bagtagger wrote:but is an open topped vehicle a firepoint? Just because you can shoot out of it doesn't mean it's a fire point

bagtagger wrote:but is an open topped vehicle a firepoint? Just because you can shoot out of it doesn't mean it's a fire point

pretre wrote:

bagtagger wrote:but is an open topped vehicle a firepoint? Just because you can shoot out of it doesn't mean it's a fire point

Open-topped do not have FP, instead the passengers may fire, measuring range and los from the hull. Same thing basically.

don_mondo wrote:

Don't have specific fire points. They just use the entire hull as a fire point. But it's still a fire point, or they are unable to shoot at all..................

pretre wrote:

bagtagger wrote:but is an open topped vehicle a firepoint? Just because you can shoot out of it doesn't mean it's a fire point

Open-topped do not have FP, instead the passengers may fire, measuring range and los from the hull. Same thing basically.

Lehnsherr wrote:What they are saying is that outside of the"Fire Points" section of the rulebook, you have no permission to use anything while embarked on a vehicle.

The Fire Points section gives you permission to shoot while embarked.

Then you look up "Open Topped" to determine how that specific rule interacts with "Fire Points" in order to be able to even fire to begin with.

The Open Topped section says to measure from the hull, as there are no "specific fire points" on an open topped vehicle.

In order to fire though, you still draw permission from the "Fire Points" section of the book, and according to the new FAQ which specifically mentions "Fire Points" Anrakyr can no longer use his ability while embarked on the CCB.

bagtagger wrote:So does that include a KFF or Hood/Runic weapon?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll answer this myself it only applies to los so KFF and Hoods still work fine from vehicles

copper.talos wrote:There are 2 kinds of transports regarding how passengers draw LoS. Transports with fire points and open topped. If this faq was to affect both cases then it would have simply said that passengers may not use non shooting abilities that require LoS. No need to further elaborate and specifically mention the fire points.

copper.talos wrote:I am saying that since it mentions specifically fire points it affects transports with fire points. If it were to affect ALL transports then there would be no need to specify fire points at all.

copper.talos wrote:How can you use a non existant fire point? Can I use a non existant access point too and disembark from the front of a wave serpent?

The faq talks about fire points. You have to use a fire points for the faq's ruling to be valid. Vehicles with no fire points are not affected by this faq.

puma713 wrote:Any transport will have a 'Fire Points' entry, even if it is 0..

puma713 wrote:I am not around my library of codices right now, but what do Dark Eldar Raiders say for Fire Points? Or the CCB?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

puma713 wrote:Any transport will have a 'Fire Points' entry, even if it is 0..

puma713 wrote:I am not around my library of codices right now, but what do Dark Eldar Raiders say for Fire Points? Or the CCB?

I have both the DE and Necron books in front of me and none of the Open Topped Transports mention Fire Points, even to say Fire Points: 0 or None.

copper.talos wrote:I confirm Thanatos_elNyx. Open topped transports do not mention at all "firepoints".

And in any case, when a faq affects all transports, it is worded to affect all transports. Not transports with firepoints...

copper.talos wrote:That is your own interpretation. The entry "firepoint" on a trasport is what makes it have a firepoint. As the entry "tank" makes a vehicle a tank, "skimmer" a skimmer etc. If it isn't in the description of the vehicle it can't be used for advantage or disadvantage equally.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Open Topped Transports have no Fire Points but mounted models are specifically allowed to shoot, measure range and draw LOS from the hull (p70).

I do not understand how one can then jump to calling the hull a fire point. It does not follow.

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Open Topped Transports have no Fire Points but mounted models are specifically allowed to shoot, measure range and draw LOS from the hull (p70).

copper.talos wrote:Open topped is a quality of a transport. Firepoints are another quality. These are mutual exclusive. No rules interpretation/manipulation can make a passenger of an open topped vehicle use a firepoint ever. Since the faq specifically mentions firepoints, CCB and all open topped are not affect by it.

Noir wrote:

No open-top is a subgruop of Transports, Fire Points are a quality of all transports. To use the open-top subgroup you need to use all the transport rules, unless it says other wise. No where dose open-top say you don't use the fire point rules, just the have no specific fire points. Please point out rule where it says you do not use the fire point rule for open top, becouse I don't see it.

Lehnsherr wrote:What they are saying is that outside of the"Fire Points" section of the rulebook, you have no permission to use anything while embarked on a vehicle.

The Fire Points section gives you permission to shoot while embarked.

Then you look up "Open Topped" to determine how that specific rule interacts with "Fire Points" in order to be able to even fire to begin with.

The Open Topped section says to measure from the hull, as there are no "specific fire points" on an open topped vehicle.

In order to fire though, you still draw permission from the "Fire Points" section of the book, and according to the new FAQ which specifically mentions "Fire Points" Anrakyr can no longer use his ability while embarked on the CCB.

puma713 wrote:

Noir wrote:

No open-top is a subgruop of Transports, Fire Points are a quality of all transports. To use the open-top subgroup you need to use all the transport rules, unless it says other wise. No where dose open-top say you don't use the fire point rules, just the have no specific fire points. Please point out rule where it says you do not use the fire point rule for open top, becouse I don't see it.

Exactly. The rules for firing from a vehicle come from the Fire Point rules. The Open Topped rules then tell you how they interact with those rules, since they don't have "specific" fire points.

Once again:

Lehnsherr wrote:What they are saying is that outside of the"Fire Points" section of the rulebook, you have no permission to use anything while embarked on a vehicle.

The Fire Points section gives you permission to shoot while embarked.

Then you look up "Open Topped" to determine how that specific rule interacts with "Fire Points" in order to be able to even fire to begin with.

The Open Topped section says to measure from the hull, as there are no "specific fire points" on an open topped vehicle.

In order to fire though, you still draw permission from the "Fire Points" section of the book, and according to the new FAQ which specifically mentions "Fire Points" Anrakyr can no longer use his ability while embarked on the CCB.

copper.talos wrote:If you were to use the firepoint rules you'd first need one and secondly the rules would point you on firepoints on how to draw LoS and check range. It doesn't on both cases.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Copper - you have no permission to fire from a vehicle *except* by using the fire point rules.

Dont worry, its a common mistake youre making, but you ARE making one.

copper.talos wrote:If you were to use the firepoint rules you'd first need one and secondly the rules would point you on firepoints on how to draw LoS and check range. It doesn't on both cases.

rigeld2 wrote:
Not having firing points means you cannot fire out.

The Infinite wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Not having firing points means you cannot fire out.

Not true, the rules for open topped vehicles gives you permission to fire, just like the rules for fire points do on non-open topped vehicles.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Page 70, under Open-Topped Transport Vehicles: "Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle."

The bolded sentence is the one that shoots the 'open-topped vehicles use fire point rules' out of the water. We already know that not all transports have fire points; the first sentence in this paragraph informs us that open-topped transports fall into the category of 'transports without fire points'. Normally, therefore, nobody could fire from such a transport, because the rules for Transport Vehicles say that any passengers which cannot fire from a fire point cannot fire; but the second sentence says that yes, they can.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The opposite of specific is general. Say the phrase 'general point' to yourself. Notice how it makes no sense at all? A point is, by definition, specific; that's what the word means. You cannot have a general point, and so you cannot have a general firing point, not without radically changing the definition of at least one of those words.

Also, since we're parsing individual words, you are both ignoring the word "Instead". The second sentence there is quite clearly an alternative, which overrides the more general fire point rules.

Context tells me that there are no fire points on an open-topped transport vehicle, and they have a special rule which allows passengers to fire anyway. Fire point FAQ rulings have nothing to do a vehicle that has no fire points.

EDIT: Further support. Only ONE model can ever fire through a fire point. But EVERY model in an open-topped transport vehicle can fire.

So you have, in an open-topped transport, something which is never called a fire point, and follows different rules than fire points. That thing. . . is not a fire point.

You're right - only one model can fire through a specific firing point (as in one of the 2 available in a Rhino). There's no limit on non-specific firing points.

Reply by: Lehnsherr - click to view full reply 

21906

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:23:09

Post by: Lehnsherr

My main issue with his being able to use the Mind in the Machine while embarked means the FAQ change is mostly useless.

Why would the change have been made to begin with, unless it was strictly done as a balance issue. So if we accept that this is a balancing issue, we then have to question why it would be ok for any model to use special rules or wargear while embarked on an open topped vehicle as compared to a tank. Thats an entirely unanswerable question, and pointless to even debate, I realize. That being said, this logical gap only opens up when we assume that an open topped vehicle does indeed have no fire points at all, rather than no "specific" fire points.

I am hoping that this is an oversight, as I said in the other thread. I do not read it that way at all, as "no specific fire points" is not equivalent to "no fire points". They do not have fire points listed in any codex for any open topped vehicle because that would be redundant. It would be odd to see "Fire points - Unlimited" in every codex. Rather, they tell you its open topped, you read the BRB to see what open topped is, and open topped vehicles do not have specific fire points.

This kills Anrakyr for me, as a playable HQ. There are much better options out there now, and I'd rather utilize those than waste points on Anrakyr while not being able to Mind in the Machine while embarked. If it turns out I am wrong, I will be ecstatic. Until the time in which the rules are clarified (I am suspecting a change in 6th will make this situation more clear) I will avoid fielding Anrakyr.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:27:50

Post by: kirsanth

bagtagger wrote:I am looking at the same quote that has been repeated a thousand times and I am not convinced that open topped means one big fire point.

It isn't one, that would prevent other models from firing - which is not the case. There simply is not a limit on fire points.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:39:59

Post by: BeRzErKeR

rigeld2 wrote:

I absolutely did not ignore it. Since there are no rules for nonspecific firing points, the "instead" gives you rules.

Except it doesn't SAY that. That is something you are inserting.

Every model which has fire points listed has fire points located at a specific place on the model. These fire points are, it should be noted, NOT called 'specific' fire points; they are simply 'fire points'. Those rules should, therefore, apply to ALL fire points, specific or not. So, first objection, you have not shown that a 'nonspecific' fire point has different rules than a 'specific' one.

Open-topped transport vehicles are noted as not having any 'specific' fire points. This DOES NOT MEAN that they have 'nonspecific' fire points; it can mean just as well that they have NO fire points, because this is a negative statement, not a positive one. We already know that transports MAY have fire points; that is a positive statement, and also means that they may NOT have ANY fire points. The idea of a transport vehicle without fire points therefore exists within the ruleset. Furthermore, they have a special rule for firing, which doesn't require fire points to work! This leads to the second objection; you are inserting a rule where none exists. There is no requirement for an open-topped transport to have fire points of ANY kind, specific or non-specific; to claim that they do requires some kind of evidence, and I'm not seeing any.

rigeld2 wrote:
edit because you edited:

EDIT: Further support. Only ONE model can ever fire through a fire point. But EVERY model in an open-topped transport vehicle can fire.

So you have, in an open-topped transport, something which is never called a fire point, and follows different rules than fire points. That thing. . . is not a fire point.

You're right - only one model can fire through a specific firing point (as in one of the 2 available in a Rhino). There's no limit on non-specific firing points.

There's no such thing as a non-specific fire point at all. It simply doesn't exist within the rules.

You are assuming that a vehicle without specific fire points MUST have non-specific fire points, but that's an unjustified assumption.

In brief, you are committing the fallacy of composition. We know that some transport vehicles have fire points, and you are extrapolating from that fact the notion that ALL transport vehicles must have fire points. That isn't true, and there isn't any rules support for it. Transport vehicles MAY have fire points, but they are not required. The rules for open-topped transport vehicles do not in any way depend on the rules for fire points; they are quite clear and explicit. ". . . all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle." If the rules for fire points were excised completely from the book, some parts of the rules for open-topped transports would look strange, but they would still be completely functional.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:44:16

Post by: kirsanth

BeRzErKeR wrote:There's no such thing as a non-specific fire point at all. It simply doesn't exist within the rules.

What? Page 70 describes them in detail.

Reply by: Noir - click to view full reply 

33816

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:44:23

Post by: Noir

BeRzErKeR wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

I absolutely did not ignore it. Since there are no rules for nonspecific firing points, the "instead" gives you rules.

Except it doesn't SAY that. That is something you are inserting.

Every model which has fire points listed has fire points located at a specific place on the model. These fire points are, it should be noted, NOT called 'specific' fire points; they are simply 'fire points'. Those rules should, therefore, apply to ALL fire points, specific or not. So, first objection, you have not shown that a 'nonspecific' fire point has different rules than a 'specific' one.

Open-topped transport vehicles are noted as not having any 'specific' fire points. This DOES NOT MEAN that they have 'nonspecific' fire points; it can mean just as well that they have NO fire points, because this is a negative statement, not a positive one. We already know that transports MAY have fire points; that is a positive statement, and also means that they may NOT have ANY fire points. The idea of a transport vehicle without fire points therefore exists within the ruleset. Furthermore, they have a special rule for firing, which doesn't require fire points to work! This leads to the second objection; you are inserting a rule where none exists. There is no requirement for an open-topped transport to have fire points of ANY kind, specific or non-specific; to claim that they do requires some kind of evidence, and I'm not seeing any.

rigeld2 wrote:
edit because you edited:

EDIT: Further support. Only ONE model can ever fire through a fire point. But EVERY model in an open-topped transport vehicle can fire.

So you have, in an open-topped transport, something which is never called a fire point, and follows different rules than fire points. That thing. . . is not a fire point.

You're right - only one model can fire through a specific firing point (as in one of the 2 available in a Rhino). There's no limit on non-specific firing points.

There's no such thing as a non-specific fire point at all. It simply doesn't exist within the rules.

You are assuming that a vehicle without specific fire points MUST have non-specific fire points, but that's an unjustified assumption.

No he is assuming no specific fire point, means the whole thing is a fire point, Instead of the specific fire point being on the right side.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:46:05

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Since you two posted before my edit, I'll quote it here.

BeRzErKeR wrote:In brief, you are committing the fallacy of composition. We know that some transport vehicles have fire points, and you are extrapolating from that fact the notion that ALL transport vehicles must have fire points. That isn't true, and there isn't any rules support for it. Transport vehicles MAY have fire points, but they are not required. The rules for open-topped transport vehicles do not in any way depend on the rules for fire points; they are quite clear and explicit. ". . . all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle." If the rules for fire points were excised completely from the book, some parts of the rules for open-topped transports would look strange, but they would still be completely functional.

Reply by: Noir - click to view full reply 

33816

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:49:30

Post by: Noir

BeRzErKeR wrote:Since you two posted before my edit, I'll quote it here.

BeRzErKeR wrote:In brief, you are committing the fallacy of composition. We know that some transport vehicles have fire points, and you are extrapolating from that fact the notion that ALL transport vehicles must have fire points. That isn't true, and there isn't any rules support for it. Transport vehicles MAY have fire points, but they are not required. The rules for open-topped transport vehicles do not in any way depend on the rules for fire points; they are quite clear and explicit. ". . . all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle." If the rules for fire points were excised completely from the book, some parts of the rules for open-topped transports would look strange, but they would still be completely functional.

The rules for open-top dose have fire point rules, it's under the Transport rules part. You know what open-top transports are part of.

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:54:52

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:Since you two posted before my edit, I'll quote it here.

BeRzErKeR wrote:In brief, you are committing the fallacy of composition. We know that some transport vehicles have fire points, and you are extrapolating from that fact the notion that ALL transport vehicles must have fire points. That isn't true, and there isn't any rules support for it. Transport vehicles MAY have fire points, but they are not required. The rules for open-topped transport vehicles do not in any way depend on the rules for fire points; they are quite clear and explicit. ". . . all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle." If the rules for fire points were excised completely from the book, some parts of the rules for open-topped transports would look strange, but they would still be completely functional.

sorry, you need to go back to pg 66 and look at the second paragraph under transport vehicles. Transports HAVE additional characteristics: capacity, fire points and access points. ie all transports have those 3 characteristics.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/16 23:54:55

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Noir wrote:

The rules for open-top dose have fire point rules, it's under the Transport rules part. You know what open-top transports are part of.

More specific rules override general rules.

The rule for firing out of an Open-Topped Transport is more specific than the rule for firing out of a Transport.

The two contradict each other. The Open-Topped Transport rule overrides the Transport rule. There is no need whatsoever for an open-topped transport to have firing points, because they have a specific rule which tells you how to fire out of them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

sorry, you need to go back to pg 66 and look at the second paragraph under transport vehicles. Transports HAVE additional characteristics: capacity, fire points and access points. ie all transports have those 3 characteristics.

You need to go back to pg 66 and look at the first paragraph under Fire Points.

"A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points. . ."

If it MAY have fire points, then it also MAY NOT have fire points. Of course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a Fire Points characteristic; as you noted, all transports HAVE that characteristic. If it has no fire points, that just means that the value associated with its Fire Points characteristic is 0.

In which case no-one can fire out. . . unless it's an open-topped transport, and so has a special rule, overriding the rules for fire points, which allows them to do so.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:00:18

Post by: kirsanth

Also, not all transports have fire points; see Landraiders.

"Open-topped transports do not have specific fire points."

That sentence (especially the part in bold) is entirely worthless as BeRzErKeR posits.
There are fire points, based upon that sentence - just not specific ones. Thankfully the very next sentence (starting conveniently with "Instead") tells you how to use non-specific fire-points.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:05:02

Post by: BeRzErKeR

kirsanth wrote:Also, not all transports have fire points; see Landraiders.

"Open-topped transports do not have specific fire points."

That sentence (especially the part in bold) is entirely worthless as BeRzErKeR posits.
There are fire points, based upon that sentence - just not specific ones. Thankfully the very next sentence (starting conveniently with "Instead") tells you how to use non-specific fire-points.

No.

You cannot use a negative sentence to assume a positive statement. If I say "I have no pecans", that doesn't mean I have some kind of nut that ISN'T a pecan; it could just as easily mean that I have no nuts at all.

That sentence does NOT tell you there exist fire points of ANY kind; it tells you that, for sure, there are no specific ones. You don't know whether any non-specific ones exist or not, and since the rules don't require there to be any, there's no reason to assume that there are.

Reply by: Cryage - click to view full reply 

34618

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:07:05

Post by: Cryage

kirsanth wrote:Also, not all transports have fire points; see Landraiders.

"Open-topped transports do not have specific fire points."

That sentence (especially the part in bold) is entirely worthless as BeRzErKeR posits.
There are fire points, based upon that sentence - just not specific ones. Thankfully the very next sentence (starting conveniently with "Instead") tells you how to use non-specific fire-points.

Exactly.

What people are not getting (or just ignoring...) is that on an open topped vehicle you can fire anywhere from the hull.

When you're talking about a Fire Point from a different vehicle, lets say a rhino, it is talking about the hatch - this is used to determine where the shots are coming from and where to measure from. An open topped vehicle is simple ONE HUGE FIRE POINT.

