We play it as a 3+ in our area, mainly due to the fact walkers fall into the category of having WS.

arch1angel wrote:rigeld2

your wrong on so many things, go read your rule book, and im talking about before even getting to situation 5a or 5b.. you might change your answers if you knew all the rules for this.... maybe not wrong, but not completely correct....

Can you cite where I was wrong, so I can educate myself? With page numbers, preferably.

I've always ruled in our tournaments and GT's that you need a 6 to hit with a grenade, reguardless of things like a WTN that say 'always hit on a 3+'.

Sure, that's akin to saying "We play it this way in MY basement.", but then again, I have a really big Basement.)

arch1angel wrote:your mostly right... but you are wrong.. read the rule book

This sort of response adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you have a further point to make, then make it. Just stating that everyone else is wrong and shoudl read the rulebook accomplishes nothing constructive, and tends to be taken as trolling.

insaniak wrote:

arch1angel wrote:your mostly right... but you are wrong.. read the rule book

This sort of response adds absolutely nothing to the discussion. If you have a further point to make, then make it. Just stating that everyone else is wrong and shoudl read the rulebook accomplishes nothing constructive, and tends to be taken as trolling.

my point is he is missing something major in the rule book, if he cant find it i will happlying point out the page, most people by what i have seen on here always just quote quote quote, if the think they are right they never go back and check, (many people here keep getting the rules between 4th and 5th edition mixed up in their heads, we all finaly re-read the rule book, we were doing so many things wrong)

if they think im trolling let them think.. they will still be wrong....



Automatically Appended Next Post:
ridgeld2,

your wrong on situation 2, page 63, re read...

well dam, i thought there was another.. i stand corrected,

i see that you change S5a...

if you feel your still right, i guess we are done,

in the end i really dont care, i always ask my opponant, its a fun game to me,
outside of a game i will have a good spirited debate over the rules just to see what they say....

rigeld2 wrote:

arch1angel wrote:
situation 2
Ok i am rolling to hit, on a tank,
you have a weapon skill right? no,
i have a neckless, i guess since you dont have a WS i hit based on movment for a grenade...

Same as situation 1. If you are throwing a grenade, 6+ If you're not, normal movement based.

arch1angel wrote:ridgeld2,

your wrong on situation 2, page 63, re read...

if you feel your still right, i guess we are done,

in the end i really dont care, i always ask my opponant, its a fun game to me,
outside of a game i will have a good spirited debate over the rules just to see what they say....

You're right - I was wrong on situation 2. I don't use grenades because with the exception of a couple of situations Tyranids don't have them. Thanks for clarifying.

So, now, how does that situation have any bearing on grenades vs a walker, and hence grenades with a WTN vs a walker?

Old argument is old. I am sure a search will bring up the many other arguments, both pre FAQ and post FAQ.

My stance on the matter is that the WTN does indeed work with grenades versus walkers.

Checking for the prescence of a WS value, which is the only requirement of the WTN, is not a WS comparison as some are trying to argue.

As far as specific and more specific, that argument has gone through many iterations on this board.

Some say that a specific piece of wargear in a specific codex is more specifc then a specific rule regarding specifically placing grenades on a walker. Of course then the argument arises that thw WTN is specific to all attacks in close combat while the walker rule is specific to grenade attacks.

My opinion is that while it is clear that grenades against walkers are a very specific attack, the WTN doesn't care. It chooses to set a different standard of defining it use; not by specifying distinct attacks that hit on a 3+, but by specifying distinct targets that are hit on a 3+, ie, those with a WS value.

This is supported by the errata issued for the WTN. Whereas before the WTN hit on a 3+, regardless of WS comparison (specifying attacks made using a WS) the errata allows a WTN hit on a 3+ when a WS is present (specifying targets eligible to be hit using a WTN).

This is slightly off topic but may help with the thread. If your model has 3 attacks and you choose to grenade it up do you get 3 nades? Or just the one chance?

So if you get all 3 attacks then I feel since the wtn references attacks against a model with a ws then he should vet his 3+.

However, if the model only get a one shot all or nothing grenade then it should fall under the category of needing the 6+ because at that point its like a completely separate special weapon that follows its own rules instead of basic combat.

How's that?

Regardless of number of attacks, you only get 1 grenade attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Pg 63 of the BGB, Grenades box on the right.

Thanks for the pg # and in that case even though I play wolves I gotta side with the enemy on this one 6+ it is!

It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

Except the grenade rules are more specific than the WTN rules, so you use the grenade rules.

If a grenade could benefit from wtn that would make grenades a regular melee attack n if its a regular melee then it should be useable against troops. It is not however so wtn does not apply here

DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

Except the grenade rules are more specific than the WTN rules, so you use the grenade rules.

Specific versus general, specific versus general, blah, blah, blah.

This little line of argument is about effective as continously repeating codex trumps BRB. Despite this argument being brought up time and time again, the specific versus general claim has been debunked just as many times as any other argument. For the new people here, just explain your specific versus general argument instead of just exclaiming the catch phrase as if it is the answer.

Okay.
General: Any attacks made with a models Attack Characteristic, no matter what gear that model has.

More Specific: A grenade attack against a vehicle, no matter what gear that model has.

Brother Ramses wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:It truly doesnt matter as its a CC attack vs a model that has a WS so wtn will allow you hit on a 3+

Except the grenade rules are more specific than the WTN rules, so you use the grenade rules.

Specific versus general, specific versus general, blah, blah, blah.

