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.

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

No it does not, Codexes always over rule BRB. That is the option right there on the poll.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

No it does not, Codexes always over rule BRB.

Ummm, Gwar's point is that IF the codex always overrules the main rulebook, then any model that has a save listed in it's entry would get that save against a power weapon, because the codex rule of a save would overrule the main rulebook power weapon no save. In other words, you just agreed that they would get a save against power weapons.......................

don_mondo wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:It is FAQed, with an example being the Weird boy, that you cant go past 10 with the mob rule.

But by your logic, the BRB overules this.

So what about saves against power Weapons? Can you answer that one please?

No it does not, Codexes always over rule BRB.

Ummm, Gwar's point is that IF the codex always overrules the main rulebook, then any model that has a save listed in it's entry would get that save against a power weapon, because the codex rule of a save would overrule the main rulebook power weapon no save. In other words, you just agreed that they would get a save against power weapons.......................

Care to point me to specific example?. I dont recall any Codex stating that regular saves can be made against power weapons.

xxvaderxx wrote:Care to point me to specific example?. I dont recall any Codex stating that regular saves can be made against power weapons.

Every single profile where it lists the armour save?

Your argument says codex > rulebook.

Codex says I have a 4+ armour save.

Moon Logic: Codex > Rulebook, so I get to use it always!
Real Logic: The Specific Rules for Power Weapons overrule those of the codex.

? huh, what? Where's the line in any codex saying the value in a profile represents an armour save that can be taken against anything, let alone the rules for taking this save?

Quotes please ^_^

ChrisCP wrote:? huh, what? Where's the line in any codex saying the value in a profile represents an armour save that can be taken against anything, let alone the rules for taking this save?

Quotes please ^_^

BRB (Main Rulebook) on page 20 says you get an armor save.

Codex:Space Marines (as an example) on page 102 says models equipped with Power Armor receive and armor save of 3+.

BRB page 42 says models wounded by an attack of a model with a power weapon are not allowed cover saves.

This is a classic example of specific overriding general, ie. you get a 3+ armor save except the specific power weapon attack does not allow armor saves.

If you argue that codex always overrules rulebook, then I get the armor save because there is nothing in the power armor entry in the Codex:Space Marines that says a power weapon does not allow that armor save.

Got it?

Reductio ad absurdum - There's also nothing suggesting how to take this save if one uses that interpretation - so you'd be welcome to take that 'armour save' - which one's trying to claim isn't an armour save, once you can point to instructions on how to take it.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Care to point me to specific example?. I dont recall any Codex stating that regular saves can be made against power weapons.

Every single profile where it lists the armour save?

Your argument says codex > rulebook.

Codex says I have a 4+ armour save.

Moon Logic: Codex > Rulebook, so I get to use it always!
Real Logic: The Specific Rules for Power Weapons overrule those of the codex.

Excuse me? Codexes give you troops with armor saves. Armor saves are defined on the BRB. Codexes give you power weapons. Power weapons are defined on the BRB. If Codex > BRB there is no contradiction, there is no entry on any codex that redefines how armor saves and power weapons work, all your are given is units/models that have X armor save.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

time wizard wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:? huh, what? Where's the line in any codex saying the value in a profile represents an armour save that can be taken against anything, let alone the rules for taking this save?

Quotes please ^_^

BRB (Main Rulebook) on page 20 says you get an armor save.

Codex:Space Marines (as an example) on page 102 says models equipped with Power Armor receive and armor save of 3+.

BRB page 42 says models wounded by an attack of a model with a power weapon are not allowed cover saves.

This is a classic example of specific overriding general, ie. you get a 3+ armor save except the specific power weapon attack does not allow armor saves.

If you argue that codex always overrules rulebook, then I get the armor save because there is nothing in the power armor entry in the Codex:Space Marines that says a power weapon does not allow that armor save.

Got it?

Huh? how in gods name did you reach to this?. Power armor gives you armor save 3+, nothing more, nothing less. There is no word about the mechanics for armor saves, they work as described in the BRB. Nowhere in the Spaces marines codex you can find a line that says "This is how armor saves work".
On the BRB You can only find how armor saves work. On Codexes you can only find which things have what armor saves. There is no contradiction or redefinition there if Codex > BRB.

