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.

Gorechild allows Kharn to always hit on a 2+ in close combat. Invisibility makes you only hit on a 6. Which of these set-modifiers is applied?

You must make snap shots at an invisible target. BRB P.33 says that snap shots may be only modified by a rule specifically stating it modifies snap shots, so unless his rule says it specifically modifies snap shots your shooting at a snaps still.

I don't like invisbilty it is broken. Am I going take my GK Paladin star w/ Coteaz and a level 3 Librarian? Probably b/c I am a bad person.

 Mythra wrote:
You must make snap shots at an invisible target. BRB P.33 says that snap shots may be only modified by a rule specifically stating it modifies snap shots, so unless his rule says it specifically modifies snap shots your shooting at a snaps still.

I don't like invisbilty it is broken. Am I going take my GK Paladin star w/ Coteaz and a level 3 Librarian? Probably b/c I am a bad person.

Because snap shots means anything to HtH attacks?

Invisibility p 198. While in effect the enemy can can only fire SS and in close combat will only hit on a 6. Now you may be right about cc b/c which trumps invso special rule or Gorechild?

 Mythra wrote:
Invisibility p 198. While in effect the enemy can can only fire SS and in close combat will only hit on a 6. Now you may be right about cc b/c which trumps invso special rule or Gorechild?

Question is about Close Combat. Kharn has no bonus in the Shooting Phase. Rather, he always hits on a 2+ in Combat. So which takes precedence?

Advanced rules > Basic rules.

Kharn and Wolftooth necklaces trump invis

i want to say kharn hits on a 2+ because codex trumps rulebook, and because its kharne.

Good. I'm not crazy. My thoughts exactly.

My only hesitation is that... Invisibility is an 'advanced' rule of a sort as well.

It's more of a "Codex > Rulebook"

This is annoyingly debatable as the codex trumps when it directly contrivens a rule in the rule book but it is a common misxonception that codex > brb just happens in moat cases.

This particular debate has happened before (on phone so cant find link just go back a page or two for wolftooth) my personal is kharne should go first but follow 'the most important rule' or 'spirit of the game' rule and discuss with opponent of no resolution roll a D6 1-3 invis works 4-6 kharne mullers them

But we kind of need an faq on this

If multiple set modifiers are in effect they are applied last and the person whose turn it is which takes precedence. Karn's turn you get the 2+, psyker's turn you get the 6.

It is not a case of Codex versus rulebook as there is no rule clash. It is a case of order of operations.

I did look quickly for the order of how we apply postives, negatives set modifers etc but didnt see it. Has anyone else seen it, if so which page?.

MarkyMark wrote:
It is not a case of Codex versus rulebook as there is no rule clash. It is a case of order of operations.

I did look quickly for the order of how we apply postives, negatives set modifers etc but didnt see it. Has anyone else seen it, if so which page?.

They only ever talk about order of operations for different types of modifiers. Multiplication first, add/subtract next and then finally set modifiers.

There never has been (and still isn't) any information on what to do when you have conflicting set modifiers.

It should be FAQ'd, but until that time going with the codex overriding the rulebook is as good as anything, as these are actually two conflicting rules one of which is from the rulebook and the other is from a codex.

However, nobody should think that is *the* answer because it doesn't cover a situation where you'd have two set modifiers both coming from a codex...so ultimately it is a situation that should be covered by the rules, but isn't and therefore should be FAQ'd by GW (what to do when you have conflicting set modifiers).


My personal house rule is that when you have two conflicting set modifiers like this, they cancel each other out and you'd roll to hit like normal...to me I think that's what GW should put into their rules to clear this kind of thing up without having to FAQ each and every instance separately.

I'd play it as the two rules have opposite effects and thus cancel out.

I would say a roll off here is a better solution. ......

Kind of meets the spirit of the battle occuring between the two models?

Much more fun than just arguing over whose power is better.

I will play it as whoever has the turn has the advantage. Kharn hits on 2+ on his turn, 6+ on the opponent's turn.

 yakface wrote:

There never has been (and still isn't) any information on what to do when you have conflicting set modifiers.

I think the closest thing we have to a solution is the controlling player's choice rule. Since they are both set modifiers, they occur at the same time. When two things occur at the same time, the player whose turn it is decides what order they are resolved. Thus, Kharn's turn he hits on 2+. On the opponent's turn, he hits on 6s.
That makes a lot of sense, I think.

 Elric Greywolf wrote:

 yakface wrote:

There never has been (and still isn't) any information on what to do when you have conflicting set modifiers.

