Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When a Herald is mounted on a chariot/jugger/disc, etc, then does the entire model count as the Herald for LOS purposes?

For example, if a Khornate Herald is in a chariot pulled by a Juggernaught, if the only part of the model that is visible is the Juggernaught and the chariot, then does that count as a viable target in the shooting phase?

Consider the rules in the 40K rulebook about what counts as a part of the models body. It says head, chest, arms, legs. Banners, wings, etc., don't count for LOS purposes.

I would think that according to the BRB, then no, the chariot/mount wouldn't count. But on the other hand, I can see some modeling abuse with this, especially with a chariot. A devious player could model his chariot as being enclosed, with some vision slits modeled onto the carriage, and thus the Herald is protected from shooting as players can't draw a LOS to the model's head, arms, chest, and legs.

What do you guys think?

The mount is surely as much part of the herald as a bike is part of a biker? He can't dismount and his profile takes the mount into account. Page 4, BRB... "we assume that if one is killed the other is also incapacitated or flees the field".

IMHO:

The Herald model in this case is made up of the Herald, his chariot and his mount. Therefore the Herald's body, legs, head, etc, along with the mount's head, legs, etc, along with main portions of the chariot are all valid targets to draw LOS too.

Only extraneous bits, such as banners, chains connecting the chariot to its mounts, spikes on the chariot's wheels, etc. would be ignored.

Why should a chariot or steed be treated different than other types of wargear?

The model is a Herald of Khorne, not a Chariot of Khorne, the chariot is no different than a power sword or a jump pack when it comes to LOS.

So no, you need to draw LOS to a part of the model's body, meaning the Herald.

Because a power sword does not grant +3 wounds to a profile?

Nivoglibina wrote:Because a power sword does not grant +3 wounds to a profile?

Ziiiinnngggg


But yes it does count as part of the LOS for the shear fact that it is considered part of the model as a whole just like a thunderwolf or jetbike.

Webbe wrote:Why should a chariot or steed be treated different than other types of wargear?

The model is a Herald of Khorne, not a Chariot of Khorne, the chariot is no different than a power sword or a jump pack when it comes to LOS.

So no, you need to draw LOS to a part of the model's body, meaning the Herald.

That really is the question. Look at jump packs/wings and Discs of Tzeentch. Both are upgrades to a character. Both give the character the ability to move like jump infantry. So wings/jump packs that are on the model can't be shot, but the disc can?

In a similar fashion, a mount of Slaanesh is a character upgrade that changes it's type to Cavalry. I don't really see the difference here between wings/discs and the mount of Slaanesh. One could just as easily say the Slaanesh model with the serpentine body has a "mount of slaanesh" as it is just an upgrade, and then you are no longer targeting the "mount" per se, but you would actually have to target the model.

The thing is, we're not going to get a perfect answer from the RAW because the LOS rules are written in a very, very general manner (and for infantry only) and sadly the special unit type section of the rulebook doesn't give any concrete examples of how to handle LOS for these different types of models.

Ultimately I think for most people (and definitely me here too) this comes back to the context with which the rule appears to be written. The point of the rule seems to be that as long as you have LOS to something substantial on the model that you could theoretically incapacitate him by shooting, then this counts as something you are allowed to shoot.

So in most people's minds, shooting at a bike or a cavalry mount can definitely incapacitate the model, so therefore it is a valid part of the model to target.

The only thing I would consider vital to the model that wouldn't count is the wings...and only because the rules specifically mention them as not being something you can target.


The other thing to consider is the definition of a 'model' on page 3 of the rulebook. A 'model' is something that has a single characteristic profile. So in the case of a bike or cavalry model for example the entire 'model' is considered both the rider and the mount (bike or cavalry).

