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.

Necronmike, if you're taking this seriously enough that you've spent more than five hours on hold... you're just a lost cause at this point.

As for loreweaver, non PSA psyker powers ARE allowed to draw LoS, as specifically stated in the FAQ.
"Q: Can a model use a psychic power that is not a
Psychic Shooting Attack if it is embarked in a transport
vehicle? (p50)
A: Yes. If the power requires line of sight, this is still
worked out from the vehicle’s fire points (this will
count as one model shooting through that fire point if
the power is used in the Shooting phase).
If the psychic power does not require line of sight and
has a range or an area of effect that is normally
measured from the model using it, these are measured
from the vehicle’s hull, as explained in the Embarking
section on page 66."

The fact that they made this okay and MitM not is what bugs me, though I do agree that the FAQ disallows Anrakyr from using his ability in a vehicle.
Hopefully the next round of Necron FAQ will clear this up.

EDIT: If you plan to leave your lord in the barge, don't take Anrakyr. Save the 25 or so points and make an arrow/scythe overlord.
If he's getting out and can benefit from Furious Charge and Counter Attack, by all means use The Traveler.

Second EDIT: Also, Necronmike, you cannot charge a unit unless you shot at it previously, or did not shoot at all. So you can't arrow a tank to death then charge another in the same turn.

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

Necronmike wrote:

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.

You would both be wrong. Have a look at the BRB FAQ, and note that PSYCHIC POWERS that need LOS are permitted to use it from a firepoint.

Beat you to it
However, if you had wargear that needed to draw LoS and was not a shooting attack, that would also be disallowed, just as MitM is.

I love this thread, ill post again when im done driving


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Crack gnome.. Yes the joke is that I was calling Matt ward himself lol. GW has good turn around on calling tech support. But I think we should all take a look at every thing in the big picture, we play this game for fun and we all know that there is enough rules in this game to turn it into no fun. So don't kill the fun by "rules" that really shouldn't apply because it's not logical. If you do chances are your going to find it harder and harder for people that will want to do casual battles. With out casual battles you will never get good enough for those world class tournaments you win at all the time. I'm just saying, keep it fun people


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh yeah crack gnome I know I can't assault after disembarking that's why I said " when I can assault "

Well yes, fun is a big factor in these games, but if you use a skewed ruleset when playing casually, then you'll never know how your army functions in the strict ruleset if you decide to play in a tourney.
The rules are there for a reason, and while I might find it incredibly fun to say... use the Changeling's ability every time an enemy shoots (which is a possible interpretation before the FAQ clarified it), if I used that as part of my tactics for every game I played with that army, I'd never develop an army that didn't utilize that ability to win games.

Yes i agree there is a dif in preping for a tourney but in same breath its always fun to just play to throw dice, the club im in is starting up 1000 pts tourneys. So yes i want to build a good well rounded roster for this, and train for this aswell. But im also going run other point games for fun and not going to mind if my oppent say forgets to us a shooty weapon and he has already moved models in the assult phase. Ill be the first one to say hey why dont you shoot it and lets see what happens. Then after its done resume the assult phase. I mean common its still a game and ment for fun. There is a time to be prep for tourney and a time to be relaxed.

These kinds of "oh I forgot to do this" mistakes are things I deal with on a regular basis, and often make myself.
This is different than using rules in a way that they are not supposed to be used.

Well my point is i just dont see matt ward making a rule in a codex that says you can do somthing but then all of a sudden it cant happen due to a faq that was written years ago? But hey thats fine warscythe is much better tool tp use and we are all pretty sure this will get faq so what ever im not such an uptight gamer where im going to be hell bent on somthing. Im just say the way it is now is just plain stupid and not logical but thats fine i can acept things as they are for now and then when it gets fix, start playing it how it was ment to be played.

The FAQ was written only a handful of days ago, long after Ward wrote the dex.
Not to mention, this does not negate Anrakyr's ability to use his special rule, simply disallows him from using it while on a vehicle, which is a restraint that other models must also follow.

It's worth mentioning that the Necrons (along with all the other armies) got a FAQ the same day the BRB FAQ came out, and it did not give special permission for the Traveler to use his rule whilst embarked.

