Does Kharn still hit an invisible target on a 2+?

And can he also deny a blessing on a 2+?

1) The BRB does not give any insight on how to handle two set modifiers. so no one knows.

2) If the blessing targets him, yes.

I figured that would have been a huge one to clarify on a FAQ

I'd say invisibility over kharns rule

Could you use same time allowance, ie controlling player chooses which is applied first?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Could you use same time allowance, ie controlling player chooses which is applied first?

Huh?

Kharn hits on 2+ against invisibilty because codex trumps rulebook.

And kharn only DtW on 2+ if his unit is the target of a psychic power which blessings would not do.

Oh boy

1) If there is a conflict between a rulebook and a codex rule, the codex rule always takes precedence. I'd say Kharn will still hit invisible units on a 2+.

2) Kharn and his unit only get the 2+ DTW if they are the target of the power so if you mean can they use it to deny blessings on enemy units it's going to be a no.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Could you use same time allowance, ie controlling player chooses which is applied first?

Huh?

When two events must occur at the same time, the controlling player chooses the order they are resolved in. So two set modifiers would resolved in order of controlling players choosing - iff it doesn't get overridden anyway by the codex over brb concept

Codex > BRB. Kharn hits on a 2+. However his 2+ dtw only applies when his unit is targeted.

+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

chanceafs wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

Actually RAWRAI is correct. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is for rules that have sequencing conflicts, i.e. both rules are to be applied but they are both described as happening at a specific time e.g. at the start of the movement phase. In such cases both rules can be applied but the 'player whose turn it is' rule allows determination of which is applied first.

In this case the conflict is nothing to do with sequencing; there is a conflict between two separate conditions in which only one can be successfully applied. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is of no relevance in this situation and its simply a case of codex > BRB to determine which condition is used i.e. Kharn always hits on a 2+

RAW, Kharn hits invisibles on a 2+. (one better than the best to hit chance in v6, where there are no invisibles)
RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

This is because Kharn's rule was written before invisibility and therefore did not have to take it into account to reduce ambiguity.

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

Actually RAWRAI is correct. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is for rules that have sequencing conflicts, i.e. both rules are to be applied but they are both described as happening at a specific time e.g. at the start of the movement phase. In such cases both rules can be applied but the 'player whose turn it is' rule allows determination of which is applied first.

In this case the conflict is nothing to do with sequencing; there is a conflict between two separate conditions in which only one can be successfully applied. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is of no relevance in this situation and its simply a case of codex > BRB to determine which condition is used i.e. Kharn always hits on a 2+

and both of these rules are applied at the same time, at the last step of modifying a roll. And we are told that all modifiers are applied and that set modifiers are applied last. Not even that sentence allows room for multiple set modifiers. So since they happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is picks which is applied first, and then the one applied second gets the override. But since the rules explicitly tells you to apply ALL modifiers, and gives you an order in which to apply them, there is not justification for codex v BRB or specific v advanced. Because the conflict is already resolved. Both are applied and the one applied last takes precedence.

Kharn's intention is that he always hits someone, either his target or his friends. So if we are going by RAI are we saying that if he hits invisible targets on 5's does he hit friends on 4, 3, 2, 1? That's a silly way to play it. I agree with the Codex > BRB on this one.

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chanceafs wrote:

and both of these rules are applied at the same time, at the last step of modifying a roll. And we are told that all modifiers are applied and that set modifiers are applied last. Not even that sentence allows room for multiple set modifiers. So since they happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is picks which is applied first, and then the one applied second gets the override. But since the rules explicitly tells you to apply ALL modifiers, and gives you an order in which to apply them, there is not justification for codex v BRB or specific v advanced. Because the conflict is already resolved. Both are applied and the one applied last takes precedence.

That's just ridiculous. How can you even think that such an interpretation makes sense ?

Hey it's my turn, I hit invisibles on a 2+.
Shoo, it's your turn, I hit invisibles on a 6+, and all my comrades on 1-5.

WTF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Kharn's intention is that he always hits someone, either his target or his friends. So if we are going by RAI are we saying that if he hits invisible targets on 5's does he hit friends on 4, 3, 2, 1? That's a silly way to play it. I agree with the Codex > BRB on this one.

I don't think there can be anything sillier than one single character in one single codex landing five times more hits than any other unit in the whole game on a unit benefiting from a rule that was created after that character's ability.

morgoth wrote:

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!

I highly doubt the writers of the rule Invisibility even thought about Kharn. The writers of Kharn however clearly wanted Kharn to hit on a 2+ without exception since at the time there wasnt an exception.

Warhammer 40k is full of crazy crap. Whats wrong with a demonicly driven super human being able to hit people he cant see?

chanceafs wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

Actually RAWRAI is correct. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is for rules that have sequencing conflicts, i.e. both rules are to be applied but they are both described as happening at a specific time e.g. at the start of the movement phase. In such cases both rules can be applied but the 'player whose turn it is' rule allows determination of which is applied first.

In this case the conflict is nothing to do with sequencing; there is a conflict between two separate conditions in which only one can be successfully applied. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is of no relevance in this situation and its simply a case of codex > BRB to determine which condition is used i.e. Kharn always hits on a 2+

and both of these rules are applied at the same time

Except they can't be because of the conflict. Codex > BRB tells us which takes precedence.

chanceafs wrote:
, at the last step of modifying a roll. And we are told that all modifiers are applied and that set modifiers are applied last. Not even that sentence allows room for multiple set modifiers.

Last time I checked, the roll required to hit a target is not a Characteristic Value. The rules for modifying Characteristics are therefore irrelevant.

chanceafs wrote:
So since they happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is picks which is applied first, and then the one applied second gets the override

Nothing in the rules for either Invisibility or Gorechild states a specific time when they are to be resolved. The sequencing rule is therefore not relevant and does not even come into consideration.

chanceafs wrote:
, But since the rules explicitly tells you to apply ALL modifiers, and gives you an order in which to apply them, there is not justification for codex v BRB or specific v advanced.

This is the BRB procedure to handle basic vs advanced rules. I've inserted the relevant rules being discussed here for clarity.

"Where advanced rules (Gorechild) apply to a specific model (Kharn), they always override any contradicting basic rules (Invisibility)." "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook (Invisibility), and one printed in a codex (Gorechild). Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex (Gorechild) or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

Kharn melee attacks always hit on a 2+.

IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

 Brotherjanus wrote:
IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

The only reason I can see for it is because then the player who wants super invisibility on their point sink deathstar would have to adapt. That's the same reason they'll try to say Wall of Death (advanced/special rule), somehow doesn't trump the basic snapshot rule either. They don't want there to be ANY counter other than 36 dice to wound (before saves).

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!

I highly doubt the writers of the rule Invisibility even thought about Kharn. The writers of Kharn however clearly wanted Kharn to hit on a 2+ without exception since at the time there wasnt an exception.

Warhammer 40k is full of crazy crap. Whats wrong with a demonicly driven super human being able to hit people he cant see?

Since you have nothing against my point, I just reiterate it: Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

Because it's an unintended effect of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

The only reason I can see for it is because then the player who wants super invisibility on their point sink deathstar would have to adapt. That's the same reason they'll try to say Wall of Death (advanced/special rule), somehow doesn't trump the basic snapshot rule either. They don't want there to be ANY counter other than 36 dice to wound (before saves).

This is not how a rules discussion works.

The only reason to judge for Kharn is that people hate invisibility.

The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

Premise 1: GW did errata the CSM codex rewriting rules for 7ed, thus changing how they were intended to work
Premise 2: Kharn's rule did not change during this errata

Conclusion: Kharn's rule is currently written as intended for 7ed, and is as valid a rule as is invisibility.

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

Premise 1: GW did errata the CSM codex rewriting rules for 7ed, thus changing how they were intended to work
Premise 2: Kharn's rule did not change during this errata

Conclusion: Kharn's rule is currently written as intended for 7ed, and is as valid a rule as is invisibility.

Premise 1 and 2 do not cause the conclusion, because it happens all the time that GW does not address everything in their FAQ / errata, which is proven by the amount of uncertainty in some of the YMDC threads.

