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.
Lungpickle wrote: Can you see the Traveler inside the vehicle perch in there. Can he see your vehicle. Then it works. Its a power used in the shooting phase to shoot a vehicles weapons so in my games it works.
Well then since my models can see him sitting on his barge, I guess we can draw LOS to him and light 'im up.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
2012/09/04 01:53:27
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
Like I said in my post: ultimately this entire discussion reduces down to whether or not you consider the ruleset to be permissive, and to what degree.
I can't find anything in the BRB that states it is a permissive ruleset. I can find paradigms to indicate so, but nothing black-letter law. And as I said, in 6th Ed., major actions seems to be based on a permissive ruleset, but minor elements, such as drawing LOS, do not appear to be written with a strict permissive ruleset in mind. Everyone seems to have ignored this point the last time I posted it, so I'm repeating myself here.
Nos, I know you follow the permissive ruleset like it's the true word of God and it was spoken to you directly, but I'm afraid I might just have to challenge that assumption here. 6th Ed. no longer seems to have been written like that.
So by your arguments your opponent can take a hammer you your models and claim he wins automatically since you would have no models on the board at the end of the turn and it would be perfectly legal.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
If you wish to challenge the assumption, offer a compelling reason why the assumption no longer holds. I've not seen anything in this thread that provides any reason to think the ruleset is somehow no longer permissive. It certainly isn't a restrictive ruleset, as it does not enumerate every option that is not permitted.
The only other option is that it's incomplete, and the Assault section with regards to modifying initiative would certainly suggest a certain degree of incompleteness. But that isn't a stable base for making an argument that the rules as written function a certain way, as there is no way to tell what exactly the rules that aren't written would say.
2012/09/04 02:27:59
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
rigeld2: Where is the rule allowing you to roll dice? It doesn't exist yet you do it. You do not have permission you can not roll the dice. That is your stance, no rule saying you can means you can't correct?
The rule for open topped tells you how it works for shooting/PSA why would it ben different for drawing LoS for any thing else?
Pg 8 also has a section called spirit of the game. The last two sentences being:
"Your job isn't just to follow the the rules, it's also to add your own ideas, drama and creativity to the game. Much of the appeal of this game lies in the freedom and open-endedness that this allows; it is in this spirit that the rules have been written."
That section alone should tell you that there are going to be things not covered and as such you will need to work them out outside of the framework that the rules have set up. Not only that but that section tells you this game is not/cannot be a permissive rule set. In such a spirit denying someone an ability because it isn't spelled out and given permission goes against that section in the book. As covered by azazel, no where in this book at all does it say that you can only do the things that are spelled out as in being a permissive rule set. Stating it like it's gospel doesn't make it so.
In the end I have never seen a faq, errata, nor statement in a book that says this is a permissive rule set. If it was addressed in a forum or interview by someone from GW, by thier own rules it does not actually change the game.
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
The rules tell you what to do, but not necessarily how. How you roll the dice is irrelevant, only that you do so when the rules tell you to do so. Likewise how you remove a model from the table when it is removed as a casualty is irrelevant, and it would not be against the rules for me to remove your casualties by launching them from a miniature trebuchet. All the game cares about is that it is removed when required.
However, how you draw LoS is carefully enumerated. That means the how is important enough for the rules to need to cover it. Note that how you measure a model's movement is also carefully enumerated now, where before it was assumed to be obvious enough to be unnecessary. If the rules tell you how, then the how is just as important as the when.
2012/09/04 02:49:26
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
So, where do you find permission to draw LOS from in the 6th edition ruleset? Firepoints, but only for shooting.
So, is MitM shooting? No? then you have no permission to draw LOS from within the vehicle.
Necronlord3 - utter lack of rules there
Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.
Lungpickle wrote: Can you see the Traveler inside the vehicle perch in there. Can he see your vehicle. Then it works. Its a power used in the shooting phase to shoot a vehicles weapons so in my games it works.
Well then since my models can see him sitting on his barge, I guess we can draw LOS to him and light 'im up.
Entirely different and you know it dude. That's a horrible counter argument even if just being facetious.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:10:43
2012/09/04 03:15:03
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
Gravmyr wrote: The rule for open topped tells you how it works for shooting/PSA why would it ben different for drawing LoS for any thing else?.
But yet they say that a non shooting psychic power cannot draw LOS to its target using the same Fire Points. If a enemy is 6" away I cannot maledict them, but I can shoot them but yet to shoot them I need LOS. Whether you agree with the rules or not, there is no permission to draw LOS for your ability.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:15:28
Kevin949 wrote: Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.
I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?
Kevin949 wrote: Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.
I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?
Do you have the model?
