So, both of these have a rule that applies a set value. Culexus has a rule that says,

Psykers, friend or foe, within 12" of a Culexus Assassin have -3 Leadership, do not generate any Warp Charge (i.e. they do not add dice to their owning player’s Warp Charge Pool in the Psychic phase) and only harness Warp Charge points on a 6

While the Seer Council has a rule that says:

When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point

Is there one that takes precedence based on something in a book(if so, please cite book/page), or is this something that simply must be house ruled? I know the ITC has a house rule for similar things where if two opposing things make you hit on a set value, the player who's turn it is picks which value to use.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I know the ITC has a house rule for similar things where if two opposing things make you hit on a set value, the player who's turn it is picks which value to use.

That's not really a house rule. See 'Sequencing' on page 17 of the main rulebook.

The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Yeah, I see the relation there, Ghaz, but I don't think an opponent would accept me pointing to the "Sequencing" section to tell them that I get to choose to have my Culexus not affect my Seer council, since it doesn't seem to be a sequencing issue(at least on the surface).

I do understand that if you apply the special rules 1 after another, whichever one is applied last will be the one that works. It's just that neither of these special rules has a particular time when it's supposed to be applied. They're both always active.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.


To put this in perspective, consider that they're both models owned and fielded by the same player in the same army.

It has to be House Ruled.

There is a section in General Principles called Basic vs Advanced. It details levels to rules with all the basic rules that happen in a Phase or detailed in General Principles, and Advanced Rules that come later like Unit Type and USRs..

This section also details that rules from a Codex are more Advanced than the ones in the rulebook.

If there is a conflict, the more Advanced Rule takes precedent.

Unfortunately, nothing is stated as which is more advanced between codex rules.

It is not uncommon for some people to roll off at that point and abide by it for the game. It is also not uncommon for some people to give precedence to the unit/rule which belongs to whose turn it is.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

You bet its a flimsy argument; however, it can be argued that adding the word "only" makes the Culexes rule more advanced.

The Culexes rule is more advanced as it only affects Psykers within its range.

The real question is how in the heck a Culexus is within 12" of the Seer council in the first place? If they're in the same army, don't move them close. If the enemy drops a Culexus within 1" of the Seer Council, they can just move away.

Don't you know Seer council has to be mounted on Jetbikes? That's like an unwritten Restriction.

Fragile wrote:
The Culexes rule is more advanced as it only affects Psykers within its range.

Couldn't the same be said of the Seer Council? Their rule only affects the Psykers bought as part of their Formation.

I'm gonna have to go with Sequencing on this one. If we both have 2 rules that happen at the same time, I choose the order in my turn, you choose in your turn.

--

The +3 casting for seer would be in operation first, as it applies throughout the game. When the culexus moves with 12" (or the seer moves), the culexus' rule would then affect the seer. The rule for culexus assassins covers more than just the warp charge, as it includes the reduced ld. As they would be affected by one part of the rule, they'd also be affected by the other.

At least that's how I follow the logic of the rules.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

You bet its a flimsy argument; however, it can be argued that adding the word "only" makes the Culexes rule more advanced.

Not really. There is nothing about the word "only" that could be viewed as more advanced. That's like saying "Dog food" is more advanced than "Food" because of the addition of the word "dog". It's not. It could even be argued that dog food is far LESS advanced than regular food. But regardless, there are no "Levels" of advanced rules in this game. There are only "basic" rules, and "advanced" rules. Nothing in between. No Advanced version 2.0, 3.0 etc. So, when two advanced rules are in conflict, you generally resolve based on where the rule is from: Codex>BRB. If they're both from a codex, then you have to house rule it or otherwise come up with your own method of figuring out how you will rule it(like rolling off, or allowing the player who's turn it is to decide). I generally think allowing the player who's turn it is to decide is most fair, since the rule will function in each player's favor 50% of the time. Yours during your turn, mine during my turn.


Again, so there is no confusion: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "MORE ADVANCED" IN 40k! Only basic and advanced. No other levels. It's been over a decade since that's been a thing guy's, come on. Get with the times.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

You bet its a flimsy argument; however, it can be argued that adding the word "only" makes the Culexes rule more advanced.

Not really. There is nothing about the word "only" that could be viewed as more advanced. That's like saying "Dog food" is more advanced than "Food" because of the addition of the word "dog". It's not. It could even be argued that dog food is far LESS advanced than regular food. But regardless, there are no "Levels" of advanced rules in this game. There are only "basic" rules, and "advanced" rules. Nothing in between. No Advanced version 2.0, 3.0 etc. So, when two advanced rules are in conflict, you generally resolve based on where the rule is from: Codex>BRB. If they're both from a codex, then you have to house rule it or otherwise come up with your own method of figuring out how you will rule it(like rolling off, or allowing the player who's turn it is to decide). I generally think allowing the player who's turn it is to decide is most fair, since the rule will function in each player's favor 50% of the time. Yours during your turn, mine during my turn.

Technically, dog food is more advanced than food because it is specifically for dogs.

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

You bet its a flimsy argument; however, it can be argued that adding the word "only" makes the Culexes rule more advanced.

Not really. There is nothing about the word "only" that could be viewed as more advanced. That's like saying "Dog food" is more advanced than "Food" because of the addition of the word "dog". It's not. It could even be argued that dog food is far LESS advanced than regular food. But regardless, there are no "Levels" of advanced rules in this game. There are only "basic" rules, and "advanced" rules. Nothing in between. No Advanced version 2.0, 3.0 etc. So, when two advanced rules are in conflict, you generally resolve based on where the rule is from: Codex>BRB. If they're both from a codex, then you have to house rule it or otherwise come up with your own method of figuring out how you will rule it(like rolling off, or allowing the player who's turn it is to decide). I generally think allowing the player who's turn it is to decide is most fair, since the rule will function in each player's favor 50% of the time. Yours during your turn, mine during my turn.

Technically, dog food is more advanced than food because it is specifically for dogs.

Being specifically for a decidedly less advanced species doesn't make it more advanced. But I digress, it doesn't matter because in 40k, there is no such thing as "more advanced", only advanced, of which they both apply.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

You bet its a flimsy argument; however, it can be argued that adding the word "only" makes the Culexes rule more advanced.

Not really. There is nothing about the word "only" that could be viewed as more advanced. That's like saying "Dog food" is more advanced than "Food" because of the addition of the word "dog". It's not. It could even be argued that dog food is far LESS advanced than regular food. But regardless, there are no "Levels" of advanced rules in this game. There are only "basic" rules, and "advanced" rules. Nothing in between. No Advanced version 2.0, 3.0 etc. So, when two advanced rules are in conflict, you generally resolve based on where the rule is from: Codex>BRB. If they're both from a codex, then you have to house rule it or otherwise come up with your own method of figuring out how you will rule it(like rolling off, or allowing the player who's turn it is to decide). I generally think allowing the player who's turn it is to decide is most fair, since the rule will function in each player's favor 50% of the time. Yours during your turn, mine during my turn.

Technically, dog food is more advanced than food because it is specifically for dogs.

Being specifically for a decidedly less advanced species doesn't make it more advanced. But I digress, it doesn't matter because in 40k, there is no such thing as "more advanced", only advanced, of which they both apply.

The Culexes rule is more advanced by far, as the others have stated and given their backing on

Fragile wrote:The Culexes rule is more advanced as it only affects Psykers within its range.

As if that was how "more advanced" was measured in this game...

JamesY wrote:The +3 casting for seer would be in operation first, as it applies throughout the game. When the culexus moves with 12" (or the seer moves), the culexus' rule would then affect the seer. The rule for culexus assassins covers more than just the warp charge, as it includes the reduced ld. As they would be affected by one part of the rule, they'd also be affected by the other.

This indicates you need to reread the Sequencing rule.

