# Different print runs of a Codex.



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

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EDIT Please Do not quote whole passages of your Codex as this is against the old Copyright laws


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

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.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

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


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

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.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

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:


----------



## TYRANIDS (Dec 31, 2006)

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


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

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


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

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!!


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

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!


----------



## TYRANIDS (Dec 31, 2006)

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


----------



## TYRANIDS (Dec 31, 2006)

also they would not recive any master crafted or similar things


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

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:


----------



## TYRANIDS (Dec 31, 2006)

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


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

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.


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

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:


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

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:


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

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:


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

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:


----------



## dakari-mane (Mar 9, 2007)

Viscount Vash said:


> You don't per-chance work for them Dakari-mane?


No just a die-hard fanatic :mrgreen:


----------



## anathema (Jan 24, 2007)

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.


----------



## MarzM (Jan 26, 2007)

Swapping older wrong codex's!

Thats, sadly, about as likey as you walking into a GW on January the 1st and asking whats in the sale, and not being laughed at!


MarzM :mrgreen:


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

dakari-mane said:


> & what does that prove? Nothing. Go to a GW & look for codex V3 or above.


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:


> 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.


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:


> 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.


It's called a telegram. I'd've thought most people would have heard of them at one point in their lives.

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.



dakari-mane said:


> Your codex is out of date. Pay some money to get a new one.


I looked into doing exactly that. Guess what? No change in the ruling.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Uberschveinen typed:



> It's called a telegram. I'd've thought most people would have heard of them at one point in their lives.


LOL I must be one of the older UK members of this site and I have never seen one apart from in movies older than me.
I think they stopped them here in the later 1960s. :lol:


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

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.


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

BUT STOP WHOS STOP ACTUALLY STOP SEEN STOP ONE STOP
These days in the age of texts and e-mails, capitals are universally considered as just shouting.

Anyhoo this is way of thread and my bad too!


----------



## TYRANIDS (Dec 31, 2006)

well i just tried my scaner but unfortunately it doesnt work so i cannot show you wargamers my book



> 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 havnt made a mistake i copied it directly from the codex although my spelling was not up to scratch it is straigth out of my codex apart from physically flying over just to show you is there another way for me to show you yousing me computer that runs off 'snail' power and dial up[/quote]


----------



## the cabbage (Dec 29, 2006)

TYRANIDS said:


> 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


Just plain wrong (IMO) the WEAPONS BASIC strength is the USERS STRENGTH doubled. For a marine this means the basic strength is 8. This is not augmented in any way. (the user is).


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

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.


----------



## dakka artist (Mar 12, 2007)

I wonder how this unaugmented strenght thing would affect ork Zzap guns (being 2D6 Strenght)


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

TYRANIDS said:


> 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


But your example says weapons unaugmented strength, not users, yes or no? The Weapons unagmented strength is 2xusers strength. Course, since none of us can find this codex.... Is it perchance a non-english version?


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

i have found the answer to our problem with the augmented argument, this is directly from the Necron codex FAQ :

When attacking a monolith, extra penetration dice and DOUBLING scores are much the same thing - dont count ANY bonus penetration of ANY sort against a monolith. So no bonuses for multiple Talos attacks, tank hunter, veteran skills, etc.
The ONLY exception is the Vindicare assasin's turbo-penetrator round. as this shell is not bonus penetration as such, it will work. Note that you still roll 2D6 and pick the higher when attacking a monolith with ordnance weapons.

There SOLVED!!!


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

I already said this.

Also, you should get a moderator to blow up some of that triple post.


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

sory, mi internet screws up. yea, and i quoted it so no one can argue about it, and i emphasised the important parts


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

don_mondo said:


> TYRANIDS said:
> 
> 
> > 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
> ...


sory mate tyranids is right. its in my version to AND in the FAQ

oh and its user unaugmented strength, not weapon.


----------



## uberschveinen (Dec 29, 2006)

Alright, then, can YOU post a photograph or a scan or something?


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

yea ill grab a print screen, give me a mo


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

argh, not wanting to work atm, ill try tomorrow


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Well at last it seems to be sorted! Hurrah!

So no Extra d6 except , Ordanance, Vindicare's Turbo penetrator rounds.

Just to be clear the Zzap gun will still roll 2d6 for it strength as its not a penetration die bonus.  

Go look  here

All the other Codex Errata can be found Here

Now wasn't that fun :lol:


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

Ordo Xeno Commander said:


> i have found the answer to our problem with the augmented argument, this is directly from the Necron codex FAQ :
> 
> When attacking a monolith, extra penetration dice and DOUBLING scores are much the same thing - dont count ANY bonus penetration of ANY sort against a monolith. So no bonuses for multiple Talos attacks, tank hunter, veteran skills, etc.
> The ONLY exception is the Vindicare assasin's turbo-penetrator round. as this shell is not bonus penetration as such, it will work. Note that you still roll 2D6 and pick the higher when attacking a monolith with ordnance weapons.
> ...


OK, so no doubling of penetration dice. Got it. So by this quote, there is no effect on a power fist since it doubles STRENGTH, not penetration, right?


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

EDIT When I first put this up it was not clear what I was saying, sorry sloppy work.  



