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.

Don - Unaugmented strength of the powerfist is (2S)

S is increased by FC, but because of the BRB you cannot add this before multiplying, meaning you still have (2(S)) but it is now (2S+1)

The strength of the Powerfist can change - for example if I drop your strength by 1 to 3 your powerfist now strikes at S7

Kitzz wrote:The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Yes, it does, but that particular question is from the previous FAQ, from before the second printing. Doesn't matter anyways tho, as nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission to move before teleporting through the Monolith. Without something that does so, the rule in the codex stands, regardless of obsolete FAQs. Just like the old main rules FAQ did not make IG commanders ICs just because they didn't remove an FAQ about IG command squad ICs.

Nos, sure, PF strength can change. My IG use it, it's ST 6, a Marine uses it, it's ST 8, an Ork Warboss uses it, it's ST 10. But IMO, Furious Charge is not part of the PF st. Heck, you even say that the unaugmented strength is 2s, not 2s plus any modifiers to st. And if it's not part of the unaugmented ST or the d6, you don't get it against Living Metal.

Youre now conflating model and weapon

LM cares about the weapon strength, which in the case of something based on the users strenth is ALWAYS a variable.
FC modifies the strength of the model

Altering the strength of the model does not, by definition, modify the strength of the powerfist.

For example: Hammerhand. This IS explicitly before multiplying, so would you claim theyre not S10 hammers but S8 ones instead?

Hammer with hammerhand - S(weapon) = 2 * (4+1) = 2 * S(user)
Hammer without hammer hand - weapon S = 2* (4) = 2 * S(user)

No, hammerhand works because it is before multiplying, which makes it part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.
FC does not work because it is after multiplying, which means it is not part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.

Except in both cases they are modifying the same thing: user strength

Are they modifying the power fists strength? No, in both cases.

If you can claim they are modifying the *powerfists* strength, then you are right.

don_mondo wrote:No, hammerhand works because it is before multiplying, which makes it part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.
FC does not work because it is after multiplying, which means it is not part of the unaugmented ST of the PF.

Imaginary rule is imaginary.

Really, double the strength is a modifier just like +1 strength is. It even says so in the BRB. Have you got any rules to back you up at all?

Yes, the GW FAQ that says Powerfists work against Living Metal..................
Your turn, do you have anything for Furious Charge? Didn't think so.

You dont need the FAQ to know Pfists work. Weapon /= user

Don - your argument is inconsistent. In both cases, FC and HH, you are modifying the strength of the user which in turn alters the variable S(powerfist) - but because of a quirk in how this modification occurs you allow one and not the other?

you do because it dosent mention FC in the FAQ. the rules for the monolith are very clear, base strength and a single d6. i was inclined to not have a power fist work until the FAQ changed that. powerfist and the like work but anything else that alters base strength will not. With as specific as it is in the living metal rules you need to be equally specific in the faq.

What part of "weapon /= model" are you struggling with?

The unaugmented strength of the weapon is what the monolith cares about - and the unaugmented strength of a powerfist is a variable, based on the users strength.

Just b/c a strength is variable does not mean that it ignores the living metal rules. Eldar melta weapons are variable strength b/c they arent all the same as the strength of a melta gun. This does not mean that they ignore living metal. There is no base line of normalcy in wargear, ranged or otherwise. Just b/c something can be diffrent doesnt mean it can break the rules unless it says it can. Furious charge changes your strength thus it is not at base strength and is ignored. The FAQ randomly decides that powerfists work, that does not mean that something it makes no mention of does. It's that simple. I dont care if its weapon strength or model strength, it dosent apply.

1) seriously, reread the monolith rules, and note the specific use of the word WEAPON in the rules there.

You talk about ignoring rules, and you are ignoring a very specific term and conflating two wildy differing terms. This is known as "not a good argument"

2) SOrry, Eldar Melta weapons are variable strength? Um, no, theyre not. You're just spouting nonsense here.

Vindicare-obsession but fixed wrote:Furious charge changes your strength thus it is not at base strength and isnt ignored because the monlith rule ONLY cares about the base strength of the weapon and not the strength of the user, it says so right there in the rules

See now? The FAQ didnt "randomly "decide that powerfist always worked, they just clarified that, whe nthey said "weapon" they didnt mean "well, actually anything" like you are suggesting.

You tell me where in the faq they said "oh BTW the living metal only applies to ranged weapons and not to a models cc attacks" and ill concede the point. The fact that there was a need for the entry on the powerfist only states that they wanted the power fist to work. They made no mention of anything else so anything else still dosent work.

Oh and ont the topic of the eldar melta i do concede. i was looking at the lance weapons.

Sigh. Fallacious argument is fallacious.

Read your Necron CODEX, note the monlith entry talks about WEAPONS and their unaugmented strength.

