Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The basic vs advanced rules tell you the circumstance under which you are allowed to use the BRB.

"Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale. "

Are you saying that the weapon - grenades, are a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule?

Show me what page that exists on.
Also show me what page that states weapon names are rules.

Ceann wrote:


You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.

The Army List Entry rule allows me to look into any 40k publication.

The codex is not providing a definition of 'grenades'; therefore, my quest leads to the BRB where it is defined.

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


If you are attempting to consult the BRB for any other reason, UNLESS EXPLICITY INSTRUCTED ON THE DATASHEET, then you are not allowed to do so.

The Army List Entry rule allows me to access rules in whatever GW publication they may be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Ramses wrote:


All RAI with zero reference to actual rules.

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

Reported for disruptive posting. You need to add something to the thread. This is pure mindless disruptive posting.

I already explained why;

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

is not disruptive posting. It directly contradicts your repetitive posts that do not follow the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions, and then continue to post them falsely as RAW. You choose to continue posting without providing any RAW to support your argument over and over and the only counter is to post the above over and over in return to counter it. If you want to actually advance the discussion cite the rules that allow you to disregard the RAW of the wargear entry, cite the rules that allow you to use a naming convention to dictate what rules you follow, and lastly cite the rules that tell you that said naming convention is validated by the use of the BRB index. Unless you can provide rules citations for each instance, your argument is based upon your assumptions and they continue to ignore the RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:


You are not accessing a rule that pertains to a model, you are accessing rules for weapons, you have not been referenced by the codex to access that information. Therefore you are not allowed too and the codex takes all precedence.

The Army List Entry rule allows me to look into any 40k publication.

The codex is not providing a definition of 'grenades'; therefore, my quest leads to the BRB where it is defined.

God forbid that your "quest" actually lead you to the Rule As Written.....

 Brother Ramses wrote:


I already explained why;

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

is not disruptive posting. It directly contradicts your repetitive posts that do not follow the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions, and then continue to post them falsely as RAW. You choose to continue posting without providing any RAW to support your argument over and over and the only counter is to post the above over and over in return to counter it. If you want to actually advance the discussion cite the rules that allow you to disregard the RAW of the wargear entry, cite the rules that allow you to use a naming convention to dictate what rules you follow, and lastly cite the rules that tell you that said naming convention is validated by the use of the BRB index. Unless you can provide rules citations for each instance, your argument is based upon your assumptions and they continue to ignore the RAW.

The rad grenade rule uses 'grenade' in the lower case in the rule itself. It's not a proper noun.



In order to understand the rule, I need to understand what 'grenades' are. C:IA does not provide a definition for 'grenades' (I checked); therefore, I can look to other publications (per the Army List Entry rule) for definition/rules for 'grenades'. I find them in the BRB.

This is all 100% according to RAW.

It does not.

Do you remember your magical flying bike captain?
The codex also btw is not a quest giver.

Remember how all those things on his data sheet said "See Codex: Space Marines" and you told me that you did not dispute that it was there? So you have already previously admitted that you need permission to access specific documentation.

The basic vs advanced rules state the codex takes precedence, you can LOOK at whatever publication you want, for as long as you want, the codex still takes precedence.

You have not been permitted to access the BRB for weapons, if you were then under the wargear entry provided for rad grenades it would tell you to see the BRB. Which it has not. This is a precedence for all datasheets or wargear that reference the BRB.

You are assuming a permission you do not have.
Just another trick you pull when you don't have an argument.

You cannot argue that a weapon - grenades is a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule.

So you changed your argument to Army List Entry nonsense, and once I defeat you on that "which just happened again" you will change your argument again to something else.

Are we going back to "nouns" or something else now?
This is really getting quite silly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh we actually are going back to nouns, I am kind of saddened that I called that before I even finished my post.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So do nouns qualify as... is a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule.