This really isn't difficult to understand... again I'm not happy about this but just accept it already, jeez lol

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:09:36

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

sirlynchmob wrote:

sorry, you need to go back to pg 66 and look at the second paragraph under transport vehicles. Transports HAVE additional characteristics: capacity, fire points and access points. ie all transports have those 3 characteristics.

You need to go back to pg 66 and look at the first paragraph under Fire Points.

"A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points. . ."

If it MAY have fire points, then it also MAY NOT have fire points. Of course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a Fire Points characteristic; as you noted, all transports HAVE that characteristic. If it has no fire points, that just means that the value associated with its Fire Points characteristic is 0.

In which case no-one can fire out. . . unless it's an open-topped transport, and so has a special rule, overriding the rules for fire points, which allows them to do so.

look I'd love for you to be right, but if open top vehicles are not limited by fire points, then there is no reason my trucks can't go 19" and drop 12 flamer templates on someone which makes for happy orks. Its only under the fire point heading where it says passengers can't shoot if moving greater than cruising speed.

so you can have a specific fire point, where x= 0, x = 3 1 front, 1 port, 1 stbd, or no specific fire points, everyone can shoot out in a 360 circle.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:13:41

Post by: BeRzErKeR

sirlynchmob wrote:

look I'd love for you to be right, but if open top vehicles are not limited by fire points, then there is no reason my trucks can't go 19" and drop 12 flamer templates on someone which makes for happy orks. Its only under the fire point heading where it says passengers can't shoot if moving greater than cruising speed.

so you can have specifically fire number of points, where x= 0, x = 3 1 front, 1 port, 1 stbd, or no specific fire points, everyone can shoot out in a 360 circle.

The rule for firing from a moving vehicle is under the Fire Points heading, but it doesn't reference fire points at all; it says models firing "from a vehicle". That rule applies to all vehicles, whether you're firing from a fire point or not. The rules for open-topped transports ONLY contradict the rules which discuss firing FROM A FIRE POINT.

That being so, that section of the rules still applies; there's no more specific rule that contradicts it. Remember; open-topped transports DO have the Fire Points characteristic. They just have Fire Points:0, and a special rule that allows passengers to fire WITHOUT shooting from a fire point. That doesn't in any way contradict the rules for firing from a moving vehicle.

EDIT: Spelling!

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:27:39

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

look I'd love for you to be right, but if open top vehicles are not limited by fire points, then there is no reason my trucks can't go 19" and drop 12 flamer templates on someone which makes for happy orks. Its only under the fire point heading where it says passengers can't shoot if moving greater than cruising speed.

so you can have specifically fire number of points, where x= 0, x = 3 1 front, 1 port, 1 stbd, or no specific fire points, everyone can shoot out in a 360 circle.

The rule for firing from a moving vehicle is under the Fire Points heading, but it doesn't reference fire points at all; it says models firing "from a vehicle". That rule applies to all vehicles, whether you're firing from a fire point or not. The rules for open-topped transports ONLY contradict the rules which discuss firing FROM A FIRE POINT.

That being so, that section of the rules still applies; there's no more specific rule that contradicts it. Remember; open-topped transports DO have the Fire Points characteristic. They just have Fire Points:0, and a special rule that allows passengers to fire WITHOUT shooting from a fire point. That doesn't in any way contradict the rules for firing from a moving vehicle.

EDIT: Spelling!

its that they have no specific fire points, not 0. that's why everyone in the vehicle can shoot out at the same angle. just not a specific opening to shoot out of. It never says under open top that they ignore the rules for the fire point it has. if it has no fire points, than any rules for fire points would not apply. because it also says for open top that all passengers can shoot. so if anrakyr can use his mind thing, all my orks can flame after 19" of movement

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 0008/11/17 00:32:54

Post by: BeRzErKeR

sirlynchmob wrote:

its that they have no specific fire points, not 0. that's why everyone in the vehicle can shoot out at the same angle. just not a specific opening to shoot out of. It never says under open top that they ignore the rules for the fire point it has. if it has no fire points, than any rules for fire points would not apply. because it also says for open top that all passengers can shoot. so if anrakyr can use his mind thing, all my orks can flame after 19" of movement

An open-topped vehicle has no fire points; that is to say, it is a vehicle with Fire Points: 0. Since all transports have the Fire Points characteristic, open-topped transports also have that characteristic; having no fire points and having 0 fire points are exactly the same thing Because of the special rule for firing out of an open-topped transports, any rules regarding firing from a firing point do not apply.

This has nothing, at all, to do with a rule regarding firing from a moving vehicle. Is your trukk a moving vehicle? Than the rules which regard firing from a moving vehicle apply, regardless of where they are.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:35:27

Post by: copper.talos

If it is not called a firepoint, doesn't look like a fire point, it isn't defined as a firepoint, it doesn't use the rules for fire points, it is not under the entry firepoints then guess what, it's not a firepoint. BeRzErKeR's arguments are dead on. Open topped does not mean 1 fire point.

Firepoints in a vehicle are described in the entry of the vehicle. No entry = no firepoints. Anything else is just made up...

Reply by: Noir - click to view full reply 

33816

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:42:40

Post by: Noir

BeRzErKeR wrote:
An open-topped vehicle has no fire points; that is to say, it is a vehicle with Fire Points: 0. Since all transports have the Fire Points characteristic, open-topped transports also have that characteristic; having no fire points and having 0 fire points are exactly the same thing Because of the special rule for firing out of an open-topped transports, any rules regarding firing from a firing point do not apply.

So MitM can not be used. Fire Point: 0 = Fire Point.

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:43:41

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

its that they have no specific fire points, not 0. that's why everyone in the vehicle can shoot out at the same angle. just not a specific opening to shoot out of. It never says under open top that they ignore the rules for the fire point it has. if it has no fire points, than any rules for fire points would not apply. because it also says for open top that all passengers can shoot. so if anrakyr can use his mind thing, all my orks can flame after 19" of movement

An open-topped vehicle has no fire points; that is to say, it is a vehicle with Fire Points: 0. Since all transports have the Fire Points characteristic, open-topped transports also have that characteristic; having no fire points and having 0 fire points are exactly the same thing Because of the special rule for firing out of an open-topped transports, any rules regarding firing from a firing point do not apply.

This has nothing, at all, to do with a rule that regards firing from a moving vehicle. Is your trukk a moving vehicle? Than the rules which regard firing from a moving vehicle apply, regardless of where they are.

sure it does, if you have a fire point, a specific slot to shoot out of, then you can't shoot if you move more than 6" like you said previously more specific rule applies, so open top says all passengers may shoot. so more specific rule, open transport, all models can shoot. nothing about it being limited to a rule that only applies to enclosed vehicles with fire points. You can't have it both ways, either the rules for fire points affect all transports, or it only affects non open topped ones. Because all transports have fire points, weather its a specific amount of them, or a non specific amount.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:45:23

Post by: copper.talos

@Noir That is correct. No fire points at all. You use the "open topped" rules as CCB is an open topped vehicle.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:49:09

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Noir wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
An open-topped vehicle has no fire points; that is to say, it is a vehicle with Fire Points: 0. Since all transports have the Fire Points characteristic, open-topped transports also have that characteristic; having no fire points and having 0 fire points are exactly the same thing Because of the special rule for firing out of an open-topped transports, any rules regarding firing from a firing point do not apply.

So MitM can not be used. Fire Point: 0 = Fire Point.

There is a Fire Point characteristic. It has a value of 0.

There are no fire points.

These are two different ways to say the same thing.

Now; there is no fire point. You are not, therefore, firing from a fire point; there is no fire point to fire from. This is where the open-topped rules come in. And yes, you CAN use MitM, because you are NOT firing FROM a fire point.

@sirlynchmob; The rule never says "If you are firing from a fire point, from a moving vehicle". It just says "from a moving vehicle". Whether you're shooting from a fire point or not is totally irrelevant. The open-topped rule does NOT contradict this, and so it is not overridden.

Reply by: Noir - click to view full reply 

33816

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:53:10

Post by: Noir

Why dose it fill like someone trying to convince themself that it works?

Reply by: Cryage - click to view full reply 

34618

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:57:26

Post by: Cryage

Noir wrote:Why dose it fill like someone trying to convince themself that it works?

Because they are.

The argument is the interpretation of "no specific firepoint" in the wording for open topped. I don't understand the confusion, if I go for a drive and have "no specific destination" in mind, I'll still end up at a destination - just like this - An open topped vehicle has NO SPECIFIC FIREPOINT, BUT that does imply there are fire points, its just all over the hull. On a ghost ark its assuming guys are shifting around to fire anywhere out of it, therefore the vehicle itself is a firepoint. The counterpoint would be is there are UNLIMITED fire points on an open topped vehicle , and not "0"

I honestly do not get how this is so confusing.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 00:58:40

Post by: DeathReaper

BeRzErKeR wrote:There is a Fire Point characteristic. It has a value of 0.

There are no fire points.

These are two different ways to say the same thing.

Incorrect, If it had 0 fire points you could not shoot out of it, instead it has no SPECIFIC fire points.

A rhino has 1 specific fire point, which is the top hatch. You have to measure LoS and Range from the top hatch.

An open topped transport does not have any specific fire points, so there is not any one specific point on the vehicle where you have to measure LoS and Range from, you can simply measure LoS and Range from any part of the Hull. (Open topped vehicles do not have specific fire points so you dont have to shoot from a specific place).

BeRzErKeR wrote:@sirlynchmob; The rule never says "If you are firing from a fire point, from a moving vehicle". It just says "from a moving vehicle". Whether you're shooting from a fire point or not is totally irrelevant. The open-topped rule does NOT contradict this, and so it is not overridden.

The firing from a moving vehicle is under the fire points section.

Context is everything.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:00:18

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Cryage wrote:

Noir wrote:Why dose it fill like someone trying to convince themself that it works?

Because they are.

The argument is the interpretation of "no specific firepoint" in the wording for open topped. I don't understand the confusion, if I go for a drive and have "no specific destination" in mind, I'll still end up at a destination - just like this - An open topped vehicle has NO SPECIFIC FIREPOINT, BUT that does imply there are fire points, its just all over the hull. On a ghost ark its assuming guys are shifting around to fire anywhere out of it, therefore the vehicle itself is a firepoint. The counterpoint would be is there are UNLIMITED fire points on an open topped vehicle , and not "0"

I honestly do not get how this is so confusing.

Bolded your error for you. It implies nothing of the kind.

I'll repeat my example from earlier; if I say to you "I don't have any pecans", that does NOT imply that I have some other kind of nut. It might just as easily imply that I have NO NUTS AT ALL.

Reinterpreting the rules to say that open-topped vehicles have some kind of 'non-specific' fire point is clunky and totally unnecessary.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:
Incorrect, If it had 0 fire points you could not shoot out of it, instead it has no SPECIFIC fire points.

You would be right; EXCEPT that open-topped vehicles have a special rule SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THIS.

DeathReaper wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:@sirlynchmob; The rule never says "If you are firing from a fire point, from a moving vehicle". It just says "from a moving vehicle". Whether you're shooting from a fire point or not is totally irrelevant. The open-topped rule does NOT contradict this, and so it is not overridden.

The firing from a moving vehicle is under the fire points section.

Context is everything.

Doesn't matter. The rule does not reference fire points in the slightest; and I have never said that the entire SECTION is contradicted. I have said that those SPECIFIC RULES which reference fire points are contradicted.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:10:49

Post by: DeathReaper

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Incorrect, If it had 0 fire points you could not shoot out of it, instead it has no SPECIFIC fire points.

You would be right; EXCEPT that open-topped vehicles have a special rule SPECIFICALLY TO ADDRESS THIS.

and the Open topped vehicles still do not have any specific fire points.

Every part of the Hull is a fire point, because OT vehicles do not have any specific fire points, so all models can shoot out of an open topped transport.

Re-read P.66: "Transports have several additional characteristics: Transport capacity, Fire Points, and Access Points."

the rules below that section detail how these three characteristics work.

P.70 also says "Open-Topped vehicles follow the normal vehicle rules, with the additions and exceptions given below."

Then goes on to say that Open-Topped vehicles have no specific fire points. nowhere in the Open-Topped entry does it say that they do not have any fire points.

That is an important difference. so they still have fire points, but just not any specific place they can fire from.

I am not sure why there is any confusion on this.

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:15:26

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Noir wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
An open-topped vehicle has no fire points; that is to say, it is a vehicle with Fire Points: 0. Since all transports have the Fire Points characteristic, open-topped transports also have that characteristic; having no fire points and having 0 fire points are exactly the same thing Because of the special rule for firing out of an open-topped transports, any rules regarding firing from a firing point do not apply.

So MitM can not be used. Fire Point: 0 = Fire Point.

There is a Fire Point characteristic. It has a value of 0.

There are no fire points.

These are two different ways to say the same thing.

Now; there is no fire point. You are not, therefore, firing from a fire point; there is no fire point to fire from. This is where the open-topped rules come in. And yes, you CAN use MitM, because you are NOT firing FROM a fire point.

@sirlynchmob; The rule never says "If you are firing from a fire point, from a moving vehicle". It just says "from a moving vehicle". Whether you're shooting from a fire point or not is totally irrelevant. The open-topped rule does NOT contradict this, and so it is not overridden.

and where is the rule about firing from a vehicle listed? under the fire point heading. So is a open top vehicle has no fire points, then that rule would not apply. I can't say all my models have feel no pain because there is a rule for it in the book. I can only use it if something give me that ability. so if I have no fire points, then I can't use any rules for fire points.

so i'd be left with the rules under open top, and all models may shoot. so if I move 18" can I shoot? well lets look under open top transports. "all models may shoot" so yes I can

so its either like it says on pg 66, all transports have fire points weather it has a specific number or a non specific number, and MITM will not work. Because the fire point for Anrakyr is the point on the hull his LOS is measured from. or it does work and by the same arguments you use for it to work, i can use for all my models to shoot regardless of how far the transport moved.

Reply by: bagtagger - click to view full reply 

33776

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:50:53

Post by: bagtagger

What does it for me is that open topped transports don't have the option for fire points. Closed transports say how many fire points there are even if the number is zero. For open topped it just states that they are open topped and not under the fire point category. I do believe that open topped does not mean infinite fire points and you can see out of it.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:53:26

Post by: BeRzErKeR

sirlynchmob wrote:

and where is the rule about firing from a vehicle listed? under the fire point heading. So is a open top vehicle has no fire points, then that rule would not apply. I can't say all my models have feel no pain because there is a rule for it in the book. I can only use it if something give me that ability. so if I have no fire points, then I can't use any rules for fire points.

so i'd be left with the rules under open top, and all models may shoot. so if I move 18" can I shoot? well lets look under open top transports. "all models may shoot" so yes I can

so its either like it says on pg 66, all transports have fire points weather it has a specific number or a non specific number, and MITM will not work. Because the fire point for Anrakyr is the point on the hull his LOS is measured from. or it does work and by the same arguments you use for it to work, i can use for all my models to shoot regardless of how far the transport moved.

Wrong. An open-topped vehicle, as I have said over and over, DOES have the Fire Points characteristic. As such, the rules under Fire Points do in fact apply,

EXCEPT

for those rules which are specifically contradicted by a more specific rule. The rule for how many models may fire out of a fire point, and the rule which states that any model not firing out of a fire point cannot fire, are specifically contradicted by a more specific rule. The rule for firing from a moving vehicle is NOT specifically contradicted, and so remains in force. Do you understand now?

DeathReaper wrote:Every part of the Hull is a fire point, because OT vehicles do not have any specific fire points, so all models can shoot out of an open topped transport.

Re-read P.66: "Transports have several additional characteristics: Transport capacity, Fire Points, and Access Points."

the rules below that section detail how these three characteristics work.

P.70 also says "Open-Topped vehicles follow the normal vehicle rules, with the additions and exceptions given below."

Then goes on to say that Open-Topped vehicles have no specific fire points. nowhere in the Open-Topped entry does it say that they do not have any fire points.

That is an important difference. so they still have fire points, but just not any specific place they can fire from.

I am not sure why there is any confusion on this.

The confusion is on your end. You are confusing possession of a characteristic with possession of a positive number in a characteristic.

'Fire Points' is a characteristic, like BS. A vehicle with no fire points has a Fire Points characteristic of 0, in the same way that a model which cannot fire ranged weapons has a BS of 0. It is entirely possible for a vehicle to have no fire points, and still possess a Fire Points characteristic.

An open-topped vehicle has no fire points. How do we know this? Because it doesn't list any fire points. That means that it has a Fire Points characteristic of 0.

Please note; 'specific' fire points are not listed, and 'non-specific' fire points are not listed, just 'fire points'. There are no fire points of ANY KIND, specific or non-specific, on an open-topped transport; if there was a fire point, whether specific or non-specific, it would have to be listed. It isn't. If something isn't on the profile, it doesn't exist. A Terminator without Lightning Claws listed on his profile doesn't have Lightning Claws. A Land Raider without a multi-melta listed on its profile doesn't have a multi-melta. A transport without any fire points listed on its profile does not have any fire points; and since we know that ALL transports have the Fire Points characteristic, that necessarily means that it has a Fire Points characteristic of 0.

Therefore, under the normal rules, transported models cannot fire from an open-topped vehicle. But, fortunately, there is a special and specific rule on page 70, which tells us that you CAN in fact fire from an open-topped vehicle. This is an exception to the rule regarding fire points.

The vehicle has no fire points. It's Fire Points characteristic is 0. There are no fire points available to fire from, but models are in fact firing. Ergo, they are NOT firing from a fire point. This means that restrictions applicable to models firing from a fire point do not apply to models firing from an open-topped vehicle, because they are not firing from a fire point.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:55:59

Post by: DeathReaper

And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 01:58:43

Post by: BeRzErKeR

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

Reply by: Lukus83 - click to view full reply 

9345

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 02:07:11

Post by: Lukus83

Just to bring in my opinion. I think Deathreaper and others are spot on. My reasoning:

If the BRB had said "no fire points" you would have a case. But it doesn't. It says "no specific fire points" which implies that is does have them. It then goes on to describe how to utilize this non-specific firing point.

The same also applies to access points a little further down in the paragraph. It has no SPECIFIC access points, but you can embark or disembark anywhere within 2" of the hull.

Reply by: don_mondo - click to view full reply 

746

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 02:14:26

Post by: don_mondo

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 02:16:06

Post by: DeathReaper

BeRzErKeR wrote:I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

I read it, but you saying that the vehicle has a fire points characteristic and that characteristic value is 0.

This is incorrect because Fire Points: 0 (or -) is not listed in the actual rules anywhere.

Lukus83 wrote:If the BRB had said "no fire points" you would have a case. But it doesn't. It says "no specific fire points" which implies that is does have them. It then goes on to describe how to utilize this non-specific firing point.

