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.

For example in Codex: Chaos Space Marine Lightning Claws are stated to ignore armour saves and re-roll failed rolls to wound. Not sure what it says in 6th Ed. rule book but this was not corrected in our first 6th Ed. FAQ.

Does this mean that CSM players can continue to use Lightning Claws to "ignore armour saves" rather than treat them as AP 3 or AP 2 weapons or what-ever??? (until we get a new codex that is )

Has anybody else noticed similar inconsistencies???

Codex over BRB, FAQ over Codex. There's quite a few units benefiting from this, and as long as it says in the special rules for that particular weapon that it ignores armor, it ignores armor. They might well FAQ it later, but if they didn't cover it in the codex FAQs, then I don't really expect it in the future.

Personally I'd play it with the Lightning Claws rules from the BRB simply because I view the lack of correction in the FAQ to be a GW oversight.

Having said that there is no rule saying that's how they work now so if you followed the old rules there's no issue. I'm just one of those chilled people who plays for fun rather than winning.

I'd say BRB over codex for the new weapon rules in this case, older codex's obviously were worded for the edition they were printed in not this new set of rules.

Haven't read the CSM FAQ, but if it says 'ignore armor saves', it takes precedence over the BRB.

Otherwise, for example, you could argue that the BRB entry for missile launchers overrides the codexes, which is simply not true.

Highly interesting. So does this mean Abaddon ignores armor saves again?

The FAQ doesn't mention this instance since it shouldn't need to be adressed. Lightning Claws are specifically defined in the 6th Ed rulebook. To claim that a codex written for an older system overrides the new definition would allow people to use older rules from their Codex even though there are new specific ruls in the newer format. For example, since Eldar have "Fleet of Foot" rule and not just the "Fleet" rule then they can still use the old rule (ignore difficult terrain) rather than following the new "Fleet" rule.
Lightning Claws are a specific weapon that has their rules laid out in the basic text of the new edition. Therefore those are the rules to use until or unless an official writing comes out that grants an exception to this edition's rules.

The general rule for rules priority is specific over general not Codex over BRB. Since a codex is usually adressing a specific rule about how an item or rule works for some specific instance it is given precedence in that instance. Otherwise a Codex does not have any more priority than the BRB (and in fact it could be argued that a descrepncey between the two is merely a typographical/editing error with the BRB overriding the later written Codex barring a FAQ or Errata change in the BRB).

Leo_the_Rat wrote: For example, since Eldar have "Fleet of Foot" rule and not just the "Fleet" rule then they can still use the old rule (ignore difficult terrain) rather than following the new "Fleet" rule.

Except per the 'Fleet' USR (and this is the same as 5th edition): "There are many variants of this rule: Fleet of Foot, Fleet of Claw, even Fleet of Hoof. Title aside, all models with these abilities are treated the same."

Furthermore, if you look at the Eldar codex in regards to Witchblades (paraphrased: See the main rulebook) and the Space Marine codex on Lightning Claws, Power Fists, etc. (paraphrased: See the main rulebook); these codices specifically state that you have to use the main rulebook for the rules on certain weapons. As such, even though Lightning Claws appear in the main rulebook, the wording in hte BT codex trumps the main rulebook.

Happyjew wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote: For example, since Eldar have "Fleet of Foot" rule and not just the "Fleet" rule then they can still use the old rule (ignore difficult terrain) rather than following the new "Fleet" rule.

Except per the 'Fleet' USR (and this is the same as 5th edition): "There are many variants of this rule: Fleet of Foot, Fleet of Claw, even Fleet of Hoof. Title aside, all models with these abilities are treated the same."

Furthermore, if you look at the Eldar codex in regards to Witchblades (paraphrased: See the main rulebook) and the Space Marine codex on Lightning Claws, Power Fists, etc. (paraphrased: See the main rulebook); these codices specifically state that you have to use the main rulebook for the rules on certain weapons. As such, even though Lightning Claws appear in the main rulebook, the wording in hte BT codex trumps the main rulebook.

There is no definition of LCs in the BT Codex, nor is there a reference to the BRB. I'm assuming you meant the DA Codex?

Probably. I don't know why there needs to be 5 different Space Marine armies (7 if you include CSM and GK).

Lightning Claws are defined on page 60 of the BRB. That definition of how they work is the one that should be used until a specific instance of a writing meant for this edition says otherwise.

As to the "Fleet" situation what you are stating is exactly my point the BRB overrides the definition in the Codex. The same thing as the Lightning Claw issue. The BRB takes all of the other, older, Codex rules and makes a new definition. Otherwise every Eldar player could say that since his "Fleet of Foot" rule is in his Codex it overrides the BRB since Codex always overrides BRB.

Leo you are forgetting one very important thing. Page 7 under Basic versus Advanced

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 always takes precedence.

Emphasis mine.