Please show me the page rule for this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The Army List Entry rule dictates that all possible information about a unit comes from reference's directly on the Army List Entry rule or qualifiys as "is a movement, shooting, close combat or morale rule. "

As 'grenade" is not on the Army List Entry rule for an IA Inquisitor you are not permitted to access any information about 'grenade' in the BRB. As far as the codex is concerned, it doesnt exist. Permission is given, you are assuming you have it.

col_impact wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:


I already explained why;

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

is not disruptive posting. It directly contradicts your repetitive posts that do not follow the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions, and then continue to post them falsely as RAW. You choose to continue posting without providing any RAW to support your argument over and over and the only counter is to post the above over and over in return to counter it. If you want to actually advance the discussion cite the rules that allow you to disregard the RAW of the wargear entry, cite the rules that allow you to use a naming convention to dictate what rules you follow, and lastly cite the rules that tell you that said naming convention is validated by the use of the BRB index. Unless you can provide rules citations for each instance, your argument is based upon your assumptions and they continue to ignore the RAW.

The rad grenade rule uses 'grenade' in the lower case in the rule itself. It's not a proper noun.

Spoiler:

During a turn in which a unit equipped with rad grenades launches an assault, or is assaulted, the enemy unit(s) suffer a -1 penalty to their Toughness until the end of the phase (this does affect the victims’ Instant Death threshold).

In order to understand the rule, I need to understand what 'grenades' are. C:IA does not provide a definition for 'grenades' (I checked); therefore, I can look to other publications (per the Army List Entry rule) for definition/rules for 'grenades'. I find them in the BRB.

This is all 100% according to RAW.

Actually no, you have no need to understand what "grenades" are, only that the unit be equipped with them and if the unit equipped with them launches an assault, or is assaulted. That is it. Everything you need to understand the wargear entry is given to you RAW.

You are creating a rule out of thin air, out of need to prop up your RAI assumption of a naming convention that is not supported by any RAW whatsoever. And once again since you insist on claiming RAW:

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

Ceann wrote:


As 'grenade" is not on the Army List Entry rule for an IA Inquisitor you are not permitted to access any information about 'grenade' in the BRB. As far as the codex is concerned, it doesnt exist. Permission is given, you are assuming you have it.

'grenades' is all over the place in C:IA and on the Inquisitor datasheet. Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades. In all of these cases 'grenades' is not capitalized and so is not a proper noun. 'grenades' in each of these cases is a kind of wargear and a kind of weapon.

'grenades' is not defined by C:IA so I look to the BRB 40k publication as per the Army List Entry rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brother Ramses wrote:


Actually no, you have no need to understand what "grenades" are, only that the unit be equipped with them and if the unit equipped with them launches an assault, or is assaulted. That is it. Everything you need to understand the wargear entry is given to you RAW.

You are creating a rule out of thin air, out of need to prop up your RAI assumption of a naming convention that is not supported by any RAW whatsoever. And once again since you insist on claiming RAW:

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

C:IA uses the term 'grenades' in several places and does not define it (Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades). The BRB however defines the term. I have no choice but to access the BRB for the definition of 'grenades'. The term carries special meaning in 40k. It is an indexed term in the BRB.

Incorrect again col. Remember see codex: Space marines?

The entry's on the referenced page for rad grenades does not tell you to see the BRB for any rules. So you are not permitted too.
In order to have permission the entry for rad grenades has to be notated that you do so either on the indicated page or the Army entry list. The only brb rules you may access by default per the Army entry list are the basic rules mentioned in basic vs advanced.

It has no such reference so you can read about brb grenades all you but according to the codex they do not exist in reference to rad grenades.

Please stop making things up.

Ceann wrote:
Incorrect again col. Remember see codex: Space marines?

The entry's on the referenced page for rad grenades does not tell you to see the BRB for any rules. So you are not permitted too.
In order to have permission the entry for rad grenades has to be notated that you do so either on the indicated page or the Army entry list.

It has no such reference so you can read about brb grenades all you but according to the codex they do not exist in reference to rad grenades.

The Army List Entry rule allows me to access any 40k publication for a definition of 'grenades' since C:IA does not provide one. I find definition and rules for 'grenades' in the BRB. What rule did I break?

Where does it say see 40k: The Rules?
What page?

You are making things up.

Ceann wrote:
Where does it say see 40k: The Rules?
What page?

You are making things up.

