Dear Dakka Dakka users

The monolith has a mighty particle whip, but how is that thing mounted??

the codex doesn't state a way it's mounted, nor does the rulebook.

so as there are no actual indications, 360° all round?

Or is there something deep down written or obviously written that I overlooked?

Looking at the monolith's build maybe it can only fire within 45°.

what do you say...

It is 360 degrees. If the Monolith sees it and is in range it is shootable. Monolith doesn't have the same type of...issues with weapons pointing in the direction of the enemy. It is great.


If you transport troops from one spot to another though they can only exit the front door.

The particle whip is a lightning arc shot out from the crystal on top of the thing. It's basically a turret that can rotate 360 degrees.

Not exactly true - the FAQ says you measure the PW range and LoS from "...any of the Mono weapons" p3. And you cannot also fire the GFPs.

The crystal is a weapon...
So with that then with the PW you can actually get a couple more inches by using the guns. NICE THNX GW! Non Nec players just facepalmed.

When it doubt the Monolith can do it. Quite simply the best vehicle in the game.

"When it doubt the Monolith can do it" Quite right! That's on p5 of the FAQ...

The AP1 confuses me though, I think it just means the inner circle of the big blast is 1 I have been playing like this tell me I am wrong please

The inner circle is not AP1, it's the actual hole in the template that is.

Smolo82 wrote:The crystal is a weapon...
So with that then with the PW you can actually get a couple more inches by using the guns. NICE THNX GW! Non Nec players just facepalmed.

I don't know that the crystal is identified as a weapon anywhere, so firing from the actual gun barrels that stick off every corner seems to be the correct way to fire it...and it gets you a couple extra inches of range.

In DOW: Winter Assualt it shot a beam out from the crystal that wrecked tanks and infantry alike...

so to make all your posts short, the Mono can fire 360° and if we follow it to the letter, GW actaully states that we can make it fire from our visible turrets?! haha

RutgerMan wrote:so to make all your posts short, the Mono can fire 360° and if we follow it to the letter, GW actaully states that we can make it fire from our visible turrets?! haha

Yes you can fire from any of the turrets...though I don't know it the turrets can each turn more than 90 degrees so you may have some small very specific blind spots that require more careful positioning of the Mono.

zeshin wrote:

RutgerMan wrote:so to make all your posts short, the Mono can fire 360° and if we follow it to the letter, GW actaully states that we can make it fire from our visible turrets?! haha

Yes you can fire from any of the turrets...though I don't know it the turrets can each turn more than 90 degrees so you may have some small very specific blind spots that require more careful positioning of the Mono.

Yep 90 degrees, but at least you cant destroy any of the monolith weapons (you can only give flux arc -1 to its D6 roll, and technically it says something along the lines of minus -1 )

I think the codex says the crystal fires the massive beam... oh well will have to check don't have it with me at this time.

Smolo82 wrote:The crystal is a weapon...
So with that then with the PW you can actually get a couple more inches by using the guns. NICE THNX GW! Non Nec players just facepalmed.

Since you measure from the mounting of the gun, you are basically measuring from the hull.

Firstly as per the Necron FAQ 2009, in the Monolith section there is a paragraph that states how to fire the Particle Whip, it states 'The particle whip uses the large blast marker and its range and line of sight are measured from ANY of the Monolith’s weapons', so personally if that gives me a few extra inches then i'm using the gauss flux projectors to fire it.
Che-Vito as per page 56 in BRB under Vehicles & Measusing Distances on the second paragraph it states there is a notable exception being the vehicles weapons and when firing vehicles weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon while LOS is determined by the mounting, so for a Monolith is does give a further range of a couple inches when firing from the muzzles of the gauss projectors rather than the crystal itself.

Userarm wrote:Firstly as per the Necron FAQ 2009, in the Monolith section there is a paragraph that states how to fire the Particle Whip, it states 'The particle whip uses the large blast marker and its range and line of sight are measured from ANY of the Monolith’s weapons', so personally if that gives me a few extra inches then i'm using the gauss flux projectors to fire it.
Che-Vito as per page 56 in BRB under Vehicles & Measusing Distances on the second paragraph it states there is a notable exception being the vehicles weapons and when firing vehicles weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon while LOS is determined by the mounting, so for a Monolith is does give a further range of a couple inches when firing from the muzzles of the gauss projectors rather than the crystal itself.

Yup I dont have my Mono here at work but it say its between 2-4 inches extra.

Userarm wrote:Firstly as per the Necron FAQ 2009, in the Monolith section there is a paragraph that states how to fire the Particle Whip, it states 'The particle whip uses the large blast marker and its range and line of sight are measured from ANY of the Monolith’s weapons', so personally if that gives me a few extra inches then i'm using the gauss flux projectors to fire it.
Che-Vito as per page 56 in BRB under Vehicles & Measusing Distances on the second paragraph it states there is a notable exception being the vehicles weapons and when firing vehicles weapons, ranges are measured from the muzzle of the firing weapon while LOS is determined by the mounting, so for a Monolith is does give a further range of a couple inches when firing from the muzzles of the gauss projectors rather than the crystal itself.

Ah, good call.

Aman wrote:"When it doubt the Monolith can do it" Quite right! That's on p5 of the FAQ...

whatis FOW? BL fiction?

Aman wrote:

Aman wrote:"When it doubt the Monolith can do it" Quite right! That's on p5 of the FAQ...

whatis FOW? BL fiction?

Don't know haven't read a book with necrons in it yet.

Try Dead men Walking - Necrons and Death Korps. Pretty good novel.

New Monolith Question here :

It states within the living metal rules that "in practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its UNAUGMENTED strength and a single d6 no matter what."

Now my question, as emphasised above, is that since they also mentioned monstrous creatures and other close combat weapons, does this means you cannot have the doubled strength for like having a power fist? since it augments strength and such...

Hope you guys have answers thx

P.S. sorry for necro thread (didn't wan't to start a new one :p)

RutgerMan wrote:New Monolith Question here :

It states within the living metal rules that "in practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its UNAUGMENTED strength and a single d6 no matter what."

Now my question, as emphasised above, is that since they also mentioned monstrous creatures and other close combat weapons, does this means you cannot have the doubled strength for like having a power fist? since it augments strength and such...

Hope you guys have answers thx

P.S. sorry for necro thread (didn't wan't to start a new one :p)

http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m1490294a_FAQ_Necrons_2009.pdf

Q. Does a model with a powerfist/claw that
attacks a Monolith get to double its Strength for
armour penetration rolls?
A. Yes, powerfists/claws, thunder hammers, and
so on still double their user’s Strength when
attacking a Monolith.


And, feel free to start a new thread. That's much preferred to Necro.

The FAQ answers this. Modifiers applied to the model's strength value work against monoliths.

Yep. The unaugmented strength of a powerfist is 2S, where S is the strength of the user. Ths confuses a lot of people, hence the FAQ....

The key word in the rule is 'the strength of the weapon.' Not the model. That's why pfists work against living metal.

kk thx guys really bothered me alot (though I always gave my opponents the double strength without any complain)

Jidmah wrote:The FAQ answers this. Modifiers applied to the model's strength value work against monoliths.

Actually, it does not say that. It says that powerfists work. It says nothing about things like Furious Charge or other abilities that augment the models strength. IMO, no, such abilities do not work. If they did, then they would be part of the powerfists strength to begin with, not a 2xST +1. See that +1, that's a modifier.

As per BRB pg. 7, powerfists are also modifieres.

Your argument is wrong.

No, because we're using the unaugmented strength of the WEAPON, which for a powerfist is 2 x users ST. Since the +1 for Furious Charge is added AFTER determining the strength of the PF, it's a modifier. The doubling of strength is not a modifier, it's the formula used to determine the unaugmented strength of the PF. See the difference?

If you can disprove that the BRB on page 7 actually says that 2x ST from a powerfist is a modifier, sure. Otherwise, you're just wrong.

But it's a modifier to the model's strength rather than the weapon's strength.

Regardless of when in the process you add it into the mix to find the strength of the attack, it modifies the unit rather than the weapon, thus it isn't forbidden by the Living Metal rule.

@Jidmah You need to READ the rule...

Living Metal:
"Attacks which count the TARGET'S ARMOUR VALUE as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the Monolith. Similarly, weapons that get ADDITIONAL ARMOUR PENETRATION DICE (such as chianfists, monstrous creatures, or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith. Ordanance weapons still roll 2D6 for Armour Penetration and select the highest score."

No where does it say it ignores modifiers of any kind.

Also the FAQ entry is a specific clarification that the above rule does not apply to powerfists. This is fairly clear from the rule itself, but apparently was asked enough to warrant entry in the FAQ.


To summarize, the only thing effected by living metal are the following:
Lances and any other armor modification abilities
Melta, Chainfists, and other abilities that give you an attack of Strength + 2D6 instead of Strength + 1D6


Since a powerfist augments the wearers strength, it is not adding a die. The attack is still Strength + 1D6.

Huh? I was merely answering to don_mondo claiming that Furious Charge is a modifier and Powerfists are not.

I was in agreement with you.

I grabbed the wrong name when I was referencing the post. My bad. It was aimed at don_mondo when he said that furious charge didn't work vs monoliths :3

WanderingFox wrote:@Jidmah You need to READ the rule...

Living Metal:
"Attacks which count the TARGET'S ARMOUR VALUE as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the Monolith. Similarly, weapons that get ADDITIONAL ARMOUR PENETRATION DICE (such as chianfists, monstrous creatures, or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the Monolith. Ordanance weapons still roll 2D6 for Armour Penetration and select the highest score."

No where does it say it ignores modifiers of any kind.

Also the FAQ entry is a specific clarification that the above rule does not apply to powerfists. This is fairly clear from the rule itself, but apparently was asked enough to warrant entry in the FAQ.