Since the LOS rules are vague and appear to be written primarily for infantry, what exactly constitutes a 'body', 'head', 'legs' or 'arms' for a bike? At least with a Cavalry model we can clearly say that at least those portions of the cavalry mount are definitely appear targetable per the rules, but in general, I think this is the kind of thing you just have to discuss with your opponent ahead of time if you're planning to pull the 'you can't see my rider' technique during the game.

yakface wrote:
The thing is, we're not going to get a perfect answer from the RAW because the LOS rules are written in a very, very general manner (and for infantry only) and sadly the special unit type section of the rulebook doesn't give any concrete examples of how to handle LOS for these different types of models.

Exactly. I can see the arguments for both sides, especially with the wings versus disc of Tzeentch. They both pretty much have the same function, and one could easily make an argument that if one can't get targeted, then neither should the other. And what if a model has wings but the player says it counts as having a disc? Since they both pretty much serve the same function and the rules aren't exactly clear, I'd allow the player to do that and not be able to target his wings.

Now here is another question: If a model such as the one below is positioned in such a way that only his wings can be seen, can he be targeted?

There might be basis in RaW for this to be a genuine question, but you you really want to be that guy in a game of 40k?

One thing that has not been mentioned so far is that models can't carry their own cover for LoS purposes (scenic bases for instance, or in your case the wings).

I (and friends of mine) don't always agree with Yakface, but in this case we do, completely. (This is unfortunate, as I always use my Tzeentch herald in a chariot, but I'd never even consider arguing otherwise.)

Bikes and chariots aren't just regular wargear. (In fact, daemons don't even have wargear. They have steeds, which have to be modeled, and gifts, which usually don't have to be modeled - even flight doesn't have to be modeled with wings.) A model with a bike or a chariot is just short of a regular vehicle, but instead of giving them AV values (as they once did with cyborks, IIRC) GW just decided they'd take the normal toughness of the rider and add 1. The rules are odd, but it makes more sense to think of them that way.

Similarly, we also play that if the herald figure (without the chariot) can't see the target, he can't shoot it. Why? Because he's basically a 360-degree turret. Before you start thinking it's unfair, keep in mind that YOU control where your chariot is, and which direction he's facing. It's not hard to position him such that he can take a shot.

As for the difference between wings and a disc: the disc is cheap, for what it is (essentially a jump pack and an extra hand weapon for 10 points less than a jump pack costs), and isn't very large compared to the herald (so his visibility doesn't really go up much). Wings, on the other hand, tend to be enormous compared to the rest of the model, and probably would cost about the same as a jump pack if they were available on a herald.

As Nivoglibina implied, it may not be explicitly stated in the rules how you're supposed to deal with the situation... but being "that guy" will get you a reputation, few games, and fewer friends.

DaveL wrote:As for the difference between wings and a disc: the disc is cheap, for what it is (essentially a jump pack and an extra hand weapon for 10 points less than a jump pack costs), and isn't very large compared to the herald (so his visibility doesn't really go up much). Wings, on the other hand, tend to be enormous compared to the rest of the model, and probably would cost about the same as a jump pack if they were available on a herald.

"Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit (for 'body' we mean its 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 its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc."

Here's where I see the problem. Wings don't count for LOS. Jump packs function the same as wings. Do jump packs not count for LOS just like wings?

Discs function like wings and jump packs. Some Discs are small, especially the older models. It is reasonable to say they fall under the rules "These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc." Discs, at least to me, are just a form of "majestic wings."

So how does one avoid being TFG who says wings, jump packs, and discs don't count for LOS because they are just wargear upgrades, but then says Mounts of Slaanesh, Chariots, bikes, etc., do count for LOS when there isn't much in the way of RAW to back that up? For example, I say the jump packs on my models don't count for LOS but then when I target my opponent's Mount of Slaanesh's head, he says I can't because it is just a wargear upgrade and falls under the part of the rules "These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc."

If it's a model on a horse or a bike, it would be reasonable to draw line of sight to the horse's body or the bike's body. By extension, then, it would be reasonable to draw line of sight to the body of a Juggernaught, Steed of Slaanesh, Screamer or the main part of a chariot.

