Kharn vs Invisibility

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.

**Lobokai**

Come on now. We actually had a rather pleasant lukewarm agreement here and now we're stirring the pot for ego and pride. Let a sleeping YMDC thread lie.

**Tekron**

Kharn's rule is a restriction just as much as invisibility. Kharn doesn't have permission to hit on 2+, he is instead restricted to hitting on 2+. The controlling player cannot elect to use the WS table instead of hitting on 2+.

So the restriction vs permission stuff doesn't come into play, it's pure BRB vs codex.

**KingCorpus**

I'd agree on Kharn hitting on a 2+, just because the codex > Da rules.

**Tonberry7**

Lobukia wrote:
Come on now. We actually had a rather pleasant lukewarm agreement here and now we're stirring the pot for ego and pride. Let a sleeping YMDC thread lie.

Agreed. One thing I've learned from YMDC is that more often than not, if someone doesn't like a rule or it's consequences they will find an argument against it, no matter how untenable that argument is.

**BlackTalos**

Tonberry7 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
Tonberry7 wrote:
Yeah I didn't think they were from the rulebook. So according to the actual rules, Kharn does indeed hit invisible units on a 2+. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem rather sure for a post without any rules support. Which was your very first complaint upon participating in the thread.... Glad you're following all the Tenets

Yes, I'm rather sure. And there is most definitely rules support. Firstly there's the two rules in question; that regarding Kharns melee attacks, and Invisibility:

CSM Codex p59: "Kharns melee attacks always hit on a 2+ (even if they would otherwise hit automatically)"
7th Ed. Rulebook, Invisibility "Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6"

So in the instance of Kharn in CC against an invisible unit, this leads to a rules conflict. You probably couldn't find a clearer example of a conflict if you tried. However in the core rules section of the rulebook (sorry no page numbers - digital edition) there is the following rule:

"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 gives us a simple, unambiguous way to resolve the conflict, which in this case means Kharn hits invisible units on a 2+ with his melee attacks.

The argument for the counter-position (i.e. Kharn still needs a 6+ to hit the invisible unit) appears to be based on another post outlining a convoluted theory which draws the contradictory (and therefore flawed) conclusions that:

"codex > rulebook' ........ ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction", and
"restrictions always override permissions where the two (rules) conflict"

Either there is a conflict, or there isn't. You can't claim that permissive and restrictive rules can't conflict and also say that when they do actually conflict the restriction overrides the permission. Applying those flawed conclusions (which are ultimately just an opinion and blatantly ignore the codex > rulebook RAW) to the Kharn vs invisibility situation leads to the premise that invisibility would take precedence because there isn't actually a rules conflict, which is frankly hilarious. Just read the two rules again. If you think that Kharn needs a 6 to hit invisible units in CC then I'd recommend discussing it with your opponent before a game if that situation may arise.

And i was simply using the "convoluted theory" to show that, using said theory, Kharn would still hit on a 2+.

Rather than flat out denying the opposing party's argument, in the usual YMDC way of "you are just incorrect, now keep quiet" which leads to stirring the pot for ego and pride as it was aptly put, I was instead understanding the root of the argument, analysing the position, and the refuting the claim using simple logic and the argument's basis.

Which, ultimately, should lead to an understanding by the opposing party, unless they are the type to put their hand on their ears and go "lala la la lala la...", so that they might see that the argument was flawed and might agree with the point being made. Rather than denying their position; explain why it is wrong.

**Nem**

Tekron wrote:
Kharn's rule is a restriction just as much as invisibility. Kharn doesn't have permission to hit on 2+, he is instead restricted to hitting on 2+. The controlling player cannot elect to use the WS table instead of hitting on 2+.

So the restriction vs permission stuff doesn't come into play, it's pure BRB vs codex.

FYI that's not what we normally mean by a restriction, a restriction is a instruction that you can not do something, while a permission in the rules is instruction you can do something.

The distinction is important because we could call all permissions restrictions in that case, as whenever were told we can do something we could say 'well, we are restricted to embarking the whole unit' while the notion is indeed true, the rules would break down and we'd all be trying to appease the double restriction gods.

