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.

 Neorealist wrote:

Makutsu wrote:
First of all power from pain is a model specific rule.
And a pain token grants the ability of furious charge which tells you to go reference the BRB.
Your entire argument is invalid as neither rules confers to the unit/
And again Furious charge is not defined in the codex itself it is defined in the BRB.
But sweep attack is defined in both places under 2 different profiles.

Look the point wasn't to discuss the specifics of how Eldar and Dark Eldar work, as it's difficult for me to care less about either. The point was to highlight your error in logic, namely that you can stack two different sources of the same effect rather than have one supersede the other.

It is a given that one source of 'Sweep Attack' comes from the necron codex, and a different version comes from the BRB. The onus is still on you to prove that these are in fact different rules rather than different variations of the same rule such as their name would indicate.

You still haven't been able to cite a reference that your premises of "same name = same thing".

Whilst I've proven that using both rules have nothing conflicting with how BRB works.
A unit has their own specific rules. aka. Necron CCB Sweep Attack.
A unit has their own specific unit type. aka. Chariot.
A unit type has their own specific rules. aka. Chariot Sweep Attack.

A unit uses their own specific rule. aka Necron CCB Sweep Attack. <- Legal
Then, A unit uses their own unit type specific rule aka, Chariot Sweep Attack. <- Legal

Unless you can prove & cite that there is a rule specifically stating that rules with same names from different sources count as the same rule, then by RAW, it is legal to use both.
aka. proving / citing "same name = same thing".

And to add on top of that I've already disproven that "same name = same thing".
Harlequins in Eldar are not the same as Harlequins in Dark Eldar.
aka. Eldar: Harlequins != Dark Eldar: Harlequins.

It's just redundancy - that's all.

The only real interaction I can see between these two rules would be modifications to the attack value of the overlord riding on the chariot. Where the CCB wording always allows for a given number of attacks, the brb specifies that you would use the attacks stat for the model embarked on it. afaik, there isn't a way to reduce this value without getting into combat first, it may be a moot point, but it may be worth further investigation.

For precedent of 'the same name = the same thing', simply look at how USRs work. How 'else' are you going to determine what a discrete rule is apart from it's label?

 Neorealist wrote:
For precedent of 'the same name = the same thing', simply look at how USRs work. How 'else' are you going to determine what a discrete rule is apart from it's label?

Everything in general has a unique name, in this really rare case it doesn't.
Your argument still lies within RAI, RAW it is completely legal.

And I restate again this is something that should have been FAQd out and GW didn't do it since they give sloppy rulesets so yeah, pretty much that.

By really strict RAW, yes you are allowed to do so.
By any tournie, no you would not be allowed.
By any opponent generally, you'd be a TFG for trying to pull that off.

So yeah, play whatever way you like but if your opponent does so, you can either pack your stuff up or let him play RAW.

Anyway, just in case anyone that thinks I would do double sweeps.
No, I do not play double sweeps.