I had been all set to argue that shooting at discs would be unfair, but it's no worse than shooting at a horse. However, shooting at the tail on a screamer is probably as bad as trying to shoot at the tail of horse or some guy's wing tip. On the other hand, if someone is using the ridiculously huge metal WHFB disc from the Chaos champion box for their disc, then they might deserve a bit of the same leniency one would show a dramatically posed leaping winged hive tyrant.

You would run into some really awful cases of modeling for a gaming advantage if you couldn't shoot at hte chariot. I think the OP is trying to read too much into the rules.

G

solkan wrote:If it's a model on a horse or a bike, it would be reasonable to draw line of sight to the horse's body or the bike's body. By extension, then, it would be reasonable to draw line of sight to the body of a Juggernaught, Steed of Slaanesh, Screamer or the main part of a chariot.

I think it is a little unfair that the wings on my Bloodthirster, which are part of the model and not an upgrade, can't be shot at but the bike that my opponent takes for his character as an upgrade counts as part of the model for LOS. I mean, a Bloodthirster's wings are as large if not larger than a bike, and he has two wings! In the same vein, I think it is silly for a Bloodthirster's wings to not count for LOS but a Disc of Tzeentch, which is much smaller, to count for LOS when they both serve pretty much the same function. I am just wanting to make sure that I am being fair when deciding what counts for LOS and what doesn't.

Green Blow Fly wrote:You would run into some really awful cases of modeling for a gaming advantage if you couldn't shoot at hte chariot. I think the OP is trying to read too much into the rules.

G

Not at all. I have played it that wings, jump packs, and discs don't count for LOS. But is that actually the right way to play it? And if my opponent wanted to argue that mounts, bikes, etc., don't count for LOS either, what in the way of rules from the BRB would support my argument against it?

The only thing 'on the books' of those you listed we know for sure doesn't count as something you can target are 'wings' and I'm guessing that's likely because wings tend to be so large that allowing them to be shot at would put winged models at a tremendous disadvantage for trying to get behind cover.


But when it comes to cavalry...these are clearly multiple creatures (the rider and the mount) that are sharing the same base and single set of characteristics as discussed on page 6 of the rulebook. These two creatures are what makes up the 'model'.

So by the RAW there is no basis to not allow firing model to draw LOS to the head, body, arms, legs of a cavalry mount.


What is much more trickier is a bike...as these don't have 'bodies', 'heads', etc, but are substantial enough that most players I've found seem to think they should be part of what is allowed to shoot at.

They made that list of untargettable things so players who like to convert, those who add spikey bits, wouldn't be penalized for making their models look cool.

These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.

GW is actually stating what they intend to achieve with this rule. Including a complete chariot/mount/bike is clearly not what they intended to exclude. I don't even know why you would bring up a jump pack, as IMO that IS targettable.

If the jump pack explodes it will kill the wearer DEAD.



G

yakface wrote:
The only thing 'on the books' of those you listed we know for sure doesn't count as something you can target are 'wings' and I'm guessing that's likely because wings tend to be so large that allowing them to be shot at would put winged models at a tremendous disadvantage for trying to get behind cover.

The thing is though, they didn't present a concrete list, and left it pretty much open with "etc." So like you said earlier, I guess it just comes down to what you and your opponent agree on.

What is much more trickier is a bike...as these don't have 'bodies', 'heads', etc, but are substantial enough that most players I've found seem to think they should be part of what is allowed to shoot at.

That's the way I play it and will continue to play it regarding bikes. I'm not advocating any other way. This is just a discussion about some quirky RAW.

Nivoglibina wrote:They made that list of untargettable things so players who like to convert, those who add spikey bits, wouldn't be penalized for making their models look cool.

These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc.

