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.

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.