Huh? I don't see an answer to the question there.

Chris: paragraph 2.

Although WTN, and Kharn(sorry Gwar I never need to use the funny arrow above the a letter so I have no idea how to type it) vs Flayed ones/the deciever(or nightbringer, or maybe all C'tan) is another major issue where the 2 models have equal and opposite rules(but I believe in the more updated version of the Necron Codex both those unit's rules are ignored by fearless models, so we can ignore Kharn)

Additionally Gwar you may want to change some of the language in your FAQ: specifically instead of the named: frag Grenades, you should change it to "defensive + Assault Grenades". That way you are, y'know, referencing rules

Gwar! you keep answering the wrong question. You keep answering how you read the rules, and i am asking if it is written anywhere that they should be read the way you do it.

Off topic. That "FAQ" you posted.

A- Dont know where you got it from, but that is not on the GW one. At best is your extension on the GW one.

B- Walkers do have a WS right there on their profile in black and white.

C- This is a good example of why "more general" does not cut it. The WTN defines combat rules For every single model, the wearer might encounter regardless of its size or classification. That in my book is pretty damn specific. Specific or Generic depends on your point of view. I could argue that walkers rules are less specific, as they leave space for any sort of rules the model in question might have regarding modifying combat situations, they serve as a general guideline, where the WTN, specifically override any particular rules or attributes any model in the game might have. Or as many others might know it best, is the glass half empty or half full?.

This is like trying to argue that the mathematical expression for a straight line is more specific than the expression of a plain, simply because it defines "less" (yes this is a mathematical nightmare, bare with me it is just to illustrate a point) amounts of points.

But this leads to something i was interested in not disusing which is specific rules issues.

xxvaderxx wrote:Gwar! you keep answering the wrong question. You keep answering how you read the rules, and i am asking if it is written anywhere that they should be read the way you do it.

Off topic. That "FAQ" you posted.

A- Dont know where you got it from, but that is not on the GW one. At best is your extension on the GW one.

B- Walkers do have a WS right there on their profile in black and white.

C- This is a good example of why "more general" does not cut it. The WTN defines combat rules For every single model, the wearer might encounter regardless of its size or classification. That in my book is pretty damn specific. Specific or Generic depends on your point of view. I could argue that walkers rules are less specific, as they leave space for any sort of rules the model in question might have regarding modifying combat situations, they serve as a general guideline, where the WTN, specifically override any particular rules or attributes any model in the game might have. Or as many others might know it best, is the glass half empty or half full?.

This is like trying to argue that the mathematical expression for a straight line is more specific than the expression of a plain, simply because it defines "less" (yes this is a mathematical nightmare, bare with me it is just to illustrate a point) amounts of points.

But this leads to something i was interested in not disusing which is specific rules issues.

What GWAR! is saying is that the "attacks" are not the same as grenade usage against vehicles, and in this instance, walkers. The rule on using grenades against vehicles are more specific than the rules used for "attacking". Therefore they take precedence over rules that modify "attacks". Also, as GWAR! said, walkers that are not stunned/immobilized specifically state that the grenade usage is only successful on the roll of a 6.

Rephistorch wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Gwar! you keep answering the wrong question. You keep answering how you read the rules, and i am asking if it is written anywhere that they should be read the way you do it.

Off topic. That "FAQ" you posted.

A- Dont know where you got it from, but that is not on the GW one. At best is your extension on the GW one.

B- Walkers do have a WS right there on their profile in black and white.

C- This is a good example of why "more general" does not cut it. The WTN defines combat rules For every single model, the wearer might encounter regardless of its size or classification. That in my book is pretty damn specific. Specific or Generic depends on your point of view. I could argue that walkers rules are less specific, as they leave space for any sort of rules the model in question might have regarding modifying combat situations, they serve as a general guideline, where the WTN, specifically override any particular rules or attributes any model in the game might have. Or as many others might know it best, is the glass half empty or half full?.

This is like trying to argue that the mathematical expression for a straight line is more specific than the expression of a plain, simply because it defines "less" (yes this is a mathematical nightmare, bare with me it is just to illustrate a point) amounts of points.

But this leads to something i was interested in not disusing which is specific rules issues.

What GWAR! is saying is that the "attacks" are not the same as grenade usage against vehicles, and in this instance, walkers. The rule on using grenades against vehicles are more specific than the rules used for "attacking". Therefore they take precedence over rules that modify "attacks". Also, as GWAR! said, walkers that are not stunned/immobilized specifically state that the grenade usage is only successful on the roll of a 6.

I know what he meant and why he said it. I dont care about the WTN, i did not want this thread to be centered about any specific rule, it is not about that. What i am questioning is the assumption and logic, dictates that "the description of a single event" is more specific than "the description of every single event". And even if that is the way it is supposed to be done, baring the gross language and logic issues, if it is backed by GW anywhere or it is a simple general assumption.

xxvaderxx wrote:

I know what he meant and why he said it. I dont care about the WTN, i did not want this thread to be centered about any specific rule, it is not about that. What i am questioning is the assumption and logic, dictates that "the description of a single event" is more specific than "the description of every single event". And even if that is the way it is supposed to be done, baring the gross language and logic issues, if it is backed by GW anywhere or it is a simple general assumption.

Ok, well single events are more specific than descriptions of the general ruling of "all events". "All events" is not the same as "Every single event". Every single event would imply that the rulebook has described every possible different outcome to a group of events.

GWAR! is again 110% correct. Life and logic work by the specific overriding the general, and so do the rules to most games.

