Targetting Rules

[Legatus]

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.

A Captain with Bike is not a "Captain, who happens to have a bike", it is a "Captain on Bike". And the rulebook describes how models and bikes have a shared profile. It does not describe that models and their jump packs have a shared profile. That's also why I mentioned sentinels and 2nd Editipon bike rules. Bikes are not pure accessories. They have vulnerable parts, they are vehicles, not "simple" pieces of equipment.

 

Drones have a drone head and a drone torso

You take a mechanical construct, and then you declare that one of it's parts is the "torso", and another part the "head". Can you do that with other mechanical constructs too? Such as bikes?

[DevianID]

A Captain with Bike is not a "Captain, who happens to have a bike", it is a "Captain on Bike". And the rulebook describes how models and bikes have a shared profile. It does not describe that models and their jump packs have a shared profile. That's also why I mentioned sentinels and 2nd Editipon bike rules. Bikes are not pure accessories. They have vulnerable parts, they are vehicles, not "simple" pieces of equipment.

 

Legatus I promise I am not giving you a hard time. I really do understand everything you are saying. One person posted a house rule for LOS that if a part on a model appears important, then it can be shot at. Thus, a model with wings doesnt want his wings shot off, thus the wings would be targetable. This house rule makes sense for many people, and many play this way, and there is nothing wrong with the way they play. But its not official rules, and if two people agree to play by official rules in liu of house rules (tournies come to mind), then they can not play that way. (Plus, playing that you can shoot anything important to a model means more impressive models are penalized /rulesbalancemode=off)

 

So you are right, bikes are not 'mere' accessories, they are required for a bike using model to be wysiwyg--like a power sword. Bikes are not ornament. Bikes may make up the majority of the mass of many models. None of that changes the fact that a bike model has a guy on the bike with a clearly defined head, torso, arms, and legs, and that when checking los you draw the LOS to the head/torso/arms/legs.

[rat of vengence]

Hmmm, I am certainly not trying to enforce a houserule on anyone. I do get mildly annoyed at people who appear to be looking for any exploit they can find.

 

Again, and still noone has answered this beyond avoiding it, why be so arbitrary when deciding which rule is literal and exclusive (body) and which rule is not (eyes). It seems that there is no more grounds to take one as less literal than the other than the fact it is convenient. To do this is merely twisting words to your advantage. "They mean this bit literally, even though it doesn't work for everything, but they don't mean this bit literally, because it doesn't work for everything."

 

And the whole argument about a captain on a bike being 'unfairly' penalised, well I have always played that it simply the risk you take for gaining such a huge mobility advantage. If we are going to play such word games, what is there to stop us aiming at the 'body' of the bike, seeing as you seem to have no problem identifying the 'body' of a Tau drone. Or would that be too consistent?

 

If you would enforce this interpretation of RAW, then be consistent. There is no reason (other than common sense) not to apply this equally to line of sight with eyes. It is exactly what you are advocating for the other half of the same sentence!

 

RoV

[Legatus]

The rules do account for such situations:

 

Different unit Types

So far the rules have just dealt with troops that move around on foot - infantry.

Rulebook, page 52, in the section about unit types.

 

Remember that it had been established on page 5 of the rulebook that bikes and jetbikes have a combined profile with their rider. On that page it also points out under "vehicles" that bikes and jetbikes do not count as vehicles, but are a distinct unit type.

 

There you have print that suggests that bikes may not be properly covered in the shooting rules. Extending the targetable parts to a bike is not much different from extending it to a drone, or allowing a drone or a zoanthrope to fire. That going strictly by RAW would lead to problems with drones and zoanthropes but not necessarily with bikes and their riders does not change the fact that you are going beypnd RAW in both cases.

 

Also, while in the Space Marine Codex the bike models are refered to as "Space Marine Biker", which refers to the driver, the Attack Bike models are referred to as "Attack Bike". Similarly, the Eldar Jetbike model is refered to as "Guardian Jetbike", not as "Guardian on a jetbike". It stands to reason that if I want a unit to fire at the "Jetbike" models, they can fire if they can draw LOS to a vital part of the Jetbike.

