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.

What are everybody's thoughts on Anrakyr?

I am thinking that he looks like a fairly rounded HQ to use and his mind in the machine ability could be fun to do if he is put in a CCB, but maybe a bit situational.

The look on your opponents face when their prized tank starts blowing away their own side would be priceless though!!!

I might get him at some point once I have a good number of necrons on the field (not started the army yet). I do plan on getting Zandrekh, Obyron and an Overlord plus eventually a Destroyer Lord to go with a unit of Wraiths though.

Seriously, the amount of stuff in the necron codex to troll your opponents army is insane!

I run this guy a lot, mainly because i face Imperial Guard Parking lots a lot..

Hes just rollin in his CCB, flying over the place,.. killing infantry and light vehicles with swooping attacks and stuff.. Oh look! A Leman russ with 2 multi metlas and a punisher cannon. Aaaaaahhh look look look! a Chimera...

BOOOM BOOM BOOM its dead... and then, if lucky, your tachyon arrow strikes its rear,.. penetrates,... oooooh lovely

Seriously, have a camera at the ready,.. aim it at your opponents face,.. and at the exact moment the skill succeeds... click! Frame it please... it will stay with you forever

But as usefullness goes.. only take him when you KNOW you face a lot of vehicles.. BTW, also fun against flyers

I don't think you can use Mind in the Machine out of the CCB as it isn't a shooting attack but requires Line of Sight. You only have permission to draw Line Of Sight out of an open topped vehicle for the purposes of a shooting attack.

At least that's what I vaguely recall from discussions over at YMDC.

CCB is open topped, so plenty of sight

Also, if you take true line of sight on consideration and some sort of realism. Hes standing on a floating platform with nothing between him and his target.. If you can shoot a staff of light/tachyon arrow out of it then hell yeah i am convinced you can target something with your skill as well

You cannot use MiTM from the CCB.

Because of that, it makes Anrakyr a sub par choice.

 Sasori wrote:
You cannot use MiTM from the CCB.

Because of that, it makes Anrakyr a sub par choice.

Correct, for the same reason Coteaz is never in his chimerae...

I know I saw that ruling in 5th edition but I can't seem to locate it in 6th. Can anyone point me there?

 Brymm wrote:
I know I saw that ruling in 5th edition but I can't seem to locate it in 6th. Can anyone point me there?

Reason why Anrakyr cannot use MItM in the from the CCB is because there is no permission for you to draw LOS to use special abilities while embarked given anywhere in the rulebook, and you do need that permission. You're only given permission to draw LOS while embarked for shooting (and PSA's).

If you want to show your opponent exactly why it works this way, page 67, has good example: 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. .
You can replace each instance of Psyker with Anrakyr to see how the rules work regarding MItM.

I think the following FAQ ruling is what people are using to make this judgement.

Q: Can Psykers use a Transport’s Fire Point(s) to manifest
powers that require line of sight whilst still embarked? (p78)
A: No. Note, however, that witchfire powers specifically allow
you to do so and are the one exception to this rule.

Note that Anrakyr isn't a psyker, nor is MITM a psychic ability. This ruling, in general, is garbage, but that's beside the point.

Yeah, I think you'd need specific rules from Open Topped or Any himself that said he COULD use it from a transport. Ah well.

As long as they don't correct his rules in a FAQ, he is worthless.

Page 82, under open topped vehicles,


Open topped transports do not have specific fire points.
Instead, all passengers in an open-topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle...

That does it for me..

 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:
Open topped transports do not have specific fire points.
Instead, all passengers in an open-topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle...

Except that this is talking about shooting attacks. The special ability in question is not a shooting attack, therefore this rule does not apply.

 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:
Page 82, under open topped vehicles,
Open topped transports do not have specific fire points.
Instead, all passengers in an open-topped transport can fire, measuring range and line of sight from any point on the hull of the vehicle...
That does it for me..

That rule does not give permission to use MITM while embarked.
It says that when firing from open-topped transport, you measure range and LOS from hull. Using MItM is not a firing/shooting, so this rule doesn't apply.

@Voidwrath:
People are making the judgement from reading what the actual rules say. No permission to draw LOS for using special rules while embarked is given, so you cannot draw LOS to use special rules while embarked. It is as simple as that.

Of course the reason why people understand this better now is because of the 5e FAQ, which funnily enough, didn't change any rules. That FAQ just showed people that they had been playing wrong so far.

