Switch Theme:

Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit  [RSS] 

Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 02:44:10


Post by: Xzerios

So, new ruleset out with 6th Edition, does Anrakyr's Mind in the Machine Special rule work with him embarked on a vehicle now?
Im on the fence on this one. Heres why;

Pg 62 Necron Codex wrote:
Mind in the Machine:At the start of your Shooting phase, choose an enemy vehicle within 18" and in Anrakyr's line of sight and roll a D6. On a roll of 3+, Anrakyr overrides the targeting systems in that vehicle - you can immediately shoot with it as if it were your unit. The vehicle cannot alter its facing, and fires as if it had not moved. For the purposes of this attack, ignore any 'crew stunned' or 'crew shaken' results the target is suffering from - but destroyed weapons cannot be fired. Once these shooting attacks have been resolved, the vehicle returns to your opponent's control.


So, what we can take from this is that:
  • You need to draw Line of Sight to the enemy model, you are given permission to draw Line of Sight with this as its written.

  • If the enemy vehicle is within 18", you may roll a D6 and on 3+, you may fire any of its weapons. You may not move the vehicle, but any weapon systems are at your disposal.

  • You may ignore any effects that prevent you from firing all the vehicles weapon systems unless they are destroyed.

  • After resolving your last shot, you return control of the vehicles shooting platforms back to your opponent.


    • A few things that we must go to for further support is that Anrakyr is embarked on a vehicle. Most likely a Catacomb Command Barge, but not limited to that and Ghost Arks. Ill get to these in a moment.

    Pg 82 BRB, Open-Topped Vehicles wrote:
    Passengers Shooting from Open-Topped Transports
    Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

    So, this rule here gives us how to draw LoS. Now, I do understand that this is specific for firing weapons and MitM is most defiantly not a Shooting Attack. The rule does state that we are given Permission to draw LoS, so we must see how we draw LoS for the vehicle he is embarked on. As above states, You draw LoS to fire in this fashion. With the Codex' ability to trump the BRB, it only needs to know how to draw LoS.

  • The biggest part that MitM has against it is drawing LoS to use its rule.

  • Permission is given by Open-Topped Vehicles to draw LoS, but only to fire.

  • Codex trumping this, it does so, but 'sideways' in fashion, one could most defiantly argue it going either way.



    • What say you Dakka?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 03:32:20


    Post by: rigeld2

    The rules aren't worded that differently between 5th and 6th.
    You don't have permission to draw LOS for anything but shooting.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 03:49:00


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

    Xzerios wrote:
    Pg 82 BRB, Open-Topped Vehicles wrote:
    Passengers Shooting from Open-Topped Transports
    Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

    So, this rule here gives us how to draw LoS. Now, I do understand that this is specific for firing weapons and MitM is most defiantly not a Shooting Attack. The rule does state that we are given Permission to draw LoS, so we must see how we draw LoS for the vehicle he is embarked on. As above states, You draw LoS to fire in this fashion. With the Codex' ability to trump the BRB, it only needs to know how to draw LoS.


    There are a few things that you're missing. First has to do with the quote I highlighted from the BBB. What you missed is that the "measuring range and LOS from..." is a sentence fragment, meaning it is entirely dependent upon the first half of the sentence. That tells us specifically that we can measure range and LOS from an open-topped vehicle only when we're shooting a unit from inside. What you've tried to imply in the sentence you gave that I highlighted, is that "measuring range and LOS from..." is it's own stand alone sentence, when it has dependence on the first half, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle, is ONLY done when passengers fire. The other part you missed is in the wording for MitM itself. The important part is "and in Anrakyr's Line of Sight." What your missing is, show a rule that allows you to draw line of sight from a vehicle at a time other than shooting. We'll wait until you can find it, but I think we'll all be a bit greyer in the hair and longer in the tooth before you find it, since it would only be found in a new FAQ or new edition. You have no permission other than to shoot to draw line of sight, so until MitM is FAQed to be a shooting attack, Anrakyr's mind isn't going to be affecting machines.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 03:49:10


    Post by: Fragile

    rigeld2 wrote:
    The rules aren't worded that differently between 5th and 6th.
    You don't have permission to draw LOS for anything but shooting.


    Agreed. And given that psykers cannot hit targets needing LOS from inside a transport, unless its a PSA, I can see them applying that to this.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 05:01:29


    Post by: Ghaz

    Why would you use the rules for shooting from open topped vehicles when you're not shooting? The rules are actually quite clear. You have no permission to use a fire point to draw line of sight for a model's special rules. Therefore Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 15:44:38


    Post by: Pyrian

    Fragile wrote:
    And given that psykers cannot hit targets needing LOS from inside a transport, unless its a PSA...
    Yeah, if anything the rules were more friendly to the idea in 5th edition than in 6th edition. In 5th edition, it didn't work because it wasn't a psychic power - in 6th edition, it wouldn't even work if it was a psychic power!


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 17:20:22


    Post by: Neorealist

    They really ought to get around to definitively FAQ-ing that (non-PSA) abilities either can or cannot draw LOS from transport vehicles one of these days...


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 17:22:01


    Post by: rigeld2

     Neorealist wrote:
    They really ought to get around to definitively FAQ-ing that (non-PSA) abilities either can or cannot draw LOS from transport vehicles one of these days...

    Like they did in 5th with no significant rules changes pertaining to LOS from vehicles?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 17:26:02


    Post by: Neorealist

    No, not really. In 5th and again in 6th they've more or less left it with the 'It doesn't say you can so you can not' pseudo-rule, with a few specific exceptions scattered here or there.

    What i'd like is an explicit blanket statement to the effect of: "You can(or can not) draw LOS from access points on a transport vehicle for all reasons that call for such unless the ability specifically states otherwise." in an FAQ somewhere.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 17:44:02


    Post by: Ghaz

    Neorealist wrote:In 5th and again in 6th they've more or less left it with the 'It doesn't say you can so you can not' pseudo-rule...

    So you want a 10,000+ page FAQ listing everything you can't do?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 17:54:48


    Post by: Neorealist

    Please refer to my prior post to see 'what i want', rather than making an only tangically related interpretation of same.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 18:04:49


    Post by: azazel the cat

    Yes, Mind in the Machine works from a CCBarge.

    The only thing that had previously prevented it from working was the final 5th Ed. FAQ, which no longer applies.

    Pg 62 Necron Codex wrote:
    Mind in the Machine:At the start of your Shooting phase, choose an enemy vehicle within 18" and in Anrakyr's line of sight and roll a D6. On a roll of 3+, Anrakyr overrides the targeting systems in that vehicle - you can immediately shoot with it as if it were your unit. The vehicle cannot alter its facing, and fires as if it had not moved. For the purposes of this attack, ignore any 'crew stunned' or 'crew shaken' results the target is suffering from - but destroyed weapons cannot be fired. Once these shooting attacks have been resolved, the vehicle returns to your opponent's control.

    This rule, listed above, gives you permission to draw LOS. The first sentence. It makes no distinction between being embarked or not. It just simply says that you choose an enemy vehicle within 18" and LOS. This is a blanket statement indicating that if these two requirements must be met (range and LOS).


    Pg 82 BRB, Open-Topped Vehicles wrote:
    Passengers Shooting from Open-Topped Transports
    Open-topped Transports do not have specific Fire Points. Instead, all passengers in an Open-topped Transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.

    None of this matters as Anrakyr's MitM is not a shooting attack.

    Now, I have not seen a rule which specifies that non-shooting attacks may not be used while embarked in a transport. But the permission to draw LOS is given to you by the MitM rule in the Necron codex, which does not qualify itself with a location that it can or cannot be used from. So unless there is an actual written rule that says you cannot use non-shooting attacks that require LOS (which would be arguably more specific than Anrakyr's ability), then the MitM ability is all that it needed for permission to draw LOS, since that rule tells you to do so.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 18:19:48


    Post by: Ghaz

    Sorry, but you're wrong. Anrakyr's rules do not give you permission to draw line pa sigh from s vehicle. What it does do is require line of sight, nothing more.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 18:42:50


    Post by: Pyrian

    LOS for Anrakyr is not a permission, it's a requirement.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 20:11:13


    Post by: rigeld2

     Neorealist wrote:
    No, not really. In 5th and again in 6th they've more or less left it with the 'It doesn't say you can so you can not' pseudo-rule, with a few specific exceptions scattered here or there.

    No, really, the the final 5th Ed brb FAQ they said you cannot trace Los for anything but PSAs and shooting. MITM is neither of those.
    Since the surrounding rules haven't changed, and that FAQ didn't change a rule, simply clarified, there's no reason to think it does work.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     azazel the cat wrote:
    This is a blanket statement indicating that if these two requirements must be met (range and LOS).

    Yes, it states requirements. It doesn't state that you will always be able to meet them. There's no permission to always draw Los - for example, if there's a wall between you and your target, you cannot draw Los.

    None of this matters as Anrakyr's MitM is not a shooting attack.

    Only shooting attacks have permission to draw Los from an open topped vehicle. As you've said, MitM is not a shooting attack, therefore does not have permission.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 20:19:38


    Post by: azazel the cat

    rigeld2 wrote:
     Neorealist wrote:
    No, not really. In 5th and again in 6th they've more or less left it with the 'It doesn't say you can so you can not' pseudo-rule, with a few specific exceptions scattered here or there.

    No, really, the the final 5th Ed brb FAQ they said you cannot trace Los for anything but PSAs and shooting. MITM is neither of those.
    Since the surrounding rules haven't changed, and that FAQ didn't change a rule, simply clarified, there's no reason to think it does work.


    That's in the 5th Ed. FAQ, yes? As in, the FAQ for the rules set we no longer use? Please stop citing it as a relevant source. It is no longer any more relevant than the 2nd Ed. FAQs or the rules for Dreadfleet.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 20:26:10


    Post by: nosferatu1001

    Azazel - rigeld didnt, just pointing out the FAQ didnt change the 5th edition rules either.

    The rules for MitM require him to HAVE LOS, not the he may ALWAYS draw LOS.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 20:42:39


    Post by: azazel the cat

    Pyrian wrote:LOS for Anrakyr is not a permission, it's a requirement.

    I don't read it that way.

    I read "At the start of your Shooting phase, choose an enemy vehicle within 18" and in Anrakyr's line of sight and roll a D6" to imply that you are meant to draw LOS for this ability and from this ability.

    And just for gaks and giggles, pg. 8 of the BRB says that "Naturally, you can't ask your models what they can see - they're plastic and resin, which is always a barrier to effective communication - therefore, you'll have to work it out on their behalf. In many cases, this will be obvious - if there's a hill, building or monster in the way, the enemy might be blatantly out of sight. In other cases, two units will be clearly in view of each other as there is nothing at all in the way. On those other occasions, where it's not entirely obvious whether or not one unit can see another, the player will have to stoop over the battlefield and look from behind the model's head for a 'model's eye view'."

    Now, that sounds to me like they're saying that whenever LOS isn't obvious, you should determine it. Combine that with pg. 4 of the BRB, which says "You can always check distance at any time."

    How I would read these rules as a gestalt implies that if you need LOS, then just fething test for LOS.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 20:57:05


    Post by: NecronLord3

    Considering 40k used True Line of Sight since 5th edition. I think MitM is pretty clearly able to function from the CCB as it is the most obvious transport to draw LOS from the passenger. Namely because you can physically mount Anrakyr on the CCB and measure to an from him for LOS purposes. The rules about embarked units are obviously more or less designed for the majority of vehicles which don't have the advantage of being modeled in this way.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 21:01:44


    Post by: Tarrasq

    While the open topped rule doesnt give specific permission to use non-shooting attacks from them, it does set a precedent for drawing los from an open topped vehicle.

    This delving into RAI I know, but it seems odd that a model becomes blind in a transport unless he pulls a trigger.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 21:10:05


    Post by: nosferatu1001

    Azazel - ok, so get behind your model and determine LOS.

    Oh wait, not on the board, so you cannot do that

    So, where do you find permission to draw LOS from in the 6th edition ruleset? Firepoints, but only for shooting.

    So, is MitM shooting? No? then you have no permission to draw LOS from within the vehicle.

