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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Permissive ruleset: I have permission to use the cover rules desginated in the rulebook until a specific rule states they are either ignored or replaced.

Again, that's not how it works. To quote the "How to have an Intelligent Rules Debate" article stickied in this forum:

"The rules don't say I can't!"
This is the most annoying argument ever made. If you've been forced to resort to it, your argument is immediately false. The rules don't say I can't place my models back on the board after you've killed them and use them next turn, but that doesn't mean I can do it. The rules system is permissive: this means you may only do things you are expressly allowed to do or that the rules imply you can do. You are not allowed to do anything else.

We are also told that when there is a conflict between two versions of the same rule, the codex takes precedent.

The situation, then, is this:

1) The rules for Cover in the Tau codex are different than the rules for cover in the BRB.

2) The rules for Cover in the Tau codex outline two specific situations where a target can count the effects of Cover.

If there is a way to debate either of these points, I haven't seen it.

For #1, codex wins out because of Specific > General. Period.

For #2, codex also wins out because the rules are permissive. By definition, any situations related to cover not outlined in the SMS entry are implicitly denied. Without this stricture in place, RAW falls apart.

Finally, there is no precedent for mixing or applying two different versions of a rule at the same time. It's absolutly fine to do so when coming up with house rules, but doing so would be the antithesis of RAW.

Cover saves are part of the Shooting Phase. This means that When the SMS partakes in the Shooting Phase it ignores LoS.

There is the AFB which says that it ignores Cover - even for Area Terrain. Now SMS is different in that you can have cover in the ways that are specified in the Codex. This replaces the cover rule. Not may have cover in these ways. Can have cover in these ways. Can is exclusive since this is a permissive rule set. Can only adds repetition into the mix. Adding an extra word does not change the meaning behind the words.

If a target is partially hidden from the firer’s view by
other models, it receives a 4+ cover save in the same
way as if it was behind terrain.

This means that You must use the firer's view to determine the cover for intervening models.

... passing around any blocking terrain. The smart missile system can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer.

The target can count the benefits of cover in the two ways stated. There is no other way to count cover. This is what you CAN do. This weapon gives specific ways to gain cover. This means that this overrides the rule book definition of cover saves.

Catpeeler...and it still doesnt mean what you think it means.

I CAN use the cover save granted by the rulebook UNTIL that is EXPLICITLY DENIED by something else. ABFP EXPLICITLY denies cover, SMS does not.

You have to show me that I cannot. The BRB states I can, SMS does not deny this option. Since you clearly cannot read my posts with any modicum of sense: I can use cover from BRB unless it is explicitly denied. Find out where this is explicitly denied, and come back here.

Please note: so far you have only come up with "implicitly denied" - this is not exactly good now is it?

In addition HOW THE MODEL FIRES bears no relation to HOW you determine cover. You do realise that, without the specific "cover worked out from blast centre" notes for Barrage, the fact they dont require LOS to fire means jack all as far as cover is concerned? Same situation here: not needing LOS to fire the weapn at a target does not, in any way shape or form, override how cover is determined. I'd suggest you read the rules and compare what is written in both, as you don't seem to get the difference between requirements for picking a valid target and how you determien if you get cover.

Gwar! wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Personally I agree with the INAT FAQ.

Generally I use the INAT FAQ, even when I disagree with it.

I use the INAT FAQ, even when I don't really agree with it, because that is what we have decided to use pre game.

The key benefit of an FAQ is that it solves the arguments and lets you get on with the game.

I agree with that - even when the FAQ goes agaisnt the written rules, if everyone agrees to use the FAQ you've TMIR'd everything in advance

nosferatu1001 wrote:I CAN use the cover save granted by the rulebook UNTIL that is EXPLICITLY DENIED by something else. ...You have to show me that I cannot....Please note: so far you have only come up with "implicitly denied" - this is not exactly good now is it?

The concept of permissive rules disagrees with you 100% (both as I've explained several times, and as they're laid out in the guidelines for this forum). If you still can't grasp how permissive rules work, there really isn't any point in continuing that part of the discussion.

Same situation here: not needing LOS to fire the weapn at a target does not, in any way shape or form, override how cover is determined. I'd suggest you read the rules and compare what is written in both, as you don't seem to get the difference between requirements for picking a valid target and how you determien if you get cover.

I'm not completely sure about what you're trying to say here...I'm guessing (?) that most of this is directed at rogueeyes. Are you trying to argue that the SMS entry doesn't tell you how to determine if you get cover? Given that the entry explicitly states "here are two ways you can get cover," that seems sort of silly.

Given that the permissive ruleset discussion seems a dead end, can you refute the specific vs general argument? If not, it appears we're done here.

