Steelmage99 Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The name of the unit is completely immaterial in a rules discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bran Scalphunter Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 The name of the unit is completely immaterial in a rules discussion. Not entirely on topic: but I can show you where unit name is important in a rules discussion. To keep it bike-themed, lemme set the scenario: I have a Captain on a Space Marine Bike. Thanks to his special rule (something assault, don't have the Codex at hand), it allows you to take Space Marine Bikes as a Troops choice if they are at least 5-men strong. Since it clearly states Space Marine Bikes, that means I cannot take Attack Bike Squadrons or Scout Bike Squadrons as a Troops Choice, only the Space Marine Bike Squadron. Not the best example, but the quickest one I could come up with without my Codex at hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted January 30, 2009 Share Posted January 30, 2009 Gents I fear this topic is coming to an end. The same arguments keep cropping up with no consensus or logical conclusion. Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 Well after 2 weeks of posting this I'm not supprised that this thread is is still going on. To be honest with all of you, on this topic and after reading all the posts I agree with those who say only the rider is targetable by RAW, and though I agree with them It is not how I play the game. Heres a little background as to why I posted this question on the B&C. Around Christmas I bought 2 AOBR boxes to get the new rules as well as to add some models to my Black Templars.(only army I play now as I havent used my IG army since their last codex came out) I gave one rulebook and the orks to a friend who has never played 40k before but was very interested in starting the hobby. A week later after reading the rules and me messing around with a few lists we played a game and this actually came up but it was with a unit of deffkoptas instead of a squad of bikes. I told him I could draw LOS to the entire model and he showed me the rule about only being able to target the body,(head, arms, torso. legs) and then said that there is nothing in the bikes(jetbikes) section that changes it. I agreeded with him but I quickly yelled out shenanigans!! The other 4 persons of my gaming group were there checking out there first 5th edition game and also agreed with his interpretation of the rule. After about 20 minutes of flipping through the rulebooks we had. We decided to declare a house rule changing the word body to model in the LOS rules and not using GW's defination of body. Problem solved for us Now I figured when I posted this I would just substitute bike for deffkopta since the rules are basically the same regarding this, figuring that more people would respond since B&C is a SM/PA forum and not everyone here plays orks but surely almost all play SM. Now I have been pretty quiet on this since I started the thread but here's my take on a few of the questions/responses that have been raised. GW's defination of body overrules any dictionary's on this. They clearly explained what body refers to in the rulebook for game purposes. Yes mounts would be targetable unlike bikes by RAW. Ornaments are something that are worn or carried page 16. Space Marines ride bikes, they do not wear or carry them therefore I will agree that bikes are not ornaments, which I must say have no bearing on this discussion since we are only allowed to target a models body,(head, torso, arms, and legs) by RAW. Although it wasn't my intention when starting this topic questions have been raised about other units that would not be targetable due to GW's defination of body by RAW. And I have to agree its rediculous for me not to be able to shoot some of those models listed in previous posts. Another reason why my group houseruled this. I love that TLOS has been brought into the game this addition as I think it adds a little more realism to the game. What I hate about it is that GW has apperently blundered on the rules again.(what a surprise for us vets I know) I mean if a person who has only just been introduced to the game can spot something like this, What does that say for GW's testers/proofreaders who surely dropped the ball on this one. I am not trying to tell anyone how to play 40k with this thread or provide some loophole to be taken advantage of by players. I simply wanted to ask the people on B&C their opinions of how this rule worked. It seems lately that alot of posts like this one are surfacing where we are finding problems or contridictions within the rules. Please don't assume we are trying to find loopholes or give you a means to exploit other players. I feel that we the players are the true testers of the game and finding such things happens in the process of playing this game. Really the only thing we can do until GW creates errata for these problems is to bring things like this out into the open. That way players both new and old can have some idea about what to expect from the other type when playing a game and not just laughing in their face, calling them a cheater or some other nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 So the bike isn't ornamental nor targetable? So it basically doesn't exist? :sweat: You can target the bike - the rules state you can't target ornamental things. The marine doesn't have a bike pinned to his chest, so it's obviously not an ornament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 1, 2009 Author Share Posted February 1, 2009 So the bike isn't ornamental nor targetable?So it basically doesn't exist? You can target the bike - the rules state you can't target ornamental things. The rules on P.16 regarding LOS refer to infantry units. As I said eariler theres nothing in the bikes section that changes this, which is why we have to use "body" of the model as they have listed on P.16 as being the head, legs, torso, arms of the model as