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.

Jidmah wrote:So far, I'd say each of the rule is as specific as the other, but: WTN is a piece of wargear found only in the current space wolf codex, only for certain units, and is even optional on many of those, while genades are found in every single army of WH40k. That's why WTN is more specific than the genade rule.

I disagree. Take it down to the model level. Which of these two things is a sub-set of the other?

All attacks made by a model with a WTN?
Attacks made by that model using a grenade?

Mannahnin wrote:This is no different from the rules for saves telling you that you get an armor save before you die, and the power weapon rules saying they deny armor saves. Those two rules conflict, but power weapons are more specific, so they take precedence. "Wounds inflicted by power weapons" is a smaller, more specific sub-set of the larger category "wounds inflicted". Just as "attacks made with a grenade by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace" is a smaller, more specific sub-set of the larger category "attacks made by a model equipped with a wolf tooth necklace."

Even if you maintain that there is ambiguity about which is legitimately more specific than the other, then the sportsmanlike course of action is to err on the side of the less-powerful interpretation.

As someone coined the phrase many years ago, "When in doubt, aspire to the solution which seems less likely to be a loophole."

I would chirp in that it does say to score a hit on a 6+ , which would activate the WTN because he is rolling to hit but just with a grenade, different weapon that replaces amount of attacks.

Grey elder wrote:I would chirp in that it does say to score a hit on a 6+ , which would activate the WTN because he is rolling to hit but just with a grenade, different weapon that replaces amount of attacks.

Mark of the Wolven replaces the amount of attacks too... that doesn't mean WTN is different. It's just a grey area that people have to decide what the RAI. Different people will interperet things differently... but as Mannahnin said...

Mannahnin wrote:Even if you maintain that there is ambiguity about which is legitimately more specific than the other, then the sportsmanlike course of action is to err on the side of the less-powerful interpretation.

Mannahin is obviously into the anti PETA movement, tis a shame seeing all these wolves dieing because they are too strong and thus not allowed to strike back with a melta bomb or krak grenade tis a shame(joking). But otherwise me and my freinds play it wiith hitting on the 3+ because it does make sense for us, we just beleive he pitches like a Yankee and headshots the crap out of the Ironclad with the melta bomb just for the fireworks.

Grey elder wrote:Mannahin is obviously into the anti PETA movement, tis a shame seeing all these wolves dieing because they are too strong and thus not allowed to strike back with a melta bomb or krak grenade tis a shame(joking). But otherwise me and my freinds play it wiith hitting on the 3+ because it does make sense for us, we just beleive he pitches like a Yankee and headshots the crap out of the Ironclad with the melta bomb just for the fireworks.

I agree with you completely about it working on 3+... but each group of people that are playing see things different... just depends i suppose

Mannahnin wrote:
I disagree. Take it down to the model level. Which of these two things is a sub-set of the other?

All attacks made by a model with a WTN?
Attacks made by that model using a grenade?

All attacks include attacks made by grenades, otherwise it would not even work for regular attacks, as the rule of normal attacks would still be more specific by your definition.

The common rule is:
"Models hit on a <see table> when attacking with their CCW, or may use a grenade to hit on 6+"
The specific rule is:
"Models with a WTN hit on a 3+ when attacking with their CCW, or may use a grenade to hit on a 3+"

I'm not going into the "how unclear/stupid rulesshould be played" as I basically agree with you on this point. I'm just not a fan of dumping rules who are mostly clear for a random "least favorable" rule, as this is unfair to anyone being "victim" of it. The better way is to ask your opponent, TO, or any respected WH40k guru around or simply dice off.

I disagree with your intepretation entirely.

I'm glad that we agree about unclear rules.

I actually built WTN and MB into my Stabby Lord for my 2500 list. This discussion is making me reconsider those points. I'll probably end up putting them somewhere else.