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.

youbedead - doesnt work like that. More specific beats more general rule.

General rule: may use the matrix even if you have moved
SPecific rule: you may not fire any weapons if you have moved cruising speed.

Cruising speed is a specific set of move values, thus is more specific and so would need a more specifically wored rule to beat it. Unlikely given the codex was written 2 editions prior to cruising speed...

There are arguments for both sides that can't be clearly resolved until we either get a new codex or get another FAQ which is unlikely.

No, there really arent

One side ignores how the rules work, in favour of "but but, it says MOVES, and cruising speed is moving, yes?" and the other doesnt ignore the rules.

Yes, yes...

General BRB rule: you may not fire any weapons if you have moved cruising speed.
Specific Monolith rule: may use the matrix even if you have moved.

Which is more specific:

1) "Move that vehicle"
or
2) "Move that vehicle so that it counts as having moved cruising speed"

?

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Yes, yes...

General BRB rule: you may not fire any weapons if you have moved cruising speed.
Specific Monolith rule: may use the matrix even if you have moved.

General BRB rule: you may fire if you move
Monolith rule: you may fire if you move
Specific BRB rule: you may not fire if you move cruising speed

Sorry, what's specific again? Something applying to all moves is certainly NOT more specific than simply something applying to Cruising speed. UNless you have a different definition of specific, like some posters different definitions of "special"

Agreed, you cannot Deep Strike and fire with the Monolith.

Maelstrom808 wrote:No, you are moving twice with the destroyers, and you are moving before you teleport, which means you can't move after.

...and you wouldn't want to do it with destroyers....wraiths however work beautifully if you can manage to get everything lined up.

Ah, but that is the issue I was referring to. If the Monolith is always considered "stationary," then units exiting it could potentially get their movement again. I believe that is why "stationary" was removed from how units exit the Monolith, because people were trying to do that.

You wouldnt get your movement again, as you have still moved that turn. It jsut stops you assaulting from the portal.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Thanatos_elNyx wrote:Yes, yes...

General BRB rule: you may not fire any weapons if you have moved cruising speed.
Specific Monolith rule: may use the matrix even if you have moved.

General BRB rule: you may fire if you move
Monolith rule: you may fire if you move
Specific BRB rule: you may not fire if you move cruising speed

Sorry, what's specific again? Something applying to all moves is certainly NOT more specific than simply something applying to Cruising speed. UNless you have a different definition of specific, like some posters different definitions of "special"

Actually, the rule for the monolith is specific to the monolith and says the power matrix may be used even if it moved, not simply "can fire if moved". Plus your ordering is off. The rules from the BRB should be in place prior to any rule listed in a codex. No, I'm not specifically saying that codex trumps BRB, simply that the order in which the rules should be calculated should start at a higher level and work it's way down to a granular level. It's typical hierarchy mechanics.

Except that is incorrect. The more specific rule is applied later on. Otherwise, by your reckoning, WBB could be made against SA because SA is a BRB rule. (hint: WBB rolls CANNOT BE MADE against SA)

RobPro wrote:

Maelstrom808 wrote:No, you are moving twice with the destroyers, and you are moving before you teleport, which means you can't move after.

...and you wouldn't want to do it with destroyers....wraiths however work beautifully if you can manage to get everything lined up.

Ah, but that is the issue I was referring to. If the Monolith is always considered "stationary," then units exiting it could potentially get their movement again. I believe that is why "stationary" was removed from how units exit the Monolith, because people were trying to do that.

Gotcha, didn't catch that you were refering to the old "stationary" wording. Like I said though, anyway you look at it, it still wouldn't work because you wouldn't be able to move twice in the same turn. Although you are probably right in that someone somewhere would try to justify it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except that is incorrect. The more specific rule is applied later on. Otherwise, by your reckoning, WBB could be made against SA because SA is a BRB rule. (hint: WBB rolls CANNOT BE MADE against SA)

I know they can't, and WBB only allows you to come back from WOUNDS and sweeping advance doesn't cause wounds.

Wrong. WBB states anytime you would be removed as a casualty, actually. Which is why it works vs Lukas stupid Rule.

Doesnt alter the fact theat the codex is not necessarily the more specific rule, as proven here and in SA vs WBB.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Wrong. WBB states anytime you would be removed as a casualty, actually. Which is why it works vs Lukas stupid Rule.

Doesnt alter the fact theat the codex is not necessarily the more specific rule, as proven here and in SA vs WBB.

Could argue the semantics that SA states they're removed from play, not removed as casualties. Plus the fact that, at least in the 4th ed book (which is the only soft copy I have available at the moment) it actually states WBB as not working, which makes it more specific than if it wasn't stated. But is only an example, of course.

Sigh. It actually states in the 4th ed book that WBB is an example of a special rule that doesnt work.

It doesnt alter that, LIKE SA the prohibition on firing while moving at cruising speed is MORE SPECIFIC than the codex rule stating you can fire while moving.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Sigh. It actually states in the 4th ed book that WBB is an example of a special rule that doesnt work.