The Army List Entry rule allows me to access any 40k publication for a definition of 'grenades' since C:IA does not provide one.

Basic vs advanced.
You are told that the basic rules for moving, shooting, close combat and morale apply to all models.

You are then told the codex and the army list entry has precedence. Unless the codex or entry tells you to access 40k: The rules, for grenades then you are not allowed too. Only the basic rules apply to the codex. Grenade is not a basic rule for movement, shooting, close combat or morale.

There is no reference for rad grenades for you to access the BRB. The codex has precedence.

Ceann wrote:
Basic vs advanced.
You are told that the basic rules for moving, shooting, close combat and morale apply to all models.

You are then told the codex and the army list entry has precedence. Unless the codex or entry tells you to access 40k: The rules, for grenades then you are not allowed too. Only the basic rules apply to the codex. Grenade is not a basic rule for movement, shooting, close combat or morale.

Basic versus Advanced only applies in the case of a conflict.

C:IA does not have a definition of 'grenades' so there can not possibly be a conflict.

Therefore we have to look at the BRB for a definition of 'grenades'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


There is no reference for rad grenades for you to access the BRB. The codex has precedence.

'grenades' is used all over the place in C:IA for a variety of different kinds of grenades (Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades)

C:IA does not provide any definition for 'grenades' so it presents no conflict and surrenders its precedence to other 40k publications.

The player has no choice but to get a definition for 'grenades' from the BRB.

Don't worry, because Melta bombs don't say grenade, they don't have to reference grenade rules. A squad can use 10 of them at once in assault because they're not grenades and don't follow the only 1 per phase per squad because of its name.

Thank for clearing that up col!

 HANZERtank wrote:
Don't worry, because Melta bombs don't say grenade, they don't have to reference grenade rules. A squad can use 10 of them at once in assault because they're not grenades and don't follow the only 1 per phase per squad because of its name.

Thank for clearing that up col!

The profiles for Melta Bombs are included in the Grenades section. If they weren't included in that section it would indeed be hard to determine what they are and to indeed apply this rule . . .



However, they are listed in the Grenade section and so are 'grenades' by inclusion in that section.


As you know, it's a lot more straightforward in the case of Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, and Psychotroke grenades.

Surrender precedence is not a rule Col. Show me the page that states this.

A codex does not surrender precedence col. If you read rad grenades and don't know what a grenade is, then a grenade doesn't exist as far as the codex is concerned and the word is being used in a descriptive context of the wargear not a defined term. You are required to be told by the data sheet of an item in question and it must to tell you to reference the BRB for that item, or permission is not granted outside of the basic rules specified sections outlined in basic vs advanced.

Basic vs advanced rules.

Unless the term grenade falls under "movement, shooting, close combat, or morale rules that apply to all models", permission is not granted.

Codex: Dad - Hey there Col.
Col: Dad, what is a grenade I see it here as a war thing.
Codex: Dad - That is nothing Col for you, do not worry about it, it is part of dad's work.

Col: Mom what is a grenade?
BRB:Mom - Col that is part of your dad's work one day when you are grown up your dad will tell you about grenade but it is his choice.
Col: But I wanna know now!
BRB:Mom - No, not now Col, it is your dad's choice and when he is good and ready he will let you know. Now eat your peas.
Col:Ugh, yes BRB:Mom

See just like this.

Ceann wrote:
If you open the BRB and look at the core rules, the items you reference are located in the core rules section. "grenades" are not a rule they are a weapon, listed in the weapon section. "grenades" do not apply to models, rules apply to models. "grenades" is not a basic rule.

So if I have a unit that's given an option to trade in a weapon for some other weapon, I can trade in the grenade?

Tehcnically it's not in the "weapon" section even though it's grouped after "ranged weapons of the 41st millenium" and "melee weapons of the 41st millenium", but they don't refer to the section as a weapons section. They follow this up with "Terrain Datasheets" using the same font size and style - does that mean Terrain Datasheets are weapons also?

I'll agree that "grenades" are not a basic rule. Rad grenades do fit the description of unusual grenades though, in that they do not have a profile, can not be thrown or used as a Melee weapon. It's just a moot point since you don't need to reference the unusual grenade rules, just the rad grenade rules - which only have a -1 effect for the rest of the phase on a unit assaulted by units with rad grenades. The rad grenade rules themselves indicate no stacking.


