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.

Except by fighting in CC you are either using a normal or special CCW - by the definition of such. In addition the rules for close combat require that you attack using weapons. While the rules for penetrating vehicles make no mention, they dont need to - the initial rules cover this.

So, you need to use a weapon, whether normal or special (and if you dont have a special weapon you DO hava normal, b y definition) and this weapon cannot be augmented in any way.

Vis - I didnt reply uintil you seemed to have the right version of the book. Did you not include the "in practice" line from the very end deliberately, or do you not have the current, correct version of the codex?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except by fighting in CC you are either using a normal or special CCW - by the definition of such. In addition the rules for close combat require that you attack using weapons. While the rules for penetrating vehicles make no mention, they dont need to - the initial rules cover this.

So, you need to use a weapon, whether normal or special (and if you dont have a special weapon you DO hava normal, b y definition) and this weapon cannot be augmented in any way.

Can you quote the relevant pages/rules? My cursory glance through the assault rules leads me to believe that these claims aren't supported. A 'rifle butt' isn't a weapon or piece of wargear on any model I know of, and I know of plenty who don't have CC weapons but fight in CC just fine (No, they don't have a normal CC weapon. You haven't provided any evidence that they actually do.).

The attack rules on 37 say 'Each engaged model strikes with the number of attacks on its characteristics profile' and makes no mention of a weapon requirement. The to-hit rules don't mention weapons being required. The to-wound rules say 'cross reference the attacker's strength characteristic with the defender's toughness', and later says only 'in most cases... you use the strength on the attackers profile regardless of what weapon they are using. Some close combat weapons give the attacker a strength bonus...' which is nothing close to actually requiring a weapon.

Whatever...

Even if it was, it doesn't change how the rules work regarding living metal.
Furious charge alters the MODELS actual strength characteristic, and does so noticably before it takes its swings at the monolith. A power fist "doubles the user's strength", an obvious model strength augmentation, never has a defined strength value itself, and clearly functions normally anyway under the FAQ. Unless we're throwing out the FAQ ruling because it allows a model strength CC augmentation to work just fine, then FC works just fine.

There are two types of weapon, normal and close combat. Anything used to attack whcih does not provide a bonus is a normal weapon.

So claws, rifle butts, bolters etc would all be normal ccw - not singlehanded, just "normal".

They don't do anything in-game so it's kind of pointless to bother defining them.

Except the rules do, in order to differentiate them from "special" CCW.

Also, normal *singlehanded* close combat weapons DO do something in game - they can confer an extra attack. So again, it is important that their is a distinction between the two.

Normal CCWS give an extra attack. "Hand Weapons" like claws, rifle butts, whatever, do not give extra attacks - those are pointless to define. This is why a Space Marine with armed with only a Bolter and a Bolt Pistol does not get a bonus attack.

No, normal *single handed* CCW give an extra attack. You have made up "hand weapons" as a class - they are Normal CCW as the BRB defines. THIS is why a tac marine only has A1, as it lacks 2 *singlehanded* CCW [that dont exclude for other reasons, eg. pwoerfists.]

While you may say they are "pointless" to define, never the less the BRB DOES define them. I also pointed out why there was a, er, point to define them - because of the extra attack bonus. If you have 2 single handed normal CCW you have an extra attack, you dont need to concern yourself as to whether they are the *right* two CCW, which you do have to be concerned with when you have special CCW.

Bolters, rifle butts, whatever are not normal close combat weapons, despite what the first line under "Normal Close Combat Weapons" implies - otherwise having just a Bolter and a Bolt Pistol would qualify you as having two close combat weapons and give a bonus attack. Only wargear defined as normal Close Combat Weapons (including all pistols) are CCW.

For the last time - No. Plus, it does not imply, it strictly defines them.

Only 2 *single handed" normal close combat weapons give you a bonus attack. Is the bolter singlehanded? No? Then it does not give you a bonus attack.

Ok, are we still arguing that you think CC attacks are resolved at 0 + 1d6?

nosferatu1001 wrote:For the last time - No. Plus, it does not imply, it strictly defines them.

Only 2 *single handed" normal close combat weapons give you a bonus attack. Is the bolter singlehanded? No? Then it does not give you a bonus attack.

A bolter is never strictly defined as a close combat weapon at all. You're making this all up by reading too far into the normal CCW section.
The rules don't actually say that a bolter is or counts as a normal CCW, or that it has a rifle butt/bayonet that can be used as a normal CCW, or anything of the sort. Or that you need a weapon to fight in CC.

Not that it matters, since it has nothing to do with how living metal works, no matter how far down this random tangent we go while you ignore major points against you and only pick out minor arguments.

You consider it a random tangent, I consider it important to define what weapons are as that leads into the "unaugmented strength of the weapon" side.

Sometimes not every point can be attacked immediately, you have to build a basis.

