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.

This stems from another discussion. First, the relevant part of the rules:

"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."

Those rules deal with Infantry models, and don't really discuss how to target other models such as bikes or demonic chariots. So after reading about the different unit types and different wargear that changes a model's unit type, this is how I came up with how targeting models works.

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

Things that the model is wearing or carrying do not count for LOS, such as weapons or "ornaments."

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.

This seems to be something that is consistent that can apply to any race in 40K, as most models have heads, torsos, arms, and legs. Some models don't have arms or legs, but they at least have a head and a body, so again you have something to target. With all the myriad modeling options out there for models, there are a lot of variables that could apply as to what is targetable. However, heads, arms, legs, and torsos remain a constant viable target throughout the different armies, and these are the 4 things that the BRB state are targetable areas.

There are some disagreements about what counts as for LOS, especially when it comes to jump packs. In the following picture, I would say that the jump pack does not count for LOS, as the torso is not visible.



The question was asked: "So, is a jump pack Ornamental? By stating you can ignore it due to rule 2 then you are, indeed, stating it is Ornamental."

I say you can't target a model's jump pack because it is not a model's head, torso, arm, or leg. In addition, I would also say it is something worn or carried, but the primary reason is that it is not one of the 4 targetable areas stated as valid LOS points on a model. I will also ask this:

Can you target the jump pack on a Raptor model? What about the jump pack on Swooping Hawks?



So, how do you (Dakkites in general) play it as far as determining LOS to a model? Do you only target a model's head, torso, arms, or legs? Or do you include other things such as robes, cloaks, jump packs, etc.?

i would say no.

if my opponent protested i would kindly direct them to the pages stating what you've already referenced as its unit type, and what is targetable

OMG SOLID SPESS TREES!!!!!!!

It's very nice that you've started the new thread. Of course, buried in those lines of text you still have the two inconsistencies or questions from the previous thread:

1. Do jump packs count for LOS?
2. Does the Disc of Tzeentch, as a daemonic mount which is not identical to a jump pack or wings, count for LOS?

Would you prefer if some other poster started a poll specifically about the disk of Tzeentch for you?

Gwar! wrote:OMG SOLID SPESS TREES!!!!!!!

Coming soon to a games store near you!

solkan wrote:It's very nice that you've started the new thread. Of course, buried in those lines of text you still have the two inconsistencies or questions from the previous thread:

1. Do jump packs count for LOS?

No. Do jump packs on Raptors and Swooping Hawks count for LOS?

2. Does the Disc of Tzeentch, as a daemonic mount which is not identical to a jump pack or wings, count for LOS?

No, as it is wargear that changes the model's unit type to Jump Infantry. Heads, torsos, arms, and legs are the only viable targets on Infantry and Jump Infantry.

Would you prefer if some other poster started a poll specifically about the disk of Tzeentch for you?

Nope, as this is a discussion about how you (in general) play it. Feel free to share what you think is a viable target on a model and/or why you disagree with the way others play it, but this isn't strictly a discussion about what is the "right" or "wrong" way to play it. The method in the first post is the way I have determined is the easiest, most consistent way to determine LOS to a model in just about every situation because, as you will soon see, there are times when, if you consider a jump pack part of the model's torso, that it will count and will it won't count for LOS depending on the model.

I don't think this situation comes up nearly enough to rule it other than on a case by case basis.

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

You better believe that if you are going to knitpick about not being able to target jump packs I am going to knitpick about not being able to target my bikes. I get what you are trying to say, but that, to me, reeks of inconsistency.

LM - despite being corrected on this in the other thread, you have maneged to repeat your "mistake" here.

There is NO BLANKET EXEMPTION for "things you are carrying or wearing", there is ONLY an exemption for "ornaments the model is carrying or wearing" - this was point ed out to you 3 times int he previous thread, so your continued failure to correct your mistakes seems...suspicious. Almost like it undermines your argument, and points out your failure to interpret the rules sensibly.

Is the jump pack ornamental? No? Then you CANNOT apply rule 2. The *first test* is whether the item is ornamental - if it is not ornamental or the first items specifically listed, rule two does not apply.

This leaves you with something that is targetable, because rule two does not cover it. It is part of the models torso - as it is attached there.

