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.

Peregrine wrote:

 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.

I expect better reasoning from you, Peregrine. You're really channelling some eldritch powers of the obtuse with that one. "like a psychic shooting attack, only not" is the simile I used. The Necrons don't have psykers, but they have awesome technology that appears like psychic powers. Insert Arthur C. Clarke quote here. The idea is that abilities like MitM are meant to be the Necron equivalent of a Witchfire attack, except you obviously don't get a DTW roll. Why not? Because it's not actually a Witchfire attack, and Mat Ward likes Necrons and hates you. Or something. I don't presume to know. I'm just answering the question that YOU asked regarding RAI. You can tell because I quoted you, and then directly addressed the question. It was kinda my entire post, but somehow you missed that and instead decided my quite-clearly-marked RAI answer was an attempt at a RAW discussion.

So here's the other problem: You're trying to use RAW to debase a RAI claim.

You cannot look at those two points separate from one another to dispute the RAI hypothesis. A RAI interpretation is most definitely influenced by the fluff, because the fluff is what gives us the context and understanding of what the rules are meant to represent. Nobody (that I'm aware of) is arguing that RAW MitM works on a CCB. All I'm saying is that there is a very solid RAI argument to be made that MitM is meant to work when embarked, based on the fluff that describes the hows & whats of Necron technology.

I don't know when (or if) the FAQs will ever directly address this issue, but if it happens I wouldn't at all be surprised to see it working as I've suggest may be the intention.

 skoffs wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
That's fluff, not rules.

Fluff is used as a basis for rules.

It pretty obviously is not, at least to anyone who's actually read the fluff. Read some fluff how tough space marines are. Then consider that according to actual 40k rules, 4 un-armed guardsmen can easily kill tactical marine in CC. It might take a while (6 phases), but end result will on average be 2 dead guardsmen and 1 dead marine. Assuming neither side gets charge or OW.

According to rules, you normal human can suffer direct hit from multi-melta or lascannon and be completely fine 16% of time. According to fluff, melta weapons "vaporise living creatures in an instant". So fluff is pretty obviously NOT used as basis of actual rules mechanics. There often is connection between fluff and rules, but it is only ordinal, never quantative.
So (sometimes, not necessary always) if fluff claims that "X is larger than Y", it is represented in rule mechanics. But if fluff claims that "X is twice as good as Y", actual rules very rarely reflect that.

GW wrote that special rules that require LOS cannot be used while embarked. This was done most likely for balance reasons.
There is no "fluff" reason for this, just as there is no "fluff" reason for not being able to use psychic powers (except witchfires) that require LOS cannot be used while embarked. But they're both Rules As Written, and as FAQs have shown, Rules As Intended.

Luide wrote:But they're both Rules As Written, and as FAQs have shown, Rules As Intended.

For what it's worth, you have no basis to make that assumption regarding RAI.

Fluff informs rules in that the fluff gives motivation for why things interact as they do. What you seem to be hung up on is that fluff-based concepts have a much more varying degree of scale and the core game mechanics (D6-based) permit, and thus RAW do not necessarily scale perfectly to fluff. But that doesn't change the fact that the reason WHY Arjac gets a 6" Str 10 shooting attack is because that rule represents him throwing (and not actually shooting) his Foehammer at someone. Were he to join a unit that somehow comes twin-linked, RAI would imply that he does not get to re-roll his Foehammer attack, because he's throwing the f'ing thing; not adding a second gun barrel to his hammer. However, RAW would probably allow him to TL the Foehammer unless specified otherwise (a likely situation as GW cannot keep track of every single rule interaction)

GW likes to play fast an loose, and they really do seem to not write rules for the benefit of high-functioning autistic rules lawyers. I think this is becoming more and more apparent, particularly with the Necron codex, wherein every single rules debacle that has been addressed so far has taken the commonsense RAI explanation.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Luide wrote:But they're both Rules As Written, and as FAQs have shown, Rules As Intended.

For what it's worth, you have no basis to make that assumption regarding RAI.

Oh really. I assume that is because you believe FAQ entries are not the Rules As Intended by Designers? So they're not clarifications for unclear rules?

 azazel the cat wrote:

Fluff informs rules in that the fluff gives motivation for why things interact as they do. What you seem to be hung up on is that fluff-based concepts have a much more varying degree of scale and the core game mechanics (D6-based) permit, and thus RAW do not necessarily scale perfectly to fluff.