It's exceedingly simple.

BRB says power weapons negate armor saves.

Codex says I may take an armor save.

If the codex always overruled the BRB, we'd enter close combat, you'd hit me with a power weapon, and because even though the BRB says power weapons do not allow armor saves, my codex says I get an armor save, so I get one.

Gwar! is absolutely correct.

SaintHazard wrote:It's exceedingly simple.

BRB says power weapons negate armor saves.

Codex says I may take an armor save.

If the codex always overruled the BRB, we'd enter close combat, you'd hit me with a power weapon, and because even though the BRB says power weapons do not allow armor saves, my codex says I get an armor save, so I get one.

Gwar! is absolutely correct.

Codexes always say "gives X+ armor save", it never redefines the rule "Armor Saves". Its like defining "3 milliliter Bullet" and "Bullet". Bullet is a kind of ammunition, a 3mm bullet is a kind of bullet, not a rocket. By your logic if you said you had a German Sheppard, then you would not have a dog.


Example, Space wolves Power armor entry on their armory (Page 61)
Models equipped with power armor receive an "Armor Save" of 3+.

It does not redefine the rule "Armor Save", it simply gives you the value to use with that rule.


A redefinition of the rule would be:
"Armor Saves: Models wounded by power weapons can ignore that wound on the roll of a 5+."
That would be a redefinition of the rules for armor saves, making them only usable against power weapons. Giving you the value to use with the BRB rule, is not redefining it, it is simply doing "F(X)", being F the rule defined in the BRB.

and "A convoluted argument from a new poster with less than 30 posts that questions the accepted wisdom for the game. This can't possibly be trolling, right?" That's really all I want to add, but I'm stumped by a programming puzzle so I'll bite anyway.

If you would like a concrete example of a main rulebook rule which trumps a codex rule, there's a very simple one: Sweeping Advance vs. the Necron We'll Be Back! rule.

If you think codex rules automatically trump contradictory main rulebook rules, it's easy to find rules to dissuade you of that position. The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so. If you're going to say, "But all of those rules in the main rulebook about not shooting during your opponent's turn, and the obvious stuff about having to be in the game to fire still applies!" then you're saying that the codex rules don't automatically take precedence.

If you'd like to equivocate down to "Codex rules that are clearly more specific than main rulebook rules trump main rulebook rules", again see Sweeping Advance vs. WBB! for the main rulebook rule that takes precedence.

solkan wrote:
Sweeping Advance vs. the Necron We'll Be Back! rule.

I am not a Necron player, but i am assuming this is either defined on their codexe or FAQed, thus has no conflict with Codex > BRB. Yes i did not mention it, but FAQs i meant to include them with the Codexes.

solkan wrote:
The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so.

This is a good argument. I would say that the entire entry is meant to be read that you can only fire 1 of the weapons and not all of them, i could argue that as the codex is not redefining the firing rules it is simply stating that you can shot on all shotting faces you are allowed to shot, and that if it would work on your opponents turn, it would expressively say so, as it does on other wargear that works on your opponents turn. But what you are saying is correct, now is this the lone example or is there a pattern?.

xxvaderxx wrote:I am not a Necron player, but i am assuming this is either defined on their codexe or FAQed, thus has no conflict with Codex > BRB.

When you Assume you make an Ass out of U and Me.

WBB doesn't mention SA at all.

Seriously, we have shown you about 7 different examples of why you are simply WRONG, what more do you need???!?!?!?!??!?!?!

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:I am not a Necron player, but i am assuming this is either defined on their codexe or FAQed, thus has no conflict with Codex > BRB.

When you Assume you make an Ass out of U and Me.

WBB doesn't mention SA at all.

Seriously, we have shown you about 7 different examples of why you are simply WRONG, what more do you need???!?!?!?!??!?!?!

No you havent dude, chill down, you have shown 1 example, the obliterators, which is arguable but if we do strictly RAW then yes it does indeed conflict with Codex > BRB. And may be 2 with the Necrons, i am not a necron player so i cant tell, ill try to look it up.

xxvaderxx wrote:No you havent dude, chill down, you have shown 1 example, the obliterators. And may be 2 with the Necrons, i am not a necron player so i cant tell, ill try to look it up.