Happyjew wrote:Leo you are forgetting one very important thing. Page 7 under Basic versus Advanced

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 always takes precedence.

Emphasis mine.

Further than this, the errata that GW put on on the eve of 6th edition states that the BRB takes precedence over the codex only in the case of vehicle profiles and unit types.

So enjoy it while you can....

Typhon the Storm Giant wrote:Has anybody else noticed similar inconsistencies???

There are tons. While the argument of Codex over BRB is usually a valid one, I would go with the AP 3 variety. There are tons of "power" weapons that state they ignore armor and almost all of them have been made AP3.

SoloFalcon1138 wrote:So enjoy it while you can....

Gratis GW's dismal quality with rules and this edition transition.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:

Typhon the Storm Giant wrote:Has anybody else noticed similar inconsistencies???

There are tons. While the argument of Codex over BRB is usually a valid one, I would go with the AP 3 variety. There are tons of "power" weapons that state they ignore armor and almost all of them have been made AP3.

Yes, they are AP3 for the purpose of penetrating vehicles, but ignore armor, as per their special rules

Fragile wrote:

Typhon the Storm Giant wrote:Has anybody else noticed similar inconsistencies???

There are tons. While the argument of Codex over BRB is usually a valid one, I would go with the AP 3 variety. There are tons of "power" weapons that state they ignore armor and almost all of them have been made AP3.

Nearly all of them being the operative phrase. You can speculate that it was an oversight, but the bottom line is that the FAQ was not updated and until it is the RAW is ignores armor. Not AP3, ignores armor.

Dark angels and black templars also have lighting claws that ignore armor saves currently, If I am recalling it correctly.

But currently as it stands, and has always been, codex trumps rulebook. Of course in chaos' case, with their new codex coming in a month, it won't last long.

Page 7 says that when the rules conflict. There is no conflict in this instance. Both books refer to Lightning Claws. The codex has rules for how the LCs work under the 5th edition ruleset. The BRB has rules for how they work in the 6th edition ruleset. Now, unless someone wants to state that any codex except GKs and Necrons was made with the 6th edition in mind there is no rule conflict.
If this was a case of rule conflict then almost every weapon would still work under 5th Ed rules and the 6th Ed changes couldn't be implemented until an army got a new codex. Show me where it says that power weapons even have an AP rating rather than "ignores armour saves" in any Codex. I guess that power weapons still function in the same way and that they did in 5th and that the rules for them in the BRB are just there to take up space.
How about the use of a little common sense?

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Page 7 says that when the rules conflict. There is no conflict in this instance. Both books refer to Lightning Claws. The codex has rules for how the LCs work under the 5th edition ruleset. The BRB has rules for how they work in the 6th edition ruleset. Now, unless someone wants to state that any codex except GKs and Necrons was made with the 6th edition in mind there is no rule conflict.
If this was a case of rule conflict then almost every weapon would still work under 5th Ed rules and the 6th Ed changes couldn't be implemented until an army got a new codex. Show me where it says that power weapons even have an AP rating rather than "ignores armour saves" in any Codex. I guess that power weapons still function in the same way and that they did in 5th and that the rules for them in the BRB are just there to take up space.
How about the use of a little common sense?

...but there is a rules conflict...Are you saying that since tau have a book written for nearly two editions ago, that none of their codex rules apply? Regardless of it's age, it is still a GW publication and still counts as relevant rules for the respective army. They are the most recent publication, and therefore the current rules for that army, which when they conflict with the BRB, the codex wins.

Happyjew wrote:Probably. I don't know why there needs to be 5 different Space Marine armies (7 if you include CSM and GK).

It's so that they can carelessly forget to FAQ some of them and thereby provide us something to argue about. They just want us to have fun you know.

All the other rules for things such as Power Fists and Power Weapons are refered back to the BRB but LC's in the CSM codex seem to have their own rule as it does not refer the rule back to the BRB.

@ Solofalcon1138 - I plan to do so

@ Leo_the_rat - You then infer that as "SCvodimier" pointed out that all rules from older codices are now irrelevant?? Tau still has rules for target priority for pity's sake. GW releases updates and correction by FAQ to the older codices to bring them in line with the new edition; therefore, they did not update the rule for Lightning Claws and thus it is a conflict of 6th Edition Rules. Thus granting the codex priority!

Also...The new Chaos SM codex is going to be coming out very soon. So we'll see what happens then.

SCvodimier wrote:

Leo_the_Rat wrote:Page 7 says that when the rules conflict. There is no conflict in this instance. Both books refer to Lightning Claws. The codex has rules for how the LCs work under the 5th edition ruleset. The BRB has rules for how they work in the 6th edition ruleset. Now, unless someone wants to state that any codex except GKs and Necrons was made with the 6th edition in mind there is no rule conflict.
If this was a case of rule conflict then almost every weapon would still work under 5th Ed rules and the 6th Ed changes couldn't be implemented until an army got a new codex. Show me where it says that power weapons even have an AP rating rather than "ignores armour saves" in any Codex. I guess that power weapons still function in the same way and that they did in 5th and that the rules for them in the BRB are just there to take up space.
How about the use of a little common sense?

