Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums banner

1 - 20 of 53 Posts

·
Powered by Squig Tea
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Just had a chat with TYRANIDS the Living Metal rule on the Monolith and it seems that we have different things printed in our Codex.
(I now know that his is the newer one.)

Tyranids wrote:

I was looking at the codex when I wrote it "any weapon attacking the Monolith will roll for armour penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single D6 no matter what"
My codex does not say this at all!


It is fairly common fo GW to edit a later print run of a Codex without saying they have which can cause some annoying and un-needed auguments and disscusions.

If you have spotted any of these list them here so that we can all save time and much angst.

EDIT Please Do not quote whole passages of your Codex as this is against the old Copyright laws
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
It doesn't say this in mine, and it's the first print run in Australia. In fact, it doesn't even use the language tonation TYRANIDS wrote in, so I call shenanigans. It sounds a lot like what a person would abbreviate the rule to.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
804 Posts
Um the one i looked at says nothing about unagmented strength, but it does limit your penetration dice to one when you would normally get two
I.E melta, chain fist, monstrous creature, rending
It does not though elimitate the 2D6 for ordinance allowing you to pick the highest result
Does not say a think about aguemented strength as well power fist and skills such as furious charge still get their strength bonuses against it
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,822 Posts
DaemonsR'us said:
Does not say a think about aguemented strength as well power fist and skills such as furious charge still get their strength bonuses against it
Actually, a power fist would be OK under the quote posted. "Any WEAPON attacking the Monolith". The unaumented strength of a Power FIst is two times that of it's wielder. Weapon strength, not unaugmewnted user strength.
So I could be difficult and state that anything that augments the strength of a model (Furious Charge....) would still work, since that modifies the user's strength, not the weapon strength.........

Oh yeah, to answer the question, I haven't seen the phrase he quotes either, Have to poke around.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Yeah GW are really bad for this rubbish. They try to slip things in because they didn't play test things properly in the first place. God only knows how many changes they have made to the chao's codex! One of the re-incarnations even imply's that a Slaanesh model with a doom siren will alway hit on initative, regardless of the weapon used ie I5 powerfists!


MarzM :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
i will qoute half the passage i got my codex bout 3 months ago on christams so

"Similiarly, weapons that get aditional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monsterouscreatures or melta weapons) do not get the xtra dice against the monolith. Ordanence weapons still roll 2d6 Armour Penetration and select the highest score.In practice, any weapon attacking the monlith will roll for Armour Penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what.

also the powerfists double users strengt is augmented so you would only be using str4 or str 5 powerfists against the model however its users weapon so furious charge and toxin sacs would still be still fine as they add to the models profile unlike the powerfist wich uses double the models strength a.k.a augmented
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
ATTENTION: SEMANTICS ABUSERS

THERE IS NO MENTION OF ANYTHING OTHER THAN PENETRATION DICE AND REDUCING ARMOUR IN THE CODEX STOP

IN ADDITION THERE IS NO USE OF THE WORD UNAUGMENTED ANYWHERE IN THE CODEX STOP

AS SUCH THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR THIS PERVERSE INTERPRETATION OF A RULE STOP

PLEASE CEASE AND DESIST STOP

UBERSCHVEINEN
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,717 Posts
How about orks krak stikkbomz (sorry no codex) they use 1d6 x 2 plus strength. That's only one dice but apparently its been covered and don't get the x 2.

Knickers!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,717 Posts
TYRANIDS said:
i will qoute half the passage i got my codex bout 3 months ago on christams so

"Similiarly, weapons that get aditional Armour Penetration dice (such as chainfists, monsterouscreatures or melta weapons) do not get the xtra dice against the monolith. Ordanence weapons still roll 2d6 Armour Penetration and select the highest score.In practice, any weapon attacking the monlith will roll for Armour Penetration using its unaugmented strength and a single d6 no matter what.

also the powerfists double users strengt is augmented so you would only be using str4 or str 5 powerfists against the model however its users weapon so furious charge and toxin sacs would still be still fine as they add to the models profile unlike the powerfist wich uses double the models strength a.k.a augmented
Even if we could forgive the random use of the word "unaugmented" the rule clearly covers the strength and penetration of the weapon not the bearer. The basic strength of a powerfist carried by a marine for example is 8!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
yes however it is users stregth times two wich makes it augmented so that means they would only use the bearers stregth as any other weapon would weapons such as venom cannons would not recive the +2 strength
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Yeah ork tankbusta bombs don't work against Monoliths! I think orks have a really problem against them!

But then again, the ork player could just keep shooting rokkits and then just beat up the Necrons themself!

