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.

 hippyjr wrote:
This thread brings to mind a little piece of confusion some friends came across when we were learning the ropes.
Can you shoot an eldar character if the only part of the model poking out of cover is the horns on his helmet (It was the helmet that looks like someone tacked a pair of stag-like horns onto a regular eldar helmet)?

Edit: The reason I ask is because I'm still unsure. While clipping a helmet decoration wouldn't be harmful, the helmet was not listed as wargear and part of the models "head"

Noticing people didn't notice your follow-up question;

I take it you're talking about Fuegan, the Fire Dragon Phoenix Lord? (https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99060104029_FueganNEW_01.jpg)

Personally, I'd count those horns as decoration, so wouldn't count. At the same time, an opponent should not be using those horns to draw Line of Sight to you. A simple short-hand in the game is "if you can see me, I can see you". EDIT: Following up on my previous post; ask yourself "if someone modelled him without the horns, it would still be Lord Fuegan, a complete model. Thus, to me, that helps to clarify, though doesn't on its own prove, that it's just decoration.

It could also be a Shining Spear Exarch:
https://www.games-workshop.com/resources/catalog/product/600x620/99810104017_ELDARSHININGSPEARS01.jpg

So, if I built a mutated demon prince as a banner with horns and wings holding his weapons, would he be impossible to target?

My new demon prince model:

 NightHowler wrote:
So, if I built a mutated demon prince as a banner with horns and wings holding his weapons, would he be impossible to target?

Why yes, modeling for advantage IS against the rules.

OR

in this case the "banner" would count as part of the models body and thus would be targetable.

Well, you can't call the banner a body, because it's a banner.

As far as modeling for advantage, what if I bought it from a friend that way. Then I would simply be purchasing a model that could not be targeted. Kind of like buying an eldar jetbike where you're only allowed to target the rider... it's an advantage, you just happened to buy it that way.

Is that actually somewhere in the rules? I don't seem to be able to spot it anywhere?

We have always assumed that the (jet)bike and the model sitting on it are the same model. The wings would be targeatable but at the same time we don't take the shot if we see a tiny part of the model through e.g. three walls with windows.

In my personal opinion wings on non vehicle models should be targetable in certain situations. For Example:

A Hive Tyrant who is in flyer mode should have targetable wings because shooting the wings of the tyrant could in theory hurt or ground it.

A Hive Tyrant who is grounded should no longer be targetable by his wings because in all likely hood his wings would not be sticking up in the air but would most likely be tucked behind his back or down at his sides.

Vehicles and jetbikes on the other hand do not have tuckable wings. The wings are rigid and destroying a wing would most certainly render the bike not usable and would most certainly kill the rider in the ensuing crash.

Shooting a banner or antenna or gun has no affect on the person controlling or in possession of said models outside of perhaps some logistics.

Yes the rules don't make sense. It also doesn't make sense why you use the base of a model that is smaller than the base for being in range but use the base of a model that is bigger than the base for the same thing. A jetbike is certainly a larger target than a guardsmen or a Space Marine with his new base and because of that should be "easier" to shoot.

Wargear is not on the "no los" list. It is just "weapons, banners,and other ornament he is carrying".

The next sentence adds wings, tails and antennae even though they are part of the body.

So all the earlier hyperbole about armor, and etc is bunk.

If all that my model can see of a jetbike is the fins; I'd probably just give my opponent +1 to the cover save

 NightHowler wrote:
Well, you can't call the banner a body,

Watch me.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all that my model can see of a jetbike is the fins; I'd probably just give my opponent +1 to the cover save

Why? This is war, sir. If I see the tip if a jet bike wing sticking around the corner of a wall, it's getting targeted. Ruleswise, If I can see a square millimeter of the model, I target it. Fluffwise, you shoot off a piece of the wing, he spins out into the wall and dies is a glorious fiery fashion.

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all that my model can see of a jetbike is the fins; I'd probably just give my opponent +1 to the cover save

Why? This is war, sir. If I see the tip if a jet bike wing sticking around the corner of a wall, it's getting targeted. Ruleswise, If I can see a square millimeter of the model, I target it. Fluffwise, you shoot off a piece of the wing, he spins out into the wall and dies is a glorious fiery fashion.