I never said it was a rule, I was referencing the physical model.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:21:59
Kevin949 wrote: Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.
I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?
Do you have the model?
I never said it was a rule, I was referencing the physical model.
So not a rule at all? The passenger would then be treated exactly like models embarked on a Rhino.
Yes, what he's suggesting is no different from placing a Librarian on top of a Rhino and casting Maledictions all day long. Just because you can see the model doesn't mean it has permission to draw LoS.
Ghaz wrote:So by your arguments your opponent can take a hammer you your models and claim he wins automatically since you would have no models on the board at the end of the turn and it would be perfectly legal.
I believe I've posted three times in this thread prior to this message, and two of those messages have me making the same statement simply because you didn't bother to read the message the first time. I won't say it again, but rather refer to to either of my earlier posts wherein I address this issue directly. If you want to create a strawman, be my guest, but do not for a minute think that I will directly address it.
rigeld2 wrote:
azazel the cat wrote: I can't find anything in the BRB that states it is a permissive ruleset.
... And we're done here. You can't offer a relevant argument so you're just going to pretend you can make up whatever rules you want. Cool beans dawg.
You have asserted a permissive ruleset. I have called it into question. I believe the burden is yours, Rigeld2. For all I know, you and Nos are the primary sources on the permissive-ruleset-as-gospel, as I've never seen anyone else cling to it as anything more than a guideline.
Here are some examples that cast doubt on the permissive-ruleset-as-gospel mentality:
1. Rolling dice. Ever.
2. Everything involving Imotekh's Lord of the Storm ability.
3. Mindshackle Scarabs and Force Weapons.
4. Anrakyr's MitM ability.
5. Resolving the Death Ray vs. Fliers
6. Exploding a Necron Flier with troops inside
With the rolling dice issue, the one thing these all have in common is they appear in a codex designed for 6th Ed., which leads me to surmise that the permissive ruleset is perhaps just a guideline to be followed for the major stuff, ie. not claiming your troops get eight shooting phases just because the rules don't say you can't. But I propose the idea that 6th Ed. is not written with the permissive ruleset in mind with regards to the individual mechanics of each function, eg. the individual pieces in Anrakyr's MitM: drawing LOS, measuring distance, selecting a target and having the target repeat the same. I posit that the entire rulebook was meant to be played fast and loose. <-- this will mean the end of rules-lawyering away the spirit of the game, and be more appealing to a younger, casual crowd -just the sort of direction GW has been advertising.
Anyway, I've said my piece 2 1/2 times now. I'm not going to check back here, so say what y'all like about my argument. It's quite hypothetical, yet still a valid position.
Kevin949 wrote: Actually I'd just like to point out that models on a CCB are "actually" on the CCB, so they 'are' on the board, unlike models embarked on a rhino for example.
I can't see that in any of the rules, can you provide a page reference please?
Do you have the model?
I never said it was a rule, I was referencing the physical model.
So not a rule at all? The passenger would then be treated exactly like models embarked on a Rhino.
*Sigh* You're missing the point, obviously. Nos said the model wasn't on the battlefield, I said he technically was since they're actually physically on the CCB. I never said that changed any rule or they were treated differently. I was being pedantic.
Seriously, people, loosen up sometime. Sheesh.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Chrysis wrote: Yes, what he's suggesting is no different from placing a Librarian on top of a Rhino and casting Maledictions all day long. Just because you can see the model doesn't mean it has permission to draw LoS.
No, that is what you're READING INTO on my post, that is nothing like what I said. Hell, I never even referenced any rule at all.
Oh and just to clear it up, I'm on the side of "you can't use his ability from the CCB as the rules are pretty clear for open topped vehicles that you can only draw LOS for shooting.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:30:44
2012/09/04 03:43:46
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
Chrysis: It may not be against the rules of the game but the laws of not destroying personal property.... Again common sense has to be used. I also note that while people are asserting that this is a permissive ruleset have yet to post a single reference to this where I have clearly posted that it is not.
I bring up the dice rules because in both cases it says you have to do something but not that you have any permission to do it, the same as using the MitM ability. If you are going to use an argument one direction don't try to say that it doesn't apply the other.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:45:30
ADD causes my posts to ramble from time to time. Please bear with me.
My apologies. I've actually seen "But I can see his eyes, ergo LoS" used as an argument so jumped to conclusions following a quoted post.
The aforementioned list of things that "cast doubt" on the permissive nature of the ruleset do no such thing. What they cast doubt on is the completeness of the ruleset. There are some interactions that the rules as written have not covered explicitly, and so they may or may not line up with peoples expectations of how those things should be handled. But that gets into Rules as Intended, not Rules as Written which is what is being discussed. Did they intend for Necrons in a destroyed flyer to take a high strength hit and the survivors put in reserve? No, I think they almost certainly didn't. Is that what the rules say happens? Yes, without a doubt.
