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.
Different print runs of a Codex.
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:
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EDIT Please Do not quote whole passages of your Codex as this is against the old Copyright laws
(I now know that his is the newer one.)
Tyranids wrote:
My codex does not say this at all!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"
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EDIT Please Do not quote whole passages of your Codex as this is against the old Copyright laws
1 - 8 of 53 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
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
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.
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.
That's exactly what I've done. Not only that, but looked for every other version of the codex I could find, to see if there was a trace anywhere of this rule. There wasn't.dakari-mane said:& what does that prove? Nothing. Go to a GW & look for codex V3 or above.
What you're saying is, then, that there would have been a FAQ on this question for the period of time before the printing of this new codex. Curiously enough, there is no evidence of this FAQ whatsoever. If it had indeed changed, I would have hoped at least one person on one of the major fora would have noticed it and posted about it.dakari-mane said: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.
It's called a telegram. I'd've thought most people would have heard of them at one point in their lives.dakari-mane said: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.
As for my last point, I brought it out because TYRANIDS sounded exactly like what I do when I know I've made a mistake, but can't admit it.
I looked into doing exactly that. Guess what? No change in the ruling.dakari-mane said:Your codex is out of date. Pay some money to get a new one.
I know they stopped using them. I didn't know they stopped telling people about them, given that they were the primary means of communication for a few centuries. They certainly were a more significant communications revolution than anything else since.
Fine. If your codex is genuinely different, then somebody else will have the same codex with the same sentence. If somebody can find a person with a codex from the exact same period, this argument will finally die.
I already said this.
Also, you should get a moderator to blow up some of that triple post.
Also, you should get a moderator to blow up some of that triple post.
Alright, then, can YOU post a photograph or a scan or something?
1 - 8 of 53 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Warhammer 40k Forum and Wargaming Forums
A forum community dedicated to Warhammer, Warhammer 40K enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about Warhammer and Wargaming collections, miniatures, tactics, terrain, reviews, accessories, history, displays, models, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
Recommended Communities
