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.
Unstoppable
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6. Attacks with the Poisoned special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6 (unless the attack’s Strength would cause a Wound on a lower result).
I don't play with Gargs, but they have a legitimate refutation.
Do you have the sniper rule? Yes? Then you wound on a 6.
Refutation of "nu unh!":
Assault vehicles let you assault after disembarking. If I outflank or deep strike an assault vehicle, does that mean I can assaultr out of it the turn I arrive? No. Why? The restriction. the Gargant's Unstoppable rule restricts you from wounding it without a 6. For extra nitpickery, it doesn't say a "To Wound" roll of six. So for every wound you want to apply, they roll a d6 and you get to apply it it it is not a six. Whatever other rules you have, the sniper rule is still in play.
Disagree? 4+ for it. Or better yet, agree to a 4+ is a wound so you have less volatility in the outcome each time. It's a reasonable HIWPI and since there is no clear cut RAW, there you go.
For more, see the thread on Vindicare Exitus thread on the same topic.
Unstoppable
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6. Attacks with the Poisoned special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6 (unless the attack’s Strength would cause a Wound on a lower result).
I don't play with Gargs, but they have a legitimate refutation.
Do you have the sniper rule? Yes? Then you wound on a 6.
Refutation of "nu unh!":
Assault vehicles let you assault after disembarking. If I outflank or deep strike an assault vehicle, does that mean I can assaultr out of it the turn I arrive? No. Why? The restriction. the Gargant's Unstoppable rule restricts you from wounding it without a 6. For extra nitpickery, it doesn't say a "To Wound" roll of six. So for every wound you want to apply, they roll a d6 and you get to apply it it it is not a six. Whatever other rules you have, the sniper rule is still in play.
Disagree? 4+ for it. Or better yet, agree to a 4+ is a wound so you have less volatility in the outcome each time. It's a reasonable HIWPI and since there is no clear cut RAW, there you go.
For more, see the thread on Vindicare Exitus thread on the same topic.
Spoiler:
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.
The Basic Rule informs us how we go about determining what value we are rolling against during the To Wound portion of the Sequence The Advanced Rule of Sniper changes how we calculate that value, informing us to wound on a 4+ regardless The Advanced Rule of Unstoppable changes the Sniper Special Rule, making it so it wounds on a 6+ regardless The Codex Rule of Hunters from Hyperspace tells us that value is 2+ regardless
All of these are Rules which tell us how to go about calculating what value we are rolling against when we complete the To Wound portion of the sequence. These Rules all provide us with different values, making it impossible for all Rules to be legally applied: Should we refuse a wound on a 2+, we have not obeyed the Rule informing us that a Wound will occur on a 2+. Rule which change a specific value are the easiest to prove a conflict with, because it literally is not possible for us to use all of them simultaneously.
As Hunter of Hyperspace is a Codex Rule, the value calculated within is the value we have permission to use.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/11/12 22:14:45
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Let's put it this way, it seems like bs because it counters a single creature, when in actuality, the rule is pretty mild. They wound on a 2+ only on the model/unit that was targeted. Once it's gone, those Deathmarks become 10x less as effective or important. It's pretty much Necron's big counter to MC or larger creatures, and is something to plan for. On a whole, Deathmarks don't have much use other than this.
The Basic Rule informs us how we go about determining what value we are rolling against during the To Wound portion of the Sequence
The Advanced Rule of Sniper changes how we calculate that value, informing us to wound on a 4+ regardless
The Advanced Rule of Unstoppable changes the Sniper Special Rule, making it so it wounds on a 6+ regardless
The Codex Rule of Hunters from Hyperspace tells us that value is 2+
All of these are Rules which tell us how to go about calculating what value we are rolling against when we complete the To Wound portion of the sequence. These Rules all provide us with different values, making it impossible for all Rules to be legally applied: Should we refuse a wound on a 2+, we have not obeyed the Rule informing us that a Wound will occur on a 2+. Rule which change a specific value are the easiest to prove a conflict with, because it literally is not possible for us to use all of them simultaneously.
As Hunter of Hyperspace is a Codex Rule, the value calculated within is the value we have permission to use.
Restrictive vs. Permissive
Hyperspace doesn't say "wounds on a 2+ including Gargants". Just that it wounds on a 2+.
Gargants impose a restriction on how they can be wounded by snipers (6+)
Restriction trumps permissive.