This little line of argument is about effective as continously repeating codex trumps BRB. Despite this argument being brought up time and time again, the specific versus general claim has been debunked just as many times as any other argument. For the new people here, just explain your specific versus general argument instead of just exclaiming the catch phrase as if it is the answer.

Having two different interpretations of which rule is more specific doesn't mean that one of them is "debunked". It could swing either way.

It really can't.

Determining which rule is more specific comes down entirely to what you are trying to do at the time. In this situation, we have a model with a wolf tooth necklace, that is trying to attack a vehicle with a grenade. SO, to bore it down:

We have a model. That model is always the same.
It has a wolf tooth necklace. That piece of wargear is always the same.
It can attack a vehicle with a weapon. That weapon can be a grenade.

So a model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a weapon, in which case the rules for the necklace will apply.
A model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a grenade, in which case the grenade rules will apply, because they are rules that apply to an attack with a specific weapon.

'Attacking a vehicle using grenades' is more specific than 'attacking a vehicle'.

remember that grenades fall under "all"

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:remember that grenades fall under "all"

Right. And grenades are a more specific type of attack than "all". If they followed the normal CC rules (just limiting number of attack) it'd work.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:remember that grenades fall under "all"

'All' covers making a close combat attack.

Making a close combat attack with a specific weapon that has it's own rules governing how it works is more specific than 'all'...

insaniak wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:remember that grenades fall under "all"

'All' covers making a close combat attack.

Making a close combat attack with a specific weapon that has it's own rules governing how it works is more specific than 'all'...

Couldn't one argue that "model with WTN attacking walker with grenade" is more specific than "model attacking walker with grenade"? That's the rebuttal I usually see at least.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Couldn't one argue that "model with WTN attacking walker with grenade" is more specific than "model attacking walker with grenade"?

No. I explained why a couple of posts ago.

insaniak wrote:It really can't.

Determining which rule is more specific comes down entirely to what you are trying to do at the time. In this situation, we have a model with a wolf tooth necklace, that is trying to attack a vehicle with a grenade. SO, to bore it down:

We have a model. That model is always the same.
It has a wolf tooth necklace. That piece of wargear is always the same.
It can attack a vehicle with a weapon. That weapon can be a grenade.

So a model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a weapon, in which case the rules for the necklace will apply.
A model with a wolf tooth necklace can attack a vehicle with a grenade, in which case the grenade rules will apply, because they are rules that apply to an attack with a specific weapon.

'Attacking a vehicle using grenades' is more specific than 'attacking a vehicle'.

And then you can just turn it around that ANYONE attacking a walker with a grenade needs a 6+ to place and ONLY a model with a WTN can do it on a 3+.

This is in addition to what I posted earlier in that the WTN is based off a completely different close combat mechanic that was introduced with the errata.

Prior to the FAQ the wording of the WTN still referenced the comparison of WS mechanic which did not support placing grenades on dreads with a 3+. However the errata introduced a specific close combat mechanic to the WTN, in that it was no longer a WS comparison but a WS check. In addition they removed any reference to the previous weapon skill comparison.

Brother Ramses wrote:And then you can just turn it around that ANYONE attacking a walker with a grenade needs a 6+ to place and ONLY a model with a WTN can do it on a 3+.

No. You can't.

'Anyone' is not attacking the walker. The model with the WTN is. The model with the WTN can attack with any weapon, in which case the WTN will apply, or they can attack with a specific type of weapon (in this case a grenade) which has specific rules governing how it works... in which case the more specific rule wins.

just saying i wholeheartedly disagree. again grenades fall under the any category, and yes they have diferent rules for hitting, same as normal hitting in cc.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:just saying i wholeheartedly disagree. again grenades fall under the any category, and yes they have diferent rules for hitting, same as normal hitting in cc.

Rapid Fire weapons are included in the group of 'all ranged weapons'... does that mean that they follow the same rules as all other ranged weapons? Or do they follow their own specific rules?

A rule that applies to 'all' of something is less specific than a rule that applies to one specific thing. The more specific rule wins... otherwise just about every unit-type-specific, unit-specific, or weapon-specific rule in the game suddenly becomes completely useless.

Seems like a poor comparison. lets say a wolfguard w/ pf is swinging against an avatar. I find the rules for CC needing a 5 To hit are more specifc than all. thatd mean wtn does jack.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:Seems like a poor comparison. lets say a wolfguard w/ pf is swinging against an avatar. I find the rules for CC needing a 5 To hit are more specifc than all. thatd mean wtn does jack.

That is the basic weapon skill comparison chart used by every model with a weapon skill when fighting any other model with a weapon skill.

How is that more specific than anything, those are the rules everyone uses.

That is the basis of the general rules as it outlines the basic attack rules.

More specific would be Gabriel seths Whirlwind attack, where he hits everyone in base contact, instead of attacking normally.

In this case we have a model with a WTN making his normal attacks following the normal attack sequence being the general rules, and the same model making a single grenade attack which has a specific subset of the attack rules to follow.

sorry the basic tohit seems way more specific. sometimes 3,4,5 etc its very specific and diverse. wtn just says all.

If he hits on a 3+ With attacks, itll work on his nades also.

JD - you are now making deliberately silly arguments, that have been easily disproven.

The to hit chart is less specific than wtn which is less specific than a wtn guy choosing to make a CC attack using grenades against a walker.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:sorry the basic tohit seems way more specific.

The basic to hit rule that varies widely depending on what model is swinging what against who?
That's totally specific.

sometimes 3,4,5 etc its very specific and diverse. wtn just says all.