It doesnt alter that, LIKE SA the prohibition on firing while moving at cruising speed is MORE SPECIFIC than the codex rule stating you can fire while moving.

Wait, I like how you sighed and then restated exactly what I said but using different words.

But, like I said back before in one of the many threads on this topic (or those that degenerated to this), play how you want. You believe it is one way, I believe it is another. I've had no problems with opponents allowing it to be played as such either. *Shrug*

Each time somebody asks something about the crons, my heart cries for new codex... I have a dream... Necron warriors fielded not just because foc says you have to

Well after reading all the replies here i still dont get the argument over specific vs general

Now a rule in the rule book states you cant fire any wepons if you move and crusing speed unless your codex states otherwise i.e special rules

Ok that makes perfect sence i.e the LR can fire 1 weapon even if it moves at crusing speed since its special rule states that it can in the codex .

First the SM codex was written for 5th ed so it makes the point of stating crusing speed .

Now heres the rub , the definition of specific is where i feel the problem accurs .

To me the BRB rule is general ,meaning it covers all armies and all vehicles, the fact the wording is specific is irreilivant as it only applies to general rules and is superceded by rules in a codex (SM to be specific here)

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Now and again the power matix rule is unique to the lith and so is specific to the lith i.e there is nothing in anyother codex like the power matix on the lith.

So my point is ,the BRB rule is a general rule used if there is nothing specfic to any vehicle in your codex ,but the necron power matix is specific it only omits the Crusing speed bit since it was not there when it was written

the rule is written like this

The power matirx cannot be disabled by a "weapon destoyed" result and may be used even if the Monolith moves ,or is shaken or stunned.

The fact it only says moves is what people are saying is general but its only that word the rest of the rule is specific to the lith .

So (and i have no doubts people will say i am wrong ) by the rules of the english language the rule for the power matix is specific to the lith making it supeceed the general rule in the BRB so it can fire the whip using the matix when it deepstrikes

You can not use the argument that one word is general and the other is specific, it is the whole sentance that must be used to gain the right to say general or specific and it is plain in the english language that the ltih rule is a specific rule not a general one

snakel wrote:

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Yep. Sure was. So what? The reason behind it was so that the Monolith could move and fire Ordnance (no one else could back then). Soooooo, what you're saying is that it's an outdated rule that no longer has any function under the current ruleset, right? That would mean it falls under this statement from the GW Main Rules FAQ:

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

So, basically, the rule does nothing. There ya go. Debate done and over with.

I must say that I interpreted the power matrix rule the same and have always played that way... It says that you can use power matrix even if moved, shaken or stuned... And then it ays you can use it in 2 ways, as shooting or teleporting... So imo it specifically says it can use power matrix and since he can use it as whip, I don't see problem to using it after deep strike or moving at cruising speed...

Not saying it's like that, just how I played it

Which is more specific:

1) "Move that monolith"
or
2) "Move that monolith so that it counts as having moved cruising speed"

?

Due to previous editions a friend I play against regularly (who fields Necrons) assumed it could fire as well.
Then we read the rules again after one of these threads.

He changed his mind.

I get the confusion and would not really hold it against a Necron player who said otherwise, though.
Except maybe DashofPepper--but, then I doubt it would come up.

don_mondo wrote:

snakel wrote:

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Yep. Sure was. So what? The reason behind it was so that the Monolith could move and fire Ordnance (no one else could back then). Soooooo, what you're saying is that it's an outdated rule that no longer has any function under the current ruleset, right? That would mean it falls under this statement from the GW Main Rules FAQ:

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

So, basically, the rule does nothing. There ya go. Debate done and over with.

nice but you can moveand shoot in the 5th ed and the rule is a general rule since it can be supceded by the codex the rule in the Necron codex is Specific and therefore you are wrong

Again the english Language is the argument here , your argument would say that the reason the power matrix was written was for an old rule that no longer exsits so you cant use it that is wrong

Show me where it specificaly states that it is for that old rule , the rule pertanes to moving and shooting which does still exsit

don_mondo wrote:

snakel wrote:

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Yep. Sure was. So what? The reason behind it was so that the Monolith could move and fire Ordnance (no one else could back then). Soooooo, what you're saying is that it's an outdated rule that no longer has any function under the current ruleset, right? That would mean it falls under this statement from the GW Main Rules FAQ:

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

So, basically, the rule does nothing. There ya go. Debate done and over with.

But the rule does not "clearly do nothing" as moving is moving no matter how you want to spin it. If someone walked 5 feet and another person ran 10 feet, they both still moved. So, no, the debate is not over because "moving" has not been removed from the game like outnumbering was.

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1) "Move that monolith"
or
2) "Move that monolith so that it counts as having moved cruising speed"

?

Due to previous editions a friend I play against regularly (who fields Necrons) assumed it could fire as well.
Then we read the rules again after one of these threads.

He changed his mind.