Example: Monopoly.
General: Roll the dice, land on a square, and try to bankrupt the other players by investing in property. When you land on a property you can buy it.
Specific: If the property is owned, and not mortgaged, you owe rent, and can not buy that property.

It just can't work the other way around.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Chris: paragraph 2.

It's all his personal opinion Kel (which he knows full well and is regularly warned about ho-hum). I for example feel that a single piece of wargear in a single codex with a single ability to affect the chance to hit in close combat is far more specific than the situational requirments for hitting a walker in CC.

Rephistorch wrote:
Every single event would imply that the rulebook has described every possible different outcome to a group of events.

And that is exactly what they do, you are mistaking a "Formula" description as being less specific than an "Extensive" description. Rules do this all the time, it has more to do with word economy than with a reasoning behind it.

I could say:

A- {0,2,4,5,6,8,10} are the pair numbers from 0 to 10.

B- The pair numbers from 0 to 10 are those that can be divided by 2 and have rest=0.

Neither way is more specific, A seems so because of the small amount of numbers i am taking, would i have done so the same for 0 to 9999999999999999, then i would still be tipping 2 years from now.

When rules state:

"IF A then B Else C" Rules over every single even in the game, it is not less specific than the first example i gave.

It would rather seem that the requirement apply a specific rule to a specific use by a specific unit with specific wargear is more specific than a specific rule to a general use by a specific unit with specific wargear.

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

kirsanth wrote:It would rather seem that the requirement apply a specific rule to a specific use by a specific unit with specific wargear is more specific than a specific rule to a general use by a specific unit with specific wargear.

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

Your hit it dead on, thats my point, "more specific" as any other comparison, depends on the point of view, which could change from person to person "Is the glass half empty or half full".


Either way, it would seem that there is no official ruling on which logic should be applied.

The easiest way to counter GWAR!'s point would be to cite an example wherein a more general codex rule trumps a more specific BRB rule- there are numerous examples of Specific>General (many of which are Codex>BRB) but I'm at a loss to think of a General Codex > Specific BRB situation.

kartofelkopf wrote:The easiest way to counter GWAR!'s point would be to cite an example wherein a more general codex rule trumps a more specific BRB rule- there are numerous examples of Specific>General (many of which are Codex>BRB) but I'm at a loss to think of a General Codex > Specific BRB situation.

Yeah, well to me it does make more sense that Codex, supersede BRB, otherwise why print them in the first place. But i can also see why would some one think otherwise. Guess best solution would be to reach a compromise and announce it before an event, instead of having judges come up with rulings out of their magic black box.

xxvaderxx wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It would rather seem that the requirement apply a specific rule to a specific use by a specific unit with specific wargear is more specific than a specific rule to a general use by a specific unit with specific wargear.

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

Your hit it dead on, thats my point, "more specific" as any other comparison, depends on the point of view, which could change from person to person "Is the glass half empty or half full".


Either way, it would seem that there is no official ruling on which logic should be applied.

Then I disagree or you read it wrong. The word "general" is in that quote on purpose.

kirsanth wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

kirsanth wrote:It would rather seem that the requirement apply a specific rule to a specific use by a specific unit with specific wargear is more specific than a specific rule to a general use by a specific unit with specific wargear.

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

Your hit it dead on, thats my point, "more specific" as any other comparison, depends on the point of view, which could change from person to person "Is the glass half empty or half full".


Either way, it would seem that there is no official ruling on which logic should be applied.

Then I disagree or you read it wrong. The word "general" is in that quote on purpose.

May be, but i see no quotes. If you disagree then you are basically saying that someones perception is absolute, which is rather scary =P.

If i say, you hit every model on 2+. I am saying You hit model A with 2+, you Hit model B with 2+, You hit model C with 2+, You hit model D with 2+, You hit model E with 2+, You hit model F with 2+, add infinitum. It is rather complicated to be any more specific than that.

You mean like you are implying yours is?

Or just the rules in relation to how you read them?

You quoted me saying "general" once other than when I called you out for missing it. . .

kirsanth wrote:You mean like you are implying yours is?

Or just the rules in relation to how you read them?

You quoted me saying "general" once other than when I called you out for missing it. . .

No i am not, i am simply pointing out that it is not a perfect logic, unlike most take it as a given to be. As such, i dont see a good reason why it is the default one and asked if GW has said either way.

Problem lies with the system used. It tryes to mimic the Axiomatic definitions used on Mathematics, but unlike in mathematics where you build on them, here they are constantly being redefined.

xxvaderxx wrote:
No i am not, i am simply pointing out that it is not a perfect logic, unlike most take it as a given to be. As such, i dont see a good reason why it is the default one and asked if GW has said either way.

kirsanth wrote:
So, correct me if I am wrong, but you are asking "Does GW write 100% foolproof rules?"
Because, if so, the simple answer is "no".

There is a LOT that could (should?!) be added for clarity.

Has GW said that its specific rules replace the general rules that are used in their stead? No.

Has GW said that its newer rules replace the older rules than may require or reference them? No.

Is there a way to find a logical answer to everything from GW? No.

What am I missing? I will try to fill in the gaps you miss as well as is possible.

Can logic be used to deduce that both are needed? Apparently it's questionable.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:
Every single event would imply that the rulebook has described every possible different outcome to a group of events.

And that is exactly what they do, you are mistaking a "Formula" description as being less specific than an "Extensive" description. Rules do this all the time, it has more to do with word economy than with a reasoning behind it.

I could say:

A- {0,2,4,5,6,8,10} are the pair numbers from 0 to 10.