BetrayTheWorld wrote:Again, so there is no confusion: THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS "MORE ADVANCED" IN 40k! Only basic and advanced. No other levels. It's been over a decade since that's been a thing guy's, come on. Get with the times.

The "more advanced" is a euphemism to represent this: "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." It is only meant to portray the concept of higher precedence, not to represent a literal statement in the rulebook.

@Charistoph not at all. The seer unit is clearly affected by the rule, as their ld will be be reduced, and they can't contribute to the warp charges generated. As nothing in the seers rule conflicts with this, it is explicitly clear that they are affected by the rule, and are therefore affected by the whole rule. The sequencing rule doesn't come into effect.

Just because only half a rule conflicts with another rule does not mean the first rule takes complete precedence. The Culexus' effect isn't blocked, just that it happens then it gets overwritten again when the Seer Council rule comes in. In long terms, it means the Seer Council Harnesses on 4+, then it becomes 6+, then it becomes 3+. None of the rules are actually "stopped", but just consecutively overwritten.

The Sequencing Section is about as clear as you'll get. Namely the controlling player's turn gets to decide (which means that the last part of the Culexus's ability will probably never come into play unless the Farseer's owner wants it to) or, if you wanna be ass about it, dice off. Until GW clearly states that there are different layers of rules and which way they resolve, there won't be a clearer answer.

@ Mech sequencing only comes into play when it isn't clear which rule would be activated first. The culexus' rule comes into effect during in the movement phase, as it affects the ld of psykers. As a fleeing psyker within 12" would take it's regroup check (affected by the rule) in the movement phase, the effects of psychic abomination are in active before the seer council's rules come into play, they don't happen simultaneously. The rule already in play says powers are only generated on a 6+. There would only be an argument if the seer rules said always harnessed on a 3+.


But completely agree, this should never actually come up in game.

Two things wrong with the "Culexus's effect activates first" argument:

1.) both rules don't have "activations". They're simply there since the beginning of the game. You can't choose a time for one to simply turn off nor declare when one comes into play. It starts affecting things the moment the Culexus is on the board and something is in range, and it treats itself as if it's always there.

2.) Sequencing specifically mentions when thing RESOLVE, not when they activate. When you try to harness something, both rules affect the harnessing, hence both try to resolve at the same time. Neither of them cares who got there first, just who finishes first.

Also, fun fact: the word "activate" only exists in two instances in the digital rulebook. Once talking about the fluff behind a Vortex attack and once about some guardsmen during the Assault on Atika.

JamesY wrote:@Charistoph not at all. The seer unit is clearly affected by the rule, as their ld will be be reduced, and they can't contribute to the warp charges generated. As nothing in the seers rule conflicts with this, it is explicitly clear that they are affected by the rule, and are therefore affected by the whole rule. The sequencing rule doesn't come into effect.

Precisely, the timing of when it applies does not matter. Just because something happens first, does not mean something replaces it just because it is new.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:The Culexes rule is more advanced as it only affects Psykers within its range.

As if that was how "more advanced" was measured in this game...

Quite simply it is.

For each individual result of 4+, the Psyker has successfully harnessed one Warp Charge point

Psychic Might modifies this to a 3+

When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of a 4+

Clearly indicating it is meant to replace that basic rule by making it one easier to harness.

Psychic Abomination: Psykers, friend or foe, within 12" of a Culexus Assassin have -3 Leadership, do not generate Warp Charge (ie, they do not add dice to their owning players Warp Charge Pool in the Psychic Phase) and only harness warp charge points on a 6.

Shows that Psykers within its range are affect by a very specific set of penalties.

So you have one rule that states that you replace a 4 with a 3, and another rule that sets a series of penalties for being within 12". One is clearly more specific.

Fragile wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:The Culexes rule is more advanced as it only affects Psykers within its range.

As if that was how "more advanced" was measured in this game...

Quite simply it is.

Okay, review the Basic vs Advanced and demonstrate where position and range define the level of "advancedness" a rule possesses.

Now, it could be classed as more restricted in use, but that is not entirely the same thing.

I wouldn't even say that one is definitively more specific than the other; while Fragile's argument is that applying to models within a certain range is more specific than those models' own abilities, one could argue that the Culexus' rule applies to all Psyker odmels within said range, while a Seer Council applies to a Seer Council unit of Psykers, making it more specific.

I have to agree though that specific versus general is not necessarily the same as advanced versus basic, and in this case I think more correctly we have two advanced rules conflicting with each other.

Would that mean that a Librarius Conclave would generate on a 2+ because of sequencing as well? :p

This does seem to be pretty clear to me, that it harnesses on a 6+, and I'm an eldar player. I can see the confusion with the RAW but I would be absolutely stunned if any tournament ref ruled the other way. The culexus is for all intents an purposes, a 12" bubble of no psychic activity.

A similar example involving the culexus with khan (always hits on a X, can only be hit on Y), says it depends on whose turn it is, but that doesnt really apply, here (and I think that ruling is a sitting on the fence to not upset anyone and is a bit dumb).

Even if it does come up, I doubt it would have much significance, because any blessing or conjuration is nullified as soon as it's cast.

I think I would play it as 3+ due to sequencing but again, Culexus' other rules should make the point of casting powers moot.

Typically, I would say its the controlling players decision as to order, much like Kharne vs. Invisibility.

However, the only time the seer council is generating warp charge is in that player's turn, meaning it would always be a 3+ thereby ignoring the rule.

My take is that the culexus rule, given its a specific 12" bubble would override the 3+ ability. Its not like the player can't just hop away most of the time and make this point moot.

Kharn and Invisibility conflict as they both contain absolutes in their wording, i.e. always versus only. The seer's rule contains no such absolute, they cast on a +3. The Culexus overrides this as it does contain an absolute, two in fact, any psyker, and only cast on a six.

I'm a grey knights player primarily, so I am on the loosing end of this debate when using the gk formation that grants the same bonus.

I don't intend to contribute to this cycle further, so I'll agree to disagree with those who think differently.

At first I thought this was a sequencing issue, but now I believe the Culexus may have this. Even if you sequence it that one happens before another, they are both in "effect"

Culexus makes psykers "only" harness on 6+
Seer council is "allowed" to harness on 3+

So we end up with is a Psyker unit that "can" harness WC on 3+, but only on 6's while in range of the Culexus.
Again, though, this dicuss is a moot point considering it is almost IMPOSSIBLE for a Seer Council to be within 12" of a Culexus during the Psychic Phase. Reason: Jetbikes

The only circumstance I can think of is running a Skyhammer with a Culexus in a pod somehow. The Assault Marines drop down, charge the Seer Council and the Eldar player was dumb enough NOT to have a Hit & Run character in the unit.

--

 Galef wrote:
At first I thought this was a sequencing issue, but now I believe the Culexus may have this. Even if you sequence it that one happens before another, they are both in "effect"

Culexus makes psykers "only" harness on 6+
Seer council is "allowed" to harness on 3+

So we end up with is a Psyker unit that "can" harness WC on 3+, but only on 6's while in range of the Culexus.
Again, though, this dicuss is a moot point considering it is almost IMPOSSIBLE for a Seer Council to be within 12" of a Culexus during the Psychic Phase. Reason: Jetbikes

The only circumstance I can think of is running a Skyhammer with a Culexus in a pod somehow. The Assault Marines drop down, charge the Seer Council and the Eldar player was dumb enough NOT to have a Hit & Run character in the unit.

--

not impossible, just unlikely. Put the Seer council in the corner of the board, and the culexus 10" away from them, they have no move that is possible to leave his zone of influence. Also after any deep strike mishap. Sorry for nitpicking but this is the internet, what else is there to do

I guess I meant it is impossible for a competent player to let the Culexus be within 12" during their Psychic phase. If you have made the decision to use a Seer Council, you need to know how to use them ESPECIALLY if your opponent has a Culexus.

Who puts a Seer council in the corner? "Nobody puts Baby in a corner!"

