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.

solkan wrote: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.

Which is why the question was asked in the first place. One could make an argument that both the Juggernaught and the Palanquin are both just "majestic wings/glorified wargear" and shouldn't count for LOS purposes. As someone pointed out earlier, the model is a Herald of Khorne, and does not become a "chariot of Khorne" even if you give the model a chariot. It is still just called a Herald of Khorne, and technically by RAW, the Herald's head, torso, arms, and legs are the only viable targets, as its unit type is just Infantry and doesn't change by giving it a chariot. But I have a feeling that view is highly contested.

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?

For the same reason I couldn't target a Dark Eldar Helion's board: the board is not the model's head, torso, arms, or legs. And the disc, like a jump pack, is a piece of wargear that changes the unit type of the model to Jump Infantry. Now that the model is Jump Infantry, the only viable parts of the model that count for LOS are the model's head, arms, legs, and torso, and it's wings/jump pack/floating island/cloud/disc or whatever you have modeled onto the model to make it Jump Infantry are ignored.

And another thing I think you are overlooking is that models that have jump packs listed in their unit entry don't really have to be modeled with it, as it is included in their cost, just like models with bolt pistols, bolters, and close combat weapons in their unit entry. For that matter, Raptors don't have jump packs or wings listed in their wargear, but are listed as Jump Infantry. What I am saying is that I can model a Disc of Tzeentch however I feel like it. I am not bound by fluff, but by what effects the rules give. I run Undead models as my demons. So if I wanted a Disc of Tzeentch but wanted it to fit the theme of my army, I could just simply model my Liche with a flowing robe and stick him on a clear flying base. Or I could model my disc as a set of wings on the back of a Grim Reaper model. Either was is fine just as long as I let my opponent know what wargear the model has. In either of those cases, using a flight base or a set of wings, you still couldn't target the "disc." The method I have presented for determining LOS seems to allow for creative modeling without penalizing the modeler as well as giving viable parts of the model to shoot at, using the 3 rules that the BRB have established.

Morris I've seen you say elsewhere you like to bait people here. The results of the poll are very telling. If you don't like the results then maybe it's time to pack it up. My 2ç.

G

Green Blow Fly wrote:Morris I've seen you say elsewhere you like to bait people here. The results of the poll are very telling. If you don't like the results then maybe it's time to pack it up. My 2ç.

G

And the method I have presented in determing LOS to a model agrees with the poll.

And there are a couple of questions that I asked that no one has answered. The main one being: If I modeled my Blood Angels assault squad with wings instead of jump packs, do you have LOS to the model if you can see their wings?

No, because they are wings.

You have however Modelled for Adfvantage - meaning most TOs would simply make them count as jumppacks for determining LOS. If you didnt agree then they would simply getr you to remove the models from play.

Simple really

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, because they are wings.

You have however Modelled for Adfvantage

Have I? If I have made a chapter of Blood Angels that, according to the background I have made for them, have mutations that causes a high number of them to fall to the Red Thirst and also causes some to develop wings, and those with wings are held in high esteem as they bear the gift of their Primarch Sanguinius, is that modeling for advantage or just modeling to the fluff of my army?

- meaning most TOs would simply make them count as jumppacks for determining LOS. If you didnt agree then they would simply getr you to remove the models from play.

I don't play in tournaments. So I could care less what happens at tournaments. Especially if they are going to make me remove my models because I converted them to match the fluff of my army.

You have converted your models so they recieve an advantage they wouldn't otherwise have.

That fits the definition of modelling for advantage, oddly enough. You seem to think it is a binary choice (one or the other) but fail to see it is both.

Lol! It would only be modeling for advantage if jump packs counted for LOS. Since jump packs are something that the model is wearing, they would not count for LOS, according to the BRB and as outlined previously under rule #2. Since you are not following the given rules concerning what counts for LOS, I can see why you would see it as modeling for advantage.

No, you know that wings dont count for LOS, you are not told that Jumpacks dont count for LOS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you know that wings dont count for LOS, you are not told that Jumpacks dont count for LOS.

You are told the following things, from which one can make a reasonable deduction:

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.

Are jump packs heads, arms, legs, or torsos? No.

Are jump packs something the model is wearing? Yes.

Therefore, jump packs do not count for LOS.

Define the torso, and define what it is wearing.

with models in power armour you cannot see their torso, can you? No, you can see what they are wearing only.

So, under your interpreation, only the head of helmetless models are targetable.

nosferatu1001 wrote:So, under your interpreation, only the head of helmetless models are targetable.

Yep! Such is the nature of RAW. So if that's the way you want to look at, most of the models in 40K aren't targetable, and how fun is that? Might as well switch to playing Fantasy.

Nope, it is simply *your* interpretation of RAW.

Mortis, you are not following RaW in your view.

RaW is only human, non-helmeted models can fire, because Aliens don't have Eyes. They Have Eye like Organs, but not "eyes", which are an exclusively human thing

nosferatu1001 wrote:Nope, it is simply *your* interpretation of RAW.

Uhm, I'm not the one going to such extremes as saying only naked models can be targeted or target other models...

I'm taking the more reasonable approach to a RAW problem.

No, I was following what *your* interpretaion of RAW leads to, actually.

Reductio ad absurdum, your interpretation is invalid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, I was following what *your* interpretaion of RAW leads to, actually.

Reductio ad absurdum, your interpretation is invalid.

Lol. No, my interpretation ends at heads, arms, legs, and torsos. It doesn't matter if it is covered or not. That is rule 1. Rule 2 is "wearing," which the BRB seems to determine is stuff like cloaks, capes, jump packs, high collars, etc. Rule 3 is an exception to rule 2, as the BRB points out, because wings and tails are things that are normally physically attached to the model and not "worn" by the model.