Wow, 5 pages generated during the night.

Ceann wrote:
The codex IA datasheet tells us to reference the page for the special wargear "rad grenades" we are not told to consult the BRB, we are not required too as codex takes precedence.

The datasheet is irrelevant as it doesn't tell you what Rad Grenades do or are. The datasheet doesn't tell you to refer to Assault Grenades when looking up Frag Grenades, either. That is performed in the Armoury.

Ceann wrote:
Page 156 BRB A compendium of special rules.
Some of the special rules you’ll encounter in this section have already been
mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you’ve yet to encounter at
all. We’ve presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when
trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.

Note that it says they have presented them ALL in this section.
Anything not in this section, is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
All special rules from the BRB have been placed in this section.

Those are the ones you have encountered so far in reading the rulebook.

And right before that it states, "Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list."

And, no, Basic rules are defined as, "rules (that) apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale", not "rules not posted in the special rules section".

Special Rules are defined as, "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules", not "rules posted in this section".

Ceann wrote:

Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.

Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?

Heavy is also a Type, and that Type takes precedence over the name.

Regardless, of that, Wargear still carry special rules. Some are common like Terminator Armour providing Relentless, while some are not common like Terminator Armour denying Sweeping Advances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.

Rad grenades do no such thing. The RAW of their entry does not direct you to the BRB section on grenades at all. The only reference you might have to find in the BRB would be to determine what constitutes an assault and what constitutes an instant death threshold. But nothing at all directs you to reference the BRB section on grenades.

Sorry, doesn't fly. That's no different than Frag Grenades referring to Assault Grenades. Can you find a Grenade that doesn't have a profile but still refers you to using the Grenades section of BRB?

 Charistoph wrote:

Ceann wrote:
The codex IA datasheet tells us to reference the page for the special wargear "rad grenades" we are not told to consult the BRB, we are not required too as codex takes precedence.

The datasheet is irrelevant as it doesn't tell you what Rad Grenades do or are. The datasheet doesn't tell you to refer to Assault Grenades when looking up Frag Grenades, either. That is performed in the Armoury.

Ceann wrote:
Page 156 BRB A compendium of special rules.
Some of the special rules you’ll encounter in this section have already been
mentioned in earlier passages of this book, others you’ve yet to encounter at
all. We’ve presented them all in a single section to make your life easier when
trying to track down the effect of a particular special rule.

Note that it says they have presented them ALL in this section.
Anything not in this section, is not a special rule, it is a basic rule.
All special rules from the BRB have been placed in this section.

Those are the ones you have encountered so far in reading the rulebook.

And right before that it states, "Most of the more commonly used special rules in Warhammer 40,000 are listed here, but this is by no means an exhaustive list."

And, no, Basic rules are defined as, "rules (that) apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat as well as the rules for morale", not "rules not posted in the special rules section".

Special Rules are defined as, "an ability that breaks or bends one of the main game rules", not "rules posted in this section".

Ceann wrote:

Heavy is used in a variety of ways in the BRB, from a type of weapon to a type of vehicle.

Ah so I guess we have a vehicle weapon flamer right?

Heavy is also a Type, and that Type takes precedence over the name.

Regardless, of that, Wargear still carry special rules. Some are common like Terminator Armour providing Relentless, while some are not common like Terminator Armour denying Sweeping Advances.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:Off the top of my head, Blight Grenades. You follow the RAW of the Blight Grenades wargear entry that limits them to models with the Mark of Nurgle and tells you the grenades count as both assault and defensive grenades. In this we have a non-BRB grenade that directs you to the BRB to determine what counting as both assault and defensive grenades constitutes.

Rad grenades do no such thing. The RAW of their entry does not direct you to the BRB section on grenades at all. The only reference you might have to find in the BRB would be to determine what constitutes an assault and what constitutes an instant death threshold. But nothing at all directs you to reference the BRB section on grenades.

