Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Well, how did he manage to get 8 lords in 1 unit?

BarBoBot wrote:Well, how did he manage to get 8 lords in 1 unit?

Narnian Space Magic.

I think he was putting two courts together. Max per RC is 5 lords and 5 Crypteks.

Luide wrote:
6e works exactly same way as 5e did post-FAQ. So no MitM while embarked. Same goes for Coteaz' "I've been Excepting You".
(No permission is given to draw LOS from embarked model except for shooting and PSA)

Where does it say that you can't?

Sigvatr wrote:

Luide wrote:
6e works exactly same way as 5e did post-FAQ. So no MitM while embarked. Same goes for Coteaz' "I've been Excepting You".
(No permission is given to draw LOS from embarked model except for shooting and PSA)

Where does it say that you can't?

Wrong question. "Where does it say that you can?" would be the correct one.
Answer is nowhere, and because 40k is permissive ruleset, therefore you can't.

There is very good example showing example of this on 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".
MitM works exactly the same: You need LOS and this means Anrakyr could only target himself or his CBC with it.

Point of order: Coteazs' 'I've Been Expecting You' rule is explicitly a shooting attack, and normal Transport-LOS rules for such should apply. Other than that i agree with you, no MitM for Anrakyr in transports unless he gets a FAQ update somewhere along the way.

Luide wrote:
Wrong question. "Where does it say that you can?" would be the correct one.
Answer is nowhere, and because 40k is permissive ruleset, therefore you can't.

There is very good example showing example of this on 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".
MitM works exactly the same: You need LOS and this means Anrakyr could only target himself or his CBC with it.

So what exactly keeps me from smashing my opponent's minis off the board?

Certainly a hyperbole, no offense,, yet I don't buy the "Rules need to be stated part" unless there's a specific part telling me that you don't get LOS out of a transport.

...and seriously, not getting LOS out from a CCB is downright bs logic-wise.

Not wanting to be your local pariah/TFG?

i agree it doesn't make logical sense that you cannot draw LOS for special (non-shooting) abilities from a transport, but 'logical sense' doesn't appear to feature in rules creation as much as one would think it should.

I don't see how's that TFG. It's not bending any rules as of now - my main gripe is that it was in the old FAQ and then was left out in the current one which might be a sign for it still being allowed.

I'm not fielding him anyway as we play w/o special characters, but I just want to get the rules straight.

/e: It's not even a normal transporter. It's open-topped...and...SWEET C'TAN, look at the model GW. No LOS? COME ON.

I'm sorry, i believe you understand quite well that knocking your opponents' carefully crafted models from the board is not going to win you points with your fellow gamers...

The problem your not understanding is that to do ANYTHING in 40k, you must have permission to do it.

There are rules for vehicles that allow ranged weapons and psychic shooting attacks to be used while embarked in a transport.

There are no rules that allow you to do anything else but shoot a weapon or use a PSA while embarked, so you may not do anything but that.

It's that simple.

I think it's stupid that you can't use abilities from an open topped transport, but GW just released the new rules, and it's the same as last edition. If they wanted you to use non-shooting abilities from open topped transports, they would have written it into the rules.

This is nothing new, and it didn't just slip by unnoticed. It's how they want the rules to be... For better or worse

Looking forward to the FAQ update then (also: Skyfire on Heavy Destroyers, please.).

With all due respect to RAW, it's complete bullcrap. So, you can hold a gun out of a firing point / open-topped vehicle and aim at stuff yet can't draw normal LOS?

...and seriously, the model -_-

GW, master of fack ups.

Can someone post a link to a pic of the model. I cant find it, even on GW.

here it is (from the GW website): http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2003406a_99120110013_CommandBarge01_445x319.jpg

Not getting LOS on a CCB, you read it here first

I meant the Anrakyr model. it was showed in WD, so my mate was saying, and I hoped someone would have a pic of him

Sigvatr wrote:Looking forward to the FAQ update then (also: Skyfire on Heavy Destroyers, please.).

