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.

page 16 BRB wrote: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).

Note that this is a very explicit definition. If a part is not on this list, it cannot be targeted for shooting. So the question is, do you play that hands and feet are separate body parts not included in this list, or do you play that they are extensions of the arms and legs.

I can think of no model where the hands or feet would be visible without at least some part of the arm or leg also being visible. The rule is a provision to prevent you targeting a model via its weapon :3

Hands and feet do not count. If they did, wouldn't a scything talon count, as that is the equivalent of the Tyranid's hand?

While I find it extraordinarily rare that a model would only have a hand visible and not a part of the arm also visible (I'm not even certain I could tell with sufficient accuracy), I guess I'd play that it is NOT targetable (that is, it is a separate part of the body).

That said, I don't think I'd waste time arguing the point if it ever did come up. TLOS has a margin of about half a centimeter when sighting down a model's eyes, and it would be pretty rare to find a situation where a model clearly had only a hand or foot visible.

WanderingFox wrote:I can think of no model where the hands or feet would be visible without at least some part of the arm or leg also being visible. The rule is a provision to prevent you targeting a model via its weapon :3

Say if you can only see the toes of a model's boots under a tank, or a hand holding a pistol sticking out from a wall. It's a possible situation, though I admit not likely.

I actually had this come up with the Nightbringer at a tournament recently.

His hand, on the non-scythe arm was barely visible if you squinted right around a wall. I allowed it without argument, as a hand is on the end of an arm, so to me it's fair to call it 'arm' rather than weapon or decorative element., though targetting the trigger finger sticking through the trigger guard would be pushing the envelope a tad.. (it's been tried..)

The question of the Nightbringer's robes was also raised, as his leg is actually about half way up the model, with the robes making about a 1/3 of his height. Are they his body (there is fluff justification that they could be, but no rules) or are they 'decorative elements' (rules seem to lean this way)..

We diced off and he won on this one, and I wasn't overly fussed either way, but i'd be interested in people's views.

willydstyle wrote:Say if you can only see the toes of a model's boots under a tank, or a hand holding a pistol sticking out from a wall. It's a possible situation, though I admit not likely.

What are you measuring TLOS from? a Scarab swarm?

As others have said, I don't think TLOS will really allow you to clearly state that "I can only see his feet" What with the margin of error on top of the generally small size of the body parts in question...

For that reason, I'd reason that no they don't count for what few situations that could potentially actually occur.

I guess what it boils down to for me is that, for example, you had a cut on your hand, it would not be accurate to say that you have a cut on your arm, similar for feet and legs.

While they don't have explicit definitions in-game, the basic definitions of hand and foot does not say that they are also considered to be arm or leg.

Yes, upon physically checking this for myself, I found that my hand is as much a part of my arm as my arm is in turn a part of my body.

2+ Cover Save for all but a tiny bit of the model being covered.

In circumstances where this occurs (which is less rare on the tables i normally play on; terrain is plentiful at my flgs) I simply choose not to take the shot if i'm looking at the board and can only clearly make out a hand/finger, or foot/toe and no other part of the model (I just choose another unit that is more clearly in LOS, if there is one). A common opponent of mine, however, takes the WAAC tack, and will declare fire when all he can see is the foot of a single trooper in a squad of 10 warriors (the rest, and the majority covered model, are behind a monolith in this example). It irritates me but i can't refute the claim based on the rules, so the shots had to go through with standard 4+ cover. Again my interpretation is based strictly on my attitude towards the game in general, at least during friendly matches, it's a gentleman's agreement not to play like a WAAC jerk.

Your Friend Doctor Robert wrote:2+ Cover Save for all but a tiny bit of the model being covered.

And *that's* not in the rules anywhere

Hands are part of the arm, not an extension of it. Feet are also part of the legs. Same way as the ears are part of the head. Of course you can shoot it if you see the hands or feet.

I would say so. But then again, at my FLGS, we play it that if you can see any part of the model (sans the gun, mainly because some models have guns that stick way out), you can shoot it.

