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 had a game today where my opponent told me since he could see a little bit of the wing of a jetbike that he could target that. I felt like as long as you could see the main body of the bike, aka where the rider sits or the front part, then it was targetable. I would have felt that no you could not target a unit that way, but in the sake of not delaying any further, I never brought it up.

Also a side question, We play with a lot of terrain, but not all of it is even. I have dudes that I posted with legs that make them sit up in the air cause they are jumping off a rock that is part of the model (specifically this was a harlequin shadowseer being proxy'd as a corsair void dreamer), but because this model sits so far up, he could just shoot over. I felt like I ended up modeling myself for a huge disadvantage that would never allow my guys to ever get cover (and outside of jetbikes, corsairs never have more than a 4+ armor save, so rely on cover saves or invulnsaves for a few characters).

The line of sight rules do state wings are ignored for the purpose of drawing line of sight, even though they are technically part of a model's body.

Obviously jetbikes don't have a conventional body beyond the rider, but I think it fair to consider the tail fins/wings as wings in the same way you would for any ordinary winged model.

Thats what I felt, it ended up being that I could never find cover due to a wing from either a jetbike or from the dragonfly wings of a jetback sticking up. I felt like I was getting massivly disadvantaged.

This is an interesting situation, because the entire bike itself is simply Wargear, which RAW is not targetable. Only a models head, torso, arms & legs are used to draw LoS (someone please correct me with the exact quote, no BRB atm)

While this is the strictest reading of RAW, it's also pretty ludicrous to claim that you have to see the rider in this case b/c the rider is only 30% of the entire model.

I play Windriders and Reavers and I am usually forgiving on LoS, counting the Canopy & wings, but this is only HIWPI. However, I always measure from the base for all purposes (even though the base is quite same for how long they are).
This has led to a few situations where an opponent could see the bike and was in range of the canopy, but not in range of the base, thus could not target in.

--

I hope that in a future rulebook, they give an example of the different parts of a model just for these purposes.

Personally, I consider the wings to be part of the model. I've found the following rule of thumb to be pretty useful; "If you removed this part of the model, would it still be a complete model?". In the case of the wings of the jetbike, I'd say the answer is "no". By extension, the two little handles behind the rider could be removed, and many people wouldn't even notice that it's a different model.

It's a challenging ruling, since it's entirely subjective. I can't see one of these jetbikes losing a fin without something terrible happening to it though.

 Yarium wrote:

It's a challenging ruling, since it's entirely subjective. I can't see one of these jetbikes losing a fin without something terrible happening to it though.

I completely agree that it is subjective. For example, the Windrider wings actually look like they have flight control panels for steering the bike. Clearly necessary
However those same wings on a Reaver are the Bladevanes, which is a wargear part that can be replaced with other option (that fit under the canopy). That makes it much less clear if it's needed as part of the model. I think most players just assume yes and keep playing, and this is really how it should go.

Another twist. I have older JB models that don't even have said wings. Should my newer models be more targetable than the older ones?

WaughGoff wrote:
Another twist. I have older JB models that don't even have said wings. Should my newer models be more targetable than the older ones?

I've been using old models of Eldar War Walkers for years and the rule of thumb we follow is that 'You use the model on the table'. So if it's an older model but still an 'official GW model' then it's fair game.

*shrug* The model you're using is the model you're using. Just like Marine players with the old style rhinos have the advantages and disadvantage of a model smaller than the current incarnation.

So I just palyed a tourney I which the TO ruled that a Flamer can hit any part of the model, even if it doesn't hit the base. As Eldar jetbikes are quite long and on a tiny base (30mm standard flight base), you can see how this makes a big difference. My opponent had Heldrakes (i.e. the anit-Scater-bike unit) and was claiming more hit because the template could hit my canopy, but not the base.

I had a discuss about it with the TO once the tourney was over stating that it wasn't fair that I can be targeted like that, yet I still have to measure from my base to range and assaults. LoS I could agree with, but you still need to "hit" my base as bike are not vehicles.

Ehh.....

The rules on flamers do just state that they only have to partially cover the model, not partially cover the base. I know it feels unfair that our bikes are so much longer than our bases, but I've always felt that this is just poor planning on GW's part as to how bikes are treated.

That said, bikes are pretty awesome, so just play with flamers in mind when orientating your bikes.

 Galef wrote:
So I just palyed a tourney I which the TO ruled that a Flamer can hit any part of the model, even if it doesn't hit the base. As Eldar jetbikes are quite long and on a tiny base (30mm standard flight base), you can see how this makes a big difference. My opponent had Heldrakes (i.e. the anit-Scater-bike unit) and was claiming more hit because the template could hit my canopy, but not the base.

I had a discuss about it with the TO once the tourney was over stating that it wasn't fair that I can be targeted like that, yet I still have to measure from my base to range and assaults. LoS I could agree with, but you still need to "hit" my base as bike are not vehicles.

Galef those are the actual template rule. Templates get a hit for every model its covering, not bases.

 Yarium wrote:
Ehh.....

The rules on flamers do just state that they only have to partially cover the model, not partially cover the base. I know it feels unfair that our bikes are so much longer than our bases, but I've always felt that this is just poor planning on GW's part as to how bikes are treated.

Yes indeed, very poor planning, especially since every diagram in every edition I have played shows the template hitting the BASE, not the random parts sticking off the base. In the end it didn't matter in that game and I was able to place third over all. It is just weird when you analyze the targeting rules for bikes.

