Targetting Rules

[Legatus]

Ah, I will have a look over there then...

[jubei124]

I agree with all of you that the current LOS rule is messed up with GW defining body as being head, torso, legs and arms. My group basically(sp) houseruled that whole paragraph of the rule just because betwen 6 of us over 20 minutes could not come up with a reasonable RAW answer that included bikes being shot at. Now at the time we didn't think about other models besides bikes when we were talking this whole thing out. Anyways what we decided on was this.

 

LOS must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any model in the targeted unit. Sometimes all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other type of ornament that a model is wearing or carrying(including its wings or tail even though these are technically part of a model). Then we just left the rest of the paragraph as is.

 

After reading about the whole deal with models that don't have 'eyes' I think I'm going to suggest something like adding optics in there so it reads, LOS must be traced from the eyes/optics... The next time we get together.

 

Anyways this is how my group worked it out. If any of you want to use it feel free to steal the idea.

 

Cheers!

[Isiah]

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.

 

Exactly, 4 pages and no resolution. So what makes you think there'll be one for other things without head, torso etc etc? I wish you luck with it Oldenhaller :D.

 

Cheers

I

[Oldenhaller]

becuase hope spring eternal?

 

I think that the bike thread is looking at one specific instance and ignoring the myriad other variables in there. To this end something more encapsulating might throw more light on the subject.

 

Will have another look over the rules in a bit and see what I can figure out. There must be a way around this without resorting to ignoring what's been wrtten as it's rediculous...

 

~O

[Legatus]

Here is some RAW for ya. <_<

 

From "The Most Important Rule!", page 2 BRB:

 

In a game of this size and complexity there are bound to be occasions where a particular situation lies outside these rules, often when unusual models interact

 

The procedure would then be to "gentlemanly" agree that a Drone can be fired at even though it has no torso (or can fire itself, even though it has no eyes). If the opponent insists that it can do neither, the next option would be to roll-off for the game. Also, perhaps then after the game you might want to proceed as I have suggested in an earlier post...

[rat of vengence]

I think Oldenhaller made a good point earlier, that between the definition for 'body' and the examples for 'ornaments' lie a whole heap of things, such as bikes.

In my opinion we need to stop being retentive, and apply common sense despite the fact it isn't in the rulebook! Come on fellas, I am sure we can figure a few things out without sounding too infantile!

 

As I posted in the bike thread, I believe the most sensible approach it to see that the list of targetable parts is not exhaustive, nor is the list of ornamental parts. In the middle, lies common sense, and the bleedin' obvious. I have never had anyone tell me I cannot target their bike, nor would I pull it on someone else I intended to play again anytime soon.

 

Does it make sense that large parts of the model cannot be targeted according to a restrictive reading of the rules? No. Where RAW has Landraider sized holes in it, it should become obvious we need to think for ourselves. Reading the targeting list as being exclusive, rather than exemplar, leads to the situations described above by several people where many models cannot even shoot (by RAW) and several cannot be targeted (by RAW). This is obviously ridiculous. I do not think it is a great leap of the imagination to be very certain that these rules were not intended to exclude these models. Now beofre anyone goes all "RAI is for noobs!!11!" think about it. Either take your RAW view on this and admit you cannot shoot those drones, and cannot shoot with your helmeted marines (RAW say eyes, not lenses) or start applying a little independent thought and common sense! :P

 

One or the other fellas, can't cherrypick what you like and what you don't. If the rule obviously doesn't work, then I reckon it's because we are doing it wrong.

 

RoV

[Silber]

If the rule obviously doesn't work, then I reckon it's because we are doing it wrong.

If only.... :D

 

Seriously, I agree with you. The only proble is that there's always going to be someone telling you that "look, it says head, torso, arms, legs here - RAW you can't shoot me". But then there's always someone trying to ruin your day and we just have to live with it. The obvious thing to do would be to establish a club-wide standard, as in the very sensible house rulings mentioned above. And if you're taking part in a tournament just ask a judge before you set up so you know how things are going to be handled. I don't think were going to nail it any closer....

