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.

Good morning everyone, I am going to keep this short so we can focus on the problem more then my creative use of the English language.

Page 7 of the basic rule book is designed to guide us through situations where different rules might be in conflict with each other, and appears to be the only location to my knowledge. It outlines that there are three levels of rules, listed as Basic, Advanced and Codex from Lowest to Highest priority. This leaves two situations in which we have permission to discard a rule outright, an advanced rule trumping a basic rule and a codex rule trumping either basic or advanced rule from the basic rule book. If I have over looked something in another section of the book, please let me know as this logical puzzle is causing me problems and I would like a nice way to resolve it.

So the logic puzzle that is causing me problems is simple:
How do we resolve the order of priority on two advanced rules, should they both come from the same codex or from the basic rule book, using nothing but rules as written?

We use our minds because other than page 7 there is nothing but the FAQs and what people agree to.

That is what I am fearing, and why I am hoping that someone can point me to an area I have overlooked.

There's also the "controlling player decides order of rules," which I think does a decent job of resolving some glaring conflicts (like challenges and whip coils, for example).

Treating it as a timing issue, resolved by page 9?

That may actually work, I don't know how valid it is but it could be a foot in the door. I'll give it a lot more thought while I am off-line, as I feel the more I think on it the more likely I will agree with this outcome. I can already see situations where it would cause issues, but having a RAW argument that causes some slight problems is better then having no rules to follow at all.

There are some other generally agreed upon rules for resloving conflicts.

Specific overrides general. If an advanced rule says units can't preform action X and another advanced rule says a specific unit can preform action X, the rule specific to that unit would take precedence.

-and-

Can't overrides can. If an advanced rule says units can't preform action X and another advanced rule says units can preform action X, the first rule takes precedence.

Essentially the order comes like this: specific over rides general, then advanced over rides basic. Finally codex over rides BrB.

The first one causes a lot of confusion because people misunderstand it (I made a joke about it on another thread). So for instance s Black Mace is a weapon with AP4 given to a DP with smash what is its AP? Using specific versus general the appears is 2. This is because smash specifically mentions it over rules weapon profiles. Just like sweeping advance over rules reanimation protocols because it specifically states it overrules all special rules. The only way to beat it would be with a rule that mentions sweeping advance.

Specific versus general is not about which rule applies to fewer models. The often mistake is that rule 1 applies to set A and rule 2 applies to set B. So people claim rule 1 is more specific becausr AB is smaller than B, where of course the reverse argunent of Rule 2 is more specific because AB is smaller than A is equally valid (as in not valid).

Problem is I am trying to find a solution backed by raw and the rules for determining "specific vs general" can be found on what page?

JinxDragon wrote:
Problem is I am trying to find a solution backed by raw and the rules for determining "specific vs general" can be found on what page?

It's not a rule - it's a concept inherent in a permissive rules system.

Problem with using page 9 as a possible rule based solution, treating it as a timing issue, is the fact you don't always move/attack on your turn. This argument allows the player whoms turn it is to decide the order of events. There would be nothing prevent one of 'those **** guys' from forcing you to apply the rules in an order that gives you the lowest chance of a positive result.

You may not opt to (or be able to) move or attack every turn, but that doesn't mean those phases don't exist.

The generic vs specific is also something that is open to the interpretation of the players, which is problematic.

Take combat familiar for example:

I can very easily argue that this is a specific rule telling you how to resolve it separate from your normal attacks. Others are arguing that it is a general rule giving you two additional attacks that are modified by anything that modifies your normal attacks. I won't go into detail, that thread is still very much alive, but it does highlight that different people have different interpretations on what is a specific rule and what is a general rule.

Without rules to dictate how we determine this, how do we know if this rule is specific or general?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Think you might have misunderstood:

Someone put forth treating it as a timing issue, which would allow the player whom turn it is to decide the order which the rules are applied. This is not much of a problem the vast majority of the time, as it would allow that player to apply the order of operations in such a way to get the, if you ask me, intended outcome. Those other times though, one would be at the mercy of their opponent. They can decide the order of operations on some of your attacks, being that these attacks are occurring on their turn, and force the order of operations to come out differently then you might wish.

It was an interesting rule based solution, but it has it's own downsides.

Possibly by determining which rule is more specific so Most specific>lesser specific. There are no rules that cover this. It's a big blind gap in them. You're looking or something that does not exist and for the most part GW seemingly doesn't care.

I'm just going to have to accept that. Thanks for the help people, I wish we had a better answer then 'golden rule it' but if that is the only answer we have, it is the only answer we have. At least we can use our brains when it comes to each situation, and maybe even have some interesting little debates over the bits and pieces as well. Hell, maybe we should be thankful as sites like this one wouldn't exist if Games Workshop had written their rules even a little bit better.

Thankfully we don't play this game by a strict rules as written interpretation....

JinxDragon wrote:
Problem is I am trying to find a solution backed by raw and the rules for determining "specific vs general" can be found on what page?

The specific versus general is just a logic thing. The confusion comes from people miss using it. For instance say you have two rules:

1) all apples are oranges
2) Under condition A this banana is an apple, however it is not an orange.

There is clearly a conflict here with the banana able to be an apple at which point one rule is requiring it to be an orange the other requiring it not to be. However rule 2 takes precedent because it is more specific, it tells you in that particular circumstance rule 1 does not apply. This is what is meant by specific over rules general when one rule specifies it is an exception to another rule.

This is where the argument about the chaos familiar comes in. Those claiming it is more specific are either entirely miss understanding this or are placing lots of emphasis on the word all. Smash says "all close combat attacks" this they believe specifically covers any sort of attack a model can make (as they are included in the set of all attacks).