B- The pair numbers from 0 to 10 are those that can be divided by 2 and have rest=0.

Neither way is more specific, A seems so because of the small amount of numbers i am taking, would i have done so the same for 0 to 9999999999999999, then i would still be tipping 2 years from now.

When rules state:

"IF A then B Else C" Rules over every single even in the game, it is not less specific than the first example i gave.

Your description is poor example of general or specific.

A- {0,2,4,5 (typo i assume),6,8,10} are the pair of number from 0 to 10

This is correct, however, by definition A, so is the set {1,3,5,7,9}

B- The pair numbers from 0 to 10 are those that can be divided by 2 and have rest=0.

This is correct for your original example but does not apply to the example I created following your original rules of A. Therefore B is a more specific description to your example of A and not mine. Both events can not be identified uniquely by a single IF-THEN-ELSE statement. You would need more of a case statement or a IF-THEN-ELSEIF-ELSE statement.

Might be a little unclear, but basically, description B is more specific and unique than description A. It is impossible for a description A to be more specific than a description that contains the original description A (Description B), and it is extremely unlikely it is equivalent in specificity.

[edit]
This language seems to be getting a little cumbersome. Basically, I am saying that you are using a conjunction fallacy in your argument. B can not be less specific than A or equally as specific (except under certain circumstances).

I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong, but your argument is.

So when you say, for example:

Model a hits on 1+

and

Model b is hit on 3+


that it is too confusing how to work out which applies?

kirsanth wrote:So when you say, for example:

Model a hits on 1+

and

Model b is hit on 3+


that it is too confusing how to work out which applies?

It would depend on the exact wording of the rules. If you can't actually demonstrate an example of this in the current rule set, I would say that this argument is irrelevant to the current discussion.

If you are referring to the walker vs wargear rules, GWAR! has already written extensively on this.

The BRB (for the most part) represents the GENERAL rules.

Codexes (for the most part) present SPECIFIC rules.

So, yeah, a lot of the time, codex will trump rulebook... but not because of Codex > BRB, but because Specific > General.
------------

Like I said earlier, if you can present a case of a general case from a codex overruling a specific case from the BRB, then option 1 in the poll would be correct... but, given that it's just not how the system works, I doubt anyone can find an example in that vein.

From the results of the poll so far, it would seem that it depends from place to place.

I would really love to play somewhere where the Codex always overrides the rulebook.

Me: So, Wolf Lord assaults you, gets 5 hits, 4 wounds. 4 Firewarriors die.

Them: No, I get to take my Armour saves!

Me: But he has a power weapon...

Them: But the codex says I get to take armour saves!

Me: But the rulebook says power weapons ignore armour saves....

Them: Codex > Rulebook!


Me:

Gwar! wrote:I would really love to play somewhere where the Codex always overrides the rulebook.

Or one where 77% isn't a clear majority.

At least one person apparently answered incorrectly, so its a bit more than that even.

4 in 5 is a clear majority for an election, but 1 in 5 is quite enough to make it a significant minority. Run the same question in a local forum and got the complete opposite answer. It seems to come down to gaming groups, rather than it being a general consensus.

xxvaderxx wrote:i have seen many people on this forums posts things from Gwar!s point of view, which is rather unorthodox

I like this post.

Did that other forum think Ork LD can get to 20+?

kirsanth wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:i have seen many people on this forums posts things from Gwar!s point of view, which is rather unorthodox

I like this post.

Did that other forum think Ork LD can get to 20+?

Or that Markerlights can't reduce Ld for pinning because the rulebook says to use the units leadership?

Or, like I pointed out, that you get Armour saves vs Power Weapons...

kirsanth wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:i have seen many people on this forums posts things from Gwar!s point of view, which is rather unorthodox

I like this post.

Did that other forum think Ork LD can get to 20+?

It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

No it does not, Codexes always over rule BRB. That is the option right there on the poll.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

No it does not, Codexes always over rule BRB.

Ummm, Gwar's point is that IF the codex always overrules the main rulebook, then any model that has a save listed in it's entry would get that save against a power weapon, because the codex rule of a save would overrule the main rulebook power weapon no save. In other words, you just agreed that they would get a save against power weapons.......................

don_mondo wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

No it does not, Codexes always over rule BRB.

Ummm, Gwar's point is that IF the codex always overrules the main rulebook, then any model that has a save listed in it's entry would get that save against a power weapon, because the codex rule of a save would overrule the main rulebook power weapon no save. In other words, you just agreed that they would get a save against power weapons.......................

Care to point me to specific example?. I dont recall any Codex stating that regular saves can be made against power weapons.

xxvaderxx wrote:Care to point me to specific example?. I dont recall any Codex stating that regular saves can be made against power weapons.

Every single profile where it lists the armour save?

Your argument says codex > rulebook.

Codex says I have a 4+ armour save.

Moon Logic: Codex > Rulebook, so I get to use it always!
Real Logic: The Specific Rules for Power Weapons overrule those of the codex.

? huh, what? Where's the line in any codex saying the value in a profile represents an armour save that can be taken against anything, let alone the rules for taking this save?

Quotes please ^_^

ChrisCP wrote:? huh, what? Where's the line in any codex saying the value in a profile represents an armour save that can be taken against anything, let alone the rules for taking this save?

Quotes please ^_^

BRB (Main Rulebook) on page 20 says you get an armor save.

Codex:Space Marines (as an example) on page 102 says models equipped with Power Armor receive and armor save of 3+.