This is Correct.

The BRB Does not say "no fire points", it says "no specific fire points"

Reply by: Mannahnin - click to view full reply 

963

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 02:19:00

Post by: Mannahnin

A) If open-topped vehicles don't use the fire point rules, then there are no rules to tell us how fast they can move and still have passengers fire out. This is clearly wrong.

B) Even if open-topped vehicles did/do grant independent permission for the passengers to fire out, they only grant permission to fire out. Not to do anything else. Not to use psychic powers, for example (that's in the Fire Points section).

Reply by: McNinja - click to view full reply 

49408

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 02:48:28

Post by: McNinja

I like how this simple question turned into a three page debate about Fire Points.
To answer the OP: No.

To answer those still confused about how fire points and open-topped transports work: Open-topped transports use their entire Hull as 1 Fire-point, from which anyone can shoot out of from any angle. An Open-topped transport therefore automatically has 1 Fire Point, unless specifically stated otherwise.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 02:50:40

Post by: rigeld2

It'd be nice if you could cite a rule to back that up... Since fire points can only have one person use them, it'd be an interesting rule.

Reply by: bagtagger - click to view full reply 

33776

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 03:00:01

Post by: bagtagger

I'm afraid both sides are at an impasse and it will have to come down to TOs.

Reply by: McNinja - click to view full reply 

49408

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 03:26:10

Post by: McNinja

rigeld2 wrote:It'd be nice if you could cite a rule to back that up... Since fire points can only have one person use them, it'd be an interesting rule.

One gigantic fire point that everyone can use?

Sorry, I should say that Open-topped transports have 1 Fire Point for each model in the transport. Technically the page 70 of the 5th Edition Rulebook states "Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle." This means the same as each model having its own Fire Point and can fire in whatever direction they want.

Honestly, this make Anrakyr a bit less useful now. He has no Res Orb, no weave, no Shifter, just the Arrow and a Warscythe. He doesn't even have BS 5, which would make his Arrow more useful. Being able to tar-pit enemy units with C-A and FC Immortals is fine, but not all that useful for players who use their troops as objective holders and not as the movers and shakers of their army (like me). Anrakyr's saving grace from being another Illuminator (he could have been a sweet Cryptek/Stalker IC, but no) was Mind of the Machine and that he was able to use it ahead of the main force. Now, he actually has to be on foot within 18", which means anyone who knows anything about Anrakyr would turn a Lascannon or equivalent weapon onto him and kill him rather quickly. Phyyrian Eternals could have been a much cooler rule (each Necron Lord in Anrakyr's Royal Court may take a Gauss Blaster or Tesla Carbine for 5 points, or even just enhanced Reanimation Protcols, 4+ even with no Res Orb), but sadly, we're stuck with what we have, and what we have isn't that good.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 03:32:13

Post by: BeRzErKeR

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

Lukus83 wrote:If the BRB had said "no fire points" you would have a case. But it doesn't. It says "no specific fire points" which implies that is does have them. It then goes on to describe how to utilize this non-specific firing point.

don_mondo wrote:That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

DeathReaper wrote:The BRB Does not say "no fire points", it says "no specific fire points"

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

It's simply not true. I have explained it twice, in this very thread, and been ignored. Not corrected, not even argued against, just ignored. I have drawn an EXACT parallel, using a situation which is in all ways the same, as an example of why this is WRONG. If this is really the argument in favor of the 'open-topped vehicle as a (non-specific) fire point' point of view, then I have to say that it has no merit whatsoever.

@Manahnin: That's true; so it's a good thing I'm not saying that open-topped vehicles ignore all the rules under 'Fire Points', then, isn't it? Go back and look at what I've actually said. You have misread my argument, and your point A is invalid.

Your point B is incorrect for a different reason; the open-topped rules say that passengers can shoot from the vehicle, AND that they can draw LOS from the vehicle. That being so, any psychic power which requires LOS can be used, and any PSA (which count as shooting) can be used. That being so, permission to use psychic powers is wrapped up in the paragraph on page 70.

Reply by: Hammer18 - click to view full reply 

49176

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 03:44:18

Post by: Hammer18

Yay for Berzerker using the English language for his argument!
And yes i completely agree with him. Anrykar is the same.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 03:55:18

Post by: puma713

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

I don't think that nosferatu, don mondo, DeathReaper, Noir, myself, rigeld2, kirsanth and others that talk, at length, about rule structure and implementation have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works." Do you really think that is true?

So, if "specific" is useless in context, why include it?

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:03:06

Post by: BeRzErKeR

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

I don't think that nosferatu, don mondo, DeathReaper, Noir, myself, rigeld2, kirsanth and others that talk, at length, about rule structure and implementation have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works." Do you really think that is true?

So, if "specific" is useless in context, why include it?

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'. That does NOT imply 'the opposite of A (a NON-specific fire point) exists', so long as an alternative is possible; and an alternative (to wit, no fire point at all) is in fact possible. It is not permissible, either grammatically or logically, to draw a conclusion from that sentence, because there are two possible conclusions and the sentence does not tell us which is accurate. Attempting to do so demonstrates a grave misunderstanding of the language and of argumentation.

Why include it? Why not? It doesn't make the sentence worse. It might have been included for reasons of flow. It might have been included so as to highlight the distinction between the 'specific' case of having fire points and the more common, 'general' case of NOT having fire points. There might be any number of other reasons, about which it is pointless to speculate. In all honesty, 'why' doesn't matter, since we're discussing the RAW here. The word is neither definitive nor even important.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:06:03

Post by: DeathReaper

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works.

On your part, yes.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

It does not "imply or state that a fire point exists" because no Specific fire point exists, that is why they do not tell you to measure from the window on the side, or the top hatch.

It means that the models in the back of the open-topped transport can measure range and LoS from any point on the hull, and not just a specific point.

Thus it still has fire points, just not anything specific.

BeRzErKeR wrote:It's simply not true. I have explained it twice, in this very thread, and been ignored. Not corrected, not even argued against, just ignored.

We ignored it after we corrected you and you ignored our correction.

As a general rule, if nosferatu, don mondo, puma713, Mannahnin, rigeld2, and myself agree on a rule, there is a good chance that it works that way.

Reply by: McNinja - click to view full reply 

49408

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:12:28

Post by: McNinja

The words "no specific" does not indicate the absence of something, but rather the non-specificity of whatever it is. If I say "I'm going to no specific house" it means I am going to a house, just not a specific one. I"ll just pick one at random. The same goes for fire points on open-topped transports, because the Fire Point of an Open-Topped vehicle is the entire vehicle. It is effectively one fire point per model embarked in the transport, and that fire point can be used to fire from any direction.

This argument just boggles the mind.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:17:19

Post by: BeRzErKeR

DeathReaper wrote:

It means that the models in the back of the open-topped transport can measure range and LoS from any point on the hull, and not just a specific point.

Thus it still has fire points, just not anything specific.

That doesn't follow, at all; this is simply a personal interpretation which is not actually supported by the words on the page. This is, in fact, the crux of the entire argument, and I'm afraid that if you want to assert it you're going to need to provide some logically consistent evidence, which no-one has so far done.

DeathReaper wrote:We ignored it after we corrected you and you ignored our correction.

As a general rule, if nosferatu, don mondo, puma713, Mannahnin, rigeld2, and myself agree on a rule, there is a good chance that it works that way.

Nobody bats a thousand, and on this point I have to say that none of the people you name here have made a solid case yet. My argument is simple, internally consistent, and takes account of all the rules of the game. The rules on pg 70 are more specific than the rules on pg 66. In those places where they contradict each other, therefore, the rules on pg 70 simply override the ones on pg 66; there is no need to try to make them fit together by postulating invisible, amorphous fire points, because the rules on pg 70 work just fine without any such thing. Given that, it's entirely permissible to both fire and use psychic powers from an open-topped vehicle, and Anrakyr can in fact use MitM while embarked on his CCB.

There has not been a single objection raised to this argument which has not been fully and logically addressed. The assertion that this allows you to fire at any speed is a straw man; the assertion that the word 'specific' implies the existence of a 'non-specific' fire point is a manifestation of the composition fallacy. Neither has any merit. If you have a different objection, I would be glad to hear it.

Reply by: Lukus83 - click to view full reply 

9345

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:18:18

Post by: Lukus83

Fire points as a general rule are specific. You pick a place located on the vehicle (as given per the rules) and work out LoS, range etc. from that point. When firing from an open topped vehicle a non-specific fire point is given in the rules. Note the word "instead", showing how to utilize this more specific rule for a non-specific fire point. It may not be in a specific place, but you are still using a fire point.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:18:35

Post by: BeRzErKeR

McNinja wrote:The words "no specific" does not indicate the absence of something, but rather the non-specificity of whatever it is. If I say "I'm going to no specific house" it means I am going to a house, just not a specific one.

If you say "I'm going to no specific house", you are making a positive statement. You are going somewhere.

If you say "I'm NOT GOING to any specific house," you are making a negative statement. We don't know if you're going ANYWHERE. This is the type of statement that "no specific fire point exists" is. It is ambiguous. It might mean that the fire point which exists is not specific, or it might mean that no fire point exists AT ALL. We cannot say which on the basis of the sentence.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:18:42

Post by: puma713

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'.

I stopped here because the flaw in your thinking just made itself clear. You're lumping the subject and the adjective describing the subject as a single subject. What it should read is 'A (specific) fire point does not exist.' Hence why "specific" is so important to this sentence. Without it, you have exactly what you're saying: 'A fire point does not exist.' But that is not what it says. 'specific fire point' is not the subject, 'fire point' is. Specific tells you what kind of fire point.

Misunderstanding of the english language indeed.

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:24:29

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

I don't think that nosferatu, don mondo, DeathReaper, Noir, myself, rigeld2, kirsanth and others that talk, at length, about rule structure and implementation have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works." Do you really think that is true?

I'll throw my hat in that ring. Now we just need to summon Ghaz or Tri.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:27:05

Post by: BeRzErKeR

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'.

I stopped here because the flaw in your thinking just made itself clear. You're lumping the subject and the adjective describing the subject as a single subject. What it should read is 'A (specific) fire point does not exist.' Hence why "specific" is so important to this sentence. Without it, you have exactly what you're saying: 'A fire point does not exist.' But that is not what it says. 'specific fire point' is not the subject, 'fire point' is. Specific tells you what kind of fire point.

Misunderstanding of the english language indeed.

You're half correct.

'Fire point' is indeed the subject. 'Specific' is an adjective modifying the subject. The ambiguity of the sentence exists (as I have been saying) because 'does not exist' could logically be negating EITHER the subject ('fire point') OR the adjective ('specific'). The negatory phrase can be applied to either, and we don't know which.

I have never said that it MUST be negating the adjective. I have said that since it COULD be negating either, we cannot ASSUME that it is negating only the adjective; and without that assumption, the whole argument for the non-specific fire point falls apart.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:43:18

Post by: puma713

BeRzErKeR wrote:

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'.

I stopped here because the flaw in your thinking just made itself clear. You're lumping the subject and the adjective describing the subject as a single subject. What it should read is 'A (specific) fire point does not exist.' Hence why "specific" is so important to this sentence. Without it, you have exactly what you're saying: 'A fire point does not exist.' But that is not what it says. 'specific fire point' is not the subject, 'fire point' is. Specific tells you what kind of fire point.

Misunderstanding of the english language indeed.

'Fire point' is indeed the subject. 'Specific' is an adjective modifying the subject. The ambiguity of the sentence exists (as I have been saying) because 'does not exist' could logically be negating EITHER the subject ('fire point') OR the adjective ('specific'). The negatory phrase can be applied to either, and we don't know which.

It is illogical to think that 'specific' is included in the sentence simply for negation. You could just as easily have the same sentence without including the adjective 'specific'. Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, we have to infer that 'specific' is included for a reason. To include it is to give 'fire point' further meaning.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 04:54:20

Post by: BeRzErKeR

puma713 wrote:

It is illogical to think that 'specific' is included in the sentence simply for negation. You could just as easily have the same sentence without including the adjective 'specific'. Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, we have to infer that 'specific' is included for a reason. To include it is to give 'fire point' further meaning.

Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, what we have to do is move on and look for some context that might give us a clue. We can't do ANYTHING with that sentence in isolation; it simply does not give us enough information.

Fortunately, the very next sentence resolves the issue handily. "Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle."

That makes it quite clear. An open-topped vehicle doesn't need ANY fire points, at all; this rule, which is more specific, overrides the rules for firing from fire points (though NOT the ones for firing from a moving vehicle), and allows the passengers to fire without having one. In this context, interpreting the previous sentence as giving an open-topped vehicle a fire point which is entirely unlike a normal fire point, simply for the sake of having a fire point to talk about, doesn't make much sense.

So then we check to see if this causes any problems with other rules. It only overrides those rules which directly contradict it, so there are no problems there, because the only rules which contradict it are the ones talking about firing out of a firing point. As I pointed out earlier, permission to use psychic powers is wrapped up in this paragraph, so there are no problems there. It doesn't allow you to fire while moving faster than you normally could.

In sum, then, we have a logically accurate, grammatically acceptable interpretation which is consistent with all the rules of the game and does not cause any gameplay problems.

Reply by: TheGreatAvatar - click to view full reply 

341

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 05:19:24

Post by: TheGreatAvatar

don_mondo wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

The CCB doesn't have a listing for fire points such that the listing is 0 (i.e., Fire Points = 0) Why? Because it's open top.

No specific fire point means just that, there is none to distinguish in order to draw a line of fire through, therefor no fire point. How else can every embarked model on a vehicle be able to shoot. Further, both range and LOS are measured from the vehicle's hull, which is definitely NOT a fire point.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 05:39:07

Post by: puma713

BeRzErKeR wrote:

puma713 wrote:

It is illogical to think that 'specific' is included in the sentence simply for negation. You could just as easily have the same sentence without including the adjective 'specific'. Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, we have to infer that 'specific' is included for a reason. To include it is to give 'fire point' further meaning.

*snip*

Except that you left out the adjective 'specific' modifying 'fire points' because it doesn't fit into your explanation. To make your interpretation work, they would have had to include that modifier for no reason. And if we're going to look at every word, including word placement and inference, we can't ignore a crucial modifier. That single word changes the meaning of the sentence.

I think it's fair to assume that we're not going to agree and move on. I will discuss it with my opponent if he has Anrakyr as an HQ option, or discuss with the TO beforehand.

Reply by: McNinja - click to view full reply 

49408

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 05:40:01

Post by: McNinja

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

The CCB doesn't have a listing for fire points such that the listing is 0 (i.e., Fire Points = 0) Why? Because it's open top.

No specific fire point means just that, there is none to distinguish in order to draw a line of fire through, therefor no fire point. How else can every embarked model on a vehicle be able to shoot. Further, both range and LOS are measured from the vehicle's hull, which is definitely NOT a fire point.

Technically, it is a fire point that any and all unit can fire through. That's why it says "no specific." There's a fire point, but it isn't 1 specific Fire point as described on p. 66 of the rulebook.

Specific Fire point: Described on p.66 of the 5th Edition rulebook.

Non-specific fire point: Anything that a model or squad can fire out of that is not a Specific Fire point.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 08:08:13

Post by: copper.talos

Where does it say that open topped equals infinite firepoints or 1 big firepoint that everyone can shoot? These are just made up.

If the entry on the CCB was "firepoints: open topped" then I would agree. As it is the open topped characteristic of a vehicle is completely different than the firepoint characteristic. If my opponent can't point at the entry "firepoints" on Anrakyr's CCB, then he can use MitM...

Reply by: McNinja - click to view full reply 

49408

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 09:10:25

Post by: McNinja

copper.talos wrote:Where does it say that open topped equals infinite firepoints or 1 big firepoint that everyone can shoot? These are just made up.

If the entry on the CCB was "firepoints: open topped" then I would agree. As it is the open topped characteristic of a vehicle is completely different than the firepoint characteristic. If my opponent can't point at the entry "firepoints" on Anrakyr's CCB, then he can use MitM...

What I meant by "1 big FP" was that if a fire point allows one person to shoot through, O-T transports function with a "fire point" (i.e place for a model/models to shoot through), but a much larger one, hence the "no specific fire point" debate. Does that mean there's a big fire point, or rather that there is no fire point? Honestly, after reading everything six thousand times, I'd have to say that Anrakyr can still use his MitM. I think I might have been a mite slowed earlier, but to me, the rules in question say that open-topped vehicles have no Fire Points as dictated on page 66 or in the brand new GW FAQ. They fire from the top of their vehicle (or whatever they're standing in), which is not a fire point as dictated on page 66. Instead of a fire point, you get O-T firing (or whatever you want to call firing from an open-topped vehicle), which, as far as I can see, has no restrictions on what can be shot from it.

Reply by: Thanatos_elNyx - click to view full reply 

649

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 09:30:14

Post by: Thanatos_elNyx

McNinja wrote:Technically, it is a fire point that any and all unit can fire through. That's why it says "no specific." There's a fire point, but it isn't 1 specific Fire point as described on p. 66 of the rulebook.

Specific Fire point: Described on p.66 of the 5th Edition rulebook.

Non-specific fire point: Anything that a model or squad can fire out of that is not a Specific Fire point.

If you are going to insert Specific in front of the default Fire Points, then would you not insert it in front of the new FAQ as well?

This isn't really a serious argument, as I don't believe that Open Topped Vehicles have Fire Points (specific or otherwise).

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 12:43:54

Post by: rigeld2

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

McNinja wrote:Technically, it is a fire point that any and all unit can fire through. That's why it says "no specific." There's a fire point, but it isn't 1 specific Fire point as described on p. 66 of the rulebook.

Specific Fire point: Described on p.66 of the 5th Edition rulebook.

Non-specific fire point: Anything that a model or squad can fire out of that is not a Specific Fire point.

If you are going to insert Specific in front of the default Fire Points, then would you not insert it in front of the new FAQ as well?

This isn't really a serious argument, as I don't believe that Open Topped Vehicles have Fire Points (specific or otherwise).

Because they wanted OT vehicles to be affected by the FAQ?


Aside from the CCB - who uses open topped vehicles and has an ability that isn't psychic that requires LOS? Not that I've memorized all the codexes, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. If that's the case, and OT transports don't have firing points, then the FAQ is worthless.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 0012/09/07 06:54:20

Post by: BeRzErKeR

rigeld2 wrote:
Because they wanted OT vehicles to be affected by the FAQ?


Aside from the CCB - who uses open topped vehicles and has an ability that isn't psychic that requires LOS? Not that I've memorized all the codexes, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. If that's the case, and OT transports don't have firing points, then the FAQ is worthless.

It says 'use its fire points'. The question is applicable to non-open topped transport vehicles (in fact, as we've been discussing here, it's ONLY applicable to non-open topped vehicles).

