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.

Kevin949 wrote:So I'm looking at the 4th edition book right now and even then you could move 6" and fire 1 ordnance weapon.

Good for you.

Necrons is a 3rd edition codex.

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:So I'm looking at the 4th edition book right now and even then you could move 6" and fire 1 ordnance weapon.

Good for you.

Necrons is a 3rd edition codex.

As was IG then?

Kevin949 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:So I'm looking at the 4th edition book right now and even then you could move 6" and fire 1 ordnance weapon.

Good for you.

Necrons is a 3rd edition codex.

As was IG then?

IG had two 3rd ed codexes.

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Kevin949 wrote:So I'm looking at the 4th edition book right now and even then you could move 6" and fire 1 ordnance weapon.

Good for you.

Necrons is a 3rd edition codex.

As was IG then?

IG had two 3rd ed codexes.

Hm, just like crons.
Damn, didn't know they were two editions back. *Ugh*

Crons have 3rd edition dex

EDIT: lol, didn't see next page


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is so hard to play with an old dex... GW should really think about that things... Ok, 4th edition codex on few armies, but 2 editions running late?! That just makes me mad

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

People use Lukas?

In the Necron Codex, the Monolith has a rule which says it can move and use the power matrix.

One way the power matrix can be used is as a particle whip. The other is to teleport Necron units.

The particle whip is a weapon.

A vehicle (except fast & skimmers) which moves at cruising speed cannot fire any weapons unless a specific codex entry (like space marine power of the machine spirit) allows it.

A monolith that deep strikes counts as moving at cruising speed.

When 5th edition rules came out, errata were issued for each codex.

If the monolith was going to be allowed to deep strike and fire any weapon (the gauss flux arc or the power matrix) the errata issued by GW would have stated as much.

There is no such specific exemption in the Necron errata.

Therefore a Monolith that deep strikes counts as moving at cruising speed and cannot fire any of its weapons.

Trust me, the lack of rule in GW errata has nothing to do with what they intended
But I agree...

snakel wrote:

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

You can drive in cars.
You can drive in cars, but you cannot drive in red cars.

Which one is more specific?

You can shoot (while moving).
You can shoot (while moving), but cannot shoot at cruising speed.

Which one is more specific?

Edit: To eliminate the guesswork - the second one is more specific, in both cases. I'd imagine that everyone agrees with that. Now, the codex says the monolith may fire its particle whip, even if it moved. That's great. It can move 1" and fire it. It can move 5" and fire it. It can even move 6" and fire it! However, when deep striking, it counts as moving at cruising speed. Now, there is a very specific rule about moving at cruising speed and firing weapons in the BRB. We all know it. The rule in the codex gives the monolith permission to move and fire, not move at cruising speed and fire.

As Gwar! might put it:

How many rules does moving at cruising speed and firing break? 1.

How many rules does moving at cruising speed and not firing break? 0.

You clearly are not an ork.

Everyone knows da red wonz go fasta!

(and it's the 2nd one )

time wizard wrote:In the Necron Codex, the Monolith has a rule which says it can move and use the power matrix.

One way the power matrix can be used is as a particle whip. The other is to teleport Necron units.

The particle whip is a weapon.

A vehicle (except fast & skimmers) which moves at cruising speed cannot fire any weapons unless a specific codex entry (like space marine power of the machine spirit) allows it.

A monolith that deep strikes counts as moving at cruising speed.

When 5th edition rules came out, errata were issued for each codex.

If the monolith was going to be allowed to deep strike and fire any weapon (the gauss flux arc or the power matrix) the errata issued by GW would have stated as much.

There is no such specific exemption in the Necron errata.

Therefore a Monolith that deep strikes counts as moving at cruising speed and cannot fire any of its weapons.

