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.

BeRzErKeR wrote:I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

I read it, but you saying that the vehicle has a fire points characteristic and that characteristic value is 0.

This is incorrect because Fire Points: 0 (or -) is not listed in the actual rules anywhere.

Lukus83 wrote:If the BRB had said "no fire points" you would have a case. But it doesn't. It says "no specific fire points" which implies that is does have them. It then goes on to describe how to utilize this non-specific firing point.

This is Correct.

The BRB Does not say "no fire points", it says "no specific fire points"

A) If open-topped vehicles don't use the fire point rules, then there are no rules to tell us how fast they can move and still have passengers fire out. This is clearly wrong.

B) Even if open-topped vehicles did/do grant independent permission for the passengers to fire out, they only grant permission to fire out. Not to do anything else. Not to use psychic powers, for example (that's in the Fire Points section).

I like how this simple question turned into a three page debate about Fire Points.
To answer the OP: No.

To answer those still confused about how fire points and open-topped transports work: Open-topped transports use their entire Hull as 1 Fire-point, from which anyone can shoot out of from any angle. An Open-topped transport therefore automatically has 1 Fire Point, unless specifically stated otherwise.

It'd be nice if you could cite a rule to back that up... Since fire points can only have one person use them, it'd be an interesting rule.

I'm afraid both sides are at an impasse and it will have to come down to TOs.

rigeld2 wrote:It'd be nice if you could cite a rule to back that up... Since fire points can only have one person use them, it'd be an interesting rule.

One gigantic fire point that everyone can use?

Sorry, I should say that Open-topped transports have 1 Fire Point for each model in the transport. Technically the page 70 of the 5th Edition Rulebook states "Open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points. Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle." This means the same as each model having its own Fire Point and can fire in whatever direction they want.

Honestly, this make Anrakyr a bit less useful now. He has no Res Orb, no weave, no Shifter, just the Arrow and a Warscythe. He doesn't even have BS 5, which would make his Arrow more useful. Being able to tar-pit enemy units with C-A and FC Immortals is fine, but not all that useful for players who use their troops as objective holders and not as the movers and shakers of their army (like me). Anrakyr's saving grace from being another Illuminator (he could have been a sweet Cryptek/Stalker IC, but no) was Mind of the Machine and that he was able to use it ahead of the main force. Now, he actually has to be on foot within 18", which means anyone who knows anything about Anrakyr would turn a Lascannon or equivalent weapon onto him and kill him rather quickly. Phyyrian Eternals could have been a much cooler rule (each Necron Lord in Anrakyr's Royal Court may take a Gauss Blaster or Tesla Carbine for 5 points, or even just enhanced Reanimation Protcols, 4+ even with no Res Orb), but sadly, we're stuck with what we have, and what we have isn't that good.

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

Lukus83 wrote:If the BRB had said "no fire points" you would have a case. But it doesn't. It says "no specific fire points" which implies that is does have them. It then goes on to describe how to utilize this non-specific firing point.

don_mondo wrote:That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

DeathReaper wrote:The BRB Does not say "no fire points", it says "no specific fire points"

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

It's simply not true. I have explained it twice, in this very thread, and been ignored. Not corrected, not even argued against, just ignored. I have drawn an EXACT parallel, using a situation which is in all ways the same, as an example of why this is WRONG. If this is really the argument in favor of the 'open-topped vehicle as a (non-specific) fire point' point of view, then I have to say that it has no merit whatsoever.

@Manahnin: That's true; so it's a good thing I'm not saying that open-topped vehicles ignore all the rules under 'Fire Points', then, isn't it? Go back and look at what I've actually said. You have misread my argument, and your point A is invalid.

Your point B is incorrect for a different reason; the open-topped rules say that passengers can shoot from the vehicle, AND that they can draw LOS from the vehicle. That being so, any psychic power which requires LOS can be used, and any PSA (which count as shooting) can be used. That being so, permission to use psychic powers is wrapped up in the paragraph on page 70.