Neither impossible, nor unlikely. And stating: "Unit X will hit on 2+ " is linguistically the same as saying "Unit X will always hit on 2+" They're both absolutes.

It doesn't say "Unit X will hit on 2+ unless something else prevents it from doing so." It says it "WILL" hit, or they "DO" harness. All of these are linguistically absolute. The discussion of "always" taking precedence is similar to arguing whether the word "amazing" takes precedence over "awesome". They're both functionally the same.

Insofar as this never happening, what if you WANT it to happen?

Scenario:
It is your turn, your seer council has gate of infinity and is well outside the range of your culexus assassin. In the psychic phase, your council generates it's full warp charge, casts all it's buffs on other units, then gates over near the culexus. It then may still cast witchfires at targets within the AoE of the Culexus(on either a 6+/3+). Now, still during your psychic phase, the culexus gets to fire his weapon, which is now charged by all of the mastery levels of the seer council, allowing him to fire up to 10 times. The Culexus then is able to run in his shooting phase, getting away from the seer council so that you may rinse and repeat.

Will and always are not linguistically the same.

Always means at all times.

Will is a modal verb and therefore deals with degrees of likelihood or desirability. One sense of will refers to habitual behaviour. Habitually, they cast on 3+. Until the culexus' rule comes into play.

If "will" meant the same as "will always", the phrase "will always" would be redundant.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Insofar as this never happening, what if you WANT it to happen?

Scenario:
It is your turn, your seer council has gate of infinity and is well outside the range of your culexus assassin. In the psychic phase, your council generates it's full warp charge, casts all it's buffs on other units, then gates over near the culexus. It then may still cast witchfires at targets within the AoE of the Culexus(on either a 6+/3+). Now, still during your psychic phase, the culexus gets to fire his weapon, which is now charged by all of the mastery levels of the seer council, allowing him to fire up to 10 times. The Culexus then is able to run in his shooting phase, getting away from the seer council so that you may rinse and repeat.

I am not super familiar with the Culexus's rules. Would you need Gate to do this? Could you not move both units apart, Seer Council casts all it's powers on 3+, then in the shooting phase they turbo-boost into range of the Culexus to "charge" it's weapon?

You could look at it as though in order to cast you must pass both conditions.

You must pass the 3+ for the formation ability, but you must also pass the 6+ from the Culexus.

When you roll a 5 it fulfills the criteria "results of a 3+ will harness a warp charge point"

but you cannot ignore the Culexus rule

"and only harness warp charge points on a 6+" - this rule is not fulfilled therefore you cannot cast

Anything different is utterly ignoring the Culexus requirement to cast.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
When you try to do something, you have to consider all the requirements.

-They have the power you want to cast

-You have enough warp charge points

-They aren't in a state that would not let them cast

-You roll a 3+ to harness

-You only harness on a 6+

Otherwise what you are saying is that if they were in some sort of a state that wouldn't allow them to cast, then a 3+ would still cast because of that statement.

What if there was a rule that said add 2 to the result needed to cast. What you are saying is that it would still pass on a 3+ because that is what it says.

You have to consider all the factors and requirements

JamesY wrote:Will and always are not linguistically the same.

Always means at all times.

Will is a modal verb and therefore deals with degrees of likelihood or desirability.

Incorrect. "Will" doesn't deal with degrees of likelihood. There are only 2 states: "Will" and "Will not". That makes either of those an absolute.

Galef wrote:
I am not super familiar with the Culexus's rules. Would you need Gate to do this? Could you not move both units apart, Seer Council casts all it's powers on 3+, then in the shooting phase they turbo-boost into range of the Culexus to "charge" it's weapon?

No, the Culexus' Weapon fires in the psychic phase instead of the shooting phase. So there is no other way to get them in his range except through the use of a psychic power, unless they were already there from the previous movement phase, which would stop them from generating warp charge.

chaosmarauder wrote:You could look at it as though in order to cast you must pass both conditions.

First, that's impossible, and Second, there is no support for this position in the rules. Here is what makes it impossible:

Rule #1 says that a unit harnesses on a dice roll of 3 or higher.
Rule #2 says that a unit harnesses on a dice roll of 6 or higher.

You roll a 5. If you count it as successfully harnessing, you are not following rule #2. If you count it as not successful, then you have not followed rule #1. Both of these are advanced rules from a codex(and thereby completely equal in their level of "advanceness") , so I think I agree that sequencing would indeed come into play.

@BetrayTheWorld

I do not think sequencing would come into play. I believe the intent of the rules here are perfectly clear.

The intent of the formation rule is to modify the original 4+ roll to a 3+ (effectively adding 1 to the roll - a nice little bonus)

The intent of the culexus rule is a 6+ for anything in its range.

What if it was your opponents culexus and not yours? Are you serisouly going to look him in the face and tell him your 3+ trumps his '6+'?

You started with a 3+, the culexus got within range its now a 6+ - its simple, its clean, its how most people will expect it to be played.

But if you insist on playing it like the way you want to - I would strongly suggest talking it over with an opponent first, but I'm telling you you are going to come off a tad bit of a rules lawyer when you start going into the sequencing rule to prove this to them.

I'm telling you that RAW is what matters to me in this discussion because I'm a tournament player and I'm trying to determine how major tournament circuits would generally rule this. I don't post "friendly rules discussions to be had with your opponent at your beer & pretzels game" in YMDC. I generally view this as a very crunchy, tournament-focused subgroup. I appologize if I wasn't clear about that in my initial post.

@betraytheword you need to look up the word will, it has more than one meaning, not all of which end in binary results. Unlike always. Will does not automatically produce an absolute ending, there is ambiguity in the word as it has several meanings, and we are not told which sense of the word was intended. This is why, when they want to create a certain ending, like in the example of kharn, they modify the verb with the adverb always to make it crystal clear. That has not been done in the case of the seers.

I could discuss linguistics all day. I do discuss linguistics all day.

If tournament discussions are what you are interested in, it might interest you to know that I reff'd at a couple of events at whw, and the logic I follow is the logic that you would get at a gw event. I don't and am not trying to speak on behalf of the rules writers, and I can see why some TO organisers would go down the sequencing route though.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
I'm telling you that RAW is what matters to me in this discussion because I'm a tournament player and I'm trying to determine how major tournament circuits would generally rule this. I don't post "friendly rules discussions to be had with your opponent at your beer & pretzels game" in YMDC. I generally view this as a very crunchy, tournament-focused subgroup. I appologize if I wasn't clear about that in my initial post.

These days, the tournament scene makes their own rules and the basic RAW be damned where ever they choose, so relying on RAW to help you with your tournament scene is somewhat pointless. Any questions for a tournament rulings are best addressed to them in their forum (where available, such as the ITC's forum on Frontline Gaming's site).

Forums like Warseer or Dakka have too general a populace to review for tournament rulings, so best to address only as RAW, at least initially, to establish a base for either smaller TOs, local groups, or roaming players to start a conversation with.

For Tournaments, you must always ask the specific TO.

GW has, quite literally, said they gave up on tournaments as a whole, and their complete lack of proofreading means there's no way to set a precedent for anything. If a TO decides to rule contrary to what the consensus is, there's nothing you can do about it.

For me, the only way to keep it fair is to, *grumble*, resort to a dice roll each turn this issue comes up.

Most US tournaments use RAW in the absence of a house rule, though ITC typically tries to house rule everything that sounds wonky, one way or the other. I will likely just email TOs to see what the rulings will be at any given tournament.

I primarily started this thread to ensure there wasn't a completely obvious, cut and dry line from a book somewhere that made it a non-debate. Since that doesn't appear to be the case, I'll just plan on asking specific TOs. Thanks for all the input everyone!

a question, which warp charge does the Culexus eat? If it is the autogenerated stuff, does that mean that you cannot Deny the witch as you get no generated dice either?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
Most US tournaments use RAW in the absence of a house rule, though ITC typically tries to house rule everything that sounds wonky, one way or the other. I will likely just email TOs to see what the rulings will be at any given tournament.