    Necronlord3 - utter lack of rules there


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 21:48:32


    Post by: Pyrian

     azazel the cat wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:LOS for Anrakyr is not a permission, it's a requirement.

    I don't read it that way.
    Then you're reading it wrong. It is one thing, and one thing only: a requirement that Anrakyr have LoS to the model he's trying to use his ability on. It does absolutely nothing to grant him any LoS he doesn't already have. You can check LoS whenever you like, you don't need permission.

     azazel the cat wrote:
    How I would read these rules as a gestalt implies that if you need LOS, then just fething test for LOS.
    You seem puzzlingly unaware of how completely that undercuts your own argument. You were arguing that Anrakyr's rule gives him some magical LoS that circumvents the normal rules. Now, you're arguing that you just test for LoS as normal. That's correct: you check for LoS as normal, and Anrakyr doesn't have it.

    This delving into RAI I know, but it seems odd that a model becomes blind in a transport unless he pulls a trigger.
    I agree that the rule is odd. There's another rule that's odd: You can't draw LoS for shooting to the guys in the Dark Eldar Raider who're firing at you, in plain sight, with not so much as an armor plate between! I'll be more sympathetic to the notion of Anrakyr using MitM out of a CCB when we can just shoot him in the same location.

    In the meantime, the RaW is quite clear: no LoS for/to embarked models except when they're shooting. And the rulebook reaffirms this point quite clearly.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 21:51:35


    Post by: Neorealist

    rigeld2 wrote:No, really, the the final 5th Ed brb FAQ they said you cannot trace Los for anything but PSAs and shooting. MITM is neither of those.
    Since the surrounding rules haven't changed, and that FAQ didn't change a rule, simply clarified, there's no reason to think it does work.
    I'm pretty sure we agree with each other about the rule, so i'm just going to bow out of this conversation and let you have at it as you wish?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 22:26:45


    Post by: azazel the cat

    Pyrian wrote:
    In the meantime, the RaW is quite clear: no LoS for/to embarked models except when they're shooting. And the rulebook reaffirms this point quite clearly.

    I'd appreciate a citation for that.


    And Nos, determining LOS for models obviously passes to the firepoint, or the hull in the event of an open-topped vehicle. So anytime you need LOS, I read those rules as saying "go ahead and check, in this case it's from the hull of the CCB".

    Ultimately, this entire debate is going to boil down to this:

    "You can't do that, it's a permissive ruleset and you don't have permission" vs. "6th Ed. does not appear to be written with elements of minutae following that code; only larger, full actions appear to do so"

    In other words, "you can't test for LOS" doesn't appear to gel with the wording of much of the 6th Ed. book, whereas "you can't just decare ten rounds of shooting" obviously does.

    It's not the argument you're expecting, I know. The trouble is, the tired tirade of "it's a permissive ruleset" seems to have unravelled at the microscopic level with regard to many individual steps in 6th Ed.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/03 22:54:43


    Post by: Ghaz

    azazel the cat wrote:And Nos, determining LOS for models obviously passes to the firepoint, or the hull in the event of an open-topped vehicle. So anytime you need LOS, I read those rules as saying "go ahead and check, in this case it's from the hull of the CCB"

    You mean the rules that are very specifically titled "Passengers SHOOTING From Open-Topped Transports"? So once again, what gives you permission to use those rules for anything other than shooting? Nothing.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 00:24:12


    Post by: Lungpickle

    Can you see the Traveler inside the vehicle perch in there. Can he see your vehicle. Then it works. Its a power used in the shooting phase to shoot a vehicles weapons so in my games it works.

    Argue all you want grammer and sentence structure and all that crap, hey even throw in the permission non permission argument which has no place in these rules discussions since they are not used by GW. IIRC since I cant see them in the BRB. Page number please? Too much of these rules arguments use terms not in GW descriptions to solidify their hate of a codex.

    All you nay sayers will be sadly disapointed when your wrong, if and when it ever get faq'd.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 00:33:02


    Post by: Neorealist

    On the contrary, i'd absolutely 'love' it if 'Mind in the Machine' got an update allowing it to be used from a transport as he is my favorite Necron IC, and i always put him in a command barge to boot. Sadly, what i'd want and what the rules say often differs however...


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 00:49:51


    Post by: Gravmyr

    Part of my largest problem with people saying that Anrakyr is not on the board is that in the end there is a representation on the board, the CCB. People want to rules lawyer all kinds of things because things give other players advantage. Common sense tells you that a guy that would clearly be standing on a hovering board in the middle of a field could easily draw LoS. End of discussion. If you want to whine cry and throw a fit that common sense shouldn't be included in the game cause there is no rule for it then I hope your opponent calls you in every game for every minor actual rule. It's a game in the end they have to assume you are playing it to have fun.

    How is the power different from a PSA? You need LoS, it happens in the shooting phase.

    Open top is just that open. Saying it's a huge port is like saying a field is a room with a really high ceiling and really far away walls.

    There is no rule in the book allowing you to roll dice. It says you may be called upon to, be forced to, have to and such but no rule actually allowing you to.

    The rule my group finally decided was the final arbitrator on most abilities was on pg 7
    "Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules."


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 01:10:26


    Post by: Ghaz

    So you want it to work "just because" with no rules to back your position. We're talking about a game with rules here. Whatever supposed "real life" arguments you want to make are pointless. This is a game and games have rules and one of those rules is that firing points can only be used for firing ranged weapons and psychic shooting attacks.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 01:10:34


    Post by: rigeld2

     azazel the cat wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     Neorealist wrote:
    No, not really. In 5th and again in 6th they've more or less left it with the 'It doesn't say you can so you can not' pseudo-rule, with a few specific exceptions scattered here or there.

    No, really, the the final 5th Ed brb FAQ they said you cannot trace Los for anything but PSAs and shooting. MITM is neither of those.
    Since the surrounding rules haven't changed, and that FAQ didn't change a rule, simply clarified, there's no reason to think it does work.


    That's in the 5th Ed. FAQ, yes? As in, the FAQ for the rules set we no longer use? Please stop citing it as a relevant source. It is no longer any more relevant than the 2nd Ed. FAQs or the rules for Dreadfleet.

    It'd be great if you'd read the thread for context. Thanks.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     azazel the cat wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:LOS for Anrakyr is not a permission, it's a requirement.

    I don't read it that way.

    So are the LOS and range references requirements or permissions?
    Yes, attempt to draw LOS. Oh, you're in a vehicle? Where are you going to draw LOS from? A firing point? You can't, you can only draw LOS for shooting through those.

    I read "At the start of your Shooting phase, choose an enemy vehicle within 18" and in Anrakyr's line of sight and roll a D6" to imply that you are meant to draw LOS for this ability and from this ability.

    Yes. Now, find permission to draw LOS from a firing point for that ability.

    Now, that sounds to me like they're saying that whenever LOS isn't obvious, you should determine it. Combine that with pg. 4 of the BRB, which says "You can always check distance at any time."

    How I would read these rules as a gestalt implies that if you need LOS, then just fething test for LOS.

    Correct. Now - where's your permission to use a firing point to draw LOS?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Gravmyr wrote:
    Part of my largest problem with people saying that Anrakyr is not on the board is that in the end there is a representation on the board, the CCB. People want to rules lawyer all kinds of things because things give other players advantage. Common sense tells you that a guy that would clearly be standing on a hovering board in the middle of a field could easily draw LoS. End of discussion. If you want to whine cry and throw a fit that common sense shouldn't be included in the game cause there is no rule for it then I hope your opponent calls you in every game for every minor actual rule. It's a game in the end they have to assume you are playing it to have fun.

    See, many of us enjoy playing by the rules - I'd rather my opponent called me on every minor rule. I welcome it. It's fun.
    How is the power different from a PSA? You need LoS, it happens in the shooting phase.

    It doesn't use a Warp Charge, it doesn't require a psychic test, there's no chance for Perils, it's not called a PSA anywhere...
    How is it different from a bolter? Might as well have asked that question.

    Open top is just that open. Saying it's a huge port is like saying a field is a room with a really high ceiling and really far away walls.

    What you want to believe and what the rules say are two different things.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 01:39:44


    Post by: Happyjew

    Lungpickle wrote:
    Can you see the Traveler inside the vehicle perch in there. Can he see your vehicle. Then it works. Its a power used in the shooting phase to shoot a vehicles weapons so in my games it works.


    Well then since my models can see him sitting on his barge, I guess we can draw LOS to him and light 'im up.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 01:53:27


    Post by: azazel the cat

    Like I said in my post: ultimately this entire discussion reduces down to whether or not you consider the ruleset to be permissive, and to what degree.

    I can't find anything in the BRB that states it is a permissive ruleset. I can find paradigms to indicate so, but nothing black-letter law. And as I said, in 6th Ed., major actions seems to be based on a permissive ruleset, but minor elements, such as drawing LOS, do not appear to be written with a strict permissive ruleset in mind. Everyone seems to have ignored this point the last time I posted it, so I'm repeating myself here.

    Nos, I know you follow the permissive ruleset like it's the true word of God and it was spoken to you directly, but I'm afraid I might just have to challenge that assumption here. 6th Ed. no longer seems to have been written like that.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 02:16:47


    Post by: Ghaz

    So by your arguments your opponent can take a hammer you your models and claim he wins automatically since you would have no models on the board at the end of the turn and it would be perfectly legal.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 02:19:27


    Post by: Chrysis

    If you wish to challenge the assumption, offer a compelling reason why the assumption no longer holds. I've not seen anything in this thread that provides any reason to think the ruleset is somehow no longer permissive. It certainly isn't a restrictive ruleset, as it does not enumerate every option that is not permitted.

    The only other option is that it's incomplete, and the Assault section with regards to modifying initiative would certainly suggest a certain degree of incompleteness. But that isn't a stable base for making an argument that the rules as written function a certain way, as there is no way to tell what exactly the rules that aren't written would say.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 02:27:59


    Post by: Gravmyr

    rigeld2: Where is the rule allowing you to roll dice? It doesn't exist yet you do it. You do not have permission you can not roll the dice. That is your stance, no rule saying you can means you can't correct?

    The rule for open topped tells you how it works for shooting/PSA why would it ben different for drawing LoS for any thing else?

    Pg 8 also has a section called spirit of the game. The last two sentences being:
    "Your job isn't just to follow the the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."

    That section alone should tell you that there are going to be things not covered and as such you will need to work them out outside of the framework that the rules have set up. Not only that but that section tells you this game is not/cannot be a permissive rule set. In such a spirit denying someone an ability because it isn't spelled out and given permission goes against that section in the book. As covered by azazel, no where in this book at all does it say that you can only do the things that are spelled out as in being a permissive rule set. Stating it like it's gospel doesn't make it so.

    In the end I have never seen a faq, errata, nor statement in a book that says this is a permissive rule set. If it was addressed in a forum or interview by someone from GW, by thier own rules it does not actually change the game.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 02:38:13


    Post by: Chrysis

    The rules tell you what to do, but not necessarily how. How you roll the dice is irrelevant, only that you do so when the rules tell you to do so. Likewise how you remove a model from the table when it is removed as a casualty is irrelevant, and it would not be against the rules for me to remove your casualties by launching them from a miniature trebuchet. All the game cares about is that it is removed when required.

    However, how you draw LoS is carefully enumerated. That means the how is important enough for the rules to need to cover it. Note that how you measure a model's movement is also carefully enumerated now, where before it was assumed to be obvious enough to be unnecessary. If the rules tell you how, then the how is just as important as the when.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 02:49:26


    Post by: rigeld2

     azazel the cat wrote:
    I can't find anything in the BRB that states it is a permissive ruleset.

    ... And we're done here. You can't offer a relevant argument so you're just going to pretend you can make up whatever rules you want. Cool beans dawg.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:09:10


    Post by: Kevin949

    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    Azazel - ok, so get behind your model and determine LOS.

    Oh wait, not on the board, so you cannot do that

    So, where do you find permission to draw LOS from in the 6th edition ruleset? Firepoints, but only for shooting.

    So, is MitM shooting? No? then you have no permission to draw LOS from within the vehicle.

    Necronlord3 - utter lack of rules there


    Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Happyjew wrote:
    Lungpickle wrote:
    Can you see the Traveler inside the vehicle perch in there. Can he see your vehicle. Then it works. Its a power used in the shooting phase to shoot a vehicles weapons so in my games it works.