Correct.

If he hits on a 3+ With attacks, itll work on his nades also.

How does the basic to hit table come in to play when you're throwing grenades?

Just arguing about specific vs general. the basic to hit chart is more specific than wtn, just as nade rules are more specific than wtn. So I suppose wtn doesnt work at all.

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote: the basic to hit chart is more specific than wtn, ...

A basic rule that applies to everybody is not more specific than a rule that applies to a model using a specific item, because 'everybody' is a larger group than 'that guy who has a pretty necklace'...

WTN works because 'guy with WTN' is more specific than 'guy'.
Grenades then take precedence over WTN because 'guy with WTN using a weapon with special to hit rules' is more specific than 'guy with WTN using any weapon'...


It's not about how specific the wording of the rule is. It's about how specific a situation it applies to, depending on what you're trying to do at the time. Because you're trying to establish the rules for what you are trying to do at that time, with the model that you are trying to do it with.

Insaniak is that a rule anywhere? I find the whole specific vs general quite confusing from time to time. As I stated above, standard to hit seems way more specific.

It's not a stated rule. It's simply the hierarchy that allows any complex rules system to function.

The basic rules lay out the general way the rules system works. More specific rules then alter those basic rules in specific situations.

Without that hierarchy, no special rule that alters a normal game mechanic can work.

How can something that applies to every model in CC be more specific than something that only applies to certain models with a specific set of wargear? It cannot be more specific

So this is slightly off topic but what about wtn vs a vehicle and/or a vehicle that moved?

Vs a non-walker vehicle, wtn does nothing.

Oh that's right! No ws! My bad lol

nosferatu1001 wrote:How can something that applies to every model in CC be more specific than something that only applies to certain models with a specific set of wargear? It cannot be more specific

You won't get a clear answer on that.

Every single model attacking a walker with a grenade, needs a 6+.

Only a model equipped with a WTN can attack a walker with grenade on a 3+.

Seems outlandishly specific to me. The argument against is outlandish in its own right because they are saying that attacking with a grenade is more specific then just attacking with a weapon. However, WTN covers this by saying all attacks in close combat with the additional specific model selection of any model with a WS characteristic.

What the other side needs to do is, despite claiming that a grenade attack is more specific, how does that exclude it from the "all" encompassing definition as well as the WS characteristic check? It is a laughable challenge because despite saying that a grenade attack against a walker is a sub-set of attacks in general and thus more specific, the WTN does not care. Its wording encompasses all attacks, general, sub-set, sub-sub-set, sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-set, etc, etc....as long as the target has a WS characteristic.

We are not talking about 'Every single model attacking a walker with a grenade' we are talking about A model with a WTN.

As always when two rules conflict, like the WTN and the grenades, we have to find the more specific rule.

Here we have a situation of a model with a WTN.

So looking at what is more specific:

A model with a WTN attacking a walker in CC

Or

A model with a WTN attacking a walker, using a grenade, in CC

Seeing as A model with a WTN is always 'attacking a walker in CC', unless you choose to 'use a grenade'

The grenade rules ONLY kick in when you use a grenade, not simply when you 'attack a walker in CC'

so regardless of WTN or not, the grenade rules specify one thing in a very specific situation, so you have to use the most specific rules.

Firstly I really do not care if a 3+ is required or a 6+ is required as I dont play SW, and there are no regular SW players where I play (odd I know, but meh)

A model with the WTN is attacking a Walker in close combat with a grenade - Situation

Now the rules are......
A model attacking a Walker in close combat using a grenade requires a 6 to hit - This cannot be disputed as the rule is in the BRB
The WTN states that against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+. - This cannot be disputed as per the Jan 2010 Space Wolf FAQ

So as I see it we would follow the rules thusly.....

1.) Are we in close combat - Yes
2.) Does the target have a weapon skill value - Yes
3.) Do I have to roll to hit - Yes
4.) Is using a grenade in close combat a close combat attack - Yes

Therefore even with the specific over general/codex over BRB stuff, the model equiped with a WTN hits the walker on a 3+ even when using a grenade.
The reasoning for this is that using a grenade in close combat must be considered a close combat attack (as it is defined by requiring a roll to hit), and as such would require a 3+ to hit as the WTN rule states always hits in close combat on a 3+.

sometimes I wonder why people bother with these kind of threads... all it is is circles inside of circles, no one actualy changes their minds, and no one wins untill a FAQ comes out that says that one side was right.... and that only happends once a purple moon these days....

arch1angel wrote:sometimes I wonder why people bother with these kind of threads... all it is is circles inside of circles, no one actualy changes their minds, and no one wins untill a FAQ comes out that says that one side was right.... and that only happends once a purple moon these days....

Don't worry Arch because even when a FAQ is issued, the losing side merely says that GW ruled it wrong or then uses the disclaimer that FAQ are only house rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:We are not talking about 'Every single model attacking a walker with a grenade' we are talking about A model with a WTN.

As always when two rules conflict, like the WTN and the grenades, we have to find the more specific rule.

Here we have a situation of a model with a WTN.

So looking at what is more specific:

A model with a WTN attacking a walker in CC

Or

A model with a WTN attacking a walker, using a grenade, in CC

Seeing as A model with a WTN is always 'attacking a walker in CC', unless you choose to 'use a grenade'

The grenade rules ONLY kick in when you use a grenade, not simply when you 'attack a walker in CC'

so regardless of WTN or not, the grenade rules specify one thing in a very specific situation, so you have to use the most specific rules.