Reply by: PierreTheMime - click to view full reply 

53717

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 13:58:27

Post by: PierreTheMime

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the GW rules team has responded to my question about this exact thing.

PierreTheMime wrote:Could you please clarify the official ruling on this recent FAQ update as it related to open-topped vehicles?

Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

As open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points, how might this affect Anrakyr The Traveller's Mind in the Machine power? As Mind in the Machine requires line of sight to the target, would the model be unable to utilize this power at any time while embarked in any vehicle?

I would really appreciate an answer to this, as this is a fairly popular choice within the Necron codex and it would be helpful to know if my choices (or a Necron opponents) were legal in both local and tournament play.

Thank you very much for your time

gamesfaqs at games-workshop.co.uk wrote:Morning,

I will make sure this gets updated in the next FAQ update. Whilst an open-topped vehicle doesn’t have a specific fire point it is still a fire point, albeit one that encompasses the entire hull of the vehicle.

Hope this helps,
FAQ Team

As a Necron player I'm a little disappointed, but at least there's now a solid answer. It's likely this rulebook FAQ was created specifically for this unit, as about the only other unit I can think of that has an ability this affects is a Psyker Battle Squad and that's been around for years.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:02:25

Post by: nosferatu1001

Except it does affect open topped, as we've discussed here.

It also affects Njal

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:05:57

Post by: copper.talos

@PierreTheMime
Tenet 2 of "you make da call"
2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

This is also your 1st post, so you have no prior history to be characterized as reliable. I wouldn't count on anyone believing this "email" of yours...

Reply by: PierreTheMime - click to view full reply 

53717

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:13:33

Post by: PierreTheMime

Fair enough. I just figured I'd share. You're welcome to continue arguing the point but I have a suspicion that it will be resolved in FAQ update soon enough.

Edit:
Adding a screencap of my mail just for anyone interested. I suppose I could have spent hours completely replicating GMail images though.
http://i40.tinypic.com/bdvawy.png (I only have paint at work so I couldn't shrink it and still have it legible)

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:15:06

Post by: copper.talos

I hope it does too. Along with some other things...

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:31:07

Post by: BeRzErKeR

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except it does affect open topped, as we've discussed here.

It also affects Njal

That's a nice assertion, but, well. . . still no actual evidence. Do you have something to contribute to the discussion?

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:43:39

Post by: nosferatu1001

Yes, its been contributed already.

Your argument is, at best, an assertion that the subject is unclear. Which it isnt, but that was your assertion

You then came to the conclusion that OT means no fire point, and have baldly stated that since.

It isnt unclear; having no specific destination doesnt mean you have no destination. No specific fire point does not mean no firepoint, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 14:50:59

Post by: copper.talos

No you are just trying to convince that no firepoints=firepoints. OK then, no ceramite plating=ceramite plating. I like this new CCB even better.


Bottom end: A faq is given to restrict abilities through some transports. All other transports are unrestricted. It's as simple as that.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:12:33

Post by: BeRzErKeR

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yes, its been contributed already.

Your argument is, at best, an assertion that the subject is unclear. Which it isnt, but that was your assertion

You then came to the conclusion that OT means no fire point, and have baldly stated that since.

It isnt unclear; having no specific destination doesnt mean you have no destination. No specific fire point does not mean no firepoint, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

What this post shows, actually, is that you haven't read my argument. It begins, yes, with noting that the mere inclusion of the word 'specific' does not imply that a fire point exists. It implies one of TWO things; EITHER a (non-specific) fire point exists, OR no fire point exists at ALL. Both readings are perfectly valid, taking the sentence in isolation. Having 'no specific destination' can, in fact, mean that you have no destination. If we stop here, no decision can be made.

However, the NEXT sentence clears it up quite nicely, because no fire point is NECESSARY. So we have to choose between interpreting the sentence above to imply a fire point, or not; but now we know that we don't NEED a fire point. Why, then, should we infer one? Particularly when we have to infer the existence of a 'fire point' that is in no way similar to ANY OTHER INSTANCE of the words 'fire point' in the ruleset? In order to even make this argument you have to present the idea of a 'general fire point', a concept which exists nowhere in the ruleset, and then assert that it is bound by SOME (but not all) of the rules that 'fire points' are bound by. In short, you have to attach a whole new sub-section of rules to 'fire points', and I don't see where you got permission to do that. Without that permission, you CAN'T; which leaves us with the assumption that since no fire point is mentioned, no fire point exists. And the game works just fine under that assumption.

In order to refute this argument, you need one of two things.

1. Proof that the inclusion of the word 'specific' automatically means that a fire point exists. You can't get this, because none exists. A negative statement about one thing does not imply a positive affirmation of the opposite, which is what you are asserting.

2. Evidence that without a fire point, the vehicle is non-functional; or, to rephrase, evidence that the Fire Point rules override the (more specific) rules for firing and drawing LOS from an open-topped transport. This would require rejecting the concept of specific > general, which would have many other, wide-ranging consequences in the ruleset.

If you can't do either of those things, then I'm afraid you don't have an argument.

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:15:56

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

Bottom end: A faq is given to restrict abilities through some transports. All other transports are unrestricted. It's as simple as that.

But it doesn't restrict specific transports.

Reply by: Tye_Informer - click to view full reply 

42856

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:34:38

Post by: Tye_Informer

nosferatu1001 wrote: No specific fire point does not mean no firepoint, no matter how many times you repeat yourself.

I agree.

In order for passengers to fire, the rules say they have to use a firepoint. Here is an excerpt from the rules.

FIRE POINTS
A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points
defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or gun slit
from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle
can fire (or use a psychic power).
Unless specified differently in the vehicle’s entry, a
single passenger may fire out of a fire point and the
other transported models may not fire. Ranges and line
of sight are measured from the fire point itself.

[emphasis added]

If the transport you are on says Fire points : None then no passengers could fire. Location of the fire points is also important, because all measuring for LOS and distance is done from that specific location. So, given that we acknowledge that the transport must have fire points to fire, we look at the open topped entry.

OPEN-TOPPED TRANSPORT VEHICLES
Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points.
Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may
fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of
the vehicle.

So we know that in order to fire, the transport must have fire points now we find that the Open-topped vehicle fire points are not specific locations on the vehicle, so we can measure from anywhere on the vehicle.

So, now we know that, unless specified differently in the codex, any open topped transport has fire points that can be fired out of, there are enough points on the vehicle that all passengers can fire from, and those fire points are anywhere on the vehicle hull.

Any questions?

Reply by: Creon - click to view full reply 

7113

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:37:41

Post by: Creon

I think this is a thread that's gone to simple restating of each camp's arguments. I think we all understand one side of this thinks Anrakyr can fire cause Open topped don't have Fire points,and the other side denies this as they read the sentence as making the entire hull available as a fire point. I don't think either side is going to convince the other. TOs will have to judge, until a FAQ update is made.

My vote? Doesn't work from a Transport of any sort.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:42:02

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Tye_Informer wrote:

I agree.

In order for passengers to fire, the rules say they have to use a firepoint. Here is an excerpt from the rules.

FIRE POINTS
A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points
defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or gun slit
from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle
can fire (or use a psychic power).
Unless specified differently in the vehicle’s entry, a
single passenger may fire out of a fire point and the
other transported models may not fire. Ranges and line
of sight are measured from the fire point itself.

[emphasis added]

If the transport you are on says Fire points : None then no passengers could fire. Location of the fire points is also important, because all measuring for LOS and distance is done from that specific location. So, given that we acknowledge that the transport must have fire points to fire, we look at the open topped entry.

OPEN-TOPPED TRANSPORT VEHICLES
Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points.
Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may
fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of
the vehicle.

So we know that in order to fire, the transport must have fire points now we find that the Open-topped vehicle fire points are not specific locations on the vehicle, so we can measure from anywhere on the vehicle.

So, now we know that, unless specified differently in the codex, any open topped transport has fire points that can be fired out of, there are enough points on the vehicle that all passengers can fire from, and those fire points are anywhere on the vehicle hull.

Any questions?

Sigh.

Read that quote from the Open-Topped rules again. It DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the general rules for firing from a vehicle.

Now tell me which is more specific; Transports, or Open-Topped Transports?

Now tell me which rule takes precedence in a rules dispute; the more general rule, or the more specific rule?

Now put it all together, and tell me why an Open-Topped Transport requires a fire point. (Hint; it doesn't).

There is no reason to try and make those rules fit together. They contradict each other, and one of them overrides the other. That's how special rules work. There is no need for a fire point. If the transport had any fire points, then it would have a number of fire points listed. There are no exceptions for 'general' fire points, because 'general' fire points are a concept you are making up without any rules backing.

Let me try a different example.

I have a box, with the lid on. You can't see into it. You ask me, "Hey, what's in the box?"

I say, "This box does not have any apples inside."

Does this mean I have a piece of fruit in the box? NO. Believing that just because I specifically mentioned apples, I MUST have some kind of fruit in the box, is an unsupported assumption.

Similarly, believing that "no specific fire points" means that there exists some kind of fire point is an unsupported assumption.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:52:57

Post by: Happyjew

Fair enough, however, there is no rule allowing you to do anything other than shooting, embarking and disembarking from an OT vehicle. Is MitM a shooting ability or Psychic power? If not it can't be used.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:56:27

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:Fair enough, however, there is no rule allowing you to do anything other than shooting, embarking and disembarking from an OT vehicle. Is MitM a shooting ability or Psychic power? If not it can't be used.

Except that page 70 allows embarked units to draw LOS from the vehicle. There is never anything specifically disallowing you from using a Psychic power or wargear from a transport; the issue, normally, is that you cannot draw LOS from the model because the model isn't on the table, so you have to use a fire point.

A psychic power or piece of wargear that requires LOS, however, can be used just fine from an open-topped transport, because you are told how to draw LOS for embarked models. All the rules work together just fine.

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 15:58:07

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Tye_Informer wrote:

I agree.

In order for passengers to fire, the rules say they have to use a firepoint. Here is an excerpt from the rules.

FIRE POINTS
A transport vehicle may have a number of fire points
defined in its entry. A fire point is a hatch or gun slit
from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle
can fire (or use a psychic power).
Unless specified differently in the vehicle’s entry, a
single passenger may fire out of a fire point and the
other transported models may not fire. Ranges and line
of sight are measured from the fire point itself.

[emphasis added]

If the transport you are on says Fire points : None then no passengers could fire. Location of the fire points is also important, because all measuring for LOS and distance is done from that specific location. So, given that we acknowledge that the transport must have fire points to fire, we look at the open topped entry.

OPEN-TOPPED TRANSPORT VEHICLES
Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points.
Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may
fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of
the vehicle.

So we know that in order to fire, the transport must have fire points now we find that the Open-topped vehicle fire points are not specific locations on the vehicle, so we can measure from anywhere on the vehicle.

So, now we know that, unless specified differently in the codex, any open topped transport has fire points that can be fired out of, there are enough points on the vehicle that all passengers can fire from, and those fire points are anywhere on the vehicle hull.

Any questions?

Sigh.

Read that quote from the Open-Topped rules again. It DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS the general rules for firing from a vehicle.

Now tell me which is more specific; Transports, or Open-Topped Transports?

Now tell me which rule takes precedence in a rules dispute; the more general rule, or the more specific rule?

Now put it all together, and tell me why an Open-Topped Transport requires a fire point. (Hint; it doesn't).

There is no reason to try and make those rules fit together. They contradict each other, and one of them overrides the other. That's how special rules work. There is no need for a fire point. If the transport had any fire points, then it would have a number of fire points listed. There are no exceptions for 'general' fire points, because 'general' fire points are a concept you are making up without any rules backing.

Let me try a different example.

I have a box, with the lid on. You can't see into it. You ask me, "Hey, what's in the box?"

I say, "This box does not have any apples inside."

Does this mean I have a piece of fruit in the box? NO. Believing that just because I specifically mentioned apples, I MUST have some kind of fruit in the box, is an unsupported assumption.

Similarly, believing that "no specific fire points" means that there exists some kind of fire point is an unsupported assumption.

You still on this? ok well like you've been saying if a open top does not need, have, nor use fire points, then any rules for fire points are irrelevant to open top transports right?
Because all models may shoot is more specific than a single passenger may shoot.

But lets get back on track.
pg 66, all transports have fire points.
pg 66 under fire points describe specific fire points where you draw line of site to the fire point
pg 70 OT transport still have fire points, its still bound by the rules under fire points. non specific fire points draws line of site to the hull. the point on the hull is your fire point, its just not a specified point.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:03:58

Post by: BeRzErKeR

sirlynchmob wrote:

You still on this? ok well like you've been saying if a open top does not need, have, nor use fire points, then any rules for fire points are irrelevant to open top transports right?
Because all models may shoot is more specific than a single passenger may shoot.

But lets get back on track.
pg 66, all transports have fire points.
pg 66 under fire points describe specific fire points where you draw line of site to the fire point
pg 70 OT transport still have fire points, its still bound by the rules under fire points except for those rules which are specifically contradicted by the rules on page 70, and thus overridden. non specific fire points are unnecessary, never mentioned anywhere, we have no permission to extrapolate their existence, and thus do not exist.

Fixed that for you, and bolded the corrections. You either aren't paying attention to what I've been saying, or you simply aren't understanding it. I'll try again.

The Land Raider has a Fire Points characteristic, right? It's a transport, it has to have a Fire Points characteristic. In fact, it's even written on the vehicle profile!

How many fire points does it have? Zero. It is a transport, and has NO FIRE POINTS. So the passengers can't shoot.

An Ork Trukk is a transport, so it has to have a Fire Points characteristic; page 66 tells us that all transports have this characteristic.

How many fire points does it have? ZERO. So the passengers can't shoot. . . Except they have this handy special rule, on page 70, which tells us they can shoot, and doesn't mention fire points at ALL except to deny that they exist.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:06:46

Post by: Happyjew

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Fair enough, however, there is no rule allowing you to do anything other than shooting, embarking and disembarking from an OT vehicle. Is MitM a shooting ability or Psychic power? If not it can't be used.

Except that page 70 allows embarked units to draw LOS from the vehicle. There is never anything specifically disallowing you from using a Psychic power or wargear from a transport; the issue, normally, is that you cannot draw LOS from the model because the model isn't on the table, so you have to use a fire point.

A psychic power or piece of wargear that requires LOS, however, can be used just fine from an open-topped transport, because you are told how to draw LOS for embarked models. All the rules work together just fine.

Let's see, the only thing on LOS I'm seeing is "Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and lie of sight from the hull of the vehicle." It's only talking about firing, nothing else.
Per the FAQ, non-PSA's can be used from a vehicle but they require you to use a fire point. Per your claim, you can't even use non-PSA psychic powers from an OT vehicle, because the FAQ specifies vehicles with Fire Points.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:07:04

Post by: nosferatu1001

COpper - stop removing words like "specific" from your argument, or pretending someone is saying something theyre not. It renders it irrelevant and entirely ignorable.

Bezerker - 1 and 2 have already been covered.

Your attempts at claiming OT have no firepoints has no basis.

Reply by: sirlynchmob - click to view full reply 

43621

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:07:30

Post by: sirlynchmob

BeRzErKeR wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

You still on this? ok well like you've been saying if a open top does not need, have, nor use fire points, then any rules for fire points are irrelevant to open top transports right?
Because all models may shoot is more specific than a single passenger may shoot.

But lets get back on track.
pg 66, all transports have fire points.
pg 66 under fire points describe specific fire points where you draw line of site to the fire point
pg 70 OT transport still have fire points, its still bound by the rules under fire points except for those rules which are specifically contradicted by the rules on page 70, and thus overridden. non specific fire points are unnecessary, never mentioned anywhere, we have no permission to extrapolate their existence, and thus do not exist.

Fixed that for you, and bolded the corrections. You either aren't paying attention to what I've been saying, or you simply aren't understanding it. I'll try again.

The Land Raider has a Fire Points characteristic, right? It's a transport, it has to have a Fire Points characteristic. In fact, it's even written on the vehicle profile!

How many fire points does it have? Zero. It is a transport, and has NO FIRE POINTS. So the passengers can't shoot.

An Ork Trukk is a transport, so it has to have a Fire Points characteristic; page 66 tells us that all transports have this characteristic.

How many fire points does it have? ZERO. So the passengers can't shoot. . . Except they have this handy special rule, on page 70, which tells us they can shoot, and doesn't mention fire points at ALL except to deny that they exist.

thanks for clearing that up then, my orks will be happy to know they can go across the battlefield at 19" and still shoot.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:09:26

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:

Let's see, the only thing on LOS I'm seeing is "Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and lie of sight from the hull of the vehicle." It's only talking about firing, nothing else.
Per the FAQ, non-PSA's can be used from a vehicle but they require you to use a fire point. Per your claim, you can't even use non-PSA psychic powers from an OT vehicle, because the FAQ specifies vehicles with Fire Points.

The only rules for LOS in the GAME are associated with shooting. If you cannot use the Shooting rules to draw LOS, then you can never draw LOS for anything, ever, that is not firing a weapon.

Could you quote the FAQ question you're referring to? Because the one in the OP says nothing of the kind.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:10:20

Post by: Happyjew

BGB FAQ, page 3:
Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a
Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport
vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will
count as one model shooting through that fire point if
the power is used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and
has a range or an area of effect that is normally
measured from the model using it, these are measured
from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking
section on page 66.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:11:33

Post by: BeRzErKeR

nosferatu1001 wrote:COpper - stop removing words like "specific" from your argument, or pretending someone is saying something theyre not. It renders it irrelevant and entirely ignorable.

Bezerker - 1 and 2 have already been covered.

Your attempts at claiming OT have no firepoints has no basis.

They have? That's very interesting. So then, specific rules do NOT override general ones, and any negative statements automatically imply a positive statement about the opposite?

Congratulations on single-handedly overturning the entire paradigm on which logical argument is based. I commend you. . . I think. However, please provide some evidence of these claims; they're really quite extraordinary.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:14:00

Post by: nosferatu1001

Ah, now youre leaping to unsupported conclusions.

Stop slippery sloping.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:15:04

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:BGB FAQ, page 3:
Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a
Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport
vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will
count as one model shooting through that fire point if
the power is used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and
has a range or an area of effect that is normally
measured from the model using it, these are measured
from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking
section on page 66.

Thank you.

Please note that the answer says the power is still worked out through the vehicle's fire points, and that it counts as a model shooting from a fire point.

If my argument is correct, than this FAQ has no bearing on open-topped vehicles whatsoever; they have no fire points, do not shoot from fire points, and have a special rule that lets them do something else INSTEAD of firing through fire points. Page 70 tells us that if you would normally be required to measure from a fire point, you instead measure from anywhere on the hull. Therefore, you can use a Psychic power from an open-topped transport vehicle by measuring from anywhere on the hull.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Ah, now youre leaping to unsupported conclusions.

Stop slippery sloping.