RAW doesn't scale to fluff at any reasonable degree. Saying that it doesn't "necessarily scale perfectly" is understatement of the century.

 azazel the cat wrote:
But that doesn't change the fact that the reason WHY Arjac gets a 6" Str 10 shooting attack is because that rule represents him throwing (and not actually shooting) his Foehammer at someone. Were he to join a unit that somehow comes twin-linked, RAI would imply that he does not get to re-roll his Foehammer attack, because he's throwing the f'ing thing; not adding a second gun barrel to his hammer.

To this I have to say "For what it's worth, you have no basis to make that assumption regarding RAI."

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, RAW would probably allow him to TL the Foehammer unless specified otherwise (a likely situation as GW cannot keep track of every single rule interaction)

Other options is that designers Intended Twin-linked to always allow re-rolling shooting attacks, as Twin-Linked may mean other things that just having two barrels on a weapon. Have you considered that option?

You seem to be redefining what RAI means. It doesn't mean "what rules should be, according to fluff" and has never meant it. It means does the rule work as the Designers intended it to work. For example, that guardsman surviving direct hit from melta gun or from orbital bombardment? The rules are working exactly as intended there. Of course the end result is completely un-fluffy, but that doesn't mean it is not RAI.

 azazel the cat wrote:
particularly with the Necron codex, wherein every single rules debacle that has been addressed so far has taken the commonsense RAI explanation.

Actually, better explanation for that is "pretty much every conflict has been ruled in favour of Necrons". And in some cases where there was no previous rule conflict, rules have been amended in favour of Necrons. Like the "You can embark on to Night Scythe" ruling.

MITM will most likely be the exception to that rule. It was FAQ'd once in 5e already and I don't think GW will reverse their opinion on this one, especially considering that they've already written out their reasoning out in Psyker rules and FAQs.

OK, you know what?
Let's just leave this already.
I mean look up there.
That wall of "Oh yeah? Well ACTUALLY--" that this has devolved into.
I could go into all the points posted to rebut them, but what's the point?
That will only be contributing to the mess with no possible conclusion.

I give up.

Luide wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Luide wrote:But they're both Rules As Written, and as FAQs have shown, Rules As Intended.

For what it's worth, you have no basis to make that assumption regarding RAI.

Oh really. I assume that is because you believe FAQ entries are not the Rules As Intended by Designers? So they're not clarifications for unclear rules?

Do you remember what the RAI was in 5th for this?
You keep arguing that its intended for it to be used while embarked, but don't have any evidence that's the case.
The rules are against it. The FAQ in 5th was against it. You're crossing your fingers and hoping they change their mind if/when they FAQ it again.

I think we're all missing an important point here.

He said he was using him in a CCB against a Guard parking lot. In that scenario, the CCB is dead on the Guard's first turn since CCB's are trivially easy to kill for them. He certainly gets to use his ability as he'll be on foot the entire game.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I think we're all missing an important point here.

He said he was using him in a CCB against a Guard parking lot. In that scenario, the CCB is dead on the Guard's first turn since CCB's are trivially easy to kill for them. He certainly gets to use his ability as he'll be on foot the entire game.

Nope,.. he concentrates on my footslogging infantry enitrely. He rarely shoots at my vehicles ;P All his vehicles are anti infantry with the exeption of a multi metla here and there.. Nothing realy threatening realy

Yeah - but once he realizes that you are using that ability it will only take one good shot from the Multi-Melta to take out your 13 armor vehicle with +1 to open top rolls.

I've always thought you could use his ability out of a barge but even then it isn't game breaking or a smart move. You are more than likely going to lose Anakyr from doing this move and you are playing on a hope that you get in range of a vehicle that can actually shoot another vehicle from it's position.

It seems pretty clear that RAI this should work but currently the RAW dictate it cannot.

Budikah wrote:It seems pretty clear that RAI this should work but currently the RAW dictate it cannot.

This. Exactly this. This is all I have been saying.

Luide wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

Luide wrote:But they're both Rules As Written, and as FAQs have shown, Rules As Intended.

For what it's worth, you have no basis to make that assumption regarding RAI.

Oh really. I assume that is because you believe FAQ entries are not the Rules As Intended by Designers? So they're not clarifications for unclear rules?

Find me the FAQ entry that addresses MitM by name. Otherwise, please see my previous hypothesis about Anrakyr being an unintended victim of Njal's nerf.