Deep strike and Outflank say I can't assault. Assault vehicles say I can assault when I disembark. Most people read it to mean you can't assault when disembarking from deepstrike or outflank.
There's no conflict.
If my codex gives me access an assault vehicle and either of outflank or deep strike, that doesn't mean I can Assault out of deep strike just because it is an advanced codex rule vs a basic/special rule. In order to assault out of deep strike I need a specific permission to override the Deep Strike restriction, like Vanguard vets used to have. Deathmarks don't have that.
I don't know why you feel the need to deflect, especially when I explicitly addressed that particular "nuh unh" proactively by pointing it out with the deep strike assault.
If want to be RAW, the garg player can require you need to roll a 6 beyond the 2+ wound anyway, because it doesn't say that the sniper to wound roll must be a 6. They could nazi grammar claim that you need to
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6.
So you're not wounding on a 1/6 but 1 in 12 (4+ followed by a 6 for regular snipers, 2+ followed by a 6 for the deathmarks. You are free to disagree and HIWPI away, but there is NOT a clear basis in RAW to authoritatively call it one way or the other.
For you to refute the Pro Garg player's reading, you need to provide RAW proof for both of the following:
1) That the Deathmark's permission wound on a 2+ negates the Gargants restriction of only being wounded on a 6.
This is a permission vs restriction issue, not codex vs special issue - See Deep Strike and Assault transports.
2) Where it states the "only cause a Wound on a 6" is from the to wound roll
Cite RAW please, otherwise it is HYWPI. Rhetorical questions and strawman arguments of "everybody knows" need not apply to YMDC in a RAW vs RAI debate.
Let's put it this way, it seems like bs because it counters a single creature, when in actuality, the rule is pretty mild. They wound on a 2+ only on the model/unit that was targeted. Once it's gone, those Deathmarks become 10x less as effective or important. It's pretty much Necron's big counter to MC or larger creatures, and is something to plan for. On a whole, Deathmarks don't have much use other than this.
Killing characters? I mean they're not Vindicare abusable since they're not going to do much to a tank, but "good vs anything without an AV" is a far cry from a one trick pony.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 00:42:30
The Basic Rule informs us how we go about determining what value we are rolling against during the To Wound portion of the Sequence
The Advanced Rule of Sniper changes how we calculate that value, informing us to wound on a 4+ regardless
The Advanced Rule of Unstoppable changes the Sniper Special Rule, making it so it wounds on a 6+ regardless
The Codex Rule of Hunters from Hyperspace tells us that value is 2+
All of these are Rules which tell us how to go about calculating what value we are rolling against when we complete the To Wound portion of the sequence. These Rules all provide us with different values, making it impossible for all Rules to be legally applied: Should we refuse a wound on a 2+, we have not obeyed the Rule informing us that a Wound will occur on a 2+. Rule which change a specific value are the easiest to prove a conflict with, because it literally is not possible for us to use all of them simultaneously.
As Hunter of Hyperspace is a Codex Rule, the value calculated within is the value we have permission to use.
Restrictive vs. Permissive
Hyperspace doesn't say "wounds on a 2+ including Gargants". Just that it wounds on a 2+.
Gargants impose a restriction on how they can be wounded by snipers (6+)
Restriction trumps permissive.
Deep strike and Outflank say I can't assault. Assault vehicles say I can assault when I disembark. Most people read it to mean you can't assault when disembarking from deepstrike or outflank.
There's no conflict.
If my codex gives me access an assault vehicle and either of outflank or deep strike, that doesn't mean I can Assault out of deep strike just because it is an advanced codex rule vs a basic/special rule. In order to assault out of deep strike I need a specific permission to override the Deep Strike restriction, like Vanguard vets used to have. Deathmarks don't have that.
I don't know why you feel the need to deflect, especially when I explicitly addressed that particular "nuh unh" proactively by pointing it out with the deep strike assault.
If want to be RAW, the garg player can require you need to roll a 6 beyond the 2+ wound anyway, because it doesn't say that the sniper to wound roll must be a 6. They could nazi grammar claim that you need to
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6.
So you're not wounding on a 1/6 but 1 in 12 (4+ followed by a 6 for regular snipers, 2+ followed by a 6 for the deathmarks. You are free to disagree and HIWPI away, but there is NOT a clear basis in RAW to authoritatively call it one way or the other.
For you to refute the Pro Garg player's reading, you need to provide RAW proof for both of the following:
1) That the Deathmark's permission wound on a 2+ negates the Gargants restriction of only being wounded on a 6.
