Winged = Invisible?

[GrandReaper]

Hey all. The rules for targeting a model state that you must see a part of the model's body (ie: torso, head, legs, arms, but not counting weapons, banners or wings)

So, if I were to model a Daemon Prince such that his wings were folded around him, concealing him completely, would the rules render him immune to being targeted by shooting?

Then, taking it to absurd lengths, what if I were to have the model with four wings - one pair wrapped around, concealing all targetable body parts and one pair that basically covers everything in my deployment zone from 1/4 inch above the table to 6-8 inches above the table. Then none of my models can see or be seen by anything outside my deployment zone? Plus, if the wings had several points of articulation, their LoS blocking could be customized at will.

Please debunk this for me.

[Lerra]

I would interpret that rule as "Wings, weapons, and banners don't exist for the purposes of determining LoS" so that they would still be able to see the model. Also, most tournaments ban conversions which provide you with a rules benefit and would never let that fly (no pun intended).

[CrusherJoe]

BGB, Pg. 16, 3rd Paragraph:

"Sometimes, all that may be visible of a model is a weapon, an antenna, a banner or some other ornament he is wearing or carrying (including its wings and tail, even though they are technically part of its body). In these cases, the model is not visible. These rules are intended to ensure that models don't get penalized for having impressive standards, blades, guns, majestic wings, etc."

Note that the book refers to wings as an "ornament" (calling them out specifically in the parenthetical statement). Since the "ornament" can't be used to draw line of sight to, the ornament itself is invisible, not the rest of the model. Invisible wings would of course let you see the body underneath/behind them, unless you wanted to claim the body was also invisible...in which case, I'd have to say that since it is invisible, that means no actual photons are reaching the eyes of the creature (since light is literally passing right through it, not impacting on any tissue (such as eyeballs, retina, cornea, etc.) and thus, the creature in question is totally blind, and therefore cannot shoot or engage in close combat.

And that, as they say, would be that.

[bob]

You cannot take cover with you p. 21 mrb

This question is so unsporting it's not funny

[GrandReaper]

Well, I wasn't implying someone should use it. It's just rather funny. If anyone tried it I would recommend an immediate Dread-Socking.

Crusher Joe: I agree that your interpretation is the correct one, however I don't believe it is in any way backed up by the quote in literal turns. Technically, all that is visible of the model is its wings - thus "the model is not visible". It doesn't say act as if only the wings/ornamentation are invisible.

bob: Well, Wings aren't cover, they're part of the actual model. However, I do think this is the best avenue for fighting it ruleswise.

I love bizarre ambiguities!

[BuFFo]

So, if I were to model a Daemon Prince such that his wings were folded around him, concealing him completely, would the rules render him immune to being targeted by shooting?

1) If you were to do this, the wings would be the model, and thus its torso.

2) How can 'invisible' wings block LOS to the torso anyway?

Either way, LOS can be traced to the model just fine.

[Hal'jin]

And if you tried anything like this and argued I think your model could lose wings very fast. Either that or you'd lose opponents very fast.

[GrandReaper]

This is why I posted it. The answer in all good faith is obvious and trivial, but nothing backs up the conclusion that it's absurd.

BuFFo: 1) No, the wings are not the torso. There's a torso under there, I swear.
2) Nothing in the game ever mentions anything being invisible (maybe my name for the thread has mislead people). The only rule states that, if all you can see are weapons, banners, wings, etc, then the model is NOT visible. Not the wings, but the model. This might prevent it blocking LOS to things behind it under the right interpretation, however.

If anyone has a rule that veto's this, then that's what I'm after and I would love to see it. If not, just say that it's rediculous but doesn't seem to be technically illegal. Just saying it's not allowed without reference is a waste.

And as I said, I would never do this, it's just interesting.

[BuFFo]

This is why I posted it. The answer in all good faith is obvious and trivial, but nothing backs up the conclusion that it's absurd.

BuFFo: 1) No, the wings are not the torso. There's a torso under there, I swear.

If all the model is is a pair of wings, then yes, it is the torso. That is that the model is.

2) Nothing in the game ever mentions anything being invisible (maybe my name for the thread has mislead people). The only rule states that, if all you can see are weapons, banners, wings, etc, then the model is NOT visible. Not the wings, but the model. This might prevent it blocking LOS to things behind it under the right interpretation, however.

When determing LOS to the model, the wings are, for all intent and purposes, ignored completely, which is the same as being invisible.

So yes, a model wrapped in wings can still be seen.

If anyone has a rule that veto's this, then that's what I'm after and I would love to see it.

Page 16, Check Line of Sight & Pick Target, Third Paragraph.

It is quite obvious in plain English wings are ignored for LOS purposes.

If you can convince me that the wings wrapped around a model counts as majestic wings than you got a case. But wings wrapped around a model is not majestic. So unless you got majestic wings which are spread out, you got a visible model. Majestic wings are obviously wings that are spread out as if the model is flying or posing, not wrapped around the model like a bat.

But the second you wrap the wings around a model, the case can be made that the wings ARE the model, since there is nothing under them, and hence the wings ARE the body.

it's just interesting.

No it isn't.

[Jwolf]

Easter Egg Hunts are sometimes entertaining to do in person, but they lose a lot of the humor value on the internet when there is no ability to interact in person.

An interpretation of LOS that provides invisibility is even worse than Siren was, and thatwas bad enough.