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.

The Dragon wrote:I guess I'm just used to serious hard asses.

When it shoots isn't the same as "in its shooting phase"

If the general tourney ruling is opening up the interpretation to be that broad then I'm all for it of course, but per RAW it doesn't say in "in it's shooting phase" -- only when shooting.

It strikes me as amusing that rule lawyers "think" this is fair and logical and are going to can-open the codex and general play to let this fly when those same folks come down on the scarabs like circa 1941 Germans on camp full of ... well.. I'm sure by now you all get the metaphor.

So if it's 'fair' and RAI for the Monolith now how many other other codexes and units are going to get tourney/player-faq-ed to be "fair" or "how they should have been". Down this path lies the dark side methinks.

You don't check vehicle movement UNTIL the vehicle shoots.

You're required to go through the Shooting process with every unit, and declare whether they're shooting or not. If you declare that a Monolith is shooting, WHETHER OR NOT there's a rule that will stop it from actually rolling any dice, then it is 'shooting'. THEN you check how fast it's moved; if it has moved over Combat Speed, it isn't allowed to declare a target, roll dice, etc.

But at that point the Heavy rule activates, and makes it possible for you to actually declare a target, roll some dice, and inflict hits, because you count as having remained stationary.

azazel the cat wrote:"Specifc > General" = "Codex > BGB"

The BGB applies to all 40k, whereas the codex only applies to that one army/race. Therefore, the codex is always more specific and will always trump the rulebook.

It's not spelled out for you in the BGB, but it's the only logical conclusion.

Wrong.

Sweeping Advance states you are wrong, for a start.
In MOST cases the codex is more specific. In some cases it is not. Thus the rule is NOT "codex > rulebook", but specific > general. Because the former is not true in all cases, therefore the two are not equivalent.

You don't check vehicle movement UNTIL the vehicle shoots.

You're required to go through the Shooting process with every unit, and declare whether they're shooting or not. If you declare that a Monolith is shooting, WHETHER OR NOT there's a rule that will stop it from actually rolling any dice, then it is 'shooting'. THEN you check how fast it's moved; if it has moved over Combat Speed, it isn't allowed to declare a target, roll dice, etc.

But at that point the Heavy rule activates, and makes it possible for you to actually declare a target, roll some dice, and inflict hits, because you count as having remained stationary.

Thank you. This is the quality rules-based answer I was looking for. "It just can" was grossly insufficient.

I didn't think to consider going back to observe that movement was considered after declaring the intent to shoot and not beforehand as a conditional status which would allow or disallow firing.

As I said earlier, the only way I was seeing it being possible within the context of the rules as I understood them was if the Heavy rule essentially ruled the Monolith to have only moved at combat speed during the deepstrike, replacing the BGB 'counts as cruising' for the "can't move faster than combat".

This has cleared up a great deal for me with this model. As a rule, the Necron codex seems to be doing that with many,many rules which hadn't seen much more consideration or value of importance previously. Searchlights, Nightfighting, Swarm, and multiple wound models have all taken on new importance lately... let alone to mention the timing of effects oh..say around the start of the movement phase.

@Rigeld2: Exactly what grenades are you talking about? Assault & defensive grenades have no conflict with a WTN.

Using grenades against a walker. Different thread, just using it as an example.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

azazel the cat wrote:"Specifc > General" = "Codex > BGB"

The BGB applies to all 40k, whereas the codex only applies to that one army/race. Therefore, the codex is always more specific and will always trump the rulebook.

It's not spelled out for you in the BGB, but it's the only logical conclusion.

Wrong.

Sweeping Advance states you are wrong, for a start.
In MOST cases the codex is more specific. In some cases it is not. Thus the rule is NOT "codex > rulebook", but specific > general. Because the former is not true in all cases, therefore the two are not equivalent.

Care to explain how, or should I just take Sweeping Advance's word for it?

If there was a Codex that says 'this army does not succumb to sweeping advance', then the army would be immune to it, no matter what the BGB said. Just as a hypothetical.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:Using grenades against a walker. Different thread, just using it as an example.

WTN says you hit on a 4+ no matter what the weapon skill of the defender is. Grenades don't come into conflict with that at all, as they don't affect a model's ability to score a hit.


EDIT: My spelling is awful today.

azazel the cat wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Using grenades against a walker. Different thread, just using it as an example.

WTN says you hit on a 4+ no matter what the weapon skill of the defender is. Grenades don't come into conflict with that at all, as they don't affect a model's ability to score a hit.

