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.

Gwar! wrote:

dswanick wrote:And Monoliths moving and still being able to fire is more specific than vehicles moving at cruising speed can't. Care to try again?

Except it isn't?

You do know what Specific > General means, right?

I am in fact familiar with the definitions of each word, yes. Are you?

Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

Number two, because the first one could be anywhere from Move is a fraction of a fraction of an inch to it's max movement, were The other one is move it Cruising speed.

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

2, of course. And "3. A Monolith may move and fire" is as specific as that, and "4. A Monolith can move and fire it's particle whip" is more specific still, and "5. A purple Monolith can move and fire its particle whip at 7 man squads of Grey Hunters on a monday regardless of range" is the most specific example rule I care to imagine.

dswanick wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

2, of course. And "3. A Monolith may move and fire" is as specific than that, and "4. A Monolith can move and fire it's particle whip" is more specific still, and "5. A purple Monolith can move and fire its particle whip at 7 man squads of Grey Hunters on a monday regardless of range" is the most specific example rule I care to imagine.

How is a Monolith Can move and fire its Particle whip more specific than...

Ya know what, I give up.

Yeah, I am done here before I get banned for being flamed again.

Short of it is, you are wrong. We have shown you why. If you refuse to see it, there is not much else we can do.

I wish I had the "Please don't feed the Troll" picture right now.

Gwar! wrote:

dswanick wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

2, of course. And "3. A Monolith may move and fire" is as specific than that, and "4. A Monolith can move and fire it's particle whip" is more specific still, and "5. A purple Monolith can move and fire its particle whip at 7 man squads of Grey Hunters on a monday regardless of range" is the most specific example rule I care to imagine.

How is a Monolith Can move and fire its Particle whip more specific than...

Ya know what, I give up.

Yeah, I am done here before I get banned for being flamed again.

Short of it is, you are wrong. We have shown you why. If you refuse to see it, there is not much else we can do.

I fail to see why anyone should be banned for a rules debate, but maybe this will help you.
move = general
move cruising speed = specific
the model = general
the monolith = specific
weapons = general
the particle whip = specific.

a model that moves at cruising speed may not fire weapons (general / specific / general) <--- this rule denies general models from fire the whole category(ie:general) of weapons in a specific movement range
a monolith that moves may fire a particle whip (specific / general / specific) <--- this specific model has a rule which allows it to fire this specific weapon regardless of movement of any type(general).

dswanick wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

2, of course.

Excellent.

A specific restriction on movement is not overwritten by a general allowance for movement, unless you disagree?

Unless you are going to say 2 is more specific yet does not overwrite the general rule of 1 or can prove that 1 includes 2 and nothing else then there is no reason to continue.

lol

dswanick wrote:
a monolith that moves may fire a particle whip (specific / general / specific) <--- this specific model has a rule which allows it to fire this specific weapon regardless of movement of any type(general).

It's that middle "general" in the middle which would need to be "specific" in order for that to work. You did a nice job of illustrating the issue. Thank you.

Your Monolith may move at combat speed and fire the particle whip. This does not infringe upon the special rule of the monolith. In the specific instance of cruising speed (which your Monolith can't normally do) you may not shoot any weapons. This very specific point over rules the general section of the move and fire rule.

kirsanth wrote:

dswanick wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

2, of course.

Excellent.

A specific restriction on movement is not overwritten by a general allowance for movement, unless you disagree?

Unless you are going to say 2 is more specific yet does not overwrite the general rule of 1 or can prove that 1 includes 2 and nothing else then there is no reason to continue.

lol

Way to quote out of context, you forgot all my even more specific examples which followed. See my response to Gwar for clarity.

dswanick wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

dswanick wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Which is more specific:

1. Move the model.

2. Move the model so that it counts as moving cruising speed.

2, of course.

Excellent.

A specific restriction on movement is not overwritten by a general allowance for movement, unless you disagree?

