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.

Does the NFW use the Force Weapon rules from the BRB or the Daemonhunters Codex?

The reason there is a distinction is because the DH Force Weapon entry says "slain outright" rather than "instant death," which seems to imply that other unlike normal force weapons, NFW can "slay outright" things with the EW rule.

Use the codex rules. Force weapons taken by DH will 'slay outright' which bypasses EW. It's one of the few benefits of having an ancient codex.

If your codex spells out the rule, you use that "out-dated" rule for your army. If it doesn't spell out what the ability does, or references the BGB, you use the updated rules.

This is the same reason why BT LRs don't allow assaults.

Of course, many players will be ok with using a house rule to allow an update for an old codex. But, don't expect them to allow you to pick and choose what things get updated and what don't.

As above, codex always trumps the rulebook afaik.

Grakmar wrote:Of course, many players will be ok with using a house rule to allow an update for an old codex. But, don't expect them to allow you to pick and choose what things get updated and what don't.

Well, I don't see very many WH/DH players trying to give away the better Force Weapons... But could surely agree on using the BRB version if some other old wargear can use newer versions. ;-)

spongemonkee wrote:As above, codex always trumps the rulebook afaik.

Not true. Specific always trumps general. In this case, the specific rules on how Force Weapons work (as defined in the Codex) trumps the general BRB rules.

Xca|iber wrote:

spongemonkee wrote:As above, codex always trumps the rulebook afaik.

Not true. Specific always trumps general. In this case, the specific rules on how Force Weapons work (as defined in the Codex) trumps the general BRB rules.

actually, he's right. pg 62 last sentance in the smoke launcher side bar

"as normal, the rules in the codex take precedence."

Ok--thanks for that.

While there is no specific rule for the term slain outright in the 40k rulebook I have seen it mentioned in Fantasy. The term is very specific so I see no reason for a debate.

warboss wrote:

Xca|iber wrote:

spongemonkee wrote:As above, codex always trumps the rulebook afaik.

Not true. Specific always trumps general. In this case, the specific rules on how Force Weapons work (as defined in the Codex) trumps the general BRB rules.

actually, he's right. pg 62 last sentance in the smoke launcher side bar

"as normal, the rules in the codex take precedence."

Actually he isnt, as yuo have ENTIRELY removed the context from that partial quote.

IF you have two identically named rules, for example smoke launchers, then the codex version always takes precedence. In general however Specific overrides general. In this case it is BOTH specific > general AND having two identically named rules.

If the codex ALWAYS took precedence then power weapons would not bypass armour.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
If the codex ALWAYS took precedence then power weapons would not bypass armour.

Not questioning you, just curious, why?

Because the rules for power weapons are in the BRB, and the codex states you have "X" armour save. If the codex takes precedence then yo uwould ALWAYS get X armour save, even if hit by a power weapon.

Stick with specific > general and everything is pretty much worked out....

nosferatu1001 wrote:Because the rules for power weapons are in the BRB, and the codex states you have "X" armour save. If the codex takes precedence then yo uwould ALWAYS get X armour save, even if hit by a power weapon.

Stick with specific > general and everything is pretty much worked out....

that makes no sense whatsoever. there is only a conflict when the codex gives you DIFFERENT rules than the rulebook, not when they don't mention anything at all. a codex doesn't say that units designated "infantry" can move 6" in the movement phase; does that mean they can't move at all? according to your reasoning, it does. the rules say that when there is a CONFLICT between the two (ie. the rules for an army in the codex differ from the general edition rules), you go with the codex rules interpretation for that case. what you're proposing isn't RAW or RAI, it's NAW/NAI (nosferatu as intended/written) and is completely your own creation. you can play with whatever houserule you want but don't pass it off as an official interpretation.

How about Ork LD via mob rule--BRB says all stats max 10. Ork codex does not, it only adds that they become Fearless, it never says the score stops going up.
Sweeping Advance, specifically vs. WBB.


Should I stop now?

kirsanth wrote:How about Ork LD via mob rule--BRB says all stats max 10. Ork codex does not, it only adds that they become Fearless, it never says the score stops going up.
Sweeping Advance, specifically vs. WBB.