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

Premise 1: GW did errata the CSM codex rewriting rules for 7ed, thus changing how they were intended to work
Premise 2: Kharn's rule did not change during this errata

Conclusion: Kharn's rule is currently written as intended for 7ed, and is as valid a rule as is invisibility.

Premise 1 and 2 do not cause the conclusion, because it happens all the time that GW does not address everything in their FAQ / errata, which is proven by the amount of uncertainty in some of the YMDC threads.

Nor does your argument prove that GW has kept the same intentions since 6ed. Its still a complete possibility that GW intends Kharn to hit on 2+ (because the rule was written with the intention to make Kharn hit on 2+).

If anything your concept that Kharn's rule represents "WS11 with +1 to hit" is so convoluted that it would be absurd if GW also thought of kharn's rule to work that way.

Indeed. And even better, the raw works. You can argue RAI all you want morgoth, however you're not being that convincing.

So if I'm getting Morgoth's argument correct Kharn doesn't hit Centurions on a 2+ because they didn't exist when his rule was written so they couldn't have possibly intended him to hit Centurions or Riptides or Wraith Knights or Wyverns on a 2+. Good to know.

morgoth is also saying Gw intention was for kharn to always hit "one better than everyone else"

GWs intention has been that kharn hits on a 2+, and hits friendlies on a 1, he's been that way since 3rd edition. history of the character shows what their intention was.

he's hitting on 2+

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Kharn's intention is that he always hits someone, either his target or his friends. So if we are going by RAI are we saying that if he hits invisible targets on 5's does he hit friends on 4, 3, 2, 1? That's a silly way to play it. I agree with the Codex > BRB on this one.

I do like this interpretation though, in fluff...

Kharn does not see Invisible enemies.
Kharn knows they are around him.
Kharn slashes everywhere, ripping apart his team-mates while getting an opponent or 2...
Kharn is happy.

Ok so, I have a theoretical question for all of you using the codex>BRB logic. What if Invisibility (or a power that did basically the same thing) were in a codex? What happens then? Is there a way to resolve it?

chanceafs wrote:
Ok so, I have a theoretical question for all of you using the codex>BRB logic. What if Invisibility (or a power that did basically the same thing) were in a codex? What happens then? Is there a way to resolve it?

Nos's suggestion would probably be best - person who turn decides.

Don't think there's much else written on such things, but something like this could certainly be a codex power.

Anything > Invisibilty. Because it is a crutch that needs to be kicked out from underneath the weak.

I say split the difference and he hits on a 4+.

 Nem wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Ok so, I have a theoretical question for all of you using the codex>BRB logic. What if Invisibility (or a power that did basically the same thing) were in a codex? What happens then? Is there a way to resolve it?

Nos's suggestion would probably be best - person who turn decides.

Don't think there's much else written on such things, but something like this could certainly be a codex power.

As written? Kharn would still win, because Invisibility isn't a special rule. It is a modifier to basic rules. and Kharne (presumably) say "always hits on a 2+". "Always hits" conditions trump "can only" or anything but anything but "never hits" style verbiage.

 namiel wrote:
I say split the difference and he hits on a 4+.

A sure way to leave everyone unhappy, (insert quip about good compromise) much like the "roll off" crowd. The guy who knows he's wrong still wins 50% in that situation. It's fine the first time it comes up in a game, but YMDC is to avoid that the next go around

And where does it say special rules cancel out psychic powers? Psychic powers are not basic rules and they are not in themselves special rules. They ate both modifying basic rules as all special rules, wargear and powers do.


Always hits on a x does not always cancel out other rules, we know this because those things can not hit zooming flyers or swooping fmcs, infact a better case based on precedent can be made for quite the opposite, it can even breach the codex wins premise here, as presidents can be made for these circumstances those rules not being so literal. Then there is the issue that normally we would prioritize the most restrictive rules, invisibility causes conflicts we are not used to seeing in this environment, and I'm sure if they FAQd it, it could go either way, but I would quit while ahead.

 Nem wrote:
And where does it say special rules cancel out psychic powers? Psychic powers are not basic rules and they are not in themselves special rules. They ate both modifying basic rules as all special rules, wargear and powers do.

Psychic powers all have different rules and effects. Invisibility 's effects modify basic rules, which are subordinate to special rules, which are in turn subordinate to codex rules as explicitly noted elsewhere.

"Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

BRB<codex
Hit on a 6>< Kharn hits on a 2+.

Kharn hits on a 2.

 Nem wrote:
Always hits on a x does not always cancel out other rules, we know this because those things can not hit zooming flyers or swooping fmcs, infact a better case based on precedent can be made for quite the opposite.

No, you would need to be able to roll x to hit, but otherwise? "always hits on a 2+" means you are hit on a 2+ unless you have a specific, overriding exemption, "can only be hit on a 6, regardless of any special rules the targetted model may have." Do you think that Invisible units are immune to scattered blasts? Buildings collapsing? Vector Strike? Torrent weapons which happen to touch them? Strike those questions, there'e another thread for that if yo want o argue it. Instead, can you provide an example of "always hits on a 2" that can't hit a flyer, assuming it can roll in the first place? We don't need to get bogged down in ground CC troops not being able to assault flyers. Please include actual RAW quotes that others can validate.


Otherwise, Kharn hits on a 2+. Note: I don't play whatever army has Kharn (Daemons I assume?)

Powers are Subordinate to special rules - will need a rules quote to confirm that as I've not come across it in any YMDC or any rule book I've seen,

As for the flyers thing I'm sure there are rules equivalent to Khans but for shooting / other - will look them up when on a pc.

And blasts are a completely different issue, they do not conflict with invisibility at all, as those things you listed do not target the invisible unit. Khans rule and invisibility conflict directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think Khans SM?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just going in there, if Khans ability does not modify basic rules then he's hitting on his WS like the basic rules tell you to.

 Nem wrote:
Powers are Subordinate to special rules - will need a rules quote to confirm that as I've not come across it in any YMDC or any rule book I've seen,

It is also not a premise I made. That's a straw man.

I said different powers had different rules and that Invisbility modifies basic rules. My premises are
1) that codex>special>basic rules.
2) Invisibility is not a special rule, just a modifer to basic rules (aka snap shot etc).

 Nem wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just going in there, if Khans ability does not modify basic rules they he's hitting on his WS like the basic rules tell you to.

"always hits on a 2+" is the quoted rule I've been told. Assuming it is actually worded that way... he hits on a 2+, regardless of his weapon skill or any other non-codex rule worded to trump it "can never be hit except on a" verbiage. If he has a gun and that rules applies to it/ranged combat, he'd hit flyers too since codex>snapshot (basic). That's not a basic stat modifier its a model specific codex rule.

My Avatar, even manning a twin-linked quad gun with nightvision power and BS10, only hits on a (twinlinked) 6 though, because HE doesn't have any "always hits on a " verbiage.

Kharn's ability doesn't modify his BS/WS (a basic rule), it says he hits in a 2+.

And I'm saying, all your premises are based on assumptions you have not quoted any rules or any possible precedents for, the only bit backed by the rule book is that the codex takes president, which was not worth arguing with how badly that sentence is written but there... I can only cover those based on 6ed faq's as they are the only possible answers we have.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/580096.page#6549209

That is from 6th and showing a the flyers rule trumping a codex rule. You can compare but there codex president line was in the last rule book as was hard to hit - as in those rules have not changed so why would it work differently now?


The best case is always vs can only but I don't think that's so watertight either, then again I can't think of another always off the top of my head that has contended with hard to hit (which uses can only). Many things have tried and failed at overruling hard to hit, which uses the can only wording.

 Nem wrote:
And I'm saying, all your premises are based on assumptions you have not quoted any rules or any possible precedents for, the only bit backed by the rule book is that the codex takes president, which was not worth arguing with how badly that sentence is written

The best case is always vs can only but I don't think that's so watertight either, then again I can't think of another always off the top of my head that has contended with hard to hit (which uses can only). Many things have tried and failed at overruling hard to hit, which uses the can only wording.