The huge fault in your breakdown is that you somehow discredit using a grenade against a walker in close combat as not being covered by the all encompassing "any" close combat attack by the WTN. As I said, the WTN does not care if the attack is a sub-set of a sub-set of an attack. If it is a close combat attack and if the model has a WS characteristic, the attack is successful on a 3+. Those conditions are all met.

If a model with a WT necklace is attacking a walker with a grenade, he falls into a bunch of different categories. In order to figure out which rule is more specific, and thus which takes precedence, we have to break down those categories into sub-categories,and see what the most specific situation is which has a rule specifically covering it.

A model with WTN attacking a walker with a grenade falls into the following categories;

A. Model engaged in close-combat. (General rules covering this situation)
------I. Model engaged in close-combat with a walker (special rules covering this situation)
--------------i. Model engaged in close-combat with a walker using a grenade (special rule covering this situation)

-----II. Model with a WTN engaged in close-combat (Special rule covering this situation)
--------------i. Model with a WTN engaged in close-combat with a walker (NO special rule covering this situation.)
-----------------------a. Model with a WTN using a grenade in close-combat with a walker (NO special rule covering this situation.)

When I say there is no special rule covering a circumstance, I mean that there is no rule which SPECIFICALLY says, for example, "When a model with a WTN attacks a walker in close-combat, resolve the combat in thus and such a manner." Figuring out what you have to do in that highly specific situation requires moving back up the decision tree and using the rules which cover more general situations, meaning the rules for a model with a WTN engaging in close-combat.

Situations A.I.i and A.II.i.a are at different levels of specificity; A.I.i only requires two specific circumstances to occur (fighting a walker and using a grenade) whereas A.II.i.a requires three (Fighting a walker, using a grenade, having a WTN). If A.II.i.a had a special rule covering it, that rule would take precedence.

BUT IT DOESN'T.

The WTN rule is EARLIER on the decision tree; at the level of 'engaged in close-combat'. There IS no rule covering this specific situation, we have to use LESS specific rules. Which means we have to move to the next level up on the decision tree, and see if there are any rules covering the slightly-less specific versions of the situation.

What about A.II.i ? Uh. . . nope. Still haven't gotten back to the WTN rule yet. So instead we check A.I.i; and, yep, there's a rule there. That is the most specific rule applicable, because it is the rule which requires the most specific set of circumstances to come into play. Therefore, it's the one which takes precedence. Models equipped with a WTN and using a grenade in close-combat with a walker only hit on a 6+.

arch1angel wrote:but the war gear says, with the FAQ, if you have a comparing WS, you always hit on a 3.
had this disscussion in length with the local TO, and he ruled as it stands with every rule and FAQ in front of him, hit on a 3+
several of us took part in this talk.

Yeah, but here's the thing--you're not comparing WS's. The grenade vs walkers rule is a special effect that's outside of that.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

arch1angel wrote:but the war gear says, with the FAQ, if you have a comparing WS, you always hit on a 3.
had this disscussion in length with the local TO, and he ruled as it stands with every rule and FAQ in front of him, hit on a 3+
several of us took part in this talk.

Yeah, but here's the thing--you're not comparing WS's. The grenade vs walkers rule is a special effect that's outside of that.

It isn't a comparison of WS, it is a characteristic check to see if a WS exists. That is not comparing. Prior to the FAQ, you could say it was still a comparison. Post-FAQ you are not able.

And Berzerker, as pointed out, WTN does not care about sub-sets of types of attacks, only attacks in close combat.

Is using a grenade against a walker a close combat attack?

Brother Ramses wrote:
And Berzerker, as pointed out, WTN does not care about sub-sets of types of attacks, only attacks in close combat.

You do realize you are using the argument that the WTN is more general to justify using the WTN in a more specific solution.

Keep in mind that specific rules override general rules.

If you accept both of these premises, I do not see how you can make the claim of hit on 3+ in these terms...

Brother Ramses wrote:Is using a grenade against a walker a close combat attack?

I'm failing to see how "all" is more specific than "grenade".

Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack? It is a simple question so just answer it.

That is the only condition set by the WTN. There is no qualifier for sub-sets of close combat attacks or that it is only certain close combat attacks as some have proposed. If it is a close combat attack, the WTN works.

The proof lies in not pointing out that attacking a walker with a grenade is a specific type of close combat attack but that it isn't a close combat attack at all. You can't do that and thus cannot show that the WTN does not work when attacking a walker with a grenade.

Brother Ramses wrote: Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack? It is a simple question so just answer it.

That is the only condition set by the WTN. There is no qualifier for sub-sets of close combat attacks or that it is only certain close combat attacks as some have proposed. If it is a close combat attack, the WTN works.

And that's why the grenade rule takes precedence.

A rule that applies to every weapon is less specific than a rule that applies to a specific weapon.

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack? It is a simple question so just answer it.

That is the only condition set by the WTN. There is no qualifier for sub-sets of close combat attacks or that it is only certain close combat attacks as some have proposed. If it is a close combat attack, the WTN works.

And that's why the grenade rule takes precedence.

A rule that applies to every weapon is less specific than a rule that applies to a specific weapon.

At no time are you told that the WTN applies to a set or sub-set of close combat attacks made with or only made with certain weapons. It tells you any close combat attacks. That encompasses attacks made in close combat. A grenade attack against a walker is made in close combat. That is the qualifier and it is met.