[Steelmage99]

"Look, it says head, torso, arms and legs. You cannot target my bike".

"Look, it says Ordnance Barrage have to remain stationary to shoot. You cannot move and shoot indirect with your Basilisk."

"Look, it says infantry models move up 6" per movement phase. You cannot move your Tactical marines 8"."

 

 

Look, the rules are in the book. You cannot fault a person for actually following the rules.

If you want to change something, talk it out with your opponent beforehand. But realize you are changing something.

When I play with my IG army, I ask; "If we get to play the Kill Point mission, can we play Victory Points instead?". If my opponent says no, then I know I have an severly uphill struggle and, depending on mood, might decide not to play. But I don't complain about it. My opponent wished to follow the rules and not change them. The default for any game, must be to first follow the rules.

[DevianID]

Well said steelmage99, that is basicly my stance.

 

As I said over in the other topic, is there any rules problem whatsoever with bikes if you can only draw LOS to the rider's head/torso/arms/legs? No, they are playable in every single way. Are they exploitable? No more than any other model without a bike--any exploit would have the same weight as saying a tac marine (completely clad in power armor) cant be targeted because his body is not visible underneath his armor--pretty silly stuff.

 

Example, If I take a space marine captian and buy him a bike, is the space marine captain no longer the focus of the model because the bike has more surface area/weight in plastic? No, of course not, the captain's head, torso, arms and legs are still the only parts on the captain's body, regardless of the wargear he bought. I personally find it VERY exploitive that someone says he can shoot my captain when a tire is all that he can see--especially when shown the rule detailing which part of the models can be shot at. I have no problem with houserules, but when entering an environment where everyone is working with the same rules (ie a tourney) the simplest solution is often the best--ie, for the bike if it aint broke dont fix it.

 

So, per the OP, what is broke that needs to be fixed? Spore mines, agreed, are broken... they are ordinance attacks that give the enemy kill points--i think its safe to say spore mines already were not playing as intended. However, spore mine models can be described to have a head and torso, not a human head mind you, but spore mines arnt human, and neither are space marines--its just degree's of difference.

 

What else is broke? Tau drones... again I agree they are broken, as the 2 man squad that goes with a troop devilfish, are a scoring unit, but by that extention are also another kill point. I am pretty sure tau vehicle drones were on the fringe of the designer's minds when they were thinking of 5th edition. However, I can point to the tau drone's dome like head/torso as easily as I can point to R2D2's head/torso.

 

So, besides the tau drones and the tyranid spore mines (which can, infact, be described to have heads/torsos), what other units in 40k have no targetable parts?

 

PS

A snake's tail is only the very last part of the snake... over 85% of the snakes body would be its head and torso, and the final 15% or so (after its anal plate) would be its tail. Thus, snake-like tyranids are not all tail, they are almost all targetable body.

 

PPS

Does it make sense that large parts of the model cannot be targeted according to a restrictive reading of the rules?

It Absolutely Makes Sense! Because said 'large parts of the model' are ment to look cool, such as giant flapping wings (that the designers TELL US are technically part of a model's body and yet STILL dont count!!!) or bikes longer than some cars, or even giant walking ivory thrones, and making such cool looking parts targetable would give players incentive to make their models smaller, less impressive, less cool looking, in order to gain some benefit. I for one am overjoyed that the model company wrote the rules in such a way that makes playing really cool, impressive models the same as more standard models... in effect, they are saying 'go ahead, have fun with your models, the cool extra bits and dodads wont be a disadvantage.'

[Anathame]

:wallbash: This is pathetic - of course you can target them.

If anyone tried this on me I'd throw my extra spikey Land Raider at them.

[rat of vengence]

DevianID and Steelmage, neither of you have answered your selective use of literal language, in this thread or the other. If the targeting restrictions are exclusive, then so are the restrictions for drawing line of sight; from the eyes. It doesn't say lenses, it doesn't say sensors, it says eyes. From your restrictive reading of RAW being exclusive, that means if the model has no eyes, then it cannot draw line of sight. Simple.