 

With infantry models, you shoot at the creature. With vehicles, even the small ones who are just a small step above a bike, you shoot at the vehicle, not the driver, since you are only given a vehicle profile. Bikes, who once had rules just as vehicles, are a middle ground between an infantry model and a small vehicle. Since 3rd Edition the bikes have no provile of their own anymore, but both have a combined profile.

 

Basically, the motivation for treating bikes as targetable parts is two rule statements: 1) Rider and Bike share a combined profile. 2) The model is often refered to as "Bike" and not "Rider on Bike".

[jubei124]

Also, while in the Space Marine Codex the bike models are refered to as "Space Marine Biker", which refers to the driver, the Attack Bike models are referred to as "Attack Bike". Similarly, the Eldar Jetbike model is refered to as "Guardian Jetbike", not as "Guardian on a jetbike". It stands to reason that if I want a unit to fire at the "Jetbike" models, they can fire if they can draw LOS to a vital part of the Jetbike.

 

My Black Templar Bike Squadrons are listed as Between 3 to 5 Initates on Space Marine Bikes.

[nighthawks]

guys - logic and sensible interpretations are not required to meet the standards set forth by RAW. we all know that GW writes rules without considering the impact that they could have on one established codex or another, and that they don't choose their words all that wisely. they are writing a fantasy/sci-fi games mechanic.

 

that said - the discussion here, maybe unfortunately, has to do with what the RAW says. often times we play something differently. in 4th, for example, we all gave vet. sgt marine's leadership to the whole of the squad. this was not allowed by RAW, but everyone "knew" that was how it worked. you will likely find that most people DO allow that a bike or a jump pack are targetable, logically, and play as such, I know my friends and I do. but RAW tells us otherwise. it doesn't matter that it seems unbalanced, silly, or just illogical.

 

RoV - your question regarding eyes / body interpretations is easy - the BRB defines body, and not eyes. the other way around, and this thread would be about models' shooting ability, not targeting. the terms in the "body" definition (head, torso, arms, legs) ARE open to some interpretation, though I cannot see how any of them could be extrapolated to include a bike. a small machine (drone) or organic thingy (spore mine) is easy to fit in here.

 

Also - with regard to the special unit types: BRB page 5 make sit clear that bikes "are units mounted on ... bikes or jetbikes." P51 "Except for the rules detailed in this section for each unit type, these units follow the same rules as infantry." P53 - no mention of different targeting rules. so the "body" definition stands, as RAW, no matter how silly.....

 

HOWEVER - cavalry would be fully targetable, having riders and mounts with the parts defined as body.

 

again - it doesn't have to be how you play, but there's really very little to argue about here. the RAW is pretty clear. if you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't change the "official" answer we look for here in the -OR-.

[Legatus]

your question regarding eyes / body interpretations is easy - the BRB defines body, and not eyes.

"Eyes" is in itself quite specific. And you will find that a Zoanthrope has noting that you could describe as an eye.

 

Also - with regard to the special unit types: BRB page 5 make sit clear that bikes "are units mounted on ... bikes or jetbikes."

And then the same paragraph makes it clear that rider and bike share a combined characteristics profile.

 

HOWEVER - cavalry would be fully targetable, having riders and mounts with the parts defined as body.

Since shooting a rider's mount would not be much different from shooting a rider's bike, you are basically acknowledging that there may be some models that, even though they would logically be vulnerable, cannot be harmed by shooting due to RAW. Such as Tau Drones.

 

There only needs to be one viable example that proves that the targeting rules on page 16 are too generically phrased for us to know that RAW is not applicable 100% in all cases. We have a few of such examples. You can decide to strictly go by RAW in all of these cases, or you acknowledge that sometimes it is not applicable.

 

What is the "official" answer you are looking for? RAW? But that is not how anybody plays it. Who do you know who does not allow Zoanthropes to shoot or plays with Tau Drones that are invulnerable to shooting?

[nighthawks]

again - it doesn't have to be how you play, but there's really very little to argue about here. the RAW is pretty clear. if you don't like it, that's cool, but it doesn't change the "official" answer we look for here in the -OR-.

 

what is clear is what is written. weather you or I or anyone else plays that way is not relevant. what I acknowledge as sensible doesn't have to be what GW put in the rules, and vice versa.

 

for the record - I play bikes = targets.