GW is actually stating what they intend to achieve with this rule. Including a complete chariot/mount/bike is clearly not what they intended to exclude. I don't even know why you would bring up a jump pack, as IMO that IS targettable.

Tails don't count for LOS, but jump packs do? What about spines and spikes that protrude off of some models? IMO, a jump pack is no different than a set of wings. They both serve the same exact function, and again IMO, a jump pack is really no different than a lascannon or huge blade, both of which don't count for LOS purposes. GW didn't give us a complete and defining list, just some suggestions, and left it open with the "etc." to include similar things as the examples they gave. Jump packs, IMO, are similar to wings, which is why I have never targeted a models jump pack and claimed I could see the model.

Green Blow Fly wrote:If the jump pack explodes it will kill the wearer DEAD.



G

And if a lascannon shoots off a models tail, it will soon bleed to death.

If a plasma cannon shot hits a models gun, then that model will more than likely loose an arm (and probably a good portion of the side of his body holding the gun).

If I shoot holes in a models wings, then it won't be able to fly.

See, there are lots of "fluff" reasons why things listed in the "don't count for LOS" examples in the BRB could actually be targeted and wound a model. Which is why they limited LOS to the model's head, arms, torso, and legs. Can you see the model's torso in this picture?

Since when have Trees been made of Solid Green?

Try adding Branches and stuff, I am sure some of the torso will be visible.

Gwar! wrote:Since when have Trees been made of Solid Green?

Try adding Branches and stuff, I am sure some of the torso will be visible.

These are space trees remember. In the grim darkness of the 41stM even the trees are hardcore.

Gwar! wrote:Since when have Trees been made of Solid Green?

Try adding Branches and stuff, I am sure some of the torso will be visible.

People have and use different types of terrain from different sources.

These trees are solid.



And the trunks of these trees are thick and solid as well, just enough that one could hide a model behind it with only it's jump pack sticking out.



And really, it could just as easily have been a huge rock, the side of a building, a vehicle, a hill, or whatever, that the model in the picture was standing behind. I chose to use a tree. The point is still valid.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nivoglibina wrote:They made that list of untargettable things so players who like to convert, those who add spikey bits, wouldn't be penalized for making their models look cool.

Let's look at that idea for a moment. Lets say I convert a Blood Angels assault squad to have wings. Since they don't really have wings but actually have jump packs according to the rules, are you going to say that you can target my model's wings since they are really jump packs or are you going to treat them as wings?

If the idea is to not penalize players for converting their models to have large, majestic wings, what about normal squads that have wings that aren't really all that majestic? It would seem the same rule about not targeting their wings would apply as well.

For example, a player moves his squad of Chaos Furies behind a solid wall in order to be out of LOS. However one model's wing is sticking out from behind the wall. Since wings can't be targeted, all the Furies behind the wall are out of LOS and can't be shot at.

Same situation as above, but this time it is a squad of jump packs troops behind the wall with one model's jp visible. Are you going to say you can target that jp with your squad and therefore hit all the other models behind the wall that are out of LOS?

Furies are jump infantry. The assault squad is jump infantry. But from what I am hearing, you are saying the Furies' wings, even though they are physically part of the model's body, can't be targeted. But an assault squad model's jump pack, something he just straps on, can be targeted? Simply because they don't specifically mention it in the BRB as not counting for LOS?

Not counting the jump pack for LOS would seem to fit the spirit of the rules I would think.

The parallel you draw isn't quite as - well, parallel - as you seem to think. Wings tend to be huge, easily doubling or tripling the visible portion of the model. That's presumably the main reason they're specifically mentioned.

Jump packs simply aren't that large. They're really not. It's kind of absurd that you'd be able to hit an entire squad because you can see one guy's jump pack, but it's also a little absurd that you can hit an entire squad because you can see one of its members. That's the part of the situation you've presented that makes no sense, and it's simply part of the basic mechanics of 5th edition. If you don't like that... sorry, tough luck.

