Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 In the targetting rules it states that you may target a model's arms, legs torso and head. What happens when a model has none of the above? By RAW (which is often patently rediculous as we all know) a tau drone can only be affected by template and blast weapons if they happen to scatter onto them. anything else will just ignore them as they have none of the aforementioned limbs. other units which might have issue here; - spore mines - tentacles and polyps do not a target make - Flamers and screamers of tzeench - neither has appreciable body parts - Talos? - A spawn which is just made of say eyeballs? and to a lesser extent - other nid creatures - where does a limb end and a bio-weapon begin - can an attack squig be targetted on a warboos? legs head and a body and not a weapon, just wargear. - Anything with tentacles instead of limbs - ravenors, trygons and the red terror spring to mind, can we only target their limbs and head? In my mind, does this work?...of course not, but the RAW crowd seems intent on taking things to the nth degree. please discuss ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You are right. It is a problem. What is your suggestion for a fix? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870852 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maligoare Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You know, I reckon the people who phrased that rule completely forgot that we have fun, non-man shaped things in 40k. There is one thing which needs to be checked before we start discussing in earnest: does the rulebook state that you may only target the body of a model, and then go on to clarify what they mean by a body for a 'standard' (read 'Space Marine') model? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870862 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 My suggestion for targetable parts: All parts of the model excluding: 1. decorative/non functional parts. E.g. banners, aerials (if they aren't representing vehicle upgrades), dead bodies on sticks, etc. 2. wings (as these would mostly be folded away during combat So, for a human that would be the torso, legs, arms, head and weapons. For a spore mine that would be all of the model. Flamer/scream - all of the model spore mine - all of the model red terror - all of the model tau drone - all of the model bar the aerial The bottom line is that only the parts which you could shoot without affecting the unit noticing are excluded (e.g. someone's not going to even notice if you shoot holes in their banner) and wings (because they aren't going to be sticking out like that most of the time) Personally, I'd include wings but GW made a point of excluding them in the BRB. Scratch that. All parts, the damage or destruction of which have the possibility of incapacitating the model. So, head, arms, legs, torso, the blob on the end of a spore mine, the dish shaped bit of a drone, the bike - YES drone antenna, tip of a weapon, banner, aerial, wing (for a creature that has legs) - NO. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870871 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The BRB says: Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of thefiring model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit. (for 'body' we mean it's head torso, legs and arms). Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including it's wings and tail, even though they are technically part of it's body). In these cases, the model is not visibile. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc. It seems pretty clear cut to me. A tau drone may not have "head, torso, arms, legs" but it clearly has a body (the main part of the drone). The antenna and the guns are not targettable though. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870879 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 The rule states; Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean it's head, torso, legs and arms.) The rule then goes onto describe what is not a part of the body - ornamentation, banners, etc. It seems that there is a grey area between what is described as ornamentation (which has etc's in it) and what is part of the body which is quite specific. I'd say that the 'body' specification is quite explicit...but does not take into account the myriad options which can occur on a battlefield. Thus we are left without it having an etc or precident for what occurs when there is something else. Yay RAW :P House rule it and then take an army of drones to the GT and get no points for sportsmanship ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870880 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 It seems pretty clear cut to me. A tau drone may not have "head, torso, arms, legs" but it clearly has a body (the main part of the drone). The antenna and the guns are not targettable though. With this rationelle we need to define what constitures a body. Is the shell of a drone it's body? Common sense says but it's certainly not a torso which is what is required by RAW. close but more definition required I'm afraid ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870883 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 I don't agree The rule says trace line of sight to the "body". There is than an example of what "body" means. Everything has a "body" - it is the main part of the creature/object. Lack of a torso/arms/legs/head does not mean that the thing lacks a "body". ETA, this is my main problem with GW rules - they fail to adequately separate the text of the rule from the example text. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870890 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 When giving exampleas - such as in the instance of what all of the possible myriad options of what other ornamentation might be; wording suggesting examples such as 'may have' and 'etc' is used. With the brackets defining what they mean by body, for 'body' we mean it's head torso, legs and arms the wording is specific and leaving no ambiguity. The only ambiguity there is saying "it's" which allows the rule to cover anything and everything which might be targetted on the field. I heartilly agree that the main 'body' of a target must be it's greatest mass and any limbs and the like which sprout from this but, by having an explicit definition of what they mean by body (as they do in this instance) there is little room for interpretation. It could be argued that the precident here is that GW rules are never specific and always have room for interpretation which is what creates so many disagreements within the game, but that'd be just pedentry. ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870900 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isiah Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It could be argued that the precident here is that GW rules are never specific and always have room for interpretation which is what creates so many disagreements within the game, but that'd be just pedentry. Pedentry. Yes it could be described thus :P. It's an interesting discussion – presumably on the back of the ongoing LOS to Bikes topic – well it had to come didn't it. My answer is this: have you ever encountered a problem when playing and shooting at (or having your own shot at), drones, spawn, flammers/screamers or any other weird-shaped things without a strictly defined "head, torso, arms or legs" ? If so, then the debate is worth having, if not then it isn't. What is worth it though is trying to eke out proper definitions for such generic terms as "body" to hopefully have them included as part of a Rulebook errata. So any suggestions? Scott-S6's suggestion seems appropriate – that the largest "mass" of the model being is considered as the body, thus covering things that have no specific torso. That would then mean of course that bikes themselves are targetable, not just the riders' "head, torso, arms or legs". :) Cheers I Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870926 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 It's an interesting discussion – presumably on the back of the ongoing LOS to Bikes topic – well it had to come didn't it. It is indeed - created with the power of *shazaam!!