Sorry, doesn't fly. That's no different than Frag Grenades referring to Assault Grenades. Can you find a Grenade that doesn't have a profile but still refers you to using the Grenades section of BRB?

Hahaha, I give you exactly what you ask for and you misdirect. Do you even have the Chaos codex to view the entry? Frag Grenades are in their own callout box with the header that they are found in the Warhammer 40k rule book and it has an asterisk telling you to refer to Assault Grenades. Blight Grenades are their own wargear entry, completely separate from the callout of Grenades. Because you asked you must not have the codex or you would not make such an response devoid of any sense.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Basic vs advanced.
You are told that the basic rules for moving, shooting, close combat and morale apply to all models.

You are then told the codex and the army list entry has precedence. Unless the codex or entry tells you to access 40k: The rules, for grenades then you are not allowed too. Only the basic rules apply to the codex. Grenade is not a basic rule for movement, shooting, close combat or morale.

Basic versus Advanced only applies in the case of a conflict.

C:IA does not have a definition of 'grenades' so there can not possibly be a conflict.

Therefore we have to look at the BRB for a definition of 'grenades'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ceann wrote:


There is no reference for rad grenades for you to access the BRB. The codex has precedence.

'grenades' is used all over the place in C:IA for a variety of different kinds of grenades (Frag grenades, Krak grenades, Psyk-out grenades, Rad grenades, Psychotroke grenades)

C:IA does not provide any definition for 'grenades' so it presents no conflict and surrenders its precedence to other 40k publications.

The player has no choice but to get a definition for 'grenades' from the BRB.

Had to get in the obligatory counter to col_impact just pulling rules out of nowhere;

You ignore the RAW, create rules under RAI assumptions without citing any RAW as evidence, and then lie passing them off as RAW.

Incorrect.

The data sheet tells you what page of the codex to see for the rad grenades information. The rules for them are on that page, there is no reference on the page to refer to the BRB grenade rules, so you do not. The armory does tell you to refer to the codex for other grenades and lists the ones that specifically apply, referring to the brb is never assumed.

Special rules are defined as special rules. You point out that it states the list is not exhaustive, that is correct in regards to other documents/codexs. It has already stated ALL special rules have been presented here. Therefore any special rule in the BRB has been presented. You are not permitted to determine what is and is not a special rule. You are TOLD when they are a special rule. PER advanced vs basic, other codexs army list entry's tells you what rules are also special rules therefore meeting the criteria that the list in the brb is not exhaustive. You are not given permission to hold your own personal court and dub special rules as you see fit.

Ex. Rad saturation, chapter tactics, incense cloud, reanimation protocols.

Please demonstrate something that breaks this precedence set for special rules being explicitly identified, your incorrect branding and correlation between basic and advanced rules is flawed and I feel like you are making assumptions that I am not.

When I was speaking to dear col about basic vs advanced was in regards to what the codex permits you to use from the BRB in regards to basic rules, grenades are not located in those listed sections nor are you referred to that section by rad grenades, meaning the rules in the codex therefore has precedence. Only special rules in the BRB take precedence over a codex basic rules.

Heavy is not a type when it is a name, or are you stating a heavy flamer is not an assault weapon? A weapons type is determined by its profile not by its name.

As for grenades there really aren't any, this unusual grenades thong is a fabrication being applied out of hand, it is a basic rule for grenades in the weapons section of the BRB. Meltabombs and haywire grenades do not have a melee profile, using them as a melee weapon therefore breaks the rules. Hence unusual grenades directs you to the special rules section for those grenades being the melta and haywire special rules. You will find that the criteria for unusual grenades apply to various grenades in that section in one form or another. This is a basic rule for grenades to clarify deviations from the other basic rules just as a beast basic movement rule states it means 12 instead of the 6 that was used in the examples when using infantry models to explain the rules to the reader.

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Hahaha, I give you exactly what you ask for and you misdirect. Do you even have the Chaos codex to view the entry? Frag Grenades are in their own callout box with the header that they are found in the Warhammer 40k rule book and it has an asterisk telling you to refer to Assault Grenades. Blight Grenades are their own wargear entry, completely separate from the callout of Grenades. Because you asked you must not have the codex or you would not make such an response devoid of any sense.

