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.

Do back packs and jump packs count as part of the target's body for granting line of sight?
I know weapons don't. Wings/tails don't. Should a backpack?

WangoFett wrote:
Do back packs and jump packs count as part of the target's body for granting line of sight?
I know weapons don't. Wings/tails don't. Should a backpack?

I have always counted packs as part of the model.

I've always counted it from where their head should be. I generally don't count tops of jetpacks but for seeing out of a window, even behind the model, I let them have it. Also I generally assume LOS from mid thigh/waist up to top of head ignoring arms if raised or backpacks but that's just me.

It depends, if the "bullet" can go through the jumppack and hit the torso then I have no problem with that model being shot. If you are clipping the rear edge of the jet only then I don't see much justification for calling it a hit in LOS.

A packback/jump pack is not part of the model as listed in the rulebook. It is decorative.

Wow... really? We're scrambling for the cover save this bad?

Yes, outside of decorative touched like banner poles, the model is the model. If you are really that concerned, see if the base would be visible if the base were the height of the model.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
It depends, if the "bullet" can go through the jumppack and hit the torso then I have no problem with that model being shot. If you are clipping the rear edge of the jet only then I don't see much justification for calling it a hit in LOS.

That sounds like you are treating the backpack as any other part of the model that is not part of the body, i.e. not blocking line of sight but also not granting it.

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
Wow... really? We're scrambling for the cover save this bad?

Yes, outside of decorative touched like banner poles, the model is the model. If you are really that concerned, see if the base would be visible if the base were the height of the model.

Getting a cover save is not the issue for me, but what I need to keep hidden to be completely out of line of sight. Cover saves don't protect from some things such as maledictions or charges.

I think the restriction for wings not counting as part of the model has to do with the fact that real wings can be folded together compact and out of sight, and they don't want to punish people for wanting epic looking outstretched wings on their models.

I don't think jump packs should be ignored in the same way, and I don't think I have ever come across an opponent who played that they should be ignored.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I think the restriction for wings not counting as part of the model has to do with the fact that real wings can be folded together compact and out of sight, and they don't want to punish people for wanting epic looking outstretched wings on their models.

I don't think jump packs should be ignored in the same way, and I don't think I have ever come across an opponent who played that they should be ignored.

My Balrog counts as DP heartily agrees with you.

 BarBoBot wrote:
I think the restriction for wings not counting as part of the model has to do with the fact that real wings can be folded together compact and out of sight, and they don't want to punish people for wanting epic looking outstretched wings on their models.

I don't think jump packs should be ignored in the same way, and I don't think I have ever come across an opponent who played that they should be ignored.

This is how I've always played it and see it played.

I'm trying to imagine a positioning in which the jump pack is visible, but the rest of the model isn't.

Marine packs aren't as high as the helmet and only barely go above the shoulders. So you can't be looking at it from the front as you'd see the head/shoulder.

Looking at it from the back, again you'd see the head or at least could make a reasonable assumption that it is just the back of the model.

When looking at it from the side, the marine's body would have to be covered by a wall... but the legs should be visible in this situation.

Which means it would have to be seen through something that hid the legs but showed only the backpack (from the side), such as through a window. If that's the case then you get the cover save.

If it's a question of whether you can even see the model in that situation, then I'd say yes.

This can't be something that happens very often.

I see situations reasonably often where a part of the jump pack is visible over terrain, through a window, or over a vehicle but the head is not. Not every game, but reasonably often.

Happens to the previous generation of raptors, with their tall pointy jump packs.

Also from side-on the back of a marine pack can be easily seen but not the body.

I have many DC and BA jump troops where the end of the jet can be seen when the body cannot. Also look at Astorath where the body is well ahead of the end of the jump-pack.

i wouldnt think so because the rules say weapon barrels and wings and such do not count on infantry models for LoS stuff. Now if he just has his back turned to you thats something else obviously.

WangoFett wrote:
Do back packs and jump packs count as part of the target's body for granting line of sight?
I know weapons don't. Wings/tails don't. Should a backpack?

The rules say "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).

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. Similarly, we ignore wings and tails, and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive banners, weapons, and so on."

The bold part (also bolded in the rulebook) tells you what you can draw line of sight to: head, torso, arms, legs. The next part of the rules simply elaborates on the first part, listing (but not comprehensively, as there are way too many models in this game to go about listing every example of what counts as "decorative") some examples of what doesn't count as a "head, torso, arm or leg."

So, in the below example, as none of the first jump pack marine's legs, arms, torso, or head is visible from behind the wall, there would be no line of sight to it.

 Lord_Mortis wrote:

WangoFett wrote:
Do back packs and jump packs count as part of the target's body for granting line of sight?
I know weapons don't. Wings/tails don't. Should a backpack?

The rules say "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).

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. Similarly, we ignore wings and tails, and antennae even though they are technically part of a model's body. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalised for having impressive banners, weapons, and so on."

The bold part (also bolded in the rulebook) tells you what you can draw line of sight to: head, torso, arms, legs. The next part of the rules simply elaborates on the first part, listing (but not comprehensively, as there are way too many models in this game to go about listing every example of what counts as "decorative") some examples of what doesn't count as a "head, torso, arm or leg."

So, in the below example, as none of the first jump pack marine's legs, arms, torso, or head is visible from behind the wall, there would be no line of sight to it.

