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.

So i was looking at the WTN and the walker rules. Factoring current errata, it boils down to you having 2 rules for a single 1 situation, so, i was wanderring which one should be followed?.

What is general consensus on this? do codexes override CRB? in general Codexes do not explicitly counter the CRB, what they usually do is to say, model X has a new rule called A, which in most cases A is a sum of a couple of rules in the CRB, but what happens when it is the other way around, when A is in direct contradiction of B (from the CRB)?.

I am asking of course when there is no FAQ right, if there were then there would be no point to this.

xxvaderxx wrote:So i was looking at the WTN and the walker rules. Factoring current errata, it boils down to you having 2 rules for a single 1 situation, so, i was wanderring which one should be followed?.

What is general consensus on this? do codexes override CRB? in general Codexes do not explicitly counter the CRB, what they usually do is to say, model X has a new rule called A, which in most cases A is a sum of a couple of rules in the CRB, but what happens when it is the other way around, when A is in direct contradiction of B (from the CRB)?.

I am asking of course when there is no FAQ right, if there were then there would be no point to this.

The more specific rule overrides the general rule.

This usually means codex trumps rulebook, but this is not always the case.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:So i was looking at the WTN and the walker rules. Factoring current errata, it boils down to you having 2 rules for a single 1 situation, so, i was wanderring which one should be followed?.

What is general consensus on this? do codexes override CRB? in general Codexes do not explicitly counter the CRB, what they usually do is to say, model X has a new rule called A, which in most cases A is a sum of a couple of rules in the CRB, but what happens when it is the other way around, when A is in direct contradiction of B (from the CRB)?.

I am asking of course when there is no FAQ right, if there were then there would be no point to this.

The more specific rule overrides the general rule.

This usually means codex trumps rulebook, but this is not always the case.

I dont remember seeing this on the CRB, is this from a FAQ or from the CBR? mind posting link or page number?

Its how the rules have to work. The game simply cannot function in any other way.

If they didn't, special rules wouldn't work at all.

Gwar has it right on this one. Specific always overrules general. A prime example is with leadership and the Ork codex. The codex states that due to mob rule, the leadership of the orks is replaced by the number of figures in the squad (loosely quoted, I cant remember the exact quote and I'm just taking a break from homework). The BRB (I am not sure what CRB is) states that no stat can be over 10 for any reason. In this case the BRB is more specific than the codex. There are others out there too, but this is the only one I have memorized.... lol.. anyways, back to work.

s2

Gwar! wrote:Its how the rules have to work. The game simply cannot function in any other way.

If they didn't, special rules wouldn't work at all.

Actually that is not correct, in fact this way is a lot more prone to countradictions and printing rules that will never actually apply because they can be overridden by the CRB before the books even hit the shelves, than the rather more logical and used in general approach that would be newer rules overide previous older rules. In fact the "more general" term is highly prone to controversy, specially so when talking in generals or absolutes as rules tend to do.

That being said, this is GW and if this is what they FAQed (i would not be surprised), then so be it, but i would rather see it written somewhere before going the unorthodox rout.

What exactly are you in question about? Is it a specific rule or an entire codex or what?

Older rules over-write newer rules regularly, see NFW/Smoke Launchers/et al.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:What exactly are you in question about? Is it a specific rule or an entire codex or what?

There are several actually, and they all boil down to the Codexes stating A and the CBR stating B. To avoid unnecessary drama, (to avoid partialities like blood angels not liking to have their furiosos blown up by a WTN meltabom, and so on) i am taking specific rules out of the equation and rather inquiring on what is the ruling based. Now, from the couple of answers i got so far, that would be general consensus, but it would seem it is nothing more than that, there would not seem to be FAQ or entry on any book that would state that it is anything more than that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:Older rules over-write newer rules regularly, see NFW/Smoke Launchers/et al.

Srry not a DH player, mind being more specific?

So you want to know if the special rules in the codex let you do what the special rules say??

The codex always overrules the rulebook. It says this numerous times in the rulebook itself (the entry for Smoke Launchers is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but there are numerous instances of this), and GW states it outright a number of times in their official FAQs.

And like Kirsanth said, there ARE plenty of instances where older rules trump newer ones. The Smoke Launchers example: normally smoke launchers confer a 4+ cover save to the vehicle. Black Templar smoke launchers, however, downgrade penetrating hits to glancing hits. This is not unusual.

SaintHazard wrote:The codex always overrules the rulebook.

NO IT DOES NOT. Specific > General. Usually this means Codex > Rulebook but this is not ALWAYS the case.

Stop thinking this, because it is not true. If this were true, Sweeping Advance would never work and Power Weapons would work either (Codex says I have an armour save, BRB says no Armour save, ergo I have an armour save).

See, this is a problem, Gwar! and SaintHazard think differently, for the record i think like SaintHazard, but i have seen many people on this forums posts things from Gwar!s point of view, which is rather unorthodox, so i was wondering if there was a FAQ or something backing that up.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

SaintHazard wrote:The codex always overrules the rulebook.

NO IT DOES NOT. Specific > General. Usually this means Codex > Rulebook but this is not ALWAYS the case.

Stop thinking this, because it is not true. If this were true, Sweeping Advance would never work and Power Weapons would work either (Codex says I have an armour save, BRB says no Armour save, ergo I have an armour save).

Sweeping and PW are both defined in the CRB, so they dont fall in this category.

Added a poll just to get a feeling for what people do.

First of all if you are using acronyms PLEASE use the ones in common use.

BRB = Big Red Book, aka rule book. CRB = Criminal Records Bureau (in UK)

Saint Hazard is wrong; The BRB ONLY states that, where either a codex has a rule with the same name (Smoke Launchers, for example) to the rule book the rulebook is overridden. It also states that the summary at the back of the rulebook is overridden by the codex.