Now, the SMS states that you can claim cover you are in. As for models out of LOS, arent they considered "in cover"?

1: SMS ignores LOS
2: LOS is used to determine cover

Conclusion: cover based off of LOS is also Ignored


Additional: except for the exceptions given in the SMS entry

Iago wrote:Now, the SMS states that you can claim cover you are in. As for models out of LOS, arent they considered "in cover"?

We must be careful with that comparison. "Cover you are in" is not the same as "in cover." In the first case, 'cover' refers to a physical terrain piece. In the second, it's not just cover--but "in cover"--which is an abstract status (like pinned, falling back, etc.).

CatPeeler - erm, no.

Permissive rules: I can do something if I am told I can do it. I can keep on doing it until EXPLICITLY DENIED or REPLACED

THAT is how permissive rules work. So, I repeat: I CAN use BRB cover rules until you *explicitly remove or replace them* - so far you have smoething you think is *implicit*

I was mainly talking to rogueeyes before with the LOS / cover requirements:

Essentially shooting requires LOS, and cover is determined in a similar way. SMS do NOT require LOS in order to fire, however that does NOT override using LOS in order to determine cover. They are 2 entirely seperate sections.

Saying "they dont use LOS so you ignore LOS everywhere" is not supportable in the rules. It's a nice try, but nothing in the rules lets you do it - ergo, permissive ruleset and all, you cannot ignore LOS for determinig cover only.

This is why I was using Barrage weapons as an example: without the "you determine cover frmo the centre of the blast" REPLACEMENT RULE you would *still* determine cover using the LOS from the firing model to the target - even thought th eweapon itself does nto need it to fire.

Not sure how else to explain it reallly: Permissive ruleset means I can keep diong something I am told I can do, until a rule replaces or removes that permission. Nothing about the SMS rule removes that permission - because it was written for 4th ed when you would have had no way of determining cover in 4th without those rules, meaning no cover saves ever.

Lacross wrote:1: SMS ignores LOS

False.
Utterly false.
This is the quote, people: "the Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not"
The weapon does NOT "ignore LOS" any more than it ignores cover. It does not require LOS for target selection.

The next part actually goes on to mention ways to claim cover. Debate whether those are the only ways if you like.

Personally, I think that one is perfectly entitled to engage models in without LOS, or with restricted LOS. In fact, there are many rules for how to do so, both in shooting and in assault.

kirsanth wrote:

Lacross wrote:1: SMS ignores LOS

Personally, I think that one is perfectly entitled to engage models in without LOS, or with restricted LOS.

Restricted LOS = units partially in cover..."Cover Saves"
No LOS = cannot be shot at unless special rules deem otherwise.

simple. Why did you try to make that point so complex?

One way of looking at this is the way in which GW presents their rules. Each rule or subset of the rules is usually prefaced by a BOLD CAPS LOCK like that.

So if you look at the rules for cover on P21 there is a subset of the cover rules which is What counts as cover? and lists various options. Now the SMS rules states what counts as cover.

So does this override the paragraph which lays out what counts as cover? I think it does.

Does it fulfil the requirement of specific overriding the general? Again I think it does.

But then everyone is going to argue their interpretation of it as it benefits them (including myself)

Cheers

Andrew

nosferatu1001 wrote:Permissive rules: I can do something if I am told I can do it. I can keep on doing it until EXPLICITLY DENIED or REPLACED

That first sentence is bang on; the second sentence is all you.

Why you keep insisting on tacking it on despite it not being found anywhere else that I've ever seen (certainly not in the article guidelines for this forum, in any case), I won't even try to guess.

So, I repeat: I CAN use BRB cover rules until you *explicitly remove or replace them* - so far you have smoething you think is *implicit*

Implicit by definition, not by any sense of vague interpretation. When I say, "this shape is a square," there is an implicit statement that it is not also a triangle. The 'not a triangle' element of the statement isn't some ad-hoc conclusion or RAI issue, it is derived directly from the original statement. It is not necessary for us to also say "this shape is not a triangle" because that statement is implicit.

Again, you are unwilling to budge on this... so--please--let's just agree to abandon that part of our dispute as irreconcilable and move on to something more productive.

...


This leaves us with the issue of Specific > General. Per the BRB, when two different versions of a rule exist in the codex and rulebook, the codex takes precedence.

The SMS entry instructs us to determine cover by proximity to a terrain piece. The BRB instructs us to determine cover through several different methods.

Are these two ways of determining cover different?

Yes.

That the SMS doesn't require LOS to fire is entirely moot. The only thing that matters is that the way the codex instructs us to determine cover is not identical to the way the BRB instructs us to determine cover.

If they are not identical, they are different.