Unless you are going to say 2 is more specific yet does not overwrite the general rule of 1 or can prove that 1 includes 2 and nothing else then there is no reason to continue.

Way to quote out of context

You were entirely in context.
In fact, I even addressed your later statements in the quote.

If we can use Colors and actual model names, then I could put three weapons on a Crisis suit and fire all of them because "a Model can only fire one weapon" is less specific than "My Blue Shas'o with Light blue trim, Named Iur'tae'Mont, or Shellshocked for those that do not know Tau, because he is always hit with Barrage weapons, with Plasma rifle, Brust Cannon and Missle pod can fire all it's weapons because I say so."

Edit, not specific enough, added more to my Shas'O

zeshin wrote:

dswanick wrote:
a monolith that moves may fire a particle whip (specific / general / specific) <--- this specific model has a rule which allows it to fire this specific weapon regardless of movement of any type(general).

It's that middle "general" in the middle which would need to be "specific" in order for that to work. You did a nice job of illustrating the issue. Thank you.

Your Monolith may move at combat speed and fire the particle whip. This does not infringe upon the special rule of the monolith. In the specific instance of cruising speed (which your Monolith can't normally do) you may not shoot any weapons. This very specific point over rules the general section of the move and fire rule.

So your contention would be that the rule would have to state : The Monolith may fire it's particle whip even if it moved combat speed, moved cruising speed, deep strikes, enters an Apocalypse game via flank march, and any other movement method we haven't yet devised or imagined? See my contention is that s specific model being given permission to fire a specific weapon regardless of the whole class of movements it is allowed to make overrides a more general restriction of most models preventing them from firing most weapons under a specific movement subcategory.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Iur_tae_mont wrote:If we can use Colors and actual model names, then I could put three weapons on a Crisis suit and fire all of them because "a Model can only fire one weapon" is less specific than "My Blue Shas'o with Plasma rifle, Brust Cannon and Missle pod can fire all it's weapons because I say so."

That would definitely be more specific, and if your Codex said so then, yes you could.

dswanick wrote:So your contention would be that the rule would have to state : The Monolith may fire it's particle whip regardless of its movement. Or some such.

Fixed--with much less issue that your example.

The problem is "Move" is less specific than "Move at cruising speed" and that "Move" carries less restrictions.
Your examples are all "Move" with scenarios or extra exeptions outside of the rules for "Move".

kirsanth wrote:

dswanick wrote:So your contention would be that the rule would have to state : The Monolith may fire it's particle whip regardless of its movement. Or some such.

Fixed--with much less issue that your example.

The problem is "Move" is less specific than "Move at cruising speed" and that "Move" carries less restrictions.
Your examples are all "Move" with scenarios or extra exeptions outside of the rules for "Move".

So "The Monolith may fire its Particle Whip even if it moves" is bad, but "The Monolith may fire its Particle Whip regardless of it's movement" is good to go? This hair-splitting difference in grammar which is no difference at all is what keeps you married to your point of view? You must not play Warhammer 40K, because if you did try to play it with this approach you'd go nuts with how loosely worded GW's rules are. Are you a lawyer in real life?

I am hemming more words than you are ignoring. Mine is on purpose.

The fact is there are rules for moving.

There are additional rules that apply to moving at cruising speed.

The first set is what is addressed. The second set is never mentioned other than by people saying it should be ignored.

As for me personally, I do not see how it matters but if you want to fly out here I am up for a game.

I have the Necron Codex open, On my lap as I type to page 21. Well not THE Necron Codex, My copy of The Necron Codex. I'm reading the power Matrix rule as I type. It says it can be used when the Monolith moves.

So I can use the power Matrix when I move.

I also Have the Big model smashing Rulebook laying on top of my bed about 12 inches away. Well not THE Big model Smashing rulebook. My copy of said rulebook, opened to page 57.

It says "if you move 6-12 inches, you cannot fire any weapons", It also says on page 94(ish) That if you Deepstrike, you count as Moving cruising speed.

