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.

Okay, I got in a bit of a spat over some bikes rules with another player. I have been playing 40k since RT days (but I took most of 3rd and all of 4th edition off), and have done pretty well locally since I starting keeping W/L record in June 2010 (see sig) and I feel like I really know the rules. He's a good friend, and has been playing since late 2nd edition. I gave in (he uses bikes often, I don't), but we agreed that I would post a neutral post here, asking for both RAW and RAI opinions on these matters.

Our points of contention (please give pg #s for your call):

A) Do bikes (regarding orc and SM bikes specifically) have firing arcs?

B) are bikes vehicles (this was our main issue)?

C) do bikes gain the extra 6" for roads?

D) does the bike itself count for LoS (being shot at or shooting) as opposed to the rider?

E) is a bike wargear or a target-able part of the model (specifically, does page 16 in BRB apply to bikes)?

A) No, they follow the same LOS rules as infantry. Page 51, all unit types follow the same rules as Infantry unless otherwise specified.

B) No, they have their own distinct unit type. Page 53.

C) No, because they are not vehicles. Page 51 again.

D) That's. . . an interesting question, actually. The LOS rules specify head, arms, legs and torso, and a bike is clearly none of those. . . but it's also clearly not decorative. RAW I'm not really sure, but the answer might be that you can't shoot at a model on a bike if you can ONLY see part of the bike.

For shooting, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the model, so no, you can't draw LOS from the bike itself. Page 16.

E) This is part and parcel of D; once again, I'm not sure. Page 16 certainly does apply. You can't measuring shooting FROM the bike, so it seems logical to say you also can't measure shooting TO the bike, but I don't think the bike is 'decorative'. . . I'm leaning towards 'non-targetable wargear' on this one.

I agree with Berserker, except IMO the bike is clearly part of the model, so LOS should be able to be drawn to it.

Can't imagine how anyone could read the 3rd ed, 4th ed, or 5th ed rules and think a bike is a vehicle...

BeRzErKeR wrote:A) No, they follow the same LOS rules as infantry. Page 51, all unit types follow the same rules as Infantry unless otherwise specified.

B) No, they have their own distinct unit type. Page 53.

Well here's where these problems arose. One player moved bikes towards a target and then shot at other units directly behind his bikes. Claiming that infantry do not need to worry about "in front of" vs "behind" as they are not vehicles.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Berserker, except IMO the bike is clearly part of the model, so LOS should be able to be drawn to it.

Can't imagine how anyone could read the 3rd ed, 4th ed, or 5th ed rules and think a bike is a vehicle...

The other player did not argue that bikes are vehicles, but that they have some vehicle like attributes (ie: cover save when turbo boosting, LoS from guns, 6" more on roads, can't shot twin-linked bolters out back of bike, etc).

D) That's. . . an interesting question, actually. The LOS rules specify head, arms, legs and torso, and a bike is clearly none of those. . . but it's also clearly not decorative. RAW I'm not really sure, but the answer might be that you can't shoot at a model on a bike if you can ONLY see part of the bike.

For shooting, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the model, so no, you can't draw LOS from the bike itself. Page 16.

E) This is part and parcel of D; once again, I'm not sure. Page 16 certainly does apply. You can't measuring shooting FROM the bike, so it seems logical to say you also can't measure shooting TO the bike, but I don't think the bike is 'decorative'. . . I'm leaning towards 'non-targetable wargear' on this one.

This was one of the other arguments. If you think bikes are NOT vehicle like, then the bike is wargear and you could make them none targetable by just blocking the rider (say with a tree). And no one thinks this so clearly a bike shares some vehicle like attributes (including firing arcs).

Lobukia wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:A) No, they follow the same LOS rules as infantry. Page 51, all unit types follow the same rules as Infantry unless otherwise specified.

B) No, they have their own distinct unit type. Page 53.

Well here's where these problems arose. One player moved bikes towards a target and then shot at other units directly behind his bikes. Claiming that infantry do not need to worry about "in front of" vs "behind" as they are not vehicles.

This is legal, more or less. Technically, he should move his bikes so the riders' eyes are pointed at their intended target, since that's how the line of sight rules tell you to draw LOS (from eyes to target). However, most players do not use such a rigid interpretation of the LOS rules since doing so would prevent most non-human models from firing at all (e.g. models with no eyes). Thus, the common method for drawing LOS from non-vehicles (e.g. Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, Cavalry, etc) is to simply draw a line between the model's "head" and the target. So what the bikes' controlling player did was acceptable.