You can argue that a grenade is a specific weapon over all general weapons except the argument is faulted because the WTN does is not bound by a weapon type qualifier, but only by being a close combat attack.

The question posed by the WTN is not,

"Is this close combat attack being done by a general weapon or a specific weapon?"

It is,

"Is this a close combat attack being done against a model with a WS value?"

You're correct - WTN doesn't specify.

The problem is that the rules state that a specific rule overrides a general one.

Generally, WTN hits on a 3+ in CC.
Specifically, grenades have a rule mandating a 6+.
Grenades are more specific (all attacks vs Grenade attacks) hence override.

Brother Ramses wrote:At no time are you told that the WTN applies to a set or sub-set of close combat attacks made with or only made with certain weapons. It tells you any close combat attacks. That encompasses attacks made in close combat.

Yes it does. That makes it a rule that applies to all close combat attacks.

A grenade attack against a walker is made in close combat.

A grenade attack against a walker is an attack in close combat that has specific rule that apply specifically to that attack. That makes it more specific than a rule that applies to all close combat attacks.

You can argue that a grenade is a specific weapon over all general weapons except the argument is faulted because the WTN does is not bound by a weapon type qualifier, but only by being a close combat attack.

That's the part you're missing though. It's exactly the lack of qualifiers that makes the WTN a less specific rule, and therefore over-ridden by the grenade rule.

For the WTN to over-ride the more specific grenade rule, it would have to actually specify that it includes attacks made with grenades. Otherwise, we're left with one rule that applies to all attacks, and one that applies to an attack with a specific weapon... and so the specific weapon wins.

Then you are proposing that a close combat attack made with a grenade is not a close combat attack.

And again, the question posed by the WTN is not if the attack is a general or specific close combat attack, ONLY if it is a close combat attack.

Frankly you are being disingenuous with your arguments by continuing to set the standard that it is the specific type of attack that is the measure by which the WTN qualifies and not that it is that it is a close combat attack that qualifies, an umbrella that covers any close combat attack, be it with a weapon, a fish, or a grenade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I notice that my question remains unanswered,

"Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack?"

Brother Ramses wrote:Then you are proposing that a close combat attack made with a grenade is not a close combat attack.

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's a specific type of attack that follows its own rules.

And again, the question posed by the WTN is not if the attack is a general or specific close combat attack, ONLY if it is a close combat attack.

Ok, now take that logic and have a look at the normal rules for assaulting a vehicle. Not how they also don't ask whether the attack is a normal one or an attack by a specific weapon, just as you are claiming for the WTN.

SO... when do the grenade rules actually apply?

Frankly you are being disingenuous with your arguments by continuing to set the standard that it is the specific type of attack that is the measure by which the WTN qualifies and not that it is that it is a close combat attack that qualifies, an umbrella that covers any close combat attack, be it with a weapon, a fish, or a grenade.

That's not being disingenious... it's the basic principle of the ruleset that allows any special rule that alters the core rules of the game to function.

It is the specific type of attack that determines which rules you use, because that specific type of attack has its own rules that are different from the norm.

Brother Ramses wrote:Then you are proposing that a close combat attack made with a grenade is not a close combat attack.

And again, the question posed by the WTN is not if the attack is a general or specific close combat attack, ONLY if it is a close combat attack.

Frankly you are being disingenuous with your arguments by continuing to set the standard that it is the specific type of attack that is the measure by which the WTN qualifies and not that it is that it is a close combat attack that qualifies, an umbrella that covers any close combat attack, be it with a weapon, a fish, or a grenade.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I'm stating (as a fact) that the grenade rules (attacking with a grenade in close combat) are more specific than the WTN rules (attacking with anything in close combat).
Since the grenade follows a different set of rules from a normal CC attack, those rules are more specific and must apply.
If the rules for attacking with a fish were the same as a normal CC attack - even if stated in a completely different place - the WTN would apply, since there is nothing more specific.

It's not that it's a specific type of attack, it's that there are rules covering this specific type of attack, and specific rules trump general rules in all cases.

edit:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I notice that my question remains unanswered,

"Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack?"

It's not being answered because the answer isn't relevant.

Brother Ramses wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
I notice that my question remains unanswered,

"Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack?"

Yes.

So applying your logic, models using grenades get their regular number of attacks, and will hit a walker automatically, since the regular rules for assaulting vehicles never mention special types of attacks.

Thus rendering this entire discussion moot, since the WTN doesn't actually do anything.

Brother Ramses wrote: Berzerker, as pointed out, WTN does not care about sub-sets of types of attacks, only attacks in close combat.

Is using a grenade against a walker a close combat attack?

Yes, it is. But unfortunately, your argument here is exactly counter to how the rules of the game work.

The situation we are positing, just like most situations in this game, does not have a single rule covering it, but many rules. These rules are often contradictory. The rule for the WTN itself falls into this category; it contradicts the normal rules for close-combat, by stating that a model equipped with a WTN hits on a 3+, rather than comparing WS. In short, the WTN rule REMOVES part of the close-combat rule and REPLACES it, in certain situations. This is what is known as a 'special' rule; one which only applies in a certain, specific situation.

Special rules - ALL special rules - work by contradicting the general rules. They let a model do something it shouldn't be able to under the general rule, or let it do something it could normally do in a different manner, or depending on a different roll of the dice. But the important thing to realize here is that contradiction is necessary. EVERY SINGLE TIME you do something by invoking a special rule, you are breaking the general rules of the game.