And, as previous, if you start to claim that "torso" refers to the flesh and bone trunk of the actual model, then your interpretation requires that models in poewr armour, unless they dont have their helmets on, cannot be targetted.

Again, reductio ad absurdum shows that your interpretation of "body" is flawed.

Drunkspleen wrote:You better believe that if you are going to knitpick about not being able to target jump packs I am going to knitpick about not being able to target my bikes. I get what you are trying to say, but that, to me, reeks of inconsistency.

If someone models their jump packs as wings, can you target them?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Is the jump pack ornamental? No? Then you CANNOT apply rule 2. The *first test* is whether the item is ornamental - if it is not ornamental or the first items specifically listed, rule two does not apply.

Can you target the jump packs on Raptors and Swooping Hawks?

LM - as was told to you before, if you have MODELLED to gain an ADVANTAGE then that is frowned upon.

An advantage of modelling wings not jump packs is that wings cannot be targetted.

Guess what - modelling for advantage! Who'd have thought! Almost like you posted this exact same question in the previous thread.

Are the jump packs on raptors wings? No. Then they can be targetted. Just look at the model - they arent wings.

Are the jump packs on swooping hawks wings? While they have the form of a natural wing, they are still an artifical means to lift the eldar into the air. So again, they would be targetable.

Still lokoking for you to answer the specific questions posed previously - is the jump pack ornamental?

Lord_Mortis wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:You better believe that if you are going to knitpick about not being able to target jump packs I am going to knitpick about not being able to target my bikes. I get what you are trying to say, but that, to me, reeks of inconsistency.

If someone models their jump packs as wings, can you target them?

I would discuss that with my opponent, I don't really care if jump packs are targettable or not, I'm just saying, I would expect consistency when it comes to bikes/jetbikes.

Personally, I would more often than not consider wings part of the model if the model either is a winged creature by standard, or has a piece of wargear that is wings, I think those rules regarding LOS are well meaning (encouraging you to not avoid putting large fancy bits on your model) but are ridiculous in terms of the game because those same things that you can't draw LOS to can potentially block LOS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Are the jump packs on raptors wings? No. Then they can be targetted. Just look at the model - they arent wings.

Are the jump packs on swooping hawks wings? While they have the form of a natural wing, they are still an artifical means to lift the eldar into the air. So again, they would be targetable.

Still lokoking for you to answer the specific questions posed previously - is the jump pack ornamental?

Wrong and wrong. Raptors and Swooping Hawks don't have jump packs or wings listed in their wargear. But they are still Jump Infantry. So yes, Raptors and Swooping Hawks have jump packs that are ornamental.

Additionally, I would say if a unit's type is "jump infantry" and jump packs come as standard equipment on them, then it doesn't matter whether jump packs are modeled on the models or not, as it doesn't change it's unit type either way.

LM - as was told to you before, if you have MODELLED to gain an ADVANTAGE then that is frowned upon.

Yes I know. You would label someone as modelling for advantage even if they are modeling for fluff reasons. Tsk Tsk.

well, considering blowing up the JP would be pretty painful, I'd say yeah.

But you'd definately get a coversave.

then again, it counts as wings.

Drunkspleen wrote:Personally, I would more often than not consider wings part of the model if the model either is a winged creature by standard, or has a piece of wargear that is wings, I think those rules regarding LOS are well meaning (encouraging you to not avoid putting large fancy bits on your model) but are ridiculous in terms of the game because those same things that you can't draw LOS to can potentially block LOS.

I personally don't think it is fair that a Bloodthirster's wings don't count for LOS but at the same time can block LOS to other models, and your bike, which technically doesn't have a head, torso, arms, or legs, does count for LOS. But "dem's da roolz." So in light of that, the method I came up with uses a consistent target(s) across the various armies of 40K and doesn't punish players for modeling for fluff and doesn't label players as modeling for advantage.

It would be useless to try and define the bits on every thing model which count as LoS items or not.

There are just too many possible variations.

The current rules allow the players to decide and in most cases they will make a sensible decision. I don't think it happens much that a single model is only targettable because of its wings.

IMO TLoS is a silly way of running a game because it leads to to the kind of controversies mentioned earlier in the thread.