Because of the rule about not being allowed to target parts of the model considered "ornamental." Clearly this creates a grey zone that some will take advantage of to make their models less "targetable." Which is why I need to buy my customized demon prince axe wielding winged banner of untargetable doom.

 NightHowler wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all that my model can see of a jetbike is the fins; I'd probably just give my opponent +1 to the cover save

Why? This is war, sir. If I see the tip if a jet bike wing sticking around the corner of a wall, it's getting targeted. Ruleswise, If I can see a square millimeter of the model, I target it. Fluffwise, you shoot off a piece of the wing, he spins out into the wall and dies is a glorious fiery fashion.

Because of the rule about not being allowed to target parts of the model considered "ornamental." Clearly this creates a grey zone that some will take advantage of to make their models less "targetable." Which is why I need to buy my customized demon prince axe wielding winged banner of untargetable doom.

I know the rule, but I don't see the argument. I don't understand why people would consider parts of jetbike's chasis to be ornamental on the model. Are the front tires on SM Bikes ornamental? If you have a wheel sticking out past a wall but the whole marine is hidden, can it be targeted? It sounds like sour grapes.

Also, I'd play against your axe wielding banner man. Get crackin!

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all that my model can see of a jetbike is the fins; I'd probably just give my opponent +1 to the cover save

Why? This is war, sir. If I see the tip if a jet bike wing sticking around the corner of a wall, it's getting targeted. Ruleswise, If I can see a square millimeter of the model, I target it. Fluffwise, you shoot off a piece of the wing, he spins out into the wall and dies is a glorious fiery fashion.

A: to avoid the argument that the wing "might be ornamental".
B: if all my unit can see of the jet bike is less than 1/10th of the total mass, I am pretty sure that bike has some serious cover(effectively the model is aiming at a hand in ratio)

Edit: just to be clear that original statement was a "how I would handle the situation".

 Kommissar Kel wrote:

 deviantduck wrote:

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
If all that my model can see of a jetbike is the fins; I'd probably just give my opponent +1 to the cover save

Why? This is war, sir. If I see the tip if a jet bike wing sticking around the corner of a wall, it's getting targeted. Ruleswise, If I can see a square millimeter of the model, I target it. Fluffwise, you shoot off a piece of the wing, he spins out into the wall and dies is a glorious fiery fashion.

A: to avoid the argument that the wing "might be ornamental".
B: if all my unit can see of the jet bike is less than 1/10th of the total mass, I am pretty sure that bike has some serious cover(effectively the model is aiming at a hand in ratio)

Edit: just to be clear that original statement was a "how I would handle the situation".

I get where you're coming from. I just like ruling on the side of "Nope, it's dead." I feel every 40k game should end with 1 model left on the table, and that victorious model is sweaty, bloody, and bleeding out.

About the Banner/Weapons/Wings-model:

I would like to know where you draw LOS for this model from when you want to shoot/charge enemy models. Since it has no body, it can't draw LOS as well. So in practice, we would have a model that can only successfully perform actions without LOS and can only be targetted by those things as well.

So it is not really modeling for advantage, but I guess it is a hypothetical question anyhow.

About the Jetbike, thats a difficult one. The definition of "body" according to the rules is not really applicable to Jetbikes. They don't really fit into the mechanics, so we have to use common sense, which is, as we all know, very subjective and invites to unnecessary rules debates on the table. I wish GW would return back to Warmaachine/Malifaux-style LOS mechanics or would properly define what is part of aa model and what isn't. . .

 -Nazdreg- wrote:

About the Jetbike, thats a difficult one. The definition of "body" according to the rules is not really applicable to Jetbikes. They don't really fit into the mechanics, so we have to use common sense, which is, as we all know, very subjective and invites to unnecessary rules debates on the table. I wish GW would return back to Warmaachine/Malifaux-style LOS mechanics or would properly define what is part of aa model and what isn't. . .

I think this is a very good insight into pretty much every GW rules debate. The rules are written with "common sense" in mind and thus GW doesn't feel the need to cover greater detail. If a situation has an issue, "Use common sense". Since not everyone shares the same "common sense", debates ensue