Yay for Berzerker using the English language for his argument!
And yes i completely agree with him. Anrykar is the same.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

I don't think that nosferatu, don mondo, DeathReaper, Noir, myself, rigeld2, kirsanth and others that talk, at length, about rule structure and implementation have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works." Do you really think that is true?

So, if "specific" is useless in context, why include it?

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

I don't think that nosferatu, don mondo, DeathReaper, Noir, myself, rigeld2, kirsanth and others that talk, at length, about rule structure and implementation have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works." Do you really think that is true?

So, if "specific" is useless in context, why include it?

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'. That does NOT imply 'the opposite of A (a NON-specific fire point) exists', so long as an alternative is possible; and an alternative (to wit, no fire point at all) is in fact possible. It is not permissible, either grammatically or logically, to draw a conclusion from that sentence, because there are two possible conclusions and the sentence does not tell us which is accurate. Attempting to do so demonstrates a grave misunderstanding of the language and of argumentation.

Why include it? Why not? It doesn't make the sentence worse. It might have been included for reasons of flow. It might have been included so as to highlight the distinction between the 'specific' case of having fire points and the more common, 'general' case of NOT having fire points. There might be any number of other reasons, about which it is pointless to speculate. In all honesty, 'why' doesn't matter, since we're discussing the RAW here. The word is neither definitive nor even important.

BeRzErKeR wrote:Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works.

On your part, yes.

BeRzErKeR wrote:The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

It does not "imply or state that a fire point exists" because no Specific fire point exists, that is why they do not tell you to measure from the window on the side, or the top hatch.

It means that the models in the back of the open-topped transport can measure range and LoS from any point on the hull, and not just a specific point.

Thus it still has fire points, just not anything specific.

BeRzErKeR wrote:It's simply not true. I have explained it twice, in this very thread, and been ignored. Not corrected, not even argued against, just ignored.

We ignored it after we corrected you and you ignored our correction.

As a general rule, if nosferatu, don mondo, puma713, Mannahnin, rigeld2, and myself agree on a rule, there is a good chance that it works that way.

The words "no specific" does not indicate the absence of something, but rather the non-specificity of whatever it is. If I say "I'm going to no specific house" it means I am going to a house, just not a specific one. I"ll just pick one at random. The same goes for fire points on open-topped transports, because the Fire Point of an Open-Topped vehicle is the entire vehicle. It is effectively one fire point per model embarked in the transport, and that fire point can be used to fire from any direction.

This argument just boggles the mind.

DeathReaper wrote:

It means that the models in the back of the open-topped transport can measure range and LoS from any point on the hull, and not just a specific point.

Thus it still has fire points, just not anything specific.

That doesn't follow, at all; this is simply a personal interpretation which is not actually supported by the words on the page. This is, in fact, the crux of the entire argument, and I'm afraid that if you want to assert it you're going to need to provide some logically consistent evidence, which no-one has so far done.

DeathReaper wrote:We ignored it after we corrected you and you ignored our correction.

As a general rule, if nosferatu, don mondo, puma713, Mannahnin, rigeld2, and myself agree on a rule, there is a good chance that it works that way.

Nobody bats a thousand, and on this point I have to say that none of the people you name here have made a solid case yet. My argument is simple, internally consistent, and takes account of all the rules of the game. The rules on pg 70 are more specific than the rules on pg 66. In those places where they contradict each other, therefore, the rules on pg 70 simply override the ones on pg 66; there is no need to try to make them fit together by postulating invisible, amorphous fire points, because the rules on pg 70 work just fine without any such thing. Given that, it's entirely permissible to both fire and use psychic powers from an open-topped vehicle, and Anrakyr can in fact use MitM while embarked on his CCB.

There has not been a single objection raised to this argument which has not been fully and logically addressed. The assertion that this allows you to fire at any speed is a straw man; the assertion that the word 'specific' implies the existence of a 'non-specific' fire point is a manifestation of the composition fallacy. Neither has any merit. If you have a different objection, I would be glad to hear it.