Luide wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, RAW would probably allow him to TL the Foehammer unless specified otherwise (a likely situation as GW cannot keep track of every single rule interaction)

Other options is that designers Intended Twin-linked to always allow re-rolling shooting attacks, as Twin-Linked may mean other things that just having two barrels on a weapon. Have you considered that option?

I really think you should go read the description of what TL actually is. It is described as representing "a fusilade of fire" which is something throwing a hammer is incongruous with.

Luide wrote:You seem to be redefining what RAI means. It doesn't mean "what rules should be, according to fluff" and has never meant it. It means does the rule work as the Designers intended it to work. For example, that guardsman surviving direct hit from melta gun or from orbital bombardment? The rules are working exactly as intended there. Of course the end result is completely un-fluffy, but that doesn't mean it is not RAI.

Actually, that's not what I'm saying at all. But you do seem to really want me to have said it. Unfortunately, I didn't. My statement was merely: "fluff informs RAI." That is, when determining what RAI is, an understanding of what the mechanic is meant to represent is necessary. This is a significant part of GW's desire to make the game "more cinematic": rolling a to-hit and to-wound dice is only the mechanic; it is meant to represent a soldier shooting at another. Therefore, when trying to determine RAI, it is important to take into account what the mechanic represents, which most definitely is informed by the fluff. This is why Warriors embarked on a crashing Night Scythe do not take the Str 10 hit: because the go-back-to-reserves rule is meant to reflect that the Warriors are not truly physically embarked on the Night Scythe in the traditional sitting-in-a-chair-in-the-plane sense, but rather held in stasis elsewhere, waiting to be transported via the Night Scythe's relay.

Luide wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
particularly with the Necron codex, wherein every single rules debacle that has been addressed so far has taken the commonsense RAI explanation.

Actually, better explanation for that is "pretty much every conflict has been ruled in favour of Necrons". And in some cases where there was no previous rule conflict, rules have been amended in favour of Necrons. Like the "You can embark on to Night Scythe" ruling.

Honestly, this just makes you sound butthurt, and I've no desire to get into a debate with damaged goods.

Good day, sir.

Alright, maybe just one more (to address a particular piece of bull-s***)

Luide wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
particularly with the Necron codex, wherein every single rules debacle that has been addressed so far has taken the commonsense RAI explanation.

Actually, better explanation for that is "pretty much every conflict has been ruled in favour of Necrons". And in some cases where there was no previous rule conflict, rules have been amended in favour of Necrons. Like the "You can embark on to Night Scythe" ruling.

Oh, I can think of a few examples where that is most definitely not the case (Scarab congo line, multiple Hunters from Hyperspace mark generation, Deathray versus flyers, etc. I'm sure there's more, but those are the first ones to come to mind).
Notice how every one of those are examples of RAW abuse that got fixed to reflect RAI interpretation as well? (it's not just buffs that balance, there are nerfs, too).
In those cases, people are all "Yeah! Take that, dirty power gaming Necron users!"
But when Nightscythes get an ability that should have been in their entry in the codex in the first place (had the writers been competent), suddenly everyone forgets about the previous balancing nerfs and it's all "HAX! Necrons always get buffs!"
Now that we're claiming Anrakyr, another one of our rules-in-question units, needs clarification (that will most likely be another case of RAI trumping RAW, as the case tends to be when one views mechanics from a "if this were real, what should happen in this situation?" fluff standpoint, which seems to be how the FAQ writers approach things), people are getting butthurt over the possibility of reasonable balance disturbing their rigid adherence to poorly written rules?
wtf.

skoffs - They did rule on it in 5th edition. And he wasn't able to.
Intent is obvious - stay out of the CCB if you want to use MitM.

And yes, the Night Scythe disembarking rules are a ridiculous buff compared to all other Flyer Transports.

Anrakyr is awesome because he provides Pyrrean Eternals, which means that when I teleport my Counter-Attack Lychguard over to the other side of the board they have some serious backup.

]

 azazel the cat wrote:
Find me the FAQ entry that addresses MitM by name. Otherwise, please see my previous hypothesis about Anrakyr being an unintended victim of Njal's nerf.