It's 3+ actually, and perhaps you should re-read the rules on using grenades against a walker. Or go peruse the thread that was about this. Either one.

A model using a grenade against a walker only ever hits on a 6+.

A model with a WTN always hits on a 3+ in close-combat.

However, due to the construction of the rules, the grenade rule (which is found in the BRB) takes priority over the WTN rule (which is found in the Space Wolf codex). That's what rigeld is referring to.

There was a veeeeeery long thread about it not long ago, you can refer there to find all the arguments about specific vs. general repeated over, and over, and over, and over.

EDIT: Answered for me. Thanks, Berzerker!

Right. So why was there a very long thread about it? Grenades are universal wargear like power fists or force weapons, whereas the WTN is wargear unique to the SW, and therefore more specific. WTN trumps grenades rule, unless the BGB FAQ specifically says otherwise.

WBB, for a start. Was even the example given in the SA rules.*

Hell the only time the rulebook EVER says that codex > brb is when you have two rules the same. Smoke launchers. Thats it.

Re WTN - firstly, it's a 3+, secondly it matter when grenades against a walker is the more specific rule, so a model with a WTN against a walker hits on a 6+

*WBB in CC worked against any non-power weapon attack, to simplify. Yet against SA it did not work, because SA, the more specific rule, said the special rule must specify it overrode SA, like ATSKNF. It is the cardinal example showing specific > general. Oh, and there is a codex - ATSKNF, currently in 4 codexes.

Codex > BRB also fails at the most simple case, that of the rulebook itself. By your definition JI cannot move 12", as the BRB cannot override itself. By specific > general, everything works.

Nevermind

azazel the cat wrote:EDIT: Answered for me. Thanks, Berzerker!

Right. So why was there a very long thread about it? Grenades are universal wargear like power fists or force weapons, whereas the WTN is wargear unique to the SW, and therefore more specific. WTN trumps grenades rule, unless the BGB FAQ specifically says otherwise.

Seriously, try the thread.

A model with WTN attacks everything with a WS on a 3+
A mdoel with WTN using grenades hits walkers on a 6+, because THIS situation is more specific.

@Nosferatu1001: The reason WBB didn't work when the unit was swept had nothing to do with general vs specific. Sweeping Advance negated WBB because the WBB rule actually said that it didn't work when the unit was swept. There was no specific-general hierarchy about it at all.

and WTN is more specific than grenades, so I would say that WTN takes precedence. Again, unless the GW FAQ says I'm wrong...?

azazel the cat wrote:EDIT: Answered for me. Thanks, Berzerker!

Right. So why was there a very long thread about it? Grenades are universal wargear like power fists or force weapons, whereas the WTN is wargear unique to the SW, and therefore more specific. WTN trumps grenades rule, unless the BGB FAQ specifically says otherwise.

Please refer to the thread in question.

Or, answer how "all CC attacks" is more specific than "CC attacks with a grenade against a Walker". But you should probably start a new thread to do that.

Wrong. It didnt. Seriously, do you read up on rules before you try debating them? Page 13. No mention of Sweeping Advance ANYWHERE in the rule.

Instead in 4th edition the SA rule gave WBB as an *example* of a Special Rule that could not save the unit. 5th ed SA simply removed WBB as an example; the actual rule is word for word the exact same rule as 4th.

The *current* "WBB", RP, specifically says it doesnt work.

Hmm... so I just went through the first and last page of that thread. I can see why I avoided it, as it is generally a massive, circular argument entirely based around a subjective interpretation of what rule is more specific. Logically, I would say that the WTN is the most specific, as I can have two marines assault a walker, both marines have grenades but only one has a WTN. So the WTN adds the most specific variable into the mix. However, it is very ambiguous and so I'd always ask a TO beforehand, and in friendly games I'd probably let my opponent have it their way if they paid for the pizza. (as my Necrons do not use walkers and my SW do not use WTNs)

So, nothing about Necron WBB? Or are you conceding that the rules are indeed written as Specific > General?

Azazel - if you actually want to discuss the rules on the WTN vs grenades and walkers, please start a new thread.

Zerker - thanks, you're right.

@azazel; I would argue with you, but I REFUSE to go through that whole argument again.

If you look through the thread (not sure which pages, but it's in the latter half), you'll find that I laid the whole hierarchy out in chart form; nothing subjective about it at all. It does take a little thinking about the matter, though. A lot of 40k rules interactions are not intuitive, and this is one of them.

