Democratus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 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, Where in the rules does it say that a mount is "vulnerable"? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881692 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Rulebook, page 4. Though not as brief as that. It says that cavalry models have a combined characteristics profile that accounts for both the rider and the beast, and that if either dies the whole model is removed. So that's basically saying, you see the mount, you shoot the mount, the cavalry model is removed. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881740 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Well, that certainly applies to Cavalry. Now we just need to determine which models are Cavalry. Any suggestions? Hint. Page 4 and 5 helps. So does page 53 and 54. So where are we at in the discussion? Trying to prove that Bikes are Cavalry? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881814 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 So where are we at in the discussion? Trying to prove that Bikes are Cavalry? We don't need to. Didd you read pages 4 & 5? Bikes are described the same way as cavalry is there. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881848 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Yes indeed, reading page 4 and 5 helps. Page 4 on cavalry: "Just like bikers, cavalry riders may not dismount during the game and so have a characteristics profile that takes into account both the beast and the rider. We assume that if one is killed, the other is also incapacitated or simply flees the battlefield." Page 5 on bikes: "Note that, to keep thins simple, riders may not dismount during the game and therefore these models have a combined characteristic profile that factors in both the bike and the rider." Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881865 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Since when did a characteristic profile determine how we draw LOS to a model. P.16 explains the rules for LOS. Look at the heading for that P. 4 it tells you that the models on that page are defined later in specific sections that cover their rules. Once again there is nothing in the bike/jetbike rules that changes anything on P.16 Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881868 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Since when did a characteristic profile determine how we draw LOS to a model. P.16 explains the rules for LOS. Page 4 does tell you that it makes no difference whether you shoot the rider or the mount, doesn't it? And that the rider + mount (or bike) is a single entity as far as the rules are concerned, and not a rider with equipment? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881878 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Pages 4 and 5 are not rules they are definitions (like fluff) of the different unit types. Again read the heading it tells you that the unit types are defined on those pages but are explained in detail later in specific sections that cover their unique rules. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881900 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Page 4 and 5 do tell you how the unit types generally function in the game. That they are described in (more!) detail later does not change the fact that thes pages already contain applicable rules and gaming information. It is not meaningless fluff, and if these definitions are later contradicted that may be an issue. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1881926 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 Show me were it says "fluff", will you? Page 4 and 5 actually belong to the rules section. Legatus is right on this one. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882009 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted February 13, 2009 Share Posted February 13, 2009 they are unit descriptions that do not contain functional rules. the combined profile is accomplished with the Toughness modificationand movement capabilities as outlined on P53. the unit being considered one means that the bike and rider exist as one, and it supports the logical reading of "body" that the mount (bike) is targetable. it is the TARGETING RULES where they go on to specify the meaning of "body" (arguably a stupid move) that causes all of the problems. Legatus, et al: as much as I want to agree with you, the RAW is clear. it seems obsurd, possibly even somewhat self contradictory in explanation, but the funtional rules are clear that body = "head, torso, arms, and legs." bikes have them, there's no need to add, subtract, or read into this any further. we have covered cases where there are these needs, we have covered the logical arguments against this reading, but neither affects a perfectly functional rule. If this is a stalemate, let us call it as such. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882066 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Legatus Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I have listed the strict RAW in an earlier post. Basically, Drones cannot be shot at, nor can they shoot themself. Zoanthropes and Wraithguard also can't shoot. What we are discussing now is a very inconsistent application of rules that is advocated by some. Mounts can be targeted, they have head, legs and torso, and they are just as important as the rider as part of the cavalry model. But bikes function just as mounts for the model. Everyone would agree that Drones can be targeted, as their hull would represent it's torso. But drones as a mechanical construct are not much different from bikes. That is a double standard, applied at personal convenience. If mounts can be targeted, and mounts work as bikes, and if mechanical constructs can be targeted, then bikes should be a viable target as well. If one expands the targeting rules for Drones and Zoanthropes it would be odd if he then refuses to expand them for bikes just as well. they are unit descriptions that do not contain functional rules. They are not movement, shooting or close combat rules, the big game phases the special unit rules are mainly explaining. I find a description of how mounted models are treated to be quite essential. the combined profile is accomplished with the Toughness modificationand movement capabilities as outlined on P53. That is only what "generic" bikes contribute. Eldar Bikes also bestow an armour save of 3+ on the rider. Dark Eldar Jetbikes increase the rider's strength by +1. Demonic mounts also increase the profile of the rider in various ways. How the bikes and mounts change the profile is up to the specific bike or mount. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882187 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymmot Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 Common sense, that is really all it takes, stop trying to squeeze out an unfair advantage by manipulating the rules. durr, this models has no eyes so it can't shoot! -no, stop being an idiot. by the way, those little holes in a tyranid's neck, those are eyes, it is right there in rogue trader. the body of the model is the majoraty of the model, a bike is bigger than its rider, it is no way simply a decoration. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882284 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 he body of the model is the majoraty of the model, a bike is bigger than its rider Can you please provide a page number where you found that rule? Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882290 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymmot Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 no I can't because the page does not exsist, again use some common sense. anyway why do I need to? what are you trying to prove, that your bikes are invunrable? or maybe you'd like everyone to know what a drag it would be to play a game against somebody like you. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882303 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jubei124 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 no I can't because the page does not exsist, again use some common sense. anyway why do I need to? what are you trying to prove, that your bikes are invunrable? or maybe you'd like everyone to know what a drag it would be to play a game against somebody like you. I really don't appreciate this post at all. There are other things I'd like to say but they would get me a warning so I'll just leave it at that. If you would have taken the time to read this entire thread you would know that I do think bike/jetbikes should be targetable and you would know that my group plays it that they are targetable but I do not believe they can be by curent RAW. Just because people who post on this board are argueing that bikes can't be targeted by LOS doesn't mean we play it that way. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882330 Share on other sites More sharing options...
