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.

In the interest of settling issues raised in other threads, here's a multiple choice poll aimed at discovering which elements people feel count for LOS on Jump Infantry models or things which move like jump infantry. Two notes about the poll:
1. "Body" is included in the poll just because multiple-choice polls with None-of-the-above doesn't work like they should (the option isn't exclusive). Everybody should be picking this option along with any other applicable choices.
2. "Wings" are excluded from LOS by the rules on page 16. Included to check reliability of data.

The models to consider are:
1. The Dark Eldar Hellion with its Hellion Skyboard.
2. Regular Jump Infantry and Jetpack Infantry with their jetpacks and jump packs.
3. Heralds of Tzeentch, Sorcerers of Tzeentch and Lords of Tzeentch riding the Disc of Tzeentch daemonic mount.
4. Eldar Swooping Hawks and their feathered and winged backpacks.

So which parts can be shot at?

Edit: Changed the post title since I forgot to change the post title after I changed my mind on the poll structure.

I voted 'Body'. I don't think that any of the other things can reasonably be shot at. Yes, this gives tiny/slim models an advantage over huge clunky SPEZZ MREENZ.

And if those aspects of the model obscure the head/torso/limbs, then I say draw LOS as if the obscuring bit wasn't there, just as the rules for elaborately ornamental bases say.

as per raw

"legs, torso, arms, head"

No feet, no bases, no hands, no weapons, no ornaments, no anything else that is not specifically listed.

The previous poll concerning Daemonic Mounts was showing strong voting for drawing LOS to the mounts, and a Disc of Tzeentch is a mount.

So, in the interest of gathering more information, there's the poll.

Actually the last poll was more about Chariots, as I wasn't aware of a multiple choice poll option, so it really wasn't a good poll. This one is much better.

And the relevant 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."

I wasn't actually referring to the second poll, I was more interested in the first poll, http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/279615.page which had mentioned Juggers, Discs and such specifically in the first post and gotten the 85% "Yes, the mount counts" result.

Perhaps includnig a bike would have been useful as well, as it is a logical extension of the others.

To all those who keep quoting the "torso" section: do you count the models armour in that? The "torso" of a creature doesnt include any armour it may be wearing, so surely a model in power armour is not targettable except when it isnt wearing a helmet?

And if you state "no, I include armour" then why is THAT arbitrary extension of the well defined term "torso" any more supportable than "trunk-in-power-armour-including-jump-pack"?

nosferatu1001 wrote:The "torso" of a creature doesnt include any armour it may be wearing, so surely a model in power armour is not targettable except when it isnt wearing a helmet?

Where are you getting this from? The BRB does not say only unarmored torsos are considered for LOS. We are talking about little pieces of molded plastic that are assembled into little army men to play a game with. The "torso" of your model is whatever little plastic piece from your particular army that you attach a head, arms, and legs to. If you asked for a Space Marine torso from my bits box I am not going to hand you a jump pack. If you asked for a Tyranid Warrior torso, I am not going to hand you some Gargoyle wings. If you asked for a Cadian torso, I am not going to hand you a Chaos Terminator torso.

I don't get it...why are 'normal wings' an option?
Esp. after the BRB says they don't count...
Why do they even have votes on them, what am I missing here?

Lord_Mortis wrote:Where are you getting this from? The BRB does not say only unarmored torsos are considered for LOS. We are talking about little pieces of molded plastic that are assembled into little army men to play a game with. The "torso" of your model is whatever little plastic piece from your particular army that you attach a head, arms, and legs to. If you asked for a Space Marine torso from my bits box I am not going to hand you a jump pack. If you asked for a Tyranid Warrior torso, I am not going to hand you some Gargoyle wings. If you asked for a Cadian torso, I am not going to hand you a Chaos Terminator torso.

Its called the English Language. Try using it some time. Again with the uneeded reminders that this is a game - can I remind you again that this is a *rules* forum for *debate* on said game? Your continued attempts to stifle debate with cries of "its only a game" amount to litlte more than trolling.

The ruleset for 40k is NOT inclusive, as there is no glossary of defined terms. As such when the rulebook provides no "in game" definition for a term, you fall back on the appropriate dictionary definition of said term. In the exact same way as they dont define "the", they dont define "torso", so "torso" means exactly what it does normally.

Does "leg" mean "leg with inner protective layer, monitoring equipment, outer protective layer, interface units and outer armour"? Without an ingame definition it does not, meaning that your version of what counts as a body is an entirely arbitrary extension of the definition of the word. An arbitrary distinction that makes for inconsistent application of LOS rules based on how GW bother to model (is it a seperate piece or not) or how the person has chosen to model (maybe greenstuffed an entire backpack) and is therefore an entirely *absurd* position to hold.