More and more major tournaments in the States are using ITC FAQ, and even modifying those. My own LGS manager is enamored by it, so he runs the bigger tournaments under their ruleset.

I would hate it even if I had time to go. I am not a fan of some of their judgements, including ones that can only benefit me (like the Invisibility nerf).

We are also assuming in this thread that the culexus and the Seer Council are on different teams, which changes this from a quirky but unlikely eventuality to something that could be awesomely potent.

Trazer985 wrote:
We are also assuming in this thread that the culexus and the Seer Council are on different teams, which changes this from a quirky but unlikely eventuality to something that could be awesomely potent.

This was my entire point of this thread. It makes the difference in this particular case:

My seer council has gate of infinity. My void dreamer has warp tunnel. The void dreamer is attached to the seer council, and the entire unit is outside of the AoE of the culexus at the beginning of the psychic phase(which is when they generate warp charge, so full warp charge). The void dreamer manifests warp tunnel, taking them into range of the culexus, who then fires his psychically charged weapon at a nearby unit for 12-15 S5 AP1 shots at BS8 with precision shots at -2 to look out sir rolls. Then, the seer council can cast gate of infinity, teleporting out of range of the culexus to buff itself and finish its psychic phase unmolested.

There is no debate on whether this can happen. The only debate is on whether they end up manifesting gate of infinity to get out on 6s or 3s.

On 6s, as their 3+ ability lacks any "always" equivalent wording, making it less specific.

I always say Dataslate/FaQ trumps Codex, and Codex trumps Rulebook

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Trazer985 wrote:
We are also assuming in this thread that the culexus and the Seer Council are on different teams, which changes this from a quirky but unlikely eventuality to something that could be awesomely potent.

This was my entire point of this thread. It makes the difference in this particular case:

My seer council has gate of infinity. My void dreamer has warp tunnel. The void dreamer is attached to the seer council, and the entire unit is outside of the AoE of the culexus at the beginning of the psychic phase(which is when they generate warp charge, so full warp charge). The void dreamer manifests warp tunnel, taking them into range of the culexus, who then fires his psychically charged weapon at a nearby unit for 12-15 S5 AP1 shots at BS8 with precision shots at -2 to look out sir rolls. Then, the seer council can cast gate of infinity, teleporting out of range of the culexus to buff itself and finish its psychic phase unmolested.

There is no debate on whether this can happen. The only debate is on whether they end up manifesting gate of infinity to get out on 6s or 3s.

Only posting this as I heard a story about a guy at a GT who used the culexus against a club mate of mine, and claimed that it had the precision shots rule. He doesn't. Only the vindicare gets that.

commander dante wrote:
I always say Dataslate/FaQ trumps Codex, and Codex trumps Rulebook

FAQ, yes. Dataslate, no. Dataslates are no different than a codex. In fact, for all intents and purposes, dataslates ARE codices and fulfill the same function.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
On 6s, as their 3+ ability lacks any "always" equivalent wording, making it less specific.

There is no such thing as "more specific" or "less specific" as a determining factor in 40k rules.

Trazer985 wrote:

Only posting this as I heard a story about a guy at a GT who used the culexus against a club mate of mine, and claimed that it had the precision shots rule. He doesn't. Only the vindicare gets that.

You're right. I thought I recalled reading that all of the assassins had precision shots, but upon a cursory examination, I did not spot it except on the Vindicare, and the Callidus has precision strikes. It's possible that the last iteration of the assassins gave it to them all in their universal special rules, hence the confusion.

 Charistoph wrote:

commander dante wrote:
I always say Dataslate/FaQ trumps Codex, and Codex trumps Rulebook

FAQ, yes. Dataslate, no. Dataslates are no different than a codex. In fact, for all intents and purposes, dataslates ARE codices and fulfill the same function.

100% agree with Charistoph here. A dataslate is a mini-codex.

I would say all normal people (if asked directly) would happily house rule it so the seer council harness on a 5+ if near an assassin. Because "-2+1 " is implied strongly and because it obeys the golden rule. Which we all know out ranks basic and advanced.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Tactical_Spam wrote:
The Culexes rule tops the seer council rule considering it says "only harness."

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

You bet its a flimsy argument; however, it can be argued that adding the word "only" makes the Culexes rule more advanced.

Not really. There is nothing about the word "only" that could be viewed as more advanced. That's like saying "Dog food" is more advanced than "Food" because of the addition of the word "dog". It's not. It could even be argued that dog food is far LESS advanced than regular food. But regardless, there are no "Levels" of advanced rules in this game. There are only "basic" rules, and "advanced" rules. Nothing in between. No Advanced version 2.0, 3.0 etc. So, when two advanced rules are in conflict, you generally resolve based on where the rule is from: Codex>BRB. If they're both from a codex, then you have to house rule it or otherwise come up with your own method of figuring out how you will rule it(like rolling off, or allowing the player who's turn it is to decide). I generally think allowing the player who's turn it is to decide is most fair, since the rule will function in each player's favor 50% of the time. Yours during your turn, mine during my turn.

Technically, dog food is more advanced than food because it is specifically for dogs.

Being specifically for a decidedly less advanced species doesn't make it more advanced. But I digress, it doesn't matter because in 40k, there is no such thing as "more advanced", only advanced, of which they both apply.

Dogs are just as advanced as humans and have been evolving longer. They are just more advanced at running and smelling stuff.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
On 6s, as their 3+ ability lacks any "always" equivalent wording, making it less specific.

There is no such thing as "more specific" or "less specific" as a determining factor in 40k rules.

Except that there is...

Fragile wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
On 6s, as their 3+ ability lacks any "always" equivalent wording, making it less specific.

There is no such thing as "more specific" or "less specific" as a determining factor in 40k rules.

Except that there is...

There is a quote that is needed unless you are just assuming general gaming principles, at which point, you would need to reference that.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
On 6s, as their 3+ ability lacks any "always" equivalent wording, making it less specific.

There is no such thing as "more specific" or "less specific" as a determining factor in 40k rules.

Except that there is...

There is a quote that is needed unless you are just assuming general gaming principles, at which point, you would need to reference that.

This. There is nothing in 40k that says that "more specific" or "less specific" is a determining factor in what rule takes precedence. There is ONE rule in the current 40k rulebook regarding rule precedence, and it is this: When a basic rule and an advanced rule conflict, the advanced rule takes precedence; when a rule in a codex is in conflict with a rule in the rulebook, the rule in the codex takes precedence.

That's it. That's all. So if there are 2 advanced rules, both from a codex, they are complete equals insofar as the rules go. So we must look to the OTHER rules to determine how they should interact. Such as the case of the sequencing rule.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
So if there are 2 advanced rules, both from a codex, they are complete equals insofar as the rules go. So we must look to the OTHER rules to determine how they should interact. Such as the case of the sequencing rule.

And sometimes the Sequencing rule doesn't help us, such as this case because "resolution" defining is never really defined in their rules. However, it is a good viewpoint to review if you want to be "quick and dirty" without a roll to resolve it.

Sequencing doesn't help

More specific certainly exists, same as permissive rule set exists.

Timing rules don't apply here.

Both rules can be applied at the same time without any conflict by simply following both rules.

This meas you need a 6. A 3-5 only satisfies one rule.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sequencing doesn't help

More specific certainly exists, same as permissive rule set exists.

"More specific" as a general game concept still would not help, as they are equally specific.

Always on a 6 is more specific than on a 3. There's an absolute missing from one.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Always on a 6 is more specific than on a 3. There's an absolute missing from one.

That is not a case of "specifics", but of "variableness" or "absoluteness".

Using "more specific" or "more advanced" arguments have no RAW to back them up. There are only "Basic" and "Advanced' rules. Both rules in question are Advanced, and neither "takes precedence" over the other.

However:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Both rules can be applied at the same time without any conflict by simply following both rules.

This meas you need a 6. A 3-5 only satisfies one rule.

This is correct. Both rules are happening. Seer council is allowed to cast on 3+, but when a Culexus in near only 6s satify both rules.

 Galef wrote:
Using "more specific" or "more advanced" arguments have no RAW to back them up. There are only "Basic" and "Advanced' rules.

As was stated before, "more advanced" is a quick term for players to indicate datasheet/codex rules which take precedence over the Advanced Rules of the rulebook. "Higher precedence" would also be applicable, and probably more accurate.

But yes, as you said (and has been said ad nauseum in this thread), no case of "higher precedence" applies between these too rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sequencing doesn't help

More specific certainly exists, same as permissive rule set exists.

Now you're either making things up or using information from an outdated rulebook. Please cite a source and page that backs up your claim.

 Galef wrote:
Using "more specific" or "more advanced" arguments have no RAW to back them up. There are only "Basic" and "Advanced' rules. Both rules in question are Advanced, and neither "takes precedence" over the other.

However:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Both rules can be applied at the same time without any conflict by simply following both rules.

This meas you need a 6. A 3-5 only satisfies one rule.

This is correct. Both rules are happening. Seer council is allowed to cast on 3+, but when a Culexus in near only 6s satify both rules.

No, they aren't. If, under your interpretation, you roll a 4, thereby NOT manifesting a power, are you following the rule that says you DO manifest the power on a 3+?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

No, they aren't. If, under your interpretation, you roll a 4, thereby NOT manifesting a power, are you following the rule that says you DO manifest the power on a 3+?

There is no such objective rule. There are two rules working together simultaneously.

1. Warp charges are harnessed on a 3+.
2. Warp charges are harnessed on a 6+.

Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore. Any result which makes both rules apply is the only way to proceed.

When you roll a 4, you've satisfied rule 1, but not rule 2, so it doesn't continue.

This is the fundamental nature of the entire 40k rules system. You're given a collection of rules and carry out legal play by obeying all of them even though almost none refer to each other.

You can follow all of the rules here.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

No, they aren't. If, under your interpretation, you roll a 4, thereby NOT manifesting a power, are you following the rule that says you DO manifest the power on a 3+?

There is no such objective rule. There are two rules working together simultaneously.

1. Warp charges are harnessed on a 3+.
2. Warp charges are harnessed on a 6+.

Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore. Any result which makes both rules apply is the only way to proceed.

When you roll a 4, you've satisfied rule 1, but not rule 2, so it doesn't continue.

This is the fundamental nature of the entire 40k rules system. You're given a collection of rules and carry out legal play by obeying all of them even though almost none refer to each other.

You can follow all of the rules here.

That's not true. If you don't harness on a 4, you aren't following the part of rule #1 above that says warp charges are harnessed on a 3+, because a 3+ was rolled, and you specifically are not harnessing. That isn't following both rules, that's only following the second one. The word "are" is part of the rule, and it's an affirmation that the warp charge IS harnessed on a 3, 4, 5, 6, or higher due to modifiers. That's part of the rule, and as such, falls under the same restrictions as your own statement:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

That's not true. If you don't harness on a 4, you aren't following the part of rule #1 above that says warp charges are harnessed on a 3+, because a 3+ was rolled, and you specifically are not harnessing. That isn't following both rules, that's only following the second one. The word "are" is part of the rule, and it's an affirmation that the warp charge IS harnessed on a 3, 4, 5, 6, or higher due to modifiers. That's part of the rule, and as such, falls under the same restrictions as your own statement:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore.

You're missing the point. You have to follow both rules. Not each rule individually, but both rules together.

It's if(A && B) not if(A || B)

You're not applying both rules. You're giving precedence to the 6+ and ignoring the fact that the 3+ can take effect on the roll of a 4 or a 5. They're both set modifiers and need to be applied simultaneously. Therefore 'Sequencing' does come into play.

I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

If I treat a 4 as a success, I have followed one rule and broken another. If I treat a 6 as a success, I have followed two rules and broken none.

Betray - it's how the game is structured. Same as the game is structured as a permissive set. If it weren't then by your reckoning I can disembark from a land raider in reserve, run and still assault.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

No. You're giving precedence to 'Psychic Abomination' and are ignoring the wording of 'Psychic Might':

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

This rule is an absolute. They will harness a Warp Charge point on a 3+, no exceptions are listed. Yet you're trying to add an exception and are essentially trying to make it say the following:

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+ ... unless another rule in play requires a higher value.

That is not what the rule says. It says 3+, end of story. What we have are two set modifiers, one that sets the harnessing of a Warp Charge point at a 3+ (no exceptions) and one that sets it at a 6 (no exceptions). As such, Sequencing comes into play and the player whose turn it is decides which order they are resolved in.

Nothing more can be said. You're deliberately ignoring RAW.

Time to lock this thread.

Please don't make posts that just say someone else isn't doing it right and calling for a thread lock. You aren't adding to the rule debate/thread as a whole by doing that.

 Ghaz wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

No. You're giving precedence to 'Psychic Abomination' and are ignoring the wording of 'Psychic Might':

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

This rule is an absolute. They will harness a Warp Charge point on a 3+, no exceptions are listed. Yet you're trying to add an exception and are essentially trying to make it say the following:

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+ ... unless another rule in play requires a higher value.

That is not what the rule says. It says 3+, end of story. What we have are two set modifiers, one that sets the harnessing of a Warp Charge point at a 3+ (no exceptions) and one that sets it at a 6 (no exceptions). As such, Sequencing comes into play and the player whose turn it is decides which order they are resolved in.

I think this is the best explained case for how the interaction works in the thread. Good job.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - it's how the game is structured. Same as the game is structured as a permissive set. If it weren't then by your reckoning I can disembark from a land raider in reserve, run and still assault.

Nosferatu, I'm not arguing that it isn't a permissive ruleset. ALL games everywhere are a permissive ruleset. I think you specifically stuck that part in there, paired with what you knew I disagreed with in order to derail the argument, as the permissive ruleset side of it doesn't have any bearing on this debate. What DOES matter is that there is NOTHING in the game that would lead us to believe there is some super-subjective "more specific" vs "less specific" rule in the game. There isn't. It's my position that this entire perception was created and proliferated by people misquoting the "basic" vs. "advanced" rules that ARE demonstratably in the rulebook. If you hold a different position, and claim it's a legitimate rule of the game, feel free to cite a book and page. Otherwise, your comments are not adding to the discussion, and are in violation of the 1st and 2nd tenets of this forum.

Incorrect, as explained. Explaining the structure of the game isnt vioalting rule 1. Try again

Again: my example has NOTHING to do with permissive ruleset, but "more specific". REread the rules on disembarking from an asasult vehicle. It does not limit the ability to assault to only removing the restriction on disembarking frmo a vehicle.

Similarly the bezerker plus kharybdis formation lets them assault the turn they disembark. If your concept were true, then they could run and assault the same turn, or have an IC attach and fire a rapid fire weapon, and still assault.

Culexus has an absolute in there. it is more specific than the PM rule.

So .. just playing devils advocate here.. read the arguements and am curious because I play a seer council in my Eldar army!

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

What no one has mentioned and again.. devils advocate.. this rule states you will pass psychic results of 3+ instead of results of 4+... so what this means to me..

If (cast on 4+) then (cast on 3+ instead)

However, the culexus comes in and says "always cast on a 6+"

so now, your normal 4+ rule which i think we can agree is generic, is overruled by the specific 6+ culexus rule. And further because of this... we no longer meet the initial conditional of replacing your 4+ because it is a 6+.

Hope this makes any form of sense

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So .. just playing devils advocate here.. read the arguements and am curious because I play a seer council in my Eldar army!