That is a reasonable, logical interpretation of the rules, my friend. If you don't see it that way and you want to shoot at your opponents jumppacks, then more power to you. However, a jump pack is something that is worn and can be taken off, which falls under rule 2 as things not targetable.

No, you have defined that anything they are *wearing* cannot be targetable, and a model in power armour is *wearing* the armour - you cannot draw line of sight to their torso as it is covered by something they are *wearing*

So, unless you accept that "wearing" is too loosely defined to be used in the way you so clearly and dearly want it to be, YOUR interpretation results in not being able to target models in power armour unless they dont have a helmet on. You may not *like* it, however this is being consistent - something that is kind of useful in a rules discussion, dont you think?

Reductio ad absurdum your definition of "wearing" is incorrect, as it leadss to the above situation.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, you have defined that anything they are *wearing* cannot be targetable, and a model in power armour is *wearing* the armour - you cannot draw line of sight to their torso as it is covered by something they are *wearing*

lol. Nope. I am using the examples GW gives us for "wearing or carrying" to determine what does and does not count.

"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..."

Nothing in there about armor as you would like us to think. Unless the model is encased inside a Dreadnought, but then we are talking about a differet set of rules....

I am trying to show you, clearly, that either "wearing" is very loosely defined (such that a jump pack doesnt count for LOS, but by the same token armour is also something they are wearing) or, in fact, when they say ORNAMENT they really do mean ORNAMENT and not a Jump Pack, which I think most would agree is not ornamental.

So which is it - a jump pack is ornamental or it is not?

I know what you are saying. I am saying that what counts is a model's head, torso, arms, and legs, as that it what the BRB says counts. Everything else does not. They also don't mention anything about capes, so are you saying that a cape in a windswept position away from the body is a viable target?

wow, you really dont read others arguments do you?

Is a cape Ornamental? Yes. No target for LOS.

You are also artifically limitnig what "torso" means - what about the fact that the black carapace links them to their armour, which would include the jump pack? In essence they "feel" pain when the JP malfunctions, so is this now not part of their body? As youre such a fluff bunny you should agree on this!

As has been said, your requirements are to discount from LOS antyhing that is ORNAMENTAL. Is a jump pack ornamental? Please answer the question

nosferatu1001 wrote:Is a cape Ornamental? Yes. No target for LOS.

What if it's a camo cloak? Functional and Stylish!

Well then it counts, as it is clearly not an ornament. And quite clearly a scout with a large cloak floating above his head SHOULD be shot at, for being stupid

Trouble with this is is that nothign is well enough defined, so you either get the patently absurd (jumppacks dont count for LOS, but then only sarge tac maring can be shot at) or the downright simple, which is that when they say "body" they really mean something substantial that is part of the model.

Mortis = Troll

Lord_Mortis wrote:

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.

During this thread, you have also mentioned things like Juggernauts and Chariots.

Both of these things would increase the base size of the model upon which they were placed, increasing the model's ability to maximize the number of enemy models in BTB for close combat and minimizing the models in a unit hit by blast markers.

This is what I meant about not being able to pick and choose which game effects your model affects. If the Juggernaut/Chariot forces you to have a larger base size, then they should also be valid for targeting.

nosferatu1001 wrote:As has been said, your requirements are to discount from LOS antyhing that is ORNAMENTAL. Is a jump pack ornamental? Please answer the question

Is a gun ornamental? Is a chainsword ornamental? Is a jump pack ornamental? Are they items that are carried or worn? The rules don't limit it to items that are just ornamental. Hence the "etc." at the end of the paragraph....

Oh, and are wings and tails ornamental?

You are also artifically limitnig what "torso" means - what about the fact that the black carapace links them to their armour, which would include the jump pack? In essence they "feel" pain when the JP malfunctions, so is this now not part of their body? As youre such a fluff bunny you should agree on this!

Fluff has nothing to do with how the rules ultimately work. Fluffwise, wouldn't models with wings "feel" pain when their wings are shot to crap?

Is a cape Ornamental? Yes. No target for LOS.

Good job! But stop right there. We don't want to ruin this moment of clarity for you. Take that logic and apply it to what you are trying to target: is it a head, torso, arm, or leg? If it isn't, it isn't targetable. Now go and play in peace, or argue with your opponent about what counts as a torso. It matters not to me.

LM, yep, troll is about the right description for you.

"or other ORNAMENT they are wearing or carrying" - these things arent targetable

So, if you are claimning the jump pack ISNT targetable then you are stating it is an ornament.

Or, and heres the thing that appears to be beyond you: the definition of "body" is *wider* than you are interpreting it, otherwise you have your absurd situation.

Oh - and nice straw man. Wings and tails have *specific* exemptions. Does a Jump Pack? Your other idiotic statement, "are chainswords ornamental" - I assume you dont even read your own posts? Have a look at the first part you quoted, hint, it uses the word "weapon" - now, to help your clarity, a chainsword is a type of weapon, a close combat one in fact....

So, is a jump pack Ornamental? By stating you can ignore it due to rule 2 then you are, indeed, stating it is Ornamental.

Edit: the only person I am likely to have an argument is your "good" self, no other person I have ever met, in 6 years of playing this game, has ever been idiotic enough to attempt to claim that a Jump pack is not targetable. If you truly believe that then you can only target my bezerkers if you can see the Skull champ. Idiotic interpretations of the rules will come back to bite you.

WARNING!!!

Mortis is obvious troll!!!

Lay off the "troll" posts, it is rude.

The answer to the original question lies in the poll result.

If people want to argue about whether a jump pack is targettable they can start a new thread.

Locking thread.