I think the closest thing we have to a solution is the controlling player's choice rule. Since they are both set modifiers, they occur at the same time. When two things occur at the same time, the player whose turn it is decides what order they are resolved. Thus, Kharn's turn he hits on 2+. On the opponent's turn, he hits on 6s.
That makes a lot of sense, I think.

I concur.

I don't understand why people are saying 'roll off' is the best option when there is a clear rule for this.

Page 13 of BRB, bottom right, last paragraph:

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 or army list entry ALWAYS takes preccedence

There is clearly a conflict here (else we wouldn't be discussing this). The BRB sais Codex rules take preccedence, hence Kharn hits on 2+.

but it also clearly says "You'll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resovled at the same time... when this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resovled first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order." (BRB Pg 17)

Thus both set modifiers are applied at the same time, and the one applied last takes precedence, and since the player gets to choose which... Karn gets priority on his turn, Invis gets priority on the other turn.

In my honest opinion, this isn't a modifier at all.

A modifier as written in the BRB:

Certain pieces of wargear or specialm rules can modify a model's characteristics positively or negatively

What characteristic would you say is being modified by Kharn's special rule? His WS? That is not what is written in the book.

Kharn's special rule is not a modifier. So the rule you refer to does not apply.

It's a to hit modifier just as invis is a to hit modifier

My buddy plays Chaos Marines and loves Kharne, so we have had this talk already. We saw the same rule conflict, and so my friend made a very fluffy point to which I agreed for sake of funsies: Kharne swings wildly in close combat, trying to kill just about anything he can get his hands on. By that, it would stand to reason that he wouldn't care if something was invisible or not, he'd be swinging for the fences regardless, so his rule trumps the Invisibility power.

There you have it, absolutely no page numbers or functional rules to back it up, but I think it's a pretty good answer! I said good day sir!

As far as order of operations goes I think you sort of have to assume that Invisibility is "going first" since it would effect models at every initiative step. Or you could describe it as an ongoing effect, whatever - ether way it's a persistent effect that applies to all opponents in HtH. Kharn's rule applies just to him and his attacks, which would seem to logically follow invisibility rather than being simultaneous with it.

Of course, Kharn's ability could be described as persistent but only applicable when he actually attacks, but I think that line of reasoning is a bit fatuous. I'm not sure this line of reasoning is actually helpful as far as the RAW is concerned mind you, but it does at least index a certain level of specific over general type reasoning that would lean in Kharn's favor.

well these two modifiers are not resolve at the same time. Kharn hits on 2's before the game even starts. Invis is cast, an can fail or be blocked. so its not simultanious.

this quote answers it perfectly. "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 or army list entry ALWAYS takes preccedence" there its done. Kharne always hits on 2's. Wolf tooth hits on 3's. Invis is good but isnt a win all spell.

simple. dismissing this rule "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 or army list entry ALWAYS takes preccedence" . is just wrong and pedantic.

chas

Lungpickle wrote:
well these two modifiers are not resolve at the same time. Kharn hits on 2's before the game even starts. Invis is cast, an can fail or be blocked. so its not simultanious.

this quote answers it perfectly. "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 or army list entry ALWAYS takes preccedence" there its done. Kharne always hits on 2's. Wolf tooth hits on 3's. Invis is good but isnt a win all spell.

simple. dismissing this rule "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 or army list entry ALWAYS takes preccedence" . is just wrong and pedantic.

chas

Resolved only counts when they are used, not when they are initiated.
When is shooting resolved? In the shooting sequence in the Shooting Phase, not when you purchase the gun.

When is to hit in close combat resolved? In the combat step in the Assault Phase.

You should run a poll, personally I'd vote for they cancel each other out or Kharn's turn 2+, libby's turn 6+

First off, both adding/subtracting from a d6 roll, or replacing the requirements of a d6 roll, are modifiers, as they both modify the rolling of the dice.

Secondly, this isn't a 'conflict', either. Conflict implies, by its definition, two sources giving conflicting descriptions or definitions of the same thing, which isn't what's happening in this case -- we have two completely separate, legitimate and accurate special rules who affect the same thing, so...

This is a matter of priority -- which modifier is applied over the other. In other words, Sequencing, which is described, as chanceafs said above, on Page 17: "...you'll occasionally find two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time... When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is resolves the order."

So it's pretty clear. During Kharn's (player's) assault phase, Gorechild's rule takes precedence; during the Invisible model's player's turn, Invisibility takes precedence.

I mean... technically the Karn player could choose to apply them the opposite way and roll sixes on his turn... or vice versa. But that would be a rather silly choice to make ;-)

chanceafs wrote:
I mean... technically the Karn player could choose to apply them the opposite way and roll sixes on his turn... or vice versa. But that would be a rather silly choice to make ;-)

Unless you wanted to stay in combat...