I don't think blast pistols on Sybarites is worth it still. Maybe more so on Hexatrix's as ToS b.c the +1 to wound.
They might see some wider use now that Venoms and Raiders can't shoot after a Fall Back move. If you're going to be locked, might as well have a Blast Pistol.
The rule is fairly unambiguous: "Any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers" - which in 9th very much would include the modifier of being able to fire in melee. None of the examples under the "for example" part still apply in 9th as the raider and venom can't shoot after falling back, but it can fire in melee: literally the opposite of the situation right now. So the only part that still applies is just that "modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers". By any clear, straight reading of the rules the passengers of a Raider or Venom can fire out of it in close combat. ...But GW's FAQ writers are infamously biased against xenos armies, so I think "worst of all worlds" is what we're going to actually get once the day 1 panic FAQ drops. It's a pity, because I'd kind of like it if kabalites in raiders became our staple workhorse again.
The rule is fairly unambiguous: "Any restrictions or modifiers that apply to this model also apply to its passengers" - which in 9th very much would include the modifier of being able to fire in melee.
A "modifier" in 40k is anything which provides a +1 or -1 to hit, not a general beneficial rule. It's why the Flayed Skull stratagem works on embarked units if you use it on the transport, why embarked Dark Lance Kabalites take -1 to hit when their Raider moves, and why the Archon aura doesn't affect embarked units.
We'll need to see an FAQ about it but right now my expectation would be that embarked units can't fire anything more than pistols in engagement range.
Sarcron likes this post
amishprn86 Archon
Posts : 4436 Join date : 2014-10-04 Location : Ohio
I don't think blast pistols on Sybarites is worth it still. Maybe more so on Hexatrix's as ToS b.c the +1 to wound.
They might see some wider use now that Venoms and Raiders can't shoot after a Fall Back move. If you're going to be locked, might as well have a Blast Pistol.
Fallback and shooting isn't helping why i don't like them on Kabals, a 3+ into a 3+ for 1/2 the range IMO isn't good. And if they are in melee they are as good as dead. If open-top can shoot in melee, then yes i might consider it, but they alsoc an't get re-rolls in vehicles (which is stupid). Wyches has a 4++ in combat so they can withstand some vehicles, with ToS and other traits for anti-vehicle it would make more sense on them over kabals.
Gelmir Sybarite
Posts : 344 Join date : 2018-01-06 Location : near Rotterdam
But there's no way passengers can shoot out of an engaged transport. The restrictions applying to the transport also apply to the passengers, for example falling back. Being engaged is a restriction that also applies to the crew. That restriction then interacts with the crews own keywords, hence why venoms could fall back and shoot but passengers couldn't in 8th. So, as the crew will not have the vehicle keyword then no, they won't be able to shoot whilst engaged in combat.
Guys, I highly doubt that we will be firing overwatch, falling back and shooting to full effect, etc out of our transports.
GW didnt like how we were jinking transports in 7th and occupants were firing at full BS, and still have not forgiven us for capitalizing on that rule gap XD
But who knows, maybe a day 1 FAQ will give us that ability. For now, I just want decently costed Ravagers/RWJF/Grots/Taloi. If the Supreme Overlord provides that, I will be content
krayd Hekatrix
Posts : 1343 Join date : 2011-10-03 Location : Richmond, VA
GW didnt like how we were jinking transports in 7th and occupants were firing at full BS, and still have not forgiven us for capitalizing on that rule gap XD
Ha. GW couldn't maintain a consistent stance on the issue. As I recall, they FAQ'd it to say that passengers *couldn't* fire at full BS while jinking, and then, for some reason, had a change of heart (I guess, they decided that they wanted to stick to RAW), and FAQ'd it again to say that you could.
But there's no way passengers can shoot out of an engaged transport. The restrictions applying to the transport also apply to the passengers, for example falling back. Being engaged is a restriction that also applies to the crew. That restriction then interacts with the crews own keywords, hence why venoms could fall back and shoot but passengers couldn't in 8th. So, as the crew will not have the vehicle keyword then no, they won't be able to shoot whilst engaged in combat.
The transport can shoot in engagement range, but is restricted to firing at units in engagement range.
Big Guns Never Tire wrote:
A Vehicle or Monster model can make attacks with ranged weapons even when its unit is within Engagement Range of enemy units, but it can only make such attacks against enemy units that it is within Engagement Range of.
Spoiler:
Leaving aside the obvious crime of ending a sentence with a preposition in the 21st Century...
Big Guns Never Tire is not a special ability that vehicles and monsters are granted. It is an advanced rule, and addition to the normal ruleset.
@false son yes the transport can. But under the restrictions of being in engagement range the transport is allowed to shoot because it has the vehicle keyword. Under the same restrictions (applied to any passengers in the transport) infantry cannot shoot, because they don't have the vehicle keyword.