    Well then since my models can see him sitting on his barge, I guess we can draw LOS to him and light 'im up.


    Entirely different and you know it dude. That's a horrible counter argument even if just being facetious.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:15:03


    Post by: Fragile

    Gravmyr wrote:
    The rule for open topped tells you how it works for shooting/PSA why would it ben different for drawing LoS for any thing else?.


    But yet they say that a non shooting psychic power cannot draw LOS to its target using the same Fire Points. If a enemy is 6" away I cannot maledict them, but I can shoot them but yet to shoot them I need LOS. Whether you agree with the rules or not, there is no permission to draw LOS for your ability.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:15:27


    Post by: grendel083

     Kevin949 wrote:
    Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.

    I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:21:22


    Post by: Kevin949

     grendel083 wrote:
     Kevin949 wrote:
    Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.

    I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?


    Do you have the model?

    I never said it was a rule, I was referencing the physical model.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:25:18


    Post by: grendel083

     Kevin949 wrote:
     grendel083 wrote:
     Kevin949 wrote:
    Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.

    I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?


    Do you have the model?

    I never said it was a rule, I was referencing the physical model.

    So not a rule at all? The passenger would then be treated exactly like models embarked on a Rhino.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:26:49


    Post by: Chrysis

    Yes, what he's suggesting is no different from placing a Librarian on top of a Rhino and casting Maledictions all day long. Just because you can see the model doesn't mean it has permission to draw LoS.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:28:18


    Post by: azazel the cat

    Ghaz wrote:So by your arguments your opponent can take a hammer you your models and claim he wins automatically since you would have no models on the board at the end of the turn and it would be perfectly legal.

    I believe I've posted three times in this thread prior to this message, and two of those messages have me making the same statement simply because you didn't bother to read the message the first time. I won't say it again, but rather refer to to either of my earlier posts wherein I address this issue directly. If you want to create a strawman, be my guest, but do not for a minute think that I will directly address it.


    rigeld2 wrote:
     azazel the cat wrote:
    I can't find anything in the BRB that states it is a permissive ruleset.

    ... And we're done here. You can't offer a relevant argument so you're just going to pretend you can make up whatever rules you want. Cool beans dawg.

    You have asserted a permissive ruleset. I have called it into question. I believe the burden is yours, Rigeld2. For all I know, you and Nos are the primary sources on the permissive-ruleset-as-gospel, as I've never seen anyone else cling to it as anything more than a guideline.

    Here are some examples that cast doubt on the permissive-ruleset-as-gospel mentality:
    1. Rolling dice. Ever.
    2. Everything involving Imotekh's Lord of the Storm ability.
    3. Mindshackle Scarabs and Force Weapons.
    4. Anrakyr's MitM ability.
    5. Resolving the Death Ray vs. Fliers
    6. Exploding a Necron Flier with troops inside

    With the rolling dice issue, the one thing these all have in common is they appear in a codex designed for 6th Ed., which leads me to surmise that the permissive ruleset is perhaps just a guideline to be followed for the major stuff, ie. not claiming your troops get eight shooting phases just because the rules don't say you can't. But I propose the idea that 6th Ed. is not written with the permissive ruleset in mind with regards to the individual mechanics of each function, eg. the individual pieces in Anrakyr's MitM: drawing LOS, measuring distance, selecting a target and having the target repeat the same. I posit that the entire rulebook was meant to be played fast and loose. <-- this will mean the end of rules-lawyering away the spirit of the game, and be more appealing to a younger, casual crowd -just the sort of direction GW has been advertising.

    Anyway, I've said my piece 2 1/2 times now. I'm not going to check back here, so say what y'all like about my argument. It's quite hypothetical, yet still a valid position.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:28:30


    Post by: Kevin949

     grendel083 wrote:
     Kevin949 wrote:
     grendel083 wrote:
     Kevin949 wrote:
    Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.

    I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?


    Do you have the model?

    I never said it was a rule, I was referencing the physical model.

    So not a rule at all? The passenger would then be treated exactly like models embarked on a Rhino.


    *Sigh* You're missing the point, obviously. Nos said the model wasn't on the battlefield, I said he technically was since they're actually physically on the CCB. I never said that changed any rule or they were treated differently. I was being pedantic.
    Seriously, people, loosen up sometime. Sheesh.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Chrysis wrote:
    Yes, what he's suggesting is no different from placing a Librarian on top of a Rhino and casting Maledictions all day long. Just because you can see the model doesn't mean it has permission to draw LoS.


    No, that is what you're READING INTO on my post, that is nothing like what I said. Hell, I never even referenced any rule at all.

    Oh and just to clear it up, I'm on the side of "you can't use his ability from the CCB as the rules are pretty clear for open topped vehicles that you can only draw LOS for shooting.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:43:46


    Post by: Gravmyr

    Chrysis: It may not be against the rules of the game but the laws of not destroying personal property.... Again common sense has to be used. I also note that while people are asserting that this is a permissive ruleset have yet to post a single reference to this where I have clearly posted that it is not.

    I bring up the dice rules because in both cases it says you have to do something but not that you have any permission to do it, the same as using the MitM ability. If you are going to use an argument one direction don't try to say that it doesn't apply the other.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:44:25


    Post by: Chrysis

    My apologies. I've actually seen "But I can see his eyes, ergo LoS" used as an argument so jumped to conclusions following a quoted post.

    The aforementioned list of things that "cast doubt" on the permissive nature of the ruleset do no such thing. What they cast doubt on is the completeness of the ruleset. There are some interactions that the rules as written have not covered explicitly, and so they may or may not line up with peoples expectations of how those things should be handled. But that gets into Rules as Intended, not Rules as Written which is what is being discussed. Did they intend for Necrons in a destroyed flyer to take a high strength hit and the survivors put in reserve? No, I think they almost certainly didn't. Is that what the rules say happens? Yes, without a doubt.

    Did they intend for MitM to work while embarked? Maybe, although precedent indicates no.

    Does it work? No, There is no permission for an embarked model to draw LoS except when firing a weapon (or Witchfire.)

    EDIT: People arguing against the ruleset being permissive are misunderstanding the fundamentals of how rulesets work. A set of rules either tells you what you can do (with exceptions), or what you can't do (again, with exceptions). The 40K rules are obviously not an enumeration of all the things you can't do, so they must be an enumeration of the things you can do. A rule which tells you to roll dice is permission to roll those dice. An ability that has rules that requires you to have LoS to use it is permission to check if you have LoS, but not permission to ignore the rules that tell you how to check.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 03:48:54


    Post by: Ghaz

    azazel the cat wrote:I'm not going to check back here, so say what y'all like about my argument. It's quite hypothetical, yet still a valid position.

    Its not valid in the least. You're the one making the strawman arguments. Your argument would let you do whatever you want by claiming the rules are either permissive or restrictive depending on how you want it to be. I believe Happyjew said it best:
    Happyjew wrote:And we're done here. You can't offer a relevant argument so you're just going to pretend you can make up whatever rules you want. Cool beans dawg.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 04:01:01


    Post by: grendel083

     azazel the cat wrote:
    You have asserted a permissive ruleset. I have called it into question. I believe the burden is yours, Rigeld2. For all I know, you and Nos are the primary sources on the permissive-ruleset-as-gospel, as I've never seen anyone else cling to it as anything more than a guideline.

    There was a thread not to long ago calling into question the permissive rule set. Makes for an interesting read. Here's the link

    I quite enjoyed (and agree with) Yakface's answer. Have a read:
    Spoiler:
    Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.

    So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.

    Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.

    Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.

    Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.

    So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.

    But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.


    This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.

    Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.


    So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 04:07:55


    Post by: HawaiiMatt

    Reading page 8 with line of sight seems pretty clear.
    If you can't draw line of sight from the Anrakyr's eyes when he's in the CCB, I don't see a rule that lets you do it when he's not in the CCB.
    Page 8 says use the models eyes.

    Better model up a CCB with Anrakyr in it.



    -Matt


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Ghaz wrote:
    Why would you use the rules for shooting from open topped vehicles when you're not shooting? The rules are actually quite clear. You have no permission to use a fire point to draw line of sight for a model's special rules. Therefore Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.


    You don't need to use the fireport. The over-lord is on the table on the model, and you can draw line of sight from him as outlined on page 8.
    If you buy a CCB for Anrakyr, you should mount Anrakyr on it. Failing to do so means you're breaking WYSIWYG.

    You can't exactly argue he isn't on the table when he's making sweep attacks and taking wounds to prevent damage to the CCB.

    -Matt


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 04:16:51


    Post by: Ghaz

    Wrong. You do need to use the fire point as that is the only way to draw line of sight when in a vehicle, and the rules for fire points only allow you to draw line of sight for shooting and psychic shooting attacks.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 04:46:50


    Post by: Fragile

    HawaiiMatt wrote:
    Reading page 8 with line of sight seems pretty clear.
    If you can't draw line of sight from the Anrakyr's eyes when he's in the CCB, I don't see a rule that lets you do it when he's not in the CCB.
    Page 8 says use the models eyes.

    Better model up a CCB with Anrakyr in it.



    -Matt


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Ghaz wrote:
    Why would you use the rules for shooting from open topped vehicles when you're not shooting? The rules are actually quite clear. You have no permission to use a fire point to draw line of sight for a model's special rules. Therefore Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.


    You don't need to use the fireport. The over-lord is on the table on the model, and you can draw line of sight from him as outlined on page 8.
    If you buy a CCB for Anrakyr, you should mount Anrakyr on it. Failing to do so means you're breaking WYSIWYG.

    You can't exactly argue he isn't on the table when he's making sweep attacks and taking wounds to prevent damage to the CCB.

    -Matt


    Whether it is modeled that way is irrelevant. The CCB is an open topped transport and follows the rules for such, including LOS.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 05:39:44


    Post by: nosferatu1001

    Azazel - and Yak, and Mann, and..... It is literally the only way to write a game, as enumerating what you *cannot* do results in a 10000 page book

    I win on a 2+, on 2 dice. According to you this is not a permissive ruleset, so that is allowed.

    My marines cost 3 points each, not 15, because i have decided they do./ No rule says I cannot do this, so I can.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 05:52:56


    Post by: azazel the cat

    I didn't want to come back here, but here I am. *sigh*

    Okay, can someone please explain to me how Anrakyr's MitM ability works when he is on foot? Please specify what rule allows him to draw LOS.

    Then, please tell me what rule prevents that same ability from working when he is embarked in the CCB. Please remember that specific trumps general, and MitM is clearly more specific than the Open-Topped Skimmers rules in the BRB.




    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 05:58:55


    Post by: nosferatu1001

    So you still think the requirement to have LOS is permission to always have it?

    He draws it from his eyes, same as normal.

    While embarked on a vehicle you have no permission to draw LOS from a fire point for any reason other than shooting and PSAs.

    MitM has no specific permission to ALWAYS have LOS, just that being in LOS is a requirement. You are still reading a requirement as permission, somehow.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 09:36:19


    Post by: Luide

     azazel the cat wrote:
    I didn't want to come back here, but here I am. *sigh*
    Okay, can someone please explain to me how Anrakyr's MitM ability works when he is on foot? Please specify what rule allows him to draw LOS.
    Page 8, Line of Sight.
     azazel the cat wrote:
    Then, please tell me what rule prevents that same ability from working when he is embarked in the CCB.
    Page 78, Transports, Embarking "When the unit embarks, remove it from the table". Now that Anrakyr isn't on table anymore, you cannot use page 8 rules to draw LOS . Anything that requires drawing LOS, like shooting, psychic power, MitM now requires explicit permission in the rules to do so.
    For shooting and PSA's, this is granted on Fire Points on page 78 or Open-topped Transports on page 82, but neither of these rules allow you to draw LOS for MitM.
     azazel the cat wrote:
    Please remember that specific trumps general, and MitM is clearly more specific than the Open-Topped Skimmers rules in the BRB.
    MitM specifies that it requires LOS. It doesn't give you allowance to draw LOS no more than generic Malediction does.