If there wasn't a way to determine which rule took priority, the game couldn't be played. There would be no way to resolve what happens when a model uses a special rule, because they would necessarily be breaking some other rule, and you aren't allowed to break rules. You'd have to house-rule everything. GW, however, wrote a fix into their ruleset; they told us that the more specific rules override more general rules, whenever they come into conflict. Without this the WTN would do absolutely NOTHING, because every time you use that special rule, you are breaking the general rules of close-combat.

So what does it mean that a more specific rule overrides a general rule? It means that a rule which deals with a specific situation - a sub-set of the larger set covered under a general rule - takes precedence over a more general rule when that specific situation occurs. And what does THAT mean? It means that a rule which requires more qualifiers before it comes into action overrides a rule which requires fewer qualifiers whenever the two contradict each other.

The WTN necklace rule has TWO qualifying conditions; the model must possess a WTN, and it must be in close-combat. Whenever those TWO conditions are met, the WTN rule applies, and overrides the general rule for close-combat.

The rule for attacking a walker with a grenade has THREE qualifying conditions; the model must be in close-combat, it must be attacking a walker, and it must elect to use a grenade. Whenever those THREE conditions are met, this rule applies, and overrides the general rule for close combat. It also overrides ANY other special combat rule which has fewer qualifying conditions if the two conflict, because it is more specific than they are!

These two rules are conflicting, because they both affect the same die-roll. One cannot hit on a 3+ AND a 6+; one rule must take precedence. According to the rules, when you have to choose between multiple contradictory rules which affect the same action, you abide by the one with the most qualifying conditions, and do not apply the one with the fewest.

So this whole debate boils down to one very simple question; is three greater than or less than two? The answer to that question will also answer the question at hand.

If you don't like that, you don't have to play it that way. Feel free to decide that the WTN applies to grenade attacks made against walkers. But understand that if you do that, you are not following the rules as GW wrote them; you are making a house rule.

*claps* Well said Berzerker.

... What he said. Except in my words, because I can't express myself like that. Or something.. >.>

Look in the FAQ. It states that the Necklace only works on attacks that require WS. Since attacking Vehicles requires no such thing, it doesn't work.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:Look in the FAQ. It states that the Necklace only works on attacks that require WS. Since attacking Vehicles requires no such thing, it doesn't work.

Read the thread. This is about walkers. Walkers have a WS. Heck, the thread title even mentions "v walkers".

BlapBlapBlap: The FAQ (well errata anyway) says Replace with "Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolfttoth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of 3+" In CC with Walkers you do use WS unless using grenades. It's not until the walker is immobilized that you use WS for grenade attacks.

If you are comparing qualifiers Berzerker, the WTN has 3 as well; close combat, WTN, and the target have a WS value.

Doh, there goes that argument about qualifiers being the determining factor.

Instead of trying to create a hierarchy of close combat attacks based upon nothing more then thinking it is different how about addressing the fact that using a grenade against a walker is considered a close combat attack, which falls under the any close combat attack qualifier of the WTN.

By all means, discount that using a grenade against a walker is NOT a close combat attack and you win the argument. I can wait.

Brother Ramses wrote:By all means, discount that using a grenade against a walker is NOT a close combat attack and you win the argument. I can wait.

By all means, show how "any CC attack" is more specific than "throwing a grenade in CC". I can wait.

Brother Ramses wrote:If you are comparing qualifiers Berzerker, the WTN has 3 as well; close combat, WTN, and the target have a WS value.

Doh, there goes that argument about qualifiers being the determining factor.

Okay I am willing to accept your '3 qualifiers' Let's try to be consistent and look at the model using grenades now...

1 - Close combat
2 - WTN
3 - Has WS value
4 - Attack with grenade...

Looks like grenades are still more specific? This is not a created hierarchy, this is literally how the actual game rules really work. If it wasn't for this arrangement no special rules would work.

For example, the WTN let's you hit on a 3+. Unfortuantely, the general rules for hitting in CC are more general and cover this situation, so you need to read from the chart. The only way WTN works at all is if you are willing to accept the premise of specific rules override general rules for particular situations.

Brother Ramses wrote:If you are comparing qualifiers Berzerker, the WTN has 3 as well; close combat, WTN, and the target have a WS value.

Doh, there goes that argument about qualifiers being the determining factor.

Ah, I thought we might get to this.

In presenting my analysis, I simply did not list those qualifiers which apply equally to both circumstances, with the sole exception of 'engaged in close-combat' as that qualifier defines the set we're trying to get sub-sets of. We are interested in the DIFFERENCE between the two, not similarities. The rules for using a grenade against a walker ALSO require that the target have a WS. . . because they require that the target be a walker, and in order to be a walker a model must have a WS. Your attempted refutation is thus flawed. If you want to argue that the WTN rule is more specific than the grenade rule, you need to find a qualifier which is NOT shared between the two. It's possible there is one that I've missed; if so, point it out.

And please note that if you do, that isn't a refutation of my argument. In fact, it's an ACCEPTANCE of my argument, and a correction of my CONCLUSION. I am perfectly fine with having my conclusion corrected; I don't play Space Wolves, and I hardly ever use walkers, so this debate doesn't really affect me.

Brother Ramses wrote:Instead of trying to create a hierarchy of close combat attacks based upon nothing more then thinking it is different how about addressing the fact that using a grenade against a walker is considered a close combat attack, which falls under the any close combat attack qualifier of the WTN.

By all means, discount that using a grenade against a walker is NOT a close combat attack and you win the argument. I can wait.

