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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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?

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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

 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.

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

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.

 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.

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.

 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.