Fire points as a general rule are specific. You pick a place located on the vehicle (as given per the rules) and work out LoS, range etc. from that point. When firing from an open topped vehicle a non-specific fire point is given in the rules. Note the word "instead", showing how to utilize this more specific rule for a non-specific fire point. It may not be in a specific place, but you are still using a fire point.

McNinja wrote:The words "no specific" does not indicate the absence of something, but rather the non-specificity of whatever it is. If I say "I'm going to no specific house" it means I am going to a house, just not a specific one.

If you say "I'm going to no specific house", you are making a positive statement. You are going somewhere.

If you say "I'm NOT GOING to any specific house," you are making a negative statement. We don't know if you're going ANYWHERE. This is the type of statement that "no specific fire point exists" is. It is ambiguous. It might mean that the fire point which exists is not specific, or it might mean that no fire point exists AT ALL. We cannot say which on the basis of the sentence.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'.

I stopped here because the flaw in your thinking just made itself clear. You're lumping the subject and the adjective describing the subject as a single subject. What it should read is 'A (specific) fire point does not exist.' Hence why "specific" is so important to this sentence. Without it, you have exactly what you're saying: 'A fire point does not exist.' But that is not what it says. 'specific fire point' is not the subject, 'fire point' is. Specific tells you what kind of fire point.

Misunderstanding of the english language indeed.

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Ok. This is quite simply a fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works. The inclusion of the word 'specific' DOES NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT in any way, shape, or form, imply or state that a fire point exists.

I don't think that nosferatu, don mondo, DeathReaper, Noir, myself, rigeld2, kirsanth and others that talk, at length, about rule structure and implementation have a "fundamental misunderstanding of how the English language works." Do you really think that is true?

I'll throw my hat in that ring. Now we just need to summon Ghaz or Tri.

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'.

I stopped here because the flaw in your thinking just made itself clear. You're lumping the subject and the adjective describing the subject as a single subject. What it should read is 'A (specific) fire point does not exist.' Hence why "specific" is so important to this sentence. Without it, you have exactly what you're saying: 'A fire point does not exist.' But that is not what it says. 'specific fire point' is not the subject, 'fire point' is. Specific tells you what kind of fire point.

Misunderstanding of the english language indeed.

You're half correct.

'Fire point' is indeed the subject. 'Specific' is an adjective modifying the subject. The ambiguity of the sentence exists (as I have been saying) because 'does not exist' could logically be negating EITHER the subject ('fire point') OR the adjective ('specific'). The negatory phrase can be applied to either, and we don't know which.

I have never said that it MUST be negating the adjective. I have said that since it COULD be negating either, we cannot ASSUME that it is negating only the adjective; and without that assumption, the whole argument for the non-specific fire point falls apart.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

puma713 wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Those who claim that the word 'specific' in this sentence automatically implies that a 'general' or 'non-specific' fire point exists are, in fact, demonstrating a misunderstanding of both the English language and the tenants of formal logic. The sentence says, to rephrase it in logical terms, 'A (a specific fire point) does not exist'.

I stopped here because the flaw in your thinking just made itself clear. You're lumping the subject and the adjective describing the subject as a single subject. What it should read is 'A (specific) fire point does not exist.' Hence why "specific" is so important to this sentence. Without it, you have exactly what you're saying: 'A fire point does not exist.' But that is not what it says. 'specific fire point' is not the subject, 'fire point' is. Specific tells you what kind of fire point.

Misunderstanding of the english language indeed.

'Fire point' is indeed the subject. 'Specific' is an adjective modifying the subject. The ambiguity of the sentence exists (as I have been saying) because 'does not exist' could logically be negating EITHER the subject ('fire point') OR the adjective ('specific'). The negatory phrase can be applied to either, and we don't know which.

It is illogical to think that 'specific' is included in the sentence simply for negation. You could just as easily have the same sentence without including the adjective 'specific'. Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, we have to infer that 'specific' is included for a reason. To include it is to give 'fire point' further meaning.

puma713 wrote:

It is illogical to think that 'specific' is included in the sentence simply for negation. You could just as easily have the same sentence without including the adjective 'specific'. Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, we have to infer that 'specific' is included for a reason. To include it is to give 'fire point' further meaning.

Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, what we have to do is move on and look for some context that might give us a clue. We can't do ANYTHING with that sentence in isolation; it simply does not give us enough information.

Fortunately, the very next sentence resolves the issue handily. "Instead, all passengers in an open-topped vehicle may fire, measuring range and line of sight from the hull of the vehicle."

That makes it quite clear. An open-topped vehicle doesn't need ANY fire points, at all; this rule, which is more specific, overrides the rules for firing from fire points (though NOT the ones for firing from a moving vehicle), and allows the passengers to fire without having one. In this context, interpreting the previous sentence as giving an open-topped vehicle a fire point which is entirely unlike a normal fire point, simply for the sake of having a fire point to talk about, doesn't make much sense.

So then we check to see if this causes any problems with other rules. It only overrides those rules which directly contradict it, so there are no problems there, because the only rules which contradict it are the ones talking about firing out of a firing point. As I pointed out earlier, permission to use psychic powers is wrapped up in this paragraph, so there are no problems there. It doesn't allow you to fire while moving faster than you normally could.

In sum, then, we have a logically accurate, grammatically acceptable interpretation which is consistent with all the rules of the game and does not cause any gameplay problems.

don_mondo wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

The CCB doesn't have a listing for fire points such that the listing is 0 (i.e., Fire Points = 0) Why? Because it's open top.

No specific fire point means just that, there is none to distinguish in order to draw a line of fire through, therefor no fire point. How else can every embarked model on a vehicle be able to shoot. Further, both range and LOS are measured from the vehicle's hull, which is definitely NOT a fire point.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

puma713 wrote:

It is illogical to think that 'specific' is included in the sentence simply for negation. You could just as easily have the same sentence without including the adjective 'specific'. Without any indication of which of the two we're supposed to negate, we have to infer that 'specific' is included for a reason. To include it is to give 'fire point' further meaning.

*snip*

Except that you left out the adjective 'specific' modifying 'fire points' because it doesn't fit into your explanation. To make your interpretation work, they would have had to include that modifier for no reason. And if we're going to look at every word, including word placement and inference, we can't ignore a crucial modifier. That single word changes the meaning of the sentence.

I think it's fair to assume that we're not going to agree and move on. I will discuss it with my opponent if he has Anrakyr as an HQ option, or discuss with the TO beforehand.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:And you are confusing "The vehicle has no fire points" when the rules actually say "The vehicle has no SPECIFIC fire points"

According to the rules it still has fire points, just not any specific ones that dictate where to fire from.

I have answered that exact argument at least twice. I have yet to receive any response. Look a couple posts up.

That's because you're wrong. As he has stated several times correctly, no specific fire point does not equal no fire point. The next line tells us what the fire point is, the entire hull. Really, it's not that difficult.

The CCB doesn't have a listing for fire points such that the listing is 0 (i.e., Fire Points = 0) Why? Because it's open top.

No specific fire point means just that, there is none to distinguish in order to draw a line of fire through, therefor no fire point. How else can every embarked model on a vehicle be able to shoot. Further, both range and LOS are measured from the vehicle's hull, which is definitely NOT a fire point.

Technically, it is a fire point that any and all unit can fire through. That's why it says "no specific." There's a fire point, but it isn't 1 specific Fire point as described on p. 66 of the rulebook.

Specific Fire point: Described on p.66 of the 5th Edition rulebook.

Non-specific fire point: Anything that a model or squad can fire out of that is not a Specific Fire point.

Where does it say that open topped equals infinite firepoints or 1 big firepoint that everyone can shoot? These are just made up.

If the entry on the CCB was "firepoints: open topped" then I would agree. As it is the open topped characteristic of a vehicle is completely different than the firepoint characteristic. If my opponent can't point at the entry "firepoints" on Anrakyr's CCB, then he can use MitM...

copper.talos wrote:Where does it say that open topped equals infinite firepoints or 1 big firepoint that everyone can shoot? These are just made up.