To summarize, the only thing effected by living metal are the following:
Lances and any other armor modification abilities
Melta, Chainfists, and other abilities that give you an attack of Strength + 2D6 instead of Strength + 1D6


Since a powerfist augments the wearers strength, it is not adding a die. The attack is still Strength + 1D6.

Well...you ARE forgetting the whole bit in the living metal rule that says (paraphrased) "In practice, when attacking a monolith a weapon rolls it's unaugmented Strength+1d6 no matter what."

Now, as has been said, the rule does say WEAPON and not MODEL. So yes, Furious charge works, power fists work, and so on. Tank hunter does not work though, as a "for instance".

umm no i'm not. that is the entirety of the living rule minus the single line of fluff.

See attached. It says NOTHING of the sort.

Assuming that they didn't just allow powerfists as a specific exception, to shut whiny SM players up..

That and the fact that Orks had practically no other way to kill the thing.

I'm not fussed personally. I'm ok with FC and so on without argument, as the Lith is a pain to take down without it, and also so that my Orks get the same benefit if i ever run across another Necron player.

In any case I prefer to play the game than have heated RAW arguments eating into my gaming time. The heated RAW arguments are over beer, afterwards

It'll all be irrelevant soon, in any case, with a bit of luck

God I can only hope so. I hate having these fights every time I put my 'crons on the table

Before people start killing each other over this again: Which of the two printings is the current one? The one Fox posted?

Does the codex say 'no matter what'?

If it does it's the current one.

I was unaware of multiple printings of the codex? Mine is the one that was released in 2002 :/

That and the fact that Orks had practically no other way to kill the thing.

Really? I'd say that outside of IG massed S 10 weapons, the thing that scares my Liths the most are Deffrolla's. Sure I can dodge it on a 3+ but if I dont, thats D6 S 10 hits. In 1 turn your Deffrolla has the potential to hit a lith as much as a Leman Russ can for the entire game.

As far as the rest goes, agreed with Kevin. The way the rules are worded, FC is a boost to the models Strength value and not the weapons.

WanderingFox wrote:I was unaware of multiple printings of the codex? Mine is the one that was released in 2002 :/

Yup, it looks like you've got the old one. GW did an update on the Necron codex years ago. They changed several rules (I don't remember the full list), but didn't really go out of their way to inform people that the old codex wasn't up to date.

It has the exact same cover, but the new one says 2nd Printing somewhere on the inside. This has caused more confusion and arguments than I care to think about.

So it would seem

Thank god I only have one major game planed for my crons before October.

your codex is the old one as mine has the 'no matter what' sentence.

I've read the entire discussion and it seems the problem isn't solved...

I've read the FAQ now and it seems my question is answered there also the monolith is the monolith no matter if you have STR8 its only a 6 glance :p

Apparently I do. I apologize Like I said above, I was completely unaware a second printing of the codex came out since my codex is from an older player who no longer plays and I started only fairly recently :3

Lehnsherr wrote:

That and the fact that Orks had practically no other way to kill the thing.

Really? I'd say that outside of IG massed S 10 weapons, the thing that scares my Liths the most are Deffrolla's. Sure I can dodge it on a 3+ but if I dont, thats D6 S 10 hits. In 1 turn your Deffrolla has the potential to hit a lith as much as a Leman Russ can for the entire game.

As far as the rest goes, agreed with Kevin. The way the rules are worded, FC is a boost to the models Strength value and not the weapons.

Deffrollas didn't exist when the Lith was released, at least as far as i remember from the previous codex PK's were your AT.


I said had, not have. These days they have ways, but not back in 3rd ED.

I said had, not have. These days they have ways, but not back in 3rd ED

Ah, sorry for misreading your post then.

Yep, Fox has wandered far astray by quoting from the old codex. The current printing has this line in it:

"In practice, any WEAPON attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its UNAUGMENTED STRENGTH and a SINGLE D6 no matter what." Emphasis mine, obviously.

Breaking that down into a mathematical formula, you get A (unagmented st of weapon) plus B (single d6) = C (armour penetration). there are no allowances for anything to be added to the formula, all you ever get is A + B.

Now, which part of the formula, A or B, does the +1 from Furious Charge go into? Neither, which means you don't get it. it's really that simple.

And Fox, there are some other changes too, that you should be aware of if you intend to use 'Crons.
1. They no longer count as disembarking from a stationary vehicle if the Monolith has moved.
2. If the unit moved, they cannot be teleported at all.

Good to know. Thanks. God, I can't wait till the new codex :3

don_mondo wrote:
2. If the unit moved, they cannot be teleported at all.

Yes they can, they just can't move beyond disembarking. Per the FAQ.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
2. If the unit moved, they cannot be teleported at all.

Yes they can, they just can't move beyond disembarking. Per the FAQ.

Correct, the FAQ is:

Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a
Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit)
hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the
unit has already moved before being teleported,
it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if
it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and
then move normally.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

don_mondo wrote:
2. If the unit moved, they cannot be teleported at all.

Yes they can, they just can't move beyond disembarking. Per the FAQ.

No, they cannot. Last line of the 2nd printing Monolith entry:

"A unit phasing out to re-emerge from the portal MAY NOT MOVE BEFORE PHASING OUT."

And that FAQ (old, btw) does not grant an exception for a unit to move prior to teleporting. It merely states what used to happen if a unit moved before teleporting.

The FAQ specifically calls out what to do if the unit has moved prior to being ported through the Monolith. It doesn't qualify the move type just that if the unit has moved....

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The FAQ specifically calls out what to do if the unit has moved prior to being ported through the Monolith. It doesn't qualify the move type just that if the unit has moved....

Exactly. If they have moved. Which the Monolith rules specifically prohibit them from doing. I really don't see any way to say they can move prior to porting, given the rule I quoted.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The FAQ specifically calls out what to do if the unit has moved prior to being ported through the Monolith. It doesn't qualify the move type just that if the unit has moved....

But after re-reading the FAQ, don is correct. The rule in the codex that a unit cannot move before phasing out is what must be used.
That's because the first sentence of the last Necron FAQ said;

Some of the information in this document has
already been incorporated in later editions of the
Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them
here for people that might own an older version
of the Codex. If you are using a more recent
edition, please ignore any redundant information.

So we would ignore the FAQ I quoted, and instead use the rule from the codex that a unit cannot move before phasing out.

time wizard wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:The FAQ specifically calls out what to do if the unit has moved prior to being ported through the Monolith. It doesn't qualify the move type just that if the unit has moved....

But after re-reading the FAQ, don is correct. The rule in the codex that a unit cannot move before phasing out is what must be used.
That's because the first sentence of the last Necron FAQ said;

Some of the information in this document has
already been incorporated in later editions of the
Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them
here for people that might own an older version
of the Codex. If you are using a more recent
edition, please ignore any redundant information.

So we would ignore the FAQ I quoted, and instead use the rule from the codex that a unit cannot move before phasing out.

That still doesn't make sense because the rule in the later edition codex (second printing) is still vastly different from the rule in the FAQ. That would lead me to believe that the FAQ is still the most up to date ruling on this particular subject simply because they don't match up at all and, going by the date stamp on the FAQ, it is the newest release. I believe some of the redundant information may be something like "Do wraiths need to take dangerous terrain tests?" or the question about firing the gauss flux arc into close combat.

The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Don - Unaugmented strength of the powerfist is (2S)

S is increased by FC, but because of the BRB you cannot add this before multiplying, meaning you still have (2(S)) but it is now (2S+1)

The strength of the Powerfist can change - for example if I drop your strength by 1 to 3 your powerfist now strikes at S7

Kitzz wrote:The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Yes, it does, but that particular question is from the previous FAQ, from before the second printing. Doesn't matter anyways tho, as nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission to move before teleporting through the Monolith. Without something that does so, the rule in the codex stands, regardless of obsolete FAQs. Just like the old main rules FAQ did not make IG commanders ICs just because they didn't remove an FAQ about IG command squad ICs.

Nos, sure, PF strength can change. My IG use it, it's ST 6, a Marine uses it, it's ST 8, an Ork Warboss uses it, it's ST 10. But IMO, Furious Charge is not part of the PF st. Heck, you even say that the unaugmented strength is 2s, not 2s plus any modifiers to st. And if it's not part of the unaugmented ST or the d6, you don't get it against Living Metal.

Youre now conflating model and weapon

LM cares about the weapon strength, which in the case of something based on the users strenth is ALWAYS a variable.
FC modifies the strength of the model

Altering the strength of the model does not, by definition, modify the strength of the powerfist.

For example: Hammerhand. This IS explicitly before multiplying, so would you claim theyre not S10 hammers but S8 ones instead?

Hammer with hammerhand - S(weapon) = 2 * (4+1) = 2 * S(user)
Hammer without hammer hand - weapon S = 2* (4) = 2 * S(user)

No, hammerhand works because it is before multiplying, which makes it part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.
FC does not work because it is after multiplying, which means it is not part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.

Except in both cases they are modifying the same thing: user strength

Are they modifying the power fists strength? No, in both cases.

If you can claim they are modifying the *powerfists* strength, then you are right.

don_mondo wrote:No, hammerhand works because it is before multiplying, which makes it part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.
FC does not work because it is after multiplying, which means it is not part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.

Imaginary rule is imaginary.

Really, double the strength is a modifier just like +1 strength is. It even says so in the BRB. Have you got any rules to back you up at all?

Yes, the GW FAQ that says Powerfists work against Living Metal..................
Your turn, do you have anything for Furious Charge? Didn't think so.

You dont need the FAQ to know Pfists work. Weapon /= user

Don - your argument is inconsistent. In both cases, FC and HH, you are modifying the strength of the user which in turn alters the variable S(powerfist) - but because of a quirk in how this modification occurs you allow one and not the other?

you do because it dosent mention FC in the FAQ. the rules for the monolith are very clear, base strength and a single d6. i was inclined to not have a power fist work until the FAQ changed that. powerfist and the like work but anything else that alters base strength will not. With as specific as it is in the living metal rules you need to be equally specific in the faq.