With all due respect to RAW, it's complete bullcrap. So, you can hold a gun out of a firing point / open-topped vehicle and aim at stuff yet can't draw normal LOS?

...and seriously, the model -_-

GW, master of fack ups.

Are you expecting a realistic tabletop war experience?

Im sure you have heard it before, but I'll repeat it.

40k does not use real world logic. The amount of things that are not realistic are plentiful. If you start picking the game apart based on what would be realistic in real life, your in for a huge disappointment.

skoffs wrote:Speaking of Deathstars, how's Royal Court Disco Inferno looking now at the 2000 point level?

8 Lords all armed to the teeth, 5 Crypteks of all the various flavors, lead by potentially 4 to 5 ICs?
Is there anything that can stop that?

First off, I think he's talking about a double force chart game:
Royal Court #1: 5 Lords + 5 Crypteks
From Royal Court #2: +1 Lord
From Royal Court #3: +1 Lord
From Royal Court #4: +1 Lord
Total 8 Lords and 5 Crypteks... however the rules don't say that Royal Court members can 'join a Royal Court'... only squads of Deathmarks, Lychguard, Immortals, and Warriors.

BarBoBot wrote:

Sigvatr wrote:Looking forward to the FAQ update then (also: Skyfire on Heavy Destroyers, please.).

With all due respect to RAW, it's complete bullcrap. So, you can hold a gun out of a firing point / open-topped vehicle and aim at stuff yet can't draw normal LOS?

...and seriously, the model -_-

GW, master of fack ups.

Are you expecting a realistic tabletop war experience?

Im sure you have heard it before, but I'll repeat it.

40k does not use real world logic. The amount of things that are not realistic are plentiful. If you start picking the game apart based on what would be realistic in real life, your in for a huge disappointment.

Yet the game used and continues to use True Line of Sight.

Furthermore, every single fantasy/sci-fi game bases its physics and laws of nature upon those found in our would/planet/universe/place. Just because Daemons or another parallel dimension exists does not exempt the game from having a firm grasp on the laws of physics, much less sight. Granted, the writers at GW seem to not have the Science Channel (and perhaps haven't heard anything about science in the last... decade or so),

Was there a change to wording? Last time i remember reading about transport and LOS there were fire points mentioned - as in, you can't trace LOS from fire points.
Also, last time i checked there are no firepoints on open-topped vehickles. Not in rules, not on models.

Anyway, what i was thinking about is something along the lines of 4 Ghost Arcs with 5 warriors, 1 Overlord, and 4 Royal Court members in each. At 2k, of course. Haven't run the numberson it yet, though. What woould be the best curt loadout for this setup, though? Even simple "lords with scythes/mss" would be brutal, but i do believe that's not the limit.

Sigvatr wrote:

Luide wrote:
Wrong question. "Where does it say that you can?" would be the correct one.
Answer is nowhere, and because 40k is permissive ruleset, therefore you can't.

There is very good example showing example of this on 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".
MitM works exactly the same: You need LOS and this means Anrakyr could only target himself or his CBC with it.

So what exactly keeps me from smashing my opponent's minis off the board?

Fact that there is no rule allowing you to do it. Exactly same as with Anrakyr and MitM.

Sigvatr wrote:
Certainly a hyperbole, no offense,, yet I don't buy the "Rules need to be stated part" unless there's a specific part telling me that you don't get LOS out of a transport.

Then you've completely misunderstood how permissive ruleset works. There is no specific part in rules that tells you that you don't get LOS out of transport. Neither is there specific part of rules that says "You can smash your opponents minis". Therefore, you can't do either.
To recap: In permissive rulesset, to do anything, you need rule that gives you permission to do it.

Sigvatr wrote:...and seriously, not getting LOS out from a CCB is downright bs logic-wise.