Discs aren't large, either. You can't target the spikes that come out of some current disc models, as those are obviously just there for decoration, and without those the visibility difference between a disc and a set of wings is enormous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And bringing it back to the original point: chariots are huge, but they're like bikes or jetbikes, which give large benefits to the rider at low points costs.

Believe me, even with the extra visibility and loss of IC status, it's worth 15 points to give your tzerald 3 extra wounds, highly increased mobility, +1T, and furious charge without even using one of your gift slots. Same thing goes for the other heralds and their chariots.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
One more thing. If we were playing each other and I could see only part of one of your models' jump packs, and you said you didn't think it was fair that I could target your unit that way, I'd probably disagree privately but just not shoot with the one or two guys who couldn't see more than a jump pack. Presumably, other guys in the squad I had shooting you would be able to see more... and if not, the chances of me doing actually significant damage to your unit is negligible.

DaveL wrote:The parallel you draw isn't quite as - well, parallel - as you seem to think. Wings tend to be huge, easily doubling or tripling the visible portion of the model. That's presumably the main reason they're specifically mentioned.

Jump packs simply aren't that large. They're really not. It's kind of absurd that you'd be able to hit an entire squad because you can see one guy's jump pack, but it's also a little absurd that you can hit an entire squad because you can see one of its members. That's the part of the situation you've presented that makes no sense, and it's simply part of the basic mechanics of 5th edition. If you don't like that... sorry, tough luck.

Discs aren't large, either. You can't target the spikes that come out of some current disc models, as those are obviously just there for decoration, and without those the visibility difference between a disc and a set of wings is enormous.

What exactly are you saying? That because wings are large they don't count for LOS? And because jump packs are small, they do count for LOS? Uhm, a bolt pistol is smaller than a jump pack, yet a bolt pistol does not count for LOS.

If the idea behind the rule is so that players aren't penalized for modeling large wings on their models, then by your logic small wings, like those on the Furies in the example, should count for LOS. They are basically the same size as jump packs. The rules define what parts of a model count for LOS, and those parts are the head, torso, arms, and legs. A jump pack protrudes from a models back in the same way as wings, and therefore doesn't count as being part of the model's torso in exactly the same manner as wings. It doesn't matter if the object is large, like a banner, or small, like a chain sword. If it is not a head, torso, arm, or leg, it can't be targeted.

And bringing it back to the original point: chariots are huge, but they're like bikes or jetbikes, which give large benefits to the rider at low points costs.

Yeah, I have already said pretty much that I agree that chariots, bikes, jetbikes, etc., count for LOS, in that for them head, torso, arms, and legs need to be redefined to fit the model. At this point it is more of an issue about models with jump packs and discs.

Okay, so after re-reading the rules in the BRB regarding LOS and the different unit types, and also the chariot and mount upgrades in the Demons codex, I think I can conclude this dicsussion with the following resolution.

1.The only targetable areas of a model are its head, torso, legs, and arms. That is clearly stated in the rules.

2.Things that the model is wearing or carrying do not count for LOS.

3.Wings and tails don't count also, even though they are part of the model's body.

How this is applied to different unit types is as follows (although it isn't technically RAW, as there are no rules concerning what counts for LOS for bikes, for example.)

Infantry: Targetable areas of the body are head, torso, legs, and arms.

Jump Infantry: Same as infantry

Monstrous Creatures: Same as infantry

Bikes and Jetbikes: Targetable areas of the rider are same as infantry. For the bike itself, head= steering console, arms/legs = wheels, and torso = the main body of the bike. If any of those areas are seen the model can be targeted.

Beasts: Same as infantry, except that tails are not counted.

Cavalry: Riders same as infantry, the mount model same as beasts, with the tail not counting for LOS.