You just said that 1 and 2 had been answered; I assumed you were referring to my points 1 and 2 in my reply to you above. If not, please explain what you were actually referring to.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:15:57

Post by: nosferatu1001

"something else INSTEAD of firing through fire points"

Except that isnt what the rules so, so you dont.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:18:07

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Except it is, and you do.

I've presented all my arguments. I've made counter-arguments to every objection I've seen, and NONE of them have been refuted. Just saying 'nuh-uh, nuh-uh, you can't do that' isn't an argument. Provide some actual, irrefutable evidence.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:18:30

Post by: Happyjew

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Please note that the answer says the power is still worked out through the vehicle's fire points, and that it counts as a model shooting from a fire point if used during the shooting phase

Fixed that for you.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:19:38

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Please note that the answer says the power is still worked out through the vehicle's fire points, and that it counts as a model shooting from a fire point if used during the shooting phase

Fixed that for you.

You're right, my mistake.

Once again, though, I have to point out that all the rules for LOS are associated with shooting. If we aren't allowed to use shooting rules to determine how to draw LOS for other things, then we can't ever use ANYTHING that requires LOS, but isn't actually shooting.

All that said, this might indeed make it illegal to use a psychic power that is not a PSA from an open-topped vehicle, except in the Shooting phase.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 16:54:36

Post by: nosferatu1001

BeRzErKeR wrote:Except it is, and you do.

I've presented all my arguments. I've made counter-arguments to every objection I've seen, and NONE of them have been refuted. Just saying 'nuh-uh, nuh-uh, you can't do that' isn't an argument. Provide some actual, irrefutable evidence.

Apparently you have a differnet definition of "refute" to everyone else then; so far you havent actually refuted anything - just jumped to slippery slope conclusions and false dichotomies in the hope we wont notice.

Hasnt worked, btw. How about this - you can play it like that if you want, everyone else wont.

Reply by: Cryage - click to view full reply 

34618

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 17:01:35

Post by: Cryage

I've seen this posted on a few other forums, and it seems the general consensus agrees - open topped = fire points do exist and therefore it doesn't work.

I know we have two die hard sides to this argument, I truly wish it would work in the favor of open topped being able to use this ability still, but from the sheer number of people saying otherwise, I doubt you'd have much of a leg to stand on.

Conclusion: Discuss with YOUR gaming group vs the internet and people you will never meet or play against. Just expect to be shut down from a TO or the majority of your friends and don't turn into TFG at your club by not accepting the ruling of the majority.

I think this horse has been beaten enough...

Reply by: The Infinite - click to view full reply 

51948

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:25:34

Post by: The Infinite

Cryage wrote:I've seen this posted on a few other forums, and it seems the general consensus agrees - open topped = fire points do exist and therefore it doesn't work.

I know we have two die hard sides to this argument, I truly wish it would work in the favor of open topped being able to use this ability still, but from the sheer number of people saying otherwise, I doubt you'd have much of a leg to stand on.

I'm afraid that is an appeal to widespread belief, a fallacious argument in and of itself.
The many can easily be wrong.

I'm with zerker, the counter arguments I have read here have provided nothing to back up their claims.

In short:
"Have no specific fire points"

is not the same as

"Have some non-specific fire point"

More is needed to make that assertion but the remainder of the rules on p70 make it clear that you don't need more, they deal with the issue in an entirely different manner.

Cryage wrote:Conclusion: Discuss with YOUR gaming group vs the internet and people you will never meet or play against. Just expect to be shut down from a TO or the majority of your friends and don't turn into TFG at your club by not accepting the ruling of the majority.

I think this horse has been beaten enough...

I agree here, it seems no-one's going to change their minds now.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:34:51

Post by: copper.talos

Firepoints is a characteristic of a vehicle. No "firepoints" entry in the description of a vehicle means no firepoints in the vehicle. As I said before if you want to make no firepoints=firepoints then I want no ceramite plating=ceramite plating and we'll call it even.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:38:01

Post by: kirsanth

The Infinite wrote:
In short:
"Have no specific fire points"

is not the same as

"Have some non-specific fire point"

\
Which is not the same as not having any fire points.

Regardless, always run with the weaker interpretation (for your own army!) of any debatable rule.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:42:24

Post by: copper.talos

Then it should be "firepoints: open topped" in the vehicle description It isn't so no firepoints for OT.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:42:27

Post by: nosferatu1001

copper.talos wrote:Firepoints is a characteristic of a vehicle. No "firepoints" entry in the description of a vehicle means no firepoints in the vehicle. As I said before if you want to make no firepoints=firepoints then I want no ceramite plating=ceramite plating and we'll call it even.

And, has been pointed out, stop removing words from rules in order to try and make an argument.

It isnt working - you do realise that, right?

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:43:43

Post by: BeRzErKeR

kirsanth wrote:

Regardless, always run with the weaker interpretation (for your own army!) of any debatable rule.

Certainly. I don't play Necrons; whenever I do end up playing a Necron player, I'll let him know that at least as far as I'm concerned, he can use MitM from a CCB.

In any case, this whole argument has gone on for long enough. This FAQ clearly needs a FAQ.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:Firepoints is a characteristic of a vehicle. No "firepoints" entry in the description of a vehicle means no firepoints in the vehicle. As I said before if you want to make no firepoints=firepoints then I want no ceramite plating=ceramite plating and we'll call it even.

And, has been pointed out, stop removing words from rules in order to try and make an argument.

It isnt working - you do realise that, right?

Nobody's removing any words, nos. You are attaching a meaning to a word that it doesn't have.

Regardless, I at least am finished on this thread.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:45:29

Post by: copper.talos

@nos You do realise that all this won't add "firepoints: open topped" in the entry of CCB in my codex. Right?

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:47:15

Post by: nosferatu1001

You do realise that the open topped rule negates the requirement for that, right?

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:51:24

Post by: copper.talos

Not if you think the vehicle has firepoints.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:53:41

Post by: nosferatu1001

"No specific firepoint"

You can keep ignoring it if you like, doesnt alter reality.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 18:56:57

Post by: copper.talos

Reality is the patterns made by the ink my codex. And guess what, they don't spell firepoints anywhere on the CCB.

As why an open topped vehicle is not a big unspecific firepoint berzeker has pointed out that time and time again...

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:11:51

Post by: nosferatu1001

"No specific firepoint"

Guess it has a fire point, just not a particularly specific one.

It's ok - you play taloshammer, we'll play by the real rules.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:14:41

Post by: DeathReaper

Open topped do not have SPECIFIC Firepoints.

There is no specific place on the vehicle you are told to measure from Thus it does not have any specific fire point.

Instead you use any point on the Hull to Fire from.

It still has fire points, just not any one specific fire point.

As Nos said "You can keep ignoring it if you like, doesnt alter reality."

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:31:45

Post by: BeRzErKeR

nosferatu1001 wrote:"No specific firepoint"

Guess it has a fire point, just not a particularly specific one.

It's ok - you play taloshammer, we'll play by the real rules.

I have bolded the part of your post where you are wrong.

STOP SAYING THIS, IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

I know I said I was done, but I simply cannot let this slide. Arguing about the rules, fine - ignoring the common tenants of logic and grammer, not fine.

I've said it before and I'll say it again; this DOES NOT FOLLOW. If you "do not have any specific fire point" that does NOT mean that you have a "nonspecific" fire point. It is an ambiguous statement that could mean two DIFFERENT things, and ignoring that fact does not make it go away.

A negative statement does not imply affirmation of the opposite. This is a BASIC tenant of logic, which you persist in brazenly ignoring. You're WRONG. This isn't a debate about what a rule means, it's a debate about one of the fundamental ideas central to all argumentation.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:32:49

Post by: nosferatu1001

Feel free to continue making things up: you will simply get ignored.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:33:15

Post by: BeRzErKeR

nosferatu1001 wrote:Feel free to continue making things up: you will simply get ignored.

Point out to me one thing that I have made up. One single thing.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:44:06

Post by: nosferatu1001

That OT have no firepoints.

You started with an "ambiguous" statement, and built from that misunderstanding of English a conclusion that is made up.

Lsat time I pointed it out you stuck your fingers in your ears and pretended it hadnt happened. Not expecting anything different here.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:50:20

Post by: BeRzErKeR

nosferatu1001 wrote:That OT have no firepoints.

You started with an "ambiguous" statement, and built from that misunderstanding of English a conclusion that is made up.

Lsat time I pointed it out you stuck your fingers in your ears and pretended it hadnt happened. Not expecting anything different here.

There is no misunderstanding of English, on my part. There is a misunderstanding of logic, on your part. The sentence is ambiguous. It is a negative statement, which denies the existence of specific fire points. That DOES NOT imply the existence of any OTHER kind of fire point.

If A, B and C are possibilities, and I tell you that A is incorrect, you do not have enough information to determine whether B or C is correct. Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Now replace A with 'specific fire points', B with 'nonspecific fire points' and C with 'no fire points'. Since nothing has changed in the logical construction of the problem, how do you decide between B and C?

You did not point anything out; you made a false assertion, which I told you was false. I even informed you exactly why it was false. Repeatedly. I haven't made anything up.

Because the sentence is ambiguous, no conclusion can be drawn from it; therefore, we must look to other nearby sentences, to give us context which we can use to choose one of the two possible interpretations. This leads us to the second sentence of the paragraph, and thus to the argument which I have now repeated many, many times.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 19:57:37

Post by: Happyjew

It would be 'nonspeciic fire point'. I can give you examples of vehicles with no fire points. In fact, every transport-capable vehicle with 0 fire points (i.e. Eldar Wave Serpent) has under its rules 'Fire Points: 0'
This means all of these vehicles have no fire points. Since Open-topped vehicles have no specific fire points, and it has no fire points: 0 (aka no fire points), we are left with unspecified fire points.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:03:28

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:It would be 'nonspeciic fire point'. I can give you examples of vehicles with no fire points. In fact, every transport-capable vehicle with 0 fire points (i.e. Eldar Wave Serpent) has under its rules 'Fire Points: 0'
This means all of these vehicles have no fire points. Since Open-topped vehicles have no specific fire points, and it has no fire points: 0 (aka no fire points), we are left with unspecified fire points.

That's a different argument; and, I must say, a better one. It still isn't sufficient, but I'd like nos to answer the question I put to him before I deal with yours. I think you see the point I was making with my post; you can't decide based solely on the information present in that sentence.

Reply by: omerakk - click to view full reply 

41831

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:03:38

Post by: omerakk

I've seen some shady stuff in this forum before, but claiming passengers can't fire out of an open topped vehicle ranks pretty high on the list.


"Open topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle"

It doesn't have specific fire points listed in my codex, therefore, you can't shoot out of it. Right. Gotcha.


"Open topped vehicles do not have specific access points. Models can embark or disembark within 2" of any point on the vehicle."

Know what else command barges don't have? Access points. So by your logic, models can't embark or disembark from a command barge either.

Fail logic is fail.

Reply by: loreweaver - click to view full reply 

52769

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:10:13

Post by: loreweaver

I think the argument (which I agree to) is...

Transports have "Fire Points" which allow models to shoot from the vehicle. For an open-topped vehicle, it doesn't have a specific location on the model from which to measure from (a "fire point" on a conventional transport) so the whole vehicle counts as the point to measure from for the purposes of range and line-of-sight.

Thus, because Anrakyr's ability is not a shooting attack, he cannot use the hull of the CCB to draw Line of Sight to a target (because of the FAQ), and thus cannot use his MitM ability.

That's the way it should stay until it gets FAQ'd in the future.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:30:31

Post by: kirsanth

BeRzErKeR wrote:That's a different argument

No, it isn't. At least not one that has not been said before. To you. In this thread. For example:

kirsanth wrote:Also, not all transports have fire points; see Landraiders.

"Open-topped transports do not have specific fire points."

That sentence (especially the part in bold) is entirely worthless as BeRzErKeR posits.
There are fire points, based upon that sentence - just not specific ones. Thankfully the very next sentence (starting conveniently with "Instead") tells you how to use non-specific fire-points.

Reply by: Tye_Informer - click to view full reply 

42856

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:43:26

Post by: Tye_Informer

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The Land Raider has a Fire Points characteristic, right? It's a transport, it has to have a Fire Points characteristic. In fact, it's even written on the vehicle profile!

How many fire points does it have? Zero. It is a transport, and has NO FIRE POINTS. So the passengers can't shoot.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
An Ork Trukk is a transport, so it has to have a Fire Points characteristic; page 66 tells us that all transports have this characteristic.

How many fire points does it have? ZERO. So the passengers can't shoot. . . Except they have this handy special rule, on page 70, which tells us they can shoot, and doesn't mention fire points at ALL except to deny that they exist.

I don't have an Ork codex, so I'll just talk about the Land Raider, Rhino and the Land Speeder Storm. The Land Raider is not open topped, page 81 says "Fire Points: None". The Rhino is also not open topped, page 76 says "Fire Points : Two models may fire from the rhino's top hatch". The Land Speeder Storm is open topped, page 75 says "Fire Points and Access Points : The land speeder storm is open topped".

So all 3 profiles have a Fire Points characteristic.

Hope that helps.

Reply by: Target - click to view full reply 

8311

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:48:11

Post by: Target

Tye_Informer wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The Land Raider has a Fire Points characteristic, right? It's a transport, it has to have a Fire Points characteristic. In fact, it's even written on the vehicle profile!

How many fire points does it have? Zero. It is a transport, and has NO FIRE POINTS. So the passengers can't shoot.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
An Ork Trukk is a transport, so it has to have a Fire Points characteristic; page 66 tells us that all transports have this characteristic.

How many fire points does it have? ZERO. So the passengers can't shoot. . . Except they have this handy special rule, on page 70, which tells us they can shoot, and doesn't mention fire points at ALL except to deny that they exist.

I don't have an Ork codex, so I'll just talk about the Land Raider, Rhino and the Land Speeder Storm. The Land Raider is not open topped, page 81 says "Fire Points: None". The Rhino is also not open topped, page 76 says "Fire Points : Two models may fire from the rhino's top hatch". The Land Speeder Storm is open topped, page 75 says "Fire Points and Access Points : The land speeder storm is open topped".

So all 3 profiles have a Fire Points characteristic.

Hope that helps.

That land speeder storm reference is so very clutch to this discussion.

Just checked it, and it does indeed say "Fire points and access points: The land speeder storm is open topped"

So it seems open topped vehicles do have fire points, which makes sense, as if they didn't, you couldn't access any of the rules to embark/disembark/fire from them, as those rules are all for fire points and access points.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:53:53

Post by: Happyjew

As it is I only have the 'Nids codex (no vehicles at all), and Eldar codex (2 transports, no fire points on either).

Reply by: coredump - click to view full reply 

4308

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 20:56:58

Post by: coredump

This is kinda moot in a way.

If you go with the assumption that OT means no fire points.

That means the *only* rules for finding LoS from an OT transport applies *only* to firing a weapon.

The only mention of how to find LoS for Psy powers in the BRB, and repeated in the FAQ, are directed specifically at Fire Points.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 21:13:01

Post by: kirsanth

coredump wrote:This is kinda moot in a way.

Which is why we are discussing it.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 21:25:14

Post by: DeathReaper

targetawg wrote:That land speeder storm reference is so very clutch to this discussion.

Just checked it, and it does indeed say "Fire points and access points: The land speeder storm is open topped"

So it seems open topped vehicles do have fire points, which makes sense, as if they didn't, you couldn't access any of the rules to embark/disembark/fire from them, as those rules are all for fire points and access points.

Which is what Myself, and a few others have been saying, and Berzerker has been ignoring, since very early on in the discussion.

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points, but they do have fire points.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 21:43:26

Post by: rigeld2

DeathReaper wrote:Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points, but they do have fire points.

But that would be factually incorrect...

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 21:47:43

Post by: azazel the cat

Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

I would argue that Anrakyr is making a shooting attack. He activates the power in the Shooting Phase, and he hits on a 3+ (he just happens to have BS 4)

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 21:47:44

Post by: BeRzErKeR

DeathReaper wrote:

Which is what Myself, and a few others have been saying, and Berzerker has been ignoring, since very early on in the discussion.

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points, but they do have fire points.

Except I haven't been ignoring that argument at all; it was one of the first things I discussed, and I have brought it up over and over and over and over again.

BeRzErKeR wrote:An Open-Topped Transport Vehicle DOES have a number of fire points; that number is zero.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Of course, that doesn't mean that it doesn't have a Fire Points characteristic; as you noted, all transports HAVE that characteristic. If it has no fire points, that just means that the value associated with its Fire Points characteristic is 0.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Remember; open-topped transports DO have the Fire Points characteristic. They just have Fire Points:0. . .

BeRzErKeR wrote:An open-topped vehicle has no fire points; that is to say, it is a vehicle with Fire Points: 0.

BeRzErKeR wrote: An open-topped vehicle, as I have said over and over, DOES have the Fire Points characteristic. As such, the rules under Fire Points do in fact apply,

EXCEPT

for those rules which are specifically contradicted by a more specific rule.

BeRzErKeR wrote:'Fire Points' is a characteristic, like BS. A vehicle with no fire points has a Fire Points characteristic of 0, in the same way that a model which cannot fire ranged weapons has a BS of 0. It is entirely possible for a vehicle to have no fire points, and still possess a Fire Points characteristic.

An open-topped vehicle has no fire points. How do we know this? Because it doesn't list any fire points. That means that it has a Fire Points characteristic of 0.

BeRzErKeR wrote:There is a Fire Point characteristic. It has a value of 0.

There are no fire points.

These are two different ways to say the same thing.

I'm not the one ignoring things, here. What YOU are ignoring is that 'Fire Points' is the name of a characteristic AS WELL AS the name of the actual thing under discussion, and the value associated with that characteristic can be ZERO. In fact, in the absence of anything positively asserting a different value, that is what we must assume the value is!

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 21:52:55

Post by: Happyjew

Just one request. Please explain to me where you get permission to draw LOS for a unit embarked on a vehicle (open-top or not) that is:
a) not shooting a weapon
b) not using a Psychic Power

From the transport rules we know how embarked models draw LOS for shooting (including PSA's).
From the FAQ we know how embarked models use psychic powers when embarked (only from a fire point).
Where are the rules for other options? (Preferably a page number).

Reply by: Yad - click to view full reply 

2633

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 22:04:03

Post by: Yad

nosferatu1001 wrote:"No specific firepoint"

Guess it has a fire point, just not a particularly specific one.

It's ok - you play taloshammer, we'll play by the real rules.

Pure fiction. There is no rule that says if a vehicle does not have a specific fire point defined in its characteristics, it instead has a 'general' one. It does not exist. Unless you can point to a page number that declares this. if so, then I'm dead wrong

-Yad

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 22:06:48

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:Just one request. Please explain to me where you get permission to draw LOS for a unit embarked on a vehicle (open-top or not) that is:
a) not shooting a weapon
b) not using a Psychic Power

From the transport rules we know how embarked models draw LOS for shooting (including PSA's).
From the FAQ we know how embarked models use psychic powers when embarked (only from a fire point).
Where are the rules for other options? (Preferably a page number).