Don't mix logic and 40k. You'll only get huge headache. Fact that opponents cannot draw LOS to models embarked in open-topped transports is just as bs, but you don't see any Necron players complaining about that, do you?
40k has huge amount of unrealistic rules that only exists to streamline game or for balance reasons. This is just one of them.
(Disclaimer: 40k also has huge amount of unrealistic rules that exist for no good reason that I can see).

Survivor19 wrote: Also, last time i checked there are no firepoints on open-topped vehickles. Not in rules, not on models.

Open-topped vehicles do not have specific Fire Points, that is true. But this does not matter, because even in open-topped you're only given permission to draw LOS for shooting attacks. So still no MitM.

Anpu-adom wrote:

skoffs wrote:Speaking of Deathstars, how's Royal Court Disco Inferno looking now at the 2000 point level?

8 Lords all armed to the teeth, 5 Crypteks of all the various flavors, lead by potentially 4 to 5 ICs?
Is there anything that can stop that?

First off, I think he's talking about a double force chart game:
Royal Court #1: 5 Lords + 5 Crypteks
From Royal Court #2: +1 Lord
From Royal Court #3: +1 Lord
From Royal Court #4: +1 Lord
Total 8 Lords and 5 Crypteks... however the rules don't say that Royal Court members can 'join a Royal Court'... only squads of Deathmarks, Lychguard, Immortals, and Warriors.

oh son of a bitch.
Yes, that is how I had thought I might be able to get away with it... without realizing that nowhere in the codex does it say anything about Court members being able to join other Royal Courts.
*sigh*
Well, at least I might be able to field 4 RCDIs, then?
(that's still pretty tough to deal with, right?)

ITT: people citing real-world logic instead of reading the damn rules.

It's a game, there are rules that may or may not match up with reality. It's like arguing that queens shouldn't be able to move so far on a chessboard because they're not as well-trained as knights.

Whats your general thoughts on Lynchguards/Preaetorians?

Are they worth their points in this edition? what unit would you take?

TheAzathoth wrote:Whats your general thoughts on Lynchguards/Preaetorians?

Are they worth their points in this edition? what unit would you take?

I think someone already answered your question in another thread when you asked it: the best use of the box is to make Crypteks, the second best choice being Praetorians (only if accompanied by a Dlord), third being counter-assault Lychguard.

skoffs wrote:

TheAzathoth wrote:Whats your general thoughts on Lynchguards/Preaetorians?

Are they worth their points in this edition? what unit would you take?

I think someone already answered your question in another thread when you asked it: the best use of the box is to make Crypteks, the second best choice being Praetorians (only if accompanied by a Dlord), third being counter-assault Lychguard.

Wow really? i asked in another thread but i though no one replied it, sorry!

And thanks a lot for your response!

Use Hyperphase Swords as Power Axes, and viola Lychguard are viable again. The Initiative loss is nothing to worried about with Necrons.

Gangrel767 wrote:Use Hyperphase Swords as Power Axes, and viola Lychguard are viable again.

... dude, that is very TFG, right there.
(I mean, seriously, just look at the name of the weapon, for C'tan's sake!)

Gangrel767 wrote:Use Hyperphase Swords as Power Axes, and viola Lychguard are viable again. The Initiative loss is nothing to worried about with Necrons.

Necron digital codex confirms they are just AP 3. Sorry

skoffs wrote:

Gangrel767 wrote:Use Hyperphase Swords as Power Axes, and viola Lychguard are viable again.

... dude, that is very TFG, right there.
(I mean, seriously, just look at the name of the weapon, for C'tan's sake!)

Not TFG, it's illegal. Hyperphase Swords are classified as AP 3 power weapons.

Gangrel767 wrote:Use Hyperphase Swords as Power Axes, and viola Lychguard are viable again. The Initiative loss is nothing to worried about with Necrons.

I don't think it's a TFG argument at all and makes sense RAW. However, we got a stealth update in the digital codex which specifically lists HPSs as AP3 powerswords unfortunately.