part of a bike tire is obscured, again I have to cry foul. I honestly cant believe you guys feel differently! What is cheesy about they way I am advocating we use the LOS rules? When is just the rider obscured but the entire bike visible!)

[rat of vengence]

The issue with bikes, though, is this---where is the models body? Yes, you can say (and I agree) that a motorcycle has a body, the defination of body someone put up sees to that. But HOW MANY BODIES does a biker model have based on the defination? 15!?!?! The rider's body, and the bike's body, the body of the drive shaft, the body of each of the the weapon's stock, the body armor, the main body of the helmet, ect ect. In the case of the bike unit (and calvary for that matter) which 'body' is the MOST appropriate one to shoot? Well, the rider, of course, who also has the head, arms, and legs, and seeing that we check LOS from the riders head, not the horses head, we see that even in the case of calvary models with multiple heads, ways for determining which model is the more critical on a fundimental level are present. Even in the case of non-humanoid models, such as tau drones, finding the main body is very easy, especially as the tau drone is a simple model to begin with.

Sorry mate, but where in the rules does it say to pick the most appropriate body?

 

PS: there is, to my knowledge, only a single calvary model is in the game, the rough riders; thus it is understandable why there is no seperate rules to determine LOS to calvary models, especially considering that the current rules do not prevent the model from getting shot, only to prevent the horse from getting shot in favor of hitting the model.

So I can't shoot the horse? By your logic it is the most 'appropriate' body, since it has extra legs!

 

So, in conclusion, does RAW say that you should draw LOS to the rider and ignore the bike? Yes. Does this rule, which we have been using for all the other models in the game, make the bike unplayable in any way? No. Is it exploitable? No.

No, the rules do not say that. Go back and read p16, then tell me how the bike is an 'ornament'?

 

(Im sorry, if an opponent says that despite me completely hiding a space marine bike rider who is honestly quite large behind a sizable piece of terrain, and then saying that since he can see a small piece of a tire he can shoot the model is such worse cheese than anything you guys are imagining--thus IMHO playing that you can draw LOS to the bike seems incredibly cheesy. Likewise, if I can see the entire rider, but a small piece of tire is behind a rock, and my opponent claims that he gets a 4+ save because part of a bike tire is obscured, again I have to cry foul. I honestly cant believe you guys feel differently! What is cheesy about they way I am advocating we use the LOS rules? When is just the rider obscured but the entire bike visible!)

Noone is saying the way you are using the rules is cheesy. I think we are just saying it is wrong. If you can see a hand, or foot, you can shoot the model. The Marine Bike model includes a rider and.... a bike! If you can see the bike and/or rider, you may shoot it, unless of course the part you can see is merely an ornament... :blush:

 

Just a thought for the selective RAW (not aimed at anyone in particular!), since the rules say LOS must be traced "from the eyes of the firing model", does that mean no model without eyes (it doesn't say lenses, or sights, only eyes) can't fire?

 

 

RoV

[Democratus]

Just a thought for the selective RAW (not aimed at anyone in particular!), since the rules say LOS must be traced "from the eyes of the firing model", does that mean no model without eyes (it doesn't say lenses, or sights, only eyes) can't fire?

 

Well, since models are just plastic/metal moulds none of them have eyes. You'd have to literally take the eyes from some animal and put them on your model before it would really have eyes. Otherwise no line of sight ever.

[Silber]

So, in conclusion, does RAW say that you should draw LOS to the rider and ignore the bike? Yes.

If you're really intending to play by RAW so strictly I have to point you at what I said before: In my codex they're called "Space Marine Bikes" not "Space Marine Bikers". So if anything you draw LOS to the bike and ignore the rider.

 

And no, I don't agree with that at all. The whole model is targetable, by RAW.

[DevianID]

And no, I don't agree with that at all. The whole model is targetable, by RAW

 

What about the backpack (both the power armor one and the cloth one above the rear wheel)? And the banner pole? Track guards? Tires? Handlebars? Strapped on twin linked bolters? No, the whole model is not targetable.

 

And if you think that playing that you have to shoot the infantry on the bike is 'strict RAW' in the negative sense, why not look at it from my shoes, where, as I said earlier, according to your interpretation a tiny rock obscuring a small part of the tire grants the bike a 4+ save. I would love to see what rule supports that move.