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

What no one has mentioned and again.. devils advocate.. this rule states you will pass psychic results of 3+ instead of results of 4+... so what this means to me..

If (cast on 4+) then (cast on 3+ instead)

However, the culexus comes in and says "always cast on a 6+"

so now, your normal 4+ rule which i think we can agree is generic, is overruled by the specific 6+ culexus rule. And further because of this... we no longer meet the initial conditional of replacing your 4+ because it is a 6+.

Hope this makes any form of sense

Yes that is how I saw it too. Just a slightly different angle - I see it that both requirements must be met the 3+ AND the 6+ which results in needing a 6+.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

If I treat a 4 as a success, I have followed one rule and broken another. If I treat a 6 as a success, I have followed two rules and broken none.

Conversely, if you treat a 4 as a failure, you've followed one rule and broken another. This is the issue. You can't follow both rules AND not have a conflict. We know that Codex trumps Core Rules, but we don't have any instructions on what to do when Codex conflicts with Codex. The game breaks and we need to make a call.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

If I treat a 4 as a success, I have followed one rule and broken another. If I treat a 6 as a success, I have followed two rules and broken none.

Conversely, if you treat a 4 as a failure, you've followed one rule and broken another. This is the issue. You can't follow both rules AND not have a conflict. We know that Codex trumps Core Rules, but we don't have any instructions on what to do when Codex conflicts with Codex. The game breaks and we need to make a call.

That is precisely why I think my interpretation could be correct.

BRB (generic) -> cast on 4+

Culexus (codex/specific) -> cast on 6+ -> which overrides generic

Seers (codex/specific) -> cast on 3+ instead of 4+ -> which is not met in this stack.

This might actually be one of the few times I think GW worded this exactly right... but it is still my interpretation..

Look at the following diagram - it shows it is not a timing issue since the order does not matter. Each requirement must be fulfilled or else a rule is being disregarded.

The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, as explained. Explaining the structure of the game isnt vioalting rule 1. Try again

Again: my example has NOTHING to do with permissive ruleset, but "more specific". REread the rules on disembarking from an asasult vehicle. It does not limit the ability to assault to only removing the restriction on disembarking frmo a vehicle.

Similarly the bezerker plus kharybdis formation lets them assault the turn they disembark. If your concept were true, then they could run and assault the same turn, or have an IC attach and fire a rapid fire weapon, and still assault.

Culexus has an absolute in there. it is more specific than the PM rule.

None of those make sense or apply to this situation nosferatu. There is no "more specific" vs. "less specific" rule in 40k. If you claim there is, for the 3rd time, cite a page or please stop with your nonsensical arguments. An advanced rule MAY override another advanced rule if it specifically, overtly SAYS it does. But that's not a case of "more specific", it's a case of it SAYING it overrides another rule. Other than that, no, and that isn't the case here. They're both absolutes.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Look at the following diagram - it shows it is not a timing issue since the order does not matter. Each requirement must be fulfilled or else a rule is being disregarded.

Your flowchart is misleading because the ability that causes you to manifest on a 3+ isn't conditional on passing any other tests. It says you DO manifest. If you don't manifest, you never make it past the 3+ point on your flowchart.

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

This. The part that says "instead of a 4+" is just referring to the default. It doesn't actually change anything.

So without a rule stating the game is permissive, it isn't?

So do you believe the bezerkers can assault? Yes or no. If not, please explain how this is compatible with your idea that there are no rules that are more or less specific.

It's how the game is constructed. Same as permissive. Deny it all you want, you remain incorrect.

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

Then I think at this point from what I have read through the thread, there is no RAW answer to this, and it is up to the TO or your gaming group to decide which interpretation to take.

RAI, I think would favor the Culexus, being as it is the most restrictive of the "specific" rules in play. ... what i mean is .. the seer rule is always in play.. where the culexus rule is only in play when the 12" bubble is met (aka more restrictive).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So without a rule stating the game is permissive, it isn't?

So do you believe the bezerkers can assault? Yes or no. If not, please explain how this is compatible with your idea that there are no rules that are more or less specific.

It's how the game is constructed. Same as permissive. Deny it all you want, you remain incorrect.

We're not talking about permissive. No game anywhere can NOT be permissive, whereas it's entirely possible for a game to NOT have a "more specific vs. less specific" clause, so you're making a straw man argument. One being true does not make the other true. Now get on topic, or get out. Cite your source, and follow the rules of this forum. You're being disruptive while providing no actual substance in your arguments. Declaring someone wrong with no supporting evidence doesn't make you right.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

Then I think at this point from what I have read through the thread, there is no RAW answer to this, and it is up to the TO or your gaming group to decide which interpretation to take.

RAI, I think would favor the Culexus, being as it is the most restrictive of the "specific" rules in play. ... what i mean is .. the seer rule is always in play.. where the culexus rule is only in play when the 12" bubble is met (aka more restrictive).

Neither rule is 'always' in play. Both only come into play when it comes time to harness a Warp Charge.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

Then I think at this point from what I have read through the thread, there is no RAW answer to this, and it is up to the TO or your gaming group to decide which interpretation to take.

RAI, I think would favor the Culexus, being as it is the most restrictive of the "specific" rules in play. ... what i mean is .. the seer rule is always in play.. where the culexus rule is only in play when the 12" bubble is met (aka more restrictive).

Neither rule is 'always' in play. Both only come into play when it comes time to harness a Warp Charge.

That is really nit picking what I said to be fair....

given that it is the psychic phase where any of this debate even really matters.... the seer rules are always in play.... where then only if the culexus meets it's distance requirement will it come into play.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So without a rule stating the game is permissive, it isn't?

So do you believe the bezerkers can assault? Yes or no. If not, please explain how this is compatible with your idea that there are no rules that are more or less specific.

It's how the game is constructed. Same as permissive. Deny it all you want, you remain incorrect.

We're not talking about permissive. No game anywhere can NOT be permissive, whereas it's entirely possible for a game to NOT have a "more specific vs. less specific" clause, so you're making a straw man argument. One being true does not make the other true. Now get on topic, or get out. Cite your source, and follow the rules of this forum. You're being disruptive while providing no actual substance in your arguments. Declaring someone wrong with no supporting evidence doesn't make you right.

No, that isn't a strawman argument. For a start, I never claimed it was your argument. To give you a quick clue here is a short link to what a strawman argument is - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (I know it's wiki, but it's a good begjpinners guide for you into the wonderful world of logical fallaclies)

My source is : how the game is constructed. As evidence I gave example,s where your interpretation leads to results directlyncontradicted by the game, meaning my case is made (proof by contradiction )

So , maybe you should "get out" or maybe, instead of playing moderator, you can click the yellow triangle of friendship and see what an actual mod says?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

In your previous post in the thread you added the word 'always' into the rule from the Seer Council when it is not in there.

It does not say they 'always' harness on a 3+

The Culexus rule does state though they they 'only' harness on a 6+

And the two effects that contradict both occur when there is an attempt to harness a Warp Charge. They both occur at the same time.

Please cite a rule that says when two rules conflict, the one that was 'active' first takes precedence. There is no rule to support that claim.

 Ghaz wrote:
And the two effects that contradict both occur when there is an attempt to harness a Warp Charge. They both occur at the same time.

Please cite a rule that says when two rules conflict, the one that was 'active' first takes precedence. There is no rule to support that claim.

You can't .. hence why no one has been able to justify any of this thus far

At the same time.. I think there is precedence in the rules with the key word "only" being used in specific rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just tossing my opinion out again. Feel free to tear it to shreds

If both effects are on the stack together, then to me, in order to successfully manifest you must satisfy both conditions (AND logic).

a roll of 1-2 -> false & false => clear fail
a roll of 3-5 -> true & false => fails
a roll of 6 -> true & true => Success

 Grizzyzz wrote:

a roll of 1-2 -> false & false => clear fail
a roll of 3-5 -> true & false => fails
a roll of 6 -> true & true => Success

This is the only way to reconcile the Culexus vs Seer Council rules.