My first premise:
1) that codex>special>basic rules.

"Basic Versus Advanced
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat
...snip....
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills
...snip...
For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
"

I don't see how that is vague or poorly worded.


Premise 2:
2) Invisibility is not a special rule, just a modifier to basic rules (aka snap shot etc).

Where does it say Invisibilty is or grants a special/advanced rule? It is not in the special rules section. If we look at the Shrouding power which immediately precedes Invisibility, we see this:
"have the Shrouded special rule"

Shrouding is a psychic power that grants explicitly grants a special rule. Invisibility does not grant the "Hard to Hit" special rule or any other. RAW they do not get the "Hard to Hit Rule". Even if they did, the codex still trumps BRB per premise 1, which has already been proven with explicit quotes.

The "Hard to Hit rule" states:
" is a very difficult target for units without specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule."

I'm guessing Kharn would count as a specialised guy in that YMDC debate if he wasn't a codex rule user and was a BRB unit but I'd have to see the whole rules for him to be sure.

Does he hit on a 2+ or on his WS? Hitting on WS is a basic rule, is Khan doesn't then he is by definition doing something other than the basic rule... He overrides the rules on WS chart and what is needed to hit, invisibility does the same. The are both the same sort of modification.

And under premise one this doesn't mention special rules hierarchical to advanced rules, just there are basic and advanced rules (special rules included).

Codec conflict rule book has been demonstrated to read as where it's conflict on the same rule. Such as Khan hits on ws (basic), Khan hits on 2's (codex takes precedent), this doesn't necessarily read that 2 different rules to the same.

It's not a sequencing problem. Therefore codex vs rule book every time. It's simple straight forward. It's not like people use khorne armies anyway.

Kharn's ability to hit is based purely on his sense of smell. Being invisible does nothing to deny his acute olfactory abilities to home in on your location and whack you in your invisible face.

 Nem wrote:
Does he hit on a 2+ or on his WS? Hitting on WS is a basic rule, is Khan doesn't then he is by definition doing something other than the basic rule... He overrides the rules on WS chart and what is needed to hit, invisibility does the same. The are both the same sort of modification.

And under premise one this doesn't mention special rules hierarchical to advanced rules, just there are basic and advanced rules (special rules included).

Codec conflict rule book has been demonstrated to read as where it's conflict on the same rule. Such as Khan hits on ws (basic), Khan hits on 2's (codex takes precedent), this doesn't necessarily read that 2 different rules to the same.

Kharn hitting on 2+ is courtesy of the rules for Gorechild, his massive chainaxe. The exact wording is: "Kharn's melee attacks always hit on a 2+"

It really is as simple as Codex > BRB in this case. As I outlined earlier:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
This is the BRB procedure to handle basic vs advanced rules. I've inserted the relevant rules being discussed here for clarity.

"Where advanced rules (Gorechild) apply to a specific model (Kharn), they always override any contradicting basic rules (Invisibility)." "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook (Invisibility), and one printed in a codex (Gorechild). Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex (Gorechild) or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

Kharn melee attacks always hit on a 2+.

RAWRAIRobbleRobble,
Technically there is only Basic and Advanced Rules, with specific permission for Advanced Rules in Codex's to 'trump' those found in the Rulebook. The instruction on what incorporates a basic Rule or an Advanced Rule is found right back in the Core Section of the Rulebook. It is very lacking in detail, it is not even a page to explain the concept of how their Rules interact with each other in the hierarchy, and is just a-typical of Game Workshop. Now if the Psychic Power in question and Special Rule both fall under 'Advanced Rules' and both where found in a Codex?

This is not an unknown situation, the answer is always the same...
Bang your head against the wall along side us, it will do just as much good as trying to figure out which one is 'more advanced.'

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

JinxDragon wrote:
RAWRAIRobbleRobble,
Technically there is only Basic and Advanced Rules, with specific permission for Advanced Rules in Codex's to 'trump' those found in the Rulebook. The instruction on what incorporates a basic Rule or an Advanced Rule is found right back in the Core Section of the Rulebook. It is very lacking in detail, it is not even a page to explain the concept of how their Rules interact with each other in the hierarchy, and is just a-typical of Game Workshop. Now if the Psychic Power in question and Special Rule both fall under 'Advanced Rules' and both where found in a Codex?

This is not an unknown situation, the answer is always the same...
Bang your head against the wall along side us, it will do just as much good as trying to figure out which one is 'more advanced.'

Thank you Jinx this is what I was trying to put across when I started posting.

AlexRae wrote:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.

There is a similar discussion in:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/615151.page

To phrase it in the same way there,
Khan hits on WS (BRB), Khan hits on 2+ (Codex) is a example of a rule in the rulebook and one printed in the codex conflicting.

Now the literal sentence in its form looks like it extends to any time two rules collide - but there's a whole host of situations where we know this is not true, the times where this isn't true, is two different rules conflicting, where one is present in the BRB and one in the codex, we see BRB taking precedent where they are both advanced rules, actual rule applications of this sentence are not that clear cut.

In general, you'll find people posting that have a problem with being quoted the codex and BRB bits, mainly as it's used to justify so much.
This post> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107 notes everything on specific and general, and codex and BRB. To quote a section;

Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.

But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.

That above, should explain why it's entirely possible for if a FAQ to come out for it to say Invisibility wins, we've seen it time and time again when FAQ's are released (I mean, you know that tie when GW was actually releasing useful FAQ's) and over the years of 40k this is a very annoying sentence which isn't clear and has very annoying implications.

'Always' again, looks clear on the surface but when we say specific were normally looking for the permission to give a specific exemption or worded in a way to override the restriction we are looking for -Regardless of any other restrictions/even against invisibility- would suffice, or is what we'd normally be looking for to say it's more spercific. In the case of Tau markerlights, there is one (Going from memory now!) which increases the BS of the firing unit - however only the marker lights which specifically say they can effect the BS of snap snots (As snapshots is essentially a restriction) can raise the BS of snap shots, even though one is a basic rule and one is a codex rule.

It's all a bit wibbly wobbly and in 6th we were able to identify which way they wanted us to play these new instances fairly early from FAQ's, but there's a FAQ draught upon 7th.

 Nem wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.

For Kharn vs Invisibility there is no ambiguity apart from that which you seem to be trying to manufacture. That quote from the BRB is probably one of the least ambiguous statements in there.

 Nem wrote:
But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.

Not according to: "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."

 Nem wrote:
That above, should explain why it's entirely possible for if a FAQ to come out for it to say Invisibility wins, we've seen it time and time again when FAQ's are released (I mean, you know that tie when GW was actually releasing useful FAQ's) and over the years of 40k this is a very annoying sentence which isn't clear and has very annoying implications.

It is possible that a future FAQ could rule that Kharn needs a 6 to hit Invisible units in melee just like everyone else. This is however irrelevant as no such FAQ exists at this time, and remember that GW did errata each Codex to make any changes to codex rules they deemed necessary for 7th edition. That BRB sentence is perfectly clear and only annoying if you don't like its implications for any given rule conflict.

 Nem wrote:
It's all a bit wibbly wobbly and in 6th we were able to identify which way they wanted us to play these new instances fairly early from FAQ's, but there's a FAQ draught upon 7th.

It's probably just best to stick to the RAW in the absence of an FAQ then. But you do have the option of playing the game any way that you like.

 Nem wrote:

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.


Khan hits on WS (BRB), Khan hits on 2+ (Codex) is a example of a rule in the rulebook and one printed in the codex conflicting

Page/para that states Kharn ever uses his WS in a melee attack. You're making this part up. He never uses WS for any melee attacks, per his rule "Always hits on a 2+"

This is a clear case of codex > rulebook, there's no 'ambiguity' about it

Does the rule specifically say "always"? If yes, then he...well...always hits at 2+.

Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

>> play an army that relies on invisibility
>> get defeated...a lot
>> be bitter
>> ask for rules changes

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

Thank you for a perfect example of a strawman argument that in no way resembles the argument Morgoth presented. Now, if the Wraithknight had a rule that said, "This model can only be wounded on a To Wound Roll of 6" that would be a fair comparison to a rule that says always when compared to another rule that says it can't happen comes out in a later codex... which takes priority.

Misrepresenting an argument made by someone else doesn't help your case, it merely points out that you're argument is so week you have to change your opponents argument to argue against it.

chanceafs wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

Thank you for a perfect example of a strawman argument that in no way resembles the argument Morgoth presented. Now, if the Wraithknight had a rule that said, "This model can only be wounded on a To Wound Roll of 6" that would be a fair comparison to a rule that says always when compared to another rule that says it can't happen comes out in a later codex... which takes priority.

Misrepresenting an argument made by someone else doesn't help your case, it merely points out that you're argument is so week you have to change your opponents argument to argue against it.

Eh, morgoth's argument may have been misrepresented, but that does not make the argument for 'Kharn hits invisibility on a 2+' weak.

I don't think morgoth's argument is correct. He is saying that Kharn should hit on a 5+ because its 'one better' then 6. This is assuming the intention was for Kharn hit like normal, except 1 better. If that was the intention, then I think the rule would have been written to just give Kharn a +1 to hit modifier. This way if Kharn was fighting someone of equal WS, he would hit on a 3+ instead of 4+. However, that is not the case. Kharn hits everyone, including people of equal of greater WS, on a 2+.

And as always, the specific codex ruels for Kharn overrides the rules for invisibility in the rule book.

chanceafs wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

Thank you for a perfect example of a strawman argument that in no way resembles the argument Morgoth presented. Now, if the Wraithknight had a rule that said, "This model can only be wounded on a To Wound Roll of 6" that would be a fair comparison to a rule that says always when compared to another rule that says it can't happen comes out in a later codex... which takes priority.

Misrepresenting an argument made by someone else doesn't help your case, it merely points out that you're argument is so week you have to change your opponents argument to argue against it.

You are erroneously equating invisibility with a rule specific to codex: Eldar pertaining to Wraithknights.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Kharn hitting on 2+ is courtesy of the rules for Gorechild, his massive chainaxe. The exact wording is: "Kharn's melee attacks always hit on a 2+"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Kharn always hits on a 2+, not because he has amazeballs WS or anything red herrings people want to claim, but because his codex specific, model specific, weapon specific rule says he "always hits on a 2+" as Tonberry quoted.

If you want to say that is not the quote, and that Tonberry is outright fabricating a quote, be prepared to quote the actual Chaos codex rule and not some personal interpretation of what they may have meant to write instead. Otherwise we can all shoot S10 AP1 apocalypse blast weapons as an assault 50 weapon, because obviously my guys stuff should always win...

Kharn "always hits on a 2+".

 WrentheFaceless wrote:

 Nem wrote:

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.


Khan hits on WS (BRB), Khan hits on 2+ (Codex) is a example of a rule in the rulebook and one printed in the codex conflicting

Page/para that states Kharn ever uses his WS in a melee attack. You're making this part up. He never uses WS for any melee attacks, per his rule "Always hits on a 2+"

This is a clear case of codex > rulebook, there's no 'ambiguity' about it

I was making the point that is a clear case of codex and rulebook, I didn't say Khan hits on his WS, just there are 2 rules about how someone hits, the ones in the BRB and the ones in Kharns rules, and then making the point invisibility VS Khan is not the same sort of conflict.

tldr: Wasn't disagreeing with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.

For Kharn vs Invisibility there is no ambiguity apart from that which you seem to be trying to manufacture. That quote from the BRB is probably one of the least ambiguous statements in there.

I'm not manufacturing anything, your quoting a rule, I'm saying that rule in that sentence the context of the 'conflict' matters. This idea of that sentence and its context has been around longer than me on these boards, and many are well versed in it. If you don't want to or feel like it should be read that way that's fine. I don't/can't use Invis and neither do I play against any of these things, so makes little difference to me either way. If you can't understand why someone would say RAW wise Invisibility as a restriction would take precedence after posting all that I have, then I can't help anymore.

 Nem wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Nem wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.

For Kharn vs Invisibility there is no ambiguity apart from that which you seem to be trying to manufacture. That quote from the BRB is probably one of the least ambiguous statements in there.

I'm not manufacturing anything, your quoting a rule, I'm saying that rule in that sentence the context of the 'conflict' matters.

I really can't see how you come to that conclusion; the rule really doesn't leave any room for interpretation. It doesn't mention any distinction in the 'context of the conflict'.

 Nem wrote:
This idea of that sentence and its context has been around longer than me on these boards, and many are well versed in it. If you don't want to or feel like it should be read that way that's fine.

There's only one way it can be read unless you want to deliberately misinterpret it.

 Nem wrote:
I don't/can't use Invis and neither do I play against any of these things, so makes little difference to me either way. If you can't understand why someone would say RAW wise Invisibility as a restriction would take precedence after posting all that I have, then I can't help anymore.

No, I can't understand why RAW wise you would think Invisibility would take precedence over the rules for Gorechild because the rule explicitly tells us it's the other way around. But thanks for your help anyway.

Because Invisibility is not a "rule," the Codex taking precedence over the BRB doesn't come into account. That part in the BRB says that if a RULE from a Codex comes into conflict with a RULE from the BRB, the Codex wins, but like I said, Invis is not a "rule" - it is a power. Because of this, I believe the "restrictions overrule permissions" interpretation tool would mean that Kharn would have to roll a 6 to hit an Invisible unit in CC.

EDIT (clarity): Because Invis is not a rule, the Codex > BRB does not come into account, therefore the Restrictions > Permissions tool must.

Powers are rules...

So I will throw in my 2 cents, there is some very compelling statements saying that the codex does beat out the rule book which I agree with.

But at the end of the day, Kharn never misses... on a 1 he hits a friendly target. Now you might say, that is Kharn is alone, and he rolls a 1, that he misses.

I would say this is true, if you are some kind of scum that isn't attuned to the psychopathic tendencies of a Khorne killing machine. When Kharn rolls a 1 and doesn't actually hit one of his own units, he is actually hitting a ghost of one of his fallen brothers who over the thousands of years of combat he has endured has decided to reappear to taunt him in battle.

That being said, Kharn always hits on a 2+ because even if you are partially invisible, Kharn will still kill you.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Powers are rules...

I wouldn't classify powers as rules. They can sometimes CONFER rules, special or otherwise, but powers are abilities or a form of equipment (which itself HAS rules, but is not considered a rule, i.e. a Power Axe has rules, but the weapon is not itself a rule). A RULE would be something that allows a model to use psychic abilities. Maybe I'm out in the middle of nowhere on this, but that's how I've read it. I see psychic powers as a form of equipment for a unit that has the rule allowing it to use them.

Nobody I play uses Kharn, so ultimately this contention has no effect on me. And to be honest, from a lore-standpoint, I would say that Gorechild doesn't need to SEE its enemies to know that there is some fresh blood nearby waiting to be spilled.


EDIT: Link to explanation of how this stuff works... http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

I'd agree that Kharn hits on a 2+ regardless. The codex did come out before 7th edition rules, so it does need an FAQ for clarification. Fluff-wise, you could argue both ways...

Kharn wildly attacks out and hits invisible unit because it can't escape, or kharn blindly lashes towards an invisible unit, hits it a couple times, but also hits a couple of his guys.

Just what your gaming group or FLGS is okay with will have to work until an FAQ.

this is an easy one,


BRB says kharn hits on a 6


codex says kharn hits on a 2+ (and hits on a 1, but the wrong side)


codex > BRB.

end of story, clear cut too...

 Ninjakk wrote:
I wouldn't classify powers as rules. They can sometimes CONFER rules, special or otherwise, but powers are abilities or a form of equipment (which itself HAS rules, but is not considered a rule, i.e. a Power Axe has rules, but the weapon is not itself a rule).

IMO: exactly. And invisibility confers rules to its target ( rules such as: unit can only be fired upon by snapshots, can only be hit in melee on 6...), just like Power Axe confers set of rules (melee attack str modification, melee attack AP modification etc.).