If they are different, we have explicitly told that the Codex takes precedence.

CatPeeler wrote:That the SMS doesn't require LOS to fire is entirely moot.

So we need to get together and debate it?
I think not.

Catpeeler - will post when more awake, however to the first point: it is called a corollary. It follows directly on from the permissive ruleset idea in that, once you have permission to do something, you must be always able to do that (assuming you meet other criteria) unless you are told you cannot do it, or what you must do has been changed (i.e. replaced). If you suddenly can't do it, without being told you can't, then it is not a permissive ruleset. It is a very, very basic idea.

To argue otherwise is illogical. If I CAN do something due to rule X you must tell me via rule Y I cannot do what rule X allows OR that I must do something different to what rule X allows. If this suddenly changes you are not runnign a permissive rules system.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Catpeeler - will post when more awake, however to the first point: it is called a corollary. It follows directly on from the permissive ruleset idea in that, once you have permission to do something, you must be always able to do that (assuming you meet other criteria) unless you are told you cannot do it, or what you must do has been changed (i.e. replaced). If you suddenly can't do it, without being told you can't, then it is not a permissive ruleset. It is a very, very basic idea.

To argue otherwise is illogical. If I CAN do something due to rule X you must tell me via rule Y I cannot do what rule X allows OR that I must do something different to what rule X allows. If this suddenly changes you are not runnign a permissive rules system.

Okay, I see what you're saying. It had seemed that you were including the corollary as part of the rule itself, while in reality you were treating it exactly the same (or nearly so) as I was treating the implicit statements made by the rule. In both cases, the corollary and implicit statements derive directly from the rule, but aren't laid out verbatim in the rule itself. In essence, it appears that we were arguing the same point. If my own frustration was any indication, this must have been driving you batty.

That said, I am convinced that the concept of Specific > General functions as your "rule Y" in this case. By stating that the codex version takes precedence over the BRB version, my argument is that GW *has* effectively told us that the normal rule has been changed. Can you agree on this point?

I guess I just don't see the SMS statement as specific enough to override the 5th ed book - not that I really expect them to be, as its a 4th ed book from when cover was determined pretty damn differently.

nosferatu1001 wrote:I guess I just don't see the SMS statement as specific enough to override the 5th ed book - not that I really expect them to be, as its a 4th ed book from when cover was determined pretty damn differently.

Where do you draw that line, though? What's "specific enough?"... and how does that differ from the "if it's different, use the codex version" rule?

Except the codex doesnt redefine the rule for determining cover saves - it just talks about counting "the cover you are in" which has no meaning in 5th edition! Cover is entirely worked out using the LOS of the firing model to the target: nothing else. At best it is a meaningless statement....

Normally something like the template rule is where you draew the line: it explicitly states it ignores cover. No arguments. As I've said this is a problem with the 4th ed codex not translating correctly into 5th, where you no longer talk about "being behind cover" or "having cover between you" but talk about obsuring LOS.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except the codex doesnt redefine the rule for determining cover saves - it just talks about counting "the cover you are in" which has no meaning in 5th edition! Cover is entirely worked out using the LOS of the firing model to the target: nothing else. At best it is a meaningless statement....

Not entirely--what about area terrain? TLOS often doesn't enter in at all in that case (you may see a model in its entirety, but since it is placed in a piece of ruins/woods/etc, it still gets a cover save). I don't have my BRB in front of me, but IIRC, the section on area terrain includes a diagram where it shows a model 'in' the terrain piece, and even describes it as such (something like, "space marine B is in the woods, so receives a cover save").

Area terrain is actually the one commonality between the codex and BRB methodology.

As I've said this is a problem with the 4th ed codex not translating correctly into 5th, where you no longer talk about "being behind cover" or "having cover between you" but talk about obsuring LOS.

That's exactly my point! Cover in the codex is terrain-defined, while cover in the BRB is (mostly) LOS-defined.

Again, while these two versions of the cover rules share some things in common, they remain different methods. As you pointed out earlier, there was no 'normal' way for a target in 4th edition to gain a cover save from the SMS--so the codex defined two ways for an SMS target to do so. What we have, then, is a case where the BRB gives some broad methods for determining cover, and the codex defines two different specific methods for determining cover.

The smoke launcher is an excellent comparison. The BRB says smoke launchers give a 4+ cover save, while the 4th ed codices all say that penetrating hits are reduced to glancing. By your argument, vehicles with smoke launchers should get BOTH a 4+ save AND a -2 on the damage table, because the smoke launcher entry doesn't explicitly say, "this is the only benefit which may be gained."

And you know what? If we werent explicitly told by the BRB that the codex version takes precedence, vehicles with smoke launchers WOULD get to take both benefits.