This is a permission vs restriction issue, not codex vs special issue - See Deep Strike and Assault transports.
2) Where it states the "only cause a Wound on a 6" is from the to wound roll
Cite RAW please, otherwise it is HYWPI. Rhetorical questions and strawman arguments of "everybody knows" need not apply to YMDC in a RAW vs RAI debate.
HYWPI is HYWPI and not RAW.
Restrictive vs Permissive is something you made up. You are not allowed to make up your own rules.
We have this thing called the Basic Versus Advanced rule. We use it.
Spoiler:
Basic Versus Advanced
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. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models.
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability
to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader
or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike,
a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated
in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games
Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex.
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override
any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a
model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that
model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does
not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. 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.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 00:49:04
RAWRAIRobbleRabble, At this point in time we are going to need to discuss what does and does not constitute a 'restriction' within a Written Rule. That is a pretty heavy debate to get into and I really do not know if it is something I am up to doing. I will say I did see what you are alluding too though, that the Rule in question is not alternative instructions but a straight out Restriction. The inclusion of the word word 'Only' within the Rule gives that line of thought some grounds, it is something that requires a little more thought. Maybe, after a few other people have commented on this line if thought and I am able to think more clearly I will review it again.
I will point out that you are applying the concept of a 'Codex Rule' incorrectly, simply having the Special Rule listed on the Army List Entry does not make it a Codex Rule.
col_impact, Permission vs Restriction is a Fundamental Concept, it is not a Written Rule. Fundamental Concepts relate to the underlining system which is used to create a Rule based Game, such as table-top games like Warhammer 40k, and they are a little harder to debate because they are more open to interpenetration then Rule as Written is.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 00:58:59
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
JinxDragon wrote: RAWRAIRobbleRabble,
At this point in time we are going to need to discuss what does and does not constitute a 'restriction' within a Written Rule. That is a pretty heavy debate to get into and I really do not know if it is something I am up to doing. I will say I did see what you are alluding too though, that the Rule in question is not alternative instructions but a straight out Restriction. The inclusion of the word word 'Only' within the Rule gives that line of thought some grounds, it is something that requires a little more thought. Maybe, after a few other people have commented on this line if thought and I am able to think more clearly I will review it again.
I will point out that you are applying the concept of a 'Codex Rule' incorrectly, simply having the Special Rule listed on the Army List Entry does not make it a Codex Rule.
col_impact,
Permission vs Restriction is a Fundamental Concept, it is not a Written Rule.
Fundamental Concepts relate to the underlining system which is used to create a Rule based Game, such as table-top games like Warhammer 40k, and they are a little harder to debate because they are more open to interpenetration then Rule as Written is.
Where are you finding any of this Permissive vs Restrictive or Fundamental Concept stuff? It's not in the rules.
Hunters From Hyperspace directly conflicts with Unstoppable. Per the rules Hunters From Hyperspace wins out.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 01:19:04
I am a Story Teller with decades of experience, a position that requires you to become a Rule Lawyer just to remain sane....
There is a reason why I mentioned it is a little harder to have debates on Fundamentals; they are not set in stone and open to interpenetration. Understanding of a Fundamental comes from years of doing what we are doing here, discussing how Rules themselves function, and that experience is always going to lead people to slightly different views. However, even with those slight differences, it becomes apparent that some very core elements are common throughout every interpretation. An Example of one is that Rule Systems are either Permission Based or Restriction Based, as the very first thing the Author has to decide is if they will write a Rule System that tells us we have permission to do X, with the underlining concept that we can not do anything without having permission, or vice-versa. Once they have that concept they then build the game based around it and a few others, such as the concept that something can take away permission that was previously granted.
Warhammer is no different, as evident by these two thought experiment:
Q) What stops me from smashing your Models with a Hammer? A) No Rule exists to grant me Permission to do so. Q) What stops a Model from Assaulting after Disembarking? A) A Restriction that revokes a previously granted Permission.
If this was not a Permission Based System operating under the concept that Restrictions over-turn Permissions then the above two answers would be completely different.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 01:41:02
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Hyperspace doesn't say "wounds on a 2+ including Gargants". Just that it wounds on a 2+. Gargants impose a restriction on how they can be wounded by snipers (6+) Restriction trumps permissive.