By that same standard though, if there was a "window" small one on the backside of the model and you can only draw LOS to the backpack you cannot fire. Sillyness.
Even if the pack was clear/not there you'd have LOS

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:
By that same standard though, if there was a "window" small one on the backside of the model and you can only draw LOS to the backpack you cannot fire. Sillyness.
Even if the pack was clear/not there you'd have LOS

What are you trying to say there? Not very clear....

Are you asking/saying if you could see the model from the rear and the only thing visible through a tiny hole/window is the jumppack, that then you could not have LOS because you can't draw LOS to the jumppack even though if, it weren't there, you could see the model's back/torso through that tiny window?

Then I would say what would you do in the following situation with only a part of the plasma cannon visible?



If you would deny the shot because you can't draw LOS to a weapon, then apply the same to a jumppack in the same scenario. If you would ignore the plasma cannon and allow LOS anyway because a model can't, by the rules, carry it's own cover with it (rocks on bases, etc), then apply the same to a jumppack in the same scenario.

I think he is trying to say if the model has it's back to you, you cannot draw LOS to the legs and all you can see is the backpack. This in that example would mean no shooting a model.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think he is trying to say if the model has it's back to you, you cannot draw LOS to the legs and all you can see is the backpack. This in that example would mean no shooting a model.

Yeah, I edited my post to answer that if that indeed is what he is saying.

There is 2 questions here, can you draw los through parts of a model that do not count as body, and is a jump pack part of the models body.

I would answer that no, you can't see through weapons and such and no the jump pack does not count as part of the models body.

Now in the good example with the plasma cannon and the window, you can only draw Los to a weapon, thus per the rule you can not see the model. However, for determining cover, area blocked with a plasma cannon would not count for 25 percent obscurement as like others said you can not bring your cover with you.

 Lord_Mortis wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I think he is trying to say if the model has it's back to you, you cannot draw LOS to the legs and all you can see is the backpack. This in that example would mean no shooting a model.

Yeah, I edited my post to answer that if that indeed is what he is saying.

Sorry, yes that is indeed what I meant. Been kind of sick/stressed, not to mention that debacle of a (are FW stuffs legal thread).

Devien that is the most WAAC interpretation I have ever heard...

In your interpretation a unit of jump pack marines standing behind a wall that only goes up to their waist will be completely obscured if they have their backs to a shooting unit because all that's visible over the wall is the jump pack.... Which is absurd.

By your logic, I can model my demon prince with his wings draped around his body like a sleeping bat, and he would be completely obscured from all shooing because all that's visible is wings.

MFA wouldn't matter since its not an official rule, so in your interpretation it's legal....

 BarBoBot wrote:
In your interpretation a unit of jump pack marines standing behind a wall that only goes up to their waist will be completely obscured if they have their backs to a shooting unit because all that's visible over the wall is the jump pack.... Which is absurd.

Absurd, yes.

Correctly following the RAW, also yes.

 BarBoBot wrote:
Devien that is the most WAAC interpretation I have ever heard...

In your interpretation a unit of jump pack marines standing behind a wall that only goes up to their waist will be completely obscured if they have their backs to a shooting unit because all that's visible over the wall is the jump pack.... Which is absurd.

By your logic, I can model my demon prince with his wings draped around his body like a sleeping bat, and he would be completely obscured from all shooing because all that's visible is wings.

MFA wouldn't matter since its not an official rule, so in your interpretation it's legal....

True MFA isn't an official rule, not try pulling that on the tabletop

BATman vs Moonwalking Assault Marines

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
Devien that is the most WAAC interpretation I have ever heard...

In your interpretation a unit of jump pack marines standing behind a wall that only goes up to their waist will be completely obscured if they have their backs to a shooting unit because all that's visible over the wall is the jump pack.... Which is absurd.

By your logic, I can model my demon prince with his wings draped around his body like a sleeping bat, and he would be completely obscured from all shooing because all that's visible is wings.

MFA wouldn't matter since its not an official rule, so in your interpretation it's legal....

True MFA isn't an official rule, not try pulling that on the tabletop

BATman vs Moonwalking Assault Marines

ROFL...... I almost spit out my drink when I read that last part

I wouldn't call it a waac ruling either. For every crazy modeling for advantage scenario there will be another senario where it makes sense. Like in the plasma cannon example, the model could simply be turned when it moved, as facing doesn't matter, because sticking your belly button out the one tiny hole in a wall makes zero sense.

As for backwards assault marines, shoulders arms and heads still peak through, so while the legs are covered the backpack isn't making a normal model invisible. The applications where my waac apparently ruling would apply is when almost the entire model is completely obscured and only a bare bit of something that is not a body peeks through.

To those making banners that are actually index cards designed to block Los, yeah I agree that is stupid and should not be allowed. Which is why I think no modeling for advantage rules should still be part of the game.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 BarBoBot wrote:
In your interpretation a unit of jump pack marines standing behind a wall that only goes up to their waist will be completely obscured if they have their backs to a shooting unit because all that's visible over the wall is the jump pack.... Which is absurd.

Absurd, yes.

Correctly following the RAW, also yes.

Not so RAW. You either use the backpack as the body in which case you have LOS to it. Or you place it in the category of decorative parts that you ignore, in which case LOS would go through it to the body behind it. The same with the weapons sticking out that hole.

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

This really depends on your gaming group to be honest. Some play the rule much more liberally. I have always considered the pack as part of the model for drawing line of sight. My group focuses on quicker games of 40k and so we dont argue about the little things that an really bog the game down. An easy thing to do is talk to your opponent the first time this happens and always stick to that agreement. Good luck and even though this was vague i hope it helped a bit.

Cheers