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 in a recent infamous thread, lots of "specific overrides general" arguments were thrown about. In the cases of FAQ vs BRB, or Codex vs BRB, or FAQ vs Codex, or Apoc vs BRB...all the former options in that list are more specific than the latter options. And it's quite obvious that Codex overrides BRB.

However, how do you reliably tell when one part of the BRB is more or less specific than other parts of the BRB. Again, it's obvious when USRs are in play. Eternal Warrior overrides ID; but it also has a special caveat that states this, so there can be no question. But in other cases....?

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
So in a recent infamous thread, lots of "specific overrides general" arguments were thrown about. In the cases of FAQ vs BRB, or Codex vs BRB, or FAQ vs Codex, or Apoc vs BRB...all the former options in that list are more specific than the latter options. And it's quite obvious that Codex overrides BRB.

However, how do you reliably tell when one part of the BRB is more or less specific than other parts of the BRB. Again, it's obvious when USRs are in play. Eternal Warrior overrides ID; but it also has a special caveat that states this, so there can be no question. But in other cases....?

If codex always overrides rulebook, then I get to take a power armour save against a power sword, as only the rulebook tells me i lose it.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
So in a recent infamous thread, lots of "specific overrides general" arguments were thrown about. In the cases of FAQ vs BRB, or Codex vs BRB, or FAQ vs Codex, or Apoc vs BRB...all the former options in that list are more specific than the latter options. And it's quite obvious that Codex overrides BRB.

However, how do you reliably tell when one part of the BRB is more or less specific than other parts of the BRB. Again, it's obvious when USRs are in play. Eternal Warrior overrides ID; but it also has a special caveat that states this, so there can be no question. But in other cases....?

The Terrain Type in a Fortification datasheet (such as the ADL) is specific to that model and that model alone. That terrain type is listed in the sheet because those are the specific rules that you need to use. ANYTHING else is general.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

If codex always overrides rulebook, then I get to take a power armour save against a power sword, as only the rulebook tells me i lose it.

Hmmmm.....my codex says that power swords are power weapons as defined in the BRB. I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say. If all power weapons are power weapons (and you look to the BRB to see what a power weapon is, which is AP3), and all power armour is 3+ (as defined in the codices), then how does your argument work?

Also, I see you questioning my assumptions (which is always good), but I don't see any help for my question....

I read it as a specific thing has rules more complex than a general thing and the rules for that specific thing apply over the rules for the general thing. That goes for all of its rules not just part of its rules.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
However, how do you reliably tell when one part of the BRB is more or less specific than other parts of the BRB. Again, it's obvious when USRs are in play. Eternal Warrior overrides ID; but it also has a special caveat that states this, so there can be no question. But in other cases....?

By reading it.

That's all it takes. Unless you can actually name what these mysterious 'other cases' are, you seem to be asking how do you deal with something that doesn't exist.

I get the impression that you have a specific example in mind, Elric, and are avoiding mentioning it so that you don't prejudice our opinions. I can definitely understand that, since on many rules calls people already think they know how it works, and don't want to listen to any argument on how they might be mistaken.

So, in the spirit of the thing, I would have to say that you have to take cases from within the same text (or one codex versus another) on a case by case basis. Game rules are more general than army rules, which are more specific than unit rules, which are more specific than rules unique to a single model, piece of wargear, or unit type. This ladder is just off the top of my head, of course, so I might very well have overlooked something.

Most of the time it's common sense that tells you what the more specific rule is.

Let's take an example that doesn't exist:
Rule 1 - All models have a 5+ armour save.
Rule 2 - Models in Power Armour have a 3+ armour save.

I have a Space Marine with Power Armour, what rule do you think that applies?
In this case the general rule would be number 1.
Rule number 2 is more specific than the other, so it wins and my Space Marine has a 3+

The main thing you should be watching out for is the wording.
If something can apply to a large amount of units, models or fortifications, than it's probably a general rule.
But when it starts to mention more specific names like Space Marines, Defence Lines or Vehicles, it is probably the specific rule.