@Nos And part of your basis is being built on sand. Can you provide somthing to contradict either of the following?

1) There is no requirement that a model has to have a weapon in order to attack in cc.

2) Most weapons do not have a strength for cc. (Pg 42 is especially helpful on this part ""in close combat, pistols count as normal close combat weapons and so the Strength and AP of the pistol are ignored")

You have stated that you need to use a weapon, and this part of your basis is fundamentally flawed. Some models do not have cc weapons.


Sliggoth

Except, as has been pointed out, they do have "normal close combat weapons", as defined on page 42.

@ Nos nice way to avoid answering the other two points And no, pg 42 does give a list of things that are cc weapons, but that doesnt help for some models. No matter how that list is stretched and expanded, it cant give a weapon to the deceiver (conveniently in the necron codex) because the deceiver's own listing says that he has no weapons. And then flip over the page to the nightbringer to find that he also has a rule telling us that while he has a scythe it is purely for show....


And that still fails to answer the two points.



Sliggoth

This will wait unti lI am by a rulebook again....

However page 42 does define anything you use in close combat to attack that has no special bonuses to be a normal CCW. So even if the codex states they have no weapons they do when attacking in close combat.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except by fighting in CC you are either using a normal or special CCW - by the definition of such. In addition the rules for close combat require that you attack using weapons. While the rules for penetrating vehicles make no mention, they dont need to - the initial rules cover this.

So, you need to use a weapon, whether normal or special (and if you dont have a special weapon you DO hava normal, b y definition) and this weapon cannot be augmented in any way.

Vis - I didnt reply uintil you seemed to have the right version of the book. Did you not include the "in practice" line from the very end deliberately, or do you not have the current, correct version of the codex?

As I clearly said: "Any version" that means I've read the version quoted in this thread. Yet again you sidestep my point for fake reasons. I quoted what I had in the book in front of me to try to see if there were two versions, as there are. So I went back to the one that was quoted which includes "In practice" because it doesn't matter, you're still wrong.

]Furious charge does not augment the strength of a weapon... the model is not a weapon... FC augments the model's strength and the Living Metal text does not talk about the model's strength. Since weapons without profiles use the profile of the model, Living Metal does not interfere with any augmentation of the model's strength.

I question if you have the correct version of the codex because I am now looking at the correct version and nowhere in there does it agree with you:

nosferatu1001 wrote:But either way you are still using weapons to hit, and you are told modifications do nothing to help you when using a weapon to hurt the monolith.

No where in the Necron codex does it say "Not allowed to use any modifications", so what is the ISBN of the book you're using that states: "You are not allowed to use any modifications when attacking a monolith" ??? The version I see now says what Kevin949 quoted:

Kevin949 wrote:The monolith is made of living necron metal which is not only self-repairing but is capable of adapting its structure to resist incoming attacks. Attacks which count the targets armour value as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the monolith. Similarily, weaapons that get additional armour penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2d6 for armour penetration and select the highest score. In practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what.

There you go, the whole living metal entry verbatim.

Modquisition on.

Lets ratchet it down people.

Sigh, back to the insults.

No, I did not "sidestep" due to "fake reasons" - you quoted PART of the rule so I was checking that, indeed, you were reading the correct & entire rule - as you claimed there was no mention of the word "strength", which is complete baloney.

BTW - unaugmented == un modified. Unless you have a different definition? So saying no modifers allowed (and FC IS a modifier, BRB defines this nicely) is equivalent to saying no augments.

Powerfists are FAQd to work in terms of doubling strength, but that does not mean furious charge works - your premise (FAQ lets PK/PF work) does not agree with your conclusion (furious charge works)

Vis - I will make this clear. I have *no intention* of engaging in further "debate" with you, as I am tired of your constant sniping and insults. No doubt this will lead you to calling me an intellectual coward , however I have no time for your style of "debate".

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh, back to the insults.

No, I did not "sidestep" due to fake reasons - you quoted PART of the rule so I was checking that, indeed, you were reading the correct & entire rule - as you claimed there was no mention of the word "strength", which is complete baloney.

BTW - unaugmented == un modified. Unless you have a different definition? So saying no modifers allowed (and FC IS a modifier, BRB defines this nicely) is equivalent to saying no augments.

Powerfists are FAQd to work in terms of doubling strength, but that does not mean furious charge works - your premise (FAQ lets PK/PF work) does not agree with your conclusion (furious charge works)

Nope no insults, you're still sidestepping the point, nowhere in the text does it talk about furious charge, you misunderstood my argument. I did not say the FAQ means that furious charge works. The FACT that living metal does not talk about models means that furious charge works. Again, you're wrong and I did not insult you.