SO
If I move, I can use the Power matrix, if I deepstrike, I count as moving 6-12 inches, and If I move 6-12 inches, I cannot shoot any weapons.

HAI I'mma Monolith and I can move and shoot" is not more specific than "HAI I'mma Monolith and can normally Move and shoot, unless I deepstrike, were I count as moving 6-12 inches."

Well, it's been stimulating guys, I've enjoyed the last few hours. But now, I'm off to bed. Gotta go to work tomorrow. kirsanth - I'd be honored by the game, but I don't think the wife would let me spend that kind of money on a plane ticket just for a game of 40k. Night all.

LOL sorry for posting the link! haha

Specific doens't always override general though, what about the SA rules?

Huh? Thats THE example of specific > general.

You're confusing codex > BRB, which is wrong....

dswanick wrote: "4. A Monolith can move and fire it's particle whip" is more specific still,

Course, it doesn't say that, though, does it? It actually says a Monolith can move and use the Matrix. Slight difference, ain't it? So sure, use the Matrix and teleport a unit through it. But without a more specific statement saying that it can move at cruising speed and FIRE A WEAPON, it cannot. It's really that simple.

Edit: fixed name in quote, sorry Kirsanth

Why is that quote attributed to me, don_mondo?

kirsanth wrote:Why is that quote attributed to me, don_mondo?

Ooops, cause I deleted the wrong 'quote' tag in the message. Should be dswanick, I think. Sorry about that.

@dswanick.

Your little geneeral specific chart breaks down there in the middle, mainly because you keep misquoting the rule. The Monolith does NOT have a statement that it can fire weapons even if it moves. What it says is that the Monolith may use the power matrix even if it moves. ANd then it says it can be used one of two ways. Unfortunately for you, it does not use the word cruising speed anywhere in the section on firing the partivle whip.

There's another way to approach this as well. Why did the Monolith have the rule allowing it to fire Ordnance on the move? Simple. Because back when it was written, no one else could do so. Now, everyone can fire Ordnance on the move, it's a core rule. SO that means we use this from the 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.

And that means that we totally disregard that particular rule.

Bottom line, no matter how you break it down, the Monolith cannot fire when it deep strikes. Deal with it.

Well, it does say "clearly" and this rule would fall under that FAQ if there was not such a debate over it as it is not "clearly" definable.

Just fuel for the fire.

Or the people that don't want to accept it make a debate out of it, even tho it is clear.

Or people that don't want to accept the rule says "use power matrix" and not "shoot X gun".

And yes, you will counter with the "teleport" option, which is only one of two ways the matrix can be used.

Just sayin.

I never DS the monolith anyway (well, almost never) so it's a non-issue for me.

Kevin949 wrote:Or people that don't want to accept the rule says "use power matrix" and not "shoot X gun".

And yes, you will counter with the "teleport" option, which is only one of two ways the matrix can be used.

Yep.
The monolith can use the power matrix. . .just not to fire a weapon when it counts as moving cruising speed.

don_mondo wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Why is that quote attributed to me, don_mondo?

Your little geneeral specific chart breaks down there in the middle, mainly because you keep misquoting the rule. The Monolith does NOT have a statement that it can fire weapons even if it moves. What it says is that the Monolith may use the power matrix even if it moves. ANd then it says it can be used one of two ways. Unfortunately for you, it does not use the word cruising speed anywhere in the section on firing the partivle whip.

There's another way to approach this as well. Why did the Monolith have the rule allowing it to fire Ordnance on the move? Simple. Because back when it was written, no one else could do so. Now, everyone can fire Ordnance on the move, it's a core rule. SO that means we use this from the Main Rules FAQ:
And that means that we totally disregard that particular rule.

Bottom line, no matter how you break it down, the Monolith cannot fire when it deep strikes. Deal with it.

A couple of thoughts.