A much better way would be to define abstract unit/model sizes and terrain heights, and specify each official model into a size class, then use area terrain.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

Drunkspleen wrote:Personally, I would more often than not consider wings part of the model if the model either is a winged creature by standard, or has a piece of wargear that is wings, I think those rules regarding LOS are well meaning (encouraging you to not avoid putting large fancy bits on your model) but are ridiculous in terms of the game because those same things that you can't draw LOS to can potentially block LOS.

I personally don't think it is fair that a Bloodthirster's wings don't count for LOS but at the same time can block LOS to other models, and your bike, which technically doesn't have a head, torso, arms, or legs, does count for LOS. But "dem's da roolz." So in light of that, the method I came up with uses a consistent target(s) across the various armies of 40K and doesn't punish players for modeling for fluff and doesn't label players as modeling for advantage.

The rules don't support the idea that the bike is a valid target though, that's the thing, the bike should be no different to a jump pack, it's a piece of wargear that is integral to the models unit type, but is not part of the models body.

Drunkspleen wrote:The rules don't support the idea that the bike is a valid target though, that's the thing, the bike should be no different to a jump pack, it's a piece of wargear that is integral to the models unit type, but is not part of the models body.

That is one of the things that I brought up in another discussion and said one could make the argument that a bike is just a piece of wargear and since it has no head, torso, arms, or legs, it shouldn't count. But most people don't play it that way.

Lord_Mortis wrote:That is one of the things that I brought up in another discussion and said one could make the argument that a bike is just a piece of wargear and since it has no head, torso, arms, or legs, it shouldn't count. But most people don't play it that way.

And in that same thread, most people who cared to address whether or not a jump pack was a targettable part of a model said that it was, yet for some reason that hasn't carried over?

Re-writing:

SP1: Things like guns, extra equipment, tails/wings, extruding bitz (claws, increased bag lengths.) and suchforth do NOT count for LOS on an infantry/nonvehicular based-unit

Clarity: extra equipment: Banners, grenades, swords holsters and such.

SP2: if these things are not included, the model is only able to be shot at if:
A: you can see a body part (chest, arms, torso, legs head.) and if you can't see at least 25% of the model, it's generally considered 'hidden'

Lord_Mortis wrote:Wrong and wrong. Raptors and Swooping Hawks don't have jump packs or wings listed in their wargear. But they are still Jump Infantry. So yes, Raptors and Swooping Hawks have jump packs that are ornamental.

Except the only difference between a raptor and a normal chaos marine is that one has a jump pack modelled on it. Wonder if that makes it non-ornamental?

So is the Jump Pack on an Assault Marine ornamental? Since you love consistency I'd love to see some.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Additionally, I would say if a unit's type is "jump infantry" and jump packs come as standard equipment on them, then it doesn't matter whether jump packs are modeled on the models or not, as it doesn't change it's unit type either way.

you might say that, it jsut has no basis in rules. like a lot of things you posit.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Yes I know. You would label someone as modelling for advantage even if they are modeling for fluff reasons. Tsk Tsk.

Tsk Tsk yourself - you assume it is a binary position, despite having been told it isn't. Twice now. Get it yet? You can BOTH model for advantage and, at the same time, model to flufff! wow, its an amzing concept! At least present arguments vaguely sensibly, you may get listened to instead of being labelled a troll.

Drunkspleen wrote:And in that same thread, most people who cared to address whether or not a jump pack was a targettable part of a model said that it was, yet for some reason that hasn't carried over?

Because it was only after reading over the rules regarding unit types again that I came up with this method, as it just made sense. Page 4 and 5 of the BRB talk about cavalry and bike models counting as one model and may not dismount. With that in mind I had to figure out how head, torso, arms, and legs apply to such models, and thus the method I came up with.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the only difference between a raptor and a normal chaos marine is that one has a jump pack modelled on it. Wonder if that makes it non-ornamental?

Again, Raptors, Swooping Hawks, and Warp Spiders don't have jump packs listed in their wargear section in the army list. They are simply labeled as unit type:Jump Infantry, so apparently they are all survivors from Krypton and fly under their internal power. Or they have versions of the Iron Man armor. They are jump infantry because their unit type says they are jump infantry, and thus their jump packs are purely ornamental as apparently they don't need them to fly across the battlefield.

So is the Jump Pack on an Assault Marine ornamental? Since you love consistency I'd love to see some.

