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.

ChrisCP wrote:Wolf tooth necklace and trying to grenade walkers is often belived to be one iirc.

No, its not.

It has been answered since 2 weeks before the codex came out (albeit edited to take into account errata).
From my SW FAQ:

SW.62.15 – Q: How does a “Wolftooth Necklace” affect close combat attacks against vehicles? Does a “Wolftooth Necklace” benefit attacks made with Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades or Meltabombs?

A: As per the Games Workshop Space Wolves errata document, a “Wolftooth necklace” only works “Against models with a WS value”. Therefore attacks made against non-Walker vehicles are never affected by a “Wolftooth Necklace”.

If the vehicle is Walker that has not suffered a “Crew – Stunned” or “Damaged – Immobilised” result, the “Wolftooth Necklace” also has no effect when used with grenades, as you hit on a fixed number, and the rules for hitting Walkers with Grenades are more specific than the general rules for hitting things with a Weapon Skill in close combat (which the “Wolftooth Necklace” modifies), although non-grenade close combat attacks will benefit from a “Wolftooth Necklace” as normal.

If the vehicle is a Walker that has suffered a result of “Crew – Stunned” or “Damaged – Immobilised” on the Vehicle Damage Table, it allows both non-grenade attacks and attacks made with Frag Grenades, Krak Grenades or Meltabombs to benefit from the “Wolftooth Necklace”, as both types of attacks are resolved using the normal procedure for making close combat attacks. [R.a.W]

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

Chris: paragraph 2.

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

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

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

Off topic. That "FAQ" you posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Off topic. That "FAQ" you posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rephistorch wrote:

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

Off topic. That "FAQ" you posted.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxvaderxx wrote:

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

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

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

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

It just can't work the other way around.

Kommissar Kel wrote:Chris: paragraph 2.

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

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

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

I could say:

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

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

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

When rules state:

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

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

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

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

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

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


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

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

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

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

xxvaderxx wrote:

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

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

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


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

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

kirsanth wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

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

Or maybe I am misreading the really odd interpretations.

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


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

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

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

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

You mean like you are implying yours is?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

xxvaderxx wrote:

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

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

I could say:

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

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

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

When rules state:

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

Your description is poor example of general or specific.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So when you say, for example:

Model a hits on 1+

and

Model b is hit on 3+


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

kirsanth wrote:So when you say, for example:

Model a hits on 1+

and

Model b is hit on 3+


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

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

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

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

Codexes (for the most part) present SPECIFIC rules.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Me: But he has a power weapon...

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

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

Them: Codex > Rulebook!


Me:

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

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

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

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

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

I like this post.

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

kirsanth wrote:

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

I like this post.

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

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

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

kirsanth wrote:

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

I like this post.

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

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