* and everything. To be honest - no, it's never been an issue, really was a spin off discussion from the bikes thread as it was an interesting point brought up by that discussion which I thought might be worthy of further discussion...mainly as I'm a pedant who's into discussing the minutae of things and winning arguements. I have played against chaps in Swansea who have (under the old rules) played the line that terminators did not get the 5+ invulnerable save as theyy did not have terminator armour...thankfully they don't play in the store anymore but there's always that worry that someone like that might come back. So to reitterate...I'm indeed discussing just for discussion's sake...I'm a nuisance, a geekk, a pedant and proud! I also like swords and biking but thats a different matter. ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870955 Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Tiger Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model this opens up another can, what counts as eyes?, gun drones don't have eyes, fire warriors don't, crisis suits don't, space marines don't unless there bareheaded, writhlords/guard don't, tyranids have several, some mounted on weapons. most races have helmets on, which means there looking through glass/visors/cameras, none of these are eyes. but things like this are why 90% of the rulebook is ignored and common sense is engaged, otherwise this board would cease to be since marines and sisters with helmets would never fire, and guard would rule over all.......which they will anyway Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870974 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 The wraithlord is an interesting one as it has such a large head...do you go by the wraithstones on the side of it maybe? Old one certainly doesn't have eyes...says so in the name...wonder what it does? On the eyes front i'd say it's not so cut and dried as there isn't a specific bit of errata added in the rules right after where it says eyes about what they specifically mean by eyes (thankfully) and with common sense on that one we can conclude that eyes will include any visual apperatus which might be used ...really would love to see what people come up for the wraithlord. ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870985 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Well, I think even the guys from swansea wouldn't see a problem firing with humanoid models with helmets on such as SM, Fire Warriors and the like. Same goes for Battlesuits and Drones as it's actually pretty clear where their optical sensors lie. Tyranids are a different matter altogether, though. But it's not really a problem, because they all have eyes, it's just that they have more than we're used to. RAW you can use any of those eyes, easy as that.... EDIT Oh, yeah, the wraithlord's screwed of course.... Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870986 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 The problem I see with my suggestion is that it requires common sense. If you got that then the existing wording works just fine. Since, I think, we're all on the same page as what the rule ought to mean, the question is how to encapsulate that meaning in a pithy rule. How about: Line of sight must be drawn from the eyes/sensors of the firing model (if a model does not have readily apparent eyes then draw line of sight from their weapon) to any part of the target model excluding: Banners Wings Antenna These parts are to be condsidered to be transparent for purposes of line of sight. (I'm not going to include tail in the exceptions because of the snakey 'nids. Also, weapons are not excluded because you may have to draw line of sight from the weapon) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1870998 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 You could say that any part of the tail protruding over the base's rim doesn't count. And then we still need to clarify on bikes, because I don't think that we all agree on them being targetable....? EDIT: typo - my caffeine level was insufficcient -.- Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871004 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Why wouldn't bikes be targetable? - the bike is a pretty major part of the model. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871046 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 See for yourself. I don't get it either, but in a perfect world it has to be sorted out. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871055 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yeah, I've seen that thread. The only reason it's come up IMO is because the current "head/torso/arms/leg" wording leaves an opening to derive advantage. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871056 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 yup - that's the entire jist of this thread. Finding a means, through the wording of rules or precident, for how we can definitively sayu that things can be shot. As it stands the wording states that we can't target things which (while patently rediculous and simply ignored) means that arguements can crop up a'la bike thread. It'd be good just to have a definitive 'shush' thread. :D ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871066 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott-S6 Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 It's got to be a nice clean rule. Aim from eyes or sensors or (if there are no obvious eyes or sensor) weapon. Target whole model minus the shortest possible list of exceptions (banners, wings, antenna) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871068 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 yup that works for house ruling with common sense which we can all agree upon ...however (and there's always a however) if there's nothing in the rules themselves to back things up then it means that disagreements cannot be resolved unless there's a FAQ...which as far as I can tell means very little. ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871079 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 If anyone complains that you could not shoot at his drones or spore mines because they don't have a "torso", then the standard procedure would be to pack your stuff and never play him again. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871100 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 5, 2009 Share Posted February 5, 2009 Yeah, but what if you utilize lots of bikes, were the opposing side (although obviously wrong ^_^ ) might have some arguments in favor of them? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871109 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oldenhaller Posted February 5, 2009 Author Share Posted February 5, 2009 If anyone complains that you could not shoot at his drones or spore mines because they don't have a "torso", then the standard procedure would be to pack your stuff and never play him again. True - but that doesn't answer the question We have 4 pages of discussion over two weeks on bikes due to the same problem. The drones are just an example which exemplifies the idiocy of the arguement. If you can solve the problem for the drones then it will be a solution for all issues of this cropping up. ~O Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/#findComment-1871116 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.