I don't think that this line of thinking somehow conflict with the post you've provided link to btw.

 Ninjakk wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
Powers are rules...

I wouldn't classify powers as rules. They can sometimes CONFER rules, special or otherwise, but powers are abilities or a form of equipment (which itself HAS rules, but is not considered a rule, i.e. a Power Axe has rules, but the weapon is not itself a rule). A RULE would be something that allows a model to use psychic abilities. Maybe I'm out in the middle of nowhere on this, but that's how I've read it. I see psychic powers as a form of equipment for a unit that has the rule allowing it to use them.

Casting the power puts rules into effect. Thus powers contain rules.

 Barrogh wrote:

I don't think that this line of thinking somehow conflict with the post you've provided link to btw.

The link that I provided says that regardless of BRB, Codex, advanced, or basic rules, restrictions always trump permissions.

I think you all are misapplying codex>BRB here. I have never seen anything that says "all codex rules negate all brb powers."

 troa wrote:
I think you all are misapplying codex>BRB here. I have never seen anything that says "all codex rules negate all brb powers."

Look at this part of the BRB then.

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence." (General Principles chapter, Basic Versus Advanced section, 3rd graph, 4th sentence).

Just feel the need to point out this line:
The Rules contains a comprehensive set of rules allowing you to recreate the vicious conflicts of the 41st Millennium on the tabletop

It is sad when I have to quote the introduction to the book itself to show that something found within The Rules is a Rule. However, this is easily done as the introduction informs us there are three core sections to the book as a whole, a gallery of pictures designed for just pure marketing, a fluff section explaining the lore and a section literally named The Rules that explains how to play the game itself. Within The Rules is another introduction page informing us of the individual sub-sections that this part of the book is broken down into, including such things as Core Rules, Unit Types and anything found in the Appendix. Given that the book informs us that the Appendix belongs to the section known as The Rules, and this section of the book contains the Rules to play the game itself I only have a single questions to ask:

Please explain to me how something which informs us how to go about playing the game, and found in a section devoted to the Rules for the game, is not itself a Rule?

JinxDragon wrote:
Please explain to me how something which informs us how to go about playing the game, and found in a section devoted to the Rules for the game, is not itself a Rule?

That's a semi circular definition - if it tells us (specifically) how to play the game (use six sided dice, etc) then it is a rule. But not everything in there is a rule - take Vortex's fluff "The psyker rends the material realm asunder,". That's not a rule, it doesn't tell us how to play the game. It's fluff.

A "Power Axe" is not a rule. It is a weapon, which modifies 2 basic rules - +1 to the Strength of an attack (NOT the S characteristic btw), and makes it AP2 and applies the Unwieldy rule.

Similarly, Invisibility is not a rule, it is a power, which modifies basic rules (what you need to roll to hit and what you can deliberately target with some weapons.

Goreblood/child(?), Kharn's weapon applies an advanced rule: "always hits on a 2+". In terms of precedence, that is a weapon specific, model specific, codex specific advanced rule, which trumps anything not similarly specific "Smashface's Shield of Eff-Hew: Smashface can never be hit except on a 6", at which point a timing conflict arises and GW's cop out of "player whose turn it is decides" would come into play. Since no such thing exists...

Kharne always hits on a 2+.
Always.

In order for any game to work, ever, restrictions (in all cases) must overrule permissions. If a permission is allowed to overrule a restriction, where there is a conflict, then the entire game's ruleset comes unraveled.


EDIT: More advanced, more specific permissions can overrule lesser restrictions. Sorry I overlooked that...

 Ninjakk wrote:
In order for any game to work, ever, restrictions (in all cases) must overrule permissions. If a permission is allowed to overrule a restriction, where there is a conflict, then the entire game's ruleset comes unraveled.

Well then, bad news:

Models in the Way
A model cannot move within 1" of an enemy model unless they are charging into close combat in the Assault phase, and can never move or pivot (see below) through another model (friend or foe) at any time. To move past, they must go around.

No more flyers, FMC, jump/jet troops or skimmers. You must go around, not over, if you subscribe to that view.

Some people have funny ideas of what makes up a 'Rule' then, because I would consider the title or classification to be part of the Rule itself. However, given that Game Workshop already has some real stupid ideas when it comes to how a Rulebook should be formatted, I shouldn't really be surprised that arguments over what a Rule consists of occurs. Should someone want to make such an argument, that the Title given to a Rule or any classification is not part of the Rule in question, then this is the perfect system in which to do so. It is the internet, I am sure someone has that opinion out there, so we might see such an argument and I am curious to see where it's logical conclusion might take us.

Hell, to show how complicated the matter is:
Game Workshop has considered "Fluff" to be part of the Rules in the past!

The most obvious example is a piece of 6th Edition Gray Knight equipment containing a Rule related to enemy 'Plasma Weapons' within a certain range. Someone asked the Authors which weapons are effected by this piece of war-gear and that question made it into the official Frequently Asked Questions that sites like this one treat as 'Written Rules.' The reply back was that every piece of war-gear, from Pulse Rifles right through to Eldar Missile systems, which contained the word Plasma somewhere in the description, or Fluff as we know it, then it is subject to the war-gear in question. So while in 99.9% of cases the Fluff does nothing, there have been situations where Fluff could impact the outcome of a Game and those situations... Game Workshop clearly considers the fluff to be a 'Written Rule.'

So if we had instructions telling us how to Sunder the Realm, that piece of Fluff you quoted would require us to Sunder the Realm.
it is simply because we lack instructions telling us how to go about doing so that we are not required to actually do so.

Codex > Rulebook. This is the law of the jungle. And jetstar eldar really dont need ANOTHER crutch in a super specific situation given their status as top dog already. Boo hoo.

Besides, Kharn is the galaxy's most flying rodent gak cray cray killing machine, and I'm pretty sure he swings with his eyes closed anyway.

I think if you take out the antagonizers, the consensus might be hits on a two. Kharne dont give two rats butts about invisible targets

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:


No more flyers, FMC, jump/jet troops or skimmers. You must go around, not over, if you subscribe to that view.

Sorry, let me clarify. A basic restriction trumps a basic permission. An advanced permission trumps a basic restriction. An advanced restriction trumps advanced and basic permissions. An advanced, more specific permission trumps lesser restrictions, and finally an advanced, more specific restriction trumps all.

The codex > BRB chant applies to general cases because normally the rules in the codex will be more advanced and specific than those in the BRB. This situation is not such a case. As both Kharn's rule and Invisibility are equal to each other in advanced status AND in specificity, the restriction takes precedence.

codex> rulebook

psychic powers are not in the core rules, but they are not special rules or advanced rules, they exist in the appendix of the rulebook. Whatever that may mean.

regardless generally models need to roll a 6 to hit invisible models, kharn specifically is called out through gorechild as needing only 2's to hit.

at best if there wasn't the case for codex versus rulebook, and general versus specific then it would come down to whos turn it is deciding when to apply set things so the chaos player could apply the need 6s to hit, then need 2+ to hit.

the section on basic versus advanced rules has a good example. It goes on to state if there is a conflict between a rule in this rulebook (ie the brb) and a codex, the codex rule wins.

On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

- above quoted from BRB under basic versus advanced rules

So kharn wins, with 2+ to hit.

I haven't seen Kharn on a table in a long time though so not sure how much of a threat this is to invis units

regarding psychic powers, I am pretty sure they are part of the rules. Otherwise they would just be fluff and have no actual effect in the game. As generation of psychic powers happens under the core rules, despite that the psychic powers themselves are listed in the appendix it is probably more fair to say they are core rules, than to say they are special or advanced rules. Also it is called out at the end of the core rules that the core rules includes "obliterating your victims with mystical psychic powers." so most likely, core rules.