It is remarkable poor hypothesis, because of timing of the FAQ. C:SW was released in October 2009 and C:Necrons was released in 2011. Rukebook FAQ disallowing use of MITM while embarked was published 9.1.2012, exactly same day as first C:Necrons FAQ was published.
Which sounds more likely: over 2 years after C:SW was published (and multiple FAQs), GW suddenly realized that everyone had been using Njal wrong for the past two years. Or that shortly after C:Necrons was published, they realized that everyone was using Anrakyr wrong and fixed it immediately next time they published FAQs?
No, Occam's Razor makes it pretty clear that it was intended to nerf Anrakyr, not Njal. Thinking that Anrakyr was "collateral" damage is just grasping at straws

And technically it wasn't even nerf, that FAQ entry didn't actually change any rules. Before that FAQ, everyone had just played against RAW. Designers just pointed out that no permission to draw LOS for special rules was actually given anywhere in the rulebook.

Luide wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:
However, RAW would probably allow him to TL the Foehammer unless specified otherwise (a likely situation as GW cannot keep track of every single rule interaction)

Other options is that designers Intended Twin-linked to always allow re-rolling shooting attacks, as Twin-Linked may mean other things that just having two barrels on a weapon. Have you considered that option?

I really think you should go read the description of what TL actually is. It is described as representing "a fusilade of fire" which is something throwing a hammer is incongruous with.

Luide wrote:
I also have problems with the Necron players who try to twist all rules they can just for their advantage. One can find loads of thise in YDMC, though they're not nearly as common as they were in 5e.

Interesting. Can you give us an example of this Necron-players-rule-twisting-for-advantage?
(genuine curiosity, here)

 Furyou Miko wrote:
Anrakyr is awesome because he provides Pyrrean Eternals, which means that when I teleport my Counter-Attack Lychguard over to the other side of the board they have some serious backup.

The even better aspect is, you can effectively have TWO units of Eternals if you attach Anrakyr to another squad of Immortals. (though, I have a feeling you've stuck him in with the Lychguard to grant them C-A. excellent usage, might I say, and one of the very rare instances where I would recommend LG (give them Warscythes, and they'll have S8 on the charge!))

RAI=IMO it works from a CCB

RAW in a TO's opinion=who knows. Flip a coin, it will be about as accurate as guessing what a TO's ruling will be.

Moral of the story: If an unfavorable ruling is a deal breaker bring an alternative list and confirm a ruling with the TO in person they day of the tournament before round 1

That being said he's a good unit with some interesting Skornergy. Mitm has an 18" range, tachyon arrow infinite. He gives a non cc unit fc and ca. He has fc ans a scythe, but no mss or sep weave. Players can not get 100% out of him, but he is very adaptable and brings a lot to the table.

Just for clarity's sake, does anyone know what page in the BRB the part that covers ICs granting units they join certain USRs is on? (eg. "Destroyer Lords grant units they join Preferred Enemy, and it says so in the sixth edition rule book on page ___.")

Just trying to make certain Anrakyr can give units he joins both FC and CA.

FC doesn't extend to the unit, CA does. The important wording is, "If a unit contains at least one model with this special rule" vs "a model with this special rule".

Ah, there's where my confusion was (I thought something was wrong with my reasoning).
Much obliged.

 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I think we're all missing an important point here.

He said he was using him in a CCB against a Guard parking lot. In that scenario, the CCB is dead on the Guard's first turn since CCB's are trivially easy to kill for them. He certainly gets to use his ability as he'll be on foot the entire game.

Nope,.. he concentrates on my footslogging infantry enitrely. He rarely shoots at my vehicles ;P All his vehicles are anti infantry with the exeption of a multi metla here and there.. Nothing realy threatening realy

So...you won vs. a player who had no idea of what he was doing.

Idk if that should be basis to judge units / armies.

 skoffs wrote:

Luide wrote:
I also have problems with the Necron players who try to twist all rules they can just for their advantage. One can find loads of thise in YDMC, though they're not nearly as common as they were in 5e.

Interesting. Can you give us an example of this Necron-players-rule-twisting-for-advantage?

Note that the "twisting" means "ignoring or misreading rules, often deliberately" in this context.
Using MITM while embarked would be textbook example. Especially as most of people doing it know it was not allowed in 5e and that 6e rules regarding drawing LOS while embarked have not changed at all.

Other one is using Phased Reinforcements on non-Deep Striking units that have Cryptek with Veil of Darkness attached (which does not give Deep Strike USR and even if it did, can only be used in Necron players movement phase).

Claiming that "Wraiths are not slowed by difficult terrain" also means that they're not reduced to I1 when charging through difficult terrain. Nobody would have dreamed of making that argument in regards to bikes, even though bikes have exactly same language in their rules...