The principle IS specific overrides general. So the WTN stating that it always hits on a 3+ overrides the normal WS comparison. However in the case of WTN using grenades from memory that FAQ only limits this to when comparing WS, which you dont do with grenades and walkers. I coudl be wrong.

It is against the law to kill people. Police officers may use deadly force in certain curcumstances. The more specific law regarding Police overides the more general law regarding everyone. Any system will fail if you do it the other way around.

There does not need to be a rule or FAQ to state this just like there doesn't need to be a rule that says you can't roll your dice on the ceiling because of gravity...it's just the way.

derp.

See, I knew that. That was a hell of a brain fart.

Nos and Gwar! are correct, of course.

Orks LD via Mob Rule! also is an issue.

Shall we compile a list of issues caused by assuming that simply because its in a codex it trumps the main rulebook?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The principle IS specific overrides general.

There are a couple of problems with this.

A- For it to be an axiom or principle, it should be written somewhere in a FAQ or the BRB.

B- Assuming it to in fact be a principle, it is a very prone to arguing and bickering one.

Take for instance, this, which happens quite so often.

Rule 1: this Model hits every other model on 1+.
Rule 2: this Model is hit by every other model 5+.

So if a model with Rule 1, would shot at a model with Rule 2, what would it need to hit?. Rule one is just as specific for every model in the game as rule 2. And stuff like this happens a lot on 40k.

Two equally specific yet contradictory rules are why they write Errata's and FAQ's. Their existance does not change the principle on which rules systems are structured. (and I don't just mean game rules)

xxvaderxx wrote:A- For it to be an axiom or principle, it should be written somewhere in a FAQ or the BRB.

It's not written though, because GW take it as a given, in the same way that they assume that people know how to roll dice, or use a measuring device.

It's a simple side effect of the language, and the basic principle that guides all rules sets, not just those for wargames.

Take for instance, this, which happens quite so often.

Rule 1: this Model hits every other model on 1+.
Rule 2: this Model is hit by every other model 5+.

So if a model with Rule 1, would shot at a model with Rule 2, what would it need to hit?. Rule one is just as specific for every model in the game as rule 2. And stuff like this happens a lot on 40k.

GW have described it in the past as the 'unstoppable object meets the immovable barrier syndrome'... It pops up in wargames from time to time. While it can cause extended arguments on forums, in practice (at least from my experience) the argument usually lasts as long as it takes to roll a die for it and get on with the game.

xxvaderxx wrote:
Take for instance, this, which happens quite so often.

Rule 1: this Model hits every other model on 1+.
Rule 2: this Model is hit by every other model 5+.

The part I am actually boggled by is that this happens "quite so often"?!

I struggle to recall a single time the actual rules (as oppossed to an erroneous interpretation of them) lead to something like this.

insaniak wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:A- For it to be an axiom or principle, it should be written somewhere in a FAQ or the BRB.

It's not written though, because GW take it as a given, in the same way that they assume that people know how to roll dice, or use a measuring device.

It's a simple side effect of the language, and the basic principle that guides all rules sets, not just those for wargames.

Take for instance, this, which happens quite so often.

Rule 1: this Model hits every other model on 1+.
Rule 2: this Model is hit by every other model 5+.

So if a model with Rule 1, would shot at a model with Rule 2, what would it need to hit?. Rule one is just as specific for every model in the game as rule 2. And stuff like this happens a lot on 40k.

GW have described it in the past as the 'unstoppable object meets the immovable barrier syndrome'... It pops up in wargames from time to time. While it can cause extended arguments on forums, in practice (at least from my experience) the argument usually lasts as long as it takes to roll a die for it and get on with the game.

That is a gross mistake, all games are based on the axiomatic description of its rules, "They are so because so they are defined", to assume something as important as this (how you are meant to reason with the rules) is a huge mistake. What makes it worst is that it is so easily avoidable, just by writing a single line on its FAQ. This is kind of trying to define "distribution" with out having defined "addition".

xxvaderxx wrote:stuff

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.

kirsanth wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:stuff

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.

Nop, i am asking if GW has explained how their rules are meant to be read, when you do that, either way, most conflicts are leveled. There will always remain some thats a given.

In fact i think in general GWs answer to this has been, "Read them how ever suits your fancy". But i could be wrong.

xxvaderxx wrote:Nop, i am asking if GW has explained how their rules are meant to be read,

In English?

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Nop, i am asking if GW has explained how their rules are meant to be read,

In English?

Then my guess is you could answer the example i gave before.

kirsanth wrote:
The part I am actually boggled by is that this happens "quite so often"?!

I struggle to recall a single time the actual rules (as oppossed to an erroneous interpretation of them) lead to something like this.

Kharn is involved of most of those situations.

forkbanger wrote:Kharn is involved of most of those situations.

Who is Kharn? I know of a Khârn, but not a Kharn. -shrug-

I never seem to have any problems with Khârn, his rule is pretty clear.

Gwar! wrote:

forkbanger wrote:Kharn is involved of most of those situations.

Who is Kharn? I know of a Khârn, but not a Kharn. -shrug-

I never seem to have any problems with Khârn, his rule is pretty clear.

That is your problem, you are too self centered on what you think is the correct way of thinking. Either way of thinking works well for most situations and both will have some specific issues, the OP question was if GW has written anything stating that your logic is the correct way to do it. It could very well be, all that is needed is a link to a FAQ or Reference to a Page that is all.

kirsanth wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
Take for instance, this, which happens quite so often.

Rule 1: this Model hits every other model on 1+.
Rule 2: this Model is hit by every other model 5+.

The part I am actually boggled by is that this happens "quite so often"?!

I struggle to recall a single time the actual rules (as oppossed to an erroneous interpretation of them) lead to something like this.

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