    RAI for MitM trivial to discern from Psyker rules at page 67:
    "Unless otherwise stated, the Psyker must have line of sight to his target. This means that a Psyker embarked on a Transport can only target himself, his vehicle or another unit embarked on the same vehicle as the Psyker."
    Note that this paragraph doesn't have any new rules on it. It just repeats how the rules regarding drawing LOS and transports work. Now, we can just replace Psyker with Anrakyr:
    "[When using Mind in the Machine] Anrakyr must have a line of sight to his target. This means Anrakyr embarked on a Transport can only target himself, his vehicle , or another unit embarked on the same vehicle as Anrakyr [when using Mind in the Machine]"


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 11:31:47


    Post by: rigeld2

     azazel the cat wrote:
    I didn't want to come back here, but here I am. *sigh*

    Okay, can someone please explain to me how Anrakyr's MitM ability works when he is on foot? Please specify what rule allows him to draw LOS.

    Then, please tell me what rule prevents that same ability from working when he is embarked in the CCB. Please remember that specific trumps general, and MitM is clearly more specific than the Open-Topped Skimmers rules in the BRB.

    If there's a big wall in the way would you still argue that MitM has absolute overrule on the ability to draw LOS?
    I'm betting not. Except, using your same argument (MitM is more specific than the normal rules for drawing LOS) I do have LOS through a building.

    You have a requirement. There's general permission to meet that requirement on foot. When embarked, however, that general permission is gone and it must be a shooting attack to have permission. Therefore theres no permission to meet that requirement when embarked.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 14:49:10


    Post by: Yad

    Fragile wrote:
    Gravmyr wrote:
    The rule for open topped tells you how it works for shooting/PSA why would it ben different for drawing LoS for any thing else?.


    But yet they say that a non shooting psychic power cannot draw LOS to its target using the same Fire Points. If a enemy is 6" away I cannot maledict them, but I can shoot them but yet to shoot them I need LOS. Whether you agree with the rules or not, there is no permission to draw LOS for your ability.


    On that point I would suggest that since MitM is not a psychic power that restriction doesn't apply.

    -Yad


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 14:51:53


    Post by: Neorealist

    Granted, but Mind in the Machine is not a shooting attack either (psychic or otherwise) which is the one of the 'only' actions that i am aware of that have rules-text allowing them to be used via firepoints on a vehicle.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 14:55:30


    Post by: Pyrian

    Yad wrote:
    ...I would suggest that since MitM is not a psychic power that restriction doesn't apply.
    "...must have line of sight to his target. This means that..."

    It's not a psychic power restriction, it's simply a confirmation about how LoS from inside a transport works (or, in this case, doesn't).


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 14:57:19


    Post by: Yad

    Personally I feel that MitM is back to being a gap in the rules. GW should have carried the 5th FAQ into 6th. Since MitM is not a psychic power you can't reference the rules concerning Psychic Powers and vehicles. They simply don't apply (apples and oranges).

    OT vehicles only speak to shooting from a vehicle and does not touch upon non-shooting abilities that aren't psychic powers. In other words the OT vehicles don't seem to provide a mechanism to draw LoS for non-shooting actions.

    I would have to read it through a few more times as I'm not wholly convinced, but for now I wouldn't use it when embarked.

    -Yad


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Pyrian wrote:
    Yad wrote:
    ...I would suggest that since MitM is not a psychic power that restriction doesn't apply.
    "...must have line of sight to his target. This means that..."

    It's not a psychic power restriction, it's simply a confirmation about how LoS from inside a transport works (or, in this case, doesn't).


    Seems to me that you're creating a generic rule from a specific one. If the rule we're talking about here is specific to preventing non-shooting psychic powers from working beyond the vehicle, then I don't see how you can apply that rule to anything else (Permissive ruleset). I'd have to take another look at the rule, but that's what can recall right now.

    -Yad


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 15:09:50


    Post by: Pyrian

    Yad wrote:
    Seems to me that you're creating a generic rule from a specific one.
    It's not creating the rule (it's created because the model is removed from the table and is only otherwise granted LoS specifically for shooting), it's confirming - and quite directly at that - that our reading of the LoS rules is correct.

    Yad wrote:
    If the rule we're talking about here is specific to preventing non-shooting psychic powers from working beyond the vehicle...
    How many people have to quote this?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 16:59:28


    Post by: Praxiss

    Question regarding drawing LOS from a vehicle....

    In order to charge you need to have LOS, correct?

    An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

    if an Overlord can draw LOS to start a charge (which is clearly not a shooting attack) then doesn't it also ring true to MiTM as well?



    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:07:40


    Post by: Pyrian

     Praxiss wrote:
    An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.
    IIRC, the chariot is charging, too. You only need LoS from it.

     Praxiss wrote:
    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.
    Well, it IS highly counter-intuitive, and I hope they errata it otherwise. But the RaW case against is very strong, nonetheless.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:12:25


    Post by: rigeld2

     Praxiss wrote:
    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

    Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:14:24


    Post by: NecronLord3

    Pyrian wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.
    IIRC, the chariot is charging, too. You only need LoS from it.


    Thats true, I think I'll be having my Overlord jump off his CCB and let it fly off to charge my opponent from now on!


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:17:07


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.
    IIRC, the chariot is charging, too. You only need LoS from it.


    Thats true, I think I'll be having my Overlord jump off his CCB and let it fly off to charge my opponent from now on!

    Go for it - the rules on page 82 specifically allow it. You'll only get your d6 Str6 AP- attacks, but there's no reason you can't do that.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:21:25


    Post by: Praxiss

    rigeld2 wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

    Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.


    I explained the situation to them. presented the arguements for and against - including rules references and then gave my opinion in a non-biased fashion that it should be allowed. They all backed me up.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:23:49


    Post by: Luide

     Praxiss wrote:
    Question regarding drawing LOS from a vehicle....
    In order to charge you need to have LOS, correct?
    Yes.
     Praxiss wrote:
    An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.
    Wrong. You need to read the rules again. Overlord is not declaring charge. It is Chariot that declares the Charge, as per page 76 and 82.
     Praxiss wrote:
    if an Overlord can draw LOS to start a charge (which is clearly not a shooting attack) then doesn't it also ring true to MiTM as well?
    As I showed, premise for this argument is completely flawed, as it is CBC drawing LOS, not Overlord. I'm not really sure where did you come up with the "Overlord declares charge" as there is nothing in the Chariot rules even remotely suggesting it.
     Praxiss wrote:
    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.
    It is strange, because the 5e FAQ didn't actually change rules and no rules regarding this has changed between 5e and 6e. If you showed the Psyker precedent to them, I'm pretty sure they'd change their minds.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:26:25


    Post by: rigeld2

     Praxiss wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

    Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.


    I explained the situation to them. presented the arguements for and against - including rules references and then gave my opinion in a non-biased fashion that it should be allowed. They all backed me up.

    It sucks they don't understand the rules as they're written.
    There's no allowance to draw LOS from a firing point for anything other than shooting. How do they justify breaking that rule?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/10/05 23:35:12


    Post by: Kevin949

     Praxiss wrote:
    Question regarding drawing LOS from a vehicle....

    In order to charge you need to have LOS, correct?

    An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

    if an Overlord can draw LOS to start a charge (which is clearly not a shooting attack) then doesn't it also ring true to MiTM as well?



    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.


    Dunno if anyone said it or not, but the lord on the barge is not charging. The Chariot is charging, the lord simply has permission to fight from the chariot. If he counted as charging then they could benefit from Furious Charge and Rage and the like. As it is now, they can not as they are not charging.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 17:37:22


    Post by: Fragile

    Again Praxiss your missing the basic issue.

    From a CCB, your overlord can draw LOS to shoot and he can draw LOS to use a PSA (if he were a pskyer)
    Your overlord cannot draw LOS to use a targetted psychic power (if he were a psyker) that is not a PSA even if he is targetting the same unit he can legally shoot.

    Having LOS is really not the issue. The issue is do you have permission to draw LOS for that Ability. Currently the answer is no. Common sense, RAI may show that you have LOS, but RAW you dont.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 18:10:03


    Post by: Lt.Soundwave

    Personally I feel that MitM is back to being a gap in the rules. GW should have carried the 5th FAQ into 6th. Since MitM is not a psychic power you can't reference the rules concerning Psychic Powers and vehicles. They simply don't apply (apples and oranges).

    OT vehicles only speak to shooting from a vehicle and does not touch upon non-shooting abilities that aren't psychic powers. In other words the OT vehicles don't seem to provide a mechanism to draw LoS for non-shooting actions.


    I would have to agree with this reasoning.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/04 18:34:45


    Post by: Luide

    Fragile wrote:
    Having LOS is really not the issue. The issue is do you have permission to draw LOS for that Ability. Currently the answer is no. Common sense, RAI may show that you have LOS, but RAW you dont.
    IMO, RAI in this case is clear. We have two separate precedents about RAI: 5e FAQ and Psykers not able to draw LOS for non-PSA powers. Unless someone can give me self-consistent "common sense" reason why my Psyker on Chariot could not use Malediction like Objuration Mechanicum, but Anrakyr could use MitM in exactly same circumstances, considering that the reason why neither can be used is exactly same. Note: "common sense" or RAI, not RAW.
    Psyker rules start by defining a simple rule:
    "Unless otherwise stated,the Psyker must have line of sight to his target." Next sentence
    "This means that a Psyker embarked on a Transport can only target himself... [snip]". is not additional rule per se. Instead, it explains what the previous rule ("must have LOS") means in combination with Transport rules. Now, what it doesn't do is state the reason for these restrictions, but they're self-evident: Permission to draw LOS is only given for shooting attacks (inc PSA) and not for psychic powers or special rules.

    This is exactly same situation as with Precision shots on page 63: "This means that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!". Words after "This means" are not new rules, they're just repeating old ones.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 18:43:53


    Post by: TheKbob

    Psh, cmon guys. It's all from the models eyes!

    Oh, and Zoenthropes don't have eyes, so they can't see anything and cannot draw line of sight. So if my pal Anry can do MitM from his pimped out hover board, then Zoeys can't use any psychic power that needs a target!

    ... Being facetious aside, he couldn't do it in 5e and nothing has dramatically changed on the rules wording to make it so on 6e. I play Necrons and would gladly run him more if that was the case that he could!!


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 18:53:16


    Post by: rigeld2

    And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 18:54:08


    Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com

     Praxiss wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

    Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.


    I explained the situation to them. presented the arguements for and against - including rules references and then gave my opinion in a non-biased fashion that it should be allowed. They all backed me up.


    They might but I surely would not. Being an above avid 40k player hitting up a few GT's myself. I know as well as any seasoned player that you never trust a word someone from GW says unless it's the written word in a rulebook or faq.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 0012/09/05 18:56:58


    Post by: TheKbob

    rigeld2 wrote:
    And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.


    Really?






    Where?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 18:59:57


    Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com

    TheKbob wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
    And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.


    Really?

    http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z397/robscott5598/Warhammer%2040K%20projects/FinishedZoeanthorpe.jpg" border="0" />

    Where?


    It does, it's just hard to see from all given angles. Also to note if they're not painted to "pop" they're just hard to see regardless.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 0009/10/05 13:12:09


    Post by: Kevin949

    TheKbob wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
    And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.


    Really?






    Where?


    WHere what?


    *Edit*
    You ninja'd. LoL Nevermind.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 19:08:32


    Post by: TheKbob

    Wraithlords and Wraithguard are boned, too. Can't use guns with no eyes!

    Silliness aside, I wish Anry wasn't finecrap. I'd love the model, best necron lord!


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 19:10:45


    Post by: Xzerios

    I sit on the fence for a FaQ personally. One thing GW does need to set straight is these Necron Special rules that act like PSAs, but arent blahblahblah. We all get the picture. FaQ please? :3


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 19:24:38


    Post by: Happyjew

    For the people wondering where the eyes are (I apologise for the poor quality) they are about an inch below the tip of my finger (red dots) right above the mouth.



    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/05 20:15:34


    Post by: NecronLord3

    Happyjew wrote:
    For the people wondering where the eyes are (I apologise for the poor quality) they are about an inch below the tip of my finger (red dots) right above the mouth.
    Right, so using the old models gives you LOS, new models, you're fethed. Oh and screw Wraithguard right by thes logic. So I guess my Deathmarks can't shoot since they have an eye not "eyes".


