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.

Personally I feel that MitM is back to being a gap in the rules. GW should have carried the 5th FAQ into 6th. Since MitM is not a psychic power you can't reference the rules concerning Psychic Powers and vehicles. They simply don't apply (apples and oranges).

OT vehicles only speak to shooting from a vehicle and does not touch upon non-shooting abilities that aren't psychic powers. In other words the OT vehicles don't seem to provide a mechanism to draw LoS for non-shooting actions.

I would have to read it through a few more times as I'm not wholly convinced, but for now I wouldn't use it when embarked.

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Pyrian wrote:

Yad wrote:
...I would suggest that since MitM is not a psychic power that restriction doesn't apply.

"...must have line of sight to his target. This means that..."

It's not a psychic power restriction, it's simply a confirmation about how LoS from inside a transport works (or, in this case, doesn't).

Seems to me that you're creating a generic rule from a specific one. If the rule we're talking about here is specific to preventing non-shooting psychic powers from working beyond the vehicle, then I don't see how you can apply that rule to anything else (Permissive ruleset). I'd have to take another look at the rule, but that's what can recall right now.

-Yad

Yad wrote:
Seems to me that you're creating a generic rule from a specific one.

It's not creating the rule (it's created because the model is removed from the table and is only otherwise granted LoS specifically for shooting), it's confirming - and quite directly at that - that our reading of the LoS rules is correct.

Yad wrote:
If the rule we're talking about here is specific to preventing non-shooting psychic powers from working beyond the vehicle...

How many people have to quote this?

Question regarding drawing LOS from a vehicle....

In order to charge you need to have LOS, correct?

An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

if an Overlord can draw LOS to start a charge (which is clearly not a shooting attack) then doesn't it also ring true to MiTM as well?



Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

 Praxiss wrote:
An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

IIRC, the chariot is charging, too. You only need LoS from it.

 Praxiss wrote:
Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

Well, it IS highly counter-intuitive, and I hope they errata it otherwise. But the RaW case against is very strong, nonetheless.

 Praxiss wrote:
Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.

Pyrian wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

IIRC, the chariot is charging, too. You only need LoS from it.

Thats true, I think I'll be having my Overlord jump off his CCB and let it fly off to charge my opponent from now on!

 NecronLord3 wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

IIRC, the chariot is charging, too. You only need LoS from it.

Thats true, I think I'll be having my Overlord jump off his CCB and let it fly off to charge my opponent from now on!

Go for it - the rules on page 82 specifically allow it. You'll only get your d6 Str6 AP- attacks, but there's no reason you can't do that.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.

I explained the situation to them. presented the arguements for and against - including rules references and then gave my opinion in a non-biased fashion that it should be allowed. They all backed me up.

 Praxiss wrote:
Question regarding drawing LOS from a vehicle....
In order to charge you need to have LOS, correct?

Yes.

 Praxiss wrote:
An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

Wrong. You need to read the rules again. Overlord is not declaring charge. It is Chariot that declares the Charge, as per page 76 and 82.

 Praxiss wrote:
if an Overlord can draw LOS to start a charge (which is clearly not a shooting attack) then doesn't it also ring true to MiTM as well?

As I showed, premise for this argument is completely flawed, as it is CBC drawing LOS, not Overlord. I'm not really sure where did you come up with the "Overlord declares charge" as there is nothing in the Chariot rules even remotely suggesting it.

 Praxiss wrote:
Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

It is strange, because the 5e FAQ didn't actually change rules and no rules regarding this has changed between 5e and 6e. If you showed the Psyker precedent to them, I'm pretty sure they'd change their minds.

 Praxiss wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.

I explained the situation to them. presented the arguements for and against - including rules references and then gave my opinion in a non-biased fashion that it should be allowed. They all backed me up.

It sucks they don't understand the rules as they're written.
There's no allowance to draw LOS from a firing point for anything other than shooting. How do they justify breaking that rule?