Deep strike and Outflank say I can't assault. Assault vehicles say I can assault when I disembark. Most people read it to mean you can't assault when disembarking from deepstrike or outflank. There's no conflict.
If my codex gives me access an assault vehicle and either of outflank or deep strike, that doesn't mean I can Assault out of deep strike just because it is an advanced codex rule vs a basic/special rule. In order to assault out of deep strike I need a specific permission to override the Deep Strike restriction, like Vanguard vets used to have. Deathmarks don't have that.
I don't know why you feel the need to deflect, especially when I explicitly addressed that particular "nuh unh" proactively by pointing it out with the deep strike assault.
If want to be RAW, the garg player can require you need to roll a 6 beyond the 2+ wound anyway, because it doesn't say that the sniper to wound roll must be a 6. They could nazi grammar claim that you need to
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6.
So you're not wounding on a 1/6 but 1 in 12 (4+ followed by a 6 for regular snipers, 2+ followed by a 6 for the deathmarks. You are free to disagree and HIWPI away, but there is NOT a clear basis in RAW to authoritatively call it one way or the other.
For you to refute the Pro Garg player's reading, you need to provide RAW proof for both of the following: 1) That the Deathmark's permission wound on a 2+ negates the Gargants restriction of only being wounded on a 6. This is a permission vs restriction issue, not codex vs special issue - See Deep Strike and Assault transports. 2) Where it states the "only cause a Wound on a 6" is from the to wound roll Cite RAW please, otherwise it is HYWPI. Rhetorical questions and strawman arguments of "everybody knows" need not apply to YMDC in a RAW vs RAI debate.
HYWPI is HYWPI and not RAW.
Your Assault Vehicle example is incomplete.
"Passengers disembarking from Access Points on a vehicle with this special rule can charge on the turn they do so (even on a turn that the vehicle was destroyed, unless the vehicle arrived from reserves this turn." (BRB, page 88)
Most people state you can't assault out of a vehicle when arriving from Deep Strike or Outflank - because the Assault Vehicle rule expressively forbids it. But back on topic.
RAW, Deathmarks wound on a 2+ against Marked Gargantuan Creatures. While it is true Gargantuans Creature have "Unstoppable" that only allow 6's from Snipers and Poisoned attacks to wound, so a case could be made to state that it affects the Deathmark's weapons.
However, Deathmarks have their own special rule, "Hyperspace Hunters" that allows them to bypass Unstoppable, provided they mark the Gargantuan Creature. Unlike "Assault Vehicle" preventing DS/Outflanking units from Vehicles to charge when arriving from reserves that turn, "Unstoppable" does not specifically state it prevents Deathmarks from using their special rule to wound on a 2+. Rather, it uses a catch all general rule - that does not cover the specific rule that Deathmarks have. In all cases, specific beats general and the specific rule of "Hyperspace Hunters" overrules the general rule of "Snipers wound on 6".
Of course, against non-marked Gargantuans, you would be right in saying they wound on 6's, since "Hyperspace Hunters" isn't in effect.
Additional comment - it could be very easily errated to say that "All Deathmark attacks (from all friendly Deathmark units from a Necron detachment) that hit a unit that has been marked by at least one unit of friendly Deathmarks from a Necron detachment have the Fleshbane and Rending special rules instead of Sniper". Would prevent a lot of arguments anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 01:38:18
JinxDragon wrote: I am a Story Teller with decades of experience, a position that requires you to become a Rule Lawyer....
There is a reason why I mentioned it is a little harder to have debates on Fundamentals; they are not set in stone like Written Rules are. Understanding of a Fundamental comes from years of doing what we are doing here, discussing how Rules themselves function, and that experience is always going to lead people to slightly different views on how they Function. Warhammer 40K is no different, it is a Permission Based System that follows quite a few fundamental concepts, all without addressing the fact it is using a Permission Based system or that Restrictions over-turn Permissions. These two points can be confirmed by two simple experiments:
Q) What stops me from smashing your Models with a Hammer?
A) No Rule exists to grant me Permission to do so.
Q) What stops a Model from Assaulting after Disembarking?
A) A Restriction that revokes a previously granted Permission.
If this was not a Permission Based System operating under the concept that Restrictions over-turn Permissions then the above two answers would be completely different.
There is a clear way to proceed on this issue per the rules. We don't need to launch into a "meta" discussion. How to resolve this is straightforward.