MarzM :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
76 Posts
yeah so true why dnt they just launch themselves from a cannon at the portal to knock em back as they comeout

and then like shoot random rockets and hope to hit something
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
801 Posts
Tyranids, there is no such phrase in any of the editions I've ever seen, and I've been researching that since you first made this unsupported claim. My own codex, the ones of all the people near me, and roughly twelve from other countries do not have that wording.

Not only this, but if the rule had ihad actually changed between printings, Games Workshop would have released a FAQ for it, or updated the old one to include it. They have learned what happens when different things say different things last edition, and want it to happen again about as much as I do. As there is ZERO mention of this change in the rule, reference to this change, or even the component words of this rule broken down and put into seperate sentences, there has been no change.

Until such a time as you post a scan or photograph of this mythical sentence that seems only to exist in your unique 'special edition' codex, it simply doesn't exist. I believe even the moderators of this board would be happy to let you do so for a few minutes before deleting it for legal reasons, if only to kill this overblown non-issue.

If you read it wrong, just admit it. Nobody cares if you misread something, since everybody does. Blowing up epic debate about a rule to make you feel better won't do anything to help you once the bubble is popped. even then, at this point I'd be more than willing to pretend none of this ever happened if you do, because this is getting ridiculous.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
uberschveinen said:
Tyranids, there is no such phrase in any of the editions I've ever seen, and I've been researching that since you first made this unsupported claim. My own codex, the ones of all the people near me, and roughly twelve from other countries do not have that wording.
& what does that prove? Nothing. Go to a GW & look for codex V3 or above.

uberschveinen said:
Not only this, but if the rule had ihad actually changed between printings, Games Workshop would have released a FAQ for it, or updated the old one to include it. They have learned what happens when different things say different things last edition, and want it to happen again about as much as I do. As there is ZERO mention of this change in the rule, reference to this change, or even the component words of this rule broken down and put into seperate sentences, there has been no change.
Incorrect. GW will often update a FAQ then once the codex has been updated remove the now superfluous bits from it. A good example of this would be the T5 Obliterators from the early versions of the chaos codex. They were later changed to T4(5) in a FAQ. The codex was then updated & the FAQ changed leaving a lot of people wandering round with chaos codex's showing their oblits as T5. Which is wrong.

uberschveinen said:
Until such a time as you post a scan or photograph of this mythical sentence that seems only to exist in your unique 'special edition' codex, it simply doesn't exist. I believe even the moderators of this board would be happy to let you do so for a few minutes before deleting it for legal reasons, if only to kill this overblown non-issue.

If you read it wrong, just admit it. Nobody cares if you misread something, since everybody does. Blowing up epic debate about a rule to make you feel better won't do anything to help you once the bubble is popped. even then, at this point I'd be more than willing to pretend none of this ever happened if you do, because this is getting ridiculous.
Your lack of netiquette & frankly rude manner do you no favours. As for the post above where you were screaming like a wounded monkey I can only hope it is not a reflection of your regular behaviour.

Your codex is out of date. Pay some money to get a new one. Nobber :roll:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Viscount Vash said:
If you have spotted any of these list them here so that we can all save time and much angst.
Things to look out for:
Early CSM codex has T5 obliterators.
Newer Ork codex has removed opponents consent from the special characters.


Word :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
954 Posts
Thats true! My chao's codex is the origional, so it shows oblits at T 5. I really should buy the new one with all the updates, buy really. Why should i spend more of my money because again GW buggered up again, and then tried to paste over the top of it?


MarzM :mrgreen:
 

·
Powered by Squig Tea
Joined
·
7,589 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
I personally do not expect to have to buy multiple copies of each codex per edition of the game and the problem with that is GW do not recall the edited versions from their shops ( or the poor old independent traders) when they issue a new one anyway. (They should print "revised and the date in different print runs like any real publishing house would.)
This means that it can be pot luck as to how old your 'new' codex actually is. (my mate bought a Chaos one two months ago And it still had T5 oblits in it! :? .)

Classic GW "Oh we messed it up, ho hum we will just get the players to shell out for another one" attitude. You don't per-chance work for them Dakari-mane?

Right I think I best go and get my tablets. :lol: :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
325 Posts
Viscount Vash said:
You don't per-chance work for them Dakari-mane?
No just a die-hard fanatic :mrgreen:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
333 Posts
The absolute minimum, and this isn't really difficult, is to release notification of the change of wording etc. in WD including copy'n'paste ready sections like they used to do. Then release a new codex, content in the knowledge that everyone has an up to date codex, even if some of it has a sheet of clarifications stuck to it.
Or let people swap their old incorrect one for a new one without having to pay. Its their screw up, sofware companies release patches etc. for free. Its poor customer service when people don't even know that a new version has been released. See the Witchhunters rhinos now getting repair rolls in later prints. No-one even knew about it.
 
1 - 20 of 53 Posts
Top