Should I stop now?

why not just post a link to the funny RAW thread instead? bad rules writing within the same edition is inexcusable for a company the size of GW but the examples you're listing are rules inconsistancies between books written one or MORE edition apart and separated by up to a decade. those examples should be cleared up by GW via FAQ (without that ridiculous "its a house rule and optional" crap website wording) but they choose not to.


the mob example doesn't support either side in this discussion, though. if you go with nosferatu and his house rule of specific over general, they get ld30. if you go with codex over rulebook RAW, they get ld30. an example of using a badly written rule doesn't show anything poignant.

warboss wrote:

kirsanth wrote:How about Ork LD via mob rule--BRB says all stats max 10. Ork codex does not, it only adds that they become Fearless, it never says the score stops going up.
Sweeping Advance, specifically vs. WBB.


Should I stop now?

why not just post a link to the funny RAW thread instead? bad rules writing within the same edition is inexcusable for a company the size of GW but the examples you're listing are rules inconsistancies between books written one or MORE edition apart and separated by up to a decade. those examples should be cleared up by GW via FAQ (without that ridiculous "its a house rule and optional" crap website wording) but they choose not to. i'm not sure, eithe way, what you mean though? do you believe you shouldn't go with the codex then? that orks don't get the mob rule since the rulebook says they go with their LD characteristic only?

No, he's saying that if Codex beats BGB, then Orks using mob rule on a squad of 30 boys means the leadership is 30.

If Specific beats General, then the specific rule in the BGB limiting characteristics to 10 means that a squad of 30 boys is capped at leadership 10 when using mob rule.

Edit: Ninja'd by you removing the part I was responding too

Grakmar wrote:

warboss wrote:

kirsanth wrote:How about Ork LD via mob rule--BRB says all stats max 10. Ork codex does not, it only adds that they become Fearless, it never says the score stops going up.
Sweeping Advance, specifically vs. WBB.


Should I stop now?

why not just post a link to the funny RAW thread instead? bad rules writing within the same edition is inexcusable for a company the size of GW but the examples you're listing are rules inconsistancies between books written one or MORE edition apart and separated by up to a decade. those examples should be cleared up by GW via FAQ (without that ridiculous "its a house rule and optional" crap website wording) but they choose not to. i'm not sure, eithe way, what you mean though? do you believe you shouldn't go with the codex then? that orks don't get the mob rule since the rulebook says they go with their LD characteristic only?

No, he's saying that if Codex beats BGB, then Orks using mob rule on a squad of 30 boys means the leadership is 30.

If Specific beats General, then the specific rule in the BGB limiting characteristics to 10 means that a squad of 30 boys is capped at leadership 10 when using mob rule.

Edit: Ninja'd by you removing the part I was responding too

yeah, lots of editing here. he edited out the part i was questioning that you quoted between me reading it and pressing the quote button so i changed mine (not in time for you to do the same though, lol). see my later post for why the example isn't good.

SOrry, "RAW" is not Codex > Rulebook, RAW is specific rule > general rule.

You may disagree, however you are just wrong on this.

Wow! My edit was took 32 seconds to enact.

I am somewhat impressed that it caused confusion.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SOrry, "RAW" is not Codex > Rulebook, RAW is specific rule > general rule.

You may disagree, however you are just wrong on this.

RAW is based on, not surprisingly, the rules as written. can you give me a quote in the rules for your "specific > general" ruling like i did? in theory, i agree with it in the sense that all codicies are more specific than the rulebook it doesn't change the fact that its your own house rule derivative of actual RAW and not RAW until you back it up with a rules quote.

Except you did not include the whole quote. In fact you missed the entire context.

If you want proof that codex > rulebook is false, look at sweeping advance, now look at We'll Be Back. Notice anything that shows you are wrong?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you did not include the whole quote. In fact you missed the entire context.