 Jimsolo wrote:
I get the impression that you have a specific example in mind, Elric, and are avoiding mentioning it so that you don't prejudice our opinions.

No, he is avoiding to mention it because the thread about it got locked and he doesn't want that discussion in here

 Jimsolo wrote:
I get the impression that you have a specific example in mind, Elric, and are avoiding mentioning it so that you don't prejudice our opinions.

Kangodo wrote:
No, he is avoiding to mention it because the thread about it got locked and he doesn't want that discussion in here

Han's brother is right, a specific example sparked this question. And I don't really mind talking about specific examples, like defence lines and fortifications.

Grendel's arguments, in that other thread, convinced me that Fortifications and fortifications are different things in the BRB. So that comparison won't work, I think.

As another point: the BRB doesn't actually say "General < Specific." It says (p7), "Basic < Advanced." This wording helps me understand the difference, I think.

I think it should be newest trumps older.

Any new rules should always trump old rules.

New rules can be new general rules.

Well, in a confliction new rules should trump old rules, such as charging out of reserves and stuff which some units due to the codex can still do.
Which I don't know if it was intended or not but the newer rules should always take place first instead of the old one.

And hence why FAQ trump codex is due to it being newer too, and you can't use old FAQs for new codexes.

I don't agree that is why FAQ trumps codex, FAQ trumps codex as it's an answer to questions about rules. It is a direct answer from the design team to a question about an issue.

Well you can't use old FAQ's for new codices as they don't refer to those codices.

It depends on the rule if it should replace an old one or not. New general rules don't override old specific rules. For example look at Heroic Intervention, it still works in 6th ed.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
The Terrain Type in a Fortification datasheet (such as the ADL) is specific to that model and that model alone. That terrain type is listed in the sheet because those are the specific rules that you need to use. ANYTHING else is general.

This isn't true at all. I have 12 pieces of terrain that are terrain type: Defense Lines. There is only 1 Aegis Defense Line, and it is a fortification. It follows all the same rules as normal defense lines for movement, shooting, and interaction, but has it's own rules for placing it on the board, paying for it, and granting a 3+ cover save. That makes the fortification rules more specific than the terrain type rules, because fortifications are a more specific type of terrain than generic terrain.

Elric Greywolf wrote:And I don't really mind talking about specific examples, like defence lines and fortifications.

Grendel's arguments, in that other thread, convinced me that Fortifications and fortifications are different things in the BRB. So that comparison won't work, I think.
.

I'd encourage you to go and read the rules yourself, Elric. Grendal was posting arguments that had no basis in the rules. There is no such thing as a "Terrain Type: Fortification", which was the basis of his entire argument, based on this line:
BRB pg. 114, Terrain Type. This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification. This can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building.

How he read that to mean that there is a "terrain type: fortification" is completely beyond me. To me, that line says all fortifications are also terrain, and thus, have a terrain type.

EDIT: Formatting.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
[Grendal was posting arguments that had no basis in the rules.

Rubbish.
I gave you rules quotes at every turn. You chose to ignore them and bury your head in the sand.

But that is a different thread not to be repeated here. People can read it at their leisure and come to their own conclusion.

Please try to remain on topic.

The issue with the ADL isn't so much a 'specific vs general' thing so much as a 'the rules for fortifications are an absolute fething mess' thing.

There is no 'type: fortification' but the rules are written as if there should be. When you get a better cover save for being partially behind a bastion than you do for being on the battlements, something is awry.

It reads to me as if they tried to shoehorn the rules for their own scenery into the book at the last minute, and really didn't think them through very well. There are just too many holes, with the weapon on the ADL, movement onto the skyshield, battlements on bastions, damage to different levels... It's all just a big mess.

In general, the interaction between specific and general rules is much easier to follow... but fortifications... go there at your own peril.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
[Grendal was posting arguments that had no basis in the rules.