Then were in the hell on what page etc etc do people get the idea that it is not allowed.. Nowhere can i find that this is not allowed. It is open topped so logic says hey i can see damn near anything from here.

Also i cant find anywhere that using a skill (shooting/non-shooting) from a transport ( except most psychic skills) is not allowed.

Chariot type does not say it isnt allowed
Skimmer doesnt say this
Fast vehicle doesnt say this
Open topped doesnt say this

Also if you look at the model which is basicly a flying platform, there is no logical explanation why the embarked model cannot use this skill..

Please give me a water tight reason and ill surrender to the warhammer laws since i wish to play by the rules. Waiting for another Faq will probably take ages again and even then its no guarantee it will be in it..

I realy wish the be 100% sure about this. I'm going through the rulebook as we speak,.. but i cant find anything yet. In please, dont come with something like,... the rule book doesnt say it is allowed. It also doesnt state it isnt allowed.. please give facts or logical reasoning why it would be unable to draw line of sight out of a chariot...

What about the thick letters on page 8? Will they convince people? Drawing line of sight from your model to enemy model under the statement, true line of sight? Cant find it if this is not allowed from vehicle

In general, 40k's ruleset is considered a permissions based ruleset, as opposed to a restrictions based one. A permissive ruleset (if I'm remebering terminology and everything correctly) has, as its default state, nothing. No player is allowed to do anything at all. The rules of the game then give you permission to do certain things, like placing models, moving with them, and attacking with them, and all of the other things in the BRB and codexes. Thus, unless you're given explicit permission to do something, it generally cannot be done. This is of course within some form of reason, as GW's rules writing is not that tight -- interpretations could be made that one couldn't play the game at all as written. However, in general, the default state of being is that you need explicit permission to do anything.

I do realize that it's odd that Anrakyr can shoot his Tachyon Arrow out of his CCB, but not MITM, however, there is no permission to use non-shooting anything out of any transport, even an open-topped one. You'd think that he'd be able to do it, but since when have 40k rules matched real world logic? If I fail a charge by 1 inch, why does my unit just stand where it is instead of still moving closer to the enemy? It doesn't make sense in a 'real world' logic, but them's the rules. In the absence of an FAQ, you do not have permission to use MITM from a vehicle, and permission, not restriction, is what matters.

 Thariinye wrote:
In general, 40k's ruleset is considered a permissions based ruleset, as opposed to a restrictions based one. A permissive ruleset (if I'm remebering terminology and everything correctly) has, as its default state, nothing. No player is allowed to do anything at all. The rules of the game then give you permission to do certain things, like placing models, moving with them, and attacking with them, and all of the other things in the BRB and codexes. Thus, unless you're given explicit permission to do something, it generally cannot be done. This is of course within some form of reason, as GW's rules writing is not that tight -- interpretations could be made that one couldn't play the game at all as written. However, in general, the default state of being is that you need explicit permission to do anything.

I do realize that it's odd that Anrakyr can shoot his Tachyon Arrow out of his CCB, but not MITM, however, there is no permission to use non-shooting anything out of any transport, even an open-topped one. You'd think that he'd be able to do it, but since when have 40k rules matched real world logic? If I fail a charge by 1 inch, why does my unit just stand where it is instead of still moving closer to the enemy? It doesn't make sense in a 'real world' logic, but them's the rules. In the absence of an FAQ, you do not have permission to use MITM from a vehicle, and permission, not restriction, is what matters.

Thank you! What you are saying seems solid and logical.. I hope it will become Faq'd soon then. Untill then, it seems anrakyr will be shelved for now..

As with most of the rules in that horribly written excuse for a codex, it all comes down to RAW vs RAI again.
(RAW says he can't because he hasn't been given permission to do so, RAI suggests he should be able to because why in the hell would he NOT be able to?)
Luckily, almost all of the FAQ corrections to the numerous confusing/poorly thought out rules in the Necron codex have ruled in favor of RAI (eg. Nightscythe crash damage not affecting occupants, Deathmarks only allowed to mark one unit, number of specific Harbingers allowed in Royal Courts, etc., etc.), and I'm pretty certain this one will be as well... just as soon as one of those lazy arses decides to get around to it.

In the mean time, if you're going to field him in friendly games, tell your opponent you want to play via the RAI interpretation of his rule (if opponent objects, flip a coin for it. if opponent objects to THAT... maybe don't play that person?)