But you assume GW get everything right and never miss anything and maybe they thought like me and felt it did not need clarification

In the end there is not right or wrong answer both are valid arguments it all falls down to who you play and what they think, all the people i play ,that have never use Necrons say the same as me so does it really matter?

snakel wrote:

But you assume GW get everything right and never miss anything and maybe they thought like me and felt it did not need clarification

In the end there is not right or wrong answer both are valid arguments it all falls down to who you play and what they think, all the people i play ,that have never use Necrons say the same as me so does it really matter?

If you can't assume that the rules are complete and correct, what can you assume?

snakel wrote: But you assume GW get everything right and never miss anything and maybe they thought like me and felt it did not need clarification

I would never presume to know what GW thinks. My point was that the opportunity existed to ammend the rule in a fashion similar to space amrine POTMS. There is currently no rule which specifically allows the monolith to move at cruising speed and fire any weapon.

snakel wrote:In the end there is not right or wrong answer both are valid arguments it all falls down to who you play and what they think, all the people i play ,that have never use Necrons say the same as me so does it really matter?

It matters not to me how you play. For the purposes of a rules forum, there is no specific rule allowing the monolith to move at cruising speed and fire any weapon. I play against a necron player who does not think that a monolith can deep strike and fire any weapon.

You can either play by the existing rules or make up anything you wish. Doesn't change what is printed in the codex or rulebook though.

time wizard wrote:

snakel wrote: But you assume GW get everything right and never miss anything and maybe they thought like me and felt it did not need clarification

I would never presume to know what GW thinks. My point was that the opportunity existed to ammend the rule in a fashion similar to space amrine POTMS. There is currently no rule which specifically allows the monolith to move at cruising speed and fire any weapon.

snakel wrote:In the end there is not right or wrong answer both are valid arguments it all falls down to who you play and what they think, all the people i play ,that have never use Necrons say the same as me so does it really matter?

It matters not to me how you play. For the purposes of a rules forum, there is no specific rule allowing the monolith to move at cruising speed and fire any weapon. I play against a necron player who does not think that a monolith can deep strike and fire any weapon.

You can either play by the existing rules or make up anything you wish. Doesn't change what is printed in the codex or rulebook though.

nope different take on language i say it can the English language says it can simple


by your rule you cant use the power matix at all lol if you deepstrke .

The power matix is not a weapon therfore it cant be subject to weapon rules it is infact a power matirx the particlewhip is just the release of energy stored in the matrix

LOL its not a clear rulling and you cant say i am making up rules i just have a different take on the english language than you

snakel wrote:LOL its not a clear rulling

I agree if you were refering to this ruling:

snakel wrote:nope different take on language i say it can the English language says it can simple

kirsanth wrote:

snakel wrote:LOL its not a clear rulling

I agree if you were refering to this ruling:

snakel wrote:nope different take on language i say it can the English language says it can simple

I come from england where we speak english you come form the USA where you speak a version of english but not the the same as the Queens english.

Point in fact the 2 versions differ in many ways prounition ,meaning of certain words and meanings of certain sentances ,so yes we are both right in how we understand the rule but we both uderstand the rule differently

snakel wrote:

I come from England where we speak English you come from the USA where you speak a version of English but not the the same as the Queen's English.

Point in fact the 2 versions differ in many ways pronunciation, meanings of certain words and meanings of certain sentences ,so yes we are both right in how we understand the rule but we both understand the rule differently

Yeah. . . I can't see how you can, with a straight face, question kirsanth on his grasp of English.

snakel wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

snakel wrote:LOL its not a clear rulling

I agree if you were refering to this ruling:

snakel wrote:nope different take on language i say it can the English language says it can simple

I come from england where we speak english you come form the USA where you speak a version of english but not the the same as the Queens english.

Point in fact the 2 versions differ in many ways prounition ,meaning of certain words and meanings of certain sentances ,so yes we are both right in how we understand the rule but we both uderstand the rule differently

You can't hide behind a language defense if you can't prove that a word means something different in the queen's english than it does in american english.

Rephistorch wrote:

snakel wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

snakel wrote:LOL its not a clear rulling

I agree if you were refering to this ruling:

snakel wrote:nope different take on language i say it can the English language says it can simple

I come from england where we speak english you come form the USA where you speak a version of english but not the the same as the Queens english.