It's really no different than the numerous other examples.

Hence I always employ the "Evaluate each combined rules and break no rules".

 whembly wrote:

Hence I always employ the "Evaluate each combined rules and break no rules".

But you ARE breaking a rule. If a rule says you MUST manifest on a 3+, and you roll a 4 but don't manifest, then did you follow that rule?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Hence I always employ the "Evaluate each combined rules and break no rules".

But you ARE breaking a rule. If a rule says you MUST manifest on a 3+, and you roll a 4 but don't manifest, then did you follow that rule?

I think its not what needs to hold true for this effect and not the other.. it is what holds true for both because both effects are on the stack together. In this case 6+ holds true for both.


** EDIT **

eh i dont think that made any sense but as i can't delete

So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you take the 6+ you ignore the 3+.. but if you take the 3+ you ignore the 6+... etc etc..

As this is not explained anywhere in the brb.. it really doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks.. your not getting a 100% factual answer unless you email GW and get a response.

So that is how I would play it until someone tells me otherwise .. satisfy both conditions.

Cheers!

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point

But you don't satisfy both. Because psychic might says you DO manifest on a 3. Assume it DIDN'T say 3+ for a moment, and ONLY said 3. If you roll a 3, and don't manifest it, are you still following the rule? Because that's the situation here. It's saying that on a 3, you DO manifest. If you don't, then you're breaking the rule and only following the other one. 3+ essentially means it DOES manifest on a 3, 4, 5, or 6. Ignoring ANY one of those results is JUST as contentious as ignoring the fact that psychic abomination only says 6.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point

But you don't satisfy both. Because psychic might says you DO manifest on a 3. Assume it DIDN'T say 3+ for a moment, and ONLY said 3. If you roll a 3, and don't manifest it, are you still following the rule? Because that's the situation here. It's saying that on a 3, you DO manifest. If you don't, then you're breaking the rule and only following the other one. 3+ essentially means it DOES manifest on a 3, 4, 5, or 6. Ignoring ANY one of those results is JUST as contentious as ignoring the fact that psychic abomination only says 6.

You are correct and I am not refuting that. it is impossible to resolve both at once outside of rolling a 6.. Therefore I am proposing what I think to be the most logical way to House rule this, and that is to take any case that passes both conditions to be the successful outcome, and if neither conditions can produce a successful outcome then it is a failed outcome.

as i wrote above this leaves you with the following:
1-5 -> FF || TF || FT => Fail
6 -> TT => Success * on a 6 you satisfy both *

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point

You're NOT satisfying both. We've already covered this. From 'Psychic Might' (emphasis added):

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

You're ignoring the fact that 'Psychic Might' says in no uncertain terms that if you roll a 3,4 or 5 you harness a Warp Charge point, no exceptions. You can't obey both rules at the same time, both are absolutes.

^ read the post just above this.. I have never said you satisfy BOTH conditions at all times.. I am only saying you DO satisfy both conditions on a roll of a 6.. etc etc etc ^^ up there


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other possible house rule would be to change the text of the Pyshic Might to be: Pyschers in this unit gain +1 to their successful casts...

then both effects could stack.. 4+ becomes 6+.. you then get a +1 modifier .. so you would resolve on a 5+

^ maybe this is a happy middleground .. but in either case it is going to be a house or TO ruling

Cheers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does this same thing happen with a cullexus and a Librarian Conclave ?

The rules already cover how to handle this situation and has been brought up in the this thread already. When two events occur at the same time (as these do as they're both set modifiers) then the 'Sequencing' rule comes into play and the player who's turn it is decides which order they take place.

 Ghaz wrote:
The rules already cover how to handle this situation and has been brought up in the this thread already. When two events occur at the same time (as these do as they're both set modifiers) then the 'Sequencing' rule comes into play and the player who's turn it is decides which order they take place.

Just being devils advocate here.. but I think "sequencing" was equally debated as not being the proper solution for this here. no?

Essentially tho.. if you go with sequencing.. then Seers always get their way.. and the Cullexus never neutralizes that formation ... maybe that is how it is if the player choses, but doesn't seem the RAI solution.

Then.. i guess they still dont gen all their warp dice.. so they are still limited in that sense. Idk

Why not emphasis the INSTEAD in the Psychic Might rule? Normally a psyker succeeds on 4+, those in the formation do so on 3+. Nothing in Psychic Might says it's always true despite whatever other conditions might apply, it only says they have a different target number than normal.

why is everyone intent on disagreeing when the mechanic is hardly hidden.. it's simply that GW applied a +1 modifier to the seer council roll and a -2 modifier on a assassin roll.. I hate to break this argument into it's constituent parts but you have to to fathom what to do.

please can we stop banging on and on endlessly and take the fakery out of this.. I know why GW didn't say "-2" .. and you do too**... and I know why GW didn't say "+1" ...and you do too** .. but it doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to unpick that they DID actually do that.

And if you unpick what they did then you can re connect it so you do the same thing too..

So to try to inject some actual logic into the proceedings I would want everyone to urge that the common sense thing to do would be to make it a 5+ if you have an assassin near a seer council.

Why is 5+ right?

It clearly mimics what GW were actually doing all along (within the current ruleset) and it clearly favours no rule over another and it clearly allows both parties to benefit fairly. Job done. Move on. Shale hands. Smile.

** if you really don't know it's to do with a avoidance of "relative values" and favouring "absolute values" because it immunises better vs future rule changes, avoids arguments more often and keeps older books usable longer

ConanMan wrote:
why is everyone intent on disagreeing when the mechanic is hardly hidden.. it's simply that GW applied a +1 modifier to the seer council roll and a -2 modifier on a assassin roll.. I hate to break this argument into it's constituent parts but you have to to fathom what to do.

please can we stop banging on and on endlessly and take the fakery out of this.. I know why GW didn't say "-2" .. and you do too**... and I know why GW didn't say "+1" ...and you do too** .. but it doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to unpick that they DID actually do that.

And if you unpick what they did then you can re connect it so you do the same thing too..

So to try to inject some actual logic into the proceedings I would want everyone to urge that the common sense thing to do would be to make it a 5+ if you have an assassin near a seer council.

Why is 5+ right?

It clearly mimics what GW were actually doing all along (within the current ruleset) and it clearly favours no rule over another and it clearly allows both parties to benefit fairly. Job done. Move on. Shale hands. Smile.

** if you really don't know it's to do with a avoidance of "relative values" and favouring "absolute values" because it immunises better vs future rule changes, avoids arguments more often and keeps older books usable longer

That not how the rules work. Just because "-2" has the same effect as 6+ on its own in a vacuum doesn't mean its the same thing. They interact with rules in different ways (such as when applying Multiple Modifiers)

If GW intended for it to be +1 and -2, they would have made it +1 and -2.

I think the only RAW argument could be based on sequencing (3+), anything else (6+,5+,4+) seems to be RAI territory.

Unless of course you're part of those who believe that "only" overrides "will" (or vice versa).

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

morgoth wrote:
I think the only RAW argument could be based on sequencing (3+), anything else (6+,5+,4+) seems to be RAI territory.

Unless of course you're part of those who believe that "only" overrides "will" (or vice versa).

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

No. Sequencing deals with two rules to be resolved, one after the other. This is not an issue of which is resolved first, so Sequencing is irrelevant.

 Ghaz wrote:
The rules already cover how to handle this situation and has been brought up in the this thread already. When two events occur at the same time (as these do as they're both set modifiers) then the 'Sequencing' rule comes into play and the player who's turn it is decides which order they take place.

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

Only logical and rules based solution is to satisfy both rules to be able to manifest a power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Why not emphasis the INSTEAD in the Psychic Might rule? Normally a psyker succeeds on 4+, those in the formation do so on 3+. Nothing in Psychic Might says it's always true despite whatever other conditions might apply, it only says they have a different target number than normal.