Sounds like he's been playing it RAI all along, and isn't going to stop.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Sounds like he's been playing it RAI all along, and isn't going to stop.

How is there any RAI involved here? Nothing in the rules suggests that GW thinks you should be able to do it, so the only "I" in the supposed RAI is "this unit would be much better if it worked that way". It makes about as much sense as saying that I'm playing by RAI when I claim STR 10 lascannons on my Vendetta.

 Peregrine wrote:

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
Sounds like he's been playing it RAI all along, and isn't going to stop.

How is there any RAI involved here? Nothing in the rules suggests that GW thinks you should be able to do it, so the only "I" in the supposed RAI is "this unit would be much better if it worked that way". It makes about as much sense as saying that I'm playing by RAI when I claim STR 10 lascannons on my Vendetta.

Ah, but that's thinking about it from a RAW perspective (eg. "rule doesn't say you can, therefore you can't).
You have to take into consideration that the people who write these things are notoriously bad at their jobs, having little to no sense of play testing or quality control (if this wasn't the case, there wouldn't be a necessity for all the countless FAQs).

Besides, it's not a case of "this unit would be much better if it worked that way", so much as "it doesn't make any sense to prevent this unit from working this way".

And yes, yes, "But it's 40k! You can't think about things making sense!"
However, take a look at the majority of FAQ/rule updates: almost all of them have ruled in favor of playing the rule in which it made the most sense.
I've never seen a RAI advocate try to bend the interpretation of a rule to make his unit in question OP (so much as prevent it from being unfairly nerfed, eg. Nightscythes and crash damage), but I've seen PLENTY of examples of RAW lawyers bending rules to exploit cheese loopholes (eg. marking multiple units with Veiling Deathmark units).

In Anrakyr's case, common sense dictates that while he is standing atop his open topped Command Barge, he should be able to see perfectly fine. If he can see a tank, what prevents him from using his ability which requires line of sight? There's no rule saying he can? Well, have you considered the possibility that they may have overlooked that particular scenario when writing the rules? They do things like that all the time, after all. Then they come along later and amend a bunch of the stupid mistakes and bits they forgot to include... but not all of them. Somehow they always seem to be able to forget one or two (or nine or twenty), and they have to come along a few months later and do another batch. When will Anrakyr's MitM have it's turn to be addressed? Void Dragon only knows...

 skoffs wrote:
Besides, it's not a case of "this unit would be much better if it worked that way", so much as "it doesn't make any sense to prevent this unit from working this way".

It doesn't make any sense that you can't cast psychic powers (other than shooting attacks) from inside a transport, but you can't. Why should this ability be any different?

Well, ignoring the whole "it's not a psychic power" thing, I really don't see why either should be disallowed.
From non-open topped vehicles, sure, looking out through a hatch to use a power/ability doesn't seem right. But preventing the use of things that require line of sight when atop something that has nothing to block line of sight just seems stupid/an example of poor foresight.
If I were to play an opponent who wanted to use an ability/power from an open topped vehicle, I'd have no qualms in letting them.
...
but that's just me. trying to counter GW's slowed writing standards by using basic decency and common sense.

 skoffs wrote:
Well, ignoring the whole "it's not a psychic power" thing, I really don't see why either should be disallowed.

Why should we ignore it? The psychic power rule very clearly demonstrates that GW feels that certain abilities should not be used from within vehicles, even if fluff-wise it makes no sense to ban it. Maybe it's for balance reasons unrelated to fluff, GW wants you to get out of your vehicle to fight at your maximum potential.

So, given that similar abilities can't be used out of open-topped vehicle and there's nothing in the rules that suggests you can, there's no possible argument that RAI is any different than RAW.

If I were to play an opponent who wanted to use an ability/power from an open topped vehicle, I'd have no qualms in letting them.

That's fine. But don't complain about how RAW is overruling the much more reasonable RAI when it's really a case of making a house rule that changes the situation to something you feel is more realistic.

That's just one of the points I was trying to make: often times RAI interpretations end up having to be "house rules" because people cling doggedly to strict rule observance... but often times, those house rules end up becoming the actual rules, as the FAQs tend to favor "best/realistic interpretation" rather than "broken interpretation".