\

Certainly. I'm getting them from page 16, which is the only place in the BGB where LOS is described and the rules for it are given.

This sounds like it should cause a problem, right? After all, permission is only given to draw LOS for shooting. And you can certainly interpret it that way. . . but as soon as you do, NOTHING that is not shooting can EVER draw LOS, no matter whether you're in a transport or not. Why? Because the LOS rules are inextricably linked with the Shooting rules, and as soon as you try to use them for anything else, things get weird really fast.

First paragraph, left side, pg. 16, "A firing unit may choose a single enemy unit. . ." This tells us that 'firing' units can choose a target. No permission for anything else. But maybe there's a more specific permission in a given codex, so this can be glossed over. But there's still. . .

Grey sidebar, same page. "Warhammer 40,000 uses what we call 'true line of sight' for shooting attacks. . ." Well, what do they use for anything that's NOT a shooting attack? It doesn't say. So now you don't know HOW to draw LOS for something that isn't shooting, unless you assume that by 'shooting' they also mean everything else for which you need to draw LOS. And then there's also. . .

Second paragraph, right side, same page. "Line of sight must be traced from the eyes of the firing model to any part of the body of at least one of the models in the target unit." So now you not only are not allowed to trace LOS for any ability that isn't 'firing', you can't do it for any ability that doesn't target a unit. Unless, once again, you replace 'firing' with 'drawing LOS'. And we're not even done, there's still. . .

One paragraph down, under 'Own Unit'; "Firing models can always draw line of sight through members of their own unit. . ." So if you're not shooting you not only don't know how to draw LOS and aren't allowed to do so even if you DID know how, members of your own unit also block your LOS, because the only exception here is for FIRING models.

In order for the LOS rules to work, it's necessary to assume that they are applicable to ALL situations when LOS is called for, not just shooting. Psychic powers, for instance, have no rules for LOS whatsoever (except PSAs, which count as firing a ranged weapon); according to the rules, if we don't assume that permission to draw LOS for shooting also gives you permission to draw LOS for other things, you can never use any non-PSA Psychic power that requires LOS.

EDIT: Just realized that, while true, none of the above actually answers the question, because it all refers only to pg. 16. THOSE restrictions must be assumed to allow anything that needs LOS in order for the rules to work at all, but the restrictions on pg. 66 and pg 70, while phrased in a very similar way, do not.

Looking again at all the pages under consideration, Happyjew is actually correct; you can't do anything EXCEPT shoot or use a psychic power from a transport, whether open-topped or not, because the restrictions on pages 66 and 70 are totally independent of the restrictions on page 16. That being so, Tankbustas can't use Bomb-squigs from a battlewagon, and Anrakyr can't use MitM from his CCB; not because of anything about fire points, but because it isn't a psychic power or Shooting attack.

Reply by: Yad - click to view full reply 

2633

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 22:08:18

Post by: Yad

azazel the cat wrote:Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

I would argue that Anrakyr is making a shooting attack. He activates the power in the Shooting Phase, and he hits on a 3+ (he just happens to have BS 4)

MitM is not a shooting attack. It happens at the start of the Shooting phase. However it never specifies that Anrakyr is 'hitting' the target. In addition, the rule never says anything to the effect of, "instead of shooting...". It's simply an ability that he can use. If it were a shooting attack then he wouldn't be able to use the Tachyon Arrow on the same phase.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and Berzerker is right. The OT rule in no way, shape, or form interacts with Fire Points. Except to say that there are none defined for such a vehicle. Instead, models can shoot measuring range and LoS from the hull. Saying that that means there must be a generic fire point that encompasses the entire vehicle is adding/creating a new rule. It strikes me that you are only doing so because you feel that models firing form a vehicle must always do so from a Fire Point. Not so, according to the OT rules.

-Yad

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 22:19:59

Post by: Happyjew

You never answered my question. I didn't ask what gives you permission to draw LOS if not firing. I asked what gives permission to draw LOS when embarked on a vehicle.

I pointed out the rules to draw LOS for firing.
I also pointed out the rules for psychic powers.
These are the only things that are covered for drawing LOS while embarked in a vehicle.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 22:20:42

Post by: nosferatu1001

Yad - except the rules tells us there is a fire point there. We know what "0" fire points looks like; we know what a specific fire point looks like; and we know what a non-specific fire point is.

Bezerker doesnt.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 22:22:24

Post by: BeRzErKeR

Happyjew wrote:You never answered my question. I didn't ask what gives you permission to draw LOS if not firing. I asked what gives permission to draw LOS when embarked on a vehicle.

I pointed out the rules to draw LOS for firing.
I also pointed out the rules for psychic powers.
These are the only things that are covered for drawing LOS while embarked in a vehicle.

You're correct; you must have posted before seeing my edit. Nobody can do anything that isn't shooting or using a Psychic power from a transport, whether open-topped or not.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 23:21:33

Post by: Necronmike

I would like to add my two cents on this, I think maybe this post has gotten away from what the real topic or question is.
I have attached a Diagram image to ref to when talking about the codex vs the BRB FAQ.
First off I think that the BRB FAQ is in Ref to people trying to use Vehicles in cover and still get “LOS” by Fire point.. Diagram “A” this would be a logical no brainer, hello if your “model” or character does not have LOS then no you can’t use your special ability. I think we need to find out in what content this rule was being used.. were players sticking the HQ in a Land Raider and then calling special ability attacks out of the “ fire Points “. Yes that would not be fair. Stick an HQ in an open top vehicle as long as the Model has LOS sure that is fair, but you will lose your cover save.
Second I would like to look at the Necron Codex talking about Mind in the Machine. Page 62 and it starts out by “ Mind in the Machine… At the start of your shooting phase, chose an enemy vehicle within 18” and in Anrakyr’s Line of Sight and Roll a D6…” this tells me it is talking about Anrakyr as the Model so I take it as the model has to have line of sight to work. The codex also does NOT stat that he has to be disembarked or embarked. It just says it has to be in los of Anrakyr. (the model). So this would be diagram “B”.
To me this would be a logical way to look at both codex and FAQ together and still have both rules work.
The Necron Codex gives us permission to do LOS during the Shooting Phase so regardless if he is embarked or not, Anrakyr can do LOS to an enemy vehicle with in 18” .. via the Necron Codex page 62.
That’s my two cents.

1

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/17 23:28:41

Post by: azazel the cat

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Happyjew wrote:You never answered my question. I didn't ask what gives you permission to draw LOS if not firing. I asked what gives permission to draw LOS when embarked on a vehicle.

I pointed out the rules to draw LOS for firing.
I also pointed out the rules for psychic powers.
These are the only things that are covered for drawing LOS while embarked in a vehicle.

You're correct; you must have posted before seeing my edit. Nobody can do anything that isn't shooting or using a Psychic power from a transport, whether open-topped or not.

Not true. You can use the Necron Solar Pulse from a transport, as it does not need LOS.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 00:45:45

Post by: BeRzErKeR

azazel the cat wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Happyjew wrote:You never answered my question. I didn't ask what gives you permission to draw LOS if not firing. I asked what gives permission to draw LOS when embarked on a vehicle.

I pointed out the rules to draw LOS for firing.
I also pointed out the rules for psychic powers.
These are the only things that are covered for drawing LOS while embarked in a vehicle.

You're correct; you must have posted before seeing my edit. Nobody can do anything that isn't shooting or using a Psychic power from a transport, whether open-topped or not.

Not true. You can use the Necron Solar Pulse from a transport, as it does not need LOS.

Touche.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 02:00:41

Post by: puma713

Soooooooo. . .we're done here?

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 02:17:49

Post by: Happyjew

On whether or not Arynky can use MitM? Yes.
However, I would not be surprised if this thread continues the "Do OT vehicles have FPs or not?" "debate" (and I use that term loosely).

Reply by: apple1988218 - click to view full reply 

46527

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 03:10:02

Post by: apple1988218

So Anrakyr can use mind in the machine in CCB but coteaz can't use i've been expecting you in chimera...

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 03:17:41

Post by: Happyjew

No, Anrakyr cannot use mintm from a ccb. However, we aredone debating that topic....

Reply by: apple1988218 - click to view full reply 

46527

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 04:35:59

Post by: apple1988218

The right guy is Nemesor Zahndrekh, he can't use counter tactics in a CCB or a ghost ark now...

Reply by: Cryage - click to view full reply 

34618

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 05:20:47

Post by: Cryage

Apple's artwork makes me smile lol

Reply by: Legend - click to view full reply 

49440

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 08:08:24

Post by: Legend

So I don't have to read 7 pages of argument could someone please post a sumary thanks

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 08:18:29

Post by: azazel the cat

Summary:
It would appear as though Anrakyr the Traveller cannot use his Mind in the Machine ability while he is embarked on a CCB, due to the recent FAQ stating that models may not use special rules or abilities that require LOS from the firing points of a transport, except for the purposes of shooting and/or psychic shooting attacks. Since the CCB is an open-topped vehicle, it has infinite firing points, and thus it does have firing points. Therefore, Anrakyr cannot use his ability while he is embarked.

This same unfortunate circumstance also affects Nemesor Zandrekh's Counter Tactics ability.

Editorial:
I'm crushed, because up until this morning I thought Anrakyr was the best Necron HQ due to the power of Mind in the Machine. However, now he is going to be instantly replaced by a generic Overlord, and I have 60 points free to use on something else. I will hold out hope that a rules errata comes along to change this slightly, as the Necron abilities such as Anrakyr's were always meant to function just like psychic abilities, only they were tech-based. However, that hope may be futile and until that day comes, I am forced to bench Anrakyr, as he is only really worth the cost if he can take a CCB and sweep attack & take over tanks. Now he must choose one or the other, and therefore is no longer worth the points cost.

Reply by: Legend - click to view full reply 

49440

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 08:55:19

Post by: Legend

Thanks

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 10:01:30

Post by: copper.talos

I have contacted the GW faq team on this and the answer was the same with PiereTheMime's posted email. GW treats open topped vehicles as one big fire point.

That settles it for me at least.

Reply by: jdjamesdean@mail.com - click to view full reply 

34666

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 10:17:36

Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com

copper.talos wrote:I have contacted the GW faq team on this and the answer was the same with PiereTheMime's posted email. GW treats open topped vehicles as one big fire point.

That settles it for me at least.

LoL the gw faq team, aka the unlucky guy who got the telephone call/email.

Kind of funny open topped vehicles are stated in the BGB as essentially being one big firing point. Had to look it up for my ork army.

Reply by: copper.talos - click to view full reply 

50763

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 10:25:18

Post by: copper.talos

Yep, but since this is debated so hard, I had to get an outside/neutral opinion. It happens to be almost an exact dublicate to PierreTheMime's email from the FAQ team, so that also shows a bit of consistency in their answer.
I am very disappointed, not with the answer, but with the way the faq was worded. It would have been much simpler to just refer to all transports and not firepoints.

Reply by: Herr Dexter - click to view full reply 

47578

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 11:07:35

Post by: Herr Dexter

On page 4 I regretted even starting to read this mess...

Tell you what - as soon as Necron FAQ gets updated yet again - Anrakyr will be permitted to use MitM while on the Barge. Period.
All elaborately over-interpreted Necron rules, were FAQ'd to Necron favor and I seriously doubt this would be an exception.

Reply by: jdjamesdean@mail.com - click to view full reply 

34666

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 11:18:01

Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com

Herr Dexter wrote:On page 4 I regretted even starting to read this mess...

Tell you what - as soon as Necron FAQ gets updated yet again - Anrakyr will be permitted to use MitM while on the Barge. Period.
All elaborately over-interpreted Necron rules, were FAQ'd to Necron favor and I seriously doubt this would be an exception.

With the exception of particle whips which in turn work just like lash whips from the Nids FAQ.

Personally I wish they had FAQ'd that moving flat out was akin to turboboosting. Would have solved heaps of problems and fixed some "loopholes"

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 11:28:31

Post by: nosferatu1001

Herr Dexter wrote:On page 4 I regretted even starting to read this mess...

Tell you what - as soon as Necron FAQ gets updated yet again - Anrakyr will be permitted to use MitM while on the Barge. Period.
All elaborately over-interpreted Necron rules, were FAQ'd to Necron favor and I seriously doubt this would be an exception.

No, it isnt "elaborately over interpreted"

Is anrakyr using a power that ISNT shooting OR psychic and requires LOS? YEs

Is he embarked on a vehicle? Yes

If the answer to the two is Yes, then he cannot use the power - as it requires LOS and you cannot draw LOS from a vehicles firepoints

Essentially Anrakyr, Njal and Coteaz (that I can think of) are the ONLY REASON FOR THIS FAQ.

Reply by: Herr Dexter - click to view full reply 

47578

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 11:41:37

Post by: Herr Dexter

But unlike Njall and Coteaz he ain't sittin in a Landraider, trying to target people via it's tiny peepholes

To be fair, he's one of "new" units bringing some unusual elemt to the game. Barge is not only his vehicle it's more of a character upgrade - in some cases you only use it to deal special attacks (Sweep Attack) and everything points at it being ment to be imprevious charriot of doom :] I really imagine his ability to get hotfixed to draw LOS from his own damn head which is clearly visible and has free, almost 360-degree overview while embarked. Unless he would try to gaze through that "backside" part of barge

Also... (although it's not really part of this discussion) This might be different in 6th edition. We will see.

EDIT: Also, Necronmike pretty much presented a reasonable explanation that apparently was ignored. Re-read his post ;]

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 12:26:45

Post by: nosferatu1001

Njal and Coteaz have never tried to do that; people have just used Firepoints previously. Not LR.

Oh, and Necronmikes explanation has no basis in rules, which is why it is ignored. In rules when you embark a model it is removed fro the table. Try to draw LOS from a model that isnt actually there.

Reply by: apple1988218 - click to view full reply 

46527

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 13:36:49

Post by: apple1988218

azazel the cat wrote:Summary:
It would appear as though Anrakyr the Traveller cannot use his Mind in the Machine ability while he is embarked on a CCB, due to the recent FAQ stating that models may not use special rules or abilities that require LOS from the firing points of a transport, except for the purposes of shooting and/or psychic shooting attacks. Since the CCB is an open-topped vehicle, it has infinite firing points, and thus it does have firing points. Therefore, Anrakyr cannot use his ability while he is embarked.

This same unfortunate circumstance also affects Nemesor Zandrekh's Counter Tactics ability.

Editorial:
I'm crushed, because up until this morning I thought Anrakyr was the best Necron HQ due to the power of Mind in the Machine. However, now he is going to be instantly replaced by a generic Overlord, and I have 60 points free to use on something else. I will hold out hope that a rules errata comes along to change this slightly, as the Necron abilities such as Anrakyr's were always meant to function just like psychic abilities, only they were tech-based. However, that hope may be futile and until that day comes, I am forced to bench Anrakyr, as he is only really worth the cost if he can take a CCB and sweep attack & take over tanks. Now he must choose one or the other, and therefore is no longer worth the points cost.

Agreed. But I think it's OP if you can move him 24" and use his ability on a vehicle

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/18 14:31:12

Post by: Necronmike

Love the Cartoon drawnings.. funny as crap.

Reply by: BSent - click to view full reply 

24093

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 02:58:15

Post by: BSent

The things is, they've made one character who was really good, and made him bad. It's not like they took a good model and turned him into a decent one. His best abilty worked best in this one patricular way, and although it can still be used, it's nowhere near as good as it was.
It would be like taking Vulkan and saying that everything only counts as twin-linked whens he's not in a vehicle.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 04:51:45

Post by: Crackgnome

I'm still leaning towards Necronmike's example, as it only mentions firing points, and does not say anything about measuring from the model itself within the vehicle.
Since you can't measure it from a firing point, that just takes 4" off the range of the ability effectively.
However, Anrakyr is physically inside the vehicle, and can draw LoS to things outside the vehicle.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 04:55:06

Post by: rigeld2

He's off the table actually, since models that embark are removed from the table. Good luck measuring LOS from there.

Plus, there is absolutely no rule allowing you to measure from the representation of a necron lord on the CCB.

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 05:07:34

Post by: azazel the cat

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Herr Dexter wrote:On page 4 I regretted even starting to read this mess...

Tell you what - as soon as Necron FAQ gets updated yet again - Anrakyr will be permitted to use MitM while on the Barge. Period.
All elaborately over-interpreted Necron rules, were FAQ'd to Necron favor and I seriously doubt this would be an exception.

No, it isnt "elaborately over interpreted"

Is anrakyr using a power that ISNT shooting OR psychic and requires LOS? YEs

Is he embarked on a vehicle? Yes

If the answer to the two is Yes, then he cannot use the power - as it requires LOS and you cannot draw LOS from a vehicles firepoints

Essentially Anrakyr, Njal and Coteaz (that I can think of) are the ONLY REASON FOR THIS FAQ.

I hope that this debate is done now... because I'm pretty sure that when nosferatu1001 & I actually agree on something, that means either A) the coffin is nailed shut, or B) the rapture is imminent.


...also, I believe Zandrekh cannot use Counter Tactics either, as it requires LOS.

Reply by: Aeon - click to view full reply 

390

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 05:41:13

Post by: Aeon

rigeld2 wrote:He's off the table actually, since models that embark are removed from the table. Good luck measuring LOS from there.

If he is off table; does that mean troops embarked on a transport in Dawn of War arent on the table either?

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 05:45:45

Post by: puma713

Crackgnome wrote:I'm still leaning towards Necronmike's example, as it only mentions firing points, and does not say anything about measuring from the model itself within the vehicle.
Since you can't measure it from a firing point, that just takes 4" off the range of the ability effectively.
However, Anrakyr is physically inside the vehicle, and can draw LoS to things outside the vehicle.

Even if you don't subscribe to the fire point debate (for some reason), then you can be sure he cannot use special rules because the only permission an embarked unit on an open-topped vehicle has is for firing. Using Mind in the Machine is not firing.

So, there are two different reasons why MitM doesn't work while embarked.

Reply by: Rephistorch - click to view full reply 

31177

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 05:50:56

Post by: Rephistorch

Ignore the underlined, my original response, read below
There is a lot of precedent for letting models use powers/abilities from a vehicle.

1) You can shoot from vehicles using a firing point to measure LOS
2) You can use a psychic shooting attack from a vehicle using the firing point to measure LOS
3) You can use ANY psychic power (not just psychic shooting, see Rulebook FAQ) from a vehicle using the firing point to mesure LOS

I would deduce that abilities that require LOS should be usable from a vehicle, from the firing point(s).