Sorry if this is beyond you, but it has been explained many, many times - and like the 'nid CCW thread you just dont seem to get it.

I saw a guy who had modeled wings to wrap around his models. he claimed since wings were not party of the body they could not be counted for LOS.

olympia wrote:I saw a guy who had modeled wings to wrap around his models. he claimed since wings were not party of the body they could not be counted for LOS.

WIN!! I like that a lot! Leave only a tiny hole so he can see out... HAHAHAHAHA, what a hilarious argument. GW should just define the 'volume' of each base size and leave it at that. 25mm = 35mm high cylinder, 40mm = 50mm high cylinder, 60mm = 80mm high cylinder. Done and done. Now the rules won't get in the way of modeling.

nosferatu1001 wrote:The ruleset for 40k is NOT inclusive, as there is no glossary of defined terms. As such when the rulebook provides no "in game" definition for a term, you fall back on the appropriate dictionary definition of said term. In the exact same way as they dont define "the", they dont define "torso", so "torso" means exactly what it does normally.

Yay! My Necrons and Thousand Sons can't be targeted at all then since they don't have any "innards."

But since this is a game regarding little plastic men and creatures of all different types, in the context of that, GW left "torso" to apply to whatever plastic piece you are attaching your model's head, arms, and legs too.

So if I ask you to give me a Space Marine torso, are you going to hand me a jump pack?

Lord_Mortis wrote:So if I ask you to give me a Space Marine torso, are you going to hand me a jump pack?

Yes.

Gwar! wrote:

Lord_Mortis wrote:So if I ask you to give me a Space Marine torso, are you going to hand me a jump pack?

Yes.

lol. Well be stingy with your torsos then!

Lord_Mortis wrote:So if I ask you to give me a Space Marine torso, are you going to hand me a jump pack?

I may give you the central piece (the trunk-plus-power-armour you incorrectly refer to as "the torso") with the jump pack attached, as that is a sensible interpretation of torso that is 100% consistent across every model.

Yours isnt

What I find hilarious about this poll (well, besides the pointless argument) is that apparently a majority of Dakka members feel that the bodies of jump infantry are not targetable.

I dont think some people noticed it was a multichoice poll.

At least I hope so, othjerwise some people playa VERY odd game!

nosferatu1001 wrote:as that is a sensible interpretation of torso that is 100% consistent across every model.

Every Space Marine torso has a jump pack attached to it? And all the other models in the other armies all have jump packs attached to their torsos? Interesting....

nosferatu1001 wrote:The "torso" of a creature doesnt include any armour it may be wearing, so surely a model in power armour is not targettable except when it isnt wearing a helmet?

Maybe this should go into the "Poke fun of RAW" thread?

BeRzErKeR wrote:What I find hilarious about this poll (well, besides the pointless argument) is that apparently a majority of Dakka members feel that the bodies of jump infantry are not targetable.

The way the multi polls work is they show how many results each category has out of all the results returned.

So if the first person put a, b, & c, it would return a - 33%, b - 33%, c - 33%.
The next puts a, b, it wound return 40%, 40%, 20%

The poll should'nt've been multi poll, but single response that had a cumulative descriptors.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:as that is a sensible interpretation of torso that is 100% consistent across every model.

Every Space Marine torso has a jump pack attached to it? And all the other models in the other armies all have jump packs attached to their torsos? Interesting....

Again, please do not attempt to construct a straw man argument, biut answer the actual argument. Your continued trolling is getting tiresome.

trunk-in-power-armour is your arbitrary change to the definition of the word "torso". One that results in inconsistencies depending on how the model has been built, and requires you to ask you opponent if they have built their model differently.

trunk-in-power-armour-with-any-significant-elements is also an extension of the word, but one which results in 100% consistency.

Further attempts at trolling or constructing strawmen arguments will be reported.

Deminyn wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:What I find hilarious about this poll (well, besides the pointless argument) is that apparently a majority of Dakka members feel that the bodies of jump infantry are not targetable.

The way the multi polls work is they show how many results each category has out of all the results returned.

So if the first person put a, b, & c, it would return a - 33%, b - 33%, c - 33%.
The next puts a, b, it wound return 40%, 40%, 20%

The poll should'nt've been multi poll, but single response that had a cumulative descriptors.

I had originally thought about running two separate polls, one for jump packs and one for the Disk, but that ends up fragmenting too fast.

On the other hand, from what I understand, for a multiple choice poll each option chosen by a person counts as a vote so that there are actually more total votes than people voting. I think I'm going to try complaining about that in Nuts and Bolts and see if anything can be done about it.

the next poll should probably include Bikes and Jet bikes, see if people think a huge great bike should be targetable or not.

I would say that all the options are subject to LOS, as long as they are standard bits, and not a heavily converted bit. Converted bits are suposed just to look cooler, not to penalize the mini.