So, are we going to be consistent one way or the other? Before you post anything else, tell us why targeting restriction is literally exclusive, yet the line of sight rule isn't. It's in the same paragraph, p16.

 

Using wings as an example, is ridiculous; they are clearly described in the non-exclusive list of non-targetable ornamental parts. Again, neither of you have explained where it says the bike is mrely ornamental.

 

The rules are in the book. If you want to house rule that the list is exclusive, go ahead. But it has clearly been shown several times to NOT WORK when used consistently. Therefore, there is a problem with that approach.

 

Seriously, has anyone actually had someone try to pull this stunt on them? I told the gamers in my group about this and they laughed, for quite some time...

 

RoV

[Steelmage99]

DevianID and Steelmage, neither of you have answered your selective use of literal language, in this thread or the other. If the targeting restrictions are exclusive, then so are the restrictions for drawing line of sight; from the eyes. It doesn't say lenses, it doesn't say sensors, it says eyes. From your restrictive reading of RAW being exclusive, that means if the model has no eyes, then it cannot draw line of sight. Simple.

So, are we going to be consistent one way or the other? Before you post anything else, tell us why targeting restriction is literally exclusive, yet the line of sight rule isn't. It's in the same paragraph, p16.

 

"Eyes of the model" does no have to be restricted to the human globular organ of vision. As the range of models produced by GW include non-human models, I understand the rule to include a sort of unspoken "or equivalent". This has to be done as otherwise only Guardsmen would be able to draw LOS as they are the only ones with regular human eyes, strictly speaking. More on this further down.

 

Using wings as an example, is ridiculous; they are clearly described in the non-exclusive list of non-targetable ornamental parts. Again, neither of you have explained where it says the bike is mrely ornamental.

 

As a bike is not included in the list of things you are allowed to target, it must belong in the ornamental grouping.

 

The rules are in the book. If you want to house rule that the list is exclusive, go ahead. But it has clearly been shown several times to NOT WORK when used consistently. Therefore, there is a problem with that approach.

 

The list is exclusive. Otherwise it would have ended with a "and so on" or the equivalent. It could have been an "open ended" list, but it isn't.

How does the list of things I can target not work? Are we still hung up on Drones and Spore mines? Really? TWO MODELS? Thats your issue?

 

Saying; "The list of things I can target must be non-exclusive as otherwise Drones cannot shoot." is like saying; "I don't like apples because oranges taste bad."

 

Why do we apply such a strict interpretation of the word "body"?

 

Can you guess it?

 

It's because the rules tells us too! The rules tells us exactly what they mean by "body".

 

Do such a strict interpretation apply to "eyes"?

 

No. it doesn't. The word "eyes" and the word "body" even appear in the same sentence and only "body" is subject to such a literal interpretation.

The fact that you have found a grand total of two models in the entire range does not make the rules invalid. They are the exception that must be worked out.

 

Seriously, has anyone actually had someone try to pull this stunt on them? I told the gamers in my group about this and they laughed, for quite some time...

 

Good for you. It seems you are playing with a group of equally deficient gamers.

I'll leave you to enjoy your game any way you see fit in the spirit of "The Most Important Rule".

 

I'm done.

[Legatus]

"Eyes of the model" does no have to be restricted to the human globular organ of vision. As the range of models produced by GW include non-human models, I understand the rule to include a sort of unspoken "or equivalent".

...so, why does that work for "Eyes => Lenses" but not for "Arms => Tentacles" or "Torso => Hull"?

[eyescrossed]

"Eyes of the model" does no have to be restricted to the human globular organ of vision. As the range of models produced by GW include non-human models, I understand the rule to include a sort of unspoken "or equivalent".

...so, why does that work for "Eyes => Lenses" but not for "Arms => Tentacles" or "Torso => Hull"?

I agree with Legatus.

[rat of vengence]

"Eyes of the model" does no have to be restricted to the human globular organ of vision. As the range of models produced by GW include non-human models, I understand the rule to include a sort of unspoken "or equivalent". This has to be done as otherwise only Guardsmen would be able to draw LOS as they are the only ones with regular human eyes, strictly speaking. More on this further down.