This, here, is the real problem because it demonstrates that you do not yet understand any part of this argument. Answer a question, please. Is it or is it not true that a more specific rule overrides a more general rule?

I ask this because currently, you are asserting that more general rules override more specific rules. You are doing this openly. In fact, you even acknowledged it multiple times, here in this thread. And that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work.

Yes; the requirements for the WTN have been fulfilled. Everything that needs to be checked off before the rule activates has been checked off.

THAT DOES NOT MATTER. It is not the issue under discussion; it is not relevant in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because there is another rule in question, and all the requirements for that rule have also been fulfilled.

Your argument is just as easily used (and just as invalid) pointed the other way. Isn't the model in question attacking a walker with a grenade? Then how do you justify not using the rule governing models attacking a walker with a grenade? What gives the WTN rule priority over the grenade vs. walker rule? Explain your method. The conditions for both rules are equally fulfilled; you cannot claim priority for the WTN on those grounds, because it doesn't have any. You must have a reason which does not apply equally to the grenade vs. walker rule. What is it?

What people seem to be forgetting/ignoring here is that the exact wording of the Wolf Tail Necklace says 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+'.
It does not say 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+ except when using a genade'.

As such the critical part of this discussion is not specific > general but rather is using a grenade in close combat considered a close combat attack.
The answer here cannot be anything but yes. The attack however is a 'special' close combat attack, but a close combat attack none the less and as such is covered by the word ALWAYS in the Wolf Tail Necklace rule.

JayJay wrote:It does not say 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+ except when using a genade'.

Nor do the regular rules for assaulting a vehicle say that you hit automatically except when using a grenade against a walker... which brings us back the to fact that using this logic, the WTF is completely pointless.

Attacking in close combat has certain rules. The WTF alters those rules.
Attacking in close combat with a grenade also alters those rules, specifically for attacks using a grenade.

So when you are using a grenade in close combat, you use the rules that are most specific to the situation. That's why they exist in the first place.

I do understand both sides of the 'discussion' and Im not 100% sure which side to be on however I really do not see how the word always can be interpreted as sometimes.

I do not have the BRB with me right now but IIRC the assualting a vehicle rules do indeed tell you when you must roll to hit and what result is required. For example you do not automatically hit a vehicle if it has moved, but if it was stationary the hit is automatic.

The way I see the issue is that we have 1 rule telling us to do 1 thing and we have another rule telling us to do something different.
The second rule is telling us to always do something, whereas the first rule is telling us what to do in a specific situation.
What we have to decide is whether we 'should' do as the first rule says, or whether we should follow the second rule covering the specific situation.

Thinking on this more, I would have to side with the WTN 'group' as correct, considering we cannot ignore the word 'always' within the WTN rule without redefining the words meaning within the English language.

JayJay wrote:I do understand both sides of the 'discussion' and Im not 100% sure which side to be on however I really do not see how the word always can be interpreted as sometimes.

It's not.

'Always' makes it something that always applies.

However, a more specific rule will over-ride a rule that always applies, because it is more specific to the actual situation.

That's the basic principle that allows any special rule that alters the core rules to function. Without it. most special rules in the game would be completely useless. The rules don't generally say 'It works like this, except in these situations'... They outline the rules that always apply, and certain situations present exceptions to those rules.

You "always" get an armour save in close combat, except where a power weapon, the more specific rule, says you dont.

SAme situation here: you always strike on a 3+ except when that same model is attacking with a grenade

nosferatu1001 wrote:You "always" get an armour save in close combat, except where a power weapon, the more specific rule, says you dont.

SAme situation here: you always strike on a 3+ except when that same model is attacking with a grenade

Either that or my nids will be really happy now.. armor saves for everyone!

nosferatu1001 wrote:You "always" get an armour save in close combat, except where a power weapon, the more specific rule, says you dont.

SAme situation here: you always strike on a 3+ except when that same model is attacking with a grenade

But that can be added to this issue and reversed as well considering you have....

You "always" get an armour save in close combat (general rule), except where a power weapon (specific rule due to wargear)
You hit on a 6+ when using a grenade in CC (situational specific rule), except where a WTN (specifc rule due to wargear)

What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

JayJay wrote:You hit on a 6+ when using a grenade in CC (situational specific rule), except where a WTN (specifc rule due to wargear)

Except that's backwards. You're trying to make the more general rule (ie:the one that applies to all close combat attacks) count as being more specific than the rule that applies to attacking with a specific close combat weapon.

JayJay wrote:What people seem to be forgetting/ignoring here is that the exact wording of the Wolf Tail Necklace says 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+'.
It does not say 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+ except when using a genade'.

As such the critical part of this discussion is not specific > general but rather is using a grenade in close combat considered a close combat attack.
The answer here cannot be anything but yes. The attack however is a 'special' close combat attack, but a close combat attack none the less and as such is covered by the word ALWAYS in the Wolf Tail Necklace rule.

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Brother Ramses.

1. Do more specific rules override general rules?

2. Is three greater than two, or less than two?

It really is that simple.

What you and Ramses are both arguing is that the requirements for the WTN rule to come into effect have been met, and therefore the rule must apply. But what you are ignoring is that the requirements for the grenade rule to come into effect have ALSO been met! Both rules have equal claim, by that standard, and you CANNOT arbitrarily ignore one of them on that basis. You must have some other standard by which to choose between them; and GW has given us that standard. You are not allowed to simply brush it aside.