 

I think the tau drone bit is easy to work within the rules, and obviously ALL models are targetable somehow - though not all OF a model, necessarily.

Not RAW nor this forum will determine how any game is actually played. you are correct in that RAW does not work 100% of the time, but we cannot have an easily controlled debate between thousands of people form across the globe based on our beliefs of intent or logical extension - so we only discuss the rules as written. if they DON'T WORK then we all work for a solution, if we don't like them, but they are playable, then we houserule it, but we shouldn't try to muddy the official with the preferred rules. Units on bikes aren't broken or unplayable under RAW, it just seems wrong to some of us that the mount wouldn't be targetable.

 

blind models like zoas, wraithguard, etc... can be dealt with individually. As they come with shooting attacks, obviously they can shoot - but by RAW, it's tricky if not impossible to do so without "eyes" from which to draw LOS. this is something where the community may come to a consensus as the RAW is insufficient or overly-limiting for official models to be used as "obviously" intended.

[Legatus]

But since RAW has been acknowledged in the first post, shouldn't the discussion then go beyond RAW? Otherwise the topic would be done after a few "yup, that's how it is". That is why I have tried to provide arguments for why people may want to play it so, or are used to, bikes being targetable in an earlier post.

 

We know RAW. We know sometimes you have players fall back on RAI or a different interpretation (e.g. Space Marine Banners). So the question then is: why may someone decide to use RAI or a different interpretation for bikes/drones/Zoanthropes?

[rat of vengence]

RoV - your question regarding eyes / body interpretations is easy - the BRB defines body, and not eyes. the other way around, and this thread would be about models' shooting ability, not targeting. the terms in the "body" definition (head, torso, arms, legs) ARE open to some interpretation, though I cannot see how any of them could be extrapolated to include a bike. a small machine (drone) or organic thingy (spore mine) is easy to fit in here.

Does the word 'eyes' need defining? :P

 

I can see how people are getting the idea that bikes are not targetable, I just don't think it is the rules as written. If we go purely by what that says, there is a whole heap of stuff such as bikes, jumppacks etc that fall between being able to target the body, but not able to target decorative stuff. Where I have trouble is with people deciding that those things in between must be untargetable, even though those things fit neither the description for 'body' nor 'ornament'. I guess we have different interpretations of the RAW, and therefore the RAW isn't clear.

 

There are enough inconsistencies in the way some are reading the rule, and inconsistently applying the exclusivity, to suggest to me they are reading it wrong. Noone here is debating what the rules says, but what it means. :D

 

I might also point out that p53 mostly refers to them as just 'bikes'. It starts with 'troops mounted on bikes...' but then goes on to describe them simply as bikes 12 times. I only refers to the rider 4 times.

 

RoV

[jubei124]

I can see how people are getting the idea that bikes are not targetable, I just don't think it is the rules as written

 

But it is the rules as written. I agree that you should be able to shoot at the bike or drone or whatever. The whole issue is only because GW defined what the 'body' of a model was. Honestly without this phrase I don't think any issues would come up for the various models.

 

I think GW didn't put enough thought into the LOS rules concerning all the different models in 40k and because of this we are left with these problems. Everyone here added together has most likely spent more time discussing this than GW spent writing and proof reading it. Something slipped by them and all we can do now is argue RAW vs RAI on the issue until they decide to fix it.

[rat of vengence]

I partly agree. :lol:

 

I think we are all talking RAW, but reading it differently. I think it is blindingly obvious what the rules intended, as would most I think, but I also think the RAW support this too. If we interpret this the other way, there are too many inconsistencies.

;)

 

RoV

[Scott-S6]

It seems to me that we must regard the part of the rules in parentheses (by body we mean....) as example text. We can infer that it is simply an example as it does not apply to any non-humanoid model of which there are many.

 

A more correct definition of body is:

 

1.

a. The entire material or physical structure of an organism, especially of a human or animal.

b. The physical part of a person.

c. A corpse or carcass.

 

5.

The main or central part

[Silber]

My net access is too sporadic at the moment to keep up with this kind of heated debate. But though, here you go.

 

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?

