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.

I couldn't find this anywhere else so apologies if my dakkafu isn't strong enough to find an existing thread....

I've been following a discussion on 40K global around LOS to bikes: http://www.40kglobal.com/2013/09/25/40k-rebuttal-cant-trace-los-bike

No where in the rules is there an exception for bikes to the tracing LOS to a model's body (the head, torso, arms or legs). A bike is explicitly a piece of war gear and thus the RAW would lead you to the conclusion that you must draw LOS to the rider's body. Now I certainly have never played it this way - I've always considered the bike itself a viable target, but is that correct?

There have been arguments around things like the Dreadknight as a counter - but the Dreadknight is specifically a montstrous creature and encompasses the whole model not just the guy in the baby carrier AND it's not a piece of war gear.

So what do people think? I know it seems like a ridiculous question, so no need to post outrage...let's have some serious discussion!

Strict RAW you cannot draw LOS to actual bike (not sure on steeds for cavalry). I don't think it is quite RAI and I've never seen anyone play it like that. Chalk it up to more poor writing by GW.

So you cannot draw LOS to the bike as it is wargear. How about a space marine, is LOS now not blocked by wargear, his power armour ? (assuming full helmet as well ).

MarkyMark wrote:
So you cannot draw LOS to the bike as it is wargear. How about a space marine, is LOS now not blocked by wargear, his power armour ? (assuming full helmet as well ).

There is difference. The bike is neither the head, torso, arms or legs of the model.

Sadly here's another example of GW's poor writing. I'd play it as steeds/bikes count for LoS purposes, based on my idea that if the bike gets destroyed the poor guy on it is probably having a bad day. This is absolutely not RAW though.

To counter : The rules state you can target the body of the model.

-Are you targeting (in this case) a jetbike model? Yes
-Is the body of the jetbike model the jetbike itself? Absolutely (Body has a much broader definition than just "torso").
-Do I have permission to target the body of the intended target model? Yes.

Ergo, I can target the bike/jetbike model and resolve shooting as normal.

Rorschach9 wrote:
To counter : The rules state you can target the body of the model.

-Are you targeting (in this case) a jetbike model? Yes
-Is the body of the jetbike model the jetbike itself? Absolutely (Body has a much broader definition than just "torso").
-Do I have permission to target the body of the intended target model? Yes.

Ergo, I can target the bike/jetbike model and resolve shooting as normal.

Except "body' is defined to be head, torso, legs or arms. Which of the 4 does the bike fall into?

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
To counter : The rules state you can target the body of the model.

-Are you targeting (in this case) a jetbike model? Yes
-Is the body of the jetbike model the jetbike itself? Absolutely (Body has a much broader definition than just "torso").
-Do I have permission to target the body of the intended target model? Yes.

Ergo, I can target the bike/jetbike model and resolve shooting as normal.

Except "body' is defined to be head, torso, legs or arms. Which of the 4 does the bike fall into?

The rules also go on to define tails, wings and antennae as part of the body. Clearly "head, torso, legs or arms" is not an exhaustive definition for "body".

True LOS is not a difficult concept... or so I thought....

Get down and look. If you can see more than just the extras, then it is visible.

Why is thia concept so hars to grasp?

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
To counter : The rules state you can target the body of the model.

-Are you targeting (in this case) a jetbike model? Yes
-Is the body of the jetbike model the jetbike itself? Absolutely (Body has a much broader definition than just "torso").
-Do I have permission to target the body of the intended target model? Yes.

Ergo, I can target the bike/jetbike model and resolve shooting as normal.

Except "body' is defined to be head, torso, legs or arms. Which of the 4 does the bike fall into?

The rules also go on to define tails, wings and antennae as part of the body. Clearly "head, torso, legs or arms" is not an exhaustive definition for "body".

For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs).

The rules then go on to explain that while wings, tails and antennae are technically part of the body they are ignored. So I ask again, the rules for Line of Sight specify that "body" means head, torso, arms and legs. Which of those four groups does the bike fall into?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
True LOS is not a difficult concept... or so I thought....