No, you did not give me what I asked for. You gave me the same thing as Frag Grenades. Your own statements supported that. They count as Assault Grenades and Krak Grenades. Do those have profiles? Yes, they do. So, Blight Grenades have profiles just as much as Frag Grenades do. Being something that already exists in the Grenade rules is pointless for this exercise. Rad Grenades do not do this, which makes Blight Grenades pointless for the question.

Can you provide a reference to another Grenade that refers back to the Grenade rules that isn't just a "it's actually just this weapon with a different name"?

Ceann wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Page 8 brb, under modifiers....

Basic rules apply to all models in the game unless stated otherwise.

Does this effect apply to all models? Yes.

So all grenades reduce Toughness according to your claim.

No, any model that interacts with this wargear in this fashion. No model is treated differently than others. Basic rules apply to all models.

Does skyfire apply to all models? No. Hence skyfire is a special rule, and no surprise it is located in the special rules section.
Can you name a model that would assault a unit equipped with rad grenades and not get -1? Then that would be a special rule..

I love how you are completely avoiding these questions. Your answer had nothing to do with what I asked. Unless you admit that all grenades cause -1 T, then you have a rule that breaks the basic game rules and therefore is a "special rule"

Ceann wrote:
Incorrect.

The data sheet tells you what page of the codex to see for the rad grenades information. The rules for them are on that page, there is no reference on the page to refer to the BRB grenade rules, so you do not. The armory does tell you to refer to the codex for other grenades and lists the ones that specifically apply, referring to the brb is never assumed.

Not what I said. Datasheets do not tell you what these things are. The only time you see Wargear detailed on a datasheet is for Relics, just like unit unique special rules.

Referring to the BRB is always based on some thing. How do you know what T or Toughness is without referring to the BRB?

Referring to the BRB for Wargear established in the BRB is standard procedure. Rad Grenades are not defined in the BRB, so are defined in the local Armoury. What Rad Grenades do is not defined in the BRB, so it is all spelled out.

Ceann wrote:
Special rules are defined as special rules. You point out that it states the list is not exhaustive, that is correct in regards to other documents/codexs. It has already stated ALL special rules have been presented here. Therefore any special rule in the BRB has been presented. You are not permitted to determine what is and is not a special rule. You are TOLD when they are a special rule. PER advanced vs basic, other codexs army list entry's tells you what rules are also special rules therefore meeting the criteria that the list in the brb is not exhaustive. You are not given permission to hold your own personal court and dub special rules as you see fit.

Ex. Rad saturation, chapter tactics, incense cloud, reanimation protocols.

Please demonstrate something that breaks this precedence set for special rules being explicitly identified, your incorrect branding and correlation between basic and advanced rules is flawed and I feel like you are making assumptions that I am not.

My branding of basic and advanced are what are defined by the rulebook. Can you provide any other definition of basic rule provided by the rulebook? Can you provide any other definition of special rule provided by the rulebook? You have not yet done this yet, and ignored all other references which have defined them as such.

You have only gone by location, which has been noted as non-exhaustive. The "all" in the sentence you stated is referring to the ones you have seen in the book and the common ones used all over the place. Again, the list is not exhaustive nor exclusionary.

Ceann wrote:
When I was speaking to dear col about basic vs advanced was in regards to what the codex permits you to use from the BRB in regards to basic rules, grenades are not located in those listed sections nor are you referred to that section by rad grenades, meaning the rules in the codex therefore has precedence. Only special rules in the BRB take precedence over a codex basic rules.

Actually no, they don't. Codex "basic" rules do not exist. All codex rules are more advanced than any special rule in the BRB. The train is Basic < Advanced < Codex. No matter how basic the new rule is in a codex, it overrides any conflicts with any BRB rule, even special ones.

Ceann wrote:
Heavy is not a type when it is a name, or are you stating a heavy flamer is not an assault weapon? A weapons type is determined by its profile not by its name.

Did I not state the Type takes priority? As in the Type of the Profile. You know a Weapon Profile which lists Range, Str, AP, and TYPE?