This shouldn't be a debate, I just re-read the Rulebook FAQ:
Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

Reply by: Lukus83 - click to view full reply 

9345

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 05:56:51

Post by: Lukus83

Check out page 5 of the rulebook FAQ. The 2nd portion in red is quite clear.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ninja'ed

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 06:19:41

Post by: Crackgnome

That's the issue though, because Open Topped vehicles don't have fire points.

Q: Can models embarked upon a vehicle use its fire
points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special
rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A: No.

So we'll have to wait for yet another FAQ for them to clarify if Open Topped allow the measuring of LoS, and if so, how that works.
For now, case-to-case house rules will have to clear this up.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 06:43:20

Post by: puma713

Crackgnome wrote:
For now, case-to-case house rules will have to clear this up.

No, they won't. You cannot use it from an open-topped vehicle. You can read the entire thread if you want to understand why open-topped vehicles must have fire points. But, for the sake of brevity, if you don't want to read that, there is another glaring problem:

The open-topped rules only give you permission to fire from an open-topped vehicle drawing LOS and measuring from the hull. Using special rules is no way, shape or form "firing". So, even if you want to argue the point about fire points, there is still the permission issue with drawing LOS for something that is not firing.

Reply by: BeRzErKeR - click to view full reply 

21312

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 06:45:31

Post by: BeRzErKeR

puma713 wrote:

The open-topped rules only give you permission to fire from an open-topped vehicle drawing LOS and measuring from the hull. Using special rules is no way, shape or form "firing". So, even if you want to argue the point about fire points, there is still the permission issue with drawing LOS for something that is not firing.

This. No permission given to use a special rule from an open-topped transport; the fire points issue is thus irrelevant to Anrakyr.

Reply by: Herr Dexter - click to view full reply 

47578

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 07:56:10

Post by: Herr Dexter

Thankfully people I play with use common sense in such cases - we agreed to measure from the hull
But I guess some tournaments out there are better to attend to without Anarkyr if you plan to use him that way.
Fingers x-ed for this to be more clear / revoked in 6th edition.

EDIT:
Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying your interpretation of rules is incorrect. It probably is. It simply escapes the boundaries of common sense me and most people I play with use in such situations... Anyway - thanks for bringing this up, will take note before any major game to avoid geting stuck in this debate again with someone else.

Reply by: Mandor - click to view full reply 

37352

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 08:00:21

Post by: Mandor

Herr Dexter wrote:Thankfully people I play with use common sense in such cases - we agreed to measure from the hull
But I guess some tournaments out there are better to attend to without Anarkyr if you plan to use him that way.
Fingers x-ed for this to be more clear / revoked in 6th edition.

You can always make up House Rules of course. If I think my Guardians should be BS4 coz they have an awesome paint job and my opponent agrees, why not?

Reply by: Herr Dexter - click to view full reply 

47578

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 08:07:37

Post by: Herr Dexter

Yeah I know - probably why I shouldn't have made my point here anyway

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 09:45:30

Post by: nosferatu1001

Aeon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's off the table actually, since models that embark are removed from the table. Good luck measuring LOS from there.

If he is off table; does that mean troops embarked on a transport in Dawn of War arent on the table either?

P66, measuring to or from a vehicles embarked unit.

The point is that the model on the CCB isnt actually there, according ot the real rules, so you cannot draw LOS from him. He's literally just a decorative item

Reply by: Creon - click to view full reply 

7113

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 17:44:51

Post by: Creon

Wow, I'd missed entirely the "Coteaz in a Box" army loses the "I've Been Expecting You". Interesting.

I ascribe to the theory open topped vehicles have a nonspecific firing point that all passengers can use, that is any place on the hull. Making the FAQ stop Anrakyr. I do not quote rules or pages or anything, that's been done to death. This is simply my opinion.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 17:52:24

Post by: Necronmike

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Aeon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's off the table actually, since models that embark are removed from the table. Good luck measuring LOS from there.

If he is off table; does that mean troops embarked on a transport in Dawn of War arent on the table either?

P66, measuring to or from a vehicles embarked unit.

The point is that the model on the CCB isnt actually there, according ot the real rules, so you cannot draw LOS from him. He's literally just a decorative item

Why do you say the model isn't actually on the CCB? I physically put my models on the CCB all the time. GW designed the CCB so you can put your models on it to show embarked models. I think that alone is more up to date then P66 of the 5th Edition rule book, and I’m going to use my example when using Anrakyr it is only common sense that I draw LOS to the Model not any fire point. The Necron codex lets me draw LOS to this model during the shooting phase, and does not tell me he can't be embarked on a vehicle. also I’m not breaking the FAQ portion of this rule either because I’m not drawing LOS to the Fire Point or Hull , I’m drawing LOS to my model that is Anrakyr. So that just how I’m going to play him.

It’s almost like people are saying when I drive up to McDonalds to order a Happy meal. I can't simply roll down my window to order, I need to Disembark from my car.. place my order.. Embark back in my car drive up.. Disembark again pay the person at the window.. Embark back in my car.. drive up a little more.. Disembark again get my food and .. Embark once again to drive off.. can we order like this?.. yes.. is it logical .. noooo and your going to tick off alot of people behind you. Thankfully the club I’m in are relaxed players, and use common sense when dealing with such things. we come up with an agreement fast and continue play.

So I’m going to quote the FAQ portion and break it down and show that I will not be breaking any rule while using Anrakyr in this manner.
Q. Can Models Embarked upon a vehicle use its fire points to draw line of sight to a unit to use special rules or wargear (other than shooting)? (p66)
A. No.
There it is word for word. And when I draw LOS to Anrakyr ( the model ) and he is embarked on the CCB.. am I going to use any Fire point that this question is talking about? Nope I’m drawing LOS straight to the Model that is physically placed on the CCB. (don't forget GW is a Big Fan of WYSIWYG) Just look at the question everyone.. the question is talking about using Fire Points to draw LOS, not can he use his ability while embarked. That would be two totally different questions.

That question would look like this..
Q. Can Anrakyr use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCB? ( now doesn’t this question look totally different than the one posted above? )

We, that use Anrakyr on the CCB don’t have to use any Fire Point when we draw LOS straight to Anrakyr the model. So no we are not breaking this rule when we use MitM while embarked on the CCB. This is not a trick question. the FAQ question is talking about Fire Points, not abilities. So as long as I don’t use any Fire Points to draw my LOS to Anrakyr then I’m in the clear and no rules have been broken.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 17:54:25

Post by: kirsanth

Necronmike wrote:
Why do you say the model isn't actually on the CCB?

Because that is what the rules state.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:07:38

Post by: Necronmike

kirsanth wrote:

Necronmike wrote:
Why do you say the model isn't actually on the CCB?

Because that is what the rules state.

hmmm i've read P66 and i did not see where it said that if i have a model physically embarked on a vehicle that it is just for decorations. I use WYSIWYG all the time soooo if my CCB has a named lord or over lord Embarked on it.. then by all means that model better be on it. and its not just for decorations, it is to show my opponent that yes I have a named lord or over lord on a CCB and it is very dangerous. So take cover. Because I’m coming for you.

can you give me a page number in BRB that states the model embarked if it is physicaly there its only for decorations and not for function? here i go again having to get out of my car to order a happy meal. thats not logical.

Reply by: coredump - click to view full reply 

4308

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:10:11

Post by: coredump

Necronmike wrote:

hmmm i've read P66 and i did not see where it said that if i have a model physically embarked on a vehicle that it is just for decorations. I use WYSIWYG all the time soooo if my CCB has a named lord or over lord Embarked on it.. then by all means that model better be on it. and its not just for decorations, it is to show my opponent that yes I have a named lord or over lord on a CCB and it is very dangerous. So take cover. Because I’m coming for you.

can you give me a page number in BRB that states the model embarked if it is physicaly there its only for decorations and not for function? here i go again having to get out of my car to order a happy meal. thats not logical.

Okay, since your model is 'there' and can see, and I can see it. You don't mind if my Hive Guard ignore the CCB and just shoot at Anrakyr... since they can see the model that is 'there'.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:10:28

Post by: Necronmike

also keep inmind.. my codex won't let me draw LOS to a Fire point to use mind in the machine.. it says i have to draw LOS to Anrakyr himself.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:10:33

Post by: kirsanth

Necronmike wrote:hmmm i've read P66 and i did not see where it said that if i have a model physically embarked on a vehicle that it is just for decorations

Then you missed it. The model is a marker - and optional. Third sentence under "Embarking".

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:11:04

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

BRB pg 66 wrote: ...it is removed from the table and set aside...

Pretty sure this is what the reading kitten is talking about.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:12:51

Post by: Necronmike

coredump wrote:

Necronmike wrote:

hmmm i've read P66 and i did not see where it said that if i have a model physically embarked on a vehicle that it is just for decorations. I use WYSIWYG all the time soooo if my CCB has a named lord or over lord Embarked on it.. then by all means that model better be on it. and its not just for decorations, it is to show my opponent that yes I have a named lord or over lord on a CCB and it is very dangerous. So take cover. Because I’m coming for you.

can you give me a page number in BRB that states the model embarked if it is physicaly there its only for decorations and not for function? here i go again having to get out of my car to order a happy meal. thats not logical.

Okay, since your model is 'there' and can see, and I can see it. You don't mind if my Hive Guard ignore the CCB and just shoot at Anrakyr... since they can see the model that is 'there'.

sure but you got to go threw my Quantum shielding to hit me.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:13:22

Post by: kirsanth

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

BRB pg 66 wrote: ...it is removed from the table and set aside...

Pretty sure this is what the reading kitten is talking about.

Yep yep. With emphasis on fact that the parenthetical is referencing a way to remember which squad is embarked, not a new way to play the game - thus the use of parenthesis.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:14:51

Post by: Necronmike

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

BRB pg 66 wrote: ...it is removed from the table and set aside...

Pretty sure this is what the reading kitten is talking about.

I'm looking at it and i do not see this statment. i've read this page like 6 times looking for something like this. what Paragraph?

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:18:49

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

Jesus, really? let me get out my spoon...

BRB, right column, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:24:10

Post by: Necronmike

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Jesus, really? let me get out my spoon...

BRB, right column, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence.

thank you and yes i over looked that serveral time.. but it also says that they find placing one of the units modesl on top of the transport works well.. and it still didn't say it was only for decorations .. placing a model ontop of the vehicle has function. so sorry i'm still going to use Mind in the machine while Anrakyr is embarked on the CCB. the FAQ was talking about Fire Points not on if Anrakyr can use mind in the machine or not.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:24:34

Post by: DeathReaper

Necronmike wrote:I'm looking at it and i do not see this statment. i've read this page like 6 times looking for something like this. what Paragraph?

Page 66, under the Embarking section 3rd sentence: "When the unit embarks, it is removed from the table and placed aside, making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported (we find that placing one of the unit's models on top of the transport works well!)."

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:25:47

Post by: Necronmike

yes slavetoDorkness got his spoon out and feed it to me..lol. thanks

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:27:24

Post by: DeathReaper

Placing one of the units model on top of the transport is only for the purpose of "making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported"

So only for notation do you put a model on the transport, the models are not actually on the table, because we have been told they are "removed from the table and placed aside"

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:28:27

Post by: Necronmike

so let me get this straight then.. when i embark Anrakyr on the CCB i'm now suppose to place him like he is getting onboard.. then take him off the table set him aside.. then turn around and take him and put him on the CCB because this works well.. lmao.. well i guess thats one way to order your happy meal.. sorry not going to happen on this end.. that is illogical and not practical and my friends would laugh asking what the heck i was doing. lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry i'm going back to WYSIWYG... If a lord or over lord is embarked then that model better be on the CCB and not on the side of the table.

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:30:05

Post by: DeathReaper

However you do it, remember that the model is only there to make a note of which unit is being transported.

If you are using non shooting, non Psychic powers from a transport, you are breaking the rules.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:31:12

Post by: Necronmike

so does that make his sweeping Attacks not work now because he really isn't on the CCB?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again.. GW likes WYSIWYG and the CCB has been designed to allow the model physical placment so i think that is more up todate the p66 of 5th edition.. i would say that doesn't apply to the case at hand.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:32:52

Post by: rigeld2

Necronmike wrote:so let me get this straight then.. when i embark Anrakyr on the CCB i'm now suppose to place him like he is getting onboard.. then take him off the table set him aside.. then turn around and take him and put him on the CCB because this works well.. lmao.. well i guess thats one way to order your happy meal.. sorry not going to happen on this end.. that is illogical and not practical and my friends would laugh asking what the heck i was doing. lol

You can put him on the CCB as a marker, but the unit is off the table.
Since the unit is off the table, you can't use the marker to determine LOS.

And sure - I'll get through your Quantum Shielding of 2 (since that's all it improves your AV by) to shoot the crap out of Anrakyr before he disembarks. He doesn't get the flat out cover save either - he didn't move, the vehicle did.

Do you see how silly that argument is? Comparing it to ordering a happy meal at mcdonalds is absolutely a poor argument. a) you cannot bring RL comparisons into the game b)When you get in your car, you are not removed from anything - but in the game, the unit is removed from the table.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:33:03

Post by: Necronmike

but thats my two cents and thats how i'm going to play it

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:33:55

Post by: rigeld2

Necronmike wrote:so does that make his sweeping Attacks not work now because he really isn't on the CCB?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again.. GW likes WYSIWYG and the CCB has been designed to allow the model physical placment so i think that is more up todate the p66 of 5th edition.. i would say that doesn't apply to the case at hand.

No, the CCB allows Sweeping Attacks specifically.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with WYSIWYG. GW would have to change a massive amount of rules to allow what you're saying. They haven't. It's not allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necronmike wrote:but thats my two cents and thats how i'm going to play it

Feel free. It's wrong.

Reply by: kirsanth - click to view full reply 

5873

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:34:39

Post by: kirsanth

1) WYSIWYG relates to wargear, not rules. You may be thinking TLOS.

2) TLOS does not apply to markers, especially when they mark something that is supposed to be off the table.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:36:26

Post by: Necronmike

thats fine.. i'll do what seems fair and this will get FAQ again and the 6th edition rule book will be coming out so we will see how that all gets addressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
some one should just call Matt Ward and ask how he intended this to work..lmao

Reply by: DeathReaper - click to view full reply 

31450

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:42:29

Post by: DeathReaper

Necronmike wrote:but thats my two cents and thats how i'm going to play it

If you are going to house rule it, and your opponents agree then you have no issue at all.

Just remember that:

#1 it is a House rule.

#2 Make sure you ask your opponent if it is okay to use that House rule. If not you either are not getting a game in, or you have to play without the House rule.

Reply by: Nate668 - click to view full reply 

49448

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 18:54:55

Post by: Nate668

Mike, you really need to read the rulebook, man. It's one thing to have house rules, which is fine, but you seem to not understand the rules for transports at all.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 19:08:16

Post by: Necronmike

nate you might be right.. necrons never had any transports. so ill make it a point reread all the transport rules and have one of my club members hellp me understand it..but what i find really funny about all this is.. we are talking about mind in the machine and any real necron player is going to agree that things have to be in just the right order to pull it off.. so its very rare that it is used to begain with.. it is not going to be the cause of some one loosing a game because of Mind in the Machine. i have only used it once since i've started using anrakyr. if some one is loosing to necrons, its not because of mind in the machine tilted the game. its because we get back up lol..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(picking up phone) ..hello games workshop.. can i speak to Matt Ward please? .... thank you.. i'm on hold.. i'll let evey one know what he says ok' lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
while i'm on hold ... i can still use the tachyon arrow right?.. ok ill use it from the fire point when i shoot.. lol

Reply by: Herr Dexter - click to view full reply 

47578

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 20:07:47

Post by: Herr Dexter

I share your opinion Mike. I ain't magnetising those damn lords and modifying barge only to have them off the table and use as decoration :]

Seriously - that might be ok rulewise (which again relates to most "typical" vehicles that are more like cans) but ridiculous to have barge with normal Overlord represent Barge which Anrakyr embarked.
Then if you deploy him - you have what? Two lords, but one is a clumsy decoy? Clinging so tightly to rules kills the fun. On the side - I would question WYSWIG when someone would use normal lord on barge to represent named character - would you defend that by claiming true lord is off the table? Seriously?

Reply by: Tye_Informer - click to view full reply 

42856

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 20:10:34

Post by: Tye_Informer

It's like a train wreck.

I know the answer, Anrakyr cannot use Mind-In-The-Machine while embarked on a CCB (or a Ghost Ark, or any other transport), but I keep coming back to look.

I can't help myself!

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 20:16:39

Post by: Crackgnome

Also, iirc, Sweeping Attacks do not require LoS, thus negating the need to measure from any point to use them.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 20:20:36

Post by: rigeld2

Herr Dexter wrote:I share your opinion Mike. I ain't magnetising those damn lords and modifying barge only to have them off the table and use as decoration :]

And no one said you have to...

Seriously - that might be ok rulewise (which again relates to most "typical" vehicles that are more like cans) but ridiculous to have barge with normal Overlord represent Barge which Anrakyr embarked.

You realize that the CCB is far from the only open topped vehicle in the game. Dark Elves have a lot of OT vehicles, and no one has *ever* claimed that the models riding inside get to do anything special.

Then if you deploy him - you have what? Two lords, but one is a clumsy decoy? Clinging so tightly to rules kills the fun. On the side - I would question WYSWIG when someone would use normal lord on barge to represent named character - would you defend that by claiming true lord is off the table? Seriously?

I would defend that as the marker being representative of what's off the table - since that's what it is. Or, I'd throw Dr. A up there as a marker. Either way, there's no rules issue.

Reply by: puma713 - click to view full reply 

19754

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 21:49:24

Post by: puma713

I wish there was a stronger 'boggle' orkmoticon than . But, this will just have to do. . .

Reply by: labmouse42 - click to view full reply 

1943

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 21:53:37

Post by: labmouse42

Mannahnin wrote:Nope. The Open-Topped vehicle rules only give permission to "fire" out of the vehicle.

The Fire Points rules gave permission to fire or use a psychic power from a fire point, but that's now been restricted by the brand-new FAQ to just shooting.

Does that effect IG psykers too?

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 21:58:02

Post by: rigeld2

labmouse42 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Nope. The Open-Topped vehicle rules only give permission to "fire" out of the vehicle.

The Fire Points rules gave permission to fire or use a psychic power from a fire point, but that's now been restricted by the brand-new FAQ to just shooting.

Does that effect IG psykers too?

Yes, but iirc IG psykers use PSAs, which are explicitly allowed.

Reply by: Creon - click to view full reply 

7113

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 22:01:00

Post by: Creon

No, Weaken Resolve is now not allowed from transports from what I can see. It's not a PSA and requires line of sight.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 22:06:52

Post by: Necronmike

I'm still on hold ....