thing we can clearly target. Sorry but bike isn't on their list of targetable things listed there and it shouldnt be, it should be listed in the bikes/jetbikes section of unit types on P.53. Where the additional rules for those types of units are located. I dunno maybe mines written in invisible ink but I dont see anything in the bike/jetbike section saying that a bike is targetable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 You do realise that saying you can't shoot the bike is more gamey than that CSM dude who writes tacticas in WD. Hell, he's a power gamer, but he doesn't exploit stupid things like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 Ornaments are something that are worn or carried page 16. Space Marines ride bikes, they do not wear or carry them therefore I will agree that bikes are not ornaments, which I must say have no bearing on this discussion since we are only allowed to target a models body,(head, torso, arms, and legs) by RAW. So, since the rulebook doesn't specifically mention backpacks, or jetpacks (All marines, Tau crisis suits etc) they are not able to be targeted either? :P If the 'head, torso arms legs' part was meant to be exclusive, they wouldn't bother to then go on and describe how ornamental parts are not targetable. That would be repititious. This clearly means that the targetable list isn't exhaustive, just as the exclusions list isn't exhaustive. There are other parts that can be targeted, and there are other ornaments that can't. So far, the people who say the bike cannot be targeted don't seem willing to follow that reading of RAW through, since the direction it leads is ridiculous, such as the several examples I and others have given which have been conveniently ignored. ;) RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That would also mean you could never target Tau battlesuits, because they're not the body ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That would also mean you could never target Tau battlesuits, because they're not the body ;) Well, there is a body in there according to fluff, and the non-targetable suit wouldn't block line of sight to it... ;) That sounds pathetic doesn't it! :P RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 That would also mean you could never target Tau battlesuits, because they're not the body ;) Well, there is a body in there according to fluff, and the non-targetable suit wouldn't block line of sight to it... ;) That sounds pathetic doesn't it! :P RoV ...I think. But what idiot (no offense, rules lawyers) wouldn't let you target the bike? You could then say you need to measure from the rider to shoot, assault and everything, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted February 1, 2009 Share Posted February 1, 2009 This is my last post on the subject, i promise :) First, you should never argue that something like a tau battlesuit model somehow proves that the bike is targetable. I for one can see a torso, head, arms and legs on a tau battlesuit. Also, there is no fleshy tau to shoot at inside the model, he is solid plastic! A joke, perhaps bad, but you see what I mean. Plus, you also would not be able to shoot a marine under this defination because the powerarmor covers up his actual body and what not, so only the sarges can be shot at; lol, no helmets for the win. So for the topic, in terms of rules there seems to be 2 issues. One, a bike is not part of the models head/torso/arms/legs, therefore cant be shot, as you can only draw LOS to those particular parts of a model. Two, head/torso/arms/legs are merely guidelines, and there is actually more of the model that you can shoot--some have mentioned the backpack that all marines carry, some have mentioned weapons, most of course say the bike. This is basicly because these things are not listed as ornaments, thus not excluded as only ornaments are excluded. Obviously these two interpretations are mutually exclusive. I read only the head/torso/arms/legs can be drawn LOS to. My reason is because, if you specificly cant shoot the wings of a living, flying model to any effect, to me the designers seem to be saying pretty clearly that head/torso/arms/legs are IT and everything else is off limits. Also, to me, wings=bike in terms of what they mean to and do for a model, which is to say wings and bikes are both there to represent an infantry model that can move faster, not to redefine what the model is (aka being on a bike doesnt make the bike the most important aspect of the model just like a jump pack isnt the defining feature of jump infantry) Maybe its more fair to say that the bike is considered an ornament per GW's rules, because they have a very wierd defination of what ornament means. Whatever. Arguing what 'ornament' is defined as in real life pretty much does nothing, because GW seems to have their own defination of ornamant cause wings are not an 'ornament' on any bird I know, and they would also take exception to being shot in the wing, though probably not for long after being shot. Plus, for those who love the common sense (in a nonsensical game like 40k) about shooting the tires out of a moving bike, what if the bike didnt move last turn? I gotta say, I would MUCH rather you pop the tire of the stationary bike I am sheltering behind than, say, shoot me in the face. Extreme example I know but I am trying to illustrate a point. Thus, harming a bike would only MAYBE harm the rider if it were moving (and moving a lot faster than simply twice as fast as a jogging model! which is, what, the bikes going 10 mph at 12 inch movement, 20 mph if turboboosting! Id still rather you shoot the tire than my face at 20mph!) At the end of the day, though, despite arguing rules for or against, I also like to look at play balance. On one hand, every model works the same way--head/torso/arms/legs. On the other hand, each model is different, big backpack on this one, small back pack on this one, his gun sticks out farther than his, ect, and depending on how you model them