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.

Lord_Mortis wrote:

forest never block LOS whether the tree covers model or not. Rule book states it is like a model firing through thee tree itself or through a gap in the tree

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:forest never block LOS whether the tree covers model or not. Rule book states it is like a model firing through thee tree itself or through a gap in the tree

I'm rather curious as to where you got that idea from?

Forests block LOS just like any other terrain.

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

So your rules argument is based on how parts websites split their models up? I'm glad you confirmed it, it's so hilariously....bad that I'm glad you reasserted that. Wow. I mean, wow. lol

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

Ah I see, you didnt actually read my argument, did you? My contention is that the JP counts as part of the torso, insofar as trunk-in-powerarmour is an arbitrary alteration of the word "torso" (your arbitrary extension of the meaning, just to remind you in case you're confused what your position is) then it has as much support as trun-in-power-armour-with-integral-jump-pack is an arbitrary extension.

therefore, unlike your method which will alter based on whether or not the model has been built correctly, my method results in it being targetable in all cases.

And doesnt require you asking your opponent how they've built their model. Seriously, cant you see how absurd that stance is?

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

I guess you are a politician - won't answer the question and then answer it in a completely ambiguous way.

Actually, sorry about insulting any reading politicians there...

Lord_Mortis wrote:Then in that case I would make a reasonable judgement call (something we are allowed to do in this game)

So your c onsistent method is inconsistent?

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

Is this not-representative as a whole? or just in relation to how many are in their army? WIlll you use sales figures to confirm when the majority of all jump packs are the new SM_newpacks models, and thus they have a majority in the game as a whole?

Wow, consistent in your inconsistency!

Lord_Mortis wrote: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.

This isnt a new version of the game, just new models. Try again at making your position sound less absurd than it actually is.

insaniak wrote:

IggyEssEmManlyMan wrote:forest never block LOS whether the tree covers model or not. Rule book states it is like a model firing through thee tree itself or through a gap in the tree

I'm rather curious as to where you got that idea from?

Forests block LOS just like any other terrain.

Still getting used to the rules, my bad. Also i miss interpreted this as meaning you can fire through forests/trees. Not ure why i thought it said fire through the trees themselves.

Shooting phase: Taking saving throws: Exceptions: 3rd bullet: pg22

"-Firing through units or area terrain: If a model fires through the gaps of the elements of area terrain(such as between two trees of a wood)"

nosferatu1001 wrote:So your rules argument is based on how parts websites split their models up? I'm glad you confirmed it, it's so hilariously....bad that I'm glad you reasserted that. Wow. I mean, wow. lol

Ah I see, you didnt actually read my argument, did you? My contention is that the JP counts as part of the torso, insofar as trunk-in-powerarmour is an arbitrary alteration of the word "torso" (your arbitrary extension of the meaning, just to remind you in case you're confused what your position is) then it has as much support as trun-in-power-armour-with-integral-jump-pack is an arbitrary extension.

Like I said before, if you asked me to hand you a Space Marine torso out of my bits box, I am not going to hand you a jump pack.

therefore, unlike your method which will alter based on whether or not the model has been built correctly, my method results in it being targetable in all cases.

Not when it comes to Raptors, Swooping Hawks, or Warp Spiders, as they are wearing ornaments.

And doesnt require you asking your opponent how they've built their model. Seriously, cant you see how absurd that stance is?

Who said anything about having to ask how they made their models? It is easy to see what a model's base head, torso, arms, and legs look like. Only if they have some sort of weird conversion going on that made it unclear what was what would I have to ask.

I guess you are a politician - won't answer the question and then answer it in a completely ambiguous way.

Nah, it's just irrelevant as a jump pack is not a torso. Again, if you asked for a Space Marine torso from my bits box, I am not going to hand you a jump pack. It's really simple.

So your c onsistent method is inconsistent?

It's a what if question so I gave you a what if answer. Has nothing to do with how I currently determine what a torso is.

LM - again, you completely ignore what my argument *is* in order to build a straw man argument. This is at least the second time you have done this in this thread alone, and shows your seeming incapability of arguing the actual argument.

Please reread the other posts tpo find that your rule 1 is, in my reading, too narrow and therefore should be extended. THis then allows Rule 2 to function properly, as a jump pack being ornamental or not will never come up. Your arbitrary definition of "torso" is neither supported within the rules or within the English language, and leads to inconsistent results.

Your "what if" answer further showed how inconsistent your approach is.

However, despite my best efforts no doubt you will simply ignore this, selectively quote and fail to answer the relevant questions or argue meaningfully, so I reckon I'm done here.