@rigeld; Please don't. All you'll accomplish will be to drag the thread off-topic, and get no satisfactory answer.

no has has pointed out that in the deep strike rules (PG 95)
"in that turns shooting phase, these units can fire (or run) as normal, and obviously count as having moved in the previous movement phase. vehicles count as having moved at cruising speed."

the rules on heavy "the vehicle cannot move faster than combat speed. when it shoots, it counts as having remained stationary"

since it was only counted as having moved cruising and not actually moved, it would be allowed to DS and the heavy rule would kick in when you attempt to shoot so it would be allowed to fire... or at least thats how i see it

@ Nosferatu1001: sorry, I missed your post before.

You're right, the old Necron codex doesn't specify anything about Sweeping Advance. I must have confused elements of RP with elements of WBB. I admit, it's been a while since I looked at the old codex now that it has no more meaning. However, I also looked in my 5th Ed. BGB at the Sweeping Advance rules, and found no mention whatsoever of WBB in them either, so I'm not certain exactly what you're talking about.

In any case, I'm going to withdraw from this discussion because it actually has no direct relevance to me, nor will it be in any way enjoyable, and will derail this thread quite badly.

Feel free to have the last word, gentlemen.



@ BeRzErKeR: No worries. I'd normally be happy to debate that with you, but I really don't want to be the one to resurrect that thread, nor do I wish to derail this one. Another time, perhaps.

specific beats general is implied in the main rulebook, pg 74. USR "as this is just a summary, if any of the codexes incude one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the codex takes precedence (representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race) "
just putting it out there, take it or leave it.

Righto.

Well thanks for the...er.. discussion folks.

Fun Fact: The reason WBB didn't work against SA was because

(1) SA removed models from the table and NOT as casualties.
(2) The dead (turned over) models in the necron units with WBB USED to haul the dead models behind them as sort of technically part of the unit. Thus, when SA triggered not only did the live remaining models go, so to did the dead ones.

That said, thanks for the thoughts. Cluggy, BTW I did actually bring up that exact scenario and it CANNOT work for one reason. If you start applying magical thinking to counts as having moved at cruising speed being different from actually DID move at cruising speed, it means drop pods should be able to fire weapons upon landing as they haven't REALLY moved at cruising speed.

No one supports that reading whatsoever.

The only reason it works (if it can) is because, as it was pointed out to me, the phrase "when it shoots" essentially means "when it wishes to shoot" or...

a) The model is declaring intent to fire
b) It is thus shooting --- cue Heavy and stationary
c) Check to see limitations as a result of moving --- Heavy has already nulled this.
d) profit?

counts as IS different to DID, how can you possible think they are they same ?
is the drop pod a vehicle?... yes.
did it deep strike? yes so it now counts as having moved at cruising speed... but wait, when it touches ground it becomes immobolised, wouldnt that then make it able to fire.... oh wait theres a FAQ to answer that. NO. so which part of this is contradicting my explanation of heavy exactly?

cluggy89 wrote:counts as IS different to DID, how can you possible think they are they same ?

Counts as must be the same thing as "is" or "did" - read the rules and see how often "counts as" is used instead of "is" or "did".
Within the context of 40k, they mean the same thing.

While the particle whip is ordnance the guass flux arc says "they my fire in addition to other guns, this includes other guass flux arcs..." so in my reading of that is they can fire along with the particle whip.

hmmm give me a minute to read

*jeopardy theme*

ah... no.

* A Gauss flux arc can be fired at a different target unit to other weapons on the vehicle (including other Gauss flux arcs) subject to the normal rules for shooting. p. 81 Codex: Necrons

normal rules for shooting = fire that pretty ordinance particle whip and you don't get to use anything else.

worse yet, if you use the ordinance-whip you obviously can't use the portal of exile EITHER as it specifically state's it's a shooting attack.

at least, that is MY direct reading from the codex and BGB.

^Yeah, until the vehicle type "heavy" gets some sort of special rules in 6th edition to allow for it, you can either fire the particle whip OR the door to nowhere + gauss flux arcs...but not all 3.

To be fair though, look at the potential multi-unit slaughter that the Monolith can do at point blank.

flayer arcs spamming gauss at four separate units and the door potentially om-nom-nomming the mess out of whatever is (literally right) in front of it.

You can still use the whip OR the arc and still port units to the lith though.....who could then fire.

But can a unit prot through on the same turn the 'lith Deep Strikes?

1) Lith DS
2) 20 man warrior unit ports to the lith
3) Lith lets rip with Whip and warriors ream something with a possible 40 RF shots.