1. The Monolith rule does not say it can fire weapons even if it moves, you are correct. It says it may use it's power matrix even if it moves and may use it's power matrix in one of two ways (teleport/or particle whip). I could turn that around on you by pointing out that it doesn't say "fire" the particle whip but "discharge" the particle whip. Since the BRB, Cruising Speed rule prevents weapons fire the "discharge" isn't prevented...but that relies on the same rules lawyering "depends on your definition of the word is" that I'm opposing in the above statements. Further this whole notion that it is a vestigial rule because it no longer has any meaning in the current codex can be refuted by looking at Pg.11 of the BRB - that would be the page were "Movement" rules are. The rule simply allows the monolith to do something when it moves and moving is still a whole slew of rules in the current rulebook.

2. There seems to be the concensus in these forums that even though the rule is specific to the monolith as opposed to vehicle models generally, and specific to the particle whip as opposed to weapons generally, that unless the rule also specifically calls out the Cruising Speed prohibition and overrules it that this rule is not "more specific" than Cruising Speed rules. That seems to be the main opposition mounted against my interpretation of this rule, correct? If so, then allow me to give you an example of what I see as your logic and see if it holds up to scrutiny:
There is a general rule in the BRB allowing models a cover save when in cover.
There is a specific rule in the BRB that only allows vehicles to benefit from a cover save if it is 50% obscured.
There are examples in the BRB where a cover save is granted to a vehicle and it states that the model counts as obscured - Flat Out Skimmers, Smoke Launchers just to name two - thus preserving the "vehicles must be obscured to benefit from a cover save" idea.
Along comes a rule which gives every unit within a certain number of inches of a certain model a cover save. People argue that even though vehicles are units and even though the vehicle unit is within 6" of said psycher model, and even though they may "have" the cover save they can not benefit from the cover save because the rule doesn't specifically call out that the vehicle counts as obscured. They argued, as Gwar, kirsanth, Iur_tae_mont argue that unless the rule specifically mentions and then refutes the "specific" rules giving the "specific" criteria of obscured then the rule doesn't work. But, you guessed it, GW publishes a FAQ which sums up the situation pretty much as "we gave a cover save, it gets the cover save, stop parsing words to gain an advantage".
So general rule --- cover/movement
specific rule --- vehicle cover only if 50% obscured/cruising movement = no weapons fire
special codex unit rule --- Shield of Sanguinius/Monolith Particle Whip
Now GW could have errata'd the Shield of Sanguinius to state that vehicles count as obscured and preserved the "cover save requires obscured", but they just FAQd it - ie:come on, you guys know it's supposed to work, stop being dense and read the rule in the spirit of a fun, competative game.

As I stated earlier in this thread, I have no horse in this race. I don't own a Necron army, and at this time my LGG doesn't have a Necron player. This whole thing has been an intellectual exercise for me. I still hold that any Necron player I play against may use his particle whip on the turn his monolith deep strikes. The current Necron codex has been raped pretty badly by the 5th ed rules, and if someone wants to play them anyway I'm not going to ruin what little enjoyment they may still gain by putting even more burdens on them by parsing if "counts as Moving at Cruising Speed" is or isn't movement. To me : The monolith can use it's power matrix as a particle whip even if it moves. Deep Strike counts as moving at cruising speed and is a move. It's not rocket science.

@ dswanick: you're completely correct, in my estimation. I'm not sure what is so complicated about this. The monolith can move and fire, period. Are the same people saying the monolith can't move and fire ('because it doesn't specify cruising speed.' give me a break) going to tell me destroyers can't move and fire, too? The codex says specifically states destroyers can move and fire, just like it specifically says monoliths can move and fire. But since it doesn't say destroyers can move at cruising speed and fire, I guess destroyers are stationary heavy support, and good luck making that stick at your tournament.

here's a little logic exercise that reflects what people saying the monolith can't DS and fire argue:

1. 19 year olds can drink alcoholic beverages.
2. Johnny is 19 years old.
3. Johnny can't drink Jack Daniels.

/facepalm.