I have used the same consistency that GW has laid out, which is viable targets of a model's body is a head, torso, arms, and legs. I even stated that in the very first post of this discussion. I have tried to apply that same consistency to things that don't have heads, torsos, arms, and legs per se, such as bikes, while at the same time attempting to adhere to the idea they set forth that modeling shouldn't be penalized.

But yes, I know you want to nitpick about exactly what constitutes a model's torso. Since we play a game involving little plastic (for the most part) men that we have to assemble piece by piece, let's start there. The majority of models that I assemble require a head, torso, 2 arms, and 2 legs. After I cut these individual pieces off their sprue, I assemble them to have the base model that I will add wargear and ornamentation to at a later stage. But this base model has all the viable parts of a model's body that GW says count for LOS, namely a head, torso, arms and legs. Looking at any website that sales individual bits (thewarstore, bitsandkits, bitzbox, etc.), you will see that the majority of them have bits seperated by--dun dun dun---heads, torsos, arms, and legs. Back packs, jump packs, spikey bits, etc., are not labeled as torsos, and are each in their own respective section. So a backpack is not a torso, it is a back pack. Same with jump packs. Even GW's website doesn't have jump pack bits listed as "Jumppack Torsos." It really isn't that hard to figure out: whatever your base model is before you start adding extra bits to it is your viable target areas for LOS. If your base model includes ornamentation such as cloaks or taberds, see rule #2.

you might say that, it jsut has no basis in rules. like a lot of things you posit.

That's odd, because I have seen several discussions on Dakka where the general consensus is that any wargear that comes standard on a model in it's army list section doesn't necessarilly have to be modeled on the miniature.

Tsk Tsk yourself - you assume it is a binary position, despite having been told it isn't. Twice now. Get it yet? You can BOTH model for advantage and, at the same time, model to flufff! wow, its an amzing concept! At least present arguments vaguely sensibly, you may get listened to instead of being labelled a troll.

When I hear "modeling for advantage" I think of someone setting at their modeling desk and trying to figure out how they can intentionally circumvent certain rules by modeling their figures in such a way that they get some sort of advantage. The intended outcome of their converstion is to gain an advantage they didn't have if they just assembled the model straight out of the box.

Modeling for fluff is just that: getting an idea for your background and then modeling/painting your figures to fit the fluff with no intention of trying to circumvent a disadvantageous rule. Can an advantage be gained accidentally as a result of a conversion? Of course it can. But a disadvantage can result as well. But the underlying factor is what is the modeler's intent? And that is something you can't know unless you are a mind reader. Anytime "modelling for fluff" has been brought up, your posts have seemed slanted at accusing someone of intentionally modeling for an advantage, as if your first thought on the subject of modeling for fluff is that someone is intentionally trying to circumvent the rules.

sigh.

You dont understand that something can be a simple statement of *fact*, and cares not a jot about *intent*.

Have you gained an advantage by modelling wings that are non-targettable? Yes.

You have modelled for advantage.

While you may have only "intended" to model for fluff, you have ALSO modelled for advantage.

Sorry if this goes over your head, I've explained it at least 3 times now, and it is a dreadfully simple concept.

Also - the wargear that was being questioned has only ever been inconsequential items, such as grenades and bolters/bolt pistols, not items intrinsic and *defining* about the model. An Assault marine (JI) is defined by its Jump Pack, whereas an Assault Marine (non-JI) is defined by not having a jumppack.

So, I ask again - is a Jump pack on an assault marine Ornamental? Please *answer this question* rather than avoiding it iwth an entirely irrelevant ramble.

Finally: why is your version of what "torso" means authoritative? You have completely arbitrarily decided that trunk-in-power-armour is the torso, when in fact it isnt - the flesh trunk is the torso. So why cant the trunk-in-power-armour-with-integral-jump-pack also count?

In other words: your definition is arbitrary and not supported in the rules or elsewhere, and is not reasonable. What is reasonable is that everything affixed to the body that is NOT a weapon, or ornamental, OR that isnt a wing/tail, counts for LOS.

In other words: reductio ad absurdum on your definition proves only space marines with helmets off can be targetted. Your position is not valid.

The phrase "modeling for the advantage" itself denotes intent by use of the word "for". Can someone create a model that gains an in-game advantage without specifically modeling for it? Yes.

But just because you gained an advantage by your conversion does not mean you intended to.