I get the confusion and would not really hold it against a Necron player who said otherwise, though.
Except maybe DashofPepper--but, then I doubt it would come up.

you are taking a few words and forgetting the whole sentance the whole sentance is specific the BRB rule is general

The BRB is general as it is for every vehicle not just one the lith rule is specific as it is for one vehicle not all

Kevin949 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

snakel wrote:

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Yep. Sure was. So what? The reason behind it was so that the Monolith could move and fire Ordnance (no one else could back then). Soooooo, what you're saying is that it's an outdated rule that no longer has any function under the current ruleset, right? That would mean it falls under this statement from the GW Main Rules FAQ:

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

So, basically, the rule does nothing. There ya go. Debate done and over with.

But the rule does not "clearly do nothing" as moving is moving no matter how you want to spin it. If someone walked 5 feet and another person ran 10 feet, they both still moved. So, no, the debate is not over because "moving" has not been removed from the game like outnumbering was.

Yes, it does indeed do nothing. All vehicles can move and fire Ordnance now. So the reason for the rule no longer exists. Therefore, it's a dead rule. My Leman Russ has a rule that says it can move and fire Ordnance. What it does not have is a rule saying that it can move at Cruising speed and fire it's Ordnance. Your Monolith has a rule saying it can move and fire Ordnance, but it also does not a have a rule saying it can do so at Cruising speed. Ergo, it cannot. Sorry, but those are the rules.

snakel wrote:you are taking a few words and forgetting the whole sentance the whole sentance is specific the BRB rule is general

The BRB is general as it is for every vehicle not just one the lith rule is specific as it is for one vehicle not all

You are taking a few sentences and forgetting the words that make them up.

All vehicle rules are more general than Monolith rules. Check.
Movement rules for vehicles are more general than movement rules for monoliths. Check.
Rules for moving are more general than moving at specific speeds. Check.
Movement rules for monoliths are more general than movement rules for monoliths at specific speeds. This is a probelm?

Problem is that if you observe this with pure logic, it is impossible to say which rule is more specific:
1. Monolith can move and use power matrix
2. Vehicle can't move at cruising speed and fire weapon

First sentence is more specific when addressing vehicle as monolith....
Second one is more specific when addressing speed....

So which one is more specific? Neither imo... And here lies the problem

Kevin949 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

snakel wrote:

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Yep. Sure was. So what? The reason behind it was so that the Monolith could move and fire Ordnance (no one else could back then). Soooooo, what you're saying is that it's an outdated rule that no longer has any function under the current ruleset, right? That would mean it falls under this statement from the GW Main Rules FAQ:

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

So, basically, the rule does nothing. There ya go. Debate done and over with.

But the rule does not "clearly do nothing" as moving is moving no matter how you want to spin it. If someone walked 5 feet and another person ran 10 feet, they both still moved. So, no, the debate is not over because "moving" has not been removed from the game like outnumbering was.

lol we have a different idea on the english language

you think 1 word in a sentance makes a whole sentance specific i believe that the whole sentance is what makes the rule specific




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Chinchilla wrote:Problem is that if you observe this with pure logic, it is impossible to say which rule is more specific:
1. Monolith can move and use power matrix
2. Vehicle can't move at cruising speed and fire weapon

First sentence is more specific when addressing vehicle as monolith....
Second one is more specific when addressing speed....

So which one is more specific? Neither imo... And here lies the problem

Well said that man the exaxt point i was trying to make

don_mondo wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

don_mondo wrote:

snakel wrote:

Now thw Necron codex was written before crusing speed exsited so it never mentioned that exact speed, in the Lith power matrix rule (since it did not exsit )

Yep. Sure was. So what? The reason behind it was so that the Monolith could move and fire Ordnance (no one else could back then). Soooooo, what you're saying is that it's an outdated rule that no longer has any function under the current ruleset, right? That would mean it falls under this statement from the GW Main Rules FAQ:

Q. If my Codex includes some options (or other
rules) that seem to have no effect in the new
edition (like the Thornback biomorph, which
makes the model count as double the number of
models for the purposes of outnumbering the
enemy in combat resolution), are you going to
publish an errata to change them to something
else that does work?
A. No, if an option (or a rule) clearly has no
effect, like in the case of the example above, it
simply does nothing. We think it’s simpler to just
leave it until the next edition of the Codex rather
than change its effects through an errata.

So, basically, the rule does nothing. There ya go. Debate done and over with.

But the rule does not "clearly do nothing" as moving is moving no matter how you want to spin it. If someone walked 5 feet and another person ran 10 feet, they both still moved. So, no, the debate is not over because "moving" has not been removed from the game like outnumbering was.

Yes, it does indeed do nothing. All vehicles can move and fire Ordnance now. So the reason for the rule no longer exists. Therefore, it's a dead rule. My Leman Russ has a rule that says it can move and fire Ordnance. What it does not have is a rule saying that it can move at Cruising speed and fire it's Ordnance. Your Monolith has a rule saying it can move and fire Ordnance, but it also does not a have a rule saying it can do so at Cruising speed. Ergo, it cannot. Sorry, but those are the rules.

So I'm looking at the 4th edition book right now and even then you could move 6" and fire 1 ordnance weapon.