Yes, unmodified WEAPONS not MODELS


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vis - I will make this clear. I have *no intention* of engaging in further "debate" with you, as I am tired of your constant sniping and insults. No doubt this will lead you to calling me an intellectual coward , however I have no time for your style of "debate".

You mean you have no time to be wrong. The rules still do not say "Models may not receive any modifications to their stats". Ye I will snipe your false accusations, I did not insult you, you are lying and slandering me I demand you retract it or that a mod warn you.

You are still refusing to admit that the text states: "Weapons" may not be modified, but you are still completely ignoring that Furious Charge does not augment the strength of a WEAPON, if it did then the text would say something about furious charge, FC Augments the STR of a MODEL; this is never talked about in the necron codex. Since you sidestepped that point, yet again, you have admitted you're wrong.

Vis - then your premise was badly worded. You talk about the change by fiat, then say "thus you are completely wrong" - and as the only debate is over furious charge, you are drawing the conclusion that furious charge works from the premise that powerfists work. That is flawed.

Maybe just yet more inaccuracies, as I did not sidestep the point - I had a valid concern that you a) did not have the correct rule (as you only quoted part of it) or that b) you deliberately did not quote all of it, as you were claiming the rules said nothing about strength - which they do.

Anyway, last attempt at "debate" with you. as I said earlier (and you doubtless ignored) until I can get back in front of rulebooks to debate with other posters I will avoid this particular argument.

EDIT: jsut to make it clear - not sidestepping as I dont have any intention of debating *you* on this.

EDIT2: sigh. nope, not lying - you have insulted me, that is provably true as an insult is opinion based. And for a self professed member of the legal profession please get it right (you got it wrong in your previous insulting PMs as well) - when it is written the charge is "libel", not slander.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Vis - then your premise was badly worded. You talk about the change by fiat, then say "thus you are completely wrong" - and as the only debate is over furious charge, you are drawing the conclusion that furious charge works from the premise that powerfists work. That is flawed.

Maybe just yet more inaccuracies, as I did not sidestep the point - I had a valid concern that you a) did not have the correct rule (as you only quoted part of it) or that b) you deliberately did not quote all of it, as you were claiming the rules said nothing about strength - which they do.

Anyway, last attempt at "debate" with you. as I said earlier (and you doubtless ignored) until I can get back in front of rulebooks to debate with other posters I will avoid this particular argument.

That was a conjunction.... not a premise... My premise is the thing you keep ignoring (and now a 6th time you ignored it) that Living Metal does not talk about the type of thing that Furious Charge augments, FC augments a model, not a weapon. This is a fact.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:EDIT: jsut to make it clear - not sidestepping as I dont have any intention of debating *you* on this.

Irrelevant, you're still sidestepping that FC augments a MODEL. You've side stepped this from other people too so you're lying.

Nos, please get to a rule book before you answer any more, that may be part of the problem. Memory can be a fickle thing at times, especially for the fine points that you are trying to make.


Pg 42 doesnt say what you appear to think it says. The rule telling us about how the weapons are grouped into two categories is specfically talking about the knives, frag grenades, swords, power weapons and pistols that troops are carrying. To parphrase: troops often bear these weapons and in terms of rules these weapons are grouped into two categories, normal and special. Nothing suggesting that weapons are required for cc.


Sliggoth

Which is what I am trying to do, but that isnt good enough for one particular poster.....

Thanks for staying rational and level headed in this

nosferatu1001 wrote:Which is what I am trying to do, but that isnt good enough for one particular poster.....

Thanks for staying rational and level headed in this

Nothing untoward about requiring that you read:

Kevin949 wrote:The monolith is made of living necron metal which is not only self-repairing but is capable of adapting its structure to resist incoming attacks. Attacks which count the targets armour value as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the monolith. Similarily, weaapons that get additional armour penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2d6 for armour penetration and select the highest score. In practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what.

There you go, the whole living metal entry verbatim.

correctly, it says "Weapon" not "Model", FC augments a model, not a weapon. Also, you dont need to be in front of a rulebook for you to read the above.

Except I have a different contention to you, one that requires other rules. As I have attempted to explain, and you either ignore or discount as being relevant.

So feel free to continue with your false claims, it wont get you anywhere.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except I have a different contention to you, one that requires other rules. As I have attempted to explain, and you either ignore or discount as being relevant.

So feel free to continue with your false claims, it wont get you anywhere.

Correction, I discount them as being irrelevant*

The fact that you, and others, have been saying things like:

nosferatu1001 wrote:BTW - unaugmented == un modified. Unless you have a different definition? So saying no modifers allowed (and FC IS a modifier, BRB defines this nicely) is equivalent to saying no augments.

nosferatu1001 wrote:But either way you are still using weapons to hit, and you are told modifications do nothing to help you when using a weapon to hurt the monolith.

