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.

theres a difference between using fluff to determine RAI and using fluff as a literal rule

 CrownAxe wrote:
No its not. I've given you evidence for why the corner turrets are valid for the use of the particle whip. Its the only weapon on the monolith so is logically the only place it could fire from..

Unless the big glowy crystal on top is also a weapon...

You're arbitrarily deciding that the corner turrets are the only weapons on the monolith with no actual evidence. On the other hand, the fluff (while not outright saying so) very strongly suggests that the whip fires through the crystal.

Which is how most people played it prior to the FAQ you're referring to. So far as most players were concerned, the FAQ was a distinct rules change, rather than an indication of what was originally intended.

Explain the difference as it pertains to this case.

 insaniak wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:
No its not. I've given you evidence for why the corner turrets are valid for the use of the particle whip. Its the only weapon on the monolith so is logically the only place it could fire from..

Unless the big glowy crystal on top is also a weapon...

Remembering DoW Dark Crusade, now thiat I think about it, the Monolith always fired from the crystal, and at a 360* arc...

Proof...The particle whip fires from the crystal
(The intro to DoW Dark Crusade)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nodA5bxueyo

So we've established two things...

1) DOW is an officially licensed GW product that holds definitive evidence as tohow to use particular units from 40K (totally cool with this as DOW is as close as one can come to logical 40K-manship)

2) Crownaxe is either so nose deep in the rules that he is unable to realize the points being given about a game that has more grey area than his black and white vision will allow him to see, or he is trolling.

Personally, I trust Dawn of War as much as I trust Black Library or Fantasy Flight Games to get stuff right, which isn't all that much.
I'd play it as the Particle Whip is shot from one of the gauss arrays, as the only official ruling ever made states.

I tend to play it as the crystal from the top of the monolith is the weapon. I'd also like to point out to the 'gauss flux arcs = particle whip' people that they are listed as two separate items of wargear in the monolith's profile. This means that they are two separate weapons, not the same thing with different profiles.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
1) DOW is an officially licensed GW product that holds definitive evidence as tohow to use particular units from 40K

It's officially licensed, yes. It's not proof of anything to do with the miniatures game.

Which is a little bit of a shame... I'd love to see the rule that lets a dreanought pick up an enemy model and empty the underslung heavy flamer into it...

Unless they specifically state flat out that the corner guns (or the Flux array), and the Particle whip are the same weapon mount, then they arent.


The crystal on top has always (since back in 3rd edition or earlier) been where the pie plate attack comes from.

Eihnlazer wrote:

The crystal on top has always (since back in 3rd edition or earlier) been where the pie plate attack comes from.

That's not even true

yes it is...

Eihnlazer wrote:
yes it is...

Their was an FAQ through most of 5ed that had you firing from the corner turrets

I think we all know where it's fired from, if you wanna run it in an odd manner that you think is more loyal to GWs rule set, go ahead. Seems odd to me that some folk like to approach this rule set as if it's ironclad.

 CrownAxe wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
yes it is...

Their There was an FAQ through most of 5ed that had you firing from the corner turrets

FTFY

 CrownAxe wrote:

Eihnlazer wrote:
yes it is...

Their was an FAQ through most of 5ed that had you firing from the corner turrets

The Codex Necrons FAQ that made the change was released in 2009. Codex Necrons was released in 2002 and sixth edition was released in 2012. That means for the majority of the codex's life, the majority of the players followed the fluff and used the crystal atop the Monolith for the particle whip (as can be evidenced by a number of threads on the subject here on Dakka).

Regardless, the 2009 FAQ is obsolete. The only valid indicator as to where to draw line of sight for the particle whip is found in the fluff in the codex, and that says it is the crystal atop the Monolith.

Again, channelled through =/= fired from.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Again, channelled through =/= fired from.

And again, channeled through CAN mean fired from.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Again, channelled through =/= fired from.

I already addressed that. We can assume that it does, in fact, mean that the crystal is where the whip emanates from... or we have no guidance whatsover in the current codex as to where it should come from.

One of those interpretations is usefule. The other? Not so much.

So we have official ruling that is outdated vs. vague fluff interpretation/third party representation...

 PrinceRaven wrote:
So we have official ruling that is outdated vs. vague fluff interpretation/third party representation...

Dont forget the "People just want to right representation"... What I find disturbing is that people are pigeon-holing this argument by using resources that technically arent even resources, yet we keep going round and round because it will make someone sleep easy at night knowing they "out-lawyered" a bunch of people about a game... suffice it to say, this thread should probably be locked on account of lack of hard evidence and hard heads.

The only current, valid resource we have is that the crystal is the point the weapon is considered to be at. We know it cannot fire from the flux weapons, as the rules do not say both share a mounting.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
... yet we keep going round and round because it will make someone sleep easy at night knowing they "out-lawyered" a bunch of people about a game...

You have completely misunderstood why most of us spend time on this forum.

We're talking about a game of toy soldiers. I don't get to feeling all superior because I read the rules differently to someone else. I do get some satisfaction from discussing grey areas in the rules so that people can see the different viewpoints and can make up their own minds... and I get some enjoyment out of improving my own understanding of the rules, which comes from going back over rules I thought I knew when someone presents a different perspective on them.

Not everyone argues from a need to be 'win'.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The only current, valid resource we have is that the crystal is the point the weapon is considered to be at. We know it cannot fire from the flux weapons, as the rules do not say both share a mounting.

And those corner bits hardly look like weapons, despite the glow sticks.

And then we have:

 Neorealist wrote:
I'd also like to point out to the 'gauss flux arcs = particle whip' people that they are listed as two separate items of wargear in the monolith's profile. This means that they are two separate weapons, not the same thing with different profiles.

I'd say this is the strongest argument for crystal usage.

Listed as two different weapons = two different modelled guns.

That or my bolter wielding marines have plasma guns when I feel like it. Since when does the plasma gun NEED a round shape, i can paint my bolters blue

I'd benefit greatly if I could shoot my Particle Whip from my Gauss Flayer Arrays, but this seems like shennanigans to get several inches range. I know that's how it would be taken from my gaming group if I tried to pull it off.

Yep. There is no specific rule indicating the crystal on the top (or the gauss flayer arcs on each corner for that matter) are specific weapons on the model. That said given that there are 4 of the latter listed in the wargear section it's pretty simple to presume they represent the guns on each side. It's equally obvious to infer that the Eternity Gate is the portal on the front.

And finally, given it's the only obvious feature left on the model with no specific explanation, it's not hard to infer that the crystal on the top must fire the particle whip. This is even more obvious from every single fluff and officially licenced representation of the vehicle, and was only once ever called into doubt by an outdated FAQ that no longer applies.

The above while not an iron-clad rule; is pretty compelling evidence of intent.

If this is a Rules As Intended argument, is not a previous FAQ outright stating that the particle whip is shot from one of arrays also pretty compelling evidence of intent?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If this is a Rules As Intended argument, is not a previous FAQ outright stating that the particle whip is shot from one of arrays also pretty compelling evidence of intent?

if it still existed? sure. The fact that it has been rendered obsolete by a new FAQ which does 'not' contain such verbiage? Seems to indicate otherwise.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
If this is a Rules As Intended argument, is not a previous FAQ outright stating that the particle whip is shot from one of arrays also pretty compelling evidence of intent?

Not really.
They could of said use the corner guns for simplicities sake.

The fact that this same ruling isn't in the current codex or FAQ is even more compelling that it is no longer the intent.