People choose to ignore that as it doesn't support their position at all, on the contrary. So normally 4+ is needed, but as Culexus changes the requirement to 6+ then Psychic Might cannot trigger at all. Then they point out that sequencing, but it also fails as there is still the second rule in effect and it cannot be ignored.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Why not emphasis the INSTEAD in the Psychic Might rule? Normally a psyker succeeds on 4+, those in the formation do so on 3+. Nothing in Psychic Might says it's always true despite whatever other conditions might apply, it only says they have a different target number than normal.

People choose to ignore that as it doesn't support their position at all, on the contrary. So normally 4+ is needed, but as Culexus changes the requirement to 6+ then Psychic Might cannot trigger at all. Then they point out that sequencing, but it also fails as there is still the second rule in effect and it cannot be ignored.

That's another interesting way to look at sequencing.

Still, I don't see a RAW justified answer in this thread yet, your invention of satisfying both a roll of 3+ and 6+ on the same roll is completely unheard of.

I mean, it might be 6+, or 3+, but you don't have a RAW backed argument for either so far.

Naw wrote:

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how sequencing works with two absolute values, which is why you're not understanding.

1. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 3+ rule first, you now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 6+ rule second. You now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You fail.
2. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 6+ rule first, you now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 3+ rule second. You now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You succeed.

At no time do ANY of the 3 rules function simultaneously because they're ALL absolute values. So sequencing does come into play.

This is how all absolute value abilities work in game. It's how Kharne's autohit on 2's power works against Invisibility's 6's. There is no reason it should work differently here.

Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies. Otherwise you allow a land raider embarked unit entering from reserves to assault the turn they disembark.

Which you refuse yo answer, lest it destroy your argument. Keep ducking, it is noticed by all....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies.

There is no such rule or concept in 40k. There is only basic vs. advanced. For the 5th time, please stop saying that nonsense without citing supporting evidence from a GW publication. It IS a violation of the rules of YMDC!

Let's leave snide asides out of our posts, it's not remotely polite. Stick to the rules, and the tenets of the forum. And if you think someone isn't, just use the yellow triangle, no need to post about it as well. Thanks.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies.

There is no such rule or concept in 40k. There is only basic vs. advanced. For the 5th time, please stop saying that nonsense without citing supporting evidence from a GW publication. It IS a violation of the rules of YMDC!

There is no more need for a rule supporting the idea that a more specific rule overrides a less specific one than there is for a rule supporting the die face with a six on it representing a roll of a six.

Its a fundamental underpinning of the very nature of a ruleset.

As above.

It's as fundamental as permissive rule set.

Without it, I WILL assault the turn I arrive from reserves, because I disembarked a land raider . Or I will run and charge my bezerkers, because they disembarked from their kharybdis.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Naw wrote:

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how sequencing works with two absolute values, which is why you're not understanding.

1. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 3+ rule first, you now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 6+ rule second. You now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You fail.
2. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 6+ rule first, you now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 3+ rule second. You now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You succeed.

So you modify the rule to say "instead of 4+, 3+ succeeds"? That's excellent. Can I also modify the wording in the rules to support my position?

At no time do ANY of the 3 rules function simultaneously because they're ALL absolute values. So sequencing does come into play.

No, it doesn't, because you are incorrect above. If Psychic Might just said "a roll of 3+ manifests the power" then you could claim that, but it does not.

 insaniak wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies.

There is no such rule or concept in 40k. There is only basic vs. advanced. For the 5th time, please stop saying that nonsense without citing supporting evidence from a GW publication. It IS a violation of the rules of YMDC!

There is no more need for a rule supporting the idea that a more specific rule overrides a less specific one than there is for a rule supporting the die face with a six on it representing a roll of a six.

Its a fundamental underpinning of the very nature of a ruleset.

That's completely untrue in the sense that everyone tries to argue "more specific" as being far more broad than is necessary to a functional ruleset. 2 units that both have an advanced rule that conflict, but one says it only functions during the enemy turn is "more specific" by definition but doesn't make it default to being the rule that is followed in the case of 2 advanced rules conflicting. A rule that effects a specific, named character that conflicts with a rule that effects all models could be easily argued to be "more specific" as well, but it DOES NOT override the rule that effects all models just because it only effects a single named character. I KNOW you understand this, but the unwashed masses DO NOT. It is unhealthy for the gaming community at large to continuously espouse a "more specific > less specific" stance because 95% of the times that it's used as an argument aren't applicable. I can argue game theory with you, or we can agree and accept that there is no written rule in 40k that says more specific > less specific, while understanding that if a rule directly says something to be the case, directly saying it overrides another special rule, it may do that. THAT is what more specific means as a game function in 40k, and in ALL games. If I have a special rule that says I can fly, and there is a special rule that says it specifically takes away my special ability to fly, it may do so. But 2 rules that conflict without clearly indicating that it is overriding an existing, known rule, it is a conflict that must be resolved using the SPECIFIC game rules we have for resolving the conflict between 2 advanced rules.

Naw wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Naw wrote:

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how sequencing works with two absolute values, which is why you're not understanding.

1. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 3+ rule first, you now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 6+ rule second. You now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You fail.
2. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 6+ rule first, you now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 3+ rule second. You now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You succeed.

So you modify the rule to say "instead of 4+, 3+ succeeds"? That's excellent. Can I also modify the wording in the rules to support my position?

At no time do ANY of the 3 rules function simultaneously because they're ALL absolute values. So sequencing does come into play.

No, it doesn't, because you are incorrect above. If Psychic Might just said "a roll of 3+ manifests the power" then you could claim that, but it does not.

That IS what it says. I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm modifying the wording of the rule. Here is a direct copy/paste: "When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point".

There is no written rule stating the game is permissive either.
Doesn't alter that it is. Same as the game does pay attention to specific > general.

Your theory results in results which break the way the game operates. That highly suggests your theory is invalid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is no written rule stating the game is permissive either.
Doesn't alter that it is. Same as the game does pay attention to specific > general.

Your theory results in results which break the way the game operates. That highly suggests your theory is invalid.

You're making a straw man argument again. Just because ALL games have permissive rulesets doesn't mean all games operate on a "more specific vs. less specific" basis. One has nothing to do with the other. You have a very limited understanding of the more specific vs. less specific argument that you seem to be making.

Yes, more specific applies in THIS case:

Advanced rule: All of my models are to be considered red.
2nd Advanced rule: If another advanced rule makes colors red, this rule overrides it, making the color green.

But that doesn't make "more specific" a universal indicator of correctness. "More specific" isn't what makes the second rule override the first. It's that the second rule specifically overrides the first. The only time "more specific" would ever apply would be completely and painfully obvious, as outlined above. It's situations where there really is no rules debate, because the rules specifically tell you what to do in no uncertain terms. That doesn't mean we have a "more specific > less specific" ruleset. It means we can understand that a rule can override another rule if it specifically says it does so. Otherwise, it is first subject to the "basic vs. advanced" rules, THEN subject to the "FAQ>Codex>Rulebook" rules, and if still not resolved, refer to the "sequencing rules". Never in that process is a "more specific vs, less specific" parameter checked, because it isn't a system used to resolve rules conflicts. If it were specific enough to fall under "more specific vs. less specific", there would be no rules conflict. And besides, we're never instructed to do so in this permissive ruleset. Show me the permission to use "more specific vs. less specific" in lieu of basic vs advanced and sequencing to resolve a rules conflict. You can't, because it's not meant as a process to clarify rules that aren't clear. We have other systems in place to do just that.

So again, we have no "More Specific > Less specific" rule in 40k. Stop making it up and misinforming the noobs.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
You can't, because it's not meant as a process to clarify rules that aren't clear. We have other systems in place to do just that.

They don't appear to be working very well.


I think this thread has gone as far as it's likely to. Moving on.