Meta-Discussions are quite fun though, and they can change my view as Rules are written to work within the system they where designed for. If they are not what you are interested in, and I more then understand as I tend to avoid certain types of debates as irrelevant myself, then I do advise you to simply ignore any posts that talk about 'Specific vs General,' 'Permission vs Restrictions' or the likes. Should you be tempted to reply to someone who is debating a Fundamental, expect that quoting a Written Rule might not to be enough to clarify the matter.
The inclusion of the word only, within the Unstoppable Special Rule, is a little bit of a concern because it could push the Rule into that 'Restriction' territory.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 02:02:04
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
JinxDragon wrote: Meta-Discussions are quite fun though, and they can change my view as Rules are written to work within the system they where designed for. If they are not what you are interested in, and I more then understand as I tend to avoid certain types of debates as irrelevant myself, then I do advise you to simply ignore any posts that talk about 'Specific vs General,' 'Permission vs Restrictions' or the likes. Should you be tempted to reply to someone who is debating a Fundamental, expect that quoting a Written Rule might not to be enough to clarify the matter.
The inclusion of the word only, within the Unstoppable Special Rule, is a little bit of a concern because it could push the Rule into that 'Restriction' territory.
If we are debating RAW then we use the rules as written. "Fundamentals" can only elucidate rules as written and not counter. It's a pointless debate since we have an indisputable way forward on this issue per the rules.
Where are you finding any of this Permissive vs Restrictive or Fundamental Concept stuff? It's not in the rules.
Hunters From Hyperspace directly conflicts with Unstoppable. Per the rules Hunters From Hyperspace wins out.
It is a permissive game set. It doesn't say you can't shoot AP1 96" blast ignores cover instant death no save wounds on a 1 templates out of each of my Space Marine's eyes either, but that doesn't mean they can. We agree to lay a game. The game provides a framework for rules. It doesn't say "Do not take a hammer and destroy your opponent's property". We have a social contract that prohibits that, and the ability to invoke the police when others break that contract in ways we don't consent to having it changed.
That said, since you asked, it is the beginning of the rules and the first page of the appendix:
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise.
WHAT SPECIAL RULES DO I HAVE? It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule
Where in Hyperspace Mark does it say it ignores the Gargant's Unstoppable rule where you need to roll a six to wound it? Please include the RAW quote that says the "six" referred to is a "to wound roll" too. I haven't seen either of those quotes, perhaps you can provide them - if so I will concede. Until then, it is ambiguous.
Also, since the yes no yes no YES NO (hammers) resolution is:
If you find that you and your opponent cannot agree on the application of a rule, roll a dice to see whose interpretation will apply for the remainder of the game – on a result of 1-3 player A gets to decide, on a 4-6 player B decides. Then you can get on with the fighting
So why not skip the roll off and agree to a 4+ before the result decides the outcome of the game. That's how HIWPI. You are entitled to your own HYWPI, but please mark it as such.
JinxDragon wrote: RAWRAIRobbleRabble,
At this point in time we are going to need to discuss what does and does not constitute a 'restriction' within a Written Rule. That is a pretty heavy debate to get into and I really do not know if it is something I am up to doing. I will say I did see what you are alluding too though, that the Rule in question is not alternative instructions but a straight out Restriction. The inclusion of the word word 'Only' within the Rule gives that line of thought some grounds, it is something that requires a little more thought. Maybe, after a few other people have commented on this line if thought and I am able to think more clearly I will review it again.
That's my point. We all know GW writes ambiguous rules. I'm saying this is one of them. I don't have Deathmarks or gargants, so it doesn't impact me personally. I'm just trying to point out the cognitive dissonance around here, futile as it seems. I think I'll leave it to the rest of people though after I put my piece in. Having come in and then taken a couple weeks off, I find I'm happier with my perceptions of humanity if I don't check this board as often
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 02:12:55
Sure, if the debate was about Written Rules then we would use nothing but the Written Rules to dissect it.
However, RAWRAIRobbleRobble put forth that that the sentence in question is a Restriction that falls under the Fundamental Concept of 'Restriction trump Permission.' While Warhammer 40k does not outright state that Restrictions trump Permissions, it is very clear that it uses this Fundamental Concept as no player can simply point to the original Permission as grounds to do an action which is still Restricted. In order to proceed with the action they would require an Exception, which specifically mention the Restriction they are over-turning because they are often written in the same format as general permissions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 02:37:45
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Where in Hyperspace Mark does it say it ignores the Gargant's Unstoppable rule where you need to roll a six to wound it? Please include the RAW quote that says the "six" referred to is a "to wound roll" too. I haven't seen either of those quotes, perhaps you can provide them - if so I will concede. Until then, it is ambiguous.]RAWRAIRobbleRabble,
Unstoppable pg 71 "in addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6." How do attacks wound? They roll To Wound rolls There is nothing telling us to make a separate roll. It is not ambiguous if you read the whole rule and apply game rules to it.