What part of "weapon /= model" are you struggling with?

The unaugmented strength of the weapon is what the monolith cares about - and the unaugmented strength of a powerfist is a variable, based on the users strength.

Just b/c a strength is variable does not mean that it ignores the living metal rules. Eldar melta weapons are variable strength b/c they arent all the same as the strength of a melta gun. This does not mean that they ignore living metal. There is no base line of normalcy in wargear, ranged or otherwise. Just b/c something can be diffrent doesnt mean it can break the rules unless it says it can. Furious charge changes your strength thus it is not at base strength and is ignored. The FAQ randomly decides that powerfists work, that does not mean that something it makes no mention of does. It's that simple. I dont care if its weapon strength or model strength, it dosent apply.

1) seriously, reread the monolith rules, and note the specific use of the word WEAPON in the rules there.

You talk about ignoring rules, and you are ignoring a very specific term and conflating two wildy differing terms. This is known as "not a good argument"

2) SOrry, Eldar Melta weapons are variable strength? Um, no, theyre not. You're just spouting nonsense here.

Vindicare-obsession but fixed wrote:Furious charge changes your strength thus it is not at base strength and isnt ignored because the monlith rule ONLY cares about the base strength of the weapon and not the strength of the user, it says so right there in the rules

See now? The FAQ didnt "randomly "decide that powerfist always worked, they just clarified that, whe nthey said "weapon" they didnt mean "well, actually anything" like you are suggesting.

You tell me where in the faq they said "oh BTW the living metal only applies to ranged weapons and not to a models cc attacks" and ill concede the point. The fact that there was a need for the entry on the powerfist only states that they wanted the power fist to work. They made no mention of anything else so anything else still dosent work.

Oh and ont the topic of the eldar melta i do concede. i was looking at the lance weapons.

Sigh. Fallacious argument is fallacious.

Read your Necron CODEX, note the monlith entry talks about WEAPONS and their unaugmented strength.

If you attack using a powerfist, are you hitting the model with your bare fists? No. You are using a weapon. And the unaugmented strength of a power fist is 2S. Yes, this is not the same as the models strength - but LM doesnt care about the models strenght, only the weapon.

So no, your "fact" is no such thing.

don_mondo wrote:

Kitzz wrote:The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Yes, it does, but that particular question is from the previous FAQ, from before the second printing. Doesn't matter anyways tho, as nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission to move before teleporting through the Monolith. Without something that does so, the rule in the codex stands, regardless of obsolete FAQs. Just like the old main rules FAQ did not make IG commanders ICs just because they didn't remove an FAQ about IG command squad ICs.

Wait, did I forget how to read or something?

Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a
Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit)
hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the
unit has already moved before being teleported,
it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if
it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and
then move normally.

So basically what you're saying is that if you have the older codex and go by the FAQ then you get to move and teleport in any order. BUT if you have the newer codex you CAN'T go off the FAQ and you get screwed? Uh, something doesn't seem right. Maybe it's just me but shouldn't EVERYONE play by the same rule(s)?

don_mondo wrote:

Kitzz wrote:The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Yes, it does, but that particular question is from the previous FAQ, from before the second printing. Doesn't matter anyways tho, as nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission to move before teleporting through the Monolith. Without something that does so, the rule in the codex stands, regardless of obsolete FAQs. Just like the old main rules FAQ did not make IG commanders ICs just because they didn't remove an FAQ about IG command squad ICs.

What? The question is in the latest FAQ written WELL after the silent Necron codex update. FAQ directly states a Monolith can teleport a unit that moves, and said unit can only "disembark" from the Monolith.

There hasn't been an codex update since 2004 (which were made from from Chapter Updates) so the FAQ trumps the codex.

How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

TGA - the codex does not let you do it. Specific trumps general, not newer trumps older. That way madness (well, an unplayable game) lies

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - the codex does not let you do it. Specific trumps general, not newer trumps older. That way madness (well, an unplayable game) lies

Buuut...both the codex AND the faq are specific. Both contradict one another. The simplest answer is to have everyone play off of the FAQ as it IS the newest release of the rules updates for the necrons. It doesn't matter if "some of the rules have been answered in a newer codex", the fact remains that GW didn't specify WHAT rules in the FAQ had been answered already and the answer in the FAQ to this rule doesn't even jive with the reprinted codex. And if you look at this from the point of view of someone who hasn't been playing long, they see it as "hey, my codex says it was printed in 2002 and it's a second printing, but this FAQ that these guys on this forum pointed me to is from 2009 so it must be more up to date to keep it in spec with the 5th edition rules update. I'll print out this FAQ and keep it with me so I can review it when I need to."

there is one solution in all of this, force your opponent to let you play without phase out! xD (works very well for me since they want a challange)

Stonerhino wrote:How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

So we ignore the FAQ's? Is that what you are suggesting? The FAQ specifically details how a unit that has moved is 'ported through the Monolith.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

So we ignore the FAQ's? Is that what you are suggesting? The FAQ specifically details how a unit that has moved is 'ported through the Monolith.

GW's Necron FAQ wrote:Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging?

A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally

If the FAQ said "Q. Can a unit that has already moved be teleported by the monolith's portal ability. A. Yes". Then you would have a leg to stand on. The current FAQ (the one I quoted) does not say that. But if there was a way for the unit to be teleported after it had already moved then they would be subject to "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal" part of the FAQ. Since at this point in time the codex does not allow that action, that part of the FAQ is meaningless.

The fact remains that rule in the newest printing of the codex does not allow a unit to be teleported after it has moved. It does not matter what the FAQ says to do after the moved unit was teleported, because it cannot happen. And untill it can happen, it's just extra words typed on the interwebs by GW.

It should also be noted that GW officially says:

GW about FAQs wrote:The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

So no FAQs can not and do not overide the actual writen rule. Those are Erratas and they have that autority because:

GW about erratas wrote:The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material.

But if you don't believe me you can go Here. And see for yourself.

Stonerhino wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

So we ignore the FAQ's? Is that what you are suggesting? The FAQ specifically details how a unit that has moved is 'ported through the Monolith.

GW's Necron FAQ wrote:Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging?

A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally

If the FAQ said "Q. Can a unit that has already moved be teleported by the monolith's portal ability. A. Yes". Then you would have a leg to stand on. The current FAQ (the one I quoted) does not say that. But if there was a way for the unit to be teleported after it had already moved then they would be subject to "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal" part of the FAQ. Since at this point in time the codex does not allow that action, that part of the FAQ is meaningless.

The fact remains that rule in the newest printing of the codex does not allow a unit to be teleported after it has moved. It does not matter what the FAQ says to do after the moved unit was teleported, because it cannot happen. And untill it can happen, it's just extra words typed on the interwebs by GW.

What are you talking about? That's EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS! The question is asking if you CAN MOVE AFTER BEING TELEPORTED and the faq is saying YES YOU CAN MOVE BUT ONLY IF THE UNIT AND LITH DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY MOVE, the problem is that people are saying you can't even be teleported after you've moved the unit and that is incorrect, by the FAQ, because it says YOU CAN MOVE AFTER BEING TELEPORTED OR IF YOU ALREADY MOVED YOU CAN ONLY DEPLOY WITHIN 2".

I even bolded and biggened the part for you. Yes I know that's not a word.

"Can a Unit teleport after it had already moved that movement phase"??? The rules say "No". Untill the rules say that yes a unit can move before they are teleported (which they currently do not) that part of the FAQ is not saying anything. It might as well say "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, then the Necrons auto win that game" since it still can not happen. Because as long as the real rules (the ones that are not "Studio house rules") say you can not do something you can not do it, no matter what something that is not a rule says. This is even more true when the "Studio house rule" tells you what to do if something happens, when in game it can't happen.

You have to come up with something a lot better then "An FAQ tells us to do this when something that the current rules prevent from happening happens". As a reason as to why it can happen and overule the actual rules.

Forgive my ignorance, but is that something new in the second revision of the codex? My copy mentions nothing of the sort.

@WanderingFox: Yes, there were multiple printings.

Honestly, it surprises me that GWAR! seems to have come back from the dead, what with all this talk of "FAQs don't count." I'm sure Tyranid players will enjoy their Doom of Malan'tai even more again, now that it can affect units embarked in transports.

Even if you don't want to follow the "FAQs don't count" thought process, please realize that to be consistent you will now have to remove all tacit assumptions from rulings based on FAQs. I know of at least one relevant case in point:

Q. How many units in an army with Mad Dok Grotsnik
can be upgraded to have cybork bodies? Are there any
restrictions (apart from non-vehicle) or can it even be
Gretchin or Independent Characters? (p59)

A. Any number of units can be upgraded. This includes
Gretchin (Super-Gretchin! Cool conversions, but a bit
expensive at 8 pts per model!) and Independent
Characters (except for unique characters), effectively
giving them a 5 pt discount on the cybork body
upgrade.

And if we want to use this "ignore implied rulings" stuff, there are several pictures and rules in the BGB and other books people misinterpret quite often that might suddenly make the waters much more murky.

I'm aware there were multiple printings... I was looking for the actual changed/added text as I do not own the newer codex.

Kitzz wrote:And if we want to use this "ignore implied rulings" stuff, there are several pictures and rules in the BGB and other books people misinterpret quite often that might suddenly make the waters much more murky.

I think you are misunderstanding what's being said.

The FAQ in question is telling you what to do if something that is against the rules happened. Which does not give permission for the restricted action to be attemted. Just how it would be done if you could. So that part of the FAQ is useless.

Which is different then just saying to ignore any FAQ ruling.

If I may make an observation...

I'm not sure what the specific rule in question is since no one has posted the exact wording (unless I've missed it?), but the very beginning of the latest Necron codex explains why that part of the FAQ is written as such.