Ok so I stand corrected again on when the brb got FAQ. Point taken and what ever. It will get fixed then we can start playing it how it was ment to be played. Sorry I just feel different about how things work. To me logic beats out most things but that's fine I'll not use mitm while embarked on ccb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ok so I stand corrected again on when the brb got FAQ. Point taken and what ever. It will get fixed then we can start playing it how it was ment to be played. Sorry I just feel different about how things work. To me logic beats out most things but that's fine I'll not use mitm while embarked on ccb.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well let me fix that last statement . I'll use it if the house rules say ok. But next time im in a GW tourney I won't

To give you a logical fluff reason for him not to be able to use MitM, perhaps he is too concerned with the targeting systems of the vehicle he's already in to worry about trying to take over an enemy's systems.

Surely people including folks from games workshop can see how this FAQ is not very logical not only for anrakyr but for other armies as well. Guess that's why I like nerons so much lol they are undead robots and deal with things logically, but that's a good fluff there crack gnome lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh and I like posting because it's building my stats here on dakka dakka lol


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'm now a numberless necron warrior. I wonder how many post I need to reach necron overlord. I wonder if dakka dakka has the new codex in mind when lvl users that pick necrons as their army.

Necronmike:

Why do you think this isn't the way it's intended to be? You keep insisting that Ward wrote it to be used from the CCB, and that any rule that stops that from happening is illogical, stupid, and will be changed. Why do you think that way?

Also, spamming the board just to "level up" is pretty silly and gets annoying.

Many people used it this way in the past three months before the FAQ was up, so it's been generally accepted as truth.
I'm in favor of it if it means IBEY won't work for Coteaz in a transport anymore.

In reality, this FAQ doesn't change anything. We were *never* allowed to use wargear or special rules that needed LoS. Because there has never been rules to allow it, nor to say how to measure LoS for wargear and special rules.

Its just that no one (including myself) realized it until this FAQ came out.

Same.
I just assumed rules such as this functioned the same way as psychic attacks that drew line of sight that weren't PSA.

Necronmike wrote:I love this thread, ill post again when im done driving

Necronmike, you're the best.

the new faq creates two conditions for an ability on a vehicle.

is it a shooting attack?
does the ability require line of sight?

If question 1 is yes then question two doesn't matter. However if question 1 is no then question 2 must be no as well. Otherwise it is not allowed.

psychic hoods can be used since they do not require line of sight. The Sanguinary Priest 6" bubble can be used since it does not require line of sight. Anrakyrs power cannot be used since it is not a shooting attack, but does require line of sight.

You forgot to add the psychic caveat. Psykers can Los from firing points.

rigeld2 wrote:Necronmike:

Why do you think this isn't the way it's intended to be? You keep insisting that Ward wrote it to be used from the CCB, and that any rule that stops that from happening is illogical, stupid, and will be changed. Why do you think that way?

Also, spamming the board just to "level up" is pretty silly and gets annoying.

Rigeld2.. ok first off i'm playing the way everyone says it should be played.. i won't use Mitm on a CCB.. But let’s look at it from a logical point of view and as if you Were Anrakyr.. Ok so I have this "remote control" Weapons Hacking ability but the requirement is I have to be able to see my vehicle that I’m going to take control over and it has to be so close.. Due to the type of Data Transmitter that is embedded in my head. So if i have this ability and I’m embarked on a OT vehicle like the CCB ( model is physically there, even though its only for looks now because really I’m off the board because I’m embarked) lmao man i can't get over that one just yet.. way to funny.. any ways if i have this ability as long as i can physically see this Tank and its within range.. i should be able to use my Hacking code to take control over it regardless if I’m on a CCB or not (given the dice roll is good).. but that’s not how ever one is playing, soooo..I’m just trying to think how Matt was writing this and how he maybe intended it to work and opps he is human too and the FAQ nerfed it. its just logical that’s all Rigeld2... i mean if i am driving thru McDonald’s i can pick up a WIFI signal while I’m in my car.. i don't have get out of my car to pick up the signal .. I’m just saying.

As far as the spamming the board to level up.. that was a joke it was the first time i Noticed that my status changed dude. it was a joke. I have only recently joined Dakka Dakka so yeah I’m stilling learning things about this site. So yeah good to meet every one.