JayJay wrote:What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

Can you explain how "always" is more specific than "when attacking with a grenade"?

rigeld2 wrote:

JayJay wrote:What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

Can you explain how "always" is more specific than "when attacking with a grenade"?

Its not more specific, it doesnt need to be. The word 'always' allows for no exception. In this instance the WTN means that all attacks made by the model in CC, no matter the weapon used cause a hit on a 3+

Could you explain how 'attacking with a grenade' is not encompassed by the term 'always' when in reference to making an attack?

JayJay wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JayJay wrote:What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

Can you explain how "always" is more specific than "when attacking with a grenade"?

Its not more specific, it doesnt need to be. The word 'always' allows for no exception. In this instance the WTN means that all attacks made by the model in CC, no matter the weapon used cause a hit on a 3+

Could you explain how 'attacking with a grenade' is not encompassed by the term 'always' when in reference to making an attack?

Because a more specific rule always overrides a general one. Thems the rules. If the grenade rule is a more specific instance, it overrides the general rule.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Brother Ramses.

1. Do more specific rules override general rules?

2. Is three greater than two, or less than two?

It really is that simple.

What you and Ramses are both arguing is that the requirements for the WTN rule to come into effect have been met, and therefore the rule must apply. But what you are ignoring is that the requirements for the grenade rule to come into effect have ALSO been met! Both rules have equal claim, by that standard, and you CANNOT arbitrarily ignore one of them on that basis. You must have some other standard by which to choose between them; and GW has given us that standard. You are not allowed to simply brush it aside.

What you seem to be arguing is that the English language in this case is ignored.
You cannot ignore that fact that the word 'always' is an absolute and has no other meaning. As such when rolling to hit in CC against something with a WS whilst equiped with a WTN the result of a D6 roll must be 3 + in order to hit.
The weapon used in the attack doesnt matter, it could be a power weapon, it could be a ticklestick, it could be a grenade. It really makes no difference to the absolute nature of 'always' within the WTN rule.

However, could you explain exactly how the grenade rule is more relevent considering that both rules just tell you to ignore the standard CC to-hit chart, but one only effects grenades and the other always applies.

JayJay wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Brother Ramses.

1. Do more specific rules override general rules?

2. Is three greater than two, or less than two?

It really is that simple.

What you and Ramses are both arguing is that the requirements for the WTN rule to come into effect have been met, and therefore the rule must apply. But what you are ignoring is that the requirements for the grenade rule to come into effect have ALSO been met! Both rules have equal claim, by that standard, and you CANNOT arbitrarily ignore one of them on that basis. You must have some other standard by which to choose between them; and GW has given us that standard. You are not allowed to simply brush it aside.

What you seem to be arguing is that the English language in this case is ignored.
You cannot ignore that fact that the word 'always' is an absolute and has no other meaning. As such when rolling to hit in CC against something with a WS whilst equiped with a WTN the result of a D6 roll must be 3 + in order to hit.
The weapon used in the attack doesnt matter, it could be a power weapon, it could be a ticklestick, it could be a grenade. It really makes no difference to the absolute nature of 'always' within the WTN rule.

However, could you explain exactly how the grenade rule is more relevent considering that both rules just tell you to ignore the standard CC to-hit chart, but one only effects grenades and the other always applies.

The "always" is ignored because the rules tell you to use the most specific rule. The grenade attack rules are more specific than a generic CC attack. Therefore, you *must* use the grenade rules to make your attack rather than the generic CC rules - which is what WTN is overriding.

But what about codex > brb?
I remember reading somewhere that some rules in the codex will contradict those in the brb and as such players should apply the rule from the codex.
*I'll double check for this when I get home this evening*

This would mean you ignore the grenade rule from the brb because the wtn rule in the codex takes precident.

JayJay wrote:But what about codex > brb?
I remember reading somewhere that some rules in the codex will contradict those in the brb and as such players should apply the rule from the codex.
*I'll double check for this when I get home this evening*

This would mean you ignore the grenade rule from the brb because the wtn rule in the codex takes precident.

You have the rule wrong. There's nothing about codex trumping brb - the only rule is that specific trumps general.

Actually they arent entirely wrong - however the only time "codex trumps rulebook" is true is, as you are told on Smoke Launchers, when the codex AND the BRB BOTH have an *identically* named rule.

In that, and ONLY that instance, you ignore the BRB and go with the codex

From what I read on Page 70 of the BGB, when assaulting walkers with melta bombs, or grenades, you need a roll of a 6+. Unless the walker in question is stunned/ immobilised at the start of the assault phase, then you would be using your grenades and or melta bombs based on a normal comparison of WS. Seems to me that the WTN would only work if the walker was stunned / Immobilised at the start of the assault phase.

tokuruss88 wrote:From what I read on Page 70 of the BGB, when assaulting walkers with melta bombs, or grenades, you need a roll of a 6+. Unless the walker in question is stunned/ immobilised at the start of the assault phase, then you would be using your grenades and or melta bombs based on a normal comparison of WS. Seems to me that the WTN would only work if the vehicle was stunned / Immobilised at the start of the assault phase.

The WTN has been FAQ'd, it no longer relies on WS comparison to work, simply that the model being attacked has a WS.

That said, WTN still doesn't work with grenades, for reasons outlined above.

All attacks by a model hit on a 3+. Grenades create an exception and as such only hit on 6+.

Grenades only hit on 6+. Attacks from a model wearing a WTN always hit on a 3+. Grenades are still more specific than "all attacks" and as such still hit on a 6+ as they create an exception.