Personally, anything that isn't converted is targetable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:trunk-in-power-armour is your arbitrary change to the definition of the word "torso".

tor·so (tôrs)
n. pl. tor·sos or tor·si (-s)
1. The human body excluding the head and limbs; trunk.
2. A statue of the human body with the head and limbs omitted or removed.
3. A truncated or unfinished thing.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/torso

Since this is a game that involves little pieces of moulded plastic that you assemble, and in the context of the rules that pertain to said game, a torso is any plastic piece (or metal) that you attach your head, arms, and legs too. That fits with the definition of torso above.

By your own admission, you said there were two parts you were handing me: a SM torso and a jump pack that was attached to the torso. Putting a jump pack on a torso doesn't make it a part of the torso any more than attaching a head, arms, or legs to a torso, as a torso is a body without the head and limbs. Therefore a jump pack is not a torso or part of a torso (nor is it a head or a limb), and the only viable targets on a model are heads, torsos, arms, and legs.

Sigh. You really dont get it do you?

Lord_Mortis wrote:tor·so (tôrs)
n. pl. tor·sos or tor·si (-s)
1. The human body excluding the head and limbs; trunk.
2. A statue of the human body with the head and limbs omitted or removed.
3. A truncated or unfinished thing.

So the human BODY includes the armour and any other covering you are wearing? You go so far as to post a dictionary definition and then, presumably, ignore it as it doesnt actually fit what you are saying? PLease point out where the dictionary states it includes any coverings.....oh look, it doesnt!

Your position reaches new heights of absurdiity when you post something that *directly contradicts your position* yet you believe it supports it.

Or are you saying the models are statues?

Lord_Mortis wrote:http://www.thefreedictionary.com/torso

Hint: use the OED, that is the language the game is written in. Not that it wouold help you, just a tip for the future when debating the language of a game written in actual English. Note that, forexample, the English and US meanings of the word "wield" are different, so there IS a reason why you need to be more careful in your sources.

Lord_Mortis wrote:Since this is a game that involves little pieces of moulded plastic that you assemble, and in the context of the rules that pertain to said game, a torso is any plastic piece (or metal) that you attach your head, arms, and legs too. That fits with the definition of torso above.

Ah, so when it says "body" (I had been using trunk, in case you missed it) you assume it means "body, with anything covering that body including 6" thick ceramite plates, cooling systems, probes"? That is the only way it "fits into" the definition. Oh, and where are these "rules" that define what the word means? Or are you just making yet more unsupported by anything, rules or otherwise, statements?

Lord_Mortis wrote:By your own admission, you said there were two parts you were handing me: a SM torso and a jump pack that was attached to the torso.

No, that is a lie. Pleae a) retract and b) apologise, or I will report your post for misrepresentation. Given you have been told repeatedly *exactly* what I am saying I cna only assume this is a deliberate attempt to alter my argument so it "supports" yours.

What I *actually* said was:

nosferatu1001 wrote:I may give you the central piece (the trunk-plus-power-armour you incorrectly refer to as "the torso") with the jump pack attached, as that is a sensible interpretation of torso that is 100% consistent across every model.

Note that I stated I would give you the CENTRAL PIECE which has the jump pack attached, not "torso", I simply stated that *you* were incorrectly referring to it as the torso.

Now you've been caught out in a lie, any chance of admitting it and apologising?

Lord_Mortis wrote:Putting a jump pack on a torso doesn't make it a part of the torso any more than attaching a head, arms, or legs to a torso, as a torso is a body without the head and limbs. Therefore a jump pack is not a torso or part of a torso (nor is it a head or a limb), and the only viable targets on a model are heads, torsos, arms, and legs.

You have repeatedly ignored the argument, resorted to lying to try to make it seem I made an error, and still dont even seem to understand what you are saying.

I never said I was putting a jump pack on a torso, I was very very clear in what I was saying: you have defined "torso" to not mean something that exists in the English language, without rules support and, crucially, in such a way that it makes the game incredibly inconsistent. This has been repeatedly pointed out to you, using reduction ad absurdum and some useful alternative case examples, yet you refuse to acknowledge that YOUR changing of the meaning of the word "torso" results in an untenable position.

Your absurd position, illogical and idiotic argument and inabilty to read other posts fits the definition of troll nicely.

IMO this issue will only ever arise in a real game when you have a large daemon or Tyranid monstrous creature with wings which can be concealed behind a large obstacle with the exception of its outstretched wings.

In cases of troop units like Gargoyles it is very unlikely they could be hidden behind cover in such a way that all their torsos were hidden but their wings were visible.

My seraphim will all be converted to be standing on the ground then, why would I want to make it easy for people to target them by leaving them as flying