Assuming that the updated rule in question is that a unit cannot move before being ported through the monolith, that means that there is a deviation between the two revisions as the 2002 version does not state such a restriction.

However, the beginning of the FAQ starts with the following:

Some of the information in this document has
already been incorporated in later editions of the
Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them
here for people that might own an older version
of the Codex. If you are using a more recent
edition, please ignore any redundant information

That makes it rather obvious that the ambiguous wording of the FAQ is to allow provision for both editions of the codex to be clarified by the entry since the clause in question specifically covers the situation allowed by the 2002 codex.

This, of course, does not resolve the fact that using the older codex and the FAQ allows for a different ruling than the newer codex and the FAQ, but it does clarify why it was written as such.

In my opinion, the FAQ was written as such due to the obvious confusion that surrounds the whole second revision of the codex thing.

Just a thought.

Stonerhino wrote:

Kitzz wrote:And if we want to use this "ignore implied rulings" stuff, there are several pictures and rules in the BGB and other books people misinterpret quite often that might suddenly make the waters much more murky.

I think you are misunderstanding what's being said.

The FAQ in question is telling you what to do if something that is against the rules happened. Which does not give permission for the restricted action to be attemted. Just how it would be done if you could. So that part of the FAQ is useless.

Which is different then just saying to ignore any FAQ ruling.

I never said that you said to ignore any FAQ ruling. I said you were ignoring implied FAQ rulings. My point was that Orks can take a 5+ invulnerable save on everything in their army, even with an FAQ that implies they can't. To be clear, I'd like to see you answer the following questions:

You're OK with Killa Kans, Dreds, and other Ork Vehicles getting invulnerable saves for 5pts per model?

Or what about this?

Q. Can the AP1 hit from the particle whip be
assigned to any member of a squad or does it
have to be assigned to the model under the
centre of the template?
A. Any model directly under the centre of the
large blast template of the particle whip takes an
AP1 hit. The rules for blast weapons state that the
defending player may remove casualties from the
unit as a whole, not necessarily those under the
template, and this rule still applies here, so the
player can assign the AP1 hit to any model in the
unit.

Notice that the FAQ says to assign an AP1 hit. In the rules, hits are never assigned. Wounds are. Does this mean that the model under the center of the blast has to take an AP1 hit, or does the player get to assign the AP1 hit before rolling to wound? How exactly is that done, as there are no rules for assigning hits in the rulebook? Then again, we can't assume that the second reference of "player" refers to the defending player, because that would be to infer something other than what the author wrote. Perhaps the firing player, then, can assign the AP1 hit? Of course, there still aren't rules for that, so I'm still not sure what you'd have me do in that case.

What about this?

Q. Can a resurrection orb be used if a unit is
wiped out and there are no models of a like type
within 6"?
A. If a unit is wiped out and there are no models
of a like type within 6" (and no Tomb Spyder
around), a resurrection orb does not allow
downed Necrons to make WBB rolls.

So if any unit on the battlefield (as this effect's range of influence isn't specified, and this wording is more specific) is wiped out, and there are no like models/spyders around, every ressurection orb stops working, no matter where it is? Again, this isn't specified to just the models within 6" of the res orb. It also seems to me that I will never get to make a WBB roll with a lord that has a res orb, as it does not allow affected necrons to make WBB rolls at all, and this effect has no reference to the things that negate WBB that the res orb is usually bought specifically to ward against, such as power weapons and weapons/attacks that cause ID.

If you want to make sure people are following the rules as written and not implied, I'm sure you're aware that vehicles are only allowed to shoot either all or none of their weapons when firing, right?

Aun'Va is allowed to take two Honor Guards via the Tau codex. Ethereals also are allowed to take an Honor Guard. Which parts of their two rules are we supposed to use as "most specific?" I think that when you really look at it the rules allow you to take 0-24 Honor Guard and Aun'Va, each of the Honor Guard being statted out like a boss and given an honor blade and allowed the upgrades of a normal Fire Warrior squad, but others assure me this isn't so.

/rant

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read, but I really do mean to ask how far down you are willing to follow the rabbit hole. I assure you, there's plenty more than the above that's still an issue, some of which isn't even resolved between the NOVA or INAT FAQs. At some point, we have to infer what people meant no matter how clear or unclear or poorly worded a given rule is. If you want to go so far as to say that GW wrote a useless ruling or rule and that you will stand by that ruling or rule, you should be willing to agree with any RaW, and there are plenty out there that are misplayed by the vast majority.

Kitzz wrote:You're OK with Killa Kans, Dreds, and other Ork Vehicles getting invulnerable saves for 5pts per model?

The wording in that FAQ makes it seem like everyone should know that vehicles don't wear armor.

Kitzz wrote:Or what about this?

Q. Can the AP1 hit from the particle whip be
assigned to any member of a squad or does it
have to be assigned to the model under the
centre of the template?
A. Any model directly under the centre of the
large blast template of the particle whip takes an
AP1 hit. The rules for blast weapons state that the
defending player may remove casualties from the
unit as a whole, not necessarily those under the
template, and this rule still applies here, so the
player can assign the AP1 hit to any model in the
unit.

Notice that the FAQ says to assign an AP1 hit. In the rules, hits are never assigned. Wounds are. Does this mean that the model under the center of the blast has to take an AP1 hit, or does the player get to assign the AP1 hit before rolling to wound? How exactly is that done, as there are no rules for assigning hits in the rulebook? Then again, we can't assume that the second reference of "player" refers to the defending player, because that would be to infer something other than what the author wrote. Perhaps the firing player, then, can assign the AP1 hit? Of course, there still aren't rules for that, so I'm still not sure what you'd have me do in that case.

The rule in the Necron codex say that the model under the hole is hit with an AP 1 attack. The FAQ says that you can assign that "Hit" to any model in the unit, not just the one under the template. Then if that model would be removed as a casualty the defending player may remove any model from the unit. All that really matters from that FAQ is that one model in the unit took an AP1 hit along with any other hits from the particle whip. So the particle whip cannot be used as a "Sniper" weapon.

It's the same as if you had a Hammerhead with a Railgun/SMS, that shot a unit. If everything hits, the models in the unit would take one AP1 hit along with four AP5 hits. What models took the hits at this point does not matter. Unlike the Particle whip in the Necron codex, untill the FAQ said that it may be asigned to any model in the unit. So all that really matter is that some models in the unit where hit. You then roll to wound as normal.

It's more a case of an FAQ creating a round about way for the writen rule to function in the current rule set then an FAQ creating an implied rule.

Kitzz wrote:about this?

Q. Can a resurrection orb be used if a unit is
wiped out and there are no models of a like type
within 6"?
A. If a unit is wiped out and there are no models
of a like type within 6" (and no Tomb Spyder
around), a resurrection orb does not allow
downed Necrons to make WBB rolls.

So if any unit on the battlefield (as this effect's range of influence isn't specified, and this wording is more specific) is wiped out, and there are no like models/spyders around, every ressurection orb stops working, no matter where it is? Again, this isn't specified to just the models within 6" of the res orb. It also seems to me that I will never get to make a WBB roll with a lord that has a res orb, as it does not allow affected necrons to make WBB rolls at all, and this effect has no reference to the things that negate WBB that the res orb is usually bought specifically to ward against, such as power weapons and weapons/attacks that cause ID.

A Res Orb has never allowed downed Necron to make WBB rolls. Just as the FAQ says. All they have ever done was to remove situations where a downed Necron would be unable to make a WBB roll. In the second printing of the Codex page 13 it even say "This can be over-riden by the res orb". I don't see where this is confusing. Even the Necron Lord's WBB rules are on page 13 and allow a Necron Lord to take a WBB in the situation list in the FAQ. This includes ones that don't have a res orb at all.

Kitzz wrote:If you want to make sure people are following the rules as written and not implied, I'm sure you're aware that vehicles are only allowed to shoot either all or none of their weapons when firing, right?

I'm not sure where this is coming from but page 58 BRB would disagree with you. But if you are using "All it's weapon must fire at a single target unit" then you are over looking the rest of that paragragh where it says "Shoots like other units". And page 16 BRB allows some weapons not to be used by choice or situation.

Kitzz wrote:Aun'Va is allowed to take two Honor Guards via the Tau codex. Ethereals also are allowed to take an Honor Guard. Which parts of their two rules are we supposed to use as "most specific?" I think that when you really look at it the rules allow you to take 0-24 Honor Guard and Aun'Va, each of the Honor Guard being statted out like a boss and given an honor blade and allowed the upgrades of a normal Fire Warrior squad, but others assure me this isn't so.

Aun'Va's, special rule "Honour Guard" is differnt then an Ethereal's special rule "Honour Guard". So if you're using Aun'va then you use his special rule, not combine it with that of a normal Ethereal in some sort of hybrid Frankenstien monster special rule.

Kitzz wrote:/rant

It happens.

Kitzz wrote:Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read, but I really do mean to ask how far down you are willing to follow the rabbit hole. I assure you, there's plenty more than the above that's still an issue, some of which isn't even resolved between the NOVA or INAT FAQs. At some point, we have to infer what people meant no matter how clear or unclear or poorly worded a given rule is. If you want to go so far as to say that GW wrote a useless ruling or rule and that you will stand by that ruling or rule, you should be willing to agree with any RaW, and there are plenty out there that are misplayed by the vast majority.

Actually, I make rulings based off examining the RAW and what can be infered of the RAI. If you only use one or the other then you are not looking at the whole picture.

Stonerhino wrote:"Can a Unit teleport after it had already moved that movement phase"??? The rules say "No". Untill the rules say that yes a unit can move before they are teleported (which they currently do not) that part of the FAQ is not saying anything. It might as well say "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, then the Necrons auto win that game" since it still can not happen. Because as long as the real rules (the ones that are not "Studio house rules") say you can not do something you can not do it, no matter what something that is not a rule says. This is even more true when the "Studio house rule" tells you what to do if something happens, when in game it can't happen.