BRB page 42 says models wounded by an attack of a model with a power weapon are not allowed cover saves.

This is a classic example of specific overriding general, ie. you get a 3+ armor save except the specific power weapon attack does not allow armor saves.

If you argue that codex always overrules rulebook, then I get the armor save because there is nothing in the power armor entry in the Codex:Space Marines that says a power weapon does not allow that armor save.

Got it?

Reductio ad absurdum - There's also nothing suggesting how to take this save if one uses that interpretation - so you'd be welcome to take that 'armour save' - which one's trying to claim isn't an armour save, once you can point to instructions on how to take it.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Care to point me to specific example?. I dont recall any Codex stating that regular saves can be made against power weapons.

Every single profile where it lists the armour save?

Your argument says codex > rulebook.

Codex says I have a 4+ armour save.

Moon Logic: Codex > Rulebook, so I get to use it always!
Real Logic: The Specific Rules for Power Weapons overrule those of the codex.

Excuse me? Codexes give you troops with armor saves. Armor saves are defined on the BRB. Codexes give you power weapons. Power weapons are defined on the BRB. If Codex > BRB there is no contradiction, there is no entry on any codex that redefines how armor saves and power weapons work, all your are given is units/models that have X armor save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

time wizard wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:? huh, what? Where's the line in any codex saying the value in a profile represents an armour save that can be taken against anything, let alone the rules for taking this save?

Quotes please ^_^

BRB (Main Rulebook) on page 20 says you get an armor save.

Codex:Space Marines (as an example) on page 102 says models equipped with Power Armor receive and armor save of 3+.

BRB page 42 says models wounded by an attack of a model with a power weapon are not allowed cover saves.

This is a classic example of specific overriding general, ie. you get a 3+ armor save except the specific power weapon attack does not allow armor saves.

If you argue that codex always overrules rulebook, then I get the armor save because there is nothing in the power armor entry in the Codex:Space Marines that says a power weapon does not allow that armor save.

Got it?

Huh? how in gods name did you reach to this?. Power armor gives you armor save 3+, nothing more, nothing less. There is no word about the mechanics for armor saves, they work as described in the BRB. Nowhere in the Spaces marines codex you can find a line that says "This is how armor saves work".
On the BRB You can only find how armor saves work. On Codexes you can only find which things have what armor saves. There is no contradiction or redefinition there if Codex > BRB.

It's exceedingly simple.

BRB says power weapons negate armor saves.

Codex says I may take an armor save.

If the codex always overruled the BRB, we'd enter close combat, you'd hit me with a power weapon, and because even though the BRB says power weapons do not allow armor saves, my codex says I get an armor save, so I get one.

Gwar! is absolutely correct.

SaintHazard wrote:It's exceedingly simple.

BRB says power weapons negate armor saves.

Codex says I may take an armor save.

If the codex always overruled the BRB, we'd enter close combat, you'd hit me with a power weapon, and because even though the BRB says power weapons do not allow armor saves, my codex says I get an armor save, so I get one.

Gwar! is absolutely correct.

Codexes always say "gives X+ armor save", it never redefines the rule "Armor Saves". Its like defining "3 milliliter Bullet" and "Bullet". Bullet is a kind of ammunition, a 3mm bullet is a kind of bullet, not a rocket. By your logic if you said you had a German Sheppard, then you would not have a dog.


Example, Space wolves Power armor entry on their armory (Page 61)
Models equipped with power armor receive an "Armor Save" of 3+.

It does not redefine the rule "Armor Save", it simply gives you the value to use with that rule.


A redefinition of the rule would be:
"Armor Saves: Models wounded by power weapons can ignore that wound on the roll of a 5+."
That would be a redefinition of the rules for armor saves, making them only usable against power weapons. Giving you the value to use with the BRB rule, is not redefining it, it is simply doing "F(X)", being F the rule defined in the BRB.

and "A convoluted argument from a new poster with less than 30 posts that questions the accepted wisdom for the game. This can't possibly be trolling, right?" That's really all I want to add, but I'm stumped by a programming puzzle so I'll bite anyway.

If you would like a concrete example of a main rulebook rule which trumps a codex rule, there's a very simple one: Sweeping Advance vs. the Necron We'll Be Back! rule.

If you think codex rules automatically trump contradictory main rulebook rules, it's easy to find rules to dissuade you of that position. The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so. If you're going to say, "But all of those rules in the main rulebook about not shooting during your opponent's turn, and the obvious stuff about having to be in the game to fire still applies!" then you're saying that the codex rules don't automatically take precedence.

If you'd like to equivocate down to "Codex rules that are clearly more specific than main rulebook rules trump main rulebook rules", again see Sweeping Advance vs. WBB! for the main rulebook rule that takes precedence.

solkan wrote:
Sweeping Advance vs. the Necron We'll Be Back! rule.

I am not a Necron player, but i am assuming this is either defined on their codexe or FAQed, thus has no conflict with Codex > BRB. Yes i did not mention it, but FAQs i meant to include them with the Codexes.

solkan wrote:
The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so.

This is a good argument. I would say that the entire entry is meant to be read that you can only fire 1 of the weapons and not all of them, i could argue that as the codex is not redefining the firing rules it is simply stating that you can shot on all shotting faces you are allowed to shot, and that if it would work on your opponents turn, it would expressively say so, as it does on other wargear that works on your opponents turn. But what you are saying is correct, now is this the lone example or is there a pattern?.

xxvaderxx wrote:I am not a Necron player, but i am assuming this is either defined on their codexe or FAQed, thus has no conflict with Codex > BRB.

