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.

 DeathReaper wrote:
A jump pack is definitely not "decorative parts" as it has a function.

By definition decorative parts do not have an in-game function.

Also "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." P. 8

Weapons can't be targeted, and they have in-game functions...

The wording suggests that a weapon and a banner are also "ornaments," as it lumps them together in with "other ornaments."

For example, "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is an apple, orange, or other fruit he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible."

 Lord_Mortis wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A jump pack is definitely not "decorative parts" as it has a function.

By definition decorative parts do not have an in-game function.

Also "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." P. 8

Weapons can't be targeted, and they have in-game functions...

and the rules specifically tell us to ignore weapons.

The same is not true with Jump Packs.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Lord_Mortis wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
A jump pack is definitely not "decorative parts" as it has a function.

By definition decorative parts do not have an in-game function.

Also "Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." P. 8

Weapons can't be targeted, and they have in-game functions...

and the rules specifically tell us to ignore weapons.

The same is not true with Jump Packs.

All the rules say is that weapons, banners, and other ornaments cannot be targeted. Thus, apples, oranges, and other fruits can't be targeted. You are wanting to say there are 3 categories of "weapons, banners, and other ornaments" when there is only one category that weapons and banners fall into: ornaments. So, again, apples, oranges, and other fruits can't be targeted.

And Jump packs are not "ornaments" as they have an in-game function.

Weapons are not "ornaments", they lump them into the things you can not target, but that does not make them "ornaments"

 DeathReaper wrote:
And Jump packs are not "ornaments" as they have an in-game function.

Weapons are not "ornaments", they lump them into the things you can not target, but that does not make them "ornaments"

According to the normal usage of the word "other" in the sentence, yes it does. Ham, turkey, and other meats can't be targeted. Apples, oranges, and other fruits can't be targeted. Stockings, mistletoe, and other Christmas decorations can't be targeted.

Bottom line is they tell us to ignore Weapons. The same is not true with Jump Packs.

So since we are not told to ignore jump packs, we must figure them into the equation when trying to see a models body which is defined as (head, torso, arms or legs).

 DeathReaper wrote:
Bottom line is they tell us to ignore Weapons. The same is not true with Jump Packs.

So since we are not told to ignore jump packs, we must figure them into the equation when trying to see a models body which is defined as (head, torso, arms or legs).

Wow. I mean....just...wow. I don't know how to state the rules any clearer.

Weapons and banners are just examples of what are considered "ornaments." They are not seperate categories. There isn't weapons, banners, and an ornament category of things that can't be targeted. They are all considered ornaments and are not considered heads, arms, legs, or torsos. Written another way, anything that is not a head, arm, leg or torso is considered "ornamental" so that players are not punished for having these large impressive weapons, banners, or other ornaments on their models. Weapons (apples), banners (oranges), and other ornaments (fruits) can't be targeted.

That's the bottom line, and that is all I have to say about that.

That seems fair to lump Jump Packs into the "Ornaments" category, as weapons are not ornaments, but they put weapons in the "Ornaments" category.

And if you can only see the Jump Pack the model is not visible.

"Sometimes, all that will be visible of a model is a weapon, banner or other ornament he is carrying. In these cases, the model is not visible." P. 8

Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

The fact is that if a weapon was sticking out over a wall or any other situation where the weapon is visible but is not itself blocking the model, it shouldn't be considered as being in LOS.

When a large heavy weapon is being held by a model and the weapon itself is the only thing blocking LOS to that model, the model IS in LOS, as it's not allowed to carry its own cover. Period.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

There's no point argueing with DeathReaper. He picks the most obscure and bizarre interpritation imaginable and then argues that it's comlpetely RAW and you are house-ruling by doing it any other way.

 Testify wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

There's no point argueing with DeathReaper. He picks the most obscure and bizarre interpritation imaginable and then argues that it's comlpetely RAW and you are house-ruling by doing it any other way.

My interpretation must be correct, unless you have rules quotes to prove my rules quotes incorrect.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

There's no point argueing with DeathReaper. He picks the most obscure and bizarre interpritation imaginable and then argues that it's comlpetely RAW and you are house-ruling by doing it any other way.

My interpretation must be correct, unless you have rules quotes to prove my rules quotes incorrect.

"Scenic rocks and other decorative elements that players might
have placed on the bases of their models are always ignored
from the point of view of determining cover. You cannot take
your cover with you!" page 18

Good try, but the Jump Pack is not "placed on the bases of their models"

Any other, relevant, rules quotes?

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

There's no point argueing with DeathReaper. He picks the most obscure and bizarre interpritation imaginable and then argues that it's comlpetely RAW and you are house-ruling by doing it any other way.

My interpretation must be correct, unless you have rules quotes to prove my rules quotes incorrect.

You don't allow for any plurality of thought whatsoever?

 Testify wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

There's no point argueing with DeathReaper. He picks the most obscure and bizarre interpritation imaginable and then argues that it's comlpetely RAW and you are house-ruling by doing it any other way.

My interpretation must be correct, unless you have rules quotes to prove my rules quotes incorrect.