**Tekron**

Nem wrote:
Tekron wrote:
Kharn's rule is a restriction just as much as invisibility. Kharn doesn't have permission to hit on 2+, he is instead restricted to hitting on 2+. The controlling player cannot elect to use the WS table instead of hitting on 2+.

So the restriction vs permission stuff doesn't come into play, it's pure BRB vs codex.

FYI that's not what we normally mean by a restriction, a restriction is a instruction that you can not do something, while a permission in the rules is instruction you can do something.

The distinction is important because we could call all permissions restrictions in that case, as whenever were told we can do something we could say 'well, we are restricted to embarking the whole unit' while the notion is indeed true, the rules would break down and we'd all be trying to appease the double restriction gods.

Kharn is restricted from rolling normally to hit and must instead use his special rule that hits on a 2+ or hits his unit on a 1. It's not a permission, you don't get any choice about how to play him.

**Tonberry7**

BlackTalos wrote:
Tonberry7 wrote:
BlackTalos wrote:
Tonberry7 wrote:
Yeah I didn't think they were from the rulebook. So according to the actual rules, Kharn does indeed hit invisible units on a 2+. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem rather sure for a post without any rules support. Which was your very first complaint upon participating in the thread.... Glad you're following all the Tenets

Yes, I'm rather sure. And there is most definitely rules support. Firstly there's the two rules in question; that regarding Kharns melee attacks, and Invisibility:

CSM Codex p59: "Kharns melee attacks always hit on a 2+ (even if they would otherwise hit automatically)"
7th Ed. Rulebook, Invisibility "Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6"

So in the instance of Kharn in CC against an invisible unit, this leads to a rules conflict. You probably couldn't find a clearer example of a conflict if you tried. However in the core rules section of the rulebook (sorry no page numbers - digital edition) there is the following rule:

"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 gives us a simple, unambiguous way to resolve the conflict, which in this case means Kharn hits invisible units on a 2+ with his melee attacks.

The argument for the counter-position (i.e. Kharn still needs a 6+ to hit the invisible unit) appears to be based on another post outlining a convoluted theory which draws the contradictory (and therefore flawed) conclusions that:

"codex > rulebook' ........ ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction", and
"restrictions always override permissions where the two (rules) conflict"

Either there is a conflict, or there isn't. You can't claim that permissive and restrictive rules can't conflict and also say that when they do actually conflict the restriction overrides the permission. Applying those flawed conclusions (which are ultimately just an opinion and blatantly ignore the codex > rulebook RAW) to the Kharn vs invisibility situation leads to the premise that invisibility would take precedence because there isn't actually a rules conflict, which is frankly hilarious. Just read the two rules again. If you think that Kharn needs a 6 to hit invisible units in CC then I'd recommend discussing it with your opponent before a game if that situation may arise.

And i was simply using the "convoluted theory" to show that, using said theory, Kharn would still hit on a 2+.

Rather than flat out denying the opposing party's argument, in the usual YMDC way of "you are just incorrect, now keep quiet" which leads to stirring the pot for ego and pride as it was aptly put, I was instead understanding the root of the argument, analysing the position, and the refuting the claim using simple logic and the argument's basis.

Which, ultimately, should lead to an understanding by the opposing party, unless they are the type to put their hand on their ears and go "lala la la lala la...", so that they might see that the argument was flawed and might agree with the point being made. Rather than denying their position; explain why it is wrong.

So you're now agreeing that Kharn hits on a 2+?

To be honest it wasn't very clear what your position was from your previous posts but you might has well have saved the stirring if that's the case.

**BlackTalos**

My first post was quite clear:

BlackTalos wrote:
They are logical, well-though conclusions from someone who's spent a lot of time analysing this

As for the answer to the above:

Invisibility is a general restriction that all models will snap fire/ Hit on 6s (combined in one sentence) at the selected Unit.

Kharn has a model-specific, To Hit-specific Rule that he always Hits. Enemy models on 2+ and allies on 1s.
Invisibility would need a specific "Kharn hits Invisible units on 6s" for the point 3) to apply.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

That is in the case of: "Kharn can Hit invisible Units on 2+" V "Invisible Units can only be Hit be Kharn on 6"

"Invisibility would need a specific "Kharn hits Invisible units on 6s" for the point 3) to apply." Is clearly saying that "Invisibility would not apply". I'm not sure why you got confused?