ymmot Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 it was very harsh on my part, I have read the entire thread(though admittedly I lost track of who was making which argument in the scroll of text.) and it simply made me frustrated so I lashed out at the closest target. I still do not believe it is the fault of the rules, it is the way people try to twist the wording around that really irritates me. I am sorry I was a jerk, those things you wanted to say were probably valid under the circumstances. A horrible first impression on my part, I am ashamed, but I'll get over it, maybe we both can someday. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882343 Share on other sites More sharing options...
rat of vengence Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 they are unit descriptions that do not contain functional rules. the combined profile is accomplished with the Toughness modificationand movement capabilities as outlined on P53. the unit being considered one means that the bike and rider exist as one, and it supports the logical reading of "body" that the mount (bike) is targetable. it is the TARGETING RULES where they go on to specify the meaning of "body" (arguably a stupid move) that causes all of the problems. Functional rules? Are we now getting RAI over which parts of the rulebook we do use and which we don't? :P Legatus, et al: as much as I want to agree with you, the RAW is clear. it seems obsurd, possibly even somewhat self contradictory in explanation, but the funtional rules are clear that body = "head, torso, arms, and legs." bikes have them, there's no need to add, subtract, or read into this any further. we have covered cases where there are these needs, we have covered the logical arguments against this reading, but neither affects a perfectly functional rule. If this is a stalemate, let us call it as such. I think it is a stalemate, because some of us do not read the rule as some others. The sticky point for me is the picking and chosing of literal/inclusive language within the one sentence. GW certainly could have made this clearer, but in my opinion it comes down to reading the rule as inclusive (and eliminating the rule problems in the same sentence) or exclusive (and having to apply that exclusivity to EVERY situation where inclusivity is not spelt out eg targeting). I don't see there being any middle ground (which some are suggesting) by saying some parts are exclusive, and other parts with the SAME context are not. It is inconsistent reading that is more of a problem than the rule, in my opinion. It doesn't need to be changed, it needs to be read in context. I know I am repeating myself for the upteenth time :huh: but I say this again in a way of summary. Can I assume that when this is stickied (great idea to stick these rules discussions!) that both views will be represented? :P RoV Edited for speelung. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882473 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 The sticky point for me is the picking and chosing of literal/inclusive language within the one sentence. It has been pointed out to you why a literal interpretation of "body" is applied.....several times. You just choose to ignore it. Your counter-arguments are nonsensical. Either they consists of "I don't understand that. If "body" is literal, then "eyes" should be too", which is just plainly wrong, or "Apples taste bad because oranges do" which is also plainly wrong. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882494 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Silber Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 The sticky point for me is the picking and chosing of literal/inclusive language within the one sentence. It has been pointed out to you why a literal interpretation of "body" is applied.....several times. You just choose to ignore it. Your counter-arguments are nonsensical. Either they consists of "I don't understand that. If "body" is literal, then "eyes" should be too", which is just plainly wrong, or "Apples taste bad because oranges do" which is also plainly wrong. That's not true. Your problem is that you are unwilling to acknowledge the weaknesses of language. You read it one way, we read it another way. None is wrong in and of itself, because language simply isn't as clear as you pretend, but our version makes more sense. I admit that in regards to bikes you have less problems if you read it your way, because then it's pretty clear. But that messes up the rules concerning other models. If you read it our way all works. That has nothing to do with RAI, though, because we're not argueing that they "meant it like this" - it's in the book, we have pointed out several times where and why. As I said, RAW is broken on this one because there are two valid readings of the "targetting rules" paragraph if you read it on it's own. So yes, it's a stalemate. But I'd strongly advise a Gentleman's Agreement that bikes are targettable as are drones and stuff, while drones and wraithguard and all those eyeless folks can shoot. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882519 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steelmage99 Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 But I'd strongly advise a Gentleman's Agreement that bikes are targettable as are drones and stuff, while drones and wraithguard and all those eyeless folks can shoot. As do I. :) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882524 Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyescrossed Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 But I'd strongly advise a Gentleman's Agreement that bikes are targettable as are drones and stuff, while drones and wraithguard and all those eyeless folks can shoot. As do I. ;) People in favour say "I". *Says "I"* Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882571 Share on other sites More sharing options...
nighthawks Posted February 14, 2009 Share Posted February 14, 2009 I say I , and I believe this thread has come to a close. if anyone has something significant to add, PM one of us and let us know. Thank you all for behaving, this could have gotten ugly. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/159577-targetting-rules/page/4/#findComment-1882886 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.