Right. So despite the rules giving no leeway whatsoever ("Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model...") you decide that it should include things that are not eyes. I agree, it is the only sensible way of reading it. So why can't we apply the same logic and common sense to the 'body' rule? <_<

 

As a bike is not included in the list of things you are allowed to target, it must belong in the ornamental grouping.

Okay, so where does it say that in the rules?

 

The list is exclusive. Otherwise it would have ended with a "and so on" or the equivalent. It could have been an "open ended" list, but it isn't.

How does the list of things I can target not work? Are we still hung up on Drones and Spore mines? Really? TWO MODELS? Thats your issue?

Then why isn't the list (of one) of things you can use to draw line of sight exclusive? Why can't we be consistent with these rules?

 

Why do we apply such a strict interpretation of the word "body"?

 

Can you guess it?

 

It's because the rules tells us too! The rules tells us exactly what they mean by "body".

 

Do such a strict interpretation apply to "eyes"?

 

No. it doesn't. The word "eyes" and the word "body" even appear in the same sentence and only "body" is subject to such a literal interpretation.

Right. Care to tell us why this is the case? Seems awfully arbitrary to me.

 

Good for you. It seems you are playing with a group of equally deficient gamers.

I'll leave you to enjoy your game any way you see fit in the spirit of "The Most Important Rule".

Obviously a rule you are not very familiar with from the tone of that quote.

 

I'm done.

Promise? :P

[DevianID]

RoV, I understand you are pretty passionate about this, but 2 things strike me. First, you are arguing one rule being bad means another one is also bad. This is not a logical progression; you are inserting a personal opinion that amounts to a house rule. I think you should focus on the rule in question, aka is a bike part of a models body, and not worry about other things in the book--you may wish to open another topic to discuss those other rules, as the eye thing may benefit from its own discussion--one I will not go off topic to address here.

 

Second, since it seemed to be missed. I buy two captains from the space marine codex. One gets a bike and a relic blade, the other gets a jump pack and thunderhammer. Between the two captain models, identify the captain's body... is the relic blade part of the captains body? Is the jump pack? What about the thunderhammer? 'Thunderhammers' are not explicitly listed as an ornament, neither is jump pack, neither is bike... but, the important thing is a captain's body is defined as head, torso, arms, and legs. If I shoot the bike a captain bought, is the captain's head going to bleed?

 

We have a closed set of rules telling us what a body is. We have an open set of rules telling us what ornaments are. In between we have some things that are not body and not ornament. Things that are not ornamental do not automaticly become body, however, because body is a closed set (and fully functional set I might add, yes even for spore mines and gun drones)

 

There is no problem with the rule for drawing LOS to a body, as every model has something that passes for a head or torso at the very least (yes even spore mines and gun drones). The game works just fine if you cant draw LOS to a bike, as there is still a giant rider to shoot at. If there are aspects of the game's actual rules you dont like (I dont like checkerboarding for example) then houserule different it in friendly games if your opponent agrees, get clarifications from judges in tourneys, and PLEASE dont try to pass of your opinions about how you want stuff to work in the official rules section where the rules for this are actually very clear and easy.

 

and for the record

Again, neither of you have explained where it says the bike is merely ornamental.

The bike doesnt have to be labeled ornamental, regardless of what it is it is not a part of a models body, nor does it need to be.

 

So I ask again, personal opinions aside and issues with other rules aside, what is unplayable in the game about only being able to shoot a models head, torso, arms, or legs?

[nighthawks]

I believe that at this point it is safe to say that the overwhelming RAW evidence is:

 

-Due to the presence of the defining text of "head, torso, legs, and arms" that ONLY those things or their non-humanoid equivalents count as targetable "body."

 

-Had the term "body" been used without the limiting description, then interpretations could be used that may allow for the inclusion of bikes, etc... but this is not the case. while it may seem logical to some to include them, to do so amounts to a house rule, WHICH IS FINE - GW encourages us to play as we see fit - but it is not RAW.