> When attacking a monolith, extra penetration dice and DOUBLING scores are much the same thing - dont count ANY bonus penetration of ANY sort against a monolith. So no bonuses for multiple Talos attacks, tank hunter, veteran skills, etc.
> The ONLY exception is the Vindicare assasin's turbo-penetrator round. as this shell is not bonus penetration as such, it will work. Note that you still roll 2D6 and pick the higher when attacking a monolith with ordnance weapons.


Doubling your strength is NOT a bonus penetration D6 to roll and NOT Doubling your Penetration score from a D6. It is your strength, just your stength and only that and therefore NOT modfied in any way by the Living Metal rule.

Or to put it another way Powerfists give you a strength bonus not a penetration bonus.
Presuming that The Wraithlord still has a toughness (Ain't got that Codex yet.) and not an armour value, you could use this as a rule of thumb 'If it does not help wound a Wraithlord its canceled by the Living Metal rule'.

Now please stop messing with my melon TYRANIDS. :wink:


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Urm vash, i read it, it only talkes about penetration dice, power fist WOULD still get S8, since the two times strength is not specifically for penetration, its for everything, chain vist however do NOT get the extra D6 against lith, i was however wrong before about the veterain skills, i thought they did apply where as it states they do not in the FAQ


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

i think the FAQ needs a re-write but i think refering to the doubling scores it means strength aswell as penetration. when you think about it the extra strength helps penetrate it because a weapons with strength lower the 8 when hitting a monlith doesnt do anything. so the strength is in fact part of penetration as weapons below a certain strength cannot penetrate certain armour.

also it says extra armour penetration and doubling scores are much the same thing, i mean the powerfist doubles your strength score doesnt it.


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

But Strength is used for everything, not just penetration like the examples that were given, its like saying a dread in CC wont get strength 10 attacking a lith witha cread CC weap because its unmodified S is 6, buuuuut the actual weapon your attacking it with is S10, what im saying is the point that was made before, the weapon itself is not a modification! the weapons S for attacking is X, where as X = 2x usersS, so for marine they would be attacking with a S8 weapon


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

yes but the extra strength helps with penetration and the codex and FAQ clearly state that you cannot use any type of penetration assistance except for the Turbo Penetrator round of the Vindicare Temple Assasin


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Yes and so does a dreadnaught CC weap! but as far as i kno that isnt reduced because that IS the actual strength of the weapon, as it is S8 for a space marine power fist!


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

I have re-posted this because I was Editing it when you two answered










EDIT When I first put this up it was not clear what I was saying, sorry sloppy work.  



> When attacking a monolith, extra penetration dice and DOUBLING scores are much the same thing - dont count ANY bonus penetration of ANY sort against a monolith. So no bonuses for multiple Talos attacks, tank hunter, veteran skills, etc.
> The ONLY exception is the Vindicare assasin's turbo-penetrator round. as this shell is not bonus penetration as such, it will work. Note that you still roll 2D6 and pick the higher when attacking a monolith with ordnance weapons.


Doubling your strength is NOT a bonus penetration D6 to roll and NOT Doubling your Penetration score from a D6. It is your strength, just your stength and only that and therefore NOT modfied in any way by the Living Metal rule.

Or to put it another way Powerfists give you a strength bonus not a penetration bonus.
Presuming that The Wraithlord still has a toughness (Ain't got that Codex yet.) and not an armour value, you could use this as a rule of thumb 'If it does not help wound a Wraithlord its canceled by the Living Metal rule'.

Now please stop messing with my melon TYRANIDS. :wink:


----------



## DaemonsR'us (Jan 25, 2007)

Thanks for clearifying Vash


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

ok fine i agree, just trying to make things difficult as usual lol. and now i cant remeber why im arguing, i mean i do play space marines and i have dreads and power fists!! well im happy, now are we gonna end this argument here and mayb lock this thread so no one can argue anymore ??

and thanks for clarifying Vash


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Well I will leave it open for now as there is just a small chance it might get back on topic :lol: 
(I set the topic up as that argument was derailing another post in the first place.  )

Dare I ask he says to himself? Any other changes to other Codeces that anyone has noticed?


----------



## Ordo Xeno Commander (Jan 17, 2007)

um well i havent read the old one, only the new so i wouldnt know if there were any differences


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

Viscount Vash said:


> Dare I ask he says to himself? Any other changes to other Codeces that anyone has noticed?


Yep, there are two print runs of the IG codex out, and they are not marked (as the various print runs of the Chaos codex are). Only difference I've found in the two IG runs is a statement in the TechPriest section that servitors do not count as wargear.


----------



## Lord Alkmie (Jan 10, 2007)

Remember reading something about this in WD, they now stopped FAQ-ing changing stuff like they did with Terminators getting a 5+ inv save.

They believe that it confuses people that didn't read WD or surfed the internet for updates to the rules.

So now if some things get printed wrong or they need to balance things it would only be done with the release of a new codex or main rulebook.

Don't know how this actually will be used, but FAQs are now only clarifying rules no more rewrites.

But I also know for sure that there are variations between first print run and subsequent of the Chaos codex. Can't say any thing about Necrons.


----------



## don_mondo (Jan 28, 2007)

Lord Alkmie said:


> But I also know for sure that there are variations between first print run and subsequent of the Chaos codex. Can't say any thing about Necrons.


Yep, there are actually 4 different print runs of the "current" Chaos codex.


----------