How dare you Necronmike? Every good dakka-ite knows that on dakka the most important rule is "Never bring logic into a WH40K debate." On a more serious note, I understand "why" he should be allowed, but unfortunately RAW went the other way.

Necronmike wrote:any ways if i have this ability as long as i can physically see this Tank and its within range.. i should be able to use my Hacking code to take control over it regardless if I’m on a CCB or not (given the dice roll is good)

You're making some pretty wild assumptions about the fluff of how this works.

Does Dr. A have to concentrate? Doing so in a vehicle you're not piloting, especially one that moves really fast, is nontrivial.

Nevermind... you have absolutely no idea what Matt Ward intended when he wrote the rule. Maybe he intended Dr. A to never be in a CCB.

Happyjew wrote:How dare you Necronmike? Every good dakka-ite knows that on dakka the most important rule is "Never bring logic into a WH40K debate." On a more serious note, I understand "why" he should be allowed, but unfortunately RAW went the other way.

I know shame on me.. leason learned.. now on to helping and learning on tactics and what not.. but i sure did enjoy this thread it was fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Necronmike wrote:any ways if i have this ability as long as i can physically see this Tank and its within range.. i should be able to use my Hacking code to take control over it regardless if I’m on a CCB or not (given the dice roll is good)

You're making some pretty wild assumptions about the fluff of how this works.

Does Dr. A have to concentrate? Doing so in a vehicle you're not piloting, especially one that moves really fast, is nontrivial.

Nevermind... you have absolutely no idea what Matt Ward intended when he wrote the rule. Maybe he intended Dr. A to never be in a CCB.

Rigeld.. thats fine your right i don't know what Matt had in mind.. but we will just hang back and see if it gets FAQ again.. and if it does .. i will send you an email saying "Told you so" but thats fine i can play as is.. like i said earlyer.. MITM is only used about .01% of the time just because of what has to be inplace for it to be usefull. other than that.. its Warscythe all the way.. and you can bet i've been punching holes in tanks with that bad boy since the old Codex, i was pleased to see it wasn't nerfed like my destroyers.. how ever i can say the Destroyer lord is basicaly a 1 model tank killing machine thats for sure. any ways I sure did enjoy the convo Rigeld2.. we will keep intouch after the new FAQ comes out again. ok ..ok cool.. later.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh and its not Wild Assumptions.. its logical and if you knew how Technology worked.. you would understand why i think the way i do and why Necrons are so logical.. just saying. .. peace out. ( this means i'm picking up my marbles and going to go to another thread and play there, this horse is dead and has been beaten alot ..lol )

Mike, your analogy might make more sense if MitM didn't require LOS. It's gottta be more than a wireless connection.

Necronmike wrote:MITM is only used about .01% of the time just because of what has to be inplace for it to be usefull.

I used to use it successfully 2-3 times per game, and found that against MEQs it would typically destroy a vehicle or two and take out a combat squad, on average. Against IG...

Azazel, really well congrats on that, i have only used it just a couple of times becuse tanks never seem to be pointing at any targets other then my units lol, congrats though

Necronmike wrote:Azazel, really well congrats on that, i have only used it just a couple of times becuse tanks never seem to be pointing at any targets other then my units lol, congrats though

You get to rotate anything that isn't hull mounted... so unless you play against all-Vindicator armies, you should get some utility out of it.

Yeah i just havent ended up to where i was with in range while things were set up so i could us it. But the old destoyer lord pops alot tanks befor i can us it too much, but thats fine with me he is like a one model terminator guy. Soo ill just keep poping holes in tanks

rigeld2 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:The opposite of specific is general. Say the phrase 'general point' to yourself. Notice how it makes no sense at all? A point is, by definition, specific; that's what the word means. You cannot have a general point, and so you cannot have a general firing point, not without radically changing the definition of at least one of those words.

No.... just no.

First of all, a general point does make sense to me. As in, "In general my point is..." or "Generally your point is correct, but this this and this are incorrect." but that has absolutely nothing to do with this.

Does "in general my point is" or "generally your point is correct" = "general point"? NO THEY DO NOT.

I apologise for the use of capital letters but this post inflamed me so. Reading something quite specific, then ignoring the subtleties and bundling all the words together. That's my point, in general. (NOT my general point.)