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2177/02/07 01:33:25


    Post by: azazel the cat

    NecronLord3 wrote:
    Happyjew wrote:
    For the people wondering where the eyes are (I apologise for the poor quality) they are about an inch below the tip of my finger (red dots) right above the mouth.
    Right, so using the old models gives you LOS, new models, you're fethed. Oh and screw Wraithguard right by thes logic. So I guess my Deathmarks can't shoot since they have an eye not "eyes".

    No, they can shoot; they just can't measure LOS because they've got no depth perception.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 16:18:16


    Post by: Praxiss

    ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

    WTF GW!?!


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 16:27:44


    Post by: Pyrian

    Seriously, they even reiterated the point about psychic powers being unable to do it, which wasn't contested given that there's already a direct statement in the rulebook to that effect.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 22:44:29


    Post by: NecronLord3

    Well,considering this was totally permissible prior to the 5th edition FAQ, and now that FAQ entry is officially gone, we are now back to it's allowance.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 23:00:36


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     Praxiss wrote:
    ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

    WTF GW!?!
    It wasn't addressed because the rules already cover this. In an open-topped vehicle what are we allowed to draw LoS for? Shooting, and only shooting. The reason it is only shooting is the only way that LoS can be drawn is for the purposes of shooting from within. When there is something that tells us that Anrakyr can draw LoS from a transport, then MitM will be valid from within a CCB. Until anyone gives solid proof that you CAN do it with rules, you can't do it and use the excuse "the rules don't cover it." If the rules don't cover it, you can't do it.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 23:14:58


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

    WTF GW!?!
    It wasn't addressed because the rules already cover this. In an open-topped vehicle what are we allowed to draw LoS for? Shooting, and only shooting. The reason it is only shooting is the only way that LoS can be drawn is for the purposes of shooting from within. When there is something that tells us that Anrakyr can draw LoS from a transport, then MitM will be valid from within a CCB. Until anyone gives solid proof that you CAN do it with rules, you can't do it and use the excuse "the rules don't cover it." If the rules don't cover it, you can't do it.


    True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

    Its allowed.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 23:17:06


    Post by: Kevin949

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

    WTF GW!?!
    It wasn't addressed because the rules already cover this. In an open-topped vehicle what are we allowed to draw LoS for? Shooting, and only shooting. The reason it is only shooting is the only way that LoS can be drawn is for the purposes of shooting from within. When there is something that tells us that Anrakyr can draw LoS from a transport, then MitM will be valid from within a CCB. Until anyone gives solid proof that you CAN do it with rules, you can't do it and use the excuse "the rules don't cover it." If the rules don't cover it, you can't do it.


    True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

    Its allowed.


    The issue is that the only time you're allowed to check LOS for passengers in a vehicle is for shooting. That is the only section in the book that regards LOS from within a vehicle. Sadly, it still appears that you can't use this ability even though it happens in the shooting phase and it causes a shooting attack. Blargh.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 23:46:10


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

    Its allowed.
    Show where MitM allows you to draw LoS even in a vehicle? It doesn't.

    MitM doesn't allow you to check LoS, it says IF the vehicle is in LoS. How is Anrakyr able to draw LoS from inside a CCB? If you say fire point, we point out only for shooting. This is the only thing that would allow him to draw line of sight, but the only time he has permission to draw line of sight out of the vehicle is to shoot. Show a rule that tells us, Anrakyr may draw line of sight for MitM from inside the vehicle. It has to specifically be stated. MitM says "chose an enemy vehicle within 18" and line of sight." He can attempt to draw line of sight, because MitM implies he can draw LoS. However is MitM a shooting attack? No, it is not. If something is not a shooting attack, but uses Line of sight, it cannot be used out of a vehicle because you have no way you can draw line of sight.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/07 23:48:57


    Post by: Kevin949

    You know, this would also apply to Zahndrekhs Counter Tactics...


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/08 00:01:03


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

    Its allowed.
    Show where MitM allows you to draw LoS even in a vehicle? It doesn't.

    MitM doesn't allow you to check LoS, it says IF the vehicle is in LoS. How is Anrakyr able to draw LoS from inside a CCB? If you say fire point, we point out only for shooting. This is the only thing that would allow him to draw line of sight, but the only time he has permission to draw line of sight out of the vehicle is to shoot. Show a rule that tells us, Anrakyr may draw line of sight for MitM from inside the vehicle. It has to specifically be stated. MitM says "chose an enemy vehicle within 18" and line of sight." He can attempt to draw line of sight, because MitM implies he can draw LoS. However is MitM a shooting attack? No, it is not. If something is not a shooting attack, but uses Line of sight, it cannot be used out of a vehicle because you have no way you can draw line of sight.


    Look at the model, can he see a vehcile. If answer yes, you have permission to use MiM. TLOS. The other rules are for units that are not capable of being physically embarked on or in the vehicle, and therefore require abstract rules to account for their use of such abilities. Anrakyr, does not require this as he is capable of being physically mounted on the chariot, and able to draw line of sight from the actual model, and not be off the board using abstract rules to represent his in game use.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/08 00:05:04


    Post by: Ghaz

    NecronLord3 wrote:Well,considering this was totally permissible prior to the 5th edition FAQ, and now that FAQ entry is officially gone, we are now back to it's allowance.

    No, it was not permissible prior to the 5th edition FAQ. The FAQ did not change any rules, it was just that no one thought to question if it was legal and assumed it was until the FAQ clarified that it wasn't.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/08 00:14:55


    Post by: nosferatu1001

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

    Its allowed.
    Show where MitM allows you to draw LoS even in a vehicle? It doesn't.

    MitM doesn't allow you to check LoS, it says IF the vehicle is in LoS. How is Anrakyr able to draw LoS from inside a CCB? If you say fire point, we point out only for shooting. This is the only thing that would allow him to draw line of sight, but the only time he has permission to draw line of sight out of the vehicle is to shoot. Show a rule that tells us, Anrakyr may draw line of sight for MitM from inside the vehicle. It has to specifically be stated. MitM says "chose an enemy vehicle within 18" and line of sight." He can attempt to draw line of sight, because MitM implies he can draw LoS. However is MitM a shooting attack? No, it is not. If something is not a shooting attack, but uses Line of sight, it cannot be used out of a vehicle because you have no way you can draw line of sight.


    Exactly.

    You are told, when embarking, that your model is removed from the table. You have no model you can draw LOS from, making your entire premise NL 100% flawed.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/08 00:17:56


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Look at the model, can he see a vehcile. If answer yes, you have permission to use MiM. TLOS. The other rules are for units that are not capable of being physically embarked on or in the vehicle, and therefore require abstract rules to account for their use of such abilities. Anrakyr, does not require this as he is capable of being physically mounted on the chariot, and able to draw line of sight from the actual model, and not be off the board using abstract rules to represent his in game use.
    Point to a rule that says if you can put the model on a transport vehicle they are there. You'll be at that a very long time, as no such rule exists. As a matter of fact, the rules say quite the opposite to what you are saying. Take a look at page 78 under the embarking rules, as a matter of fact I'll save you time and post it, "When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside making a note that the unit is being transported. So how exactly can Anrakyr be embarked on top of the CCB when the rules specifically tell us he is removed from the table and placed aside?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/08 00:21:23


    Post by: Fragile

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     Praxiss wrote:
    ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

    WTF GW!?!
    It wasn't addressed because the rules already cover this. In an open-topped vehicle what are we allowed to draw LoS for? Shooting, and only shooting. The reason it is only shooting is the only way that LoS can be drawn is for the purposes of shooting from within. When there is something that tells us that Anrakyr can draw LoS from a transport, then MitM will be valid from within a CCB. Until anyone gives solid proof that you CAN do it with rules, you can't do it and use the excuse "the rules don't cover it." If the rules don't cover it, you can't do it.


    True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

    Its allowed.


    You cannot draw LOS. Nothing in the LOS rules lets you.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/08 00:24:54


    Post by: nosferatu1001

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Look at the model, can he see a vehcile. If answer yes, you have permission to use MiM. TLOS. The other rules are for units that are not capable of being physically embarked on or in the vehicle, and therefore require abstract rules to account for their use of such abilities. Anrakyr, does not require this as he is capable of being physically mounted on the chariot, and able to draw line of sight from the actual model, and not be off the board using abstract rules to represent his in game use.
    Point to a rule that says if you can put the model on a transport vehicle they are there. You'll be at that a very long time, as no such rule exists. As a matter of fact, the rules say quite the opposite to what you are saying. Take a look at page 78 under the embarking rules, as a matter of fact I'll save you time and post it, "When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside making a note that the unit is being transported. So how exactly can Anrakyr be embarked on top of the CCB when the rules specifically tell us he is removed from the table and placed aside?


    This precisely covers the situation, and is inarguable from a rules basis. Your model is not on the table, so you cannot draw LOS.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 12:38:21


    Post by: Praxiss

    This is why i am annoyed it was not addressed. the fact that this arguement is happening over and over and over again shodul waarant it to eb in an FAQ.

    I dont even really care at this point which way it goes. it just needs a 2 line entry


    Q - Can Anrakyr use MiTM while embarked in a CCB
    A - No.


    DONE!!!


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 12:51:09


    Post by: Yad

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Look at the model, can he see a vehcile. If answer yes, you have permission to use MiM. TLOS. The other rules are for units that are not capable of being physically embarked on or in the vehicle, and therefore require abstract rules to account for their use of such abilities. Anrakyr, does not require this as he is capable of being physically mounted on the chariot, and able to draw line of sight from the actual model, and not be off the board using abstract rules to represent his in game use.


    Point to a rule that says if you can put the model on a transport vehicle they are there. You'll be at that a very long time, as no such rule exists. As a matter of fact, the rules say quite the opposite to what you are saying. Take a look at page 78 under the embarking rules, as a matter of fact I'll save you time and post it, "When the unit embarks, remove it from the table and place it aside making a note that the unit is being transported. So how exactly can Anrakyr be embarked on top of the CCB when the rules specifically tell us he is removed from the table and placed aside?


    First off, as I've stated earlier in the thread, I think this scenario is back to being a gap in the rules and until that gap is addressed I would not use the MitM ability while embarked in a CCB. That said, I do think your response (Lone Dragon) is a bit of a straw man. The focus of the discussion is with regards to the CCB. This model, as supplied by GW, comes with an Overlord that can be mounted on the vehicle. Your point is a bit more generalized, and though I would agree with it, it ignores the nature of the CCB model itself.

    -Yad


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 13:09:27


    Post by: Survivor19

    This is the only thing that would allow him to draw line of sight, but the only time he has permission to draw line of sight out of the vehicle is to shoot.

    So, does that means when he is shooting he can also use Mind in the Machine?
    After all, he can check all the ranges and line of sights while shooting.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 13:13:23


    Post by: Praxiss

    In fact, all they need to do to fix this is to FAQ MiTM as a Shooting Attck. Problem solved.

    This would dull the character down a little as well as he then not be able to use MiTM and his Tachyon Arrow in the same turn (i think).

    I get the impression it was imagined like this as he's not shooting anything himself, he is shooting an enemy with their own guns. It's just a shame they didn't get their idea down on paper clearly enough in the first place.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 13:18:56


    Post by: rigeld2

    Yad wrote:
    This model, as supplied by GW, comes with an Overlord that can be mounted on the vehicle.

    And that's irrelevant. It's still a vehicle (chariot specifically). It has to follow the rules for vehicles regardless of how it's mounted.
    If you're trying to make it not follow those rules you must find an exception in the rules.
    No one has ever been able to provide one. There isn't a grey area in the rules.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Survivor19 wrote:
    This is the only thing that would allow him to draw line of sight, but the only time he has permission to draw line of sight out of the vehicle is to shoot.

    So, does that means when he is shooting he can also use Mind in the Machine?
    After all, he can check all the ranges and line of sights while shooting.

    But he can't shoot "at the start of the Shooting phase" which is when MitM must be used.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 13:38:24


    Post by: Praxiss

    I realise there are a lot lurkers out there.

    But it would appear that, despite the valid arguements for it not working, the opposite view is winning the poll.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 13:44:01


    Post by: rigeld2

     Praxiss wrote:
    I realise there are a lot lurkers out there.

