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.

Reecius wrote:Nope, it was Chrsitian's Coteaz GK, with 3 man units in Psybacks, Psyfilmen dreads, 5 man purifier squads and a Dreadknight. Like 19 KP or something crazy?

Gotcha. Yeah, that's just about as MSU as it gets!

I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!

I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?

I edited up my video footage of the event, including interviews with both Reece and Jim. I should have a full written review of the event on my site tomorrow.





Edit-The embedded video was being funny and I fixed it.

Dugg wrote:I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!

I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?

We'll look forward to seeing you next year!

My understanding is that it's fairly cut-and-dried, if not explicitly stated:

-This is a special ability which requires LOS.
-LOS can be drawn from dedicated transports only for the purposes of making a Shooting attack.

Here's an INAT FAQ ruling:

GK.45F.03 – Q: Can Coteaz utilize ‘I’ve Been
Expecting You’ while embarked in a vehicle or
building?
A: No, as this rule requires line of sight and is not a
shooting attack or psychic power [clarification].

Dugg wrote:I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!

I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?

Maybe he got it from this:

Page 78 under fire points "A fire point is a hatch or gun slit from which one or more passengers inside the vehicle can fire shooting weapons (or use witch fire/psychic shooting attacks).

Page 67 under declare target. "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..."

I know Coteaz's rule is not a psychic power, but it does require that he have LOS to the target. These rules for psykers seem to indicate there is no LOS from inside a transport except for shooting attacks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

robpace wrote:

Dugg wrote:I wish I could have been there. It sounds like I missed some good times. Next year for sure!

I have to ask about the Coteaz LOS from a Rhino rule. I haven't seen anything to say he can't do that. Can you point me to where you found that Rob?

We'll look forward to seeing you next year!

My understanding is that it's fairly cut-and-dried, if not explicitly stated:

-This is a special ability which requires LOS.
-LOS can be drawn from dedicated transports only for the purposes of making a Shooting attack.

Here's an INAT FAQ ruling:

GK.45F.03 – Q: Can Coteaz utilize ‘I’ve Been
Expecting You’ while embarked in a vehicle or
building?
A: No, as this rule requires line of sight and is not a
shooting attack or psychic power [clarification].

That's an even better explanation than what I tried to say. And it's in the INAT also. I agree with the tourney ruling. It doesn't matter if both players agreed before the game that all lascannons now have a 12" range, you can't agree to a change to the BRB rules before the game.

Interesting. I was staying away from the INAT due to it being 5th still, correct?

The pg 67 & 78 combo seems to make it clear for non-shooting abilities. Fire Points = Firing.

So it would seem the only non-shooting that can happen from a vehicle that needs LOS is an IG Officer giving orders from a Mobile Command Vehicle (Chimera). Any others I'm missing?

Dugg wrote:Interesting. I was staying away from the INAT due to it being 5th still, correct?

The pg 67 & 78 combo seems to make it clear for non-shooting abilities. Fire Points = Firing.

That's correct -- this is not a new rule. Coteaz could not use his ability while embarked last edition, either.

Dugg wrote:So it would seem the only non-shooting that can happen from a vehicle that needs LOS is an IG Officer giving orders from a Mobile Command Vehicle (Chimera). Any others I'm missing?

Off the top of my head that's the only exception, and that's only because it's noted as an exception in the codex. The rule of thumb is that if a unit is embarked, it may only target itself with non-Shooting abilities which require LOS.

robpace wrote:

Dugg wrote:Interesting. I was staying away from the INAT due to it being 5th still, correct?

The pg 67 & 78 combo seems to make it clear for non-shooting abilities. Fire Points = Firing.

That's correct -- this is not a new rule. Coteaz could not use his ability while embarked last edition, either.

Dugg wrote:So it would seem the only non-shooting that can happen from a vehicle that needs LOS is an IG Officer giving orders from a Mobile Command Vehicle (Chimera). Any others I'm missing?

Off the top of my head that's the only exception, and that's only because it's noted as an exception in the codex. The rule of thumb is that if a unit is embarked, it may only target itself with non-Shooting abilities which require LOS.

Anrakyr's Mind in the Machine special ability.

Njal's Lord of Tempest ability also.

robpace wrote:

That's correct -- this is not a new rule. Coteaz could not use his ability while embarked last edition, either.

True indeed. The FAQ for the 5.ed main book had this:

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.

The FAQ is gone but the above reference above pg 67 & 78 IMO states the same.

It was a tough call to have to make. Rob had a clear basis for his decision. Seems alright to me.

That INAT ruling is now (partially) incorrect, in that previously GW had ruled in their 5th rulebook FAQ that psychic powers could be used from within a vehicle using the vehicle's firing points to draw line of sight out of it. This made psychic powers the exception to the other ruling they had in their 5th edition rulebook FAQ which was posted above (specifically clarifying that wargear and special rules could NOT use fire points to draw line of sight for these things.


While GW doesn't currently have a rulebook FAQ up, the basic premise that motivated their ruling still stands...by the RAW, the only times an embarked unit can draw line of sight from a vehicle is when firing (including shooting with witchfire psychic powers). In all other cases, units are not given permission to do so, and therefore cannot.

Therefore, IMHO, there is absolutely no question that Coteaz's ability should not be allowed to work while he's embarked in a vehicle. So from my point of view it sounds like Rob made the right rules call.

However, I know when we judge at Adepticon, we generally have the policy that allows players to play their game and only interfere with a rules judgement when the players request one to me made. This is a general principle that is pretty important to allow players to play the games they want to, because frankly if two players want to play with house rules, even in a tournament game, as long as they are both okay with playing that way, then they should be able to. Just because they're playing in a tournament doesn't change the fact that they're still playing the game against each other and therefore are in command of their own gaming experience.