Lungpickle wrote:
I think if you take out the antagonizers, the consensus might be hits on a two. Kharne dont give two rats butts about invisible targets

Of course there would be a consensus if you take out one side of of a two-sided argument...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:
codex> rulebook

psychic powers are not in the core rules, but they are not special rules or advanced rules, they exist in the appendix of the rulebook. Whatever that may mean.

regardless generally models need to roll a 6 to hit invisible models, kharn specifically is called out through gorechild as needing only 2's to hit.

at best if there wasn't the cae fo codex versus rulebook, and general versus specific then it would come down to whos turn it is deciding when to apply set things so the chaos player could apply the need 6s to hit, then need 2+ to hit.

Things that change the way the basic rules apply are considered advanced. Those that do it in specific ways are both specific AND advanced. Both Kharn's rule and Invis are advanced and equal in specificity. Codex > BRB only comes into effect when, say, both rules in question are permissions or both are restrictions. When one is a restriction and the other a permission, the restriction takes precedence.

Things that change the way the basic rules apply are considered advanced. Those that do it in specific ways are both specific AND advanced. Both Kharn's rule and Invis are advanced and equal in specificity. Codex > BRB only comes into effect when, say, both rules in question are permissions or both are restrictions. When one is a restriction and the other a permission, the restriction takes precedence.

From what I can tell restrictions take precedence over general permissions.

specific permissions take precedence over general restrictions.

for example.

If a model had a special rule that caused all models to automatically fallback from it.

If a fearless model which had a special permission that it never fellback encountered it, it would not fall back.

Generally a model compares WS to determine to hit rolls

Specifically a core rule states that invisible models can only be hit on a 6.

Specifically an advanced rule states that a specific model, with a specific items always hits on a 2+ even if it would normally be something that they would automatically hit.

The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.

- above quote from basic versus advanced rules.

Gorechild appears in Kharns army list entry, so it is indeed an advanced rule.

I do not believe psychic powers appear in an army list entry, other than the ability to generate psychic powers which is a special rule which is advanced. However the powers themselves are not special rules (although some grant special rules) and do not seem to have any rules calling them out as advanced rules.


edit-

on further reading it seems

basic rules are rules that apply to every model.

However at the same time the authors took the time to state that advanced rules are rules that are indicated in their army list entries.

so there is the possible conundrum that psychic powers themselves are neither advanced nor basic rules, as they do not appear in the army list entry(which is needed to be an advanced rule) but at the same time do not apply to all models (which is a basic rule).

However as gorechilds rule are advanced rules they probably override psychic powers.

blaktoof wrote:
Specifically a core rule states that invisible models can only be hit on a 6.

Powers are not core rules, as they do not apply to all models in the game.


The entry that says that "advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry" is referencing any special or unique rules that that unit possesses. That entry does not mean that ONLY those rules found in Army List Entries are advanced. A rule does not have to be listed in an army list to be advanced.

I believe that my previous statement stands- since both Kharn's rule and Invisibility are in the realm of advanced, and they are both equal in specificity, then the restriction overrules the permission.

 Ninjakk wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
Specifically a core rule states that invisible models can only be hit on a 6.

Powers are not core rules, as they do not apply to all models in the game.


The entry that says that "advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry" is referencing any special or unique rules that that unit possesses. That entry does not mean that ONLY those rules found in Army List Entries are advanced. A rule does not have to be listed in an army list to be advanced.

I believe that my previous statement stands- since both Kharn's rule and Invisibility are in the realm of advanced, and they are both equal in specificity, then the restriction overrules the permission.

They aren't equal in specificity.

How many models in the game have access to Invisibility?

How many models in the game have access to Gorechild?

They aren't equal in specificity. 

How many models in the game have access to Invisibility? 

How many models in the game have access to Gorechild?

That's not how specific vs general works. Specific vs general is about which rule specifically mentions the situation. For instance sweeping advance clearly states no rule can save you therefore Yarrick's iron will rule doesn't save him after being swept even though it applies to far less models, a rule would would have to specifically mention sweeping advance to be more specific than it. However if someone had a rule that saved them no matter how they were removed from play rule would be equally as specific as sweeping advance (and thus rulebook vs codex would come into play).

What we have here is "can only be hit on 6" vs "always hits on 2+". So they are indeed equally specific as both claim to always work when called upon. Neither specifically mentions interactions with other rules so neither is more specific that way and neither mentions the others rule so neither is more specific that way. Thus we have a conflict between 2 equally specific rules meaning we have to use Rulebook vs Codex to resolve it.

I love the shear amount of hate against Kharn here, you all must be so upset that Chaos actually has a tool that can counter invisibility in h2h.

That being said, if you rely on the one power to grant you victory, play a different build, you are clearly trying to break the game for competitive play.

Codex > Rule book

Same argument in the rule book that "Snap shots may never exceed ballistic skill 1" and "marker lights can specifically used in overwatch and to modify snapshots above ballistic skill 1" in the Tau Codex.

Pick one because you can't both be right...

It is so easy to resolve...

Is Invisibility in the BRB? Yes

Is Gorechild in a codex? Yes

Is there an instance where you have a rules conflict between two rules, one from the BRB and one from a codex? Yes

Codex takes precedent over BRB.

 Konrax wrote:
I love the shear amount of hate against Kharn here, you all must be so upset that Chaos actually has a tool that can counter invisibility in h2h.

Do not assign bias when there is none. it is not a good way to discuss rules.

No one has said they hate Kharn.

 Konrax wrote:

Codex > Rule book

Let me be clear, I would play it that he hits on a 2+, even though rules-wise that is not so. I said before, and I'll do it again that Codex > BRB only comes into the equation when there is a conflict between 2 Permissions OR 2 Restrictions of equal status and specificity. When there is a conflict between a Permission and a Restriction of equal status and specificity, the Restriction wins.

 Ninjakk wrote:


Let me be clear, I would play it that he hits on a 2+, even though rules-wise that is not so. I said before, and I'll do it again that Codex > BRB only comes into the equation when there is a conflict between 2 Permissions OR 2 Restrictions of equal status and specificity. When there is a conflict between a Permission and a Restriction of equal status and specificity, the Restriction wins.

Your right about this, but the permission and restriction in question here are not of equal status.


Gorechild is more specific and advanced that invisibility. It applies to only one model and in one situation whereas invisibility applies to whoever it is cast on and on any shooting or assault directed towards the invisible unit.

 Eihnlazer wrote:


the permission and restriction in question here are not of equal status.


Gorechild is more specific and advanced that invisibility. It applies to only one model and in one situation whereas invisibility applies to whoever it is cast on and on any shooting or assault directed towards the invisible unit.

Both rules fall in the realm of "advanced" because they alter the way that the core rules apply, and both are equally specific in that one explicitly permits hitting on 2+ in CC and the other explicitly restricts those trying to hit them in CC to rolling a 6 to do so.

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:


the permission and restriction in question here are not of equal status.


Gorechild is more specific and advanced that invisibility. It applies to only one model and in one situation whereas invisibility applies to whoever it is cast on and on any shooting or assault directed towards the invisible unit.

Both rules fall in the realm of "advanced" because they alter the way that the core rules apply, and both are equally specific in that one explicitly permits hitting on 2+ in CC and the other explicitly restricts those trying to hit them in CC to rolling a 6 to do so.

They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

Gorechild is what one model needs to hit all other models... Invisibility is what all other models need to hit one model. Their levels of specificity are exactly equivalent, just in opposite ways.

chanceafs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

Gorechild is what one model needs to hit all other models... Invisibility is what all other models need to hit one model a unit, which could be anything from one model to 50 models. Their levels of specificity are exactly equivalent, just in opposite ways.

Fixed that for you. They're not exactly the same.

It isn't the number of actual models, but rather the number of possible models.

Invisibility could affect every model involved in the game (possibly). Gorechild can only ever effect, in any realm of possibility, Kharn.

The number of models affected does not alter the specificity of a rule. "This model hits on 2+" and "These models can only be hit on a 6" both refer, specifically, to a particular roll needed in a particular situation, that situation being in close combat.

 Ninjakk wrote:
The number of models affected does not alter the specificity of a rule. "This model hits on 2+" and "These models can only be hit on a 6" both refer, specifically, to a particular roll needed in a particular situation, that situation being in close combat.