Steering the conversation back toward Anrakyr again, this issue with MitM has been around since the codex dropped. They've fixed a lot of the more obvious problems, but they keep skimming over him. Personally, I don't use him, but the main reason WHY I don't use him is because the lack of clarity with that one rule. (I'd love to run him, he's a great character with a pretty sweet model, but I just don't want to deal with the crap that will accompany him on the table).
Is there somewhere you can write/email to request/suggest clarifications? (even if the FAQ sides with the pure RAW "Nope, if Psychics can't do it, neither can he", at least it would clear it up finally).

TL;DR- I wish they would just say one way or the other.

 skoffs wrote:
That's just one of the points I was trying to make: often times RAI interpretations end up having to be "house rules" because people cling doggedly to strict rule observance... but often times, those house rules end up becoming the actual rules, as the FAQs tend to favor "best/realistic interpretation" rather than "broken interpretation".

Except there's no "intended" here. Nothing at all says that the current situation is an accident rather than a deliberate choice by GW to impose limits on how you can use the ability. This isn't like the Night Scythe issue where RAW was a confusing mess, the rules are perfectly clear and sensible.

They've fixed a lot of the more obvious problems, but they keep skimming over him.

You're assuming that they skim over him rather than decide "working as intended, no FAQ/errata required".

Peregrine wrote:How is there any RAI involved here? .

-Because MitM is used during the shooting phase.
-Because the Necron codex describes their fancy technological abilities as being their substitute for psychic powers.
Therefore, RAI suggests that MitM is meant to function exactly like a psychic shooting attack, only not.

If you want another, albeit tenuous bit, there's also the hypothesis that the accursed FAQ ruling was created specifically to stop Njal from hanging out inside a transport and letting his storm ability dominate the game, and Anrakyr was an unintended victim of that Nerfing.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Peregrine wrote:How is there any RAI involved here? .

-Because MitM is used during the shooting phase.
-Because the Necron codex describes their fancy technological abilities as being their substitute for psychic powers.
Therefore, RAI suggests that MitM is meant to function exactly like a psychic shooting attack, only not.

If you want another, albeit tenuous bit, there's also the hypothesis that the accursed FAQ ruling was created specifically to stop Njal from hanging out inside a transport and letting his storm ability dominate the game, and Anrakyr was an unintended victim of that Nerfing.

So you're going to ignore the "intention" from the 5th Ed FAQ that said no you can't do that?

 azazel the cat wrote:
-Because MitM is used during the shooting phase.

So what? IG orders are used during the shooting phase, require line of sight, and can't be used out of an open-topped vehicle (only Chimeras, which are explicitly the only vehicle you can give orders out of). IG psyker battle squads have a "debuff" ability that is explicitly not a shooting attack and can't be used from a vehicle. Not all abilities that happen in the shooting phase are shooting attacks.

-Because the Necron codex describes their fancy technological abilities as being their substitute for psychic powers.

That's fluff, not rules.

Therefore, RAI suggests that MitM is meant to function exactly like a psychic shooting attack, only not.

So you take a psychic test to use MitM, your opponent gets to roll DTW against it, the character is considered a psyker for attacks that hurt psykers, etc? Nothing in the rules even remotely suggests that MitM is a psychic shooting attack, or meant to follow the rules for one.

 Peregrine wrote:
That's fluff, not rules.

Fluff is used as a basis for rules.
(seriously, it's not like they just arbitrarily decided Powerfists should be Unwieldy, S x2 and AP2. They made it that way because the fluff suggests they should be slow and cumbersome but viciously powerful).

 Peregrine wrote:
Nothing at all says that the current situation is an accident rather than a deliberate choice by GW to impose limits on how you can use the ability. This isn't like the Night Scythe issue where RAW was a confusing mess, the rules are perfectly clear and sensible.

They've fixed a lot of the more obvious problems, but they keep skimming over him.

You're assuming that they skim over him rather than decide "working as intended, no FAQ/errata required".

The fact that we are having this discussion (again!) is a pretty good indication that, no, things are NOT as perfectly clear and sensible as you claim they are.
The FAQs are supposed to clear up rule confusion.
The MitM issue has been around from the beginning, and is STILL considered "unclear" by a good portion of players.
Issues like that should be prime candidates for FAQ clarification.
GW's continued lack of response to these frequently asked questions about this rule (to either confirm or disallow) is just another example of their sloppy standards.
The fact that you see nothing in need of clarification is irrelevant if there are enough other players who do demand answers.