Steelmage99 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! <_< And its even easier to ignore a strawman argument of that magnitude. :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 lol...true While not representing the views of all of said bike-is-not-a-target-ers i'd hope that I have presented enough valid points to suggest that a question about what can be targeted on a model is a valid point without ignoring what has been said. Therefore it is a question which has as-yet had no answer, thus I put it to you mage of steel, how do you reconcille the two? ~O Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I don't. There is a serious shortcoming in the rules. We both agree on that. *Figurativly stepping away from the Official Rules forum* In order to actually play the game (as opposed to just discussing it in here) we have to broaden the definitions used by GW. "Eyes" have to include "Optics, Auspexes and Area where the eyes usually sit" for example. "Body" has to be broadend to also mean "Main, central part of the model". Actually GW could have fixed it by saying; "You have to target the body of the model. Body includes head, legs, torso and arms". Instead of; "You have to target the body (by "body" we mean head, torso, arms and legs)". A Tau drone have a body. It has no head, legs, torso or arms, but that doesn't matter as it has a body. A body is no longer defined by the presence of head, torso, legs and arms. It just includes them. Anyway, if we broaden the definitions of "body" and "eyes" everything works fine. I might add that the game plays equally fine when not allowed to target the bike. Only the rider can be targeted and just as a winged Deamon Lord cannot be made untargetable by wrapping his wings around him, neither can the rider "hide" behind his bike. The bike is ignored for LOS purposes just as the wing would be. Drawing LOS from my Drones? Well, my Drones do have an eye. http://www.pbase.com/crusader40k/image/108928734.jpg That's how I make it work anyway. B) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted February 6, 2009 Share Posted February 6, 2009 I don't. There is a serious shortcoming in the rules. We both agree on that. *Figurativly stepping away from the Official Rules forum* In order to actually play the game (as opposed to just discussing it in here) we have to broaden the definitions used by GW. "Eyes" have to include "Optics, Auspexes and Area where the eyes usually sit" for example. "Body" has to be broadend to also mean "Main, central part of the model". So what are we arguing about then? ^_^ A bike would be a main and central part of a Marine biker, surely! Drawing LOS from my Drones? Well, my Drones do have an eye. That's how I make it work anyway. :) Yes, but by RAW... :P RoV Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I guess that even going by the sensible approach of extrapolating for non humanoid models doesn't really solve the issue on bikes, the problem being that the model has humanoid parts - you don't have to extrapolate in order to have anything to shoot at all. That being said, I'm still convinced that bikes are and should be targetable. I have another good one for you: Karamasov's Throne of Judgement. What if he's standing behind some bridge hiding away the human parts of it, with just the throne sticking out? RAW's a :D ... :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 I don't. There is a serious shortcoming in the rules. We both agree on that. *Figurativly stepping away from the Official Rules forum* In order to actually play the game (as opposed to just discussing it in here) we have to broaden the definitions used by GW. "Eyes" have to include "Optics, Auspexes and Area where the eyes usually sit" for example. "Body" has to be broadend to also mean "Main, central part of the model". So what are we arguing about then? :D A bike would be a main and central part of a Marine biker, surely! We are discussing what the rules actually say. :) Notice how I "stepped away" from the forum? How we play the game and what the rules actually say can be two very different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DevianID Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 A bike would be a main and central part of a Marine biker, surely! Rules wise, a model's bike would be no more central than a model's wings--which is to say, not central at all to GW or the rules. I know I said I was done, but I just have to ask... why do people even want to shoot bikes? Fluff wise, it makes no sense, as these bikes are not fast moving in any sense, plus are designed to be sturdy enough to shield the rider and take hits (+1 toughness save to the rider to represent the added difficulty of hurting him) and since the bike does not hide LOS to the rider, thanks to a rule GW put into place to handle these kinds of situations, large cool looking bikes dont give any added bonus. Rules wise, there is no advantage to be gained by shooting a bike, other than to unfairly penalize bikes for being different than infantry--even though they act as infantry in all ways other than the new movement rules found in the bike section--thanks to a bike usually being larger and without a base. And finally, it is not a logical argument that playing the rules right from the book that result in 2 models in the entire range 'possibly' slipping through the cracks, tau drones and 'nid spore mines, somehow vaildates an argument that the rules dont apply to bikes and thus you get to make up new rules for bikes. If anything, it just proves the rules dont apply to the 2 specific models from the whole range that are different. Plus, I still say that there is a torso on the drone and mine, and furthermore there was never any problem with how to handle these models, it only was made a problem by people looking for a way to rationalize there interpretation of bikes. BTW, the way I play bikes is that the bike is the base of the model, thanks to no base being supplied. Thus, I cant move within 1 inch of an enemy bike, you measure range from the bike, you are in base contact when touching the bike, ect. And, like any base, the base does nothing for LOS. Regardless, that has no bearing to the rules discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 Plus, I still say that there is a torso on the drone and mine, and furthermore there was never any problem with how to handle these models, it only was made a problem by people looking for a way to rationalize there interpretation of bikes. Yes I agree in the main with that. As far as the OR is concerned interpretation is everything though and usually decided by RAW. If the RAW is off/odd/unworkable in a few exceptional circumstances that doesn't mean it can be reinterpreted to those few circumstances as it wouldn't be RAW as the OR sees it, whatever alternative common sense practical solutions are adopted on the tabletop. Hence the frustration inherent in this topic. Cheers I Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.