Rubbish.
1. I gave you rules quotes at every turn. You chose to ignore them and bury your head in the sand.

2. Please try to remain on topic.

1. I specifically quoted the rule that you were using for the basis of your argument that there is a terrain type: fortification. What you quoted, as I listed above, doesn't even remotely infer that, much less say it.

2. Responding to the OP, who is the one who specifically brought it up, is not straying off topic. His question is in direct relation to the discussion in that other thread.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
The Terrain Type in a Fortification datasheet (such as the ADL) is specific to that model and that model alone. That terrain type is listed in the sheet because those are the specific rules that you need to use. ANYTHING else is general.

This isn't true at all. I have 12 pieces of terrain that are terrain type: Defense Lines. There is only 1 Aegis Defense Line, and it is a fortification. It follows all the same rules as normal defense lines for movement, shooting, and interaction, but has it's own rules for placing it on the board, paying for it, and granting a 3+ cover save. That makes the fortification rules more specific than the terrain type rules, because fortifications are a more specific type of terrain than generic terrain.

Elric Greywolf wrote:And I don't really mind talking about specific examples, like defence lines and fortifications.

Grendel's arguments, in that other thread, convinced me that Fortifications and fortifications are different things in the BRB. So that comparison won't work, I think.
.

I'd encourage you to go and read the rules yourself, Elric. Grendal was posting arguments that had no basis in the rules. There is no such thing as a "Terrain Type: Fortification", which was the basis of his entire argument, based on this line:
BRB pg. 114, Terrain Type. This tells you what part of the terrain rules you'll need to refer to when using your fortification. This can be anything from a line of barricades to a large building.

How he read that to mean that there is a "terrain type: fortification" is completely beyond me. To me, that line says all fortifications are also terrain, and thus, have a terrain type

EDIT: Formatting.

Get out of this thread. he rules for the ADL are specified in its data sheet. Those rules, and those rules alone, apply to that model.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't agree that is why FAQ trumps codex, FAQ trumps codex as it's an answer to questions about rules. It is a direct answer from the design team to a question about an issue.

Well you can't use old FAQ's for new codices as they don't refer to those codices.

It depends on the rule if it should replace an old one or not. New general rules don't override old specific rules. For example look at Heroic Intervention, it still works in 6th ed.

Again, it's 'general vs specific.' An FAQ is going to be addressing something more specifically than whatever entry it's correcting.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
The Terrain Type in a Fortification datasheet (such as the ADL) is specific to that model and that model alone. That terrain type is listed in the sheet because those are the specific rules that you need to use. ANYTHING else is general.

I didn't say this. McNinja said it. And now other people's quotes also have me saying it.

Please, Betray, watch your editing. Don't quote me on something I didn't say.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

I'd encourage you to go and read the rules yourself, Elric. Grendal was posting arguments that had no basis in the rules.

After reading the rules myself, and reading Grendel's argument, I was convinced by his side. It was similar to something I myself had mentioned earlier in the thread.
I take umbrage at your condescension toward me, and your rude assumption regarding my reading comprehension.

Please recall that the OP (which, coincidentally, is myself) specified that this should not be an argument about the cover save of an ADL. Start your own thread if you want to talk about it again.

 Bookwrack wrote:

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I don't agree that is why FAQ trumps codex, FAQ trumps codex as it's an answer to questions about rules. It is a direct answer from the design team to a question about an issue.

Well you can't use old FAQ's for new codices as they don't refer to those codices.

It depends on the rule if it should replace an old one or not. New general rules don't override old specific rules. For example look at Heroic Intervention, it still works in 6th ed.

Again, it's 'general vs specific.' An FAQ is going to be addressing something more specifically than whatever entry it's correcting.

That precludes the idea that an faq can make an answer to a question that pertains to a general question or rule.

 McNinja wrote:

Get out of this thread. he rules for the ADL are specified in its data sheet. Those rules, and those rules alone, apply to that model.

First, you can't tell me what threads I can and cannot post replies in, so chill out.