[Silber]

What about the backpack (both the power armor one and the cloth one above the rear wheel)? And the banner pole? Track guards? Tires? Handlebars? Strapped on twin linked bolters? No, the whole model is not targetable.

The whole model as in both bike and rider. But you're right, that's only my interpretation, not RAW - I take that back.

 

And if you think that playing that you have to shoot the infantry on the bike is 'strict RAW' in the negative sense, why not look at it from my shoes, where, as I said earlier, according to your interpretation a tiny rock obscuring a small part of the tire grants the bike a 4+ save. I would love to see what rule supports that move.

I was merely playing the advocatus diavoli - I do not really think that only the bike is targetable. But by strict RAW that's how it is - only the bike's body, as it has neither arms nor legs nor a head. But that's ridiculous, isn't it?

 

Edit:

It seems to me that your problem, DevianID, is mostly with the LOS-rules in general. RAW a bike can obtain a coversave by parking behind a wayside rock as large as it's riders helmet, but so can a Terminator sticking it's toes behind that exact same rock, so that's not an argument. See? :)

[DevianID]

No, I am ok with a foot from a model granting a coversave, but mainly because they took the time to say that yes we give models cover saves very easily in this edition to stop arguments about whether the majority of the model is obscured. I believe they even use the leg behind a rock or some such as an example.

 

The issue I have is whether a bike tire grants a coversave to an otherwise completely exposed model, or a completely hidden model can be shot because the oversized bike designed to look cool has a tire jutting out. And, as I have stated, my issue is because I believe the rules support that the rider of the bike (head, torso, arms, legs of him anyway) is what you shoot, and the bike is not part of the riders head, torso, arms or legs thus does not count when checking LOS.

[nighthawks]

head. torso. arms. legs. these are what is noted in the generic shooting rules. monstrous creatures, vehicles, artillery, jump infantry, bike, and jet bikes are all treated differently to some degree.

 

the bike IS the difference in the models. the base is different (when included). It should be clear enough that the non-functional parts of a model are not included in the cover equation, the functional parts ARE. the list of what IS targetable is not exhaustive.

 

also - I would go out on a limb and say that the "back pack" (power supply) of a space marine is, indeed, targetable. it is a part of all space marines, and is not some goofy addition to highlight their devotion, rank, or otherwise identify the model. it's is a part of the basic silhouette of the model and I think it should be included in LOS / cover determinations.

 

you may note a common thread in my readings. there is not real RAW for this answer, as the reading may vary between 2 reasonable, sensible, and educated people. go with what makes sense to you.

[rat of vengence]

And no, I don't agree with that at all. The whole model is targetable, by RAW

 

What about the backpack (both the power armor one and the cloth one above the rear wheel)? And the banner pole? Track guards? Tires? Handlebars? Strapped on twin linked bolters? No, the whole model is not targetable.

All except the banner pole would be targetable. Because, as stated several times to no rebuff, the rules clearly state we ignore 'ornamental' parts. Are the guns ornamental? The tires? The marines backpack? No. Therefore all legitimate targets.

 

Again I ask, tell me where it says the bike is an ornamental part of the model, and I will agree with your version of the rules ^_^

 

RoV

[Steelmage99]

I am of the conviction that only the rider is targetable, but the bike itself cannot be used as cover. It would lead to strange situations.

 

Most of these models would be effectively be untargetable in that case;

 

http://www.the-waaagh.com/images/photos/gf1.jpg

[Silber]

All that stuff is clearly ornament and can't be used as cover. Now if they belonged to a unit called "dudes in barrels" the barrels where part of what defines the model - it's body. Same with bikes. Well, that's my opinion. I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer here....

[Steelmage99]

All that stuff is clearly ornament and can't be used as cover. Now if they belonged to a unit called "dudes in barrels" the barrels where part of what defines the model - it's body. Same with bikes. Well, that's my opinion. I don't think there's going to be a definitive answer here....

 

I am going to specifically talk aboout the guy holding the poster of our brother marine.

 

(Im really playing the Devils Advocate here;)

 

You are mixing up two rules here.

 

Yes, all that stuff is ornaments and cannot be targeted (rulebook, page 16).

No, none of it is placed on the base and thus doesnt interfere with the rules about bases and cover. (rulebook, page 21)

Its two different rules. You cannot take the first part of one and combine it with the second part of the other.