When you Assume you make an Ass out of U and Me.

WBB doesn't mention SA at all.

Seriously, we have shown you about 7 different examples of why you are simply WRONG, what more do you need???!?!?!?!??!?!?!

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:I am not a Necron player, but i am assuming this is either defined on their codexe or FAQed, thus has no conflict with Codex > BRB.

When you Assume you make an Ass out of U and Me.

WBB doesn't mention SA at all.

Seriously, we have shown you about 7 different examples of why you are simply WRONG, what more do you need???!?!?!?!??!?!?!

No you havent dude, chill down, you have shown 1 example, the obliterators, which is arguable but if we do strictly RAW then yes it does indeed conflict with Codex > BRB. And may be 2 with the Necrons, i am not a necron player so i cant tell, ill try to look it up.

xxvaderxx wrote:No you havent dude, chill down, you have shown 1 example, the obliterators. And may be 2 with the Necrons, i am not a necron player so i cant tell, ill try to look it up.

And the Armour Saves
And the orks leadership (protip: FAQ are not RaW, they are house rules).
And the Grenades vs Walkers vs Wolftooth Necklace.
And Khârn.
And Smoke Launchers.
And Nemesis Force Weapons.

That's 7.

Even so, shouldn't one example be enough? Surely now that you have been shown an example (that for some reason is "valid" to you when the others are just as valid) that you are wrong, why do you persist?

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:No you havent dude, chill down, you have shown 1 example, the obliterators. And may be 2 with the Necrons, i am not a necron player so i cant tell, ill try to look it up.

And the Armour Saves
And the orks leadership (protip: FAQ are not RaW, they are house rules).
And the Grenades vs Walkers vs Wolftooth Necklace.
And Khârn.
And Smoke Launchers.
And Nemesis Force Weapons.

That's 7.

Even so, shouldn't one example be enough? Surely now that you have been shown an example (that for some reason is "valid" to you when the others are just as valid) that you are wrong, why do you persist?

First, GWs FAQs are not House Rules, they are corrections and amendments to their own rules. They are Official.

Second, you dont know what you are arguing the wrong thing. You are stating that this is incorrect because using different logic we arrive at different conclusions, which is not the issue here, this could very well be correct (arriving at different outcomes) and it has 0 baring on the poll or question.

Assuming Codex/FAQ > BRB:
+The Armour Saves: Already explained it, the entries on the Codexes do not redefine the rule, they give you the number you need to be able to use the BRB rule. Perfectly compatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB.
+The orks leadership: This was FAQed, no problem here.
+Grenades vs Walkers vs Wolftooth Necklace: There is no conflict there, they hit on 3+.
+Smoke Launchers: BRB page 62: "It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of the smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex Take precedence". Basically Codex/FAQ > BRB.

Dont get the kharn problem, may be some chaos player could illustrate. Dont se the problem with force weapons either, care to be more specific?.

xxvaderxx wrote:

solkan wrote:
The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so.

This is a good argument. I would say that the entire entry is meant to be read that you can only fire 1 of the weapons and not all of them, i could argue that as the codex is not redefining the firing rules it is simply stating that you can shot on all shotting faces you are allowed to shot, and that if it would work on your opponents turn, it would expressively say so, as it does on other wargear that works on your opponents turn. But what you are saying is correct, now is this the lone example or is there a pattern?.

The Obliterator special rule isn't wargear, and you're equivocating and saying, in effect, that a special rule which clearly gives the unit permission to fire doesn't apply, and thus coming up with reasons why the main rulebook takes precedent. And that's not at all "Codex trumps rulebook". If that was the only example, you wouldn't be getting written off as a rules troll. A similar statement occurs in the previous edition of the Tyranid codex, and given enough time you could find other, similar examples in other codices.

Here's a quote of the 4th edition Sweeping Advance rules: "The destroyed unit(s) are removed immediately. No Invulnerable Save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back Special rule) can save the unit at this stage; ..." It's a rulebook rule stating that a codex special rule does not take precedence.

GW's style of writing rules has remained, unfortunately, entirely consistent over the past twenty odd years, and it has consistently been that the most specific rule (where ever it happens to be) takes precedent, and that if you get two equally specific rules then they'll occasionally be considerate enough to specify how to choose between the two rules.

First, GWs FAQs are not House Rules, they are corrections and amendments to their own rules. They are Official.

Actually, if you read the bit before you get to the FAQ's it literally does say that the FAQ's are "Studio House Rules".

Errata are official. They are the actual changes to the rules, while the FAQ's aren't.

xxvaderxx wrote:+The orks leadership: This was FAQed, no problem here.

Not actually true. ORK LD was not covered by the FAQ. One specific named ork was covered by that question. The codex, however, says that the REST of the orks can have LD much higher.

Or do you also assert that my Tyranid FAQ allowing DoM to have 3+ invuln save should apply to my gants?

solkan wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

solkan wrote:
The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so.

This is a good argument. I would say that the entire entry is meant to be read that you can only fire 1 of the weapons and not all of them, i could argue that as the codex is not redefining the firing rules it is simply stating that you can shot on all shotting faces you are allowed to shot, and that if it would work on your opponents turn, it would expressively say so, as it does on other wargear that works on your opponents turn. But what you are saying is correct, now is this the lone example or is there a pattern?.