...but there is a rules conflict...Are you saying that since tau have a book written for nearly two editions ago, that none of their codex rules apply? Regardless of it's age, it is still a GW publication and still counts as relevant rules for the respective army. They are the most recent publication, and therefore the current rules for that army, which when they conflict with the BRB, the codex wins.

I don't know what to think so I am just playing devils advocate here to help me figure it out. But in the FAQ it says that some weapons are written out longhand instead of using the definitions provided by the rulebook. These are functionally the same unless specified in the faq. Since the faq is silent couldn't this mean that the longhand description in the codex could mean that they are treated as regular lightning claws as described in the new edition? Since the rules for the LC in 5th ed matches the rules for it in the codex shouldn't we consider that means we should always use the rulebook definition?

Well the FAQ does say, regarding special rules, "to save space and repetition, where a model has a special rule, only the name of the rule is given in this section. Refer to the special rules section of the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook."

Now, you can argue whether or not that applies to Lightning Claws, but since all manner of weapons are described in the new rulebook, I would defer to the brb over the codex in this case. And, like others have said, in another month or so, this will be a moot point.

Captain Antivas wrote:

I don't know what to think so I am just playing devils advocate here to help me figure it out. But in the FAQ it says that some weapons are written out longhand instead of using the definitions provided by the rulebook. These are functionally the same unless specified in the faq. Since the faq is silent couldn't this mean that the longhand description in the codex could mean that they are treated as regular lightning claws as described in the new edition? Since the rules for the LC in 5th ed matches the rules for it in the codex shouldn't we consider that means we should always use the rulebook definition?

but in order for it to be simply "longhand", they have to say the same thing. For example, I don't know if this exists in any codex anymore) "the eviscerator acts like a powerfist but rolls 2d6 for armor penetration."
The 6th edition rules have shortened this to "Str x2 AP 2 Armorbane, Unwieldy"

One thing can't be "long-hand" of the other if they don't say the same thing.

The argument that states chaos lightning claws are the same as barb claws just because they have the same name is flawed. As it has been pointed out repeatedly, the specific rules in the codex are used over the general rules in the brb. Take for example pathfinders. There are two types, tau and eldar. These two units have the same name but are not the same thing because their codex says they are different. This is the same for chaos lightning claws and general claws. Oversight? Most likely. But RAW is clear.

Sothas wrote:The argument that states chaos lightning claws are the same as barb claws just because they have the same name is flawed. As it has been pointed out repeatedly, the specific rules in the codex are used over the general rules in the brb. Take for example pathfinders. There are two types, tau and eldar. These two units have the same name but are not the same thing because their codex says they are different. This is the same for chaos lightning claws and general claws. Oversight? Most likely. But RAW is clear.

The difference being that Tau and Eldar Pathfinders are functionally different. C:CSM and C:SM LC are exactly the same. One wrote the rules out longhand, the other referred to the rulebook. But the 5th edition codex is the exact same description as the 5th edition rulebook. The flaw with your argument is that LC in C:CSM are the same as the rulebook, where as pathfinders are noted to be different.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

SCvodimier wrote:

Captain Antivas wrote:

I don't know what to think so I am just playing devils advocate here to help me figure it out. But in the FAQ it says that some weapons are written out longhand instead of using the definitions provided by the rulebook. These are functionally the same unless specified in the faq. Since the faq is silent couldn't this mean that the longhand description in the codex could mean that they are treated as regular lightning claws as described in the new edition? Since the rules for the LC in 5th ed matches the rules for it in the codex shouldn't we consider that means we should always use the rulebook definition?

but in order for it to be simply "longhand", they have to say the same thing. For example, I don't know if this exists in any codex anymore) "the eviscerator acts like a powerfist but rolls 2d6 for armor penetration."
The 6th edition rules have shortened this to "Str x2 AP 2 Armorbane, Unwieldy"

One thing can't be "long-hand" of the other if they don't say the same thing.

How is 2x str, AP2, unwieldy not the same as a powerfist? And how is adding 2d6 for armor penetration different from armorbane?

Captain Antivas wrote:

How is 2x str, AP2, unwieldy not the same as a powerfist? And how is adding 2d6 for armor penetration different from armorbane?

It is not. That is the point of my post. One of those entries was the "long-hand" version of what is in the BRB. That is what the FAQ is referring to. Still, we cannot have a "long-hand" of something that says different things.

Currently they never get AP3, just "ignore armour".

However i personally would never play it as this, because the chance that this is intended seems slim.

Abaddon has a special daemon weapon, which are defined as unique power weapons, so he's still AP3 sadly