And the Armour Saves
And the orks leadership (protip: FAQ are not RaW, they are house rules).
And the Grenades vs Walkers vs Wolftooth Necklace.
And Khârn.
And Smoke Launchers.
And Nemesis Force Weapons.

That's 7.

Even so, shouldn't one example be enough? Surely now that you have been shown an example (that for some reason is "valid" to you when the others are just as valid) that you are wrong, why do you persist?

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:No you havent dude, chill down, you have shown 1 example, the obliterators. And may be 2 with the Necrons, i am not a necron player so i cant tell, ill try to look it up.

And the Armour Saves
And the orks leadership (protip: FAQ are not RaW, they are house rules).
And the Grenades vs Walkers vs Wolftooth Necklace.
And Khârn.
And Smoke Launchers.
And Nemesis Force Weapons.

That's 7.

Even so, shouldn't one example be enough? Surely now that you have been shown an example (that for some reason is "valid" to you when the others are just as valid) that you are wrong, why do you persist?

First, GWs FAQs are not House Rules, they are corrections and amendments to their own rules. They are Official.

Second, you dont know what you are arguing the wrong thing. You are stating that this is incorrect because using different logic we arrive at different conclusions, which is not the issue here, this could very well be correct (arriving at different outcomes) and it has 0 baring on the poll or question.

Assuming Codex/FAQ > BRB:
+The Armour Saves: Already explained it, the entries on the Codexes do not redefine the rule, they give you the number you need to be able to use the BRB rule. Perfectly compatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB.
+The orks leadership: This was FAQed, no problem here.
+Grenades vs Walkers vs Wolftooth Necklace: There is no conflict there, they hit on 3+.
+Smoke Launchers: BRB page 62: "It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of the smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex Take precedence". Basically Codex/FAQ > BRB.

Dont get the kharn problem, may be some chaos player could illustrate. Dont se the problem with force weapons either, care to be more specific?.

xxvaderxx wrote:

solkan wrote:
The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so.

This is a good argument. I would say that the entire entry is meant to be read that you can only fire 1 of the weapons and not all of them, i could argue that as the codex is not redefining the firing rules it is simply stating that you can shot on all shotting faces you are allowed to shot, and that if it would work on your opponents turn, it would expressively say so, as it does on other wargear that works on your opponents turn. But what you are saying is correct, now is this the lone example or is there a pattern?.

The Obliterator special rule isn't wargear, and you're equivocating and saying, in effect, that a special rule which clearly gives the unit permission to fire doesn't apply, and thus coming up with reasons why the main rulebook takes precedent. And that's not at all "Codex trumps rulebook". If that was the only example, you wouldn't be getting written off as a rules troll. A similar statement occurs in the previous edition of the Tyranid codex, and given enough time you could find other, similar examples in other codices.

Here's a quote of the 4th edition Sweeping Advance rules: "The destroyed unit(s) are removed immediately. No Invulnerable Save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back Special rule) can save the unit at this stage; ..." It's a rulebook rule stating that a codex special rule does not take precedence.

GW's style of writing rules has remained, unfortunately, entirely consistent over the past twenty odd years, and it has consistently been that the most specific rule (where ever it happens to be) takes precedent, and that if you get two equally specific rules then they'll occasionally be considerate enough to specify how to choose between the two rules.

First, GWs FAQs are not House Rules, they are corrections and amendments to their own rules. They are Official.

Actually, if you read the bit before you get to the FAQ's it literally does say that the FAQ's are "Studio House Rules".

Errata are official. They are the actual changes to the rules, while the FAQ's aren't.

xxvaderxx wrote:+The orks leadership: This was FAQed, no problem here.

Not actually true. ORK LD was not covered by the FAQ. One specific named ork was covered by that question. The codex, however, says that the REST of the orks can have LD much higher.

Or do you also assert that my Tyranid FAQ allowing DoM to have 3+ invuln save should apply to my gants?

solkan wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

solkan wrote:
The Chaos Space Marine codex says that Obliterators "may fire one weapon ... in each shooting phase..." (pg 35). If the codex trumps the main rulebook without qualification, then Obliterators sitting around near the game table can fire during each player's turn because the codex says so.