With that said, even with that general policy at Adepticon, they still do have more judge interaction in the final 16 round on the second day, where judges will step in to point out what they believe to be rules mistakes...mainly because when the event is really on the line you don't want a forgotten rule to change the outcome of a game. Given that this game was pretty much the final, I think it is pretty reasonable to have a judge jump in to correct a rules issue they spot...however, from my perspective as a reader of the incident, if both players had literally agreed to play the rule one way and neither player had an issue with it, then their own judgement should have carried the day.

So when the error was pointed out, what was Jim's response to the situation?

Actually, the ruling came as a surprise to the both of us, as we were both not aware of this. I was aware of the 5E FAQ, but did not know that it applied here. So in essence, we were both playing it wrong due to ignorance.

This happened after Coteaz's unit already resolved the shooting against my wraiths (did 1W to them only) and were in the middle of resolving their shooting against my flyer.

I just took it as, oh, we both played it wrong but since we are still in the phase where I was moving my reserves onto the table, we had to redo it due to the judge's rules correction.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
What happened was this.

I asked Rob a question about overwatch from a vehicle. Rob saw the situation then. Firstly, he reminded me that my wraiths cannot assault on the turn they come in from reserves, which I totally forgot about.

Then he told us to hold on while he goes and checks up on a rule. At that point, I was still moving my units (flyers) in from reserves and Christian was in the process of resolving his Coteaz's special rule against my flyer. So we stopped until he came back to tell us about the rules correction on Coteaz.

And Jim, no one is trying to take anything away from you. You won, fair and square.

My point being that, as Yak pointed out, if the players were already playing it one way and the game was predicated round it, I would have let it ride as it was too late and too game changing to change it.

Hi Rob,
Are y'all planning to post the results on the website? I'd like to know what the breakdown of the lists were and how each army fared. As the first GT for the new edition this is our first glimpse into the possible "new meta". (I don't know why, but I feel dirty for saying that.)

Results and lists would be awesome.

Results from the Golden Throne 2012 are now live! Check out final standings or our metagame breakdown to find out which armies started sixth edition with a bang!

We'll be adding more in-depth results tonight, but I wanted to get the basics up ASAP.

Awesome. Thanks!

Amerikon wrote:Awesome. Thanks!

No problem! We've already added a breakdown of Flyers on the Metagame page. There were only 26 in the entire tournament.

Will you be posting these to RHQ? If you want, I can do it, I post results up quite a bit.

Lol. I was ranked #784 on RankingsHQ before this tournament.

RHQ doesn't really mean anything in my opinion.

@Dozer Blades

Haha, well thanks for sharing your opinion. It's fun, and we like ribbing each other about who's the highest and who passed who and such.

@Jim

Well, you'll go up a lot after this!

Dozer Blades wrote:RHQ doesn't really mean anything in my opinion.

I agree, but since some people like seeing their names and it's only extra work for me and no one else we went ahead and uploaded the results. They should become public soon.

Reecius, about deathstars and MSU being good in 6th edition... that is casting a pretty wide net! Since those are at opposite ends of the spectrum . And definitely, flyers are scary atm since there aren't really counters except... other flyers.

Also, I think next time you might consider contacting the TO directly with your concerns about the call in the final game. The reasoning has been explained pretty clearly at this point, and maybe it wasn't the right way to go (or is, but should have been done sooner) but it certainly seems you could have raised your concerns in a better manner, particularly being a TO yourself.

Not trying to be too critical, but those are just my thoughts after seeing what I think probably could have been handled in a better manner, and how you'd probably appreciate someone handling a concern with an event that you host.

He was just speaking his mind at the time. We all have emotions and they can govern what we say. I don't think there was any ill intent - it just came off a little rough. Reecius is a good guy with passion for this game we play and that's a good thing.

Nids seemed to do well, making a comeback maybe?

tuiman wrote:Nids seemed to do well, making a comeback maybe?

It's a great army that's made even better by their access to new Psychic powers and the reduced emphasis on Kill Points in 6e. The more players fielding an army, the more reliable that army's average placement becomes in understanding the strength of the codex itself. We had five Tyranid players will an average placement of 16, far better than any other army (Dark Angels came in 8th, but that's on the strength of a single player; Orks also had an average placement of 16, but with only two players).

RiTides wrote:Reecius, about deathstars and MSU being good in 6th edition... that is casting a pretty wide net! Since those are at opposite ends of the spectrum . And definitely, flyers are scary atm since there aren't really counters except... other flyers.

Also, I think next time you might consider contacting the TO directly with your concerns about the call in the final game. The reasoning has been explained pretty clearly at this point, and maybe it wasn't the right way to go (or is, but should have been done sooner) but it certainly seems you could have raised your concerns in a better manner, particularly being a TO yourself.

Not trying to be too critical, but those are just my thoughts after seeing what I think probably could have been handled in a better manner, and how you'd probably appreciate someone handling a concern with an event that you host.

You're right.

I definitely could have handled it better. I don't mind honest criticism, it helps us to improve! Going forward, I will definitely use a little more discretion as I don't want to unintentionally hurt anyone's reputation.

@Dozer Blades

Thanks, I appreciate that! That was an emotionally based decision and as often happens with those, they can end up not going the way you planned.

And that's why I love Dakka! Here I was thinking I might get flamed, but I forgot who I was talking to- a class act. Cheers

@ L'Etat - Cool Video, thanks for sharing.

@ Reccius - "Sunz of EnOrkie"? haha Who was rocking the Blue Half Case, was that Frankie?




Automatically Appended Next Post:
@ RiTides - I love Dakka because I think Yakface is dreamy!! haha