Technically speaking, is the hand the arm? No. But it is attached, and to be honest, if I see a hand sticking out, I'm going to assume there's something there that I can shoot. Whether I can realistically lethally wound a person with a hand shot (that sounded dirty...) is something else entirely, but can I still see the model enough to take a pot shot? Yes.

Dracos wrote:Hands are part of the arm, not an extension of it. Feet are also part of the legs. Same way as the ears are part of the head. Of course you can shoot it if you see the hands or feet.

Erm, no. Your hands are a distinct feature seperate from your arm. Your arm ends at the wrist joint.

Would you truly, honestly state that you had cut your arm if you had cut your hand? Really?

So what about nids that only have a head and body... many don't have arms or legs!!

Anything that blood/equivalent would come out of where you to shoot someone/something in it. So yeah hands and feet are OK, a piece of backpack or antena isnt.

And? That has nothing to do with whether a Hand is a part of your Arm.

Exhaustive lsit is exhaustive - adding to it is breaking the rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:And? That has nothing to do with whether a Hand is a part of your Arm.

Exhaustive lsit is exhaustive - adding to it is breaking the rules.

How Do You Play It: are hands and feet targetable parts of a model's "body?"

You get extra points for bold and bigger!

I was asking for a reasoning on why you have extended an exhaustive list - realism in an abstract game of IGOUGO is a shaky reason.

nosferatu1001 wrote:You get extra points for bold and bigger!

I was asking for a reasoning on why you have extended an exhaustive list - realism in an abstract game of IGOUGO is a shaky reason.

hehe, personally, I dont see it as an extension, they are a named part of a wider whole if that makes sense. Feet are part of the set called legs and hands are part of the set called arms. Not all legs are feet and not all arms are hands, but feet are part of the set of the legs and hands are part of the set of arms.

So please answer the question that was posed a couple ot times (i've just reformulated it) - would you truly answer "ow, have you cut your arm?" with YES if you have, in fact, cut your hand?

nosferatu1001 wrote:So please answer the question that was posed a couple ot times (i've just reformulated it) - would you truly answer "ow, have you cut your arm?" with YES if you have, in fact, cut your hand?

It depends where abouts on the totality of your arm the cut specifically is. It could be your elbow, your bicep, your tricep, your wrist, your finger, the knucle of your ring finger, or your hand



Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The red circle is your arm, the green circle is your hand.

Hand is part of arm, but arm is not necessarily hand.

I DID specify, please reread the question: yuo have cut your hand. Have you cut your arm?

So you slice the palm of your hand.

If someone asks you "oh, youve cut your arm!" do you respond "Yes, I have" or "well, no, I cut my hand"

Normal usage would indicate the latter.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I DID specify, please reread the question: yuo have cut your hand. Have you cut your arm?

So you slice the palm of your hand.

If someone asks you "oh, youve cut your arm!" do you respond "Yes, I have" or "well, no, I cut my hand"

Normal usage would indicate the latter.

I guess that depends on whether I fancied getting into a semantic debate or whether I was bleeding to death really. While bleeding to death I'd phone 999 as that is the number for the emergency services. I'd ask for an ambulance, once of the members of the set emergency services.

Presumably you wouldn't dial 999 in the same case, as that is not the number for the ambulance, rather its the number for the emergency services who are not an ambulance?

Ah right, you#re avoidning answering the question by proffering up a straw man instead. Good to know.

No, your arm is not your hand, and your hand is not part of your arm. Your arm ends at the wrist.

I guess that means that hair doesn't count either. Does the groin count? Is that part of the torso? I might sound like I'm joking, but I'm actually kind of serious.

Actually, ork "hair" is not part of the ork. It's a hair-squig

Orks have hair??

Just coming from my medical runoff in the army(machine gunner attached to a hospital) I would say the hand is part of the arm. The hand is not a isolated system, with the vast majority of the muscle that moves the hand inside the arm. It is no less part of the arm as the heart is part of the chest.

To address nos, I wouldn't say that, not because it is wrong but because it isn't specific enough. To say you cut off you arm indicates that anywhere past the shoulder is game. Forearm is anything beyond the elbow, and hand is anything beyond the wrist. Still arm, just specific part of it.

-cgmckenzie