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Berserker, except IMO the bike is clearly part of the model, so LOS should be able to be drawn to it.

Can't imagine how anyone could read the 3rd ed, 4th ed, or 5th ed rules and think a bike is a vehicle...

The other player did not argue that bikes are vehicles, but that they have some vehicle like attributes (ie: cover save when turbo boosting, LoS from guns, 6" more on roads, can't shot twin-linked bolters out back of bike, etc).

This has no bearing in the rules. Bikes are not vehicles. The cover save that bikes get from Turbo-boost is NOT the same as the cover save from a fast skimmer moving Flat Out. While they are both based on the model moving at high velocity (from a fluff perspective) they are different rules and therefore Turbo-boosters on bikes does NOT imply that bikes follow any part of the rules for vehicles.

D) That's. . . an interesting question, actually. The LOS rules specify head, arms, legs and torso, and a bike is clearly none of those. . . but it's also clearly not decorative. RAW I'm not really sure, but the answer might be that you can't shoot at a model on a bike if you can ONLY see part of the bike.

For shooting, you have to draw LOS from the eyes of the model, so no, you can't draw LOS from the bike itself. Page 16.

E) This is part and parcel of D; once again, I'm not sure. Page 16 certainly does apply. You can't measuring shooting FROM the bike, so it seems logical to say you also can't measure shooting TO the bike, but I don't think the bike is 'decorative'. . . I'm leaning towards 'non-targetable wargear' on this one.

This was one of the other arguments. If you think bikes are NOT vehicle like, then the bike is wargear and you could make them none targetable by just blocking the rider (say with a tree). And no one thinks this so clearly a bike shares some vehicle like attributes (including firing arcs).

Just because a Bike unit is not a vehicle unit does not mean that the bike model is "invisible." While it's debatable whether or not the "Bike" is a part of the model's body, since it is indeed wargear, it's reasonable to treat it as such since the bike is clearly not a decorative element. Furthermore, this in no way implies that bikes must share vehicle attributes. It just doesn't. There is absolutely no correlation. Bikes do NOT have fire arcs. They are, for lack of a better description, Infantry on big bases with different moving and shooting rules.

^^Responses above in red.

Xca|iber wrote:This is legal, more or less. Technically, he should move his bikes so the riders' eyes are pointed at their intended target, since that's how the line of sight rules tell you to draw LOS (from eyes to target). However, most players do not use such a rigid interpretation of the LOS rules since doing so would prevent most non-human models from firing at all (e.g. models with no eyes). Thus, the common method for drawing LOS from non-vehicles (e.g. Infantry, Jump Infantry, Bikes, Cavalry, etc) is to simply draw a line between the model's "head" and the target. So what the bikes' controlling player did was acceptable.

For more information regarding LOS, check out the Rage USR thread.

Figured I would put this here before someone (not mentioning any names at all) tries to argue that models have 360 degree LOS.

Lobukia wrote:

Well here's where these problems arose. One player moved bikes towards a target and then shot at other units directly behind his bikes. Claiming that infantry do not need to worry about "in front of" vs "behind" as they are not vehicles.

That player was correct. Bikes aren't vehicles, and they don't have the limitations of vehicles, including LOS limitations.

Lobukia wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:I agree with Berserker, except IMO the bike is clearly part of the model, so LOS should be able to be drawn to it.

Can't imagine how anyone could read the 3rd ed, 4th ed, or 5th ed rules and think a bike is a vehicle...

The other player did not argue that bikes are vehicles, but that they have some vehicle like attributes (ie: cover save when turbo boosting, LoS from guns, 6" more on roads, can't shot twin-linked bolters out back of bike, etc).

This player was wrong. Bikes don't draw LOS from guns, don't get extra movement on roads, and can shoot anything an infantry unit in their position could shoot.

Lobukia wrote:
This was one of the other arguments. If you think bikes are NOT vehicle like, then the bike is wargear and you could make them none targetable by just blocking the rider (say with a tree). And no one thinks this so clearly a bike shares some vehicle like attributes (including firing arcs).

Arguably, yes. I've always played that the bike was part of the 'body' of the model, but I can see how someone might make this argument with a straight face. That doesn't mean they share vehicle attributes, though; they don't. They are Bikes, and all the attributes they have are quite clearly defined.

Thank you very much, I think there is a consensus here so my friend and I have a set of outside opinions to settle this little disagreement.

As always, you've all been very helpful.