You have to come up with something a lot better then "An FAQ tells us to do this when something that the current rules prevent from happening happens". As a reason as to why it can happen and overule the actual rules.

The FAQ is newer than the codex rules.

And I'm done arguing with you on this, you apparently don't get it.

The FAQ doesn't supercede the codex.In general,people play using the FAQ as the new ruling,but some don't.You are both perfectly correct in what you are saying.The FAQ is newer,but it is secondary.

Deadshot wrote:The FAQ doesn't supercede the codex.In general,people play using the FAQ as the new ruling,but some don't.You are both perfectly correct in what you are saying.The FAQ is newer,but it is secondary.

What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

So, the Monolith can snipe individual characters then with the Particle Whip?

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Deadshot wrote:The FAQ doesn't supercede the codex.In general,people play using the FAQ as the new ruling,but some don't.You are both perfectly correct in what you are saying.The FAQ is newer,but it is secondary.

What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

So, the Monolith can snipe individual characters then with the Particle Whip?

I wouldn't pay attention to that. Go to a tournament and try to pull something that is FAQ'ed, then tell your opponent that the FAQ "doesn't supercede. . ." yadda yadda yadda and see who the TO rules with. I'd be willing to be that 99 times out of 100, the TO rules with the FAQ. That's why people use them (some TO's print them out for the players).

Yes in general,the FAQ is used.But that is only in Tournies,where the rules er giving to you,or when both players agree to use them.

I am not agreeing with him.


The only thing I can say, is that if your opponent disallows you something that was in FAQs,then you must disallow all the stuff.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

Unless both players agree to use them(which most players do), then yes, FAQs are worth less than £0.01,or $0.01, or 1pt, depending on currency.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are there to help people answer questions, and to provide an optional rules update.Errata, on the other hand, is essentially the spell-check, where as FAQs are the suggestions for misspelled words.

Deadshot wrote:Yes in general,the FAQ is used.But that is only in Tournies,where the rules er giving to you,or when both players agree to use them.

I am not agreeing with him.


The only thing I can say, is that if your opponent disallows you something that was in FAQs,then you must disallow all the stuff.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:What?!! So the FAQ is totally ignored? So what's the point of them?

Unless both players agree to use them(which most players do), then yes, FAQs are worth less than £0.01,or $0.01, or 1pt, depending on currency.



Automatically Appended Next Post:
They are there to help people answer questions, and to provide an optional rules update.Errata, on the other hand, is essentially the spell-check, where as FAQs are the suggestions for misspelled words.

This applies to ANY rule for that matter! There are many playing groups that have developed "house rules" to address certain rule ambiguities. In many ways, the FAQs are just GW's way of standardizing many of those house rules.

In every tournament I've played, the FAQs are used (as well as others, such as the INIT). This is done, if for no other reason, to have a common point of interpretation of the rules. When there is a discrepancy, the two players either work it out (ultimately by a D6) or call the TO to resolve the issue. In friendly games, the two players work it out.

But to flat out state the FAQs are bullocks and shouldn't be consider when discussing rules counters what is discussed in most places including YMDC. The FAQs are QFT far most often then not.

So, no, the FAQ don't have to be used, I understand that. I also understand most players use them to help guide them through the more murky interpretations of the rules. If you are one of the few that chooses not us the FAQ, fine, that's how you play. I'm not here to challenge the righteousness of the FAQs nor defend them beyond that's what most of the community uses to help interpret the rules.

WanderingFox wrote:If I may make an observation...

I'm not sure what the specific rule in question is since no one has posted the exact wording (unless I've missed it?),

Yes, you missed it, I posted it, next to last post on the bottom of page 2.....................

And Rhino has explained it very well, the FAQ says what to do if you could teleport through the portal (as was once allowed). It does NOT give permission to do so and therefor does NOT overrule the specific statement in the codex disallowing it.

Thank you don_mondo, i did in fact miss it

Also, I agree. Hell, the first sentence in the FAQ explicitly states to ignore redundant information and that it was left in specifically to deal with the older 2002 codex. I'm not sure why we're even arguing about this anymore :3

don_mondo wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:If I may make an observation...

I'm not sure what the specific rule in question is since no one has posted the exact wording (unless I've missed it?),

Yes, you missed it, I posted it, next to last post on the bottom of page 2.....................

And Rhino has explained it very well, the FAQ says what to do if you could teleport through the portal (as was once allowed). It does NOT give permission to do so and therefor does NOT overrule the specific statement in the codex disallowing it.

And I disagree. The FAQ states that a unit that has moved can be teleported through the Monolith. How can the Q&A be interpreted any differently?

FAQ Necron 2009 wrote:
Q. Can a Necron unit that teleported through a Monolith's portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn't already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn't already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally.

The question DIRECTLY asks if the a ported unit can move and the answer (underlined by me) DIRECTLY states a unit that has moved prior to teleporting can only deploy within 2" of the Monolith.

This supersedes the codex! Otherwise we get to question all aspects of the Necron FAQ including whether the Monolith can snipe a model from within a unit.

TGA - actually no, it does not state that. It tells you what happens IF the unit has already moved. It does not tell you that they CAN move then teleport, only what to do IF this occurs.

Since the codex prohibits this from occurring it is a useless answer. It's like telling you what to do if bikes have to disembark from a wrecked transport - this does not give you permission to break the "infantry only" rules for transports.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - actually no, it does not state that. It tells you what happens IF the unit has already moved. It does not tell you that they CAN move then teleport, only what to do IF this occurs.

Since the codex prohibits this from occurring it is a useless answer. It's like telling you what to do if bikes have to disembark from a wrecked transport - this does not give you permission to break the "infantry only" rules for transports.

The FAQ doesn't place any restrictions on the type of movement (voluntary or otherwise), just that if the unit moved and yes, this does override the codex, just like all the Q&A in the FAQ.

Sure, check the codex for the ruling first, which stipulates a unit a cannot move prior to being teleported. Then check the FAQ and see that, indeed, based on an answer to a question about moving after teleporting, a unit that has moved may be teleported but only deployed within 2" of the monolith.

Just like: Can the Monolith snipe a model within a unit? Checking the codex the ruling is yes. However, checking with the FAQ, no, since the answer to the question is although the specific model is, indeed hit, the wound can be allocated to any model within the unit.

If we distill this whole argument, it boils down to something like this.

I tell you if you can pull a red marble out of a bag of marbles then you get a free battleforce.

The bag of marbles only contains blue marbles.

While the provision exists for you pulling a red marble out, it is not possible to do so because its denied earlier in the situation.


In this specific example, the 2002 codex would be a bag of marbles with both red and blue marbles, while the 2003 codex would be a bag of just blue marbles. The statement of pulling a red marble out gets you a new battleforce was made generally to function regardless of what bag of marbles was used.

That was very well said Wanderingfox

Sounds like a GW style of deal there...

I always play by the FAQ's and so does everyone i've ever played that wasn't trying to put one over on me

TGA - again, no, youre wrong, and Wandering Fox told you why.

You are told what you can do IF a situation occurs. This is not permission for that situation to occur, just a statement of what is possible IF it does

Until you can find the line "a unit may move before being teleported" you have no rule, not at all, that says what you are saying. Please find said rule, or actually respond to the arguments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - again, no, youre wrong, and Wandering Fox told you why.

You are told what you can do IF a situation occurs. This is not permission for that situation to occur, just a statement of what is possible IF it does

Until you can find the line "a unit may move before being teleported" you have no rule, not at all, that says what you are saying. Please find said rule, or actually respond to the arguments.

You're looking at both rules and applying the codex then the FAQ. I'm saying the FAQ supplants the codex.

The rules in the BRB permit a unit movement. The Necron codex states a unit moved cannot be teleported. The Necron FAQ states if a unit moved it can be teleported. The two rules are orthogonal to each other. When such a situation occurs, generally, the latest written rule prevails.

You're marble bag analogy only works if both the codex and FAQ rules are combined. I'm saying the two rules are mutually exclusive, and to carry your analogy further, the BRB rules permit red and blue marbles in the bag and the FAQ talks about what happens when a red marble is pulled.


So a simple application of the rules:

A unit of Warriors move within teleport range of a Monolith. The question is can the Warriors be teleported. The codex states a unit to be teleported may not move, so going by the codex, no the Warriors cannot be teleported. However, the FAQ states if a unit has moved, which, in this example, the Warriors did, the unit can be teleported through the Monolith but limited to being deployed within 2" of the Monolith's entrance. So, going by the FAQ, yes, the Warriors can be teleported.

And, again, you are making things up. The FAQ DOES NOT STATE YOU MAY TELEPORT A SQUAD THAT HAS MOVED.

It tells you what happens IF they moved before being teleported, and how they deploy in that instance. It does not say they may do so.

At no point does it give you PERMISSION to teleport them. Please, do as was asked of you and fnd the *rule* that lets you teleport them. Not an "If they move before being teleported", which is not permission.

If you continually ignore this point, you are breaking the tenets of YMDC

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

So a simple application of the rules:

A unit of Warriors move within teleport range of a Monolith. The question is can the Warriors be teleported. The codex states a unit to be teleported may not move, so going by the codex, no the Warriors cannot be teleported. However, the FAQ states if a unit has moved, which, in this example, the Warriors did, the unit can be teleported through the Monolith but limited to being deployed within 2" of the Monolith's entrance. So, going by the FAQ, yes, the Warriors can be teleported.

No.
They.
Cannot.

Again, as you seem to keep missing it. All the FAQ does is say what happens if you do teleport a unit that has moved (as was once allowed by the codex). Nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission for the unit to move and then be teleported.

I'm honestly amazed this is still going on... The FAQ answers this exact kind of issue in the first paragraph of the FAQ. It's a provision to deal with the older codex. Not only that, simple logic (as my previous post clearly shows) also answers the question in the exact same way.

