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.

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

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

is not the same as

"Have some non-specific fire point"

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

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

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

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

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

It isnt working - you do realise that, right?

kirsanth wrote:

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

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

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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

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

It isnt working - you do realise that, right?

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

Regardless, I at least am finished on this thread.

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

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

Not if you think the vehicle has firepoints.

"No specific firepoint"

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

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

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

"No specific firepoint"

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

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

Open topped do not have SPECIFIC Firepoints.

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

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

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:"No specific firepoint"

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

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

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

STOP SAYING THIS, IT IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

That OT have no firepoints.

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

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

nosferatu1001 wrote:That OT have no firepoints.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Fail logic is fail.

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

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

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

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

BeRzErKeR wrote:That's a different argument

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So all 3 profiles have a Fire Points characteristic.

Hope that helps.

Tye_Informer wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

So all 3 profiles have a Fire Points characteristic.

Hope that helps.

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

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

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

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

This is kinda moot in a way.

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

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

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

coredump wrote:This is kinda moot in a way.

Which is why we are discussing it.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But that would be factually incorrect...

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

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