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.

Placing one of the units model on top of the transport is only for the purpose of "making a note or otherwise marking that the unit is being transported"

So only for notation do you put a model on the transport, the models are not actually on the table, because we have been told they are "removed from the table and placed aside"

so let me get this straight then.. when i embark Anrakyr on the CCB i'm now suppose to place him like he is getting onboard.. then take him off the table set him aside.. then turn around and take him and put him on the CCB because this works well.. lmao.. well i guess thats one way to order your happy meal.. sorry not going to happen on this end.. that is illogical and not practical and my friends would laugh asking what the heck i was doing. lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
sorry i'm going back to WYSIWYG... If a lord or over lord is embarked then that model better be on the CCB and not on the side of the table.

However you do it, remember that the model is only there to make a note of which unit is being transported.

If you are using non shooting, non Psychic powers from a transport, you are breaking the rules.

so does that make his sweeping Attacks not work now because he really isn't on the CCB?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again.. GW likes WYSIWYG and the CCB has been designed to allow the model physical placment so i think that is more up todate the p66 of 5th edition.. i would say that doesn't apply to the case at hand.

Necronmike wrote:so let me get this straight then.. when i embark Anrakyr on the CCB i'm now suppose to place him like he is getting onboard.. then take him off the table set him aside.. then turn around and take him and put him on the CCB because this works well.. lmao.. well i guess thats one way to order your happy meal.. sorry not going to happen on this end.. that is illogical and not practical and my friends would laugh asking what the heck i was doing. lol

You can put him on the CCB as a marker, but the unit is off the table.
Since the unit is off the table, you can't use the marker to determine LOS.

And sure - I'll get through your Quantum Shielding of 2 (since that's all it improves your AV by) to shoot the crap out of Anrakyr before he disembarks. He doesn't get the flat out cover save either - he didn't move, the vehicle did.

Do you see how silly that argument is? Comparing it to ordering a happy meal at mcdonalds is absolutely a poor argument. a) you cannot bring RL comparisons into the game b)When you get in your car, you are not removed from anything - but in the game, the unit is removed from the table.

but thats my two cents and thats how i'm going to play it

Necronmike wrote:so does that make his sweeping Attacks not work now because he really isn't on the CCB?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Once again.. GW likes WYSIWYG and the CCB has been designed to allow the model physical placment so i think that is more up todate the p66 of 5th edition.. i would say that doesn't apply to the case at hand.

No, the CCB allows Sweeping Attacks specifically.

And this has absolutely nothing to do with WYSIWYG. GW would have to change a massive amount of rules to allow what you're saying. They haven't. It's not allowed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Necronmike wrote:but thats my two cents and thats how i'm going to play it

Feel free. It's wrong.

1) WYSIWYG relates to wargear, not rules. You may be thinking TLOS.

2) TLOS does not apply to markers, especially when they mark something that is supposed to be off the table.

thats fine.. i'll do what seems fair and this will get FAQ again and the 6th edition rule book will be coming out so we will see how that all gets addressed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
some one should just call Matt Ward and ask how he intended this to work..lmao

Necronmike wrote:but thats my two cents and thats how i'm going to play it

If you are going to house rule it, and your opponents agree then you have no issue at all.

Just remember that:

#1 it is a House rule.

#2 Make sure you ask your opponent if it is okay to use that House rule. If not you either are not getting a game in, or you have to play without the House rule.

Mike, you really need to read the rulebook, man. It's one thing to have house rules, which is fine, but you seem to not understand the rules for transports at all.

nate you might be right.. necrons never had any transports. so ill make it a point reread all the transport rules and have one of my club members hellp me understand it..but what i find really funny about all this is.. we are talking about mind in the machine and any real necron player is going to agree that things have to be in just the right order to pull it off.. so its very rare that it is used to begain with.. it is not going to be the cause of some one loosing a game because of Mind in the Machine. i have only used it once since i've started using anrakyr. if some one is loosing to necrons, its not because of mind in the machine tilted the game. its because we get back up lol..


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(picking up phone) ..hello games workshop.. can i speak to Matt Ward please? .... thank you.. i'm on hold.. i'll let evey one know what he says ok' lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
while i'm on hold ... i can still use the tachyon arrow right?.. ok ill use it from the fire point when i shoot.. lol

I share your opinion Mike. I ain't magnetising those damn lords and modifying barge only to have them off the table and use as decoration :]

Seriously - that might be ok rulewise (which again relates to most "typical" vehicles that are more like cans) but ridiculous to have barge with normal Overlord represent Barge which Anrakyr embarked.
Then if you deploy him - you have what? Two lords, but one is a clumsy decoy? Clinging so tightly to rules kills the fun. On the side - I would question WYSWIG when someone would use normal lord on barge to represent named character - would you defend that by claiming true lord is off the table? Seriously?

It's like a train wreck.

I know the answer, Anrakyr cannot use Mind-In-The-Machine while embarked on a CCB (or a Ghost Ark, or any other transport), but I keep coming back to look.

I can't help myself!

Also, iirc, Sweeping Attacks do not require LoS, thus negating the need to measure from any point to use them.

Herr Dexter wrote:I share your opinion Mike. I ain't magnetising those damn lords and modifying barge only to have them off the table and use as decoration :]

And no one said you have to...

Seriously - that might be ok rulewise (which again relates to most "typical" vehicles that are more like cans) but ridiculous to have barge with normal Overlord represent Barge which Anrakyr embarked.