If you attack using a powerfist, are you hitting the model with your bare fists? No. You are using a weapon. And the unaugmented strength of a power fist is 2S. Yes, this is not the same as the models strength - but LM doesnt care about the models strenght, only the weapon.

So no, your "fact" is no such thing.

don_mondo wrote:

Kitzz wrote:The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Yes, it does, but that particular question is from the previous FAQ, from before the second printing. Doesn't matter anyways tho, as nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission to move before teleporting through the Monolith. Without something that does so, the rule in the codex stands, regardless of obsolete FAQs. Just like the old main rules FAQ did not make IG commanders ICs just because they didn't remove an FAQ about IG command squad ICs.

Wait, did I forget how to read or something?

Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a
Monolith’s portal move after emerging?
A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit)
hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the
unit has already moved before being teleported,
it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if
it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and
then move normally.

So basically what you're saying is that if you have the older codex and go by the FAQ then you get to move and teleport in any order. BUT if you have the newer codex you CAN'T go off the FAQ and you get screwed? Uh, something doesn't seem right. Maybe it's just me but shouldn't EVERYONE play by the same rule(s)?

don_mondo wrote:

Kitzz wrote:The FAQ has a later release date than the second printing of the Necron codex.

Yes, it does, but that particular question is from the previous FAQ, from before the second printing. Doesn't matter anyways tho, as nowhere in the FAQ does it grant permission to move before teleporting through the Monolith. Without something that does so, the rule in the codex stands, regardless of obsolete FAQs. Just like the old main rules FAQ did not make IG commanders ICs just because they didn't remove an FAQ about IG command squad ICs.

What? The question is in the latest FAQ written WELL after the silent Necron codex update. FAQ directly states a Monolith can teleport a unit that moves, and said unit can only "disembark" from the Monolith.

There hasn't been an codex update since 2004 (which were made from from Chapter Updates) so the FAQ trumps the codex.

How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

TGA - the codex does not let you do it. Specific trumps general, not newer trumps older. That way madness (well, an unplayable game) lies

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - the codex does not let you do it. Specific trumps general, not newer trumps older. That way madness (well, an unplayable game) lies

Buuut...both the codex AND the faq are specific. Both contradict one another. The simplest answer is to have everyone play off of the FAQ as it IS the newest release of the rules updates for the necrons. It doesn't matter if "some of the rules have been answered in a newer codex", the fact remains that GW didn't specify WHAT rules in the FAQ had been answered already and the answer in the FAQ to this rule doesn't even jive with the reprinted codex. And if you look at this from the point of view of someone who hasn't been playing long, they see it as "hey, my codex says it was printed in 2002 and it's a second printing, but this FAQ that these guys on this forum pointed me to is from 2009 so it must be more up to date to keep it in spec with the 5th edition rules update. I'll print out this FAQ and keep it with me so I can review it when I need to."

there is one solution in all of this, force your opponent to let you play without phase out! xD (works very well for me since they want a challange)

Stonerhino wrote:How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

So we ignore the FAQ's? Is that what you are suggesting? The FAQ specifically details how a unit that has moved is 'ported through the Monolith.

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

So we ignore the FAQ's? Is that what you are suggesting? The FAQ specifically details how a unit that has moved is 'ported through the Monolith.

GW's Necron FAQ wrote:Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging?

A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally

If the FAQ said "Q. Can a unit that has already moved be teleported by the monolith's portal ability. A. Yes". Then you would have a leg to stand on. The current FAQ (the one I quoted) does not say that. But if there was a way for the unit to be teleported after it had already moved then they would be subject to "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal" part of the FAQ. Since at this point in time the codex does not allow that action, that part of the FAQ is meaningless.

The fact remains that rule in the newest printing of the codex does not allow a unit to be teleported after it has moved. It does not matter what the FAQ says to do after the moved unit was teleported, because it cannot happen. And untill it can happen, it's just extra words typed on the interwebs by GW.

It should also be noted that GW officially says:

GW about FAQs wrote:The FAQs on the other hand are very much 'soft' material. They deal with more of a grey area, where often there is no right and wrong answer - in a way, they are our own 'Studio House Rules'.

So no FAQs can not and do not overide the actual writen rule. Those are Erratas and they have that autority because:

GW about erratas wrote:The Errata have the same level of 'authority' as the main rules, as they effectively modify the published material.

But if you don't believe me you can go Here. And see for yourself.

Stonerhino wrote:

TheGreatAvatar wrote:

Stonerhino wrote:How do you justify a FAQ trumping the codex. Especially when the FAQ does not grant the permission to do what the codex says you cannot do???

So we ignore the FAQ's? Is that what you are suggesting? The FAQ specifically details how a unit that has moved is 'ported through the Monolith.

GW's Necron FAQ wrote:Q. Can a Necron unit that teleports through a Monolith’s portal move after emerging?