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 22:09:35

Post by: rigeld2

Necronmike wrote:I'm still on hold ....

Cool story bro? Not that a phone call is relevant, but neither are the emails to GW that also ruled against you... so why not just admit that the way you're playing is a house rule and go on with life?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Creon wrote:No, Weaken Resolve is now not allowed from transports from what I can see. It's not a PSA and requires line of sight.

Sorry - forgot it wasn't a PSA. No more staring a unit down from the safety of a metal box!

Reply by: coredump - click to view full reply 

4308

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 22:54:24

Post by: coredump

Guys, weaken resolve *is* allowed. It is a psy power, it is not a special rule or piece of wargear.

All Psy powers can draw LoS from a fire point. (not just shooting ones.)

Now, if you are one of the folks that believe OT means you don't have any fire points, then you can't do it from an OT vehicle.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 23:18:09

Post by: Crackgnome

This is what confuses me.
It seems silly to allow things like Weaken Resolve to measure LoS from a vehicle, but then fully take away the use of a similar ability like MitM via a vehicle.

Reply by: Dynamix - click to view full reply 

41697

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 23:46:51

Post by: Dynamix

Point has probably been made but cant trawl through all 9 Pages sor far to see if someone has made it !

A closed vehicle needs defined points or 'windows' in the hull that a model can draw LOS from , a point ( position ) they can fire from - hence 'fire point' .
OT vehicles dont need any specific point ( position ) defined as a passenger is outside the hull , the point they can fire from is anywhere , an infinite ' window ' for simplicity they use the hull as the origin for LOS .

So I would say an OT passenger has a fire point of anywhere on the hull , self evidently a 'fire point ' of the whole vehicle - to my logic at least implied if not spelled out

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 23:50:32

Post by: Crackgnome

That has already been covered, but the FAQ states that Special Rules that require LoS cannot be used from any vehicle.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 23:59:05

Post by: Necronmike

rigeld2 wrote:

Necronmike wrote:I'm still on hold ....

Cool story bro? Not that a phone call is relevant, but neither are the emails to GW that also ruled against you... so why not just admit that the way you're playing is a house rule and go on with life?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Creon wrote:No, Weaken Resolve is now not allowed from transports from what I can see. It's not a PSA and requires line of sight.

Sorry - forgot it wasn't a PSA. No more staring a unit down from the safety of a metal box!

@ rigeld2.. omg you are soooo right.. why oh why have you forsaken me GW. is not how i play logical and fun? will you not let me buy any more models because i find a rule that is going to be used less then .01% of the time, as illogical and kinda stupid to say i can't do MITM because my model is really not there but it is and i have no fire points? OHHHHH GW i'm so so so sorry.. ( screech ) wrong... fine you don't want me to use MITM ok i won't if i ever play you. i will tell you what will happen though.. i'll do a sweep attack... blow up a tank.. disembark... shoot the tachyon arrow.. blow up anther Tank then when i can assult .. i'm going to carv a big fat hole in the side of another tank with my warscythe and blow that one up. and i'll laugh because you said that you won't let me control your heavy bolter on your Rhyno. alright don't you get it.. MITM is just a poke in the side.. the real danger is the warscythe.. and every one knows that.

ok so every one wants to hear me say its sooo right that i can't use MITM.. ok fine big deal.. id rather get off the CCB to carv holes in tanks .. thats when i laugh and love it soooo much.

so thanks for the Advice rigeld2.. sure have made getting over not being able to use MITM alot more easer.. just made me relize that i use that trick very rare, the real death is from my warscythe. ok thanks again.

oh yeah .. i'm still on hold ..lmao

Reply by: loreweaver - click to view full reply 

52769

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/19 23:59:09

Post by: loreweaver

I would say "No" on Weaken Resolve. If it's not shooty, it no workie.

Reply by: Dynamix - click to view full reply 

41697

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 00:01:33

Post by: Dynamix

Crackgnome wrote:That has already been covered, but the FAQ states that Special Rules that require LoS cannot be used from any vehicle.

Cheers , that should be the end of this thread then ? question answered ?

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 00:03:21

Post by: Necronmike

loreweaver wrote:I would say "No" on Weaken Resolve. If it's not shooty, it no workie.

I agree with lore.. no to weaken and no to mitm.. thread solved.. ( as Anrakyr is sharping his warscythe ) who needs that stupid mitm.. i 've got old faithfull right here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i'm going to blow some tanks the hell up... its so funny to roll 2d6 and add 8 to it on the charge. hehe i'm def getting in that tank one way or another.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 00:07:11

Post by: Crackgnome

Necronmike, if you're taking this seriously enough that you've spent more than five hours on hold... you're just a lost cause at this point.

As for loreweaver, non PSA psyker powers ARE allowed to draw LoS, as specifically stated in the FAQ.
"Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a
Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport
vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will
count as one model shooting through that fire point if
the power is used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and
has a range or an area of effect that is normally
measured from the model using it, these are measured
from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking
section on page 66."

The fact that they made this okay and MitM not is what bugs me, though I do agree that the FAQ disallows Anrakyr from using his ability in a vehicle.
Hopefully the next round of Necron FAQ will clear this up.

EDIT: If you plan to leave your lord in the barge, don't take Anrakyr. Save the 25 or so points and make an arrow/scythe overlord.
If he's getting out and can benefit from Furious Charge and Counter Attack, by all means use The Traveler.

Second EDIT: Also, Necronmike, you cannot charge a unit unless you shot at it previously, or did not shoot at all. So you can't arrow a tank to death then charge another in the same turn.

Reply by: nosferatu1001 - click to view full reply 

11268

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 00:11:00

Post by: nosferatu1001

loreweaver wrote:I would say "No" on Weaken Resolve. If it's not shooty, it no workie.

Necronmike wrote:

loreweaver wrote:I would say "No" on Weaken Resolve. If it's not shooty, it no workie.

I agree with lore.. no to weaken and no to mitm.. thread solved.. ( as Anrakyr is sharping his warscythe ) who needs that stupid mitm.. i 've got old faithfull right here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i'm going to blow some tanks the hell up... its so funny to roll 2d6 and add 8 to it on the charge. hehe i'm def getting in that tank one way or another.

You would both be wrong. Have a look at the BRB FAQ, and note that PSYCHIC POWERS that need LOS are permitted to use it from a firepoint.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 00:12:59

Post by: Crackgnome

Beat you to it
However, if you had wargear that needed to draw LoS and was not a shooting attack, that would also be disallowed, just as MitM is.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 00:40:04

Post by: Necronmike

I love this thread, ill post again when im done driving


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crack gnome.. Yes the joke is that I was calling Matt ward himself lol. GW has good turn around on calling tech support. But I think we should all take a look at every thing in the big picture, we play this game for fun and we all know that there is enough rules in this game to turn it into no fun. So don't kill the fun by "rules" that really shouldn't apply because it's not logical. If you do chances are your going to find it harder and harder for people that will want to do casual battles. With out casual battles you will never get good enough for those world class tournaments you win at all the time. I'm just saying, keep it fun people


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah crack gnome I know I can't assault after disembarking that's why I said " when I can assault "

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 02:16:43

Post by: Crackgnome

Well yes, fun is a big factor in these games, but if you use a skewed ruleset when playing casually, then you'll never know how your army functions in the strict ruleset if you decide to play in a tourney.
The rules are there for a reason, and while I might find it incredibly fun to say... use the Changeling's ability every time an enemy shoots (which is a possible interpretation before the FAQ clarified it), if I used that as part of my tactics for every game I played with that army, I'd never develop an army that didn't utilize that ability to win games.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 03:28:50

Post by: Necronmike

Yes i agree there is a dif in preping for a tourney but in same breath its always fun to just play to throw dice, the club im in is starting up 1000 pts tourneys. So yes i want to build a good well rounded roster for this, and train for this aswell. But im also going run other point games for fun and not going to mind if my oppent say forgets to us a shooty weapon and he has already moved models in the assult phase. Ill be the first one to say hey why dont you shoot it and lets see what happens. Then after its done resume the assult phase. I mean common its still a game and ment for fun. There is a time to be prep for tourney and a time to be relaxed.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 03:33:10

Post by: Crackgnome

These kinds of "oh I forgot to do this" mistakes are things I deal with on a regular basis, and often make myself.
This is different than using rules in a way that they are not supposed to be used.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 03:44:59

Post by: Necronmike

Well my point is i just dont see matt ward making a rule in a codex that says you can do somthing but then all of a sudden it cant happen due to a faq that was written years ago? But hey thats fine warscythe is much better tool tp use and we are all pretty sure this will get faq so what ever im not such an uptight gamer where im going to be hell bent on somthing. Im just say the way it is now is just plain stupid and not logical but thats fine i can acept things as they are for now and then when it gets fix, start playing it how it was ment to be played.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 03:47:09

Post by: Crackgnome

The FAQ was written only a handful of days ago, long after Ward wrote the dex.
Not to mention, this does not negate Anrakyr's ability to use his special rule, simply disallows him from using it while on a vehicle, which is a restraint that other models must also follow.

It's worth mentioning that the Necrons (along with all the other armies) got a FAQ the same day the BRB FAQ came out, and it did not give special permission for the Traveler to use his rule whilst embarked.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 03:59:31

Post by: Necronmike

Ok so I stand corrected again on when the brb got FAQ. Point taken and what ever. It will get fixed then we can start playing it how it was ment to be played. Sorry I just feel different about how things work. To me logic beats out most things but that's fine I'll not use mitm while embarked on ccb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok so I stand corrected again on when the brb got FAQ. Point taken and what ever. It will get fixed then we can start playing it how it was ment to be played. Sorry I just feel different about how things work. To me logic beats out most things but that's fine I'll not use mitm while embarked on ccb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well let me fix that last statement . I'll use it if the house rules say ok. But next time im in a GW tourney I won't

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 04:03:42

Post by: Crackgnome

To give you a logical fluff reason for him not to be able to use MitM, perhaps he is too concerned with the targeting systems of the vehicle he's already in to worry about trying to take over an enemy's systems.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 04:17:46

Post by: Necronmike

Surely people including folks from games workshop can see how this FAQ is not very logical not only for anrakyr but for other armies as well. Guess that's why I like nerons so much lol they are undead robots and deal with things logically, but that's a good fluff there crack gnome lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I like posting because it's building my stats here on dakka dakka lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm now a numberless necron warrior. I wonder how many post I need to reach necron overlord. I wonder if dakka dakka has the new codex in mind when lvl users that pick necrons as their army.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 05:11:40

Post by: rigeld2

Necronmike:

Why do you think this isn't the way it's intended to be? You keep insisting that Ward wrote it to be used from the CCB, and that any rule that stops that from happening is illogical, stupid, and will be changed. Why do you think that way?

Also, spamming the board just to "level up" is pretty silly and gets annoying.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 06:06:45

Post by: Crackgnome

Many people used it this way in the past three months before the FAQ was up, so it's been generally accepted as truth.
I'm in favor of it if it means IBEY won't work for Coteaz in a transport anymore.

Reply by: coredump - click to view full reply 

4308

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 06:29:24

Post by: coredump

In reality, this FAQ doesn't change anything. We were *never* allowed to use wargear or special rules that needed LoS. Because there has never been rules to allow it, nor to say how to measure LoS for wargear and special rules.

Its just that no one (including myself) realized it until this FAQ came out.

Reply by: Crackgnome - click to view full reply 

47990

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 06:35:47

Post by: Crackgnome

Same.
I just assumed rules such as this functioned the same way as psychic attacks that drew line of sight that weren't PSA.

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 07:36:00

Post by: azazel the cat

Necronmike wrote:I love this thread, ill post again when im done driving

Necronmike, you're the best.

Reply by: hollowmirror - click to view full reply 

45362

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 07:56:41

Post by: hollowmirror

the new faq creates two conditions for an ability on a vehicle.

is it a shooting attack?
does the ability require line of sight?

If question 1 is yes then question two doesn't matter. However if question 1 is no then question 2 must be no as well. Otherwise it is not allowed.

psychic hoods can be used since they do not require line of sight. The Sanguinary Priest 6" bubble can be used since it does not require line of sight. Anrakyrs power cannot be used since it is not a shooting attack, but does require line of sight.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 12:57:49

Post by: rigeld2

You forgot to add the psychic caveat. Psykers can Los from firing points.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 14:55:45

Post by: Necronmike

rigeld2 wrote:Necronmike:

Why do you think this isn't the way it's intended to be? You keep insisting that Ward wrote it to be used from the CCB, and that any rule that stops that from happening is illogical, stupid, and will be changed. Why do you think that way?

Also, spamming the board just to "level up" is pretty silly and gets annoying.

Rigeld2.. ok first off i'm playing the way everyone says it should be played.. i won't use Mitm on a CCB.. But let’s look at it from a logical point of view and as if you Were Anrakyr.. Ok so I have this "remote control" Weapons Hacking ability but the requirement is I have to be able to see my vehicle that I’m going to take control over and it has to be so close.. Due to the type of Data Transmitter that is embedded in my head. So if i have this ability and I’m embarked on a OT vehicle like the CCB ( model is physically there, even though its only for looks now because really I’m off the board because I’m embarked) lmao man i can't get over that one just yet.. way to funny.. any ways if i have this ability as long as i can physically see this Tank and its within range.. i should be able to use my Hacking code to take control over it regardless if I’m on a CCB or not (given the dice roll is good).. but that’s not how ever one is playing, soooo..I’m just trying to think how Matt was writing this and how he maybe intended it to work and opps he is human too and the FAQ nerfed it. its just logical that’s all Rigeld2... i mean if i am driving thru McDonald’s i can pick up a WIFI signal while I’m in my car.. i don't have get out of my car to pick up the signal .. I’m just saying.

As far as the spamming the board to level up.. that was a joke it was the first time i Noticed that my status changed dude. it was a joke. I have only recently joined Dakka Dakka so yeah I’m stilling learning things about this site. So yeah good to meet every one.

Reply by: Happyjew - click to view full reply 

46128

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 15:06:57

Post by: Happyjew

How dare you Necronmike? Every good dakka-ite knows that on dakka the most important rule is "Never bring logic into a WH40K debate." On a more serious note, I understand "why" he should be allowed, but unfortunately RAW went the other way.

Reply by: rigeld2 - click to view full reply 

47462

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 15:07:54

Post by: rigeld2

Necronmike wrote:any ways if i have this ability as long as i can physically see this Tank and its within range.. i should be able to use my Hacking code to take control over it regardless if I’m on a CCB or not (given the dice roll is good)

You're making some pretty wild assumptions about the fluff of how this works.

Does Dr. A have to concentrate? Doing so in a vehicle you're not piloting, especially one that moves really fast, is nontrivial.

Nevermind... you have absolutely no idea what Matt Ward intended when he wrote the rule. Maybe he intended Dr. A to never be in a CCB.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 15:08:43

Post by: Necronmike

Happyjew wrote:How dare you Necronmike? Every good dakka-ite knows that on dakka the most important rule is "Never bring logic into a WH40K debate." On a more serious note, I understand "why" he should be allowed, but unfortunately RAW went the other way.

I know shame on me.. leason learned.. now on to helping and learning on tactics and what not.. but i sure did enjoy this thread it was fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Necronmike wrote:any ways if i have this ability as long as i can physically see this Tank and its within range.. i should be able to use my Hacking code to take control over it regardless if I’m on a CCB or not (given the dice roll is good)

You're making some pretty wild assumptions about the fluff of how this works.

Does Dr. A have to concentrate? Doing so in a vehicle you're not piloting, especially one that moves really fast, is nontrivial.

Nevermind... you have absolutely no idea what Matt Ward intended when he wrote the rule. Maybe he intended Dr. A to never be in a CCB.

Rigeld.. thats fine your right i don't know what Matt had in mind.. but we will just hang back and see if it gets FAQ again.. and if it does .. i will send you an email saying "Told you so" but thats fine i can play as is.. like i said earlyer.. MITM is only used about .01% of the time just because of what has to be inplace for it to be usefull. other than that.. its Warscythe all the way.. and you can bet i've been punching holes in tanks with that bad boy since the old Codex, i was pleased to see it wasn't nerfed like my destroyers.. how ever i can say the Destroyer lord is basicaly a 1 model tank killing machine thats for sure. any ways I sure did enjoy the convo Rigeld2.. we will keep intouch after the new FAQ comes out again. ok ..ok cool.. later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and its not Wild Assumptions.. its logical and if you knew how Technology worked.. you would understand why i think the way i do and why Necrons are so logical.. just saying. .. peace out. ( this means i'm picking up my marbles and going to go to another thread and play there, this horse is dead and has been beaten alot ..lol )

Reply by: SlaveToDorkness - click to view full reply 

5182

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/20 23:33:44

Post by: SlaveToDorkness

Mike, your analogy might make more sense if MitM didn't require LOS. It's gottta be more than a wireless connection.

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/21 00:29:09

Post by: azazel the cat

Necronmike wrote:MITM is only used about .01% of the time just because of what has to be inplace for it to be usefull.

I used to use it successfully 2-3 times per game, and found that against MEQs it would typically destroy a vehicle or two and take out a combat squad, on average. Against IG...

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/21 21:08:39

Post by: Necronmike

Azazel, really well congrats on that, i have only used it just a couple of times becuse tanks never seem to be pointing at any targets other then my units lol, congrats though

Reply by: azazel the cat - click to view full reply 

50336

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/21 23:02:07

Post by: azazel the cat

Necronmike wrote:Azazel, really well congrats on that, i have only used it just a couple of times becuse tanks never seem to be pointing at any targets other then my units lol, congrats though

You get to rotate anything that isn't hull mounted... so unless you play against all-Vindicator armies, you should get some utility out of it.

Reply by: Necronmike - click to view full reply 

53211

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/01/22 01:50:29

Post by: Necronmike

Yeah i just havent ended up to where i was with in range while things were set up so i could us it. But the old destoyer lord pops alot tanks befor i can us it too much, but thats fine with me he is like a one model terminator guy. Soo ill just keep poping holes in tanks

Reply by: Boss Darvaleth - click to view full reply 

45435

Can Anrakyr use Mind-in-the-Machine while one a CCB? @ 2012/02/26 15:59:20

Post by: Boss Darvaleth

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:The opposite of specific is general. Say the phrase 'general point' to yourself. Notice how it makes no sense at all? A point is, by definition, specific; that's what the word means. You cannot have a general point, and so you cannot have a general firing point, not without radically changing the definition of at least one of those words.

No.... just no.

First of all, a general point does make sense to me. As in, "In general my point is..." or "Generally your point is correct, but this this and this are incorrect." but that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Does "in general my point is" or "generally your point is correct" = "general point"? NO THEY DO NOT.

I apologise for the use of capital letters but this post inflamed me so. Reading something quite specific, then ignoring the subtleties and bundling all the words together. That's my point, in general. (NOT my general point.)