Notably not too many people make a distinction here, but there that distinction is intent.

Advantage can be gained, even if you dont intend to gain advantage it is still a factual condition.

It is still a factual statement - it has been modelled For advantage AND for fluff. You may not have realised the advantage, however it is there.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, I ask again - is a Jump pack on an assault marine Ornamental? Please *answer this question* rather than avoiding it iwth an entirely irrelevant ramble.

A jump pack is neither a head, torso, arms, or legs, and therefore is not counted for LOS. That is all that I am concerned with, and therefore it does not matter if it is ornamental as rule #1 has been satisfied. But there are some jump packs that are ornamental, like Raptors, Swooping Hawks, and Warp Spiders, and I am pointing that out to you as you said they were valid for LOS. A head, torso, arm, or leg are determined by the base components of the model being assembled depending on which army you are building. A Tyranid torso is going to be different than a Space Marine torso. Again, look at any bits seller and you will see them clearly seperated by component parts in their own sections. That is something consistent that can be applied to all models regardless of what army they belong to. I don't know of anyone who has made the mistake of taking a jump pack and attaching a head, arms, and legs to it thinking it is a torso.

Finally: why is your version of what "torso" means authoritative? You have completely arbitrarily decided that trunk-in-power-armour is the torso, when in fact it isnt - the flesh trunk is the torso. So why cant the trunk-in-power-armour-with-integral-jump-pack also count?

See above. It's what I determine as a torso. If you want to determine what is a torso in some other manner, feel free to do so, as this game allows you and your gaming group to play how you like, adding or dropping rules as you see fit.

In other words: your definition is arbitrary and not supported in the rules or elsewhere, and is not reasonable. What is reasonable is that everything affixed to the body that is NOT a weapon, or ornamental, OR that isnt a wing/tail, counts for LOS.

Define wing as it pertains to 40K. There are bird wings, bat wings, aircraft wings, Swooping Hawk wings, etc. Where in the BRB is a wing defined? If it isn't, then I guess a player can define a wing however they like....For example, an Iron Warriors player may want to give his Demon Prince wings but wants the model to retain a mechanical, industrial look. Not being very good at modeling he simply slaps a jump pack on the Prince (a rule option that isn't available to a DP) to keep with the theme of his army. I guess his wings are now, according to you, a valid LOS point on the model because they look like a jump pack?

Lord_Mortis wrote:A jump pack is neither a head, torso, arms, or legs, and therefore is not counted for LOS.

And as I have said, that is *not* supported in the rules, but something you have arbitrarily decided upon.

"Torso" is the flesh and blood trunk, Trunk-in-power-armour is no more the "torso" than Trunk-in-power-armour-and-back/jump-pack - under &your& narrow definition of the term at any rate.

Lord_Mortis wrote:That is all that I am concerned with, and therefore it does not matter if it is ornamental as rule #1 has been satisfied.

Except as i dont agree with your definition of no1, no2 still applies or it DOES count for LOS

So, is a jump pack ornamental? Please, actually answer this time or admit ignorance.

Lord_Mortis wrote:A head, torso, arm, or leg are determined by the base components of the model being assembled depending on which army you are building.

Wrong wrnog wrong. this has been pointed out to you more than once now.

IF I point to someone wearing trousers, and ask you to cut off and present me their leg, would you leave the trousers on or off?

Your position is logically invalid.

Lord_Mortis wrote: A Tyranid torso is going to be different than a Space Marine torso. Again, look at any bits seller and you will see them clearly seperated by component parts in their own sections. That is something consistent that can be applied to all models regardless of what army they belong to. I don't know of anyone who has made the mistake of taking a jump pack and attaching a head, arms, and legs to it thinking it is a torso.

Irrelevancies again. You're doing well tonight.

Lord_Mortis wrote:See above. It's what I determine as a torso. If you want to determine what is a torso in some other manner, feel free to do so, as this game allows you and your gaming group to play how you like, adding or dropping rules as you see fit.

Ah, so finally you admit your definition is arbitrary!

Given that I've then shown your positiuon is logically absurd, it makes your arbitrary position not only arbitrary, but absurd. That is however YOUR decision, for the totally unneeded reminder that TMIR exists.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Define wing as it pertains to 40K. There are bird wings, bat wings, aircraft wings, Swooping Hawk wings, etc.