 Praxiss wrote:
Question regarding drawing LOS from a vehicle....

In order to charge you need to have LOS, correct?

An Overlord in a CCB, it being a Chariot, can charge...therefore the embarked model MUST be able to draw LOS while embarked on a CCB, otherwise you would never be able to charge.

if an Overlord can draw LOS to start a charge (which is clearly not a shooting attack) then doesn't it also ring true to MiTM as well?



Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

Dunno if anyone said it or not, but the lord on the barge is not charging. The Chariot is charging, the lord simply has permission to fight from the chariot. If he counted as charging then they could benefit from Furious Charge and Rage and the like. As it is now, they can not as they are not charging.

Again Praxiss your missing the basic issue.

From a CCB, your overlord can draw LOS to shoot and he can draw LOS to use a PSA (if he were a pskyer)
Your overlord cannot draw LOS to use a targetted psychic power (if he were a psyker) that is not a PSA even if he is targetting the same unit he can legally shoot.

Having LOS is really not the issue. The issue is do you have permission to draw LOS for that Ability. Currently the answer is no. Common sense, RAI may show that you have LOS, but RAW you dont.

Personally I feel that MitM is back to being a gap in the rules. GW should have carried the 5th FAQ into 6th. Since MitM is not a psychic power you can't reference the rules concerning Psychic Powers and vehicles. They simply don't apply (apples and oranges).

OT vehicles only speak to shooting from a vehicle and does not touch upon non-shooting abilities that aren't psychic powers. In other words the OT vehicles don't seem to provide a mechanism to draw LoS for non-shooting actions.

I would have to agree with this reasoning.

Fragile wrote:
Having LOS is really not the issue. The issue is do you have permission to draw LOS for that Ability. Currently the answer is no. Common sense, RAI may show that you have LOS, but RAW you dont.

IMO, RAI in this case is clear. We have two separate precedents about RAI: 5e FAQ and Psykers not able to draw LOS for non-PSA powers. Unless someone can give me self-consistent "common sense" reason why my Psyker on Chariot could not use Malediction like Objuration Mechanicum, but Anrakyr could use MitM in exactly same circumstances, considering that the reason why neither can be used is exactly same. Note: "common sense" or RAI, not RAW.
Psyker rules start by defining a simple rule:
"Unless otherwise stated,the Psyker must have line of sight to his target." Next sentence
"This means that a Psyker embarked on a Transport can only target himself... [snip]". is not additional rule per se. Instead, it explains what the previous rule ("must have LOS") means in combination with Transport rules. Now, what it doesn't do is state the reason for these restrictions, but they're self-evident: Permission to draw LOS is only given for shooting attacks (inc PSA) and not for psychic powers or special rules.

This is exactly same situation as with Precision shots on page 63: "This means that Precision Shots can be allocated against enemies with specialist weaponry, or even characters!". Words after "This means" are not new rules, they're just repeating old ones.

Psh, cmon guys. It's all from the models eyes!

Oh, and Zoenthropes don't have eyes, so they can't see anything and cannot draw line of sight. So if my pal Anry can do MitM from his pimped out hover board, then Zoeys can't use any psychic power that needs a target!

... Being facetious aside, he couldn't do it in 5e and nothing has dramatically changed on the rules wording to make it so on 6e. I play Necrons and would gladly run him more if that was the case that he could!!

And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.

 Praxiss wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
Side note: I have spoken to various people (casual players, tourney players and GW staff in various GW branches and at Warhammer World) and not one person has backed up the argueent that it can't be used.

Anecdotal is anecdotal, but did you also mention that the exact same thing was ruled on in 5th and you could not MitM? With no relevant changes to the rules in question, that at least sets a precedent.

I explained the situation to them. presented the arguements for and against - including rules references and then gave my opinion in a non-biased fashion that it should be allowed. They all backed me up.

