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.

I would like to add my two cents on this, I think maybe this post has gotten away from what the real topic or question is.
I have attached a Diagram image to ref to when talking about the codex vs the BRB FAQ.
First off I think that the BRB FAQ is in Ref to people trying to use Vehicles in cover and still get “LOS” by Fire point.. Diagram “A” this would be a logical no brainer, hello if your “model” or character does not have LOS then no you can’t use your special ability. I think we need to find out in what content this rule was being used.. were players sticking the HQ in a Land Raider and then calling special ability attacks out of the “ fire Points “. Yes that would not be fair. Stick an HQ in an open top vehicle as long as the Model has LOS sure that is fair, but you will lose your cover save.
Second I would like to look at the Necron Codex talking about Mind in the Machine. Page 62 and it starts out by “ Mind in the Machine… At the start of your shooting phase, chose an enemy vehicle within 18” and in Anrakyr’s Line of Sight and Roll a D6…” this tells me it is talking about Anrakyr as the Model so I take it as the model has to have line of sight to work. The codex also does NOT stat that he has to be disembarked or embarked. It just says it has to be in los of Anrakyr. (the model). So this would be diagram “B”.
To me this would be a logical way to look at both codex and FAQ together and still have both rules work.
The Necron Codex gives us permission to do LOS during the Shooting Phase so regardless if he is embarked or not, Anrakyr can do LOS to an enemy vehicle with in 18” .. via the Necron Codex page 62.
That’s my two cents.

Love the Cartoon drawnings.. funny as crap.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Aeon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:He's off the table actually, since models that embark are removed from the table. Good luck measuring LOS from there.

If he is off table; does that mean troops embarked on a transport in Dawn of War arent on the table either?

P66, measuring to or from a vehicles embarked unit.

The point is that the model on the CCB isnt actually there, according ot the real rules, so you cannot draw LOS from him. He's literally just a decorative item

Why do you say the model isn't actually on the CCB? I physically put my models on the CCB all the time. GW designed the CCB so you can put your models on it to show embarked models. I think that alone is more up to date then P66 of the 5th Edition rule book, and I’m going to use my example when using Anrakyr it is only common sense that I draw LOS to the Model not any fire point. The Necron codex lets me draw LOS to this model during the shooting phase, and does not tell me he can't be embarked on a vehicle. also I’m not breaking the FAQ portion of this rule either because I’m not drawing LOS to the Fire Point or Hull , I’m drawing LOS to my model that is Anrakyr. So that just how I’m going to play him.

It’s almost like people are saying when I drive up to McDonalds to order a Happy meal. I can't simply roll down my window to order, I need to Disembark from my car.. place my order.. Embark back in my car drive up.. Disembark again pay the person at the window.. Embark back in my car.. drive up a little more.. Disembark again get my food and .. Embark once again to drive off.. can we order like this?.. yes.. is it logical .. noooo and your going to tick off alot of people behind you. Thankfully the club I’m in are relaxed players, and use common sense when dealing with such things. we come up with an agreement fast and continue play.

So I’m going to quote the FAQ portion and break it down and show that I will not be breaking any rule while using Anrakyr in this manner.
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.
There it is word for word. And when I draw LOS to Anrakyr ( the model ) and he is embarked on the CCB.. am I going to use any Fire point that this question is talking about? Nope I’m drawing LOS straight to the Model that is physically placed on the CCB. (don't forget GW is a Big Fan of WYSIWYG) Just look at the question everyone.. the question is talking about using Fire Points to draw LOS, not can he use his ability while embarked. That would be two totally different questions.

That question would look like this..
Q. Can Anrakyr use Mind in the Machine while embarked on a CCB? ( now doesn’t this question look totally different than the one posted above? )

We, that use Anrakyr on the CCB don’t have to use any Fire Point when we draw LOS straight to Anrakyr the model. So no we are not breaking this rule when we use MitM while embarked on the CCB. This is not a trick question. the FAQ question is talking about Fire Points, not abilities. So as long as I don’t use any Fire Points to draw my LOS to Anrakyr then I’m in the clear and no rules have been broken.

kirsanth wrote:

Necronmike wrote:
Why do you say the model isn't actually on the CCB?

Because that is what the rules state.

hmmm i've read P66 and i did not see where it said that if i have a model physically embarked on a vehicle that it is just for decorations. I use WYSIWYG all the time soooo if my CCB has a named lord or over lord Embarked on it.. then by all means that model better be on it. and its not just for decorations, it is to show my opponent that yes I have a named lord or over lord on a CCB and it is very dangerous. So take cover. Because I’m coming for you.

can you give me a page number in BRB that states the model embarked if it is physicaly there its only for decorations and not for function? here i go again having to get out of my car to order a happy meal. thats not logical.

also keep inmind.. my codex won't let me draw LOS to a Fire point to use mind in the machine.. it says i have to draw LOS to Anrakyr himself.

coredump wrote:

Necronmike wrote:

hmmm i've read P66 and i did not see where it said that if i have a model physically embarked on a vehicle that it is just for decorations. I use WYSIWYG all the time soooo if my CCB has a named lord or over lord Embarked on it.. then by all means that model better be on it. and its not just for decorations, it is to show my opponent that yes I have a named lord or over lord on a CCB and it is very dangerous. So take cover. Because I’m coming for you.

can you give me a page number in BRB that states the model embarked if it is physicaly there its only for decorations and not for function? here i go again having to get out of my car to order a happy meal. thats not logical.

Okay, since your model is 'there' and can see, and I can see it. You don't mind if my Hive Guard ignore the CCB and just shoot at Anrakyr... since they can see the model that is 'there'.

sure but you got to go threw my Quantum shielding to hit me.

SlaveToDorkness wrote:

BRB pg 66 wrote: ...it is removed from the table and set aside...

Pretty sure this is what the reading kitten is talking about.

I'm looking at it and i do not see this statment. i've read this page like 6 times looking for something like this. what Paragraph?

SlaveToDorkness wrote:Jesus, really? let me get out my spoon...

BRB, right column, 2nd paragraph, 3rd sentence.

thank you and yes i over looked that serveral time.. but it also says that they find placing one of the units modesl on top of the transport works well.. and it still didn't say it was only for decorations .. placing a model ontop of the vehicle has function. so sorry i'm still going to use Mind in the machine while Anrakyr is embarked on the CCB. the FAQ was talking about Fire Points not on if Anrakyr can use mind in the machine or not.

yes slavetoDorkness got his spoon out and feed it to me..lol. thanks

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.

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.

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

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

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'm still on hold ....

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

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.

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 "

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 )

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

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