One of those is a vehicle, and the section we're talking about only considers non-vehicle models. Absurd example, try again
Swooping hawk wings - are they attached to the body? No, theyre attached to the armour. Irrelevant example

The term "wings" as applied to something "attached to your body" (sic) only really has one meaning. Way to attempt to construct a straw man argument, not letting you do it however.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Where in the BRB is a wing defined? If it isn't, then I guess a player can define a wing however they like....

No, they would fall back on the dictionary definition, as backed up by the context in which the word is used. Same as *every* word not defined internally. You do realise that "the" isnt defined in the BRB, dont you? Do you assert that people just make up their own definition of "the"?

No, you use the english (not US) language, as that is the language and grammar the rulebook was written in.

Lord_Mortis wrote:For example, an Iron Warriors player may want to give his Demon Prince wings but wants the model to retain a mechanical, industrial look. Not being very good at modeling he simply slaps a jump pack on the Prince (a rule option that isn't available to a DP) to keep with the theme of his army. I guess his wings are now, according to you, a valid LOS point on the model because they look like a jump pack?

As it is part of the "torso", isnt ornamental and isnt a wing, then yes it is valid for LOS.

You do realise you can model for DISadvantage as wel, dont you? Sorry, these things are a little trivial

nosferatu1001 wrote:And as I have said, that is *not* supported in the rules, but something you have arbitrarily decided upon.

"Torso" is the flesh and blood trunk, Trunk-in-power-armour is no more the "torso" than Trunk-in-power-armour-and-back/jump-pack - under &your& narrow definition of the term at any rate.

And I am actually trying to play the game rather than argue RAW all the way to such an absurd point that the majority of models are not able to be targeted by shooting attacks and thus not make for a fun game. Head, torso, arms, and legs. The BRB does not say they have to be covered or uncovered. Lol.

Except as i dont agree with your definition of no1, no2 still applies or it DOES count for LOS

Then I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. Head, torso, arms, and legs. Those are the targetable areas of the little plastic army men we use as game pieces.

IF I point to someone wearing trousers, and ask you to cut off and present me their leg, would you leave the trousers on or off?

Really? I mean, really? Again, if I am building an army of Tyranids, their head, torso, arms, and legs depends on the type of model I am assembling. If I am building an army of Space Marines, their heads, torsos, arms, and legs depend on what type of model I am building. Same with all the other armies. If you asked me to hand you the torso of a Space Marine out of my bits box, I won't hand you a jump pack. I will hand you a power armored torso, as that is how the torso of a Space Marine comes. If you asked for the torso of of a Tyranid Warrior, I won't hand you a set of Gargoyle wings. Try to remember that we are talking about little pieces of moulded plastic. It helps quite a bit.

Irrelevancies again. You're doing well tonight.

Lol. Very relevant since we are talking about little pieces of moulded plastic that have to be assembled.

One of those is a vehicle, and the section we're talking about only considers non-vehicle models. Absurd example, try again
Swooping hawk wings - are they attached to the body? No, theyre attached to the armour. Irrelevant example

The term "wings" as applied to something "attached to your body" (sic) only really has one meaning. Way to attempt to construct a straw man argument, not letting you do it however.

No, we are talking about a fantasy game where aliens are threatening humanity on a daily basis, where laser cannons are common and so are giant Titans. If I want to call something mechanical strapped to the back of a model that propels it through the air "wings" I will call it wings, because just like everything else in the game, we aren't talking about anything "real."

As it is part of the "torso", isnt ornamental and isnt a wing, then yes it is valid for LOS.

You do realise you can model for DISadvantage as wel, dont you? Sorry, these things are a little trivial

So what you are saying is that you aren't very fun to play against...

Ah, you're confusing reality with postings on a board, arent you. You have no idea what I am like to play against IRL as *gasp* this board isnt real life - it is a board to argue *rules* - if you wanted a HWYPI thread then you should have said - then there can be disagreement based purely on arbitrary decisions. Here, something based in rules is helpful.

As you have no evidence to base that statement upon, please withdraw it and apologise. Personally given the idiotic ideas you have about how the game works I dont think you would be much fun to play against, as you have such a.....skewed version of reality there is little common ground. That IS evidence based btw.