RobPro wrote:How is Furious Charge not a bonus? You get no bonuses of any kind against a Monolith, aside from exceptions which are explicitly mentioned.

clearly demonstrates that you do not understand the living metal rule. To refresh our memory:

Kevin949 wrote:The monolith is made of living necron metal which is not only self-repairing but is capable of adapting its structure to resist incoming attacks. Attacks which count the targets armour value as being less than it really is (such as bright lances and blasters) do not do so against the monolith. Similarily, weaapons that get additional armour penetration dice (such as chainfists, monstrous creatures or melta weapons) do not get the extra dice against the monolith. Ordnance weapons still roll 2d6 for armour penetration and select the highest score. In practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what.

What is in question is

In practice, any weapon attacking the monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what.

Hence forth I will refer to this as the "strength clause"

The words and phrases you are misunderstanding are:

"any weapon"
"its"
"no matter what"

First, in order to find out if living metal interacts with some other rule, we must find out if the other rule fits the scope or context of the living weapon rules. Thus, we look at the context of the strength clause of the living metal rule. The strength clause starts out by narrowing down to "any weapon", thus the context is that this rule will interact with the rules for weapons somehow. This leaves out models, abilities, terrain, deployment and anything else in the game that you can talk about, the context is weapons and weapons alone; [Note: I will not attempt to delve into any speculation of what the writers were intending at this time, I will simply speak about the words on the page, with that said, I have a very cogent speculative argument in addition to this flawless logical analysis argument.] Then the strength clause moves on to make a distinction about how it interacts with the relevant weapon rules; specifically, the strength clause states, "[weapons used against the monolith] ...will roll for armour penetration using >its< unaugmented strength and a single d6". In this segment the strength clause clearly use the possessive pronoun, "its" to refer back to "weapon". Thus we can decipher this sentence to mean, "Weapons used against the monolith will roll d6+ the weapon's unaugmented strength".

Thus, weapons that do not have a strength value are not within the context; furthermore since the words, "weapon" and "model" are not synonymous, the living metal rules do not talk about how furious charge augments the strength of a model and as such the living metal rule does not interfere with the furious charge rules; it is all about context, if a rule is outside the context of living metal, then it is not affected by it.

My argument, tersely stated, is: Since a model's strength is outside the context of the living metal rule, the living metal rule does not interfere with any method of augmenting a model's strength.

I color coded my argument, Cyan is my evidence, Green is my conclusion.

Edit: A further clarification is needed to direct my argument to the discussion between Nos and Sliggoth. Is it true, as Nos asserts, that we use weapons to attack the monolith even in CC, even when we are using normal CC weapons? Yes, however, there is one fatal flaw in Nos' argument. I agree we use weapons to attack a monolith (sometimes), however, do we use the strength of the weapon in the case of power fists? This is an unequivocal no, we do not use power fists's stat line (which does not exist) to attack in CC. Thus, when the furious charge rules are in play, does furious charge augment the strength of the weapon? No, the furious charge rules clearly state that the model is being augmented. Finally (in this edit) does the monolith rules encompass every attack in which a model uses a weapon? No. This is the death knell for Nos' argument. The monolith rules clearly have a context, and that context only extends to the point in which the weapon has a strength (like a Storm Bolter) in cases where a weapon does not have a strength, the monolith rules are completely silent because as the rules clearly state, attacks which are made using weapons that do not have a stat line (or where the rules remove the stat line) use the state line of the model, since furious charge augments the model's stat line and not the weapons, the monolith rules are completely silent.

In order for Nos to be correct the rules must be changed to state: "Whenever a weapon is used against the monolith, the user's strength may not be augmented". Until the rules are changed in this fashion, Nos cannot be correct as he violates the context of the rules as written.



Finally, people are running too far with "no matter what"; this broad phrase must be, as all things must be, in a context, since the scope (the context) of this sentence is limited to "Weapons" one must always look at "no matter what" within the realm of "Weapons"; anything outside of the realm of weapons (as in models getting a bonus) is not covered in the living metal rule, since the rules are permissive, you are not permitted to apply the living metal rule to furious charge.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Eh, nevermind.

Your argument breaks down when we include Wych Blades and Relic Blades into the mix. You haven't addressed them at all.

OK, this was taken from this batrep -

"[Here came the game's only rules dispute, as Necronoob and D'Ork try to determine how the Monolith's Living Metal special rule (which limits the armor penetration and strength bonuses of attacks against the 'lith) interacts with the Power Klaw and the Furious Charge rule. We decide to give the Orks the doubled strength of the PK, but not the +1 Strength of the Furious Charge. For future reference, a careful reading of the rules, a review of the Necron FAQ's, and consultation with GW Fairfax indicates that the Orks should have received both the x2 str of the PK and the +1 of the Furious Charge.]"

http://wasted-knights.blogspot.com/2010/05/orks-vs-necrons-2000-points-april-30.html