If the entry on the CCB was "firepoints: open topped" then I would agree. As it is the open topped characteristic of a vehicle is completely different than the firepoint characteristic. If my opponent can't point at the entry "firepoints" on Anrakyr's CCB, then he can use MitM...

What I meant by "1 big FP" was that if a fire point allows one person to shoot through, O-T transports function with a "fire point" (i.e place for a model/models to shoot through), but a much larger one, hence the "no specific fire point" debate. Does that mean there's a big fire point, or rather that there is no fire point? Honestly, after reading everything six thousand times, I'd have to say that Anrakyr can still use his MitM. I think I might have been a mite slowed earlier, but to me, the rules in question say that open-topped vehicles have no Fire Points as dictated on page 66 or in the brand new GW FAQ. They fire from the top of their vehicle (or whatever they're standing in), which is not a fire point as dictated on page 66. Instead of a fire point, you get O-T firing (or whatever you want to call firing from an open-topped vehicle), which, as far as I can see, has no restrictions on what can be shot from it.

McNinja wrote:Technically, it is a fire point that any and all unit can fire through. That's why it says "no specific." There's a fire point, but it isn't 1 specific Fire point as described on p. 66 of the rulebook.

Specific Fire point: Described on p.66 of the 5th Edition rulebook.

Non-specific fire point: Anything that a model or squad can fire out of that is not a Specific Fire point.

If you are going to insert Specific in front of the default Fire Points, then would you not insert it in front of the new FAQ as well?

This isn't really a serious argument, as I don't believe that Open Topped Vehicles have Fire Points (specific or otherwise).

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:

McNinja wrote:Technically, it is a fire point that any and all unit can fire through. That's why it says "no specific." There's a fire point, but it isn't 1 specific Fire point as described on p. 66 of the rulebook.

Specific Fire point: Described on p.66 of the 5th Edition rulebook.

Non-specific fire point: Anything that a model or squad can fire out of that is not a Specific Fire point.

If you are going to insert Specific in front of the default Fire Points, then would you not insert it in front of the new FAQ as well?

This isn't really a serious argument, as I don't believe that Open Topped Vehicles have Fire Points (specific or otherwise).

Because they wanted OT vehicles to be affected by the FAQ?


Aside from the CCB - who uses open topped vehicles and has an ability that isn't psychic that requires LOS? Not that I've memorized all the codexes, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. If that's the case, and OT transports don't have firing points, then the FAQ is worthless.

rigeld2 wrote:
Because they wanted OT vehicles to be affected by the FAQ?


Aside from the CCB - who uses open topped vehicles and has an ability that isn't psychic that requires LOS? Not that I've memorized all the codexes, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. If that's the case, and OT transports don't have firing points, then the FAQ is worthless.

It says 'use its fire points'. The question is applicable to non-open topped transport vehicles (in fact, as we've been discussing here, it's ONLY applicable to non-open topped vehicles).

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the GW rules team has responded to my question about this exact thing.

PierreTheMime wrote:Could you please clarify the official ruling on this recent FAQ update as it related to open-topped vehicles?

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.

As open-topped vehicles do not have specific fire points, how might this affect Anrakyr The Traveller's Mind in the Machine power? As Mind in the Machine requires line of sight to the target, would the model be unable to utilize this power at any time while embarked in any vehicle?

I would really appreciate an answer to this, as this is a fairly popular choice within the Necron codex and it would be helpful to know if my choices (or a Necron opponents) were legal in both local and tournament play.

Thank you very much for your time

gamesfaqs at games-workshop.co.uk wrote:Morning,

I will make sure this gets updated in the next FAQ update. Whilst an open-topped vehicle doesn’t have a specific fire point it is still a fire point, albeit one that encompasses the entire hull of the vehicle.

Hope this helps,
FAQ Team

As a Necron player I'm a little disappointed, but at least there's now a solid answer. It's likely this rulebook FAQ was created specifically for this unit, as about the only other unit I can think of that has an ability this affects is a Psyker Battle Squad and that's been around for years.

Except it does affect open topped, as we've discussed here.

It also affects Njal