That one's easy: it is established that models don't have to have the standard human mount of bodyparts. Have a look at cavalry and tyranids for reference. Thus the answer would obviously be "both". No need to be afraid :D

 

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

Wasn't it you who proposed that drones obviously do have a body to target? Isn't that semantics?

 

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.

It is broken in that it is obviously written so misleading that we can have a pages long argument about what it is supposed to mean with both sides admitting that the other one has a point but doesn't read the rule "right".

 

 

Again, I think the whole problem is that Space Marine Bikes have humanoid parts on them. Nobody has a hard time acknowledging that for models such as drones, sporemines, some chaos spawn and excentric squigs the definition of "head, arms, torso and legs" has to be extrapolated. Neither does it seem to be a problem for models such as cavalry, most tyranids, most chaos spawn and excentric squigs to have more than the standard amount of "head, arms, torso and legs".

 

So in my opinion, if you read and apply RAW consistently there really shouldn't be a problem with bikes. They are targetable. It becomes more of a stretch with Jetpacks, but I guess they're most likely the SM-Variant of wings and as such non-targetable.

 

 

 

 

 

EDIT

I had some time to think it through. I think I can now advocate for RAW = Bikes targetable pretty clearly. I'll give it a try, lets hope I can type it as clean as it sounded in my head....

 

• Specimen A
  Space Marine Bob, boltgun-toting and footslogging
   
  
• Specimen B
  Achmed, Tallarn Rough Rider, on his mighty steed
   
  
• Specimen C
  *****, Tyranid Sporemine
   
  
• Specimen D
  Space Marine Joe, riding his bike
  

 

The way most of the strict RAW crowd seem to interpret the rule is like this:

 

Look at Specimen A -> look at rule -> interpret -> apply

Look at Specimen B -> look at rule -> interpret -> apply

and so forth

 

I propose you go by the foolowing scheme instead:

 

Look at Specimen A -> look at rule

Look at Specimen B -> look at rule

Look at Specimen C -> look at rule

Look at Specimen D -> look at rule

interpret -> apply to all Specimen the same way

 

So lets try it out, shall we?

 

• Specimen A
  This one's easy. It obviously has legs, torso, head, arms, all the stuff you would expect to find.
   
  
• Specimen B
  Oh, look at that! This one has more of each. But still, no real surprises. Notice, though, that next to it there stands this strange guy who could be his brother, with two legs instead of six. Keep it in mind.
   
  
• Specimen C
  Oh, :pinch:. This one has, well, nothing really. It's a glob with tentacles hanging from it. But of course all things have to be targetable somehow, so then certainly that round glob in the middle of it would be considered "torso". It's a stretch, but there you go.
   
  
• Specimen D
  Ah, this one has the standard amount of everything, but look at that strange steed he's riding. Well, we know that there are some models where it is debatable if "torso" or whatever would be the right term to describe it's main part, but we decided to interpret it a little bit loosely in order to work. That's okay, speech is very unprecise at times. Furthermore we know that some models have more targetable parts than our beloved Specimen A, Space Marine Bob. So steeds are to be considered targetable. Well then we know how to handle this one, don't we?
  

 

The key to understanding how exactly "body" (or head, torso, arms and legs, respectively) has to be interpreted is to look at all the possible models one could encounter and then interpret it in a way that encompasses all those models.

[nighthawks]

cavalry and bikes are different unit types - despite the similarities, they don't follow all of the same rules, and what applies by RAW to one need not apply to the other.

 

I am not arguing FOR the use of RAW - the golden rule and GW policy make it suggested but, ultimately, optional, anyhow. I am simply participating in a forum where published GW RAW and Errata are the rule. and dispite my disagreements with this reading, I cannot find a hole in it WITH REGARD TO BIKES (which seems to be the sticking point) - they have all of the requisite "body" parts so work under RAW, like it or not.

 

where it concerns "head, torso, arms, and legs" of non-human models (drones, spore mines) a concensus needs to be developed as they do not "fit" this deifinition, and thus RAW is inadequate. this is an easy extrapolation, and I believe that all participants in this discussion have agreed that they are targetable.

 

IF we want to go into "eyes" here then the same as above is true with regard to "eyeless" models. there is no RAW solution, so a concensus must be reached. easy enough.