Could I borrow the dictionary you're using because I don't think we're speaking the same language here :3

nosferatu1001 wrote:And, again, you are making things up. The FAQ DOES NOT STATE YOU MAY TELEPORT A SQUAD THAT HAS MOVED.

It tells you what happens IF they moved before being teleported, and how they deploy in that instance. It does not say they may do so.

At no point does it give you PERMISSION to teleport them. Please, do as was asked of you and fnd the *rule* that lets you teleport them. Not an "If they move before being teleported", which is not permission.

If you continually ignore this point, you are breaking the tenets of YMDC

You're purposefully being antagonistic. The FAQ is the rule that permits the teleporting just as the other rules are detailed in the FAQ.

The question in the FAQ is: "Can a Necron unit that teleported through a Monolith's portal move after emerging?" A very specific question to a very specific rule. The answer is also very specific: if the unit moved, it can only deploy within 2" of the portal; if the unit didn't move it can deploy within 2" of the portal and then move. The answer is clear and concise and details how to handle teleporting through the Monolith when a unit has moved and when it hasn't.

Since the FAQ is written AFTER the codex and and contains a details of a very SPECIFIC rule it takes precedence over the codex. So when a player asks: can this unit be teleported through a Monolith? that player can consult the FAQ and show that, yes, yes it can but may not move any further depending on whether or not the unit moved prior to being teleported.

You're implying.

The FAQ question simply denotes the outcome. It does not say it can cause it.

The answer says IF it has moved. If is a conditional statement, it is not a statement of fact.

I can do the same thing. If I go to Alpha Centauri I can have a billion dollars. That does not mean I can actually get there, it simply is describing the result of it happening.

If god is real, I get to go to heaven. Again, denotes a result to a condition, not that the statement that it is conditional on is true or false.

By your logic every time anyone said if it would imply the condition was possible, which by basic definition of logic is a fallacy. I can easily say If 1=2 then I'm a purple dog, but that doesn't make me suddenly turning into a purple dog possible.

So did anyone ever actually answer the OP's question about the particle whip? I can't remember ><

Yes, its fired from any of the weapons on the monolith, which is generally considered any of the 4 guns on the model.

Just to be clear then, I can definitely take the 5 point invulnerable save upgrade on my Ork vehicles?

Only if you model them with actual Ork cyborks bolted/tied to them. In any other case vehicles don't wear armor.

Do FAQs create rules or clarify them?

If they create, then I could maybe - by a stretch - see where the "I can teleport after moving camp is coming from.
If they just clarify, then WanderingFox is 100% right. (I'm in this camp.)

By the definition of frequently asked questions, one would assume that they clarify questions about uncertainties presented in the original material.

Also, I'm reasonably certain that any time GW has made an actual change to a gameplay element of a codex they have either re-released the codex, or they have put it in the errata or amendments sections of the FAQ document, and not in the actual FAQ section. However, seeing as I have not gone through every codex and FAQ, I cannot state that as fact.

WanderingFox wrote:You're implying.

The FAQ question simply denotes the outcome. It does not say it can cause it.

The answer says IF it has moved. If is a conditional statement, it is not a statement of fact.

Again, the FAQ specifically addresses whether or not a unit can move after being teleported. It describes, in detail, how to handle the only two outcomes of teleporting a unit during the movement phase: either it moved or it didn't. The answer clearly details that a unit that moved can be teleported but only deploy while a unit that hasn't moved can be teleported, deploy, AND move.

By your logic every time anyone said if it would imply the condition was possible, which by basic definition of logic is a fallacy. I can easily say If 1=2 then I'm a purple dog, but that doesn't make me suddenly turning into a purple dog possible.

Actually, no. My logic is the FAQ Q&A specifically replaces the codex ruling not some convoluted mishmash of the codex rule and FAQ rule.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

WanderingFox wrote:You're implying.

The FAQ question simply denotes the outcome. It does not say it can cause it.

The answer says IF it has moved. If is a conditional statement, it is not a statement of fact.

Again, the FAQ specifically addresses whether or not a unit can move after being teleported. It describes, in detail, how to handle the only two outcomes of teleporting a unit during the movement phase: either it moved or it didn't. The answer clearly details that a unit that moved can be teleported but only deploy while a unit that hasn't moved can be teleported, deploy, AND move.

By your logic every time anyone said if it would imply the condition was possible, which by basic definition of logic is a fallacy. I can easily say If 1=2 then I'm a purple dog, but that doesn't make me suddenly turning into a purple dog possible.

Actually, no. My logic is the FAQ Q&A specifically replaces the codex ruling not some convoluted mishmash of the codex rule and FAQ rule.

No it doesn't. You need to go relearn English. The FAQ specifically addresses IF the unit has moved.

If I tell you "If you rob that bank you will gets lots of money" That does not make it possible for you to rob the bank, it is merely stating an outcome. The statement is completely unaware of the 2 armed security guards standing at the door that will prevent you from actually doing it.


Also the FAQ is not replacing anything. It's clarifying an existing rule. If it were replacing something it would simply state it as fact. It would not be phrased as a conditional.


I've tried to explain this at least a dozen times now. If you are using the 2003 Necron Codex, you cannot move before teleporting through the monolith. If you are using the 2002 original printing you can.

I've gone around and around in this thread so much I'm dizzy. I'm done trying to explain basic semantics to you.


Edit:
Side Note - If your reasoning was correct, and the FAQ did overwrite what was written in the codex rather than clarify it then every single time it merely clarified the rule without restating it in its entirety it would break the game.

Edit 2:
By GW's own admission, anything that 'modifies the published material' is classified as errata, not a FAQ.

See: "The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book." ( http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=0&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=1 )

By that statement, for your argument to be valid the listing in the FAQ would need to be under the Errata sectoin. It is not. QED.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Have fun going in circles

TGA - again, please find the rule stating you may move before being teleported.

Not a rule stating "If the unit moved" - as that is not permission, not by a long shot. Not unless English and logic mean something entirely different where you are.

You are currently in breach of the tenets of YMDC as you cannot show the rule you are stating is there.

I see what they are talking about Avatar and I understand your point as well. Look closely, b/c the faq says that it was a correction of the old codex, with the new edition of the codex it's sorta like a second FAQ. The new edition of the codex overrules the FAQ about anything they conflict on b/c in the FAQ it says it was a correction of the old one. The new one actually includes the FAQ as rules as well as clears up some old ones if you look closely.

@Vindicare: the "new" edition of the codex was printed in 2004 so, the FAQ (written in 2009) supersedes the codex.

@<The Rest>
Obviously we're not going to come to ANY consensus.

You could be absolutly correct. I seem to have missplaced my codex so I cannot confirm or deny the printing date. I do know however (b/c I happen to have pulled it up) that on the bottom of the first page of the FAQ it says in very fine print 2005 not 2009. It also says that there is a later edition codex released to account for the FAQ. I'm going to go with my instincts here and say I'm going to disagree.

TGA - we're not going to come to a consensus because you lack the rules required by your position.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:@Vindicare: the "new" edition of the codex was printed in 2004 so, the FAQ (written in 2009) supersedes the codex.

@<The Rest>
Obviously we're not going to come to ANY consensus.

However, that question was first answered in 2002............

WanderingFox wrote:By the definition of frequently asked questions, one would assume that they clarify questions about uncertainties presented in the original material.

Also, I'm reasonably certain that any time GW has made an actual change to a gameplay element of a codex they have either re-released the codex, or they have put it in the errata or amendments sections of the FAQ document, and not in the actual FAQ section. However, seeing as I have not gone through every codex and FAQ, I cannot state that as fact.

WanderingFox wrote:Edit 2:
By GW's own admission, anything that 'modifies the published material' is classified as errata, not a FAQ.

See: "The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material. They are 'hard' material. It is a good idea to read them and be aware of their existence, but luckily there are very few of them for each book." ( http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?categoryId=1000018&pIndex=0&aId=3400019&multiPageMode=true&start=1 )

By that statement, for your argument to be valid the listing in the FAQ would need to be under the Errata sectoin. It is not. QED.

You did read the rest of the Necron FAQ before taking part in this discussion? Granted, GW is either incompetent or lying in the quote you provided, but still it seems no one remembers this little nugget. If you would have read only one question further, you might understand his position a bit more clearly:

Special Characters – C’tan (pp. 27-31)
Q. What effect does the C’tan deceive ability
have on fearless units?
A. The C’tan deceive ability can be used to force
even fearless units to take a pinning test, and
they will go to ground if they fail it. If a fearless
unit is forced to take a Morale test and fails it, it
will take a wound (AP–) for each point it fails the
test by.

That second part is not even close to the original spirit with which the rule was written. It is a completely new rule made up by the FAQ. I have wondered long and hard about this question, as the 5th general FAQ points out, as you quoted, that it is contradictory to the nature of the FAQs themselves. I have always played that at the very least the Necron FAQ overwrites parts of the codex, because otherwise this question has no point. The few questions they do take the time to answer are usually answered for a reason.

WanderingFox wrote:Anyway, I'm done with this thread. Have fun going in circles

Oh. Good point. Nevermind.

Umm no... It's just clarifying.

The last line of decieve reads as "... even if they would normally pass such a test automatically."

Since fearless units automatically pass all morale tests, the FAQ needs to clarify what happens.

It's clarifying a situation that was ambiguous when the codex was originally written.

That FAQ entry did not 'overwrite' the original deceive ability, it merely clarified what happens to a unit that automatically passes all moral checks when it is forced explicitly to take a morale check by deceive.

The monolith FAQ does not EXPLICITLY state that the unit can move, but rather (just like the deceive FAQ entry) simply explains what happens should it occur.

I fail to see how that FAQ entry is actively modifying the RAW.