Ceann wrote:
As for grenades there really aren't any, this unusual grenades thong is a fabrication being applied out of hand, it is a basic rule for grenades in the weapons section of the BRB. Meltabombs and haywire grenades do not have a melee profile, using them as a melee weapon therefore breaks the rules. Hence unusual grenades directs you to the special rules section for those grenades being the melta and haywire special rules. You will find that the criteria for unusual grenades apply to various grenades in that section in one form or another. This is a basic rule for grenades to clarify deviations from the other basic rules just as a beast basic movement rule states it means 12 instead of the 6 that was used in the examples when using infantry models to explain the rules to the reader.

It is not a fabrication. I will admit a bit of a stretch to referring to the Grenades rules, but the Unusual Grenades concept still stands as its own concept, no matter how applicable they are in this situation, and they are not tied to that paragraph in the way that you have been asserting.

Unusual Grenades never state, "special rules section". It states, "Any effects that they have will be covered in their special rules."

Again, get your head out of this bizarre concept that the location of the rule is the only thing that matters and look at the definition which has been provided by the rulebook. At no point is location ever provided as the definition of what a special rule is.

Fro my reading of the rules this is how it works:
"If a unit containing a model with Rad Grenades charges or is charged by an enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -1T"
Note that: A unit. A model.
Therefore by my reading if two Xenos Inquisitors with Rad grenades are in the same unit and charge an enemy unit then that enemy unit only suffers -1T. However if those same two inquisitors where to be in separate units/independent and they both charged the same enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -2T.

So yes, it does stack, but only from multiple units.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Brother Ramses wrote:
Hahaha, I give you exactly what you ask for and you misdirect. Do you even have the Chaos codex to view the entry? Frag Grenades are in their own callout box with the header that they are found in the Warhammer 40k rule book and it has an asterisk telling you to refer to Assault Grenades. Blight Grenades are their own wargear entry, completely separate from the callout of Grenades. Because you asked you must not have the codex or you would not make such an response devoid of any sense.

No, you did not give me what I asked for. You gave me the same thing as Frag Grenades. Your own statements supported that. They count as Assault Grenades and Krak Grenades. Do those have profiles? Yes, they do. So, Blight Grenades have profiles just as much as Frag Grenades do. Being something that already exists in the Grenade rules is pointless for this exercise. Rad Grenades do not do this, which makes Blight Grenades pointless for the question.

Can you provide a reference to another Grenade that refers back to the Grenade rules that isn't just a "it's actually just this weapon with a different name"?

No, you asked me for a non-BRB grenade that refers you to the BRB. I gave you Blight, a non-BRB grenade that refers you to the BRB. You say it is like Frag which it isn't since Frag is specififally called out to check the BRB with an asterisk to be treated as Assault. But by all means, show me the Blight Grenades in the BRB. By all means show me the profiles for Blight Grenades in the Chaos Codex.

Fragile wrote:

Ceann wrote:

Fragile wrote:

Ceann wrote:
Page 8 brb, under modifiers....

Basic rules apply to all models in the game unless stated otherwise.

Does this effect apply to all models? Yes.

So all grenades reduce Toughness according to your claim.

No, any model that interacts with this wargear in this fashion. No model is treated differently than others. Basic rules apply to all models.

Does skyfire apply to all models? No. Hence skyfire is a special rule, and no surprise it is located in the special rules section.
Can you name a model that would assault a unit equipped with rad grenades and not get -1? Then that would be a special rule..

I love how you are completely avoiding these questions. Your answer had nothing to do with what I asked. Unless you admit that all grenades cause -1 T, then you have a rule that breaks the basic game rules and therefore is a "special rule"

Tell me the rule that is being broken.
The special rules section states that all special rules are presented there, explicitly please go read the page. Therefore any rule in the BRB that is not presented in the special rules section is not a special rule. You do not get to decide what is and is not a special rule, you are told what they are. The section also notated the list is not exhaustive which is correct and any special rule not in the brb is notated on the Army List Entry which meets the not exhaustive critera.

Please tell me the basic rule that you feel is being broken so I can contest your point. You are not doing this, you are demanding I make some clarification for you without telling me what it is you want me to clarify.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How do I know own what toughness is without referring to the BRB?

