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.
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"
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.
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 No change in the ruling.dakari-mane said:Your codex is out of date.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.