HOWEVER. The second stealth printing EXPLICITLY details the use of Deceive on a fearless unit. (As far as I've been told anyway)

A FAQ never, and I mean never, directly contradicts the codex it is written for. It merely clarifies.

Allow me to put the first paragraph of the Necron FAQ here in nice bold print so it can be read properly.

Some of the information in this document has
already been incorporated in later editions of the
Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them
here for people that might own an older version
of the Codex. If you are using a more recent
edition, please ignore any redundant information.

The latest FAQ tells you, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that if you are using the more recent codex to IGNORE redundant information. The monolith clarification is from the newer codex, thus if you are using the newer codex you use the ruling in the codex, which says that a unit cannot move before being teleported. If you are using the older original codex, the FAQ covers the holes in the original codex wording, which details that you may teleport but will only get the 2in disembark. This is extremely cut and dry, and I'm still reeling at how it can't be understood.

Finally, both the Deceive FAQ entry as well as the Monolith FAQ entry in question in this thread are BOTH present in the older Necron FAQ. This unequivocally proves that both FAQ entries are hold overs from when the older codex was the only one that existed. As such, they were kept in the newer FAQ for the people still using the older codex. See: "We have decided to leave them here for people that might own an older version of the Codex."

Any other questions?

So there are 2 Cron codexes?

There was the original release, then an unannounced stealth reprint which changed some of the text a little.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - we're not going to come to a consensus because you lack the rules required by your position.

I have, it's the actual text within the FAQ: the answer to the question if a unit can move after teleporting details that a unit can indeed can move and be ported just not move afterwards.

The biggest argument against my point of view hangs on the use of "if" within the answer: the "if" in the answer does not grant permission. Reviewing the text of the answers reveals the "if's" are used to delineate the various states of movement a unit can be in during the Movement phase: moved or not moved. "If" the unit moved prior to being teleported it can only deploy after porting; "if" the unit didn't move prior to being teleported it can only deploy and move after porting. The answer clarifies if a unit can move after being teleported and does counter what is written in the codex thus supplanting the codex rule. There are many instances of this occurring through out the FAQ (a good example of this is the Monolith losing the ability to snipe individual models in a unit).

Another argument against my point of view is the FAQ only clarifies the rules already in the codex: units may not move prior to being teleported. This may be true but does raise some issues, namely, if the FAQ is meant to clarify the rules in the codex why the contradiction within the answer? The FAQ clearly points out, although a unit moved, it can still be ported. Why not just restate what was already in the codex that a unit cannot move and be teleported by the Monolith? I'm not here to argue intent but the fact the answer to the question on whether a unit can move after being teleported through the Monolith does NOT prohibit a unit that moved from teleporting, it states just the opposite.

My argument is, and has been, the FAQ answer replaces the the codex rule.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:My argument is, and has been, the FAQ answer replaces the the codex rule.

And GW does not support this idea at all. In fact they tell you the complete opposite on their website.

Why it talked about in the FAQ???

Because the last line in the redone codex "A unit phasing out to re-emerge from the portal may not move before phasing out" is not in the first printed codex. Therefore if you have the older version or are playing against someone that agrees to let you use the older codex (Without the movement limit applied) then the FAQ lets you know how to play it.

It never offers the permission to overide the codex and allow the unit to move before being teleported.

It's this simple.

The FAQ never gives permission to move then teleport and GW does not support your idea that an FAQ overides the codex. So you are incorrect on both accounts.

Stonerhino wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:My argument is, and has been, the FAQ answer replaces the the codex rule.

And GW does not support this idea at all. In fact they tell you the complete opposite on their website.

It never offers the permission to overide the codex and allow the unit to move before being teleported.

The FAQ never gives permission to move then teleport and GW does not support your idea that an FAQ overides the codex. So you are incorrect on both accounts.

Are you suggesting the FAQs are not rules? The website actually states the FAQs are GW's version "house rules". So, yeah, the FAQ does replace the codex, if one is so inclined. http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=&categoryId=600005§ion=&aId=3400019

I've already pointed out how the FAQ allows a unit to move.

Okay, you have pointed out what the faq says to do if it happens. Nowhere on the faq does it actually say

Q- can a unit that has moved teleport through the monolith
A- yes

you have presented a semi specific argument andI would gree wholeheartedly until the codex presented the very specific ruling of ---> models may not move before being teleported through the monolith.

If they were both as specific as each other then I would avoid this argument like the plauge but one is more specific than the other, hence it takes priority on the "whats what"

Kevin949 wrote:Tank hunter does not work though, as a "for instance".

What?

Tank hunter gives you +1 to your die roll. It should work as it's not 'augmenting' the strength of the weapon and it's not a 'bonus die' for armor pen.

S+D6 is all you get - not S+D6+1

nosferatu1001 wrote:S+D6 is all you get - not S+D6+1

Is that in the faq? I thought I read somewhere where tank hunters got the +1 as it's a modifier to the die roll and not augmenting the strength of the weapon...

No, it is neither Strength nor the D6 for armour penetration, it is an addition. As such it is explicitly denied by the final line in the 2nd printing which is loosely "strength + D6 nomatter what"

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Okay, you have pointed out what the faq says to do if it happens. Nowhere on the faq does it actually say

Q- can a unit that has moved teleport through the monolith
A- yes

you have presented a semi specific argument andI would gree wholeheartedly until the codex presented the very specific ruling of ---> models may not move before being teleported through the monolith.

If they were both as specific as each other then I would avoid this argument like the plauge but one is more specific than the other, hence it takes priority on the "whats what"

Instead the question was: can a unit move after teleporting through the monolith.
And the answer was: if it moved, it can only deploy; if it didn't move it can deploy and move.

The answer wasn't: if it moved, it cannot be teleported; if ii didn't move it can deploy and move.

See the difference? The former answer states a unit that moved can be teleported but only deploy while the later answer states a unit that moved cannot be teleported.

No, thats not what that states. That is what you are inferring, but that is your problem - you have inferred permission as it describes what happens IF you have performed action A, but it does NOT actually give you permission.

So basically GW is making poorly written FAQs to go along with the fluff of Ward.


So what you are saying is GW have said thatNecrons cannot teleport after moving,but IF it does,then they can deploy?


I would go with the first option.No reason,it just seems like the correct answer.Just one of those things.

GW are incapable of writing rules for vehicle invulnerable saves, past Bjorn, so them writing what happens if you do something that cannot happen is not inconceivable.

What about the Caetus assault ram(5++ to the front armour)?Does GW write the rules for FW models,and then they make them.Or does FW make the models,followed by GW writing the rules?Or is GW even involved?

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, thats not what that states. That is what you are inferring, but that is your problem - you have inferred permission as it describes what happens IF you have performed action A, but it does NOT actually give you permission.

Yes, that's EXACTLY what it states. There is nothing to infer!! The answer was clear the very specific question and that is your problem. You keep insisting the rule in the codex is combined with the rule in the FAQ. It's not. The FAQ is a different rule, one the supersedes the codex.

FW write their own rules Deadshot.

GTA - it answers a question for a situation that cannot occur. Hence IF

IF

IF

IF

IF situation A occurs, you may do B

Situation A cannot occur, therefore B cannot happen

You are never, ever going to be able to persuade anyone that a conditional result creates permissin to perform the condition.

Oh, and stop - it does not supersede the codex as it is not a rule, and is not more specific. Stop with this specious argument.

If GW ever set or used precedent, I would have to agree with TGA.

However, GW doesn't.

I would have to stick with nos on this one (teleporting) based on RAW.

It doesn't make sense to me either (or most folks for that matter), but is that hardly surprising given the context of what we are talking about here (GW 40k rules)?

It makes perfect sense when you look at the two codex together in conjunction with the FAQ.

It goes something like this:

Original codex lets you teleport
FAQ entry made to explain that you don't get to double move (due to porting acting like disembarking from a stationary vehicle)
Stealth codex update adds a line that specifically denies movement before teleporting
Header in the FAQ is updated to state that it now contains information that may only apply to the older codex, specific FAQ entries remain unchanged.

The situation the FAQ cleared up was in the first codex. The unit left the portal exactly like a unit disenbarking from a transport vehicle. So if the monolith did not move and teleported a unit the "transport vehicle" was stationary and would allow the unit to move after disembarking.

That lead to people thinking that they could move a unit, teleport it and move again. If the monolith did not move.

The FAQ put a stop to this. Then the codex was updated to actually state that a unit cannot move then teleport. But because there were still copies of the older codex out there. GW chose not to take that part of the FAQ out. And even added a disclaimer to ignore rule conficts like this.

Combine this with GW saying that errata>published rules and FAQ<published rules. And you really don't have anything to go on. Just as Wandering Fox has pointed out.>

nosferatu1001 wrote:FW write their own rules Deadshot.

GTA - it answers a question for a situation that cannot occur. Hence IF

IF

IF

IF

IF situation A occurs, you may do B

Situation A cannot occur, therefore B cannot happen

You are never, ever going to be able to persuade anyone that a conditional result creates permissin to perform the condition.

Oh, and stop - it does not supersede the codex as it is not a rule, and is not more specific. Stop with this specious argument.

GW has stated the FAQ, outside the errata, is treated at GW "house rules", not necessarily cannon but that's how GW plays. (I've previously provided the linked detailing how an FAQ is to be applied.) The Necron FAQ does state there are two version of the codex and that the later version has already incorporated some of the changes and to ignore redundant information. Redundant, as in duplicated. Thus, the FAQ applies to the latest codex and where the FAQ and codex are the same (redundant), ignore the FAQ.

Now, there is a question in the FAQ asking if a unit can move after teleporting. The answer is neither redundant nor specifies it only applies to the first edition codex. It does detail what happens if a unit has/hadn't moved, the unit is teleported and deployed and if it hasn't moved, can continue to move. The answer DOESN'T state a unit that moved cannot be teleported. Thus, a unit can move and be teleported through the Monolith. Since the answer is NOT redundant, it supplants the limitation detailed in the codex.