This is a good argument. I would say that the entire entry is meant to be read that you can only fire 1 of the weapons and not all of them, i could argue that as the codex is not redefining the firing rules it is simply stating that you can shot on all shotting faces you are allowed to shot, and that if it would work on your opponents turn, it would expressively say so, as it does on other wargear that works on your opponents turn. But what you are saying is correct, now is this the lone example or is there a pattern?.

The Obliterator special rule isn't wargear, and you're equivocating and saying, in effect, that a special rule which clearly gives the unit permission to fire doesn't apply, and thus coming up with reasons why the main rulebook takes precedent. And that's not at all "Codex trumps rulebook". If that was the only example, you wouldn't be getting written off as a rules troll. A similar statement occurs in the previous edition of the Tyranid codex, and given enough time you could find other, similar examples in other codices.

Here's a quote of the 4th edition Sweeping Advance rules: "The destroyed unit(s) are removed immediately. No Invulnerable Save or other special rule (such as the Necrons' We'll Be Back Special rule) can save the unit at this stage; ..." It's a rulebook rule stating that a codex special rule does not take precedence.

GW's style of writing rules has remained, unfortunately, entirely consistent over the past twenty odd years, and it has consistently been that the most specific rule (where ever it happens to be) takes precedent, and that if you get two equally specific rules then they'll occasionally be considerate enough to specify how to choose between the two rules.

WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

xxvaderxx wrote:WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

Yes, they are incompatible.

That is kind of the point.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

Yes, they are incompatible.

That is kind of the point.

How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

No man, you did not get the OP. The rules have to be compatible with Codex > BRB. Not Codex > BRB with Spec > Gen. Those are 2 different relations.

Thats is the whole point of this thread, GW not stating which logic to use, and what is written being compatible with both of them, makes either of them valid.

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

No man, you did not get the OP. The rules have to be compatible with Codex > BRB. Not Codex > BRB with Spec > Gen. Those are 2 different relations.

There is no such thing as Codex > Rulebook.

It is (and always has been) Specific > General.

xxvaderxx wrote:
WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

So despite that fact that the BRB specifically states that SA negates WBB, you are arguing that you still get the WBB roll because the codex says you can?
Thats an interesting take right there...

Edit: Excessively long quote

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:How exactly are they incompatible? i just wrote there what would happen using Codex/FAQ > BRB?. Arriving to the same conclusion or not, is not an issue here.

Yes, it is. If the result is different, they are incompatible by definition.

One is incorrect and one is correct.

Your one is incorrect, for the multiple reasons given.

No man, you did not get the OP. The rules have to be compatible with Codex > BRB. Not Codex > BRB with Spec > Gen. Those are 2 different relations.

There is no such thing as Codex > Rulebook.

It is (and always has been) Specific > General.

Thats the point, it is always been says who?, i have this same thread on a different forum with the exact opposite result. Even 1 in 5 people on this forum disagrees with you. So far, at the very least it depends on who and where you ask.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:
WBB rule is not a problem with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Again, the interpretation could be different than with Specific > General, but that does not make it incompatible with Codex/FAQ > BRB. Under Codex/FAQ > BRB, they would be allowed to make a WBB roll if destroyed by a sweeping advance (They were neither destroyed by an armor negating attack nor by an instant death hit). Different yes, incompatible no.

So despite that fact that the BRB specifically states that SA negates WBB, you are arguing that you still get the WBB roll because the codex says you can?
Thats an interesting take right there...

Edit: Excessively long quote

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

xxvaderxx wrote:Thats the point, it is always been says who?, i have this same thread on a different forum with the exact opposite result. Even 1 in 5 people on this forum disagrees with you. So far, at the very least it depends on who and where you ask.

It has always been says the English language. The game simply cannot work any other way.

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it.

Compare the two versions. I even did it once here on Dakka, but since the search is a bit crappy, I can't find it.

They are word for word identical. The only difference is the removal of WBB as an example.

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

Thats sort of beside the point, unless you are now claiming that codex always trumps rulebook is only applicable in 5th...

Edit: Another possible example (I'd have to see the wording on living metal to be sure) Dark Eldar Dark Lances/Blasters shooting at Necron Living Metal (Monolith).

Which rule takes precedence?