 

-The ornaments list is non-exhaustive (thus "etc..."). The lack of something's name from that list does not remove it from inclusion. Basically, if it isn't targetable from the "Body" rule above, it belongs here.

 

-It would also appear that the "eyes" statement is left open to interpretation on a model-model basis as what constitutes optical function is normally rather obvious and everyone, generally, agrees. Not all models represent human(oid) beings - but what they see with is generally easy to determine.

 

Would we agree that this is ready for the rules sticky?

[Isiah]

I would agree.

[Legatus]

Second, since it seemed to be missed. I buy two captains from the space marine codex. One gets a bike and a relic blade, the other gets a jump pack and thunderhammer. Between the two captain models, identify the captain's body... is the relic blade part of the captains body? Is the jump pack? What about the thunderhammer? 'Thunderhammers' are not explicitly listed as an ornament, neither is jump pack, neither is bike... but, the important thing is a captain's body is defined as head, torso, arms, and legs. If I shoot the bike a captain bought, is the captain's head going to bleed?

- Other than jump packs, bikes change the profile of the rider. In the case of Space Marine bikes that is only +1 Toughness, but Eldar also get an armour save, Dark Eldar get +1 Strength in addition. In fact, the basic rules describe on page 6 how Bikes and Riders have a combined profile.

 

- Bikes can be "contacted" by enemy models to initiate combat. They don't have to contact the rider (or an assumed infantry base around the rider).

 

- Bikes have their own armaments that can fire, and where range is measured from. They are not merely a single piece of gear, they are a significant vehicle that changes how the model can act.

 

- With smaller walkers, you would specifically target the machine rather than the pilot to destroy it.

 

- In 2nd Edition, bikes had a distinct vehicle profile and could be damaged indpendently from the rider. The rider could be killed, or the bike could be destroyed, in which case the rider had a chance to survive IIRC.

 

 

-Due to the presence of the defining text of "head, torso, legs, and arms" that ONLY those things or their non-humanoid equivalents count as targetable "body."

Objection, as that seems to assume that only humanoid or animal-like models will ever be encountered, no "machines" with a profile, sich as drones. How can the definition of "torso" be extended to a drone, but stops at a bike?

[Silber]

Steelmage99:

"Look, it says head, torso, arms and legs. You can't target my drone"

 

DevianID:

The Thunderhammer is out - it's a weapon, wich is non-targetable by the list of ornamental parts. The Jumppack - I think it should be targetable - I see it as part of the models "body".

 

nighthawk:

I don't agree with that summary. If you read the list of parts that may constitute a body as exhaustive then Drones, Sporemines, and such are untargetable by RAW, because they surely have a body, but neither head, torso, arms or legs and thus no body to target.

[Isiah]

nighthawk:

If you read the list of parts that may constitute a body as exhaustive then Drones, Sporemines, and such are untargetable by RAW, because they surely have a body, but neither head, torso, arms or legs and thus no body to target.

 

Exactly – hence this issue can never be resolved because obviously in 'real' games such a conclusion would be preposterous, even though it is RAW.

 

Cheers

I

[DevianID]

Bikes can be "contacted" by enemy models to initiate combat. They don't have to contact the rider (or an assumed infantry base around the rider).

 

- Bikes have their own armaments that can fire, and where range is measured from. They are not merely a single piece of gear, they are a significant vehicle that changes how the model can act.

 

Remember Legatus, you are confusing different rules here. Rules for movement and measurement to/from models is measured from a base. Many bikes have no base supplied--this is an issue for another topic, and I agree with you it does have merit to discuss. Most I play use the bike as the dimentions of the base, use square calvary bases, or use termie bases--any option is about as official as the next. GW has started producing bases for bikes, but their business policy is that models are grandfathered in to whatever base they are supplied with (or not supplied with in the case of bikes) in order to avoid upsetting people who spent time basing and posing their models just to have to redo it all. However, the fact remains that the presence or absence of a base does nothing to affect how to determine LOS to a model.

 

Other than jump packs, bikes change the profile of the rider

 

Actually, every single item I listed changes the profile/unit type of the captain--relic blades with their +2 str, Thammers double str, and bikes +1 toughness. Changing a captains profile and or unit type have no effect on the rules for drawing LOS to a model.