Where does Untoppable tell us to ignore Hunters from hyperspace or any other rule (aside from sniper and poison) that changes how units wound?
Deathmark's hunters from hyperspace rule changes how Deathmarks wound and is an advance Codex rule, unstoppable is a BRB rule codex>brb if in a conflict. Please show other wise for unstoppable to trump Hunters from Hyperspace.
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
Col_impact,
This thread also highlights a larger problem I have with Basic Vs Advanced:
Using nothing but Rules as Written, is it possible for an Advanced Rule to trump another Advanced Rule?
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Unstoppable provides a custom override change to the Sniper rule. When you look at Sniper you then see it is a To Wound roll that is being changed.
Sniper
Spoiler:
Sniper weapons are precision instruments, used to pick out a target’s weak points.
If a weapon has the Sniper special rule, or is fired by a model with the Sniper special rule, and rolls a 6 To Hit, that shot is a ‘Precision Shot’. Wounds from Precision Shots are allocated against a model (or models) of your choice in the target unit, as long as it is in range and line of sight of the firer, rather than following the normal rules for Wound allocation. A character that has a Precision Shot Wound allocated to it can still make a Look Out, Sir roll. Note that Snap Shots can never be Precision Shots.
If a weapon has the Sniper special rule, or is fired by a model with the Sniper special rule, its shooting attacks always wound on a To Wound roll of 4+, regardless of the victim’s Toughness. In addition, any To Wound roll of a 6 is resolved at AP2.
Against vehicles, shooting attacks from weapons and models with the Sniper special rule count as Strength 4.
UNSTOPPABLE
Spoiler:
Any attack that normally inflicts Instant Death or says that the target model is removed from play inflicts D3 Wounds on a Gargantuan Creature or Flying Gargantuan Creature instead. In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6. Attacks with the Poisoned special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6 (unless the attack’s Strength would cause a Wound on a lower result).
Hunters from Hyperspace:
Spoiler:
When a deathmark unit deploys, choose a non-vehicle enemy unit on the battlefield (even a unit in a transport) to be their prey-- place a counter next to the chosen unit to serve as a reminder. Any deathmark unit that shoots at, or strikes blows against, a unit marked in this fashion will score a wound on a roll of 2+
So you wind up with a conflict in resolving the To Wound roll. "only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6" versus "will score a wound on a 2+". How do you resolve this conflict? Per the rules.
Basic Versus Advanced
Spoiler:
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. These are all the rules you’ll need for infantry models. Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a
special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills (such as the ability to regenerate), because they are different to their fellows (such as a unit leader or a heroic character), or because they are not normal infantry models (a bike, a swarm or even a tank). The advanced rules that apply to a unit are indicated in its Army List Entry. Army List Entries can be found in a number of Games Workshop publications, such as a Warhammer 40,000 codex. Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules. For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. 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.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: Col_impact,
This thread also highlights a larger problem I have with Basic Vs Advanced:
Using nothing but Rules as Written, is it possible for an Advanced Rule to trump another Advanced Rule?
That's a hole that Basic Vs Advanced does not itself account for. So hypothetically if an Advanced rule conflicted with another Advanced rule in the same source (e.g. the BRB) then you would have a quandary and have to look elsewhere on how to proceed. Do you have an example?
For me this thread highlights the ever recurring problem that YMDC threads have with people unwittingly fabricating rules or justifications that don't exist in the BRB. If people self-examined extensively what they were saying and asked themselves if what they are saying is fully supported in the rules, a lot of rules questions would solve themselves. YMDC is riddled with people who have duped themselves with their own house rules. I think for example the Psychic Shriek debate is solvable if the participants in the debate subject themselves to self-scrutiny and purge themselves of any self-fabricated rules. But that of course is off topic and a blazing hot topic on its own.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 03:54:07
Unstoppable only affects weapons with the Sniper or Poisoned traits.