I fail to see how something that only applies in a single instance to a single model is of equivalent specificity to something that could apply to every model in an army. That's like, literally the definition of specific when set in opposition to general.

"This one swan is black" is more specific than "These swans are all black" even though the only difference is number.

The number of Models that have access to the Rule is irrelevant when determining which of the Rules in question have priority.

This is because the instructions within the Rulebook for determining such is very much lacking in any detail instruction. It is a single paragraph which details only two types of Rules, basic and Advanced, while also having a clause which literally states that the Rules in the Codex have priority whenever there is a conflict. Because the Rules telling us how to determine these factors do not require us to verify how many Models have access to the Rule, and to use that to determine if the Rule has priority, there is no grounds for us to actually do so. As far as the Rules are concerned these two Rules are "equally Advanced," but we are required to obey the Rule found in the Codex because the book literally states that.

If it was worded instead that the blessing bestows the "Invisible" special rule (same effect, just that it's a special rule), there wouldn't be any confusion about Codex > Rulebook. Why is it different if it's a Rulebook psychic power?

I could see there being confusion between two Codex units that have opposing rules, such as "can only be hit in close combat on a 4+" vs "always hits in close combat on a 2+". Invisibility vs Gorechild is a conflict between Rulebook and Codex, and we are told that the Codex always wins in this situation. Unless it's not a conflict between the Rulebook and the Codex, which it undeniably is.

I really hate that GW put in the "Codex > BRB" thing to take care of little things because it's now some sort of half-baked chant used all the time that doesn't apply in specific situations like this. Nobody even thinks about it any further than that one statement. If that statement stands in every single case, then why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB? It's because restrictions in the BRB CAN and often do overrule permissions in a codex.

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins.

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

It's a simple way to apply an answer to a situation where splitting hairs gets you no closer.
In this situation there's a ability with rules from the BRB, THE other is a weapon with rules for it from a codex. There's a conflict. Other than rolling a dice, the only other option is use the clearly written solution by GW THAT says codex over brb.

Simplified. It does not break the game and is not wrong. What's more frustrating is seeing all the dismissing of a written solutuon.

 Ninjakk wrote:

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins.

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Where are you getting this from? This is a conflict between something from the Rulebook and something from a Codex. In conflicts between the Rulebook and the Codex, the Codex wins. There are no "permissions vs permissions" or "restrictions vs restrictions", and there is no measure of "advanced" or "specific" beyond Rulebook (basic) vs Codex (advanced). You say that we can't use Codex > Rulebook to resolve this situation, so how do you propose we resolve it?

It's a conflict, exactly the kind we are told how to resolve. It's no more complex than that, and it's certainly not "some sort of half-baked chant".

 Ninjakk wrote:
why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB?

Give examples.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

You are correct you do not know how specific vs general works. Specific vs general is about which rule more specifically mentions the situation. For instance sweeping advance clearly states no rule can save you therefore Yarrick's iron will rule doesn't save him after being swept even though it applies to far less models, a rule would would have to specifically mention sweeping advance to be more specific than it. However if someone had a rule that saved them no matter how they were removed from play rule would be equally as specific as sweeping advance (and thus rulebook vs codex would come into play). 

What we have here is "can only be hit on 6" vs "always hits on 2+". So they are indeed equally specific as both claim to always work when called upon. Neither specifically mentions interactions with other rules so neither is more specific that way and neither mentions the others rule so neither is more specific that way. Thus we have a conflict between 2 equally specific rules meaning we have to use Rulebook vs Codex to resolve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I  really hate that GW put in the "Codex > BRB" thing to take care of little things because it's now some sort of half-baked chant used all the time that doesn't apply in specific situations like this. Nobody even thinks about it any further than that one statement. If that statement stands in every single case, then why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB? It's because restrictions in the BRB CAN and often do overrule permissions in a codex. 

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins. 

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Please give an example of a restriction that overrides an "always" permission without specifically mentioning it.

 Ninjakk wrote:
Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Frozen Ocean wrote:Where are you getting this from? This is a conflict between something from the Rulebook and something from a Codex. In conflicts between the Rulebook and the Codex, the Codex wins. There are no "permissions vs permissions" or "restrictions vs restrictions", and there is no measure of "advanced" or "specific" beyond Rulebook (basic) vs Codex (advanced). You say that we can't use Codex > Rulebook to resolve this situation, so how do you propose we resolve it?

I am getting this from the most basic tenets of writing rules, but I guess no one cares about those. Rulebook is not considered basic, and Codex is not considered advanced. There is a way to gauge it, but it seems to elude many people. I have stated how it should be resolved. Were this a restriction vs a restriction, the Codex one would win. Were it a permission vs a permission, the Codex one would win. In a restriction vs permission situation (of equal specificity and status), the restriction wins. By the most basic idea behind writing a rule set, this must always be so.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I  really hate that GW put in the "Codex > BRB" thing to take care of little things because it's now some sort of half-baked chant used all the time that doesn't apply in specific situations like this. Nobody even thinks about it any further than that one statement. If that statement stands in every single case, then why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB? It's because restrictions in the BRB CAN and often do overrule permissions in a codex. 

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins. 

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Please give an example of a restriction that overrides an "always" permission without specifically mentioning it.

How about you give an example of a permission that overrides an "only" restriction without specifically mentioning it? In no other situation would anyone even have cause to think that a restriction is overruled by a permission (again, of equal specificity and status).

The only problem with that Ninjakk, is that the rulebook makes no difference between a permissive or a restrictive rule. We all know there is a difference in a permissive rule set, but that is not how they decided to handle conflicts. without a difference in the rules and neither being more specific, the only way you have to resolve the conflict is between the codex and the rulebook. Permissive rule set or not, they have chosen a Codex rule as taken priority over a Core rulebook rule.

If they had indeed acknowledged the difference in permissive and restrictive rules, the outcome would be different. But they didn't, so the only raw outcome is that Kharn hits on a 2+

Nanjakk,
There is a way to show that Basic Vs Advanced does not apply to a situation, simply prove that there is no conflict to be resolved and that whole section no longer applies. This method has been pulled out repetitively in the past on this very site, most famously in the whole Outflank-Disembark from Landraider-Assault debate that is almost considered "precedent" around these parts. Should you wish to silence the people that are stating a direct conflict exists you only need to do one very 'simple' thing: Prove we can obey both an Always command and an Only command at the same time, in that no situation will ever exist to force us to break one or the other.

Without creating the foundation that Basic Vs Advanced does not apply, everything else you put forth for how we should resolve these situations is leading to conclusions violating the Written Rules themselves. While Fundamentals are very important to understanding how rule systems work, they do not allow us to over-turn a Written Rule within any game should it tell us to do something that would normally run counter to these Fundamentals. So even if you could prove that your interpretation of Permissions is correct, I will not try to argue if it is or isn't, you still run into the problem of violating a Written Rule. Disagree with the Rule all you want, but if you are going to be posting as in a way that suggests your argument is 'Rule Supported' then expect people to point out what you are doing is illegal by the very Rule you disagree with.

For hair splitters who think "always hits on a 2+" means something other than "always hits on a 2+" and may be grasping at straws to justify it...

When can Kharn miss? Well, he "Always hits on a 2+" so he can only miss on a 1. "Always hits on a 2+" is a restriction on when Kharn can miss, not just a permission on when he hits.

Kharn. Always. Hits on a 2+. Always.

And I don't even have a Daemon(CSM?)army.

pyre wrote:
The only problem with that Ninjakk, is that the rulebook makes no difference between a permissive or a restrictive rule. We all know there is a difference in a permissive rule set, but that is not how they decided to handle conflicts. without a difference in the rules and neither being more specific, the only way you have to resolve the conflict is between the codex and the rulebook. Permissive rule set or not, they have chosen a Codex rule as taken priority over a Core rulebook rule.

If they had indeed acknowledged the difference in permissive and restrictive rules, the outcome would be different. But they didn't, so the only raw outcome is that Kharn hits on a 2+

A situation should never arise where the most basic concept of rule-writing has to be explained, and in situations where it DOES arise, everyone seems to forget these basic concepts.