**Tonberry7**

BlackTalos wrote:
My first post was quite clear:

BlackTalos wrote:
They are logical, well-though conclusions from someone who's spent a lot of time analysing this

As for the answer to the above:

Invisibility is a general restriction that all models will snap fire/ Hit on 6s (combined in one sentence) at the selected Unit.

Kharn has a model-specific, To Hit-specific Rule that he always Hits. Enemy models on 2+ and allies on 1s.
Invisibility would need a specific "Kharn hits Invisible units on 6s" for the point 3) to apply.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

That is in the case of: "Kharn can Hit invisible Units on 2+" V "Invisible Units can only be Hit be Kharn on 6"

"Invisibility would need a specific "Kharn hits Invisible units on 6s" for the point 3) to apply." Is clearly saying that "Invisibility would not apply". I'm not sure why you got confused?

Probably because you've included 3 separate invented quotations and a shaky conclusion from another post in an attempt to make your point. If you agreed with me in the first place, why the need for the confrontational posts?

**BlackTalos**

Tonberry7 wrote:
Probably because you've included 3 separate invented quotations and a shaky conclusion from another post in an attempt to make your point. If you agreed with me in the first place, why the need for the confrontational posts?

I though "As for the answer to the above:" would have been a clear demarcation between a post from myself to all explaining my position (same as yours) and the "confrontational post" was because of the clearly sarcastic comment you made about a legitimate description by Yakface.

I'll make sure it is clearer next time.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Tonberry7 wrote:
Are those rules quotes from the rulebook? Or just statements from someone on Dakka?

They are logical, well-though conclusions from someone who's spent a lot of time analysing this.

=======================================================================================================================================
As a new subject, and unrelated to my comment made just previously

As for the answer to the question above:

Invisibility is a general restriction that all models will snap fire/ Hit on 6s (combined in one sentence) at the selected Unit.

Kharn has a model-specific, To Hit-specific Rule that he always Hits. Enemy models on 2+ and allies on 1s.
Invisibility would need a specific "Kharn hits Invisible units on 6s" for the point 3) to apply.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

That is in the case of: "Kharn can Hit invisible Units on 2+" V "Invisible Units can only be Hit be Kharn on 6"

**theimperishable**

While I agree with the discussion and I completely understand why it's happening (GW), I think it's pretty clear the Kharn ALWAYS hits on a 2+. From a fluff perspective, as stated above, he is flailing around like a mad man tring to hit something and doesn't care who or what it is. He has DTW on a 2+, indicating that in general psychic stuff does not phase him. I realize the spell does not target him, but none the less, he has incredible psychic resilience which leads me to believe he can almost see through the illusion. From the rules perspective, simply because it clearly states he ALWAYS hits on a 2+ should be enough to end this discussion. Again, as already stated, there is no choice in how to play him. If he was attacking an immobile vehicle, he can still only hit on a 2+. He can't pick and choose which situations to use his special rule, it ALWAYS applies.

And yes, this is coming from a GK player who relies on Invisibility. So no, I'm not favoring who I want to win. I hate Chaos! For the Emperor!

**Lobokai**

theimperishable wrote:

And yes, this is coming from a GK player who relies on Invisibility. So no, I'm not favoring who I want to win. I hate Chaos! For the Emperor!

Everyone secretly roots for Kharn

**theimperishable**

Lobukia wrote:
theimperishable wrote:

And yes, this is coming from a GK player who relies on Invisibility. So no, I'm not favoring who I want to win. I hate Chaos! For the Emperor!

Everyone secretly roots for Kharn

Damn.... busted!

**locarno24**

If you haven't read the Christmas Day advent calendar novel, I recommend it. Kharn comes across as even more badass.

[Bridge of a World Eaters capital ship, post battle]
"Where's Kharn?"
"I don't know. He didn't come back with any of our gunships."
[World Eaters observe an Emperor's Children capital ship untouched by the battle suddenly falling down towards the surface of Skalathrax, trailing fire and debris]
"...He's on board that thing, isn't he?"
"Probably."

**Leth**

Ruleswise it is whomevers turn it is gets to decide which takes precedence.

Sucks but thems the breaks.