"Hunters from Hyperspace" applies to any attack made by Deathmarks against the marked unit. It could walk up and punch the damn thing and will still Wound on 2+. It is not the weapon with the Sniper rule that we're dealing with here.
It is best to be a pessimist. You are usually right and, when you're wrong, you're pleasantly surprised.
Col_Impact, I would like to continue this line of reasoning, because what occurs next does get quite bizarre if one ignores Fundamental Concepts and simply focus on Rules as Written: Unit Type Rules are what type of Rules? Special Rule are what type of Rules?
I know you already see where this is clearly leading so might as well proceed, because the concept of a 'custom overwrite' would fall under the Fundamental Concept of 'Specific Vs General.' When applying the Unstoppable and Sniper Special Rules to any situation, one is clearly far more specific in such an obvious way it doesn't need explanation and we follow it's instructions accordingly. This doesn't stop them from being nothing more then two Advanced Rules which are both trying to do X at the same time, and I know not of a Rule allowing an Advance Rule to over-write part of another Advance Rules. There is no reason for the Authors to even provide us with a Rule if we accept that they have allowed for Rules to operate outside of the field of Basic vs Advance in conflicts not covered by said Basic Vs Advance.
In any case, thank you for letting me vent something that has bothered me for a while, I have looked at Rule as Written for far to long it is starting to become some sort of language or computer code. So in closing, because honestly you should just ignore me right now, I do believe Basic Vs Advanced is the correct answer when you throw Hunters from Hyperspace into the mix as Advanced Vs Basic specifically mentions Rules in Codex over-write anything that can be flagged as either Basic or Advanced. I would also have liked if Basic vs Advanced was a lot more complicated then a three tier system and what is more or less a blurb in the General Principals section, it is a core concept to the game after all!
Still.... that Only requires some Author's explanation. Now if there was some way they could use to answer our questions... but we all know no such technology will ever exist....
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 06:09:19
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
Specific overriding general is more than a fundamental concept it is RaW because specific overriding general means one rule specifically tells you it overrides the other.
Lets touch on the wound on a 6 not being a to wound on a 6. The proposition put forward that this then means I roll my dice to wound on whatever and a further dice roll is rolled to see if it is a 6 for the wound to count. Using RaW I would like when this dice roll is made (immediately after a to wound roll or at the start of the battle or when) how many to wound rolls it effects (roll at the start of the battle and it effects the while game, or an entire turn or a single to wound roll) and finally how many dice do I roll to see if 1 is a six (1, 20, 10000).
So if the wound on a 6 is a to wound roll. It may even be a restriction on a to wound roll, it is in conflict with the HfH rule. You propose that restriction overrides permission the rules however tell us that codex overrides rulebook. By RaW I'm going to listen to the rulebook. Unless you can prove two things.
1) that this is a restriction.
2) that restrictions override permissions
FlingitNow,
If it is Rule as Written, I am sure you can quote the actual line in the book which gives us permission to re-write part of an Advanced Rule when another Advanced Rule tells us to do so?
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
The rule itself tells us. It tells us how to resolve the conflict in the case of specific vs general. So if rule A tells you it modifies rule B why would you need another rule telling you rule A over rides rule B if both are advanced?
JinxDragon wrote: FlingitNow,
If it is Rule as Written, I am sure you can quote the actual line in the book which gives us permission to re-write part of an Advanced Rule when another Advanced Rule tells us to do so?
Unstoppable doesn't conflict with Sniper or seek to fully replace Sniper. In fact, it requires the Sniper rule to be present to be able to make sense. Unstoppable merely inline edits the To Wound roll from a "4+" to an "only 6" for Sniper. The two rules are co-present and in effect. The permission for Unstoppable to directly modify Sniper is encapsulated in the Unstoppable rule itself by direct reference to Sniper. So direct reference is one way Advanced Rules can modify other Advanced Rules.
For the Deathmarks, it's pretty simple and straightforward that Hunters from Hyperspace then just hammer replaces the To Wound roll, per the Basic Versus Advanced rule.
Col_impact, If FlingitNow is going to claim Rules as written say X, he needs to provide a quote from the book that literally states X.