 

I just don't want to see this devolve, like the bike thread, into circular arguments where eveyone continues to state their point over and over and both sides reach a stalemate. I think that if the POINT of the arguments is assessed, that the one side is simply defending RAW and the other promoting RAI or an equivalent. I sympathise with the latter, but that's not the point.

[Silber]

The problem with this rule is that it is read in a different way for different models by the strict-RAW-crowd. If you apply it just to bikes then it works if you interpret it one way. If you apply it to sporemines it works if you interpret it another way. The way I think it should be interpreted is by no means RAI or even against RAW, it's merely reading the rule in a way that works with all models. RAW isn't always as clear as you'd like it to have. It would be more fitting to call it RAR, Rules As Read. So what I am suggesting is RAW. The trick is not to stop at the point were you realize that the model has head, torso, arms and legs and just think that little bit further. And say what you like, thinking is always required to understand the rules.

[DevianID]

The key to understanding how exactly "body" (or head, torso, arms and legs, respectively) has to be interpreted is to look at all the possible models one could encounter and then interpret it in a way that encompasses all those models

The trick is not to stop at the point were you realize that the model has head, torso, arms and legs and just think that little bit further

 

This is logicly invalid. I know what you guys are saying, and I see your point that your raw is different than my raw. However that statement is illogical. The rules as written are words from the book--they dont change. RAI i think is the term you were looking for, as in your RAI is different than my RAI.

 

Also, if you want to talk about personal interpretations, however, GW was nice enough to tell us how they interpret the rule they wrote. Pretty good of them. They say that parts of a model's body that are not their head/torso/arms/legs are off limits. They even tell us how they interpret the word body, as body has, what, 13 definations at the least. Body for GW, though, = head/torso/arms/legs. Thus if there is any doubt as to what GW means, they spelled it out.

 

As for my statements about this or that being illogical, let me elaborate. The main arguement I have seen is that the LOS rule for determining LOS to a model is broken (read, sporemines), therefore needs to be changed/interpreted. However, you have based this arguement on several personal opinions that make the ENTIRE argument more and more opinion based. As an opinion based arguement, unless the opinion is shared by both players then you are going to have disagreements, and will be unable to say your argument is more vaild than the opponents. Its a little different than what nighthawks said, aka RAW vs RAI, because the arguments I have seen for making the bikes targetable use 'broken' obscure models as proof that the rule needs to be changed (opinion), but it is further opinion that those rare models are 'broken' in the first place. Thus its multiple stacked opinions that refrence each other for proof that lead to a final result that bikes are targetable.

 

Specific examples about opinions i am talking about.

1> Spore mines have no targetable parts

2> Drones have no targetable parts

3> Some models may have more body parts that can be described as 'head/torso/arms/legs' or have different types of 'head/torsos/arms/legs' and players are incapable of figuring out what a model's actual body parts are (roughriders-- the only mounted calvary in the game, models with little imps on their shoulder, models with a severed arm sticking out of their base, ect)

4> (this is a big one) All the rules for LOS for every model, whether it is percieved as 'broken' or not, have to be changed to make more parts on a model targetable to 'fix' the 'broken' dynamic that only head/torso/arms/legs can be targeted.

 

Now, I have been advocating a few things about this LOS, but my GOAL is that when I play the game, if I have a problem with a rule, any potential solution has the least impact on the game and is the most balanced for both players. One potential problem may be 'where do I check true LOS from with a model that has no eyes.' That is a great question that belongs in its own topic, but suffice it to say RAW will not cut it.

 

In the case of drawing LOS, though, RAW works pretty well, as in there are not really many issues that require sweeping changes to the rules.

 

For example, I noticed some people advocate that jump packs should be targetable via the LOS rules. When I see this statement presented as official rules, I do a few checks. One, I check what the RAW says. RAW says head/torso/arms/legs... check. RAW says jump infantry work differently than regular infantry in a few ways, but unless otherwise specified you treat them like regular infantry--aka there is nothing listed to change head/torso/arms/legs... Check. Next, I read the reason they believe jump packs should be targeted... here an opinion is asserted that amounts to a justification to change the rules. At this point I stop... and I too have to make an opinion, namely do I play by the rules as written or do I change the rules to include a model's jump pack. In a tourney, everyone agrees to play by the same set of rules, and so unless the tourney judge has changed a rule you go by rulebook. For jump pack LOS, since I only get time to play in tourneys, I will play by the tourney rules, and not houserule anything. Thus, the only opinion I have for LOS and jump packs is to play by the rules. If my opponent does not want to play by the rules for jump pack LOS, even if he has his reasons, in a tourney I will have to call the judge over, otherwise in friendly games me and my opponent will need to roll a die to see how to finish the game, or one of us will have to submit to the other to finish the game, or we will have to find a new opponent.