Some items of wargear/upgrades change a models unit type. In those cases, follow the LOS guidelines above for the model's new unit type. For example, a Disc changes a model's unit type to Jump Infantry, whereas a chariot of Slaanesh changes a model's unit type to Cavalry. As far as the chariot model itself, treat the wheels (if any) as legs/arms, the yoke as the head, and the main carriage of the chariot as the torso for LOS purposes.

That means that a disc of Tzeentch would not count for LOS purposes as it simply makes the model Jump Infantry, and the only things targetable on Jump Infantry are heads, legs, arms, and torsos. A Herald on a mount of Slaanesh, however, becomes unit type:Cavalry, and so the Herald and his mount count for LOS purposes as described above.

Juggers and chariots of Khorne do not change a model's unit type however. So you would just treat the whole model as one (although huge) Infantry model, not counting any ornamentation, spikes, banners, etc., as normal.

Lord_Mortis,
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be convinced that the discs are merely "wargear" and not actual daemonic mounts. Please see page 43 of the Chaos Daemons codex for the statements that those discs are actually bound daemonic mounts, particularly the fourth paragraph of the Screamers description.

As a result, the discs clearly fall into the same category as bikes--an additional large component of the model which can be used for LOS.

I also notice that you've left out the palanquin from your list of mounts. Would you consider it fair to shoot at the herald's chair?

Lord_Mortis wrote:
What exactly are you saying? That because wings are large they don't count for LOS? And because jump packs are small, they do count for LOS? Uhm, a bolt pistol is smaller than a jump pack, yet a bolt pistol does not count for LOS.

If the idea behind the rule is so that players aren't penalized for modeling large wings on their models, then by your logic small wings, like those on the Furies in the example, should count for LOS. They are basically the same size as jump packs. The rules define what parts of a model count for LOS, and those parts are the head, torso, arms, and legs. A jump pack protrudes from a models back in the same way as wings, and therefore doesn't count as being part of the model's torso in exactly the same manner as wings. It doesn't matter if the object is large, like a banner, or small, like a chain sword. If it is not a head, torso, arm, or leg, it can't be targeted.

I was actually saying two things. First, spread-out wings are specifically mentioned because they are huge compared to the rest of almost any model, which means that if they were targetable wings would always be a significant disadvantage compared to furled wings or jump packs. (With gargoyles - who have "small" wings, as you said - I'd estimate they double the size of the models.) I suspect the designers didn't like the fact that a model with furled wings would otherwise be preferable in game mechanics to one with spread wings, while the one with spread wings looks better. Jump packs, by contrast, might increase the visible part of the model by 25% at most, and after reading that section of the rules my guess is that the designers probably didn't really care whether jump packs were counted or not... they're not exactly "impressive," as it says.

Second is that it shouldn't matter too much to somebody with a jump pack whether it counts or not. As a player, I'd be perfectly happy playing it either way, and it's unlikely it would make a significant difference to the game. If I absolutely had to come up with a ruling, mine would be the opposite of yours... but again, I wouldn't care if you insisted on using yours instead. I'm all in favor of better-defined rules for dealing with how the game works; I complain about poorly-worded rules as much as the next guy. But if you start insisting on completely precise rules, you will be disappointed, because they won't make them, or because they'll be unrealistic/arbitrary, or because in order to not be unrealistic/arbitrary they'll be so complicated that you can't understand or play using them.

If the player is going to use the area of the model including the mount for such things as getting into base to base for assaults, then (in my opinion) it has to also count for such things as line of sight.

You don't get to pick and choose which legitimate game situations are affected by your model.

solkan wrote:Lord_Mortis,
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be convinced that the discs are merely "wargear" and not actual daemonic mounts. Please see page 43 of the Chaos Daemons codex for the statements that those discs are actually bound daemonic mounts, particularly the fourth paragraph of the Screamers description.

As a result, the discs clearly fall into the same category as bikes--an additional large component of the model which can be used for LOS.

I also notice that you've left out the palanquin from your list of mounts. Would you consider it fair to shoot at the herald's chair?