 

That doesn't change that you cannot draw LOS to the "body" (as defined by GW). I am merely trying to show that the rider hiding behind his own bike for LOS-purposes leads to absurd situations.

The biker is indeed taking cover behind his own bike and this is represented by his increased Toughness.

[Silber]

Fair enough, I mixed up. What I said about the "dudes in barrels" stands, though. And your poster guy - the rule on page 21 states that you can't take your cover with you. Yes, it also states that things placed on you base don't give coversaves. Base because there aren't so many models around bringing posters to the battle, are they? So RAW, yeah, untargetable. But seriously, RAI is so damn clear in this case...

 

For clarification, I'm not trying to suggest that the rider can take cover behind his own bike. Acting as devils advocate myself again - what about this: The unit is called bikes, so clearly the riders are what has to be considered ornament. What you have to draw your LOS to is the body of the bike. As the bikers don't touch the base they aren't excluded from giving cover by the rule on page 21, and thus we have a build-in coversave....

[Steelmage99]

But the buildin coversave wont work as it is glued to the base and thus part of the decoration of said base. :D That, of course, can be said for the entire model. :o

 

Anyway, right now we are just having fun with the wording.

 

In real life (as in, when we play the game) I don't think it will be much of a problem. Most of the time, you'll be able to see the rider anyway.

 

 

PS. As an aside. RAI is not clear. RAI is never clear. RAI is, by definition, our guess at what the designers intended and that is never clear. RAI is also very subjective and depends alot on the posters point of view. Anyway it is a discussion for another thread. Sorry about the sidestep, but it is a pet peeve of mine (one of many :)).

[Brother Pax]

I am of the conviction that only the rider is targetable, but the bike itself cannot be used as cover. It would lead to strange situations.

 

Most of these models would be effectively be untargetable in that case;

 

http://www.the-waaagh.com/images/photos/gf1.jpg

 

The space marine poster made me Laugh so hard I sprayed pepsi out of my nose. Which is odd cos I was drinking Lemonade.

[rat of vengence]

But we have RAW (and thats me say it! :woot:) that gives us the clear rule (p16) that the only parts of a model ignored for targetting purposes are ornamental. No need for RAI at all. You target any non-ornamental part of the model.

 

RoV

[Steelmage99]

No, that is not a correct conclusion.

That ornamental parts are ignored does not mean we can target anything non-ornamental.

We are told specifically what we can target.

[nighthawks]

the list of "specifics" is explanation and not exhaustive. the statement that you target non-ornamental parts of the model is really the crux of the rule. bikers have bikes. guys with power fists have power fists - both could be seen to make the model larger and easier to hit.

 

the bike is part of the body of the model for a biker. it is non ornamental and standard for all models of the type. it is targetable.

 

also - no matter what, if you cary cover on the base of the model, LOS goes through it, as you cannot take your cover with you. this is addressed very specifically in the cover rules.

[rat of vengence]

No, that is not a correct conclusion.

That ornamental parts are ignored does not mean we can target anything non-ornamental.

We are told specifically what we can target.

Right. So no targeting tau drones (no head, torso, legs or arms) for example. And of course since we have to look from the models 'eyes' then we have to take that as a literal, exclusive comment, and if the model has no 'eyes' (not lenses, not sensors, only eyes) it can't see to shoot. Or don't we read that sentence specifically?

It's ridiculous isn't it. :)

 

Here we have people claiming that we have to choose what 'body' (bike or rider) to aim at even though it is the ONE model. With ONE stat line. GW probably didn't state that the bikes are part of the marine bike squad because they thought it was bleedin' obvious.

 

I mean, really... :huh:

 

RoV

[Isiah]

Well looks like another topic going around in circles. If you have a lot of bikes, or are playing someone with a lot of bikes – probably best to sort this out before the shooting kicks off.

 

Me: despite what I said way earlier about targetting the body (head, torso, arms etc) recognise that despite that being the best RAW there is, I am quite happy to shoot at front and back tires too – if no one doesn't mind :huh:. And as I don't have bikes myself .... :)

 

Cheers

I

[Bish]

To put it in game context it is a game

 

If you allow the rule for one it is for all

 

Let him go for the rule of biker only LOS and combat with using it against him.