Flingitnow, If you can not provide a Rule quote which supports this concept then simply accept that we are using a Fundamental Concept and move on. There is nothing requiring us to be informed of every fine detail of every Rule interaction, or even of the majority of conflicts, because we have some fundamental knowledge of how a Rule works before we pick up this sorry excuse for a Rulebook. The concept that an instruction within to do X grant us permission to do that one specific action, even if the basic Rules do not account for X or some more general Rule would make X or X related actions difficult to do, is supported by the concept that a Specific Instruction wins over all others. I believe this is why Sniper and Unstoppable work the way they do, not because the Rulebook tells us that Rules will over-write parts of other Rules but because Specific instructions grant us permission to do so.
I did not even touch on your 2, though I do have to wonder: Do you honestly play the game allowing a Restriction to be over-turned by any Permission? What about the one it was originally Restricting?
Another thing to think on: Does unstoppable actually re-write part of the Sniper Special Rule or is that another assumption? Col_impact has already posted the Rule, but if you could underline where it informs us to modify the Sniper Special Rule it would help....
I believe you will find it tells us that Attacks with the Special Rule only wound on 6, and nothing about modifying the 4 in the Sniper Special Rule to now read a 6 before using that Rule to calculate the To Wound. Attacks, or even parts of resolving attack like the Wound itself, still is bound by every Special Rule that is found on the Model, Weapon and even the Target itself. This is why the Sniper Rule doesn't just go away when we have an alternative To Wound Rule that we clearly are using instead, both are still present but we use the one which the Rule's tell us is most appropriate. Unfortunately, those Rules only allow Codex to trump Advanced, so any Advanced rule which conflicts with another Advanced Rule has to be resolved by something not within the book itself.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/11/13 18:06:35
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
There is clearly a bit of confusion in the OP's thinking so please allow me to step in.
Order of rules:
1. Snipers wound on a 4+, regardless of toughness (and also rend / pin)
2. Gargantuan creatures modify this to 6+ (also with rend / pin unless fearless)
So therefore all sniper weapons wounder GC on a 6+
3. EXCEPT: Deathmarks have an additional rule. Any shots fired, or blows struck in combat (remember that bit!) wound their marks on a 2+.
What the hfh states is that 2+ is shooting or combat. So hfh is not inherently linked to their weapon, but to the deathmarks themselves. Any modification of the sniper rule GCs get isn't intended to apply to death mark special rule.
So I would play this:
Deathmarks, when using their synaptic disintegrators, wound everything on a 4+, except for GC's which they wound on a 6+, UNLESS they are wounding, either in combat or shooting, their marked target, which they always wound on a 2+.
That is RAW, RAI.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 18:05:24
Flingitnow,
If you can not provide a Rule quote which supports this concept then simply accept that we are using a Fundamental Concept and move on. There is nothing requiring us to be informed of every fine detail of every Rule interaction, or even of the majority of conflicts, because we have some fundamental knowledge of how a Rule works before we pick up this sorry excuse for a Rulebook. The concept that an instruction within to do X grant us permission to do that one specific action, even if the basic Rules do not account for X or some more general Rule would make X or X related actions difficult to do, is supported by the concept that a Specific Instruction wins over all others. I believe this is why Sniper and Unstoppable work the way they do, not because the Rulebook tells us that Rules will over-write parts of other Rules but because Specific instructions grant us permission to do so.
I did not even touch on your 2, though I do have to wonder:
Do you honestly play the game allowing a Restriction to be over-turned by any Permission?
What about the one it was originally Restricting?
I go by which one is more specific. I don't care about permission overriding restruction or vice versa. Just what the rules tell us. By definition most restrictions are more specific than permissions. But Specific vs General is not a concept it is RaW. If Rule A tells you it modifies Rule B why would you need another rule stating that Rule A can over ride Rule B? Rule A has already told you it can.
If Specific Vs General is 'Rule as Written,' do me the favor of quoting the Rulebook where it tells us so!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 19:16:47
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures.
The permission for Unstoppable to directly modify Sniper is encapsulated in the Unstoppable rule itself by direct reference to Sniper. So direct reference is one way Advanced Rules can modify other Advanced Rules.
col_impact wrote: The permission for Unstoppable to directly modify Sniper is encapsulated in the Unstoppable rule itself by direct reference to Sniper. So direct reference is one way Advanced Rules can modify other Advanced Rules.
It can modify sniper all it likes.
Hunters from Hyperspace has nothing to do with sniper. That's why hfh can be used in close combat too.
So it's codex rule trumping anything else.
Edit: if a death mark unit was shooting at an gc not marked for hfh, it would be a 6 to wound. That should be all there is to it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/11/13 19:37:57
15k+
3k+