You realize that the CCB is far from the only open topped vehicle in the game. Dark Elves have a lot of OT vehicles, and no one has *ever* claimed that the models riding inside get to do anything special.

Then if you deploy him - you have what? Two lords, but one is a clumsy decoy? Clinging so tightly to rules kills the fun. On the side - I would question WYSWIG when someone would use normal lord on barge to represent named character - would you defend that by claiming true lord is off the table? Seriously?

I would defend that as the marker being representative of what's off the table - since that's what it is. Or, I'd throw Dr. A up there as a marker. Either way, there's no rules issue.

I wish there was a stronger 'boggle' orkmoticon than . But, this will just have to do. . .

Mannahnin wrote:Nope. The Open-Topped vehicle rules only give permission to "fire" out of the vehicle.

The Fire Points rules gave permission to fire or use a psychic power from a fire point, but that's now been restricted by the brand-new FAQ to just shooting.

Does that effect IG psykers too?

labmouse42 wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:Nope. The Open-Topped vehicle rules only give permission to "fire" out of the vehicle.

The Fire Points rules gave permission to fire or use a psychic power from a fire point, but that's now been restricted by the brand-new FAQ to just shooting.

Does that effect IG psykers too?

Yes, but iirc IG psykers use PSAs, which are explicitly allowed.

No, Weaken Resolve is now not allowed from transports from what I can see. It's not a PSA and requires line of sight.

I'm still on hold ....

Necronmike wrote:I'm still on hold ....

Cool story bro? Not that a phone call is relevant, but neither are the emails to GW that also ruled against you... so why not just admit that the way you're playing is a house rule and go on with life?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Creon wrote:No, Weaken Resolve is now not allowed from transports from what I can see. It's not a PSA and requires line of sight.

Sorry - forgot it wasn't a PSA. No more staring a unit down from the safety of a metal box!

Guys, weaken resolve *is* allowed. It is a psy power, it is not a special rule or piece of wargear.

All Psy powers can draw LoS from a fire point. (not just shooting ones.)

Now, if you are one of the folks that believe OT means you don't have any fire points, then you can't do it from an OT vehicle.

This is what confuses me.
It seems silly to allow things like Weaken Resolve to measure LoS from a vehicle, but then fully take away the use of a similar ability like MitM via a vehicle.

Point has probably been made but cant trawl through all 9 Pages sor far to see if someone has made it !

A closed vehicle needs defined points or 'windows' in the hull that a model can draw LOS from , a point ( position ) they can fire from - hence 'fire point' .
OT vehicles dont need any specific point ( position ) defined as a passenger is outside the hull , the point they can fire from is anywhere , an infinite ' window ' for simplicity they use the hull as the origin for LOS .

So I would say an OT passenger has a fire point of anywhere on the hull , self evidently a 'fire point ' of the whole vehicle - to my logic at least implied if not spelled out

That has already been covered, but the FAQ states that Special Rules that require LoS cannot be used from any vehicle.

rigeld2 wrote:

Necronmike wrote:I'm still on hold ....

Cool story bro? Not that a phone call is relevant, but neither are the emails to GW that also ruled against you... so why not just admit that the way you're playing is a house rule and go on with life?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Creon wrote:No, Weaken Resolve is now not allowed from transports from what I can see. It's not a PSA and requires line of sight.

Sorry - forgot it wasn't a PSA. No more staring a unit down from the safety of a metal box!

@ rigeld2.. omg you are soooo right.. why oh why have you forsaken me GW. is not how i play logical and fun? will you not let me buy any more models because i find a rule that is going to be used less then .01% of the time, as illogical and kinda stupid to say i can't do MITM because my model is really not there but it is and i have no fire points? OHHHHH GW i'm so so so sorry.. ( screech ) wrong... fine you don't want me to use MITM ok i won't if i ever play you. i will tell you what will happen though.. i'll do a sweep attack... blow up a tank.. disembark... shoot the tachyon arrow.. blow up anther Tank then when i can assult .. i'm going to carv a big fat hole in the side of another tank with my warscythe and blow that one up. and i'll laugh because you said that you won't let me control your heavy bolter on your Rhyno. alright don't you get it.. MITM is just a poke in the side.. the real danger is the warscythe.. and every one knows that.

ok so every one wants to hear me say its sooo right that i can't use MITM.. ok fine big deal.. id rather get off the CCB to carv holes in tanks .. thats when i laugh and love it soooo much.

so thanks for the Advice rigeld2.. sure have made getting over not being able to use MITM alot more easer.. just made me relize that i use that trick very rare, the real death is from my warscythe. ok thanks again.

oh yeah .. i'm still on hold ..lmao

I would say "No" on Weaken Resolve. If it's not shooty, it no workie.

Crackgnome wrote:That has already been covered, but the FAQ states that Special Rules that require LoS cannot be used from any vehicle.

Cheers , that should be the end of this thread then ? question answered ?

loreweaver wrote:I would say "No" on Weaken Resolve. If it's not shooty, it no workie.

I agree with lore.. no to weaken and no to mitm.. thread solved.. ( as Anrakyr is sharping his warscythe ) who needs that stupid mitm.. i 've got old faithfull right here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i'm going to blow some tanks the hell up... its so funny to roll 2d6 and add 8 to it on the charge. hehe i'm def getting in that tank one way or another.