Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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?