@false son yes the transport can. But under the restrictions of being in engagement range the transport is allowed to shoot because it has the vehicle keyword. Under the same restrictions (applied to any passengers in the transport) infantry cannot shoot, because they don't have the vehicle keyword.
Except that Open Topped specifically says any restrictions are applied to the passengers, without qualification. If it applies to the transport, it applies to the passengers.
Except that Open Topped specifically says any restrictions are applied to the passengers, without qualification. If it applies to the transport, it applies to the passengers.
False, its not every restriction, if that was the case then re-roll auras would work on the guys inside.
Cerve wrote:
The resteiction is "being in combat", not "being able to shoot because you"re a veichle*.
Except that Open Topped specifically says any restrictions are applied to the passengers, without qualification. If it applies to the transport, it applies to the passengers.
False, its not every restriction, if that was the case then re-roll auras would work on the guys inside.
A re-roll is not a restriction, or modifier.
Cerve wrote:
The resteiction is "being in combat", not "being able to shoot because you"re a veichle*.
This.[/quote]
The restriction is what targets you are able to select. As it so happens, this is above and beyond the normal rules for shooting while within engagement range. None the less, it is a restriction that would be shared by the passengers because Open Topped specifies all restrictions applied to the vehicle. The term restriction is the problem, even though at the time GW likely thought that was thorough to cover all cases in 8th ed.
Well I'm sorry buddy, but your wrong. You seem more keen on reaching the conclusion you want rather than the conclusion that's correct. Infantry are not vehicles. Infantry to do not gain the vehicle keyword. This is an identical situation to our kabalites being able to shoot from a venom that fell back in 8th. They couldn't, because the falling back restrictions applied to them, but they lacked the fly keyword.
Don't you just love playing a game written in english plaintext, so rules arguments boils down to vague things like 'define restriction' and 'define define' until someone authorized to interpret the text finally gets around to guessing what the writer probably meant?
Well I'm sorry buddy, but your wrong. You seem more keen on reaching the conclusion you want rather than the conclusion that's correct. Infantry are not vehicles. Infantry to do not gain the vehicle keyword. This is an identical situation to our kabalites being able to shoot from a venom that fell back in 8th. They couldn't, because the falling back restrictions applied to them, but they lacked the fly keyword.
This was my feeling too.
Being able to shoot while in combat is not a restriction, it is an ability that the unit has. It is just like the fact that if your kabalite warriors in a raider have a dark lance and they are inside a raider, they don't get the ability to move and shoot it without restriction either.
Well I'm sorry buddy, but your wrong. You seem more keen on reaching the conclusion you want rather than the conclusion that's correct. Infantry are not vehicles. Infantry to do not gain the vehicle keyword. This is an identical situation to our kabalites being able to shoot from a venom that fell back in 8th. They couldn't, because the falling back restrictions applied to them, but they lacked the fly keyword.
Nothing in Big Guns Never Tire says keyword. It says vehicles and monsters. The example of Fall Back is specific to that 8th ed situation, because units with the Fly keyword had an exception to normal Fall Back rules that did not transfer to the passengers because, again, that is not a restriction. That is what makes this situation different than every other example, the use of the word restriction.
Silverglade wrote:
This was my feeling too.
Being able to shoot while in combat is not a restriction, it is an ability that the unit has. It is just like the fact that if your kabalite warriors in a raider have a dark lance and they are inside a raider, they don't get the ability to move and shoot it without restriction either.
Big Guns Never Tire is not an ability the vehicle has. Big Guns Never Tire is a rule. And it is a restriction; restriction to only be able to fire at units in engagement range. The real issue is not whether or not the restriction applies to the passengers, it is whether or not they can make use of that restriction by not being vehicles or monsters. My interpretation is that BGNT is the rule, Open Topped is the exception.
mynamelegend wrote:
Don't you just love playing a game written in english plaintext, so rules arguments boils down to vague things like 'define restriction' and 'define define' until someone authorized to interpret the text finally gets around to guessing what the writer probably meant?
No, the problem is that we are between editions and the Open Topped rule is written for an edition that didn't feature BGNT. GW releases FAQ in every single edition because their copywriting is not plaintext. People are arguing about how the Blast weapon rules work right now, because GW copywriting creates space for misinterpretation. This is a natural outgrowth. I agree that GW likely did not "intend" for BGNT to apply to passengers, but they need to state that.
Look at the actual wording of Big Guns Never Tire:
Quote :
A VEHICLE or MONSTER model can make attacks with ranged weapons even when its unit is within Engagement Range of enemy units, but it can only make such attacks against enemy units that it is within Engagement Range of.
In this case anything with the VEHICLE or MONSTER keyword is being granted permission to ignore a general restriction (that you're not allowed to shoot at models within Engagement Range). It is exactly like the Fall Back with Fly example in 8th.
Now, this doesn't mean that GW won't come along to FAQ this in a different way. But right now I absolutely wouldn't accept embarked units firing non-pistol weapons in Engagement Range.
Subject: Re: 40k 9th Editon 
Wed Jul 08 2020, 17:35