Point in fact the 2 versions differ in many ways prounition ,meaning of certain words and meanings of certain sentances ,so yes we are both right in how we understand the rule but we both uderstand the rule differently

You can't hide behind a language defense if you can't prove that a word means something different in the queen's english than it does in american english.

it specificaly states the lith can move and use its power matirx (genral wording for a specific rule )

the BRB states vehicles unless otherwse stated in there codex cant move at crusing speed and shoot (specific wording for a general rule )

There you go

LOL

awww lookit the kitty

snakel wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

snakel wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

snakel wrote:LOL its not a clear rulling

I agree if you were refering to this ruling:

snakel wrote:nope different take on language i say it can the English language says it can simple

I come from england where we speak english you come form the USA where you speak a version of english but not the the same as the Queens english.

Point in fact the 2 versions differ in many ways prounition ,meaning of certain words and meanings of certain sentances ,so yes we are both right in how we understand the rule but we both uderstand the rule differently

You can't hide behind a language defense if you can't prove that a word means something different in the queen's english than it does in american english.

it specificaly states the lith can move and use its power matirx (genral wording for a specific rule )

the BRB states vehicles unless otherwse stated in there codex cant move at crusing speed and shoot (specific wording for a general rule )

There you go

You didn't prove that any of those words mean something different in american english than they do in the queen's english.

The parts of the rules for shooting while moving are more specific in the case of cruising speed than they are in the case of the monolith. Therefore the rules regarding cruising speed are the ones that take precedence. I play necrons btw.

snakel wrote:


it specificaly states the lith can move and use its power matirx (genral wording for a specific rule )

the BRB states vehicles unless otherwse stated in there codex cant move at crusing speed and shoot (specific wording for a general rule )

There you go

In the words of the Dread Pirate Roberts, "Truly you have a dizzying intellect."

I proved the the word move means move ie fast slow it means move however you want to look at it

the lith rule is specific to the lith so it means any move

the fact is there to see

crusing speed is moving no matter what spin you put on it

BRB rule General

lith rule specific

Specific rule beats specific wording in gereral rule

that is simple English

Thanks for the fun argument but i doubt we will ever agree unless its to agree we disagree

snakel wrote:the lith rule is specific to the lith so it means any move

Why do you assert this?

editing to add:
I am refering to the (now) bolded part.

snakel wrote:I proved the the word move means move ie fast slow it means move however you want to look at it

the lith rule is specific to the lith so it means any move

the fact is there to see

crusing speed is moving no matter what spin you put on it

BRB rule General

lith rule specific

Specific rule beats specific wording in gereral rule

that is simple English

Thanks for the fun argument but i doubt we will ever agree unless its to agree we disagree

BRB rule for shooting at cruising speed is specific to the speed of the vehicle. The monolith rule is not. Therefore you use the rule that is more specific to moving at that speed, which is the BRB.

Edit: I'll break it down solely to moving and shooting.

Monolith rules: The monolith may move (no speed mentioned) and use it's power matrix as a weapon.
Vehicle rules: A vehicle moving at cruising speed (12") may not shoot it's weapons.

The vehicle rules are more specific to the current situation (the monolith moving at cruising speed) than the monolith rules are. Therefore, the vehicle rules take precedence.

Ok different angle the lith can only ever move 6"

crusing speed means 6" + so by your arguments the lith can not Deepstrike since its codex specifialy states it cant move more than 6"

snakel wrote:Ok different angle the lith can only ever move 6"

crusing speed means 6" + so by your arguments the lith can not Deepstrike since its codex specifialy states it cant move moe than 6"

DS counts as moving cruising speed.

Note:
It even mentions that immobile units can DS--in fact they may be required to.

snakel wrote:I proved the the word move means move ie fast slow it means move however you want to look at it

So I can move my Leman Russ 24" AND STILL SHOOT? No, I don't think so.