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.

I've noticed this occuring a few times in other threads; so i figure i'd create it's own meta-thread so to speak:

1) How does one tell where one discrete rule begins and another ends? For example: a Nemesis Force Hammer has the force weapon property, the 'daemonbane' property, and counts as a thunder hammer. How many (ie: the specific numbe of) 'rules' does the writeup for it explicitly include?

2) If an advanced/codex-specific rule conflicts with a basic rule, how 'much' of the basic rule does the more advanced rule overwrite?

1) it includes all the rules listed in its entry.

2) Advanced rules are used instead of the basic rules? I am not sure what you are asking with this one, can you give an example.

Fair enough, what i mean is when (for instance) a codex states something that contradicts something in the basic rule book.

A specific example of this would be how the dark eldar unique character 'Lelith Hesperax' has a special rule which states: "...Her attacks ignore armour saves...". This would mean that if she throws a krak grenade it functionally ignores armor rather than just being AP-4 like it's profile in the BRB otherwise indicates.

Essentially 'Codex or Advanced rules > Main Book or basic ones' for rules application.

You might wanna check the rulebook on what "attacks" is.

Advanced Rules override only the specific sections of basic rules that conflict with them, not the entirety of the basic rule. For example, if I had a basic rule that said

"To win the game, you must sacrifice a kitten to the Dark Gods of Chaos"

and an advanced rule that said

"To win the game, you must instead make a sacrifice to the God-Emperor"

Then you would still have to sacrifice a KITTEN to the God-Emperor, as the part of the basic rule specifying kittens is not in conflict with the advanced rule.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Advanced Rules override only the specific sections of basic rules that conflict with them, not the entirety of the basic rule. For example, if I had a basic rule that said

"To win the game, you must sacrifice a kitten to the Dark Gods of Chaos"

and an advanced rule that said

"To win the game, you must instead make a sacrifice to the God-Emperor"

Then you would still have to sacrifice a KITTEN to the God-Emperor, as the part of the basic rule specifying kittens is not in conflict with the advanced rule.

To use your example: Wouldn't the latter rule allow one to sacrifice 'anything' to the God-Emperor, to fulfill it's requirements? Why would you keep the part about kittens when the advanced rule in that case clearly does not include a specific item to be sacrificed?

What i'm looking for here is an official indication of wether or not one can in essence 'chop up' parts of one rule as modified by another rule (without explicit permission to do so by the rule itself) or have to take the whole rule and replace it with the more advanced one. (and if it's the latter, what constitutes a discrete rule)

Yea, why can't i just sacrifice the unsupervised store kid.

Neorealist wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Advanced Rules override only the specific sections of basic rules that conflict with them, not the entirety of the basic rule. For example, if I had a basic rule that said

"To win the game, you must sacrifice a kitten to the Dark Gods of Chaos"

and an advanced rule that said

"To win the game, you must instead make a sacrifice to the God-Emperor"

Then you would still have to sacrifice a KITTEN to the God-Emperor, as the part of the basic rule specifying kittens is not in conflict with the advanced rule.

To use your example: Wouldn't the latter rule allow one to sacrifice 'anything' to the God-Emperor, to fulfill it's requirements? Why would you keep the part about kittens when the advanced rule in that case clearly does not include a specific item to be sacrificed?

What i'm looking for here is an official indication of wether or not one can in essence 'chop up' parts of one rule as modified by another rule (without explicit permission to do so by the rule itself) or have to take the whole rule and replace it with the more advanced one. (and if it's the latter, what constitutes a discrete rule)

HoverBoy wrote:Yea, why can't i just sacrifice the unsupervised store kid.

Because the Advanced Rule gives no permission to ignore the "kitten" specification in the Basic Rule, and it's a permissive ruleset.

Taken on its own, the Advanced Rule seems to imply that you can sacrifice anything to the God-Emperor. Unfortunately, though, in a permissive-ruleset context "seems to imply" != "explicit permission"

Well yes and no. In and of itself your advanced rule does not give permission to ignore the 'kitten' part of the basic rule, sure. That said, it 'also' doesn't give permission to 'follow' that part either.

The newest rulebook that has come out indicates one is supposed to 'override any conflicting basic rules' in this sort of situation.

Some posters have been reading the above as saying only the 'parts' of the basic rules that conflict should be exchanged. Some have been reading it as saying the 'entire' conflicting basic rule has to be exchanged. Hense the reason for my poll. ;-)

to provide an example:

Basic rule: "D'aww" - All Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Codex rule: "N'aww" - Necron Kittens are not fuzzy.

Do we end up with living-metal (yet still cute) kittens, or are they now not fuzzy 'and' not cute because the 'N'aww" rule supercedes the conflicting "D'aww" one? I suppose some would say it's not really an important distinction, but what if being cute provided some sort of mechanical advantage?

Neorealist wrote:Well yes and no. In and of itself your advanced rule does not give permission to ignore the 'kitten' part of the basic rule, sure. That said, it 'also' doesn't give permission to 'follow' that part either.

The entire point of a permissive ruleset is that the very existence of a rule means that you have permission to (and indeed must) follow it.

Neorealist wrote:
The newest rulebook that has come out indicates one is supposed to 'override any conflicting basic rules' in this sort of situation.

Some posters have been reading the above as saying only the 'parts' of the basic rules that conflict should be exchanged. Some have been reading it as saying the 'entire' conflicting basic rule has to be exchanged. Hense the reason for my poll. ;-)

^Emphasis mine
"Conflicting" is the clincher here. You do not override ANY basic rules, or ALL basic rules, just any of them which CONFLICT. I will elaborate in your example.

Neorealist wrote:
to provide an example:

Basic rule: "D'aww" - All Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Codex rule: "N'aww" - Necron Kittens are not fuzzy.

Do we end up with living-metal (yet still cute) kittens, or are they now not fuzzy 'and' not cute because the 'N'aww" rule supercedes the conflicting "D'aww" one? I suppose some would say it's not really an important distinction, but what if being cute provided some sort of mechanical advantage?

There are two basic rules present here (written as a single sentence):
1) All kittens are cute
2) All kittens are fuzzy

The Necron kittens, not being fuzzy, override the conflicting "must be fuzzy" rule. It does not have permission to override the "must be cute" rule.

In order for that to work though, wouldn't you have to treat the "D'aww" rule in my example above as 2 rules? (one granting 'cute', the other 'fuzzy')

I tentatively answered option B but I'm a little worried about the word "interpreted". Very often there isn't a whole lot that needs to be interpreted, as the rules lay out exactly what to do in 90% of cases. The only reason there's even debates is that everyone's an armchair designer who thinks they have the best grasp on what RAI is, when it really only matters in that 10% where there really isn't adequate rules coverage (say, what happens to a dread in a wrecked zooming stormraven).

It's simple. Follow the advanced rule instead of a basic one, unless you hit a situation where the advanced rule doesn't tell you what to do. Then you have to use the basic rule. A lot of this thread is creating theoretical rules to illustrate points, which is pretty dangerous territory. Let's stick to actual rules so we don't risk making a different game.

Neorealist wrote:In order for that to work though, wouldn't you have to treat the "D'aww" rule in my example above as 2 rules? (one granting 'cute', the other 'fuzzy')

Yes, because it is two rules. A "rule" is not strictly defined in the 40k book, but in English a "rule" is merely a principle or regulation governing conduct. I would say that something being "cute and fuzzy" is something that has two regulations / principles attached to it.

I was hoping it 'was' strictly defined somewhere and that someone could point us in the right direction; as it is explicitly called upon for rules like the 'advanced vs basic' one amongst others in the book.