Basic vs advanced states the rules that apply to all models and it lists those rules sections. Other than those listed sections you consult the codex which has precedence for all purposes other than the basic rules because any conflict goes with the rules.of the codex.

You are permitted to access those rules.
The entry for an inquisitor tells you to go to page 137 or whatever to see rad grenades, thereby meeting the basic vs advanced criteria of following the list entry.

Basic vs advanced provides you access to the core rules while using the codex, it does not grant you access to the other sections of the BRB those access options will be provided to you in the codex on an as needed basis.

I am glad we agree on heavy flamers, I think you are confused by those comments and others I make because I respond to col and you do not see the nonsense I am refuting from him. So now that I think about it, this must be why you perceive me as crazy at times. My apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the grenades. It tells you to see their special rules, The weapon section does clarify that special rules are listed after the weapon type on the profile. So weapons do directly refer you to the special rules section. This is per how profiles are described in that section.

 master of ordinance wrote:
Fro my reading of the rules this is how it works:
"If a unit containing a model with Rad Grenades charges or is charged by an enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -1T"
Note that: A unit. A model.
Therefore by my reading if two Xenos Inquisitors with Rad grenades are in the same unit and charge an enemy unit then that enemy unit only suffers -1T. However if those same two inquisitors where to be in separate units/independent and they both charged the same enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -2T.

So yes, it does stack, but only from multiple units.

Great minds think alike!

I am of the same opinion here, but came to the conclusion in a different scenario involving an enemy unit committing to a disordered charge against two units with Rad Grenades. The effect would stack to -2. However just like your example of two IC with Rad Grenades in one unit, no stack.

 Brother Ramses wrote:

 master of ordinance wrote:
Fro my reading of the rules this is how it works:
"If a unit containing a model with Rad Grenades charges or is charged by an enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -1T"
Note that: A unit. A model.
Therefore by my reading if two Xenos Inquisitors with Rad grenades are in the same unit and charge an enemy unit then that enemy unit only suffers -1T. However if those same two inquisitors where to be in separate units/independent and they both charged the same enemy unit then the enemy unit suffers -2T.

So yes, it does stack, but only from multiple units.

Great minds think alike!

I am of the same opinion here, but came to the conclusion in a different scenario involving an enemy unit committing to a disordered charge against two units with Rad Grenades. The effect would stack to -2. However just like your example of two IC with Rad Grenades in one unit, no stack.

Indeed!
Well, as the rules to specify A unit with a model holding Rad Grenades then it does make sense that the effects from multiple units would stack, according to RAW and Rule of Common Sense.

Ceann wrote:


You are permitted to access those rules.
The entry for an inquisitor tells you to go to page 137 or whatever to see rad grenades, thereby meeting the basic vs advanced criteria of following the list entry.

Basic vs advanced provides you access to the core rules while using the codex, it does not grant you access to the other sections of the BRB those access options will be provided to you in the codex on an as needed basis.

I am glad we agree on heavy flamers, I think you are confused by those comments and others I make because I respond to col and you do not see the nonsense I am refuting from him. So now that I think about it, this must be why you perceive me as crazy at times. My apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
As for the grenades. It tells you to see their special rules, The weapon section does clarify that special rules are listed after the weapon type on the profile. So weapons do directly refer you to the special rules section. This is per how profiles are described in that section.

That's rather disingenuous of you there. Unusual grenades starts by saying "some grenades do not have a profile." before saying "Any efrfects that they have will be covered in their special rules." Claiming that they are talking about unusual grenades' special rules as being listed in a profile they already stated they don't have indicates either confusion or obfuscation on your part. (It may be the former, given your stating more than once previously "Can rad grenades be used as a melee weapon? No. Therefore they cannot be unusual grenades. " in the thread despite the Unusual Grenades box specifically stating that unusual grenades are not used as a melee weapon.) Obviously, since they have already stated they don't have a profile, the "special rules" for an unusual grenade would be the rules listed for that grenade.

So...rad grenades have a special rule that cause the unit they assault -1T? That's how I read it.

HIWPI: no stacking.