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.

 Xzerios wrote:
Codex > BRB. Its right at the bottom of page seven. This piece of wargear comes from a Codex and its a Codex telling you to set your BS to five. At this point, nothing trumps this from the BRB as within its own rules does it give the Codex precedence in these situations.

That only applies where there is a direct contradiction. That isn't the case here.

The codex wargear is altering the models BS. So the model has altered BS. That doesn't affect the mechanic used to fire at fliers. Unless the codex specifies that the altered BS applies to Snap Shots, it would still be reduced to 1 for shots subject to the Snap Shot rule.

Out of context. I was referencing the specific situation, not all situations. Yes, if something allows you to fire Snap Shots at full BS then this would allow you to shoot at a Flyer with your full BS. The Signum doesn't do that.

If the Devastators move and fire the Signum does not let one of them fire at full BS they must still fire as Snap Shots. If they do not move and target a zooming flyer/swooping FMC they do so as a Snap Shot.

 insaniak wrote:

jbunny wrote:
You are more than likely right, and I will not disagree with you. My issue is the fact that in a game meant to be played in 2-2.5 hour blocks, you are forced to dissect word usage to this level.

It's not exactly rocket science. 'More specific trumps general' is a basic principle of pretty much every game ever written with rules more complicated than Snap.

You don't need a degree. You just need to look at which rule applies more specifically to the situation at hand.

You also left out the part where I was not just talking about this debate. But when people start using phrases like "Your BS is changed to X, but resolved at Y so that trumps Rule 342." Or from other debates "Roll to wound is different from Wound on a roll of", and countless others. If people are getting that nit-picky with the word usage then the game becomes a lot less enjoyable for me.

I don't blame, or think any less of the people who play this way or debate this way. I fully blame GW for a history of sloppy rules writing, and I don't see a point in supporting repeated bad behavior anymore.

Hard to hit: "Shots resolved at a zooming Flyer can only be resolved as Snap Shots"

Snap Shots: "if a model is forced to make snap shots rather than shoot normally, than its BS is counted as being one for the purpose of these shots"

Pretty straightforward... Even if the Signum gives him BS 5, the Devastator is forced to make snap shots then its BS is counted as 1.

jbunny wrote:
You also left out the part where I was not just talking about this debate.

Nor was I.

Again, applying rules in order of specificity is a basic principle of complex rules sets. It's the only way for the rules to function without writing in an extra volume full of exclusions.