If you want proof that codex > rulebook is false, look at sweeping advance, now look at We'll Be Back. Notice anything that shows you are wrong?

and you're still not actually quoting anything to back up your house rule AGAIN. my quote exists exactly as written where i said it was and anyone can look it up. where does it actually say specific trumps general? if it doesn't, you're just blowing smoke.

warboss wrote:my quote exists exactly as written where i said it was and anyone can look it up.

So Orks can have LD 30? WBB works vs. Sweeping advance? I can use my 4e Tyranid codex?

Oh man. I really need to find some good ones now. . .thanks for the excuse to look up some more of these.


If you remove the parts of the sentence that are inconvenient like assuming "as normal, the rules in the codex take precedence" applies to everything, not simply rules with the same name (as stated) then even more absurdity starts.
Dominion lets Tervigons always have 18" synapse range because it says the "Tervigon's synapse range is increased to 18"". Really, it does.
Admittedly, there is more to BOTH sentences that help them make sense, but apparently that is just superfluous.

warboss wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you did not include the whole quote. In fact you missed the entire context.

If you want proof that codex > rulebook is false, look at sweeping advance, now look at We'll Be Back. Notice anything that shows you are wrong?

and you're still not actually quoting anything to back up your house rule AGAIN. my quote exists exactly as written where i said it was and anyone can look it up. where does it actually say specific trumps general? if it doesn't, you're just blowing smoke.

Fail.

Your quote is incomplete, and does not include the RESTRICTION of the same rule having to exist in both the codex and the rulebook.

Please, to stop you looking too foolish: PLEASE actually look at the rules for Sweeping Advance and WBB. Once you realise that your codex trumps rulebook fallacy allows for WBB against SA, maybe you will retract your erroneous statements?

I'm not going to hold my breath. and until you do, I will not respond to anymore posts of yours on this topic.

kirsanth wrote:So Orks can have LD 30? WBB works vs. Sweeping advance? I can use my 4e Tyranid codex?

Oh man. I really need to find some good ones now. . .thanks for the excuse to look up some more of these.

feel free to look up as many as you need to as it doesn't change the actual rules as written. GW assumes you use common sense in some case and simply writes bad, confusing rules that require judgement calls in others. neither negates the fact that the rules say the codex takes precedence. as for your examples, i don't think orks have ld30. wbb does NOT work against sweeping advance. no, you can't use your 4th edition codex. all those decisions on my part involve common sense and RAI in addition to RAW and i frequently argue against RAW when it's ridiculous or nonsensical. in this thread, i'm simply stating that the rules *technically* say the codex takes precendence in areas where there is a disagreement. are you denying that my quote exists in the rulebook? eh, either way, i'm done with the thread as its served its usefulness and the original question is answered with no real disagreement.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

warboss wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except you did not include the whole quote. In fact you missed the entire context.

If you want proof that codex > rulebook is false, look at sweeping advance, now look at We'll Be Back. Notice anything that shows you are wrong?

and you're still not actually quoting anything to back up your house rule AGAIN. my quote exists exactly as written where i said it was and anyone can look it up. where does it actually say specific trumps general? if it doesn't, you're just blowing smoke.

blah blah blah i can't find anything in the rules to back up my statement so i'll just try to redirect the discussion and hope no one notices blah blah blah

I'm not going to hold my breath. and until you do, I will not respond to anymore posts of yours on this topic.

that's ok as neither will i regarding yours. you've got the honor of being the 3rd person on my ignore list. congrats!

warboss wrote: in this thread, i'm simply stating that the rules *technically* say the codex takes precendence in areas where there is a disagreement.

That is the disagreement. It is telling you that they take precidence in the situation described--rules with the same name; specifically if a codex has a rule called "Smoke Launchers" it takes precendence over the general rules for "Smoke Launcher".

This lets you know that things like Storm Shields, which are listed by that name in multiple codexes, should not use the newest version. This is not carte blanche to overwrite the BRB whenever something is mentioned in the codex, like the (maximum) values of stats like LD.

Warboss - pointless as you have said I am on ignore, however it is BAD form to "quote" someone and change what they have said, without making this obvious.

you have dropped context, twisted a rule to say something else, and wonder why people dont believe you. Odd that.