 

Field with Nids which are unable to be targeted due to no heads legs etc until reality is restored and people play nice again

[ShinyRhino]

I don't quite understand the "You can't target a bike's tire/faring/etc" side of this argument. I know you folks are arguing pure RAW, but, pure RAW versus common sense always leads to battles like this thread.

 

Let's do some examples. You go sit on that motorbike. Glue your arse to the seat. I'll pick up this machine gun. Please accelerate to cruising speed. I will now shoot at you. Thankfully for you, I miss your body, but manage to shred both of your tires. Your bike immediately loses the ability to stay upright, and you crash. You suffer severe head contusions, and pass out. You are now incapacitated, and are removed as a casualty.

 

Repeat this exercise, but drive by that fire hydrant. All my shots must contend with the fire hydrant, since it is in front of you at the moment I fire. By some miracle, all my rounds hit the fire hydrant, and you are spared injury. You run me down and hit me with a bat. I am incapacitated, and removed as a casualty.

 

Ok, now go park behind the post office. Leave your front tire visible from behind the wall. I open fire on your tire, destroying it. You are incapacitated, since the front of your bike is destroyed and your arse is glued to the seat. You are removed as a casualty.

 

Everyone seems to keep making this distinction between the rider and the bike. The rider and the bike are ONE model. Otherwise, I could field bikes with no riders as non-targetable units, or a bunch of floating riders with no bikes and flight bases crammed up their bums. The two are fielded together, and are targetable as a whole.

 

The whole drawing line of sight from the rider's eyes to shoot thing is rubbish too. Heaven forbid a bike be both an advantage and a handicap! The rider might be hiding behind a wall with just his front wheel visible, like you were at the post office. I can still shoot you, but you cannot shoot me! You can't see around the corner, but I can see you. Working as intended, I say! You have the benefit AND the drawback of being moounted on that large piece of machinery.

 

Yeesh.

[Steelmage99]

Comparisons to real life is epic fail in any rules discussion.

 

Basically you are saying;

 

1. "I don't like the rules for what I can draw LOS to."

2. "I don't like the rules for what I must draw LOS from either."

 

You seem to want to change the rules to be able to target the bike. This leads to the problem you describe in the second part of your post. So you want to change another rule to make it "plausable" to you. A simple solution lies right in front of you. We'll see if you find it too.

[ShinyRhino]

Comparisons to real life is epic fail in any rules discussion.

 

Basically you are saying;

 

1. "I don't like the rules for what I can draw LOS to."

2. "I don't like the rules for what I must draw LOS from either."

 

You seem to want to change the rules to be able to target the bike. This leads to the problem you describe in the second part of your post. So you want to change another rule to make it "plausable" to you. A simple solution lies right in front of you. We'll see if you find it too.

 

Wrong on all points. I was attempting to illustrate through comedy how targeting the bike is valid, and how complainging that a rock gives a bike a cover save also is silly. I then went on to point out that a Space Marine Bike has both advantages (speed, toughness) and disadvantages (increased model size, LOS drawn from one point on the model), and that rigidly adhering to the concrete interpretation of RAW was not going to get anywhere in this argument.

As I said at the beginning of it, I knew my post was futile when I posted it. There is no compromise between the RAW-school and the RAI/common sense school. We just don't get along, and debates like this are never settled because neither side is mentally capable of seeing the other's arguments as valid.

Forgive my attempts at levity.

[Bran Scalphunter]

I am of the conviction that only the rider is targetable, but the bike itself cannot be used as cover. It would lead to strange situations.

 

Most of these models would be effectively be untargetable in that case;

 

http://www.the-waaagh.com/images/photos/gf1.jpg

 

 

Hate to jump in late, but I'll add my two teef.

 

/engage Ork Mode

 

Dem boyz wiv da tyrez and da barrelz, dey're obviously 'Ard Boyz. Dat's just dere armor, besides, der arms an' legs are stikkin' out, ya can blast em.

 

/ disengage Ork Mode

 

As I see it, the bike is an integral part of the unit, as RoV and others have pointed out, the unit is named Bikes. However, the name also includes Space Marine, so by my interpretation of the rules, the bike and rider are both viable targets. LOS may be drawn from the rider's eyes for shooting, but any shots back at him can hit the zogging big bike he's screaming around on. I think ShinyRhino summed it up pretty darn well.

 

With that said, I'll retire to my chambers and wait out the onslaught.