    But it would appear that, despite the valid arguements for it not working, the opposite view is winning the poll.

    And the poll is irrelevant when actual rules haven't been presented to support that viewpoint.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 16:59:21


    Post by: Survivor19

    But he can't shoot "at the start of the Shooting phase" which is when MitM must be used.

    By that logic, can Mind in the Machine be used at all?
    For any given unit, choosing of the target is the beginning of his shooting sequence. That's when LoS requirements can be met.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 17:05:19


    Post by: rigeld2

    Survivor19 wrote:
    But he can't shoot "at the start of the Shooting phase" which is when MitM must be used.

    By that logic, can Mind in the Machine be used at all?
    For any given unit, choosing of the target is the beginning of his shooting sequence. That's when LoS requirements can be met.

    "Start of the Shooting phase" and "beginning of his shooting sequence" are two different things.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 17:09:18


    Post by: RegalPhantom

    The only thing passengers can draw LoS from a vehicle for, even if the vehicle is open topped, is for shooting attacks and using witchfire powers. MitM is neither, so no, you can not use it while Anrakyr is embarked in a CCB or Ghost Ark.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 21:19:17


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Praxiss wrote:
    I realise there are a lot lurkers out there.

    But it would appear that, despite the valid arguments for it not working, the opposite view is winning the poll.
    No there is simply a vocal minority on this forum who simply are first of all, incapable of accepting that there are unclear rules that simply could go either way until GW directly addresses, but also a few of those same people just play this game entirely wrong. See threads referring to Mind Shackle Scarabs, and Grey Knight actually being Psykers. These people literally spend hours a day waiting for a discussion to come up so that they can supplant their distorted way of play game like this, for the way people actually play it. There was absolutely no basis to suggest that this ability did not work prior to the 5th edition FAQ that said you could not. That FAQ entry, like a few others, was entirely removed from the game with the 6th edition FAQ and GW in several instances clearly ruled in opposite ways to how they FAQ'd things from 5th editon, see GK halberds/Initiative. There is nothing preventing MiM, there are suggestions referring to other rules that it may not work, so it is entirely unclear and until FAQ'd by GW you should discuss it with a TO or roll off.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 21:27:49


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    There was absolutely no basis to suggest that this ability did not work prior to the 5th edition FAQ that said you could not.

    You mean besides the fact that the rules for drawing LoS from an open topped vehicle were the same?

    There is nothing preventing MiM, there are suggestions referring to other rules that it may not work, so it is entirely unclear and until FAQ'd by GW you should discuss it with a TO or roll off.

    You mean besides the fact that the rules for drawing LoS from an open topped vehicle don't allow it for anything but shooting?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 21:38:21


    Post by: NecronLord3

    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    There was absolutely no basis to suggest that this ability did not work prior to the 5th edition FAQ that said you could not.

    You mean besides the fact that the rules for drawing LoS from an open topped vehicle were the same?

    There is nothing preventing MiM, there are suggestions referring to other rules that it may not work, so it is entirely unclear and until FAQ'd by GW you should discuss it with a TO or roll off.

    You mean besides the fact that the rules for drawing LoS from an open topped vehicle don't allow it for anything but shooting?


    It's an ability that draws LOS, has range and operates in the shooting phase. There is no difference.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 21:41:50


    Post by: Ghaz

    Yes there is a significant difference. Mind in the Machine is a special rule that has no permission to be used from a fire point.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 21:50:20


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Ghaz wrote:
    Yes there is a significant difference. Mind in the Machine is a special rule that has no permission to be used from a fire point.

    And there is no denial to do so either.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 21:53:38


    Post by: Pyrian

    Do we really have to go through the "you need permission, it's not enough that the rules don't forbid it" discussion again?

    EDIT: It should be like a CAPTCHA - you can't post until you can demonstrate that you understand the concept of "permissive ruleset".


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 22:22:01


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    There was absolutely no basis to suggest that this ability did not work prior to the 5th edition FAQ that said you could not.

    You mean besides the fact that the rules for drawing LoS from an open topped vehicle were the same?

    There is nothing preventing MiM, there are suggestions referring to other rules that it may not work, so it is entirely unclear and until FAQ'd by GW you should discuss it with a TO or roll off.

    You mean besides the fact that the rules for drawing LoS from an open topped vehicle don't allow it for anything but shooting?


    It's an ability that draws LOS, has range and operates in the shooting phase. There is no difference.

    So its a shooting attack then? Funny, that's not what the codex says.
    You're making assertions. Please back them with rules quotes.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 22:38:01


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     Ghaz wrote:
    Yes there is a significant difference. Mind in the Machine is a special rule that has no permission to be used from a fire point.

    And there is no denial to do so either.
    Couple things to say to this, first the burden of proof is on you to prove that the rules say you CAN do this. The next, the rules tell us what we can do. When a rule tells us that MitM can draw line of sight from a fire point (that RAW atm says only can be used for a shooting attack) you'll have a leg to stand on, and have actually proven your side. Until that point though, how you would play it is far from the actual way the rules are written. It would be like having a unit of genestealers using their weapon skill on a ballistic skill test. The rules don't say I can't do that, so by your argument (that nothing prevents it) then I can do that. If I tried that in a game people would nerd rage and walk out. In other words the stance you've taken in this discussion isn't based on how the rules are actually written, but on how you think the rules are written.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 22:58:26


    Post by: NecronLord3

    RAW and permissive rules arguments hardly matter in many situations? MSS, brotherhood of Psykers vs. anti psyker weapons, GK Vehicle psychic powers, etc. have proven many times that GW cares more about RAI than RAW.


    You can sit on Dakka all day and argue RAW, but GW and TOs still lead the way in how this game is actually played.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 23:06:06


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    RAW and permissive rules arguments hardly matter in many situations? MSS, brotherhood of Psykers vs. anti psyker weapons, GK Vehicle psychic powers, etc. have proven many times that GW cares more about RAI than RAW.

    And even GW is less than consistent when it comes to intent.

    You can sit on Dakka all day and argue RAW, but GW and TOs still lead the way in how this game is actually played.

    So you agree that RAW MitM cannot be used from the CCB?
    Great. Argue intent all day long. TOs around here follow the RAW in this case.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 23:21:35


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    RAW and permissive rules arguments hardly matter in many situations?
    If they hardly matter, then you must be playing some offshoot of 40k that you came up with. When it comes to Real 40k, we don't play by some abstract ruleset you came up with, we have a fairly rigid treatise on how to play the game. If you choose to play it how you want, it's on you to find players that will play with you when they find out you're actually not playing according to the rules.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/10 23:22:42


    Post by: Happyjew

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    You can sit on Dakka all day and argue RAW


    Uhhh...isn't that kinda the point of YMDC?

     Lorek wrote:

    4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
    - Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

    For those who haven't seen these terms before.

    Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

    How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 01:34:33


    Post by: NecronLord3

    Happyjew wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    You can sit on Dakka all day and argue RAW


    Uhhh...isn't that kinda the point of YMDC?

     Lorek wrote:

    4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
    - Many arguments can be avoided if this is made clear. Don't assume you know the point your opponent is arguing about.

    For those who haven't seen these terms before.

    Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.

    How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 01:41:09


    Post by: Happyjew

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.


    I'm curious if you think that the people arguing strict RAW play that way. There are numerous problems with strict RAW which lead to silly scenarios, such as a blast weapon that scatters 11" into a unit completely out of sight will have all wounds from the blast allocated to the target unit (see the (Large) Blast scattering thread for the reasoning behind this). Additionally, as I pointed out from the Tenets, there is no point arguing HYWPI (or RAI for that matter) and RAW. If your group wants to play that models embarked on a vehicle can draw LOS through a Fire Point for non-shooting abilities that's fine, but remember it has no place in a RAW discussion.

    Sorry if that sounded a little rude. I've been up late the last few nights and really should get some sleep.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 01:44:59


    Post by: Ghaz

    Except the 5th edition FAQ told you GW's intentions. Do you really expect us to believe you when you claim GW changed their intentions because you say so? Their intentions are quite clear that Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 01:48:37


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.

    A) Then perhaps YMDC isn't for you.
    B) The rules in question didn't change between 5th and 6th. Why do you think GWs intent did?
    C) Quite a few people actually play this way. It's not some kind of strict RAW that results in silliness (like the B&LB thread) it's pretty clear and black and white.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 01:57:15


    Post by: NecronLord3

    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.

    A) Then perhaps YMDC isn't for you.
    B) The rules in question didn't change between 5th and 6th. Why do you think GWs intent did?
    C) Quite a few people actually play this way. It's not some kind of strict RAW that results in silliness (like the B&LB thread) it's pretty clear and black and white.


    The people voting on this clearly disagree with you. And if everything was black and white there would be no need for this forum. Please come play at our venue I would love to play a strict RAW game with you. Hope you don't have any models with helmets.




    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     Ghaz wrote:
    Except the 5th edition FAQ told you GW's intentions. Do you really expect us to believe you when you claim GW changed their intentions because you say so? Their intentions are quite clear that Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.


    They would have left the entry in the FAQ if they wanted it to stand.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:05:17


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.
    The problem with arguing for intent is that unless we are that person, know that person fairly well (friend, family, coworkers, etc), or have incontrovertible proof we cannot judge the intent of a person. There are certain cases where intent is implied in the rules, take Skyleap for the Eldar Swooping Hawks for example. We aren't specifically told we can skyleap out of combat, but it does have a line in there about what to do if they were in combat. That's proof of intent, that it can be used to get out of combat. We can only make an educated decision on how to play something by the rules because we don't know what the intent of the game designers is. As there is nothing in MitM that points towards intent to allow it from a transport, we can't imply intent based on how we would play it we can only play it how the rules tell us to play it. And the rules for open-topped vehicles tell us that we may only draw line of sight for shooting. We then are stuck playing it that way, as we can't know whether it is intended to work from an open-topped vehicle since there is nothing to even hit at intent from the rule for MitM.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:05:25


    Post by: Happyjew

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Please come play at our venue I would love to play a strict RAW game with you. Hope you don't have any models with helmets..


    Seeing as how rigeld plays Nids, the only unit he might have with a shooting attack but no eyes is Hive Guard. And seeing as how Nids don't wear helmets (or armour for that matter) he'll probably do fine.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:10:17


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:

     Ghaz wrote:
    Except the 5th edition FAQ told you GW's intentions. Do you really expect us to believe you when you claim GW changed their intentions because you say so? Their intentions are quite clear that Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.


    They would have left the entry in the FAQ if they wanted it to stand.
    That actually can show support to both sides of the argument. You can argue they intended it to be different because it's gone. We can argue they intended us to know that the previous ruling hasn't changed, and there is no need to have it in there because the rules tell us only shooting can draw LoS from an open-topped vehicle. This is the problem with intent, people try to twist it to fit their view without proof to one side or another as backing for their argument. We can debate this until the cows come home, but there is nothing solid that offers true proof to which side the intent would fall on.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:11:03


    Post by: grendel083

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    They would have left the entry in the FAQ if they wanted it to stand.

    They added it into the rules instead, no need to leave it in the FAQ.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:13:03


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.
    The problem with arguing for intent is that unless we are that person, know that person fairly well (friend, family, coworkers, etc), or have incontrovertible proof we cannot judge the intent of a person. There are certain cases where intent is implied in the rules, take Skyleap for the Eldar Swooping Hawks for example. We aren't specifically told we can skyleap out of combat, but it does have a line in there about what to do if they were in combat. That's proof of intent, that it can be used to get out of combat. We can only make an educated decision on how to play something by the rules because we don't know what the intent of the game designers is. As there is nothing in MitM that points towards intent to allow it from a transport, we can't imply intent based on how we would play it we can only play it how the rules tell us to play it. And the rules for open-topped vehicles tell us that we may only draw line of sight for shooting. We then are stuck playing it that way, as we can't know whether it is intended to work from an open-topped vehicle since there is nothing to even hit at intent from the rule for MitM.


    We actually do have an indication of GWs intent. As the rule was clarified in a previous FAQ and removed, much like many of the other altered FAQ entries to contradict previously held rulings by GW. And absolutely no reference to using LOS ranged based shooting phase abilities in the book, we can rightly assume that GW's intent was for it to work just like every other ranged based ability that works in the shooting phase like shooting attacks. and psychic attacks.