You don't allow for any plurality of thought whatsoever?

I am sure you mean (the rules, in some cases, do not allow for plurality of thought).

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Your taking a hard line interpretation and acting as though it's the common sense answer. It is not.

There's no point argueing with DeathReaper. He picks the most obscure and bizarre interpritation imaginable and then argues that it's comlpetely RAW and you are house-ruling by doing it any other way.

My interpretation must be correct, unless you have rules quotes to prove my rules quotes incorrect.

This has to be the funniest thing I have read in a long time.

 Lord_Mortis wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
And Jump packs are not "ornaments" as they have an in-game function.

Weapons are not "ornaments", they lump them into the things you can not target, but that does not make them "ornaments"

According to the normal usage of the word "other" in the sentence, yes it does. Ham, turkey, and other meats can't be targeted. Apples, oranges, and other fruits can't be targeted. Stockings, mistletoe, and other Christmas decorations can't be targeted.

I disagree. Banners are ornaments, and I think the correct reading of the rule is that you cannot draw LOS to a weapon (on a non-vehicle model), or to a banner or other ornament. While I sometimes think Death Reaper picks obscure or un-intuitive points on which to base an argument, I don't think this is one.

I believe weapons are exempted from LOS by GW because they frequently stick out far from the model's actual body and/or are held up in the air by dramatically-posed models. Thus allowing them to be targeted would be too harsh on nice models, despite weapons not being decorative elements.

Jump packs are not decorative elements, and they're not specifically exempted from LOS by GW, probably because (IMO) they don't stick out so far as weapons, wings, tails and antennae (the other three items specifically exempted) frequently do.

Testify and lord mortis, do take note that we are making a clear distinction between Los and cover. A backpack does not provide cover, but it also does not provide Los.

Besides the clear rule of head torso and limbs defining a body in the rules, ending a raw argument, there is common sense. If my backpack is shot, but none of my body is in line with said shot, nothing happens to me. Thus the ruling that a model with only back pack visible is out of Los.

Now what you are latching on to is a situation where a tiny hole in cover makes part of a backpack visible, and due to the angle of the model the line of fire would continue through to the body. Ask yourself, if the model were legally placed on his base, but in a different facing, could he be turned so that there is no Los? Almost always the answer is yes. Give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, accept that backpacks alone in a tiny hole through cover is a reach, and move on. The rule supports this, and common courtesy supports this. Otherwise it sounds terrible, "oh I can see a tiny bit of your backpack. I can't see any part of your body, and you otherwise are completely behind cover, but I should still be able to count your backpack as body."

As an aside, I am assuming that your target is not modeled for advantage. I am completely against modeling for advantage, and think it's a shame they took that out and just assumed see knew better. But the line of sight rules are clear and not in anyway a way to try and shoehorn in something against modeling for advantage when the majority of the time such a ruling would be applying to stock models instead.

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. Banners are ornaments, and I think the correct reading of the rule is that you cannot draw LOS to a weapon (on a non-vehicle model), or to a banner or other ornament. While I sometimes think Death Reaper picks obscure or un-intuitive points on which to base an argument, I don't think this is one.

I believe weapons are exempted from LOS by GW because they frequently stick out far from the model's actual body and/or are held up in the air by dramatically-posed models. Thus allowing them to be targeted would be too harsh on nice models, despite weapons not being decorative elements.

Jump packs are not decorative elements, and they're not specifically exempted from LOS by GW, probably because (IMO) they don't stick out so far as weapons, wings, tails and antennae (the other three items specifically exempted) frequently do.

Read my previous posts, then read the relevant rules again, then repeat until it sinks in that weapons and banners are examples of "ornaments," not seperate categories of LOS exemptions.

DevianID wrote:Testify and lord mortis, do take note that we are making a clear distinction between Los and cover. A backpack does not provide cover, but it also does not provide Los.

Besides the clear rule of head torso and limbs defining a body in the rules, ending a raw argument, there is common sense. If my backpack is shot, but none of my body is in line with said shot, nothing happens to me. Thus the ruling that a model with only back pack visible is out of Los.

Now what you are latching on to is a situation where a tiny hole in cover makes part of a backpack visible, and due to the angle of the model the line of fire would continue through to the body. Ask yourself, if the model were legally placed on his base, but in a different facing, could he be turned so that there is no Los? Almost always the answer is yes. Give your opponent the benefit of the doubt, accept that backpacks alone in a tiny hole through cover is a reach, and move on. The rule supports this, and common courtesy supports this. Otherwise it sounds terrible, "oh I can see a tiny bit of your backpack. I can't see any part of your body, and you otherwise are completely behind cover, but I should still be able to count your backpack as body."

I generally don't target a model unless I can actually see an arm, leg, head, or torso. But I am also not against ignoring a weapon or other decorative element if directly behind such element is a targetable part of a model, such as in the plasma cannon example. Models are static and can't fold their wings down, or kneel behind a wall, etc., so I am lenient and can go either way, as long as it is consistent throughout the game. As someone stated before, what do you do in the case of a model with wings wrapped around his entire body? While that is an extreme example, there are some models with wings that depending on terrain, the only thing visible would be the wing that is hiding the rest of the body, like this model for example.