The Obliterator special rule isn't wargear, and you're equivocating and saying, in effect, that a special rule which clearly gives the unit permission to fire doesn't apply, and thus coming up with reasons why the main rulebook takes precedent. And that's not at all "Codex trumps rulebook". If that was the only example, you wouldn't be getting written off as a rules troll. A similar statement occurs in the previous edition of the Tyranid codex, and given enough time you could find other, similar examples in other codices.

Here's a quote of the 4th edition Sweeping Advance rules: "The destroyed unit(s) are removed immediately. No Invulnerable Save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back Special rule) can save the unit at this stage; ..." It's a rulebook rule stating that a codex special rule does not take precedence.

GW's style of writing rules has remained, unfortunately, entirely consistent over the past twenty odd years, and it has consistently been that the most specific rule (where ever it happens to be) takes precedent, and that if you get two equally specific rules then they'll occasionally be considerate enough to specify how to choose between the two rules.

WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

xxvaderxx wrote:WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

Yes, they are incompatible.

That is kind of the point.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

Yes, they are incompatible.

That is kind of the point.

How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

No man, you did not get the OP. The rules have to be compatible with Codex > BRB. Not Codex > BRB with Spec > Gen. Those are 2 different relations.

Thats is the whole point of this thread, GW not stating which logic to use, and what is written being compatible with both of them, makes either of them valid.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

No man, you did not get the OP. The rules have to be compatible with Codex > BRB. Not Codex > BRB with Spec > Gen. Those are 2 different relations.

There is no such thing as Codex > Rulebook.

It is (and always has been) Specific > General.

xxvaderxx wrote:
WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

So despite that fact that the BRB specifically states that SA negates WBB, you are arguing that you still get the WBB roll because the codex says you can?
Thats an interesting take right there...

Edit: Excessively long quote

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

No man, you did not get the OP. The rules have to be compatible with Codex > BRB. Not Codex > BRB with Spec > Gen. Those are 2 different relations.

There is no such thing as Codex > Rulebook.

It is (and always has been) Specific > General.

Thats the point, it is always been says who?, i have this same thread on a different forum with the exact opposite result. Even 1 in 5 people on this forum disagrees with you. So far, at the very least it depends on who and where you ask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

So despite that fact that the BRB specifically states that SA negates WBB, you are arguing that you still get the WBB roll because the codex says you can?
Thats an interesting take right there...

Edit: Excessively long quote

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

xxvaderxx wrote:Thats the point, it is always been says who?, i have this same thread on a different forum with the exact opposite result. Even 1 in 5 people on this forum disagrees with you. So far, at the very least it depends on who and where you ask.

It has always been says the English language. The game simply cannot work any other way.

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it.

Compare the two versions. I even did it once here on Dakka, but since the search is a bit crappy, I can't find it.

They are word for word identical. The only difference is the removal of WBB as an example.

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

Thats sort of beside the point, unless you are now claiming that codex always trumps rulebook is only applicable in 5th...

Edit: Another possible example (I'd have to see the wording on living metal to be sure) Dark Eldar Dark Lances/Blasters shooting at Necron Living Metal (Monolith).

Which rule takes precedence?

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Thats the point, it is always been says who?, i have this same thread on a different forum with the exact opposite result. Even 1 in 5 people on this forum disagrees with you. So far, at the very least it depends on who and where you ask.

It has always been says the English language. The game simply cannot work any other way.

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it.

Compare the two versions. I even did it once here on Dakka, but since the search is a bit crappy, I can't find it.

They are word for word identical. The only difference is the removal of WBB as an example.

No it is not the only way it works, that is kind of the point too. It works both ways. Both ways produce different outcomes in some situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

Thats sort of beside the point, unless you are now claiming that codex always trumps rulebook is only applicable in 5th...

I have not played 4th, neither i am arguing for it, i am arguing for latest codexes and 5th edition.

del'Vhar wrote:

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

Thats sort of beside the point, unless you are now claiming that codex always trumps rulebook is only applicable in 5th...

Edit: Another possible example (I'd have to see the wording on living metal to be sure) Dark Eldar Dark Lances/Blasters shooting at Necron Living Metal (Monolith).

Which rule takes precedence?

In this case, the more specific rule for Living Metal trumps the general Lance Weapon rule.

Of course, RaW, Dark Eldar Weapons are not "Lance" weapons, they simply have a rule similar to it, so RaW DE weapons WOULD ignore Living Metal, had the LM rule not had the provision of "S+D6 NO MATTER WHAT."

So in this case, we have a Specific Rule for Eldar Weapons being Trumped by an even more specific LM rule.

But you are arguing that codex trumps rulebook is a valid way of playing Warhammer 40k.

Therefore, in 4th edition, WBB rolls were allowed against SA yes?

Unless codex trumps rulebook is only applicable to editions that arent 4th? Or that 4th edition ceases to have existed now that 5th is around?

xxvaderxx wrote:No it is not the only way it works, that is kind of the point too. It works both ways. Both ways produce different outcomes in some situations.

...

What?

How can the exact same rule have two outcomes? It must have one or the other.

One ignores the rules, one follows them.

I'll stick with following the rules.

del'Vhar wrote:

Edit: Another possible example (I'd have to see the wording on living metal to be sure) Dark Eldar Dark Lances/Blasters shooting at Necron Living Metal (Monolith).

Have not read bright lances. But the wording on Living metal is pretty cut and dry. It states that Lance (and any other effect that makes it armor count as lower) do not affect the monolith, thus they dont.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:But you are arguing that codex trumps rulebook is a valid way of playing Warhammer 40k.

Therefore, in 4th edition, WBB rolls were allowed against SA yes?