or how they come modeled you could greatly change balance from one model to the next. IE, I have the master of the ravenwing on a giant bike as he comes, and my opponent has a custom made master of the ravenwing on a disk of tzeentch that is drop dead gorgeous and fits his fluff for fallen dark angels perfectly. My master, playing that bikes count for LOS, has a HUGE discrepency to the tzeentch disk model, as the giant bike makes hiding my master nearly impossible. Now, if only head/torso/arms/legs count, my master plays the exact same as the tzeentch one cause the bike is not the point of the model, the guy riding it is. I HAVE to believe that it is in the best interest of the hobby not to penalize models and/or reward models in this way, and the fact that I can also argue RAW to support this point seems to give me all the validation I need. I also am not trying to change the way you want to play, if you like shooting bikes on principal then go for it, but in a tourney I think I will have an easier time my way. EDIT: Wanted to say one thing about this You could then say you need to measure from the rider to shoot, assault and everything, though Shooting, assaulting, and the rest that are not based on LOS would not use any of these rules. They are, of course, seperate. The discussion is solely about LOS and bikes, where to measure from doesnt follow the head/torso/arms/legs principal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 If the 'head, torso arms legs' part was meant to be exclusive, they wouldn't bother to then go on and describe how ornamental parts are not targetable. That would be repititious. This clearly means that the targetable list isn't exhaustive, just as the exclusions list isn't exhaustive. There are other parts that can be targeted, and there are other ornaments that can't. DevianID, still haven't answered this one. RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 2, 2009 Author Share Posted February 2, 2009 If the 'head, torso arms legs' part was meant to be exclusive, they wouldn't bother to then go on and describe how ornamental parts are not targetable. That would be repititious. This clearly means that the targetable list isn't exhaustive, just as the exclusions list isn't exhaustive. There are other parts that can be targeted, and there are other ornaments that can't. I'll take a stab at it, antenna on tau heads, horns and spikes on orks or chaos marines helmets or head. These are just a couple of things that could be considered part of a models head but cannot be targeted if they were the only thing you could draw LOS to since they would be ornamental. These to me seem like valid examples why they included the ornamental parts in the rules for LOS. I hope this suffices as an answer for you because I'd rather not list all the various things I believe are ornamental parts and which body part they attach to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Playa Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 Hey, a bike is not part of the models head/torso/arms/legs, therefore cant be shot, as you can only draw LOS to those particular parts of a model All right, I can't get to sleep, so I'll bite. v5 RB p3, Models & Units: "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base ... " +++ Gosh, that is so clear and concise it can't stand very long . . . +++ things are not listed as ornaments, thus not excluded as only ornaments are excluded Well, bits "worn or carried" are specific examples of non-targetable ornaments. At this point in the writing process, bits sticking out beyond the base area were still "ornamental". head/torso/arms/legs are IT and everything else is off limits v5 RB p4, Unit Types: "Movement, Shooting, Assault and Morale are written with respect to infantry units, because these are by far the most common unit type in the game. The other types of unit are also defined here and then explained in detail later ... " wings and bikes are both there to represent an infantry model that can move faster, not to redefine what the model is Wings, tails, etc, which often protruded beyond the area of the base represented ornamentation. This 'ornament' clause on p16 contradicts the perfectly logical definition of "model" on p3. Apparently, they rethought using Size Categories after that draft and didn't follow through. As is, Jump Packs and Bikes actually *do* change an Infantry model's Type per RaW. the bike is considered an ornament per GW's rules, because they have a very wierd defination of what ornament means v5 RB p5, Bikes: "These units are riders mounted on a variety of conventional bikes ... " +++ So, Riders on Mounts are what the developers had quantified as Bike models. Unsurprising considering they undoubtedly used the Citadel models in playtesting. As Gav would say, certain editorial glitches "crept in" when no one was watching . . . +++ every model works the same way--head/torso/arms/legs. On the other hand, each model is different v5 RB p51, Unit Types: "Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry." +++ It then goes on to list every non-vehicle Unit in the game . . . Here, Bikes are merely defined as a Unit Type separate from Infantry. The problem is that part of a Bike model has eyes and a body per p16. The OP paradox is that Bikes are explicitly noted as *not* being Infantry. +++ my opponent has a custom made master of the ravenwing on a disk of tzeentch v5 RB p3, Models & Units: "When measuring distances between two units, use the closest models as your reference points ... " "Citadel miniatures are normally supplied with a plastic base. If so, they must be glued onto their bases before they can be used in the game." +++ "Creative license" makes that MoR model permission-only by RaW. At one point, LoS to a model's base was the same as to the model/ Unit. It's only at p16 that they changed their minds about what constitutes a "model". +++ it is in the best interest of the hobby not to penalize models and/or reward models in this way If, by 'the