A. Only if the Monolith (and the teleporting unit) hasn’t already moved that Movement phase. If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal; if it hasn’t already moved, it may deploy out 2" and then move normally

If the FAQ said "Q. Can a unit that has already moved be teleported by the monolith's portal ability. A. Yes". Then you would have a leg to stand on. The current FAQ (the one I quoted) does not say that. But if there was a way for the unit to be teleported after it had already moved then they would be subject to "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, it may only be deployed within 2" of the portal" part of the FAQ. Since at this point in time the codex does not allow that action, that part of the FAQ is meaningless.

The fact remains that rule in the newest printing of the codex does not allow a unit to be teleported after it has moved. It does not matter what the FAQ says to do after the moved unit was teleported, because it cannot happen. And untill it can happen, it's just extra words typed on the interwebs by GW.

What are you talking about? That's EXACTLY WHAT IT SAYS! The question is asking if you CAN MOVE AFTER BEING TELEPORTED and the faq is saying YES YOU CAN MOVE BUT ONLY IF THE UNIT AND LITH DIDN'T PREVIOUSLY MOVE, the problem is that people are saying you can't even be teleported after you've moved the unit and that is incorrect, by the FAQ, because it says YOU CAN MOVE AFTER BEING TELEPORTED OR IF YOU ALREADY MOVED YOU CAN ONLY DEPLOY WITHIN 2".

I even bolded and biggened the part for you. Yes I know that's not a word.

"Can a Unit teleport after it had already moved that movement phase"??? The rules say "No". Untill the rules say that yes a unit can move before they are teleported (which they currently do not) that part of the FAQ is not saying anything. It might as well say "If the unit has already moved before being teleported, then the Necrons auto win that game" since it still can not happen. Because as long as the real rules (the ones that are not "Studio house rules") say you can not do something you can not do it, no matter what something that is not a rule says. This is even more true when the "Studio house rule" tells you what to do if something happens, when in game it can't happen.

You have to come up with something a lot better then "An FAQ tells us to do this when something that the current rules prevent from happening happens". As a reason as to why it can happen and overule the actual rules.

Forgive my ignorance, but is that something new in the second revision of the codex? My copy mentions nothing of the sort.

@WanderingFox: Yes, there were multiple printings.

Honestly, it surprises me that GWAR! seems to have come back from the dead, what with all this talk of "FAQs don't count." I'm sure Tyranid players will enjoy their Doom of Malan'tai even more again, now that it can affect units embarked in transports.

Even if you don't want to follow the "FAQs don't count" thought process, please realize that to be consistent you will now have to remove all tacit assumptions from rulings based on FAQs. I know of at least one relevant case in point:

Q. How many units in an army with Mad Dok Grotsnik
can be upgraded to have cybork bodies? Are there any
restrictions (apart from non-vehicle) or can it even be
Gretchin or Independent Characters? (p59)

A. Any number of units can be upgraded. This includes
Gretchin (Super-Gretchin! Cool conversions, but a bit
expensive at 8 pts per model!) and Independent
Characters (except for unique characters), effectively
giving them a 5 pt discount on the cybork body
upgrade.

And if we want to use this "ignore implied rulings" stuff, there are several pictures and rules in the BGB and other books people misinterpret quite often that might suddenly make the waters much more murky.

I'm aware there were multiple printings... I was looking for the actual changed/added text as I do not own the newer codex.

Kitzz wrote:And if we want to use this "ignore implied rulings" stuff, there are several pictures and rules in the BGB and other books people misinterpret quite often that might suddenly make the waters much more murky.

I think you are misunderstanding what's being said.

The FAQ in question is telling you what to do if something that is against the rules happened. Which does not give permission for the restricted action to be attemted. Just how it would be done if you could. So that part of the FAQ is useless.

Which is different then just saying to ignore any FAQ ruling.

If I may make an observation...

I'm not sure what the specific rule in question is since no one has posted the exact wording (unless I've missed it?), but the very beginning of the latest Necron codex explains why that part of the FAQ is written as such.

Assuming that the updated rule in question is that a unit cannot move before being ported through the monolith, that means that there is a deviation between the two revisions as the 2002 version does not state such a restriction.

However, the beginning of the FAQ starts with the following:

Some of the information in this document has
already been incorporated in later editions of the
Necron Codex. We have decided to leave them
here for people that might own an older version
of the Codex. If you are using a more recent
edition, please ignore any redundant information

That makes it rather obvious that the ambiguous wording of the FAQ is to allow provision for both editions of the codex to be clarified by the entry since the clause in question specifically covers the situation allowed by the 2002 codex.

This, of course, does not resolve the fact that using the older codex and the FAQ allows for a different ruling than the newer codex and the FAQ, but it does clarify why it was written as such.

In my opinion, the FAQ was written as such due to the obvious confusion that surrounds the whole second revision of the codex thing.

Just a thought.