 

So in conclusion i suppose, nowhere in the rules do they say that you draw LOS to bikes. Obviously bikes are not listed. Neither are jump packs. If playing by official rules then you will not target these things. If you do find a problem with another model, the problems with that other model can not be used to change rules for an existing model.

 

If you have a problem with what is targetable, and you are not playing by house rules, and can not identify on your own where your target's head/torso/arms/legs are, why not ask your opponent where his model's head/torso/arms/legs are? Again, if you want to house rule something, then go for it, GW encourages it, but in the case of bikes please understand that if an opponent does not want to play by your houserules, your opinion on your own houserule wont help make your arguement sound better.

And finally, as I have said, I can see a head and torso on both spore mines and tau drones, and can point out the areas I identify as head and torso to my opponent. As for roughriders, if I encountered such a rare unit, I would only draw LOS to the riders head/torso/arms/legs, as the rest of the model represents wysiwyg principals, but if my opponent insisted I shoot his horse in the head I wouldnt mind :) While you may agree or disagree that a spore mine can be targeted, issues with spore mines dont mean the official rules for bikes will change.

 

Edited for clarity, as my mind has been wandering lately.

[Legatus]

Also, if you want to talk about personal interpretations, however, GW was nice enough to tell us how they interpret the rule they wrote. Pretty good of them. They say that parts of a model's body that are not their head/torso/arms/legs are off limits. They even tell us how they interpret the word body, as body has, what, 13 definations at the least. Body for GW, though, = head/torso/arms/legs. Thus if there is any doubt as to what GW means, they spelled it out.

Bear in mind that at that point the author is only refering to basic infantry models. Indeed, you could say that at that particular point, what the rules say (head, torso, arms, legs) is almost exactly what the author intended. The vehicle rules then later change that ruling for vehicles. Just like that, the special rules for Bikes and Mounts should perhaps also have included a statement on whether such a model can be targeted if the bike or mount is visible, but unfortunately it does not. So all we have as RAW that suggests that mounts and bikes can be targeted is their basic unit description on page 4 and 5.

 

Now looking at the cavalry unit definition on page 4 for the first time, that description is actually quite telling:

 

Just like bikers, cavalry riders may not dismount during the game and so have a characteristic profile that takes into account both the beast and rider. We assume that if one is killed, the other is also incapitated or simply flees the battlefield.

 

I would consider that a very strong argument in favour of targeting mounts and bikes.

 

And finally, as I have said, I can see a head and torso on both spore mines and tau drones, and can point out the areas I identify as head and torso to my opponent.

Just as you point to the "torso" of a Drone, I can point out the "torso" of a bike, or almost any other mechanical and non-humanoid construct.

[rat of vengence]

This is logicly invalid. I know what you guys are saying, and I see your point that your raw is different than my raw. However that statement is illogical. The rules as written are words from the book--they dont change. RAI i think is the term you were looking for, as in your RAI is different than my RAI.

Words from the book do not change, but the meaning peeple get from thm can vary, as is obvious by this debate. Please stop claiming you are the only one going with RAW. ;)

Also, if you want to talk about personal interpretations, however, GW was nice enough to tell us how they interpret the rule they wrote. Pretty good of them. They say that parts of a model's body that are not their head/torso/arms/legs are off limits. They even tell us how they interpret the word body, as body has, what, 13 definations at the least. Body for GW, though, = head/torso/arms/legs. Thus if there is any doubt as to what GW means, they spelled it out.

And you are reading that as being exclusive, and others are not.