Unless codex trumps rulebook is only applicable to editions that arent 4th? Or that 4th edition ceases to have existed now that 5th is around?

Cant argue about 4th, dont have the BRB or the FAQs or the errata. This is strictly 5th+ (with latest codexes).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:No it is not the only way it works, that is kind of the point too. It works both ways. Both ways produce different outcomes in some situations.

...

What?

How can the exact same rule have two outcomes? It must have one or the other.

One ignores the rules, one follows them.

I'll stick with following the rules.

No man, under each logic each outcome its correct. The question it is not which outcome is correct, is which logic to use. It is also very possible to reach the correct answer using a faulty logic, that is not the point. The point is not if a model with WTN hits a walker with a grenade with 3+ or 6+. The question is if Codex > BRB or Spec > Gen, it might seem the same but it is not, one is the outcome and the other is the logic, if you dont see the difference, please try to go back and re read a few posts.

xxvaderxx wrote:
...

No man, under each logic each outcome its correct. The question it is not which outcome is correct, is which logic to use. It is also very possible to reach the correct answer using a faulty logic, that is not the point. The point is not if a model with WTN hits a walker with a grenade with 3+ or 6+. The question is if Codex > BRB or Spec > Gen, it might seem the same but it is not, one is the outcome and the other is the logic, if you dont see the difference, please try to go back and re read a few posts.

Alright, so you want us to back our claims with logic, but you don't want us to support our logic with evidence of any kind, especially the kind that disproves your premise. In logic you need evidences to find a conclusion.

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits.
the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.
More specific rules therefore override less specific rules, even if the BRB is more specific.

Now prove with logic that codexes ALWAYS trump the BRB. You can't, because there are specific instances where the BRB trumps codexes.

Go ahead and try. If you can prove with formal logic that you are correct, I will believe you.

I dont mind you givin examples, but they have to be examples for the right thing. Stating that F(X) is not a function because G(a)!=F(a), is not a valid argument. Being F(a)==G(a) or F(a)!=G(a), does not make either of them not a function, which is what Gwar! was arguing, only showing that F(a)==C and F(a)==D would you probe that F is not a function, but this is in no way linked to G(X).

Now, you are stating that Codex > BRB is not a valid logic (is not a Function, to keep up with previous efemisms). Then what you need to show is an example of a rule that has no solution or is a logic loop or something, under Codex > BRB.

PS: I am not arguing that Spec > Gen is not a valid logic to follow the rules, i am arguing it is not the only one.

xxvaderxx wrote:PS: I am not arguing that Spec > Gen is not a valid logic to follow the rules, i am arguing it is not the only one.

That doesn't make any sense. It has to be one or the other. The game simply does not work if you use "both".

You really can't argue that both Spec > Gen and Codex > BRB are valid ways of following the rules, then accept that they may come to conflicting conclusions.

This means that there would be no way to resolve some rules disputes if we were both following different functions, because both conclusions would be correct.

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

del'Vhar wrote:You really can't argue that both Spec > Gen and Codex > BRB are valid ways of following the rules, then accept that they may come to conflicting conclusions.

This means that there would be no way to resolve some rules disputes if we were both following different functions, because both conclusions would be correct.

They dont need to reach the same conclusion to be valid logics, byvalent logic, tryvalent logic and difuselogic are all valid and all reach to diferent results. For them to be valid they need to be consistent (always reach the same result in the same situation) and not being congruent (all 3 of them reaching the same conclusion always).

The same way C > B does not need to reach the same outcome as S > G, they are not meant to be used toghether (hardly any logic is), it has to always reach the same outcome regardles of who is using it for a given situation. Of course both players have to use the same logic that is a given.

Well in that case, I declare my own mathematical order of operations.


2+5*3 will now equal 21!

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

When the model makes attacks on the walker (or any vehicle), it can choose one of two options. 1) make attacks as normal. 2) use a grenade 'attack' instead of its normal attacks.

When choosing the grenade attack against a walker that is not immobilized or stunned, instead of using the normal rules for attacking, you roll one die per model (edited from "a single die") (no matter how many attacks the model has) and on a roll of a 6 the model scores a hit against the vehicle regardless of WS. If and only if the walker is immobilized or stunned does the WS of the walker come into play for rolling to hit in close combat.

Let me know if this is not actually RaW, but I believe it is.

Im pretty sure thats basically how RAW states grenades work, though IIRC it says something closer to "one attack per model"

del'Vhar wrote:Well in that case, I declare my own mathematical order of operations.


2+5*3 will now equal 21!

In fact this is more common than you would imagine. The example is a bit complex, but there is an operation called "inner product". This operation is not defined it self, what is deffined is a group of axioms (rules), it has to comply with, and any operation that does so, is an inner product.
In the same way, if you were to redefine + and *, you could do so, as long as you are comply or re define the axioms by which such operation is bound.

A more comon example of this is the operation "substraction", which in reality it algebraically does not exist, neither does the division, they are aplications of addition and multiplications.

...

Now I KNOW you are just trolling.

And in any case, 2+2=5 (for certain values of 2).

2+2≠5 when talking about normal values of 2 however.

The top one is your logic, the bottom one ours.

The bottom one is how 40k works.

Rephistorch wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

When the model makes attacks on the walker (or any vehicle), it can choose one of two options. 1) make attacks as normal. 2) use a grenade 'attack' instead of its normal attacks.

When choosing the grenade attack against a walker that is not immobilized or stunned, instead of using the normal rules for attacking, you roll one die per model (edited from "a single die") (no matter how many attacks the model has) and on a roll of a 6 the model scores a hit against the vehicle regardless of WS. If and only if the walker is immobilized or stunned does the WS of the walker come into play for rolling to hit in close combat.