You make a valid point on the case of smoke launchers. As a black templar player I do have the "old" rules for them. But I use them as defined in the codex... and thats it.

I see your point.

The smoke launcher comparison is different. It is a case of the same thing (a smoke launcher) having two different rules.

The SMS rule is not a rule that defines cover.

It states:

"The Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."

This rule isn't defining cover, it is defining how the SMS interacts with a target that is in cover or touching cover. It doesn't tell us how the SMS interacts with a target that gets a cover save from some other means.


The rule states the target can count the benefit of cover in some particular cases.

You would have to already know what cover is from some other rule to use this rule. So it can't be defining what cover is.


If it isn't defining cover then it doesn't replace the rules for cover from the 5th ed. rule book. What is does do is tell what happens in some particular cases.

Manimal wrote:The smoke launcher comparison is different. It is a case of the same thing (a smoke launcher) having two different rules.

The SMS rule is not a rule that defines cover.

It states:

"The Smart Missile System can engage any target in range regardless of whether there is a line of sight to it or not. The target can count the benefits of cover they are in, or are touching if it lies between them and the firer."

This rule isn't defining cover, it is defining how the SMS interacts with a target that is in cover or touching cover. It doesn't tell us how the SMS interacts with a target that gets a cover save from some other means.


The rule states the target can count the benefit of cover in some particular cases.

You would have to already know what cover is from some other rule to use this rule. So it can't be defining what cover is.


If it isn't defining cover then it doesn't replace the rules for cover from the 5th ed. rule book. What is does do is tell what happens in some particular cases.

Your right, cover is defined as per the BRB and the 'benefits' thereof, ie a varying save of 3 to 6+ to avoid damage.

However, the SMS lists two conditions in which the target unit can count that benefit. It doesn't replace the rules as such but adds conditions. The assumtion is that if it's not listed then you cant count the benefits. You're still in cover, you just don't get the save!

Andrew

RAW can probably be argued either way leaning more towards the SMS doesn't deny any cover argument. How ever i think it can safely be assumed that RAI is that you only get cover when directly touching it or in it. Otherwise anytime your firing at something that you don't have a LOS they imediatly get a cover save since what ever is blocking your LOS will give the cover save. If your standing behind a building and the unit your firing at is standing in the open he gets a cover save from your building since he's more than half covered by it (he's fully covered by it).

I believe the RAI is that he's only covered if he's touching or in the cover as the SMS are smart enough to dodge cover that is not close (if it can dodge the hill or building i think it can dodge a tree that is 100 feet away).

AndrewC wrote: The assumtion is that if it's not listed then you cant count the benefits. You're still in cover, you just don't get the save!

Andrew

This I think is the crux of the issue.

My interpretation of the scratch marks on the page is that something special happens in two particular cases, in other cases follow the normal rules.

The other interpretation seems to be that this rule doesn't tell you what happens in two particular cases, but in all cases.

My question of the second interpretation is what part of the rule implies that it applies in all cases?

Manimal, to use your picture if I may,

Muppets may play musical instruments. Manimal can play the drums.

So does that mean that Manimal, as a muppet can play all the instruments, or is he restricted to only the drums?

And, as you've pointed out, thats the problem with the SMS weapon description/rules.

Andrew

I like this analogy. But to change it slightly:

Muppets can play the piano, the bagpipe, the flute, and the guitar.

Manimal can play the drums with his left hand and the piano with his feet.

Can Manimal, as a muppet, play the bagpipe or only the drums and piano?

Manimal wrote:I like this analogy. But to change it slightly:

Muppets can play the piano, the bagpipe, the flute, and the guitar.

Manimal can play the drums with his left hand and the piano with his feet.

Can Manimal, as a muppet, play the bagpipe or only the drums and piano?

TBH I don't think you've changed it at all.

You have the general statement, Muppets play X,Y,Z and then a specific statement subset of muppet play W,X. The normal assumtion is that the general does not apply to the specific because it is listed seperately.

So in this case, Manimal can only play the drums and piano because the how they play is not relevant. Because the question does not involve the method. The question is what instruments are relevant to Manimal?

Andrew

PS though I would love to see/hear Manimal play the drums, piano and the bagpipes (Because I'm Scottish) at the same time!

AndrewC wrote:[ The normal assumtion is that the general does not apply to the specific because it is listed seperately.

I disagree that this is the normal assumption.

When a general statement like muppets play x,y,z is followed by a statement about a particular muppet playing w and x it is not implied that the particular muppet doesn't also play y and z.

In fact, I added the extra information (the drums, the feet, and left hand) because it is similar to what the SMS rule does. It adds extra information that is not included in the general statment.