As for my statements about this or that being illogical, let me elaborate. The main arguement I have seen is that the LOS rule for determining LOS to a model is broken (read, sporemines), therefore needs to be changed/interpreted. However, you have based this arguement on several personal opinions that make the ENTIRE argument more and more opinion based. As an opinion based arguement, unless the opinion is shared by both players then you are going to have disagreements, and will be unable to say your argument is more vaild than the opponents. Its a little different than what nighthawks said, aka RAW vs RAI, because the arguments I have seen for making the bikes targetable use 'broken' obscure models as proof that the rule needs to be changed (opinion), but it is further opinion that those rare models are 'broken' in the first place. Thus its multiple stacked opinions that refrence each other for proof that lead to a final result that bikes are targetable.

No, that is not true. As has been pointed out, your interpretation of the RAW leads to problems and inconsistencies. The way others are reading the rule doesn't.

 

3> Some models may have more body parts that can be described as 'head/torso/arms/legs' or have different types of 'head/torsos/arms/legs' and players are incapable of figuring out what a model's actual body parts are (roughriders-- the only mounted calvary in the game, models with little imps on their shoulder, models with a severed arm sticking out of their base, ect)

4> (this is a big one) All the rules for LOS for every model, whether it is percieved as 'broken' or not, have to be changed to make more parts on a model targetable to 'fix' the 'broken' dynamic that only head/torso/arms/legs can be targeted.

Little imps on shoulders would ornamental, would they not?

Now, I have been advocating a few things about this LOS, but my GOAL is that when I play the game, if I have a problem with a rule, any potential solution has the least impact on the game and is the most balanced for both players. One potential problem may be 'where do I check true LOS from with a model that has no eyes.' That is a great question that belongs in its own topic, but suffice it to say RAW will not cut it.

So you see that reading that sentence as being exclusive leads to problems and contradictions?

 

In the case of drawing LOS, though, RAW works pretty well, as in there are not really many issues that require sweeping changes to the rules.

 

For example, I noticed some people advocate that jump packs should be targetable via the LOS rules. When I see this statement presented as official rules, I do a few checks. One, I check what the RAW says. RAW says head/torso/arms/legs... check. RAW says jump infantry work differently than regular infantry in a few ways, but unless otherwise specified you treat them like regular infantry--aka there is nothing listed to change head/torso/arms/legs... Check. Next, I read the reason they believe jump packs should be targeted... here an opinion is asserted that amounts to a justification to change the rules. At this point I stop... and I too have to make an opinion, namely do I play by the rules as written or do I change the rules to include a model's jump pack. In a tourney, everyone agrees to play by the same set of rules, and so unless the tourney judge has changed a rule you go by rulebook. For jump pack LOS, since I only get time to play in tourneys, I will play by the tourney rules, and not houserule anything. Thus, the only opinion I have for LOS and jump packs is to play by the rules. If my opponent does not want to play by the rules for jump pack LOS, even if he has his reasons, in a tourney I will have to call the judge over, otherwise in friendly games me and my opponent will need to roll a die to see how to finish the game, or one of us will have to submit to the other to finish the game, or we will have to find a new opponent.

IF you see the rule as exclusive, then there is this void that includes many many parts of models that are neither targetable, nor ornaments that cannot be targeted.

IF you see the rule as inclusive, then things that are ornamental cannot be targeted, and things that are part of the body (body of the horse, bike, Slaneeshi steed) can be.

 

One way leaves huge gaps. The other doesn't.

 

So in conclusion i suppose, nowhere in the rules do they say that you draw LOS to bikes. Obviously bikes are not listed. Neither are jump packs. If playing by official rules then you will not target these things. If you do find a problem with another model, the problems with that other model can not be used to change rules for an existing model.

And nowhere does it say you don't, since the bikes are not ornamental.

 

While you may agree or disagree that a spore mine can be targeted, issues with spore mines dont mean the official rules for bikes will change.

No change is needed. Just to read them right (imo ;) )

 

Edited for clarity, as my mind has been wandering lately.

Join the club mate. :unsure:

 

RoV

[Praeger]

++NOTE++

 

THIS IS THE OR FORUM WHICH DEALS WITH RULES AND RULES ONLY

 

But since RAW has been acknowledged in the first post, shouldn't the discussion then go beyond RAW?

 

Nope. Go have fun in the house rules section.