You (and others) keep latching onto the "if" condition within the answer. I understand how to apply conditions to logic when the conditions are used within proper context. Your argument regarding the "if" is taken out of context. Within the answer, the context of the "if"s used is to denote one of several options available and the sentence structure supports that. Notice the compound sentence used as each option is detailed: "if" the unit moved; "if" the unit didn't move. So, contained within the answer (to the question can a unit move after teleporting) are details handling when a unit moved and when it didn't. Again, the details do not dismiss the notion a unit can move AND teleport, on the contrary, the details describe how that can happen. The Q&A regarding can a unit which teleported through the Monolith is concise, specific, and self-contained and permits a unit to move prior to being teleported.

Your argument the FAQ is not a rule is partially correct. GW has provide the notion of "hard" and "soft" martial. Errata are "hard" material and are to be taken as cannon as they are specific changes GW has authorized. The FAQ is considered "soft" material "deals with more of the grey area" of the codices. The FAQs are more like the "[GW] Studio House Rules". So, the FAQs (outside the errata) are treated more of GW's way of playing the rules than an out and out rules cannon. Having said that, YMTC generally leans to the FAQs being used as the arbitrator when there are rule debates. However, per GW's guidance, you are free to ignore the FAQ or even just parts of it.

Finally, if you insist the FAQ does not apply, I ask you this: Can the Particle Whip single out a model within a unit by landing the blast markers hole directly on top of said model? The codex clears states it does (page 14). However, the FAQ states, although the model is hit, the wound can be taken from any model in the unit not solely from the model under the hole. So, which is it?

No, wrong, again.

The "if" details what to do IF the condition has happened.

Which is fine as the issue cannot happen.

And, again, you have made a critical error: there is no rule in the FAQ to "supplant" the codex.

You also seem to misunderstand: the FAQ is not a rule IN THIS CASE because it is not a rule. It is a tautology. This is not a "follow the FAQ or dont follow the FAQ" issue - not at all. The FAQ simply tells you what happens IF a condition occurs.

The
Condition
Can
Never
Occur

Because the codex disallows it. The result is redundant - it can never happen because the codex explicitly states it cannot happen, and the FAQ does NOT spefically allow it. I am sure you understand specific vs general - so please, show me the SPECIFIC *RULE* that allows it. Not what happens IF the condition occurs, but the rule ALLOWING the condition to occur.

Nothing you have shown constitutes an actual rule, just a consequence of a condition being fulfilled. Until you can show the initial permission, you have no permission and the consequence can never occur

Q.E.D.

Finally: no, the codex does not allow this to happen (sniping) - as the wound allocation rules allow any wound to be allocated as the player sees fit. The FAQ, like a good FAQ, explains a rule for the benefit of tyhe hard of thinking. Stop clinging to this as "proof" that we need to follow the FAQ. Also, to reiterate as you keep wilfully misunderstanding this point - I AM following the FAQ. I'm doing exactly what it tells me WHEN it tells me to - and as I can never teleport a squad that has moved, I can never follow the FAQ.

So, find in a single sentence the RULE we keep asking for, or concede.

Not a wall of text
Not many pages on hard vs soft
No attempting to claim that "if" doesnt denote a consequence of an action.

Nothing. Just, for once, show the RULE allowing this, or concede.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:Your argument the FAQ is not a rule is partially correct. GW has provide the notion of "hard" and "soft" martial. Errata are "hard" material and are to be taken as cannon as they are specific changes GW has authorized. The FAQ is considered "soft" material "deals with more of the grey area" of the codices. The FAQs are more like the "[GW] Studio House Rules". So, the FAQs (outside the errata) are treated more of GW's way of playing the rules than an out and out rules cannon. Having said that, YMTC generally leans to the FAQs being used as the arbitrator when there are rule debates. However, per GW's guidance, you are free to ignore the FAQ or even just parts of it.

Finally, if you insist the FAQ does not apply, I ask you this: Can the Particle Whip single out a model within a unit by landing the blast markers hole directly on top of said model? The codex clears states it does (page 14). However, the FAQ states, although the model is hit, the wound can be taken from any model in the unit not solely from the model under the hole. So, which is it?

GW wrote:The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

See where it says "Grey area". In the first printing of the codex there was a grey area with reguards to this rule that the FAQ cleared up. With the second printing there is not grey area because it simply cannot happen. That makes it redundant wording if you are using the second printing and subject to:

Necron FAQ wrote:Some of the information in this document has already been incorporated in later editions of the Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them here for people that might own an older version of the Codex. If you are using a more recent edition, please ignore any redundant information.

And if you want to use an FAQ to try and prove your case then use one that does. The one for the partiacle whip clears up a grey area that if you approach from a 5th ed point of view. You should come to the same conclusion as the FAQ. As in the model hit does not mean anything as to what model in the unit suffers the wound. Also as I explained earlier that FAQ does not change a single part of the rule in the Codex but instead demonstrates how it interacts with the 5th ed shooting rules. It is a clairafication not a rule change.

Stonerhino wrote:

GW wrote:The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

See where it says "Grey area". In the first printing of the codex there was a grey area with reguards to this rule that the FAQ cleared up. With the second printing there is not grey area because it simply cannot happen. That makes it redundant wording if you are using the second printing and subject to:

Necron FAQ wrote:Some of the information in this document has already been incorporated in later editions of the Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them here for people that might own an older version of the Codex. If you are using a more recent edition, please ignore any redundant information.

And if you want to use an FAQ to try and prove your case then use one that does. The one for the partiacle whip clears up a grey area that if you approach from a 5th ed point of view. You should come to the same conclusion as the FAQ. As in the model hit does not mean anything as to what model in the unit suffers the wound. Also as I explained earlier that FAQ does not change a single part of the rule in the Codex but instead demonstrates how it interacts with the 5th ed shooting rules. It is a clairafication not a rule change.

I understand the difference between the two versions of the codex and I understand the Necron FAQ is applied to both. The rules changed for teleporting units between the two versions with the latest version prohibiting a unit from moving prior to teleporting. However, the FAQ addresses the issue of a unit moving after teleporting through the Monolith. It does permit a unit to move prior to teleporting. Your argument is the FAQ only applies to the first codex since the second specifically prohibits what's stated in the FAQ. I'm saying the FAQ applies to the latest codex thus permitting movement prior to teleporting. Again, nothing in the FAQ states it only applies to the first edition. We can't discern the intent beyond what's only printed. (FYI, the fourth edition FAQ had similar verbiage permitting units moving prior to teleporting.) To say this rule only applies to the first edition only is capricious at best and assumes an intent not detailed in the FAQ.

I chose the PW example for a reason. The FAQ "clarification" is a rule change. The codex specifically states the model under the blast hole suffers the AP1 wound. The "clarification" changes the codex rule by allowing any model within the unit to suffer the wound. I understand it puts the rule inline with the fifth edition rules but it does change how the PW can be used. This isn't a simple "clarification" since without this "clarification" the Monolith would be able to snipe specific models within a unit yet with the "clarification" it no longer can.

The teleport FAQ is in the same vain: the codex says one thing while the FAQ counters it. It's just as much of a "clarification" as the PW.

Sorry, TGA, but not only are you wilfully ignoring rules, youre now making up rules.

The PW states HIT, not WOUND. Thus it does NOT bypass 5th ed WOUND allocation. Please brush up on 5th edition before making claims such as these. The FAQ reinforces 5th edition rules, it does not change them.

So, in the hope that you may, finally, stop with the error filled argument about the PW, can you please, possibly actually find this permission you keep banging on about?

It doesnt actually exist, but your argument now entiorely relies upon baseless assertions that have been proven wrong. I'd suggest stopping.

JHust to point it out - this is where you are simply making things up:

However, the FAQ addresses the issue of a unit moving after teleporting through the Monolith. It does permit a unit to move prior to teleporting

The bit in bold is the bit you have made up, as no such permission exists. You are assuming permission to perform an action exists because the FAQ addresses what happens IF the action occurs. THis is a logical fallacy.

The permission is implied nos, but TGA, it does not actually give permission even if it was implied.

DENTAL PLAN

Lisa needs braces

DENTAL PLAN

Lisa needs braces


That's all I've seen in here for the past 4 pages.

omerakk wrote:DENTAL PLAN

Lisa needs braces

DENTAL PLAN

Lisa needs braces


That's all I've seen in here for the past 4 pages.

I have been reading:
"If you have a Dental plan you can have braces"
"Give me my braces, and no I have no dental plan but you said I can have braces!"

Should I re-read?

The permission is not implied. That action is entirely possible if you are using the first printing of the codex. And was not removed from the FAQ because there where still first printing codice in circulation. Nothing more and GW adressed that issue with the disclaimer at the start of the Necron FAQ.

@TGA: I started a Dakka account because I felt you were being singled out in another Necron rules debate. One that you actually had some rule backing to support your claim. In this case you are sticking to "Empty guns" and should drop it.

Agreed. This fight can come to an end b/c anyone who is playing necrons should be using the updated codex. What the FAQ says is a moot point in this instance b/c it is conflicting with a later released codex. GW made the mistake of releasing the codex and not saying anything about it and this causes alot of arguements at quite a few tournies. As a cron player i know not to move the monolith and teleport models through it and as a cron player, if any of my opponents try to do this I will argue this to hell and back. TGA has his head set on one argument and we are not going to change it. If it happens it happens to him and him alone, none of the rest of us therefore we shouldn't concern ourselves futher.

Quite.

*pithy and oh-so witty comment about GW rule writing that we can all agree on.*

It's the fairly classic impasse here t'would seem.

Still, nevermind, shouldn't be long and this will be irrelevant anyway.

..and we can have lovely new arguments about how C'tan shards actually work with regards to this and that and similar.

HOORAY ! Truly this is the hobby that keeps on giving.