 

Bikes have their own armaments that can fire, and where range is measured from. They are not merely a single piece of gear, they are a significant vehicle that changes how the model can act.

 

- With smaller walkers, you would specifically target the machine rather than the pilot to destroy it.

 

As I stated above, range is measured from a base, and range has nothing to do with determining LOS to a model.

 

Also, walkers are vehicles, and follow different rules for determining LOS to them, which have no relation to non-vehicles such as bikes.

 

Objection, as that seems to assume that only humanoid or animal-like models will ever be encountered, no "machines" with a profile, such as drones. How can the definition of "torso" be extended to a drone, but stops at a bike

 

It doesnt say 'human shaped head or torso' as tyranids are anything but human. Look at R2D2, he has a dome little head, a cylinder torso, and rectangular legs, with little dodad arms that can exend from his torso. I can see a round dish shaped head on the top of the tau drones with a little torso on the bottom where the guns attach. What you just said about 'torso' seems to imply that you think the bike should be my captain's torso, instead of my captains torso--or are you saying that there is more than one torso on my captain with a bike?

 

BTW, the circular dish on the top of the drone as the head of the model or the stuff underneath the circular object the torso/trunk of the drone model can be argued if you want to get into semantics, pull out definations that fit for torso and head, and then try to use more obscure definations to apply to bikes (*joke* the headlight on the bike counts as a head *joke*) but really I dont want to go down that road--especially if the justification for saying the round object on the top of the drone means that the round circular object on top of the bike riders neck and shoulders is not the bike models head, it is actually the front tire on the bike that is the bike models head, cause it is larger and rounder thus more 'head' like. As stated, the game is absolutely playable by the book in refrence to bikes LOS--aka not broken, you can still see him--thus you are not fixing anything by adding the houserule that states you can target bikes.

 

Edit:

If you read the list of parts that may constitute a body as exhaustive then Drones, Sporemines, and such are untargetable by RAW, because they surely have a body, but neither head, torso, arms or legs and thus no body to target.

Posted a bit late, but my posts do go over this, namely there are heads and torsos on drones and sporemines.

[Silber]

Posted a bit late, but my posts do go over this, namely there are heads and torsos on drones and sporemines.

I was cut from the net for a whole day, hence the late post. And again I have to object: if drones and sporemines have torsos then so do bikes. It's been said multiple times already - we're not going to come to a conclusion here because the rule is broken - RAW just doesn't work in this case. And because we are obviously not going to agree wether "of course" a bike is part of the model and thus should be able to be targetted or if "of course" it's just a space marine riding on a bike and thus the bike should not be able to be targetted. This, by the way, is the main difference between drones and bikes. Nobody in their right minds is going to disagree that the drone should be targetable....

[Legatus]

Remember Legatus, you are confusing different rules here.

It was meant as a list of reasons why a lot of people think that bikes can be targeted without giving it a second thought. Fewer people would think that a jump pack (which could be compared to a set of wings) can be targeted. A bike is not a mere acessory that can be presented in a different way or is merley used to give the model a flashy appearance. It is not a long sword or banner pole that sticks out. It is a vital part of teh model that changes the models movement, shooting and close combat.

[DevianID]

It is a vital part of the model that changes the models movement, shooting and close combat.

 

I feel you, I really do... but other things change movement, shooting, and close combat, by big or small margins. Nothing, however, adds another head, torso, arm or leg to the model.

 

if drones and sporemines have torsos then so do bikes

 

This is what I was afraid of... where is my captain's --who bought a bike-- torso? What defination of torso are you using for my space marine captain?

 

Really guys, semantics is weak, and does NOTHING to change the argument.

we're not going to come to a conclusion here because the rule is broken - RAW just doesn't work in this case

Where is it broken? Drones have a drone head and a drone torso, Spores have a spore head and a spore torso. Bikes have a rider that has a head, torso, arms, and legs. A drone head does not equal a space marines head, but it doesnt have to. Everything works, nothing is broken with this one particular rule.