So in summary:
-LoS is drawn from the Torso, Head, Arms & Legs, never wings, weapons or wargear.
-Bikes are wargear, yet everyone seems to come to the civil agreement to count it for LoS, even though this is not RAW.
-When measuring range 'from' the bikes, we must measure from the base, as no rules exist to allow measuring from anywhere else (not counting vehicles)
-The same applies when measuring 'to' the bikes, with the exception of templates, that hit if they touch any part of the model.

Yep, sounds about typical

--

Most of the diagrams are nothing more than pretty pictures.

Some have been recycled since 3rd edition and no longer hold up(the firing arc diagram that is attempting to show turret, sponson, and hull mount using a leman russ mbt: the "hull lascannon" is no longer classified ad such in the data sheets so the arc falls under the written 0° whateber it can physically point at, or looks like it could if you glued it in place rules).

Templates and blasts need only cover any part of the model

Oh, and template and blasts are determining if you hit; this has nothing to do with los rules or los definitions of the model(meaning wargear and gun barrels are a hut unless otherwise specified)

Just imagine the pain and suffering the poor Tau player must endure: people have been drawing line of site to the wargear battle suit that the Tau is wearing, and never even trying to draw line of site to the actual Tau inside - it's pretty unfair.

 NightHowler wrote:
Just imagine the pain and suffering the poor Tau player must endure: people have been drawing line of site to the wargear battle suit that the Tau is wearing, and never even trying to draw line of site to the actual Tau inside - it's pretty unfair.

What about Space Marines and their Tactical Dreadnought Armour?

 Happyjew wrote:

 NightHowler wrote:
Just imagine the pain and suffering the poor Tau player must endure: people have been drawing line of site to the wargear battle suit that the Tau is wearing, and never even trying to draw line of site to the actual Tau inside - it's pretty unfair.

What about Space Marines and their Tactical Dreadnought Armour?

Right? Poor souls.

How do you find the Marine in all that Centurion armor?

This whole line is really the same garbage as 5ths "wraith guard/lords cannot shoot because they do not have eyes).

If you want to go that route; very few models are targetable at all: a few dark eldar units, many tyranids, possibly ork arms.

Basically: if it is covered by armor and there is armour in the wargear; then it is invisible. IG models are completely invisible if you use catachan models(the have flak armor and not 1 identifiable armor piece on the model).

Don't be that guy: a leg of a model(by anatomical placement) is the leg of the model, period. Whether that leg ic covered in power armour, an extension of a battlesuit, or a Dreadknight's leg(very separate from the marine_baby-in-a-snoogli pilot)

The wings bit pertains to vehicles where you count the hull, jerbikes are not vehicles as they have no AV, so they can be targeted on any part of the model which is not decorative like banners, or a severed head, or chains. The wings of the jetbike are not decorative.

blaktoof wrote:
The wings bit pertains to vehicles where you count the hull, jerbikes are not vehicles as they have no AV, so they can be targeted on any part of the model which is not decorative like banners, or a severed head, or chains. The wings of the jetbike are not decorative.

The wings of a Flying Monstrous Creature are not decorative, but we are explicitly told to ignore those even though they are part of a model's body.

Drawing line of site rules should not be used when determining a hit on a modle with a blast weapon. If you can only see the tip of a wing on anjetbike it can not be targeted - but a blast or template weapon can be given a hit for touching only the wing. Much like is assault with a jetbike you dont need to get the base into cotact with the enemy - just the tip of the nose gets you there.

 Galef wrote:
So I just palyed a tourney I which the TO ruled that a Flamer can hit any part of the model, even if it doesn't hit the base. As Eldar jetbikes are quite long and on a tiny base (30mm standard flight base), you can see how this makes a big difference. My opponent had Heldrakes (i.e. the anit-Scater-bike unit) and was claiming more hit because the template could hit my canopy, but not the base.

I had a discuss about it with the TO once the tourney was over stating that it wasn't fair that I can be targeted like that, yet I still have to measure from my base to range and assaults. LoS I could agree with, but you still need to "hit" my base as bike are not vehicles.

Keep in mind that all regular bikes have a base that is BIGGER then their actual bike model. So suck it up

 Mr. Shine wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
The wings bit pertains to vehicles where you count the hull, jerbikes are not vehicles as they have no AV, so they can be targeted on any part of the model which is not decorative like banners, or a severed head, or chains. The wings of the jetbike are not decorative.

The wings of a Flying Monstrous Creature are not decorative, but we are explicitly told to ignore those even though they are part of a model's body.

Indeed, banners are often not a decorative function, either, but still not part of the body for determining Line of Sight TO the target. Only a Vehicle's Wings are to be considered part of the "body" for that purpose.

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"

Lol have fun targeting this flier.

Oldzoggy: the only parts of that flyer that are not targetable are the cannon-barrels sticking out of the wings.

Wings on flyers are part of the hull.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Lol have fun targeting this flier.

Going by the draft FAQ, what Kommissar Kel said:

"Q: Do a Flyer’s wings and tail count as part of its hull? (e.g. If you can only see a wing can you shoot at it? If you are only in range of the wing can you shoot at or charge it? When hovering, can the wing get you Linebreaker if it is within 12″ of the board edge?)
A: Yes, a Flyer’s wings are tail are considered part of the hull in all respects."

Not going by the draft FAQ, the rules for 'Shooting at Vehicles' are pretty clear already:

"When a unit fires at a vehicle, it must be able to see its hull or turret (ignoring the vehicle’s gun barrels, antennas, decorative banner poles, etc.). Note that, unlike for other models, a vehicle’s wings are not ornamental and are a part of its hull."

YMDC might not have been the place to make a joke about someone's stance.

 oldzoggy wrote:
YMDC might not have been the place to make a joke about someone's stance.

It's not really much of a joke when the irony is explicitly contradicted.