What is the effect of giving a model a Disc? It changes it's profile to Jump Infantry, thus a disc, IMO, is then considered "majestic wings" and not a mount like Cavalry. So if a Jump Infantry model can have a large set of wings or a jump pack that doesn't count for LOS, then Discs would fall into the same category of non-targetable areas of the model.

Palanquins, since they don't change the model's unit type, would be handled just like Juggers and Chariots of Khorne: the whole model counts as one large Infantry model. That's the only reasonable way I see to handle it.

DaveL wrote:I'm all in favor of better-defined rules for dealing with how the game works; I complain about poorly-worded rules as much as the next guy. But if you start insisting on completely precise rules, you will be disappointed, because they won't make them, or because they'll be unrealistic/arbitrary, or because in order to not be unrealistic/arbitrary they'll be so complicated that you can't understand or play using them.

And yet this is a suggested clarification on how to target models. Again, there are 3 clearly stated rules in the BRB:

1.The only targetable areas of a model are its head, torso, legs, and arms.

2.Things that the model is wearing or carrying do not count for LOS.

3.Wings and tails don't count also, even though they are part of the model's body.

Is a jump pack something the model is wearing? Yes. Therefore, see rule 2.

Saldiven wrote:If the player is going to use the area of the model including the mount for such things as getting into base to base for assaults, then (in my opinion) it has to also count for such things as line of sight.

You don't get to pick and choose which legitimate game situations are affected by your model.

It's not the model that counts for determining whether or not they get into assault, it is the base of the model, as the model is said to occupy the area of it's base. I've seen demon princes (the Chaos Space Marine one) mounted on the 40mm base it comes with, and on a larger base because it has wings that would make it fall over on a smaller base. I've seen jump pack troops modeled on flight bases, just like Discs, and it is the flight base that you go by, not the model.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

solkan wrote:Lord_Mortis,
The problem, as far as I can tell, is that you seem to be convinced that the discs are merely "wargear" and not actual daemonic mounts. Please see page 43 of the Chaos Daemons codex for the statements that those discs are actually bound daemonic mounts, particularly the fourth paragraph of the Screamers description.

As a result, the discs clearly fall into the same category as bikes--an additional large component of the model which can be used for LOS.

I also notice that you've left out the palanquin from your list of mounts. Would you consider it fair to shoot at the herald's chair?

What is the effect of giving a model a Disc? It changes it's profile to Jump Infantry, thus a disc, IMO, is then considered "majestic wings" and not a mount like Cavalry. So if a Jump Infantry model can have a large set of wings or a jump pack that doesn't count for LOS, then Discs would fall into the same category of non-targetable areas of the model.

Palanquins, since they don't change the model's unit type, would be handled just like Juggers and Chariots of Khorne: the whole model counts as one large Infantry model. That's the only reasonable way I see to handle it.

Juggernauts don't change the unit type of the model at all, so why aren't they considered the equivalent of "majestic wings"? And why should a herald be concerned if someone singes part of his chair or puts a hole in his pillow? If you're going by effect, then juggernaughts and palanquins should be in the ignored category along with the discs.

More importantly, a disc also adds an attack to the herald, presumably to represent the disc helping out in combat. So the disc isn't "just" the same as a jump pack or a set of wings according to game terms, either.

By the BRB rules which you keep pointing out, neither the Juggernaut nor the Palanquin would be an eligible part of the model. But since you seem to be so quick to say that those parts of the model should clearly be included for LOS, it remains puzzling to me why you feel that the Disk, which can be just as impressive and large as the palanquin or the juggernaut, should be ignored.

Or, to put it bluntly, if you can shoot at the body or head of my Juggernaut, why can't I shoot at the body of your disc? To be consistent with your claim that the disc is just a huge, glorified jetpack (which it isn't) is that the Juggernaut is just a huge, glorified foot stool and the palanquin is just a huge, glorified chair and as such those parts of the model are clearly not important either.