In 5e, they were more common. One example was that many Necron players claimed that MSS could be used to 'activate' force weapons (which was defined as Psychic power all Psykers with force weapons had access to, not property of the weapon as it is in 6e). Some went as far as to claim that it could be done, even if the psyker had already used all his allotted powers for the turn. So even in situations where Psyker could not activate force weapon voluntary, MSS could force him to do it.

Those were the first ones that came to my mind. Obviously, it is not just Necron players doing this. And many of those are probably honest mistakes, at least first time. Good example of this would (from GK side) be Castellan Crowe rending on Cleansing Flame. If one doesn't read the rules for CF carefully, one might come to that conclusion. Though the process of coming to that conclusion is basically easter egging, meaning that one should have read the rules far more carefully, especially in situations where it gives huge ingame advantage.
But continuing to do repeat it after one has been shown proof that is not the actual rule? Completely different thing.
For perfect example of this, is the 5e force weapons, especially the "MSS can activate force weapons even if the psyker can't do it voluntarily" camp.

Disclaimer: Personally, I find no issues with house ruling things. There is absolutely nothing wrong discussing with your opponent before game, saying "RAW it works like this. But I think it should work like this. Do you agree?". Obviously, this might not work if this specific issue gives you large ingame advantage or if your opponent just plain disagrees. One could even apply the logic further: "While embarked on CCB, model can draw LOS for all purposes. Conversely, all other models can draw LOS for the embarked model in exactly same way."

Luide wrote:
One example was that many Necron players claimed that MSS could be used to 'activate' force weapons (which was defined as Psychic power all Psykers with force weapons had access to, not property of the weapon as it is in 6e).

It was absolutely a weapon property in 5th edition.
There's no need to argue it here because it was covered in YMDC, but it was a legal move in 5th edition as well.

is it ironic that two of the most frequently asked questions are, "Why aren't there more FAQs?" and "Who do you contact at GW to request an answer to a FAQ?"

 skoffs wrote:
Just for clarity's sake, does anyone know what page in the BRB the part that covers ICs granting units they join certain USRs is on? (eg. "Destroyer Lords grant units they join Preferred Enemy, and it says so in the sixth edition rule book on page ___.")

Just trying to make certain Anrakyr can give units he joins both FC and CA.

Until you mentioned it I hadn't even thought to check that. That's a good catch Skoffs. So it looks like he gives out CA but not FC. I would think putting him in a group of LG backed by the Pyhrrians both in Night Scythes sounds like a pretty solid plan for a team that can go in take an objective.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Waaghboss Grobnub wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I think we're all missing an important point here.

He said he was using him in a CCB against a Guard parking lot. In that scenario, the CCB is dead on the Guard's first turn since CCB's are trivially easy to kill for them. He certainly gets to use his ability as he'll be on foot the entire game.

Nope,.. he concentrates on my footslogging infantry enitrely. He rarely shoots at my vehicles ;P All his vehicles are anti infantry with the exeption of a multi metla here and there.. Nothing realy threatening realy

So...you won vs. a player who had no idea of what he was doing.

Idk if that should be basis to judge units / armies.

Oh he knows what he is doing allright... he kills off all my warriors and immortals, and then im like,.. how do i score now ? But i get what you are trying to say.. He modelled all his vehicles anti infantry because of my green tide Orks army. Which i play a lot with..

I rarely win against this guy while i win quite a lot vs other armies.

why would you play against someone who tailors against your lists?

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
why would you play against someone who tailors against your lists?

When I first began 40k I ended up playing a guy who played Ultramines/Chaos Marines/Blood Angels and I naturally built my ideas of the game around that. It was only after getting more games in with other people that I began to see the value in certain units. Your brain is probably going to use whatever information it has available to build something. I don't think that is a terrible offense.

What is pretty cruel is if you have a copy of their list and you just build something nasty. That could also be good practice for the other guy as well.

Asmodai Asmodean wrote:
why would you play against someone who tailors against your lists?

'cause iz wan ta smash him to bitz datz why!

Na seriously, hes the guy that has the most time to play,.. we mainly play at his house because of that. But i have beaten his tailored lists from time to time.. Its always one hell of a battle.. But it has been a long time since i had money to buy things to make some changes to my army... But that time has arrived.. Me Boyz are dead ard and dead killy now