Let me know if this is not actually RaW, but I believe it is.

And the follow on from that, is if this is the general way in which attacks with grenades are made against walkers, then a bearer of a WTN making an attack against a walker with a grenade is more specific.

Besides, I wasn't redefining + or *, I was merely changing the order of operations to state that all operators are of equal value, and as such an equation should be read left to right.

so:

2+5*3 = 21
but
5*3+2 = 17

Gwar! wrote:...

Now I KNOW you are just trolling.

And in any case, 2+2=5 (for certain values of 2).

2+2≠5 when talking about normal values of 2 however.

The top one is your logic, the bottom one ours.

The bottom one is how 40k works.

Gwar!, it is abit more complicated than just me saying 2+2=5, i dont want to insult you, but may be what i am asking migth be a little too abstract for you to understand.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:Besides, I wasn't redefining + or *, I was merely changing the order of operations to state that all operators are of equal value, and as such an equation should be read left to right.

so:

2+5*3 = 21
but
5*3+2 = 17

I understand, and i was trying to point out that that on it self is not a problem. By changing their "priority" you are esentially re defining them, which is not a problem as long as you are consistent with it and realize that all your math will have to stick by this new definition, including what you used to consider correct and incorrect, which will drastically change with the new definition.
This happens in science all the time, There are several formulas and aproximations for Gravity, they are all different, when you make calculations involving G, you have to choose which one to use. If you vary it, you get different outcomes, the important thing is to use the same formula through out all your calculations.

xxvaderxx wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:Well in that case, I declare my own mathematical order of operations.


2+5*3 will now equal 21!

In fact this is more common than you would imagine. The example is a bit complex, but there is an operation called "inner product". This operation is not defined it self, what is deffined is a group of axioms (rules), it has to comply with, and any operation that does so, is an inner product.
In the same way, if you were to redefine + and *, you could do so, as long as you are comply or re define the axioms by which such operation is bound.

Maybe I'm not following, but that doesn't make the math any less accurate using real numbers (or imaginary... but not in the "made up" sense...) and real order of operations.

As I've said earlier, you need to prove that the system works the way you said it does. We don't need to prove it doesn't. I have yet to see you use logic to prove your point. You abstracted to using functions to parallel logic, but I believe that isn't a good analogy of how logic works.

Generally, a logical argument takes the form of:

Fruits grow from a flower containing ovaries.
An apple grows from a flower containing ovaries.
Therefore an apple is a fruit.

That's a really basic example, but hopefully it makes the point of what I am (and probably others are) looking for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

When the model makes attacks on the walker (or any vehicle), it can choose one of two options. 1) make attacks as normal. 2) use a grenade 'attack' instead of its normal attacks.

When choosing the grenade attack against a walker that is not immobilized or stunned, instead of using the normal rules for attacking, you roll one die per model (edited from "a single die") (no matter how many attacks the model has) and on a roll of a 6 the model scores a hit against the vehicle regardless of WS. If and only if the walker is immobilized or stunned does the WS of the walker come into play for rolling to hit in close combat.

Let me know if this is not actually RaW, but I believe it is.

And the follow on from that, is if this is the general way in which attacks with grenades are made against walkers, then a bearer of a WTN making an attack against a walker with a grenade is more specific.

That isn't correct. The standard way attacks are made against walkers is by comparing Weapon Skills to determine a to-hit roll, followed by a units strength + d6 vs the target's front armor to determine if the attack penetrates, glances, or does nothing. WTN allows these normal attacks, which compare weapon skills, to always hit on a 3+, no matter the weapon skill of the target.

The more specific instance is using grenades against a walker which is used instead of making your normal attacks. As long as the walker is not immobilized or stunned, the WS is ignored entirely and the model gets a hit on the vehicle on the roll of a 6. That's a specific rule for attacking in a specific way and ignoring the WS, thus ignoring WTN's abilities.

Rephistorch wrote:

Fruits grow from a flower containing ovaries.
An apple grows from a flower containing ovaries.
Therefore an apple is a fruit.
.

^_^

Fruits grow from a progenitor containing ovaries.
An baby grows from a progenitor containing ovaries.
Therefore a baby is a fruit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rephistorch wrote:
That isn't correct. The standard way attacks are made against walkers is by comparing Weapon Skills to determine a to-hit roll, followed by a units strength + d6 vs the target's front armor to determine to wound rolls. WTN allows these normal attacks which compare weapon skills to always hit on a 3+, no matter the weapon skill of the target.

The more specific instance is using grenades against a walker which is used instead of making your normal attacks. As long as the walker is not immobilized or stunned, the WS is ignored entirely and the model gets a hit on the vehicle on the roll of a 6. That's a specific rule for attacking in a specific way and ignoring the WS, thus ignoring WTN's abilities.

See, you keep having to bring the fact that the attacker is wearing a WTN into it, that actually makes it a more specific set of circumstances, otherwise one is saying that all attacks against walkers with grenades are made by weares of WTN, no?

BRB defines rules common to all armies.
Codex defines new rules and redefines common rules, particular to and that must be used by the given army.
There for if a rule is redefined in a codex then it must be used by that codexs army.

If my english didnt betray me, that should do it.

PS: By the way, this does not prove anything, it only states how you define your logic and Codex and BRB interaction.

So, after 4 pages, this thread doesn't really seem to be achieving anything beyond generating mod alerts... so I think it's time to move on.