Did they intend for MitM to work while embarked? Maybe, although precedent indicates no.
Does it work? No, There is no permission for an embarked model to draw LoS except when firing a weapon (or Witchfire.)
EDIT: People arguing against the ruleset being permissive are misunderstanding the fundamentals of how rulesets work. A set of rules either tells you what you can do (with exceptions), or what you can't do (again, with exceptions). The 40K rules are obviously not an enumeration of all the things you can't do, so they must be an enumeration of the things you can do. A rule which tells you to roll dice is permission to roll those dice. An ability that has rules that requires you to have LoS to use it is permission to check if you have LoS, but not permission to ignore the rules that tell you how to check.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 03:50:41
azazel the cat wrote:I'm not going to check back here, so say what y'all like about my argument. It's quite hypothetical, yet still a valid position.
Its not valid in the least. You're the one making the strawman arguments. Your argument would let you do whatever you want by claiming the rules are either permissive or restrictive depending on how you want it to be. I believe Happyjew said it best:
Happyjew wrote:And we're done here. You can't offer a relevant argument so you're just going to pretend you can make up whatever rules you want. Cool beans dawg.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
azazel the cat wrote: You have asserted a permissive ruleset. I have called it into question. I believe the burden is yours, Rigeld2. For all I know, you and Nos are the primary sources on the permissive-ruleset-as-gospel, as I've never seen anyone else cling to it as anything more than a guideline.
There was a thread not to long ago calling into question the permissive rule set. Makes for an interesting read. Here's the link
I quite enjoyed (and agree with) Yakface's answer. Have a read:
Spoiler:
Actually all games ever use a permissive rules set, because that's literally the only way to write games.
So there is absolutely no need to spell out in the rulebook that the game is permissive, because it is essentially meaningless. By reading the rules you are participating in a permissive rules set.
Because before you read the rules, the game doesn't exist for you...you have no frame of reference on what you are allowed or not allowed to do to play the game.
Once you crack open a rulebook you find that the game will give you rules of what you are allowed to do within the game to play it...these are all the things you're given permission to do in order to play the game.
Then once they've laid out these permissions, they'll then lay out some restrictions as well, within those general permissions, which then restricts some of the permissions they previously granted to you.
So the rules will say that you're allowed to move all your models in the movement phase. This is a permission and therefore you are allowed to do it. Then they might say stuff like, but you cannot move through impassable terrain. This is then a restriction within the greater permission of being able to move your models in the movement phase.
But following this same train of thought, if the rules don't mention that you are allowed to move your models in the shooting phase, then guess what? You are not allowed to move your models in the shooting phase because there are no rules giving you permission to do so.
This basic framework is the same for every game ever invented from Monopoly to games of tag and everything in between.
Even an imaginary game that said: you can do anything at all you like, but the first person to do X wins the game is still permission based gameplay. Just in this case, you are given permission to do absolutely anything, with the lone restriction that when someone does 'X' then the game ends with a winner.
So the idea that GW should define the basic nature of what rules even means is frankly silly. It would be like them explaining the definition of every word in the rulebook, explaining the meaning of language, etc. These are basic fundamental principles that we already live and exist by. There is literally no way to play a game without this basic understanding, so explaining it is redundant.
Reading page 8 with line of sight seems pretty clear.
If you can't draw line of sight from the Anrakyr's eyes when he's in the CCB, I don't see a rule that lets you do it when he's not in the CCB.
Page 8 says use the models eyes.
Better model up a CCB with Anrakyr in it.
-Matt
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: Why would you use the rules for shooting from open topped vehicles when you're not shooting? The rules are actually quite clear. You have no permission to use a fire point to draw line of sight for a model's special rules. Therefore Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.
You don't need to use the fireport. The over-lord is on the table on the model, and you can draw line of sight from him as outlined on page 8.
If you buy a CCB for Anrakyr, you should mount Anrakyr on it. Failing to do so means you're breaking WYSIWYG.
You can't exactly argue he isn't on the table when he's making sweep attacks and taking wounds to prevent damage to the CCB.
-Matt
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/09/04 04:11:05
Wrong. You do need to use the fire point as that is the only way to draw line of sight when in a vehicle, and the rules for fire points only allow you to draw line of sight for shooting and psychic shooting attacks.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
HawaiiMatt wrote: Reading page 8 with line of sight seems pretty clear.
If you can't draw line of sight from the Anrakyr's eyes when he's in the CCB, I don't see a rule that lets you do it when he's not in the CCB.
Page 8 says use the models eyes.