    Glad to hear about the Tyranids, as I their rules are very well clarified by GW, and we know pretty much all of it is terrible.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:24:37


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:

    We actually do have an indication of GWs intent. As the rule was clarified in a previous FAQ and removed, much like many of the other altered FAQ entries to contradict previously held rulings by GW. And absolutely no reference to using LOS ranged based shooting phase abilities in the book, we can rightly assume that GW's intent was for it to work just like every other ranged based ability that works in the shooting phase like shooting attacks. and psychic attacks.

    Glad to hear about the Tyranids, as I their rules are very well clarified by GW, and we know pretty much all of it is terrible.
    Problem is, the FAQ in question was from the actual 5th edition rulebook not the Necron specific FAQ. As we have moved beyond 5th edition into 6th, they can't have any problems from 5th lingering in 6th. So they couldn't have a 5th edition rule fouling up their 6th edition FAQ when it was clearly spelled out in the rules how things work. You say "and psychic attacks" well the problem with non-witchfire psychic powers is that they cannot be used out of said transports. Either way the nonwitchfire part is irrelevant because MitM is not a psychic power. The argument you're making has no standing for two simple reasons. The first I pointed out already, it was a 5th edition rule that has been appropriately altered in the wording of the 6th edition rules so that we can tell if we apply a little critical thinking how it works. The second reason is that as I said, without solid incontrovertible proof we cannot judge intent. You have your opinion of the game designer's intent, but without actual proof to back up your view, it is only that, your opinion. Think of it like a court proceeding, unless there is verifiable fact on which to base the judgement the jury cannot tell whether intent is there or not. If I go out in my car and drive it through a store front, did I intend to do it or was it an accident? You wouldn't know unless I told you, that's the point of what we're trying to say, we aren't told anything so we have to remain impartial and base stating our cases on the facts that we have. The only facts we have are the rulebook, the Codices, and the FAQs. None of them offer what we would call incontrovertible proof of intent.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:33:37


    Post by: NecronLord3

     grendel083 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    They would have left the entry in the FAQ if they wanted it to stand.

    They added it into the rules instead, no need to leave it in the FAQ.


    Please give the page and paragraph of the rule that states:
    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.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:38:18


    Post by: grendel083

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     grendel083 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    They would have left the entry in the FAQ if they wanted it to stand.

    They added it into the rules instead, no need to leave it in the FAQ.


    Please give the page and paragraph of the rule that states:
    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, but it's been mentioned on every page for the last 5 pages.
    Now show me a rule where you can use a Fire Point to draw line of sight for anything other than shooting.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:40:10


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.

    A) Then perhaps YMDC isn't for you.
    B) The rules in question didn't change between 5th and 6th. Why do you think GWs intent did?
    C) Quite a few people actually play this way. It's not some kind of strict RAW that results in silliness (like the B&LB thread) it's pretty clear and black and white.


    The people voting on this clearly disagree with you. And if everything was black and white there would be no need for this forum. Please come play at our venue I would love to play a strict RAW game with you. Hope you don't have any models with helmets.

    The people voting are yes are wrong and have provided no rules argument to support their position.
    I have never and will never say that everything in the book is black and white.
    I have never and will never say that playing strict RAW is sane.
    I am saying that MitM not being usable while embarked on a CCB is absolutely clear.
    There's no grey area. There's no debatable rule. There isnt even any silliness to this rule.
    The only way people think the answer is "Yes it works" is because either a) they don't understand the perfectly clear rules or b) they just want it to work.

    I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a house rule. There isn't. I am saying that this rule is clearly against MitM working.
    If you disagree would you mind showing actual rules? I don't care about intent - GW has proven their intent when they FAQed it not to work with rules that worked exactly the same way.

    Intent is against you. Actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps admit when you're wishing?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:47:55


    Post by: grendel083

    The poll results don't count for much, as once a person has been educated as to the correct rules, they can't change their vote.
    I'd imagine a reset poll would have very different results.



    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:57:58


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     grendel083 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    They would have left the entry in the FAQ if they wanted it to stand.

    They added it into the rules instead, no need to leave it in the FAQ.


    Please give the page and paragraph of the rule that states:
    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.


    Have you ever looked at the rules from the 5th edition BBB that were quoted? Here let's have a look at that section then.

    5th Edition BBB page 66 wrote: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).
    Alright, so we have the relevant rules, notice in the second sentence, "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)?" Look more specifically, can fire. Hmmm... that tells me it was originally meant to be only shooting, but people twisted it to suit their need. Fast forward a few years, and here's the new reading.

    6th Edition BBB page 78, Fire points wrote: Unless specified differently in the vehicle's entry, a single passenger can fire out of each fire point and the other transported models cannot fire.
    And the relevant section from Open topped vehicles.
    6th Edition BBB page Passengers Shooting from Open-topped transports wrote:All passengers in an open-topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle.
    Well Holy Rules Quote Batman, they happen to have the same word in common, fire. We can fire from a fire point. If that doesn't show intent I don't know what does. The fact that they all use that same word fire, and then for you to expect because the wording stayed almost the same to have a different meaning? The wording in all them is the exact same, "can fire" and you expect them to mean different things. That's called wishful thinking.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 02:58:46


    Post by: NecronLord3

    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    I am more concerned with RAI and how people actually play this game as opposed to how a,few people sitting on Dakkas forums have decided to play the game. Play how you want, but we play based on how the FAQs rulebook and GW handle actual questions, as opposed to the strict RAW you are attempting to argue for which would have Wraithguard unable to shoot, GK Vehicles unable to activate psychic powers, challenges unable to be issued or whatever bs RAW argument you are making this week. We play real 40k not RAW the board game.

    A) Then perhaps YMDC isn't for you.
    B) The rules in question didn't change between 5th and 6th. Why do you think GWs intent did?
    C) Quite a few people actually play this way. It's not some kind of strict RAW that results in silliness (like the B&LB thread) it's pretty clear and black and white.


    The people voting on this clearly disagree with you. And if everything was black and white there would be no need for this forum. Please come play at our venue I would love to play a strict RAW game with you. Hope you don't have any models with helmets.

    The people voting are yes are wrong and have provided no rules argument to support their position.
    I have never and will never say that everything in the book is black and white.
    I have never and will never say that playing strict RAW is sane.
    I am saying that MitM not being usable while embarked on a CCB is absolutely clear.
    There's no grey area. There's no debatable rule. There isnt even any silliness to this rule.
    The only way people think the answer is "Yes it works" is because either a) they don't understand the perfectly clear rules or b) they just want it to work.

    I'm not saying there's anything wrong with a house rule. There isn't. I am saying that this rule is clearly against MitM working.
    If you disagree would you mind showing actual rules? I don't care about intent - GW has proven their intent when they FAQed it not to work with rules that worked exactly the same way.

    Intent is against you. Actual rules disagree with you. Perhaps admit when you're wishing?


    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 03:12:28


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:

    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.
    Measuring range (for any reason) is found right on page 4, no need to go to a rule for one specific purpose when you're not using it for that purpose. The problem is you're comparing apples to oranges. You're trying to cross one rule over to another now, and that doesn't work because each rule has its own set of specific circumstances. We can't apply the rules for a tank shock to a flyer, because tank shock is only for tanks. We can't apply the rules for shooting attacks to non shooting attacks, because they work much differently. It's like disembarking from a Rhino as if it were open-topped. The rhino has a defined vehicle type, which doesn't include Open-topped. MitM has a defined type, a special rule, which doesn't include shooting.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 03:49:11


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:

    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.
    Measuring range (for any reason) is found right on page 4, no need to go to a rule for one specific purpose when you're not using it for that purpose. The problem is you're comparing apples to oranges. You're trying to cross one rule over to another now, and that doesn't work because each rule has its own set of specific circumstances. We can't apply the rules for a tank shock to a flyer, because tank shock is only for tanks. We can't apply the rules for shooting attacks to non shooting attacks, because they work much differently. It's like disembarking from a Rhino as if it were open-topped. The rhino has a defined vehicle type, which doesn't include Open-topped. MitM has a defined type, a special rule, which doesn't include shooting.


    Pg 4 defines how to measure range for an attack, you are claiming this is not a shooting attack. You measure range and LOS in the shooting phase for shooting attacks and nothing else as there are no rules in that section that cover non-shooting attacks during the shooting phase. Therefore by your logic, this ability is useless and may never be activated under any circumstances. Or more simply the rules refer to shooting attacks in the shooting section as these are the most common form of abilities that will generally be used in most games as opposed to the more specific special abilities you may find in a codex which supersede those in the general rulebook unless specifically prevented from doing so under certain circumstances as defined by the rulebook. MiM is not specifically prevented.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 03:56:34


    Post by: Ghaz

    Except the codex does not contradict the main rules and allow you to use Mind in the Machine through a fire point.So yes, it most certainly specifically prevented by being neither shooting nor a psychic shooting attack. It is specifically prevented by its absence.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:03:21


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.

    Straw manning me? Really?

    Page 4 deals with more than just attacks. The first bolded sentence says that you can check any distance at any time.
    And I've never, ever, said you can't measure range out of the CCB. You're just not allowed to trace LoS unless it's a shooting attack.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:03:52


    Post by: grendel083

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Pg 4 defines how to measure range for an attack, you are claiming this is not a shooting attack. You measure range and LOS in the shooting phase for shooting attacks and nothing else as there are no rules in that section that cover non-shooting attacks during the shooting phase. Therefore by your logic, this ability is useless and may never be activated under any circumstances. Or more simply the rules refer to shooting attacks in the shooting section as these are the most common form of abilities that will generally be used in most games as opposed to the more specific special abilities you may find in a codex which supersede those in the general rulebook unless specifically prevented from doing so under certain circumstances as defined by the rulebook. MiM is not specifically prevented.

    Where do you get these ideas from? The rules on how to use this ability are in the Necrons Codex.
    Part of that rule states he needs Line of Sight. So you use the LOS rules.
    Line of Sight is covered in the Rulebook.
    If you choose to mount him on a barge, embarked passengers can only draw LOS out of a transport when firing from a Fire Point.
    As you're not firing, you can't draw LOS, so dismount him or don't stick him in a barge in the first place.

    The rules are right there. No one's using non-existent rules to annoy Necrons players here.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:07:51


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Ghaz wrote:
    Except the codex does not contradict the main rules and allow you to use Mind in the Machine through a fire point.So yes, it most certainly specifically prevented by being neither shooting nor a psychic shooting attack. It is specifically prevented by its absence.


    And the section is the shooting phase and only refers to shooting attacks to cover everything defined in that phase. So as you are arguing. MiM is a useless ability as it takes place in the shooting phase but the rulebook only tells us we can make shooting attacks during the shooting phase. Since it isn't a shooting attack, it can never be made ever by RAW.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:09:00


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     Ghaz wrote:
    Except the codex does not contradict the main rules and allow you to use Mind in the Machine through a fire point.So yes, it most certainly specifically prevented by being neither shooting nor a psychic shooting attack. It is specifically prevented by its absence.


    And the section is the shooting phase and only refers to shooting attacks to cover everything defined in that phase. So as you are arguing. MiM is a useless ability as it takes place in the shooting phase but the rulebook only tells us we can make shooting attacks during the shooting phase. Since it isn't a shooting attack, it can never be made ever by RAW.

    No one is saying that, you're trying to strawman.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:10:34


    Post by: grendel083

    Guess we can't run in the shooting phase if shooting's all we can do.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:12:27


    Post by: NecronLord3

    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.

    Straw manning me? Really?

    Page 4 deals with more than just attacks. The first bolded sentence says that you can check any distance at any time.
    And I've never, ever, said you can't measure range out of the CCB. You're just not allowed to trace LoS unless it's a shooting attack.


    LOS refers to attacks only also in the Shooting phase. Its not an attack, so it can't be done by RAW.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     grendel083 wrote:
    Guess we can't run in the shooting phase if shooting's all we can do.


    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:14:31


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.

    Straw manning me? Really?