Get down and look. If you can see more than just the extras, then it is visible.

Why is thia concept so hars to grasp?

This question is not about that though. It's about wether the BIKE/JETBIKE is considered part of the models "body". According to some peoples reading of RAW it is not as it is not "head, arms, legs or torso" of the model.

seriously? that sounds like a good way to be asked to leave in a real world game. of course, on the internet, any idiotic argument goes...

listen, save yourselves some gray hairs. relax, remember it's just a game, and just play. if you are niggling over whether a bike has a rider then you may want to take a break...

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
True LOS is not a difficult concept... or so I thought....

Get down and look. If you can see more than just the extras, then it is visible.

Why is thia concept so hars to grasp?

Its not, weather or not the bike is an extra is where the confusion lies. A devastator squad is all about the heavy weapons, they make that squad special, but the weapons are not enough for LoS. The same argument can be used for bikes. The counter is that the bike is 3 times the size of the rider and trying to apply real world logic to this makes it silly you can't see the unit if you can only see 2/3s of the model and clealry GW would not have intended this.

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

Rorschach9 wrote:
To counter : The rules state you can target the body of the model.

-Are you targeting (in this case) a jetbike model? Yes
-Is the body of the jetbike model the jetbike itself? Absolutely (Body has a much broader definition than just "torso").
-Do I have permission to target the body of the intended target model? Yes.

Ergo, I can target the bike/jetbike model and resolve shooting as normal.

Except "body' is defined to be head, torso, legs or arms. Which of the 4 does the bike fall into?

The rules also go on to define tails, wings and antennae as part of the body. Clearly "head, torso, legs or arms" is not an exhaustive definition for "body".

For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its eyes to any part of the target's body (the head, torso, arms or legs).

The rules then go on to explain that while wings, tails and antennae are technically part of the body they are ignored. So I ask again, the rules for Line of Sight specify that "body" means head, torso, arms and legs. Which of those four groups does the bike fall into?

And again I will state that the definition of body (head, torso, legs or arms) is clearly not exhaustive. Nor is the list of portions that are ignored for purposes of targeting. My reading of the rules shows those "four groups" as a loose definition of "body" vs. an absolute as the rules do go on to describe other portions of a model (again not exhaustive) that are ignored while still being the "body" of the model.

Who is to say either interpretation is the correct one?

Because when GW takes the time to specifically say "X" is "1, 2, 3 and 4", then unless something specifically says "add 5 to the list" then you have no permission to add anything to the list.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
seriously? that sounds like a good way to be asked to leave in a real world game. of course, on the internet, any idiotic argument goes...

listen, save yourselves some gray hairs. relax, remember it's just a game, and just play. if you are niggling over whether a bike has a rider then you may want to take a break...

I doubt anyone (or very few) actually PLAY the game that the bike does not count for targeting. RAW vs RAI vs HIWPI and all that you know. I would suggest not reading 99% of the messages on YMDC .. to save yourself some gray hairs.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Happyjew wrote:
Because when GW takes the time to specifically say "X" is "1, 2, 3 and 4", then unless something specifically says "add 5 to the list" then you have no permission to add anything to the list.

So "wings, tails and antennae" are the only body parts that may be ignored? They specify only those body items, yet there are far more items that could/shout ignored. Mounts and bikes are not mentioned. What category do they fall in? Body, wings, tails or antennae?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
seriously? that sounds like a good way to be asked to leave in a real world game. of course, on the internet, any idiotic argument goes...

listen, save yourselves some gray hairs. relax, remember it's just a game, and just play. if you are niggling over whether a bike has a rider then you may want to take a break...

It is more about discussing a flaw in the RAW.

Technically the bike is wargear and thus "Extra bitz" I highly doubt anyone would play it this way, but they would be technically correct in trying to do so.

remember though that as wargear is ignored, if you can see an area of the bike that covers the "body" then you may still have LOS to it.