So, do you let people make up their own definition of "the" then? What about "a"? Do you have any basis for arguing from consistency, since even basic words are mutable at your will?

*I* am not making the claim that models in power armour arent targetable, YOU ARE - by defining the torso in such narrow terms that is the logical result of your argument. So actually you are arguing it - except youre not, as you refuse to (or simply dont understand) see where your argument leads. Or you keep changing your mind, its tricky to tell.

You admit you are making an arbitrary, not supported in rules or language, decision about what "torso" (et al) means? One that results in less consistency (sometimes things are targetable, sometimes they arent, who knows!) than my solution? And this is supposed to make playing the game *easier*? Uh, no.

Oh, and yet AGAIN you cannot answer a simple question. Good to know that is the standard we can expect from yourself.

Oh, one question you might deign to answer, unless it completely removes your argument of course: what if the jump pack was molded to the torso, does it count for LOS then? What if the entire thing is one piece? How do you break it down to "head, arms, legs, torso" then, using your argument-by-bits-of-model? Would you cut it up first, just so you can definitely work out which is which? Or would you again be inconsistent, such that the jump pack is targetable on this model (under your view) but not on others?

In other words - cant you see what an absurd situation you have created, where you have to know how the model is constructed before you will say what is allowed for LOS and what isnt? Surely even you're able to comphrehend the sheer lunacy of that position?

Lord_Mortis wrote:

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.

I don't care a whit about the rest of this argument, but what in the world is this definition of targetable areas on a bike based upon?

If I put a riderless bike on the table and ask a 7 year old to point at the 'arms' I get a 'LoLWUT?' look.

If jump packs aren't targetable, bikes aren't targetable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, you're confusing reality with postings on a board, arent you. You have no idea what I am like to play against IRL as *gasp* this board isnt real life - it is a board to argue *rules* - if you wanted a HWYPI thread then you should have said - then there can be disagreement based purely on arbitrary decisions. Here, something based in rules is helpful.

Oh, you mean like when I said "So, how do you (Dakkites in general) play it as far as determining LOS to a model?" at the end of the very first post?

*I* am not making the claim that models in power armour arent targetable, YOU ARE - by defining the torso in such narrow terms that is the logical result of your argument. So actually you are arguing it - except youre not, as you refuse to (or simply dont understand) see where your argument leads. Or you keep changing your mind, its tricky to tell.

Lol. I'm sorry that determining what the torso of a little moulded plastic army man is has caused you so much stress. It really is a simple matter. If you need help, there are several bits websites out there that have the heads, torsos, arms, and legs of the models that are used to play the game neatly organized into their respective sections, as it is the head, torso, arms, and legs of whatever models that make up your army that GW is talking about.

You admit you are making an arbitrary, not supported in rules or language, decision about what "torso" (et al) means? One that results in less consistency (sometimes things are targetable, sometimes they arent, who knows!) than my solution? And this is supposed to make playing the game *easier*? Uh, no.

Actually, if you say that jump packs are targetable because they aren't "ornaments" that are worn, then it is that view that causes inconsistency because in some cases (Raptors, Warp Spiders, Swooping Hawks) jump packs are indeed just ornaments. Saying that jump packs, of all kinds, aren't part of a model's torso and therefore aren't targetable is much more consistent.

Oh, and yet AGAIN you cannot answer a simple question. Good to know that is the standard we can expect from yourself.

Lol. Sure, some jump packs are very ornate. Others not so much.

Oh, one question you might deign to answer, unless it completely removes your argument of course: what if the jump pack was molded to the torso, does it count for LOS then? What if the entire thing is one piece? How do you break it down to "head, arms, legs, torso" then, using your argument-by-bits-of-model? Would you cut it up first, just so you can definitely work out which is which? Or would you again be inconsistent, such that the jump pack is targetable on this model (under your view) but not on others?

Then in that case I would make a reasonable judgement call (something we are allowed to do in this game) and see how the majority of models are cast. Is it an assault marine from a new edition box set and therefore not representative of the majority of assault marine sprues that have jump packs seperate from the torso? Then I would say it didn't count for LOS just like the rest of the assault marine jump packs. If it was a new trend for GW to start molding jump packs to torsos then I would maybe start reassessing how LOS is determined, as LOS seems to change every time a new edition of the game comes out.