Second, that rule isn't in it's data sheet. In it's data sheet, it is a fortification with the terrain type: defense line. The rules have to be found elsewhere for both the terrain type, and the fact that it is a fortification. And in neither of those places does it define those rules as "Advanced" for the purposes of comparing basic to advanced rules.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

Please, Betray, watch your editing. Don't quote me on something I didn't say.

I apologize for the misquote. Was a multiquote and I must have deleted a line I needed to keep. Again, sorry. Editing mistakes happen.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:


1. I take umbrage at your condescension toward me, and your rude assumption regarding my reading comprehension.

2. Please recall that the OP (which, coincidentally, is myself) specified that this should not be an argument about the cover save of an ADL. Start your own thread if you want to talk about it again.

1. I didn't mention your reading comprehension at all, and just encouraged you to take a look at what I quoted, and the surrounding text that says NOTHING about the existence of a "Terrain Type: Fortification".

2. You're the one who cited that specific instance as case in point to this issue, and said you didn't mind talking about it. You can't pick and choose WHO you want talking about the subject that you yourself brought up. If you could, I would have barred Scipio and Grendel from continuing to post in mine.

And finally, to clarify the original post you made, the rule is this: Advanced rules override basic rules. Codex overrides BRB. FAQ overrides Codex.

The problem isn't with the Codex>BRB, or FAQ>Codex. The problem that crops up over and over again is Advanced>Basic, because aside from the USRs, no rules outlined in the BRB are specifically defined as advanced.

My interpretation of this is, USRs are the only rules considered advanced, and everything else in the BRB is considered basic rules. Since we play with a permissive ruleset, and the ruleset only says you can define the USRs as special rules, saying anything from any other section of the rulebook is advanced(without it specifically saying so), isn't supported by the rules at all.

EDITS: Formatting issues and grammar.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

My interpretation of this is, USRs are the only rules considered advanced, and everything else in the BRB is considered basic rules. Since we play with a permissive ruleset, and the ruleset only says you can define the USRs as special rules, saying anything from any other section of the rulebook is advanced(without it specifically saying so), isn't supported by the rules at all.

This seems pretty good...maybe as good as we can get.

Lol, USR's are not the only advanced rules they are just a collection of special rules that crop up in various places, a more specific rule is one that works for a narrower set of circumstances.

Vehicles have general rules, they cannot be locked in combat nor can they assault.

Walkers can be locked in combat and they can assault because their rules over-ride the general restrictions.

That is the essence of specific>general.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Lol, USR's are not the only advanced rules, what is more specific is a more specific rule.

Vehicles have general rules, they cannot be locked in combat nor can they assault.

Walkers can be locked in combat and they can assault because their rules over-ride the general restrictions.

That is the essence of specific>general.

Only that the rulebook doesn't say SPECIFIC overrides GENERAL. That is a misquote. It says that ADVANCED rules override BASIC rules.

And, after looking more closely at the wording, there obviously are intended to be advanced rules outside of the USR list, such as the skimmer rules, walker rules, etc.

The problem is, the book doesn't define which rules are basic and which ones are advanced.

In the case of Fortifications, for instance, there is a section explaining the rules that fortifications follow, and there is a section explaining the rules that terrain follows. One can't say that the terrain section is "Advanced" any more than the fortification section, or vice versa, really. The book doesn't define it as a special rule in either case. And that is ultimately the problem.

I'm sorry, I used the wrong terms. Does the meaning change?

Have you tried common sense?
There is an inherent order to the rules when you read them. The basic are the simple examples and rules the Avanced are the less general more narrow rules. Those that build on others are more advanced.

As was said before the terrain area of the rules is badly written but for the rest of it you can follow the order of importance fairly clearly.

Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced.

 Gravmyr wrote:
Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced.

Oh, nice catch. So yeah, I guess based on that, both the rules for fortification, and the rules for terrain say they're advanced. And since there isn't an advanced rule vs advanced rule clarification, I guess that means we would need it to be FAQed.

So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.