They might but I surely would not. Being an above avid 40k player hitting up a few GT's myself. I know as well as any seasoned player that you never trust a word someone from GW says unless it's the written word in a rulebook or faq.

rigeld2 wrote:
And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.

Really?






Where?

TheKbob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.

Really?

http://i1187.photobucket.com/albums/z397/robscott5598/Warhammer%2040K%20projects/FinishedZoeanthorpe.jpg" border="0" />

Where?

It does, it's just hard to see from all given angles. Also to note if they're not painted to "pop" they're just hard to see regardless.

TheKbob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
And actually, Zoanthrope's do have eyes.

Really?






Where?

WHere what?


*Edit*
You ninja'd. LoL Nevermind.

Wraithlords and Wraithguard are boned, too. Can't use guns with no eyes!

Silliness aside, I wish Anry wasn't finecrap. I'd love the model, best necron lord!

I sit on the fence for a FaQ personally. One thing GW does need to set straight is these Necron Special rules that act like PSAs, but arent blahblahblah. We all get the picture. FaQ please? :3

For the people wondering where the eyes are (I apologise for the poor quality) they are about an inch below the tip of my finger (red dots) right above the mouth.

Happyjew wrote:
For the people wondering where the eyes are (I apologise for the poor quality) they are about an inch below the tip of my finger (red dots) right above the mouth.

Right, so using the old models gives you LOS, new models, you're fethed. Oh and screw Wraithguard right by thes logic. So I guess my Deathmarks can't shoot since they have an eye not "eyes".

NecronLord3 wrote:

Happyjew wrote:
For the people wondering where the eyes are (I apologise for the poor quality) they are about an inch below the tip of my finger (red dots) right above the mouth.

Right, so using the old models gives you LOS, new models, you're fethed. Oh and screw Wraithguard right by thes logic. So I guess my Deathmarks can't shoot since they have an eye not "eyes".

No, they can shoot; they just can't measure LOS because they've got no depth perception.

ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

WTF GW!?!

Seriously, they even reiterated the point about psychic powers being unable to do it, which wasn't contested given that there's already a direct statement in the rulebook to that effect.

Well,considering this was totally permissible prior to the 5th edition FAQ, and now that FAQ entry is officially gone, we are now back to it's allowance.

 Praxiss wrote:
ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

WTF GW!?!

It wasn't addressed because the rules already cover this. In an open-topped vehicle what are we allowed to draw LoS for? Shooting, and only shooting. The reason it is only shooting is the only way that LoS can be drawn is for the purposes of shooting from within. When there is something that tells us that Anrakyr can draw LoS from a transport, then MitM will be valid from within a CCB. Until anyone gives solid proof that you CAN do it with rules, you can't do it and use the excuse "the rules don't cover it." If the rules don't cover it, you can't do it.

 Lone Dragoon wrote:

 Praxiss wrote:
ARGH!! New FAQs are out and this STILL hasn't been addressed.

WTF GW!?!

It wasn't addressed because the rules already cover this. In an open-topped vehicle what are we allowed to draw LoS for? Shooting, and only shooting. The reason it is only shooting is the only way that LoS can be drawn is for the purposes of shooting from within. When there is something that tells us that Anrakyr can draw LoS from a transport, then MitM will be valid from within a CCB. Until anyone gives solid proof that you CAN do it with rules, you can't do it and use the excuse "the rules don't cover it." If the rules don't cover it, you can't do it.

True Line of Sight covers this easily. Can I draw LoS from my Lord embarked on his CCB, yes. Does the rule require LoS to be used, yes. Is it a shooting attack, no. Do I need permission to shoot from a firing point in order to do so, yes. But as MiM isn't a shooting attack these rules don't matter. Permission is given by the description of the ability from the codex. No rulebook permission is necessary, as you are specifically given rules on how to use this ability, and are not specifically disallowed to do so by the BrB.

Its allowed.