hobby', you mean for us users to have fun with modeling, then GW begs to disagree. Their new paradigm seems to be to get their models freely advertised at every GW event. That's why wargear options, Armouries, the bits service and Conversion Clinic went away. [Dr. Strangelove (no relation)] Each blister or box vill soon be a self-contained YOOnit! It vill be built to our specifiKAYtion, or be, heh, dis-ALLOWT! Der kinder vill see only der same merch exSAMPLES on der tables as they see on der SHELVES, heheh! ExZEPT that they vill haff been built, painted, transPORTED und didPLAYT mit free labor. Hah! Wilkommen to der Grimdark Neu Worlt Order, herr citizen! [/Dr] The discussion is solely about LOS and bikes, where to measure from doesnt follow Well, the basic quandary is what defines a model explicitly stated as *not* being an Infantry Type. Bikes, not being worn or carried by Infantry, are certainly not "ornaments". The devs defined Bikes on p5, but seem to have forgotten the entry later. If they hadn't flubbed the p51 wording, we wouldn't be discussing it. So, what's the RaW with respect to Bikes and Shooting? Evidently, LoS TO a bike is to its "infantry body" per p51. Why? The entry's missing an exception to the p16 Infantry clause. Gav and I blame Gremlins . . . LoS FROM the model is still drawn through the Rider's eyes per p53. Seems we don't have TL Bolters by RaW any more either, tra la. p76 lets us RF as having Moved, but doesn't give us weapons. Pla - okay feeling sleepish now - ya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
elijahdprophet Posted February 2, 2009 Share Posted February 2, 2009 So, in essence, I could take a standard SM Scout, put a bolter in each hand, put him on a bike base, and call it a day? If the physical model of the bike is not needed for any game reason, then this should be kosher at a GW tourney, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 I think Playa has summed up the arguments and relevant passages from the BRB well enough. This discussion has done a few laps around the point now. anyone who feels strongly one way or the other, please post a summary of your reading and any relevant quotes/passages/pages, and how you actually play it (if not by what you read as RAW). this is a perfect candidate for the new sticky thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Democratus Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Hey, a bike is not part of the models head/torso/arms/legs, therefore cant be shot, as you can only draw LOS to those particular parts of a model All right, I can't get to sleep, so I'll bite. v5 RB p3, Models & Units: "A model is considered to occupy the area of its base ... " +++ Gosh, that is so clear and concise it can't stand very long . . . +++ Area is a 2-dimensional measurement, so it doesn't really help. Anything on top of a base doesn't occupy the area of the base. Perhaps if the rule mentioned the "volume above the base up to the height of the model." But it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 as yet no-one on the "you-can't-shoot-the-bike" advocacy have managed to come up with a suitable retort to the fact that the list of things targettable cannot be exhaustive as there are units which have none of the mentioned arms, legs, torsos etc. Untill someone onthat side of the arguement can prove that it is possible to shoot a gun drone but possible to shoot a bike as they are both part of the model on the base I cannot see this being resolved. It is posssible that that needs a thread of it's own...thus i shall create it...*shazam!!* ~O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If anyone insists that you cannot shoot at his bikes because your models cannot see the driver and only the bikes themself, then the standard procedure would be to pack your stuff and never play him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Or an equally childish action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Perhaps instantly packing your stuff would be a bit harsh (allthough perhaps a good lesson for the guy). The more sensible reaction would be to roll your eyes, finish the game and then never play him again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Neither variation of this idea satisfies the general problem, which is what constitutes the body of a model given the wide variety of non-humanoid (or humanoid-plus), non-vehicle models in 40k? Oldenhaller started another thread on that topic, and I think that, while it will likely get heated and reach the limits of people's acceptance of RAW, it is a good discussion to undertake. And I KNOW you guys will behave yourselves <_< Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Going strictly by what the shooting rules on page 16 BRB describe, models without eyes cannot draw LOS at all (this includes Tau Drones, Eldar Wraithguard and Wraithlords, Tyranid Zoanthropes, any Necron unit), and any model without a head, torso, arms or legs cannot be shot at (Tau Drones, Tyranid Spore Mines). OR we extrapolate for non-humanoid models and draw LOS from a sensible substitute for the model's "eyes" or shoot at a sensible substitute of the model's "torso/head/limb" or go with the plain "body" as the target. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 as yet no-one on the "you-can't-shoot-the-bike" advocacy have managed to come up with a suitable retort to the fact that the list of things targettable cannot be exhaustive as there are units which have none of the mentioned arms, legs, torsos etc. Untill someone onthat side of the arguement can prove that it is possible to shoot a gun drone but possible to shoot a bike as they are both part of the model on the base I cannot see this being resolved. But it is so much easier to ignore the holes in the theory! :( It is posssible that that needs a thread of it's own...thus i shall create it...*shazam!!*~O Thanks a heap mate. Now I have a certain soundtrack in my head... :P :lol: RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.