Viewing that model from the right side, and depending on terrain (such as a hill or low wall hiding his legs), you would only be able to see his wing. So could you target the model or no?

If a straight line could be drawn to a legal target area of a model through a part which is not legally targetable (such as a wing), then I allow the shot. I agree with you that wings being untargetable in and of themselves does not allow them to be used as impenetrable shields to block LOS to targetable areas.

 Lord_Mortis wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I disagree. Banners are ornaments, and I think the correct reading of the rule is that you cannot draw LOS to a weapon (on a non-vehicle model), or to a banner or other ornament. While I sometimes think Death Reaper picks obscure or un-intuitive points on which to base an argument, I don't think this is one.

I believe weapons are exempted from LOS by GW because they frequently stick out far from the model's actual body and/or are held up in the air by dramatically-posed models. Thus allowing them to be targeted would be too harsh on nice models, despite weapons not being decorative elements.

Jump packs are not decorative elements, and they're not specifically exempted from LOS by GW, probably because (IMO) they don't stick out so far as weapons, wings, tails and antennae (the other three items specifically exempted) frequently do.

Read my previous posts, then read the relevant rules again, then repeat until it sinks in that weapons and banners are examples of "ornaments," not seperate categories of LOS exemptions.

I read them carefully. I have expressed my position, which differs from yours. I disagree that a weapon or jump pack can be considered in any way an "ornament", and I have explained my understanding of why GW has exempted certain parts of models from being valid targets to which LOS can be drawn.

I believe it's a reasonable position based on the rules and the models in question, and within the context of the last three editions, which I also played extensively. Your mileage may vary.

While this may not be RAW, I find the easiest way to treat wargear in general (weapons, wings, jump packs, etc.) is to treat them as if they were not there for the purpose of drawing LOS to the model. So if the only part of an assault marine that can be seen is a side view of the pack, you cannot draw LOS. If the pack is blocking a legal targetable portion of the model (such as viewing it from the back) then you can target.

Lord Mortis, while that is a cool looking model, it differs from the GW models in wing design.

Browsing GW's sight, the Tyranid Hive Tyrant and Chaos Daemon prince, blood thirster and lord of change all have their wings posed UP and out, instead of down and to the sides.

Fateweaver is the only model I found with the wings down and to the sides. However, he has his rt hand stretched high in the air, and his one head's beak protrudes out. Thus, while the wing from one very particular angle covers part of his body, it does not cover all of his upper body. Thus, for the wing situation to apply a piece of terrain as tall as fateweaver, that blocked his lower body AND upper body, with a window that opened only big enough to show a part of the wing and nothing else would be required.

I feel that this rare situation, which only applies to small windows in otherwise a large LOS blocking terrain onto only fateweaver of all the winged models and only when turned in one singular orientation when facing the firer makes my point exactly.

IF, and only IF you have this trinity of facing, terrain with a tiny window and singular stock model fateweaver will LOS be blocked because of a wing where it would not be blocked if the wing was not there.

However, if you made wings or jet packs targetable because of the very far fetched conflux of situations regarding fateweaver, then you allow a tip of a backpack or wingtip ect to let a model behind a bastion for example be shot. It makes no sense. There is no balance issue with the rule as it stands on GW models. The Bat wing invisibility cloak scenario only exists when using different models or when modeling for advantage.

Since that is the case, what we are really having issue with here is modeling for advantage not being represented in the rules. LOS and 'parts of the target's body' is not at fault and IMHO should not be changed to swing the pendulum down on modeling for advantage.

To happyjew, while ignoring wargear in general is already done for cover, I dont think the rules need to changed to make it clear like glass for LOS. For one, like I mention above, the situation matters only when a model already is behind a solid piece of cover that only lets a tiny portion of the model be visible anyway. In this situation I feel that by turning the models carefully to avoid the narrow opening you could block LOS completely anyway by just not standing where the hole in cover is. This level of attention to detail in facing, when the rules already say its not needed because ornaments dont count for LOS, seems like a complete waste of time to have to do. However, with your change this would be needed, and you may spend 5 minutes checking and rechecking models eye view to get it just right. Or, just play the RAW and backpacks never grant LOS through them and move on, as it wont make a difference in the actual game, just in the games enjoyment.

Interesting. I wonder about scenic bases or models then... I have a SM Force Commander who is choking a DE with one hand. I've always ignored that part of the model for LoS and just drew lines through it, as though it wasn't there. Would people treat this as part of the model or as a LoS blocking object?

This falls in the grey area because of no clear modeling rules. Obviously the additional dark eldar will block Los more that without, especially when targeting something behind the character. At the same time, there is nothing that says you must treat all models as stock models, and even if there were the fact that models can be assembled in a variety of ways means there it's no stock model available.

Anyway, there is no clear rule how to treat your additional ornament differently than a normal one or one modeled for advantage. So no drawing Los through it but no benefit for cover.

Most people I imagine will play it that the extra model is ignored for Los, depending on if it actually is large enough to block Los in the first place.