 

Otherwise the topic would be done after a few "yup, that's how it is". That is why I have tried to provide arguments for why people may want to play it so, or are used to, bikes being targetable in an earlier post.

 

So I should go back and start deleting posts? Cool. Thanks for telling me where to look.

 

POST RAW ONLY. I dont care if you have other ideas, thats what the HOUSE RULES section is for. Have fun over there.

 

We know RAW. We know sometimes you have players fall back on RAI or a different interpretation (e.g. Space Marine Banners).

 

Good, if you know RAW then you can give a correct and straight to the point answer and i will close the thread. RAI is not. You dont know waht was intended unless you can read minds and prove to others that you can read them. What was intended at some stage dosnt mean jack. What was printed does. What was printed was obviously what they meant to print. If its not, or it dosnt work, then this will be changed and corrected by GW later on. Until that time RAW is how the game is played - not by GUESSING what the designers meant.

 

So the question then is: why may someone decide to use RAI or a different interpretation for bikes/drones/Zoanthropes?

 

No, the questions is why are you forcing me to watch your posts to make sure that they dont stray from OR and into house rules?

 

PEOPLE - im back, my internet is now working again, iv taken up yet another new sport (mountain boarding) and am now filled with even more energy and funness for getting hard on people who decide to ignore warnings and rules.

 

Dont make me start with deleting your posts. Keep it on topic. Feel like starting another topic or changing where this one was headed? START A NEW TOPIC. I dont care what your reasons are. All i care about is people getting their questions answered using the rules.

 

Thank you.

[Legatus]

Oki, here are two RAW conclusions.

 

RAW page 4 BRB: Riders and their Mounts, just like Riders and their Bikes, have a combined characteristics profile that takes into account both the mount and the rider, and if either one dies the other one is assumed to be gone as well.

 

RAW page 16 BRB: The rules for drawing LOS exclude non-humanoid (or animal shaped) mechanical constructs such as Drones and Bikes as viable targets and exclude models without eyes such as Drones and Zoanthropes as being able to draw a LOS at all.

 

Those are the official answers. Drones cannot be intentionally picked as a target for shooting, neither can bikes. Drones and Zoanthropes can never draw a Line of Sight.

 

I guess we should head over to the Homegrown Rules section now to discuss how to deal with this issues.

[Praeger]

Thanks for that round up Legatus.

 

As for the eyes of Drones, Wraithguard and Zoanthropes - well at least the older zoan models did have eyes - they might be blind but the eyes where there (havnt seen the newest model) so thats taken care of, the wraithguard would be from the gem on their heads (eye is after all going to be difrent for each aline species, but general definition of "what you see from" works here) same would apply to drones counting their sensor section as the eye (the big spikie thing).

 

And yeah, if you want to talk about ways to get around the LOS problems, that would be house rules.

 

Ill try to get time on Sunday arvo for the top stickied Q&A thread and add in these answers.

[Legatus]

And again I have to ask the question, if a mechanical sensory device can be accepted as counting as the model's "eyes", why could not the mechanical central part of a construct be accepted as counting as the model's "torso"?

 

And no, the current Zoanthrope models do not have eyes. If someone has the older models, lucky him, they can actually fire that warp blast. Someone with the new models is out of luck. I am also not so sure that any gem on a Wraithguard has any sensory function. That is contestable.

[nighthawks]

it is contestable - and the situations where RAW does not work are when we attempt to reach a concensus to allow the targeting of and shooting with models that are unable to do so within RAW.

 

where a model works within RAW (target bike riders only) we have no such need.

 

welcome back, Praeger.

[Legatus]

Shooting at just the rider of a bike "works", but we have it in black and white that bikes, just as mounts, are considered a vulnerable part of the model and have a combined characteristics profile with their rider, which takes both of them into account, and if they are destroyed then the rider is considered to be removed as well. We don't have to guess the intent for bikes and mounts, it is given to us explicitely on page 4 and 5. If what is later stated in the shooting rules in in contradiction to what is stated on page 4 and 5, then the rules don't completely work at all, and you have to either take what was stated on page 4 and 5 as meaningless, or apply the same extension of "eyes, head, torso, arms, legs" you applied to Drones and Wraithguard to Bikes and Jetbikes as well.