    Page 4 deals with more than just attacks. The first bolded sentence says that you can check any distance at any time.
    And I've never, ever, said you can't measure range out of the CCB. You're just not allowed to trace LoS unless it's a shooting attack.


    LOS refers to attacks only also in the Shooting phase. Its not an attack, so it can't be done by RAW.

    Also not true. Page 8 says no such thing.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:16:22


    Post by: NecronLord3

    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Hmm... measuring range for an ability um how does the rulebook address this. Well I'll pull out my book and look at the section for measuring range for non-shooting attack abilities... oh damn. That's not in my book. Well since it isn't covered I'll look at the section that makes the most since and see how GW handles it. Oh shooting attacks and measuring ranges from transports. Well that clearly is the closest thing to resembling this ability. So I'll use that. As it makes since and that is how people actually play it. But you can play it your way and it can never ever be used as there is no rules in the rulebook whatsoever for governing the use of Shooting abilities that are non-shooting attacks. Put that next to your Psychic pilots that don't generate Warp Charges, and eyeless models with guns that can't shoot.

    Straw manning me? Really?

    Page 4 deals with more than just attacks. The first bolded sentence says that you can check any distance at any time.
    And I've never, ever, said you can't measure range out of the CCB. You're just not allowed to trace LoS unless it's a shooting attack.


    LOS refers to attacks only also in the Shooting phase. Its not an attack, so it can't be done by RAW.

    Also not true. Page 8 says no such thing.


    Page 12-14 do.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:16:36


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.

    Don't need to -MitM allows itself to be used in the shooting phase.
    It does not give itself permission to draw LoS like a shooting attack, which is what would be required to work out of a CCB.
    Are you done straw maning?


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Page 12-14 do.

    No, they don't.
    You have general rules for checking line of sight - essentially you're always allowed to. Pages 12-14 tell you what requires line of sight during the shooting phase. There isn't any rule restricting LoS to shooting attacks like you're asserting.

    And before you jump on it, while page 8 gives general permission to check Line of Sight, the open topped transport rules specifically limit that permission.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:22:06


    Post by: grendel083

     NecronLord3 wrote:

     grendel083 wrote:
    Guess we can't run in the shooting phase if shooting's all we can do.

    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.

    Rules for a non-shooting attack ability in the shooting phase? I've got one right here:
    Codex Necrons (page62) Mind in the Machine wrote:
    "At the start of the Shooting Phase, choose..."



    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:29:26


    Post by: NecronLord3

    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.

    Don't need to -MitM allows itself to be used in the shooting phase.
    It does not give itself permission to draw LoS like a shooting attack, which is what would be required to work out of a CCB.
    Are you done straw maning?


    And I don't need permission as my model is clearly mounted and able to draw line of sight from my model to my target unit. No abstract firing point rules required.


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
     grendel083 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:

     grendel083 wrote:
    Guess we can't run in the shooting phase if shooting's all we can do.

    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.

    Rules for a non-shooting attack ability in the shooting phase? I've got one right here:
    Codex Necrons (page62) Mind in the Machine wrote:
    "At the start of the Shooting Phase, choose..."



    Which allows it's use. Thank you.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:32:52


    Post by: rigeld2

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    rigeld2 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.

    Don't need to -MitM allows itself to be used in the shooting phase.
    It does not give itself permission to draw LoS like a shooting attack, which is what would be required to work out of a CCB.
    Are you done straw maning?


    And I don't need permission as my model is clearly mounted and able to draw line of sight from my model to my target unit. No abstract firing point rules required.

    Why are you not required to follow the rules?
    You have general permission to check for LoS.
    You have a specific restriction while embarked that you can only check for shooting attacks.
    Why are you ignoring that restriction?


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:33:43


    Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com

    Even after all this I see nothing to support MiTM from inside of a vehicle. In fact it looks like the standpoins for fire points having changed from 5th - 6th. All I read is the Pro MiTM side saying yes they can cuz the codex says ______.

    Vs the Anti MiTM side who are actually quoting legitimate rules, and giving proper page numbers.

    So let me give a short answer, no they can't <,<


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 04:44:50


    Post by: Lone Dragoon

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    And I don't need permission as my model is clearly mounted and able to draw line of sight from my model to my target unit. No abstract firing point rules required.
    .
    At this point he's just trolling. Since by the rules of the book, that he claims to follow when he plays, we've already shown that the models do not get put onto the vehicle, they are set off to the side. Doesn't pay to try and convince one person when he's so deeply biased about the outcome that he's reading intent in them taking down the FAQ for a previous edition's rulebook, and using that to try and make his case. He obviously doesn't understand the principles of YMDC, and doesn't even seem to grasp the concept of a permissive ruleset. Again doesn't pay, so I'll bow out at this point since nothing we say will change his mind since he feels so zealously that he's right.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 05:47:41


    Post by: NecronLord3

     Lone Dragoon wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    And I don't need permission as my model is clearly mounted and able to draw line of sight from my model to my target unit. No abstract firing point rules required.
    .
    At this point he's just trolling. Since by the rules of the book, that he claims to follow when he plays, we've already shown that the models do not get put onto the vehicle, they are set off to the side. Doesn't pay to try and convince one person when he's so deeply biased about the outcome that he's reading intent in them taking down the FAQ for a previous edition's rulebook, and using that to try and make his case. He obviously doesn't understand the principles of YMDC, and doesn't even seem to grasp the concept of a permissive ruleset. Again doesn't pay, so I'll bow out at this point since nothing we say will change his mind since he feels so zealously that he's right.
    You might want to check those tenets yourself, and the forum rules. And you are right since I am just one person and the poll clearly shows 99.9% against me.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 06:30:45


    Post by: jdjamesdean@mail.com

    Well lets be honest, given the question asked. Yes MiTM works fine in 6th edition, just not from a Firepoint.

    Important to note that the question does not reflect being used from inside of a vehicle, just it being used.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 06:45:14


    Post by: grendel083

     NecronLord3 wrote:
     grendel083 wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
     grendel083 wrote:
    Guess we can't run in the shooting phase if shooting's all we can do.
    RAW covers that in the shooting phase. Please refer me to the section on non-shooting attack abilities in the shooting phase, before you go further.
    Rules for a non-shooting attack ability in the shooting phase? I've got one right here:
    Codex Necrons (page62) Mind in the Machine wrote:"At the start of the Shooting Phase, choose..."
    Which allows it's use. Thank you.

    It's use was never in doubt.
    Now please show a rule that allows the player to check line of sight for it while embarked on a transport.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 22:31:41


    Post by: Lungpickle

    So by all the nay sayers arguments here he cant use it in the ccb, but he can do that ability in the shooting phase then fire off say his trachyon arrow since he didnt shoot anything.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 22:32:54


    Post by: Happyjew

    That is correct.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 22:33:05


    Post by: Lungpickle

    Or is it a shooting attack since he shoots with a vehicle .


    Automatically Appended Next Post:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.




    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 22:52:54


    Post by: rigeld2

    Lungpickle wrote:
    Or is it a shooting attack since he shoots with a vehicle .

    Does it say it's a shooting attack?

    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.

    Instead of doing something offensive, how about you accept that rules change and move on with life?
    I know which one I'm doing.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/11 22:58:38


    Post by: Pyrian

    Lungpickle wrote:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.
    Only if you publically apologize when they FAQ that you're wrong.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 04:20:13


    Post by: NecronLord3

    Pyrian wrote:
    Lungpickle wrote:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.
    Only if you publically apologize when they FAQ that you're wrong.
    As soon as we get apologies from everyone who was against MSS and force weapons being activated.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 11:58:33


    Post by: Happyjew

     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:
    Lungpickle wrote:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.
    Only if you publically apologize when they FAQ that you're wrong.
    As soon as we get apologies from everyone who was against MSS and force weapons being activated.


    Why? We never said that we were going to go "Neener, neener, I'm right" upon the release of the FAQ. We backed up our arguments with rules and GW decided to go the other way. It happens.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 12:37:14


    Post by: Nemesor Dave

    Open topped allows for shooting out of a vehicle only. Nothing else.
    That being said - remember any game effects shooting does not effect MiTM.

    You can MiTM a vehicle that is different from the target your unit shoots at.

    If Arakyrs unit suffers a crew stunned effect he can still disembark and then use MiTM.

    Psychic power Hallucination can stop you from shooting, but cannot prevent you from using MiTM.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 12:53:43


    Post by: rigeld2

     Nemesor Dave wrote:
    Open topped allows for shooting out of a vehicle only. Nothing else.
    That being said - remember any game effects shooting does not effect MiTM.

    You can MiTM a vehicle that is different from the target your unit shoots at.

    If Arakyrs unit suffers a crew stunned effect he can still disembark and then use MiTM.

    Psychic power Hallucination can stop you from shooting, but cannot prevent you from using MiTM.

    Exactly correct.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 13:42:04


    Post by: nosferatu1001

    Happyjew wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:
    Lungpickle wrote:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.
    Only if you publically apologize when they FAQ that you're wrong.
    As soon as we get apologies from everyone who was against MSS and force weapons being activated.


    Why? We never said that we were going to go "Neener, neener, I'm right" upon the release of the FAQ. We backed up our arguments with rules and GW decided to go the other way. It happens.


    Indeed. We even said GW could rule either way, as they often change rules via FAQ - sitw and venomthrope spore clouds coming to mind.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 15:00:30


    Post by: Yad

    Happyjew wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:
    Lungpickle wrote:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.
    Only if you publically apologize when they FAQ that you're wrong.
    As soon as we get apologies from everyone who was against MSS and force weapons being activated.


    Why? We never said that we were going to go "Neener, neener, I'm right" upon the release of the FAQ. We backed up our arguments with rules and GW decided to go the other way. It happens.


    I would imagine that this is what the folks opposed to "MSS can't use Force" thought they did as well...except with the bit about GW choosing to go the other way

    By the by, I don't think Anrakyr can use MitM while embarked on a CCB. If only because the rules are quite specific about what actions an embarked unit can take (e.g., shooting from a Fire Point, disembarking, etc).

    -Yad


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 19:54:57


    Post by: NecronLord3

    nosferatu1001 wrote:
    Happyjew wrote:
     NecronLord3 wrote:
    Pyrian wrote:
    Lungpickle wrote:
    Ima gonna bet he can for the record. So when they FAQ it and explain it is possible I can say neaner neaner Im right.
    Only if you publically apologize when they FAQ that you're wrong.
    As soon as we get apologies from everyone who was against MSS and force weapons being activated.


    Why? We never said that we were going to go "Neener, neener, I'm right" upon the release of the FAQ. We backed up our arguments with rules and GW decided to go the other way. It happens.


    Indeed. We even said GW could rule either way, as they often change rules via FAQ - sitw and venomthrope spore clouds coming to mind.
    Like hell you did. You approached that situation just like you do every other. You are right and there is absolutely no chance anyone else's take on the rules could be correct. People like you are the worst thing about this game.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 20:09:45


    Post by: Kevin949

    Totally off topic, but still...



    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2012/09/12 20:16:34


    Post by: Yad

    Edit: No need to add gasoline to the fire...

    I suspect this thread is done.

    -Yad


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2014/04/22 05:38:59


    Post by: masterofstuff1

    It is kinda like a shooting attack. He shoots his mind into the computer of the vehicle. It hits on a 3+ instead of describing it as a shooting attack GW just took the long way around and because it does not actually cause wounds or glancing or penetrating hits no cover save is allowed. But I don't know how it was intended.

    We play that he can use it in the CCB. It is a unique special ability. If you disagree that's fine but I have read all posts so far and I am not convinced you can't use it.


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2014/04/22 06:08:22


    Post by: DeathReaper

     masterofstuff1 wrote:
    It is kinda like a shooting attack. He shoots his mind into the computer of the vehicle. It hits on a 3+ instead of describing it as a shooting attack GW just took the long way around and because it does not actually cause wounds or glancing or penetrating hits no cover save is allowed. But I don't know how it was intended.

    We play that he can use it in the CCB. It is a unique special ability. If you disagree that's fine but I have read all posts so far and I am not convinced you can't use it.

    This thread is from 2012/09/12...


    Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine @ 2014/04/22 07:29:08


    Post by: reds8n


    Thread is being locked due to thread necromancy.