How about you give an example of a permission that overrides an "only" restriction without specifically mentioning it? In no other situation would anyone even have cause to think that a restriction is overruled by a permission (again, of equal specificity and status)

"Unstoppable" Gargantuan Creatures: Weapons with Sniper wound only on 6+

Vindicare Rifle: Has the Sniper quality, but its specific Hellfire round always wounds on a 2+. The other ammo types do not. Vindicare hellfire rounds also do not carry the Poison trait (which also only Wound on 6+ vs Gargantuan Creatures), they just specifically Wound on 2+ against anything they hit, as there is nothing about the Hellfire round that is explicitly affecting the Sniper rule of the weapon. It just wounds on 2+. The Exitus Ammo (of which Hellfire is one) is the applied rule, as it can be fired by any weapon the Vindicare uses.

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different thread.

Conflicts are conflicts. I'm still not seeing anything to support "restrictions can not override permissions" and vice versa.

 Ninjakk wrote:

I am getting this from the most basic tenets of writing rules, but I guess no one cares about those.

That is completely unsubstantiated. You can't just say "I'm getting this from common sense, so therefore I am right, but I guess everyone else is just dumb" while making things up. Please cite where in the 7th Edition Rulebook these "basic tenets" are written.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6.

Yes, and since those two rules conflict the Codex > BRB so Hellfire shots still wound Gargantuan creatures on a 2+

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different threa

It says "any weapon the Vindicare fires"...

... he could be manning the quad-gun on an ADL and load his hellfire round into it. That'll Wound on a 2+. So it's not the Sniper trait granting the 2+, it's the bullet, specifically. Or, put another way, Vindicare Hellfire is not a +2 bonus to the Sniper rules normal effects (4+), it's a flat-out "wounds on 2+"

... just like Kharn is a flat-out "hits on 2+". Doesn't matter what he's swinging at, he hits it on a 2+. On a 1, he hits someone else. Kharn never misses, he just doesn't always hit the target he (most likely) intended.

 Psienesis wrote:

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different threa

It says "any weapon the Vindicare fires"...

Huh. Mine says "Shots from a hellfire round always wound on a 2+."

Unless there was an update I didn't catch.

Well, a round cannot be the shooter, it is the shootee. Unless the Imperium has developed recursive technology that allows bullets to shoot bullets?

So this is stating that the anytime a Vindicare shoots a Hellfire round (out of something), it wounds on a 2+. This would imply that it a) supersedes all other concerns or b) can be fired out of something other than the Exitus rifle.

... but this is really more appropriate in the other thread.

Psienesis,
Please quote the Rule that states what you are claiming...
Or simply answer this question for me: As all Exitus Ammo types are granted via a Special Rule found on the two Weapon Profiles, how is it being applied to a Weapon which lacks this Special Rule?

Mostly off-topic, but I'm fairly certain that Exitus Ammunition is on the Exitus rifle/pistol, not the Vindicare himself. Firing a quad gun with Exitus ammunition would be crazy, but no. In the other thread, it has been pointed out that the ammunition types modify the existing profile, otherwise Hellfire Rounds would wound on a 2+ but have no range or AP. Therefore, Hellfire Rounds are in addition to everything else on the Exitus rifle, including the Sniper rule. However, the Exitus pistol firing Hellfire absolutely could wound a Gargantuan on a 2+, because that makes sense. If you disagree, bring it to the other thread!

So do they hit Flyers on a 2+? If not that answers Flings request for a example - though I suspect (I can't remember any) Always and only there has never been FAQ'd; just making it a debate feast.


I mean, Hard to hit is a BRB Flyers or FMC rule, these rules are not in the codex. Logic on this thread says Codex related hit stats should over ride them, hard to hit is worded 'Only' and at least during 6th we never questioned codex precedence on it, hard to hit restriction was above all else, and as far as I can tell this is still true. This makes 'Always' and 'Only' pretty important, imo. Hard to hit is probably the most known example of Codex VS rulebook does not work the way you think it does, as H2H stuck it's middle finger up throughout 6th.

 Ninjakk wrote:
When one is a restriction and the other a permission, the restriction takes precedence.

I don't think that "always hit on 2+" and "always hit on 6+" are different enough to be considered of 2 different categories, like, for example one being "permission" and another "restriction". They sound exactly the same to me.

 Barrogh wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:
When one is a restriction and the other a permission, the restriction takes precedence.

I don't think that "always hit on 2+" and "always hit on 6+" are different enough to be considered of 2 different categories, like, for example one being "permission" and another "restriction". They sound exactly the same to me.

Pssst I think it's because your quoting invisibility incorrectly

 Nem wrote:
So do they hit Flyers on a 2+? If not that answers Flings request for a example - though I suspect (I can't remember any) Always and only there has never been FAQ'd; just making it a debate feast.


I mean, Hard to hit is a BRB Flyers or FMC rule, these rules are not in the codex. Logic on this thread says Codex related hit stats should over ride them, hard to hit is worded 'Only' and at least during 6th we never questioned codex precedence on it, hard to hit restriction was above all else, and as far as I can tell this is still true. This makes 'Always' and 'Only' pretty important, imo.

Wouldn't the flyer have to be in Hover mode for Kharn to be in CC with it? Meaning hard to hit wouldn't apply anyway?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

 Nem wrote:
So do they hit Flyers on a 2+? If not that answers Flings request for a example - though I suspect (I can't remember any) Always and only there has never been FAQ'd; just making it a debate feast.


I mean, Hard to hit is a BRB Flyers or FMC rule, these rules are not in the codex. Logic on this thread says Codex related hit stats should over ride them, hard to hit is worded 'Only' and at least during 6th we never questioned codex precedence on it, hard to hit restriction was above all else, and as far as I can tell this is still true. This makes 'Always' and 'Only' pretty important, imo.

Wouldn't the flyer have to be in Hover mode for Kharn to be in CC with it? Meaning hard to hit wouldn't apply anyway?

Not talking about that situation specifically sorry, Vindicare assassins? were brought up as having something that always hits on a 2+ (shooting)? So I was moving on to what do they need to successfully roll to hit against a Swooping FC or Zooming flyer? This is both a always / only and a brb / codex (Same rule based situation). However I expect conflicting thoughts either way on all examples where we have no possible FAQ.

Vindicare doesn't always hit on 2+. He has an ammo that lets him WOUND on 2+

Bad reading comprehension on my part.

Ah ok I see. Surely it would just have been a case of Codex > BRB anyway as with Kharn vs Invisibility.

Except the new popcorn material is that the codex does not over-write a Rulebook 'only on X' Rule in cases of conflict...?

If you cast invisibility on Kharn, does he cease to exist?

In seriousness, it really would have been better if invisibility just made units BS1/WS1 when trying to attack them. This would also allow flamers and blasts to target invisible units, just as they really, really should.

 Psienesis wrote:

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different threa

It says "any weapon the Vindicare fires"...

... he could be manning the quad-gun on an ADL and load his hellfire round into it. That'll Wound on a 2+. So it's not the Sniper trait granting the 2+, it's the bullet, specifically. Or, put another way, Vindicare Hellfire is not a +2 bonus to the Sniper rules normal effects (4+), it's a flat-out "wounds on 2+"

Actually it says:

Exitus Ammo: Each time a Vindicare Assassin fires a weapon with this special rule, choose one of the three following types of ammunition and apply the chosen ammunition’s rules to that shot:
• Shield-breaker: Invulnerable saves cannot be taken against Wounds, glancing hits, or penetrating hits from a shield-breaker round.
• Turbo-penetrator: Against vehicles, shots from a turbo-penetrator round count as Strength 10. Against all other targets, shots from a turbo-penetrator round inflict D3 Wounds, rather than just 1.
• Hellfire: Shots from a hellfire round always wound on a 2+.

So.. if the quad gun had the special rule 'Exitus Ammo' then yes, the vindicare could use hellfire rounds with it.