Better model up a CCB with Anrakyr in it.
-Matt
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ghaz wrote: Why would you use the rules for shooting from open topped vehicles when you're not shooting? The rules are actually quite clear. You have no permission to use a fire point to draw line of sight for a model's special rules. Therefore Anrakyr can not use Mind in the Machine while embarked.
You don't need to use the fireport. The over-lord is on the table on the model, and you can draw line of sight from him as outlined on page 8.
If you buy a CCB for Anrakyr, you should mount Anrakyr on it. Failing to do so means you're breaking WYSIWYG.
You can't exactly argue he isn't on the table when he's making sweep attacks and taking wounds to prevent damage to the CCB.
-Matt
Whether it is modeled that way is irrelevant. The CCB is an open topped transport and follows the rules for such, including LOS.
I didn't want to come back here, but here I am. *sigh*
Okay, can someone please explain to me how Anrakyr's MitM ability works when he is on foot? Please specify what rule allows him to draw LOS.
Then, please tell me what rule prevents that same ability from working when he is embarked in the CCB. Please remember that specific trumps general, and MitM is clearly more specific than the Open-Topped Skimmers rules in the BRB.
So you still think the requirement to have LOS is permission to always have it?
He draws it from his eyes, same as normal.
While embarked on a vehicle you have no permission to draw LOS from a fire point for any reason other than shooting and PSAs.
MitM has no specific permission to ALWAYS have LOS, just that being in LOS is a requirement. You are still reading a requirement as permission, somehow.
2012/09/04 09:36:19
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
azazel the cat wrote: I didn't want to come back here, but here I am. *sigh*
Okay, can someone please explain to me how Anrakyr's MitM ability works when he is on foot? Please specify what rule allows him to draw LOS.
Page 8, Line of Sight.
azazel the cat wrote: Then, please tell me what rule prevents that same ability from working when he is embarked in the CCB.
Page 78, Transports, Embarking "When the unit embarks, remove it from the table". Now that Anrakyr isn't on table anymore, you cannot use page 8 rules to draw LOS . Anything that requires drawing LOS, like shooting, psychic power, MitM now requires explicit permission in the rules to do so.
For shooting and PSA's, this is granted on Fire Points on page 78 or Open-topped Transports on page 82, but neither of these rules allow you to draw LOS for MitM.
azazel the cat wrote: Please remember that specific trumps general, and MitM is clearly more specific than the Open-Topped Skimmers rules in the BRB.
MitM specifies that it requiresLOS. It doesn't give you allowance to draw LOS no more than generic Malediction does.
RAI for MitM trivial to discern from Psyker rules at page 67:
"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 as the Psyker."
Note that this paragraph doesn't have any new rules on it. It just repeats how the rules regarding drawing LOS and transports work. Now, we can just replace Psyker with Anrakyr:
"[When using Mind in the Machine] Anrakyr must have a line of sight to his target. This means Anrakyr embarked on a Transport can only target himself, his vehicle , or another unit embarked on the same vehicle as Anrakyr [when using Mind in the Machine]"
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/09/04 13:08:30
2012/09/04 11:31:47
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
Okay, can someone please explain to me how Anrakyr's MitM ability works when he is on foot? Please specify what rule allows him to draw LOS.
Then, please tell me what rule prevents that same ability from working when he is embarked in the CCB. Please remember that specific trumps general, and MitM is clearly more specific than the Open-Topped Skimmers rules in the BRB.
If there's a big wall in the way would you still argue that MitM has absolute overrule on the ability to draw LOS?
I'm betting not. Except, using your same argument (MitM is more specific than the normal rules for drawing LOS) I do have LOS through a building.
You have a requirement. There's general permission to meet that requirement on foot. When embarked, however, that general permission is gone and it must be a shooting attack to have permission. Therefore theres no permission to meet that requirement when embarked.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
2012/09/04 14:49:10
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
Gravmyr wrote: The rule for open topped tells you how it works for shooting/PSA why would it ben different for drawing LoS for any thing else?.
But yet they say that a non shooting psychic power cannot draw LOS to its target using the same Fire Points. If a enemy is 6" away I cannot maledict them, but I can shoot them but yet to shoot them I need LOS. Whether you agree with the rules or not, there is no permission to draw LOS for your ability.
On that point I would suggest that since MitM is not a psychic power that restriction doesn't apply.
-Yad
2012/09/04 14:51:53
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
Granted, but Mind in the Machine is not a shooting attack either (psychic or otherwise) which is the one of the 'only' actions that i am aware of that have rules-text allowing them to be used via firepoints on a vehicle.
2012/09/04 14:55:30
Subject: Re:Embarked Anrakyr and Mind in the Machine
