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.

Vs a non-walker vehicle, wtn does nothing.

Oh that's right! No ws! My bad lol

nosferatu1001 wrote:How can something that applies to every model in CC be more specific than something that only applies to certain models with a specific set of wargear? It cannot be more specific

You won't get a clear answer on that.

Every single model attacking a walker with a grenade, needs a 6+.

Only a model equipped with a WTN can attack a walker with grenade on a 3+.

Seems outlandishly specific to me. The argument against is outlandish in its own right because they are saying that attacking with a grenade is more specific then just attacking with a weapon. However, WTN covers this by saying all attacks in close combat with the additional specific model selection of any model with a WS characteristic.

What the other side needs to do is, despite claiming that a grenade attack is more specific, how does that exclude it from the "all" encompassing definition as well as the WS characteristic check? It is a laughable challenge because despite saying that a grenade attack against a walker is a sub-set of attacks in general and thus more specific, the WTN does not care. Its wording encompasses all attacks, general, sub-set, sub-sub-set, sub-sub-sub-sub-sub-set, etc, etc....as long as the target has a WS characteristic.

We are not talking about 'Every single model attacking a walker with a grenade' we are talking about A model with a WTN.

As always when two rules conflict, like the WTN and the grenades, we have to find the more specific rule.

Here we have a situation of a model with a WTN.

So looking at what is more specific:

A model with a WTN attacking a walker in CC

Or

A model with a WTN attacking a walker, using a grenade, in CC

Seeing as A model with a WTN is always 'attacking a walker in CC', unless you choose to 'use a grenade'

The grenade rules ONLY kick in when you use a grenade, not simply when you 'attack a walker in CC'

so regardless of WTN or not, the grenade rules specify one thing in a very specific situation, so you have to use the most specific rules.

Firstly I really do not care if a 3+ is required or a 6+ is required as I dont play SW, and there are no regular SW players where I play (odd I know, but meh)

A model with the WTN is attacking a Walker in close combat with a grenade - Situation

Now the rules are......
A model attacking a Walker in close combat using a grenade requires a 6 to hit - This cannot be disputed as the rule is in the BRB
The WTN states that against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+. - This cannot be disputed as per the Jan 2010 Space Wolf FAQ

So as I see it we would follow the rules thusly.....

1.) Are we in close combat - Yes
2.) Does the target have a weapon skill value - Yes
3.) Do I have to roll to hit - Yes
4.) Is using a grenade in close combat a close combat attack - Yes

Therefore even with the specific over general/codex over BRB stuff, the model equiped with a WTN hits the walker on a 3+ even when using a grenade.
The reasoning for this is that using a grenade in close combat must be considered a close combat attack (as it is defined by requiring a roll to hit), and as such would require a 3+ to hit as the WTN rule states always hits in close combat on a 3+.

sometimes I wonder why people bother with these kind of threads... all it is is circles inside of circles, no one actualy changes their minds, and no one wins untill a FAQ comes out that says that one side was right.... and that only happends once a purple moon these days....

arch1angel wrote:sometimes I wonder why people bother with these kind of threads... all it is is circles inside of circles, no one actualy changes their minds, and no one wins untill a FAQ comes out that says that one side was right.... and that only happends once a purple moon these days....

Don't worry Arch because even when a FAQ is issued, the losing side merely says that GW ruled it wrong or then uses the disclaimer that FAQ are only house rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DeathReaper wrote:We are not talking about 'Every single model attacking a walker with a grenade' we are talking about A model with a WTN.

As always when two rules conflict, like the WTN and the grenades, we have to find the more specific rule.

Here we have a situation of a model with a WTN.

So looking at what is more specific:

A model with a WTN attacking a walker in CC

Or

A model with a WTN attacking a walker, using a grenade, in CC

Seeing as A model with a WTN is always 'attacking a walker in CC', unless you choose to 'use a grenade'

The grenade rules ONLY kick in when you use a grenade, not simply when you 'attack a walker in CC'

so regardless of WTN or not, the grenade rules specify one thing in a very specific situation, so you have to use the most specific rules.

The huge fault in your breakdown is that you somehow discredit using a grenade against a walker in close combat as not being covered by the all encompassing "any" close combat attack by the WTN. As I said, the WTN does not care if the attack is a sub-set of a sub-set of an attack. If it is a close combat attack and if the model has a WS characteristic, the attack is successful on a 3+. Those conditions are all met.

If a model with a WT necklace is attacking a walker with a grenade, he falls into a bunch of different categories. In order to figure out which rule is more specific, and thus which takes precedence, we have to break down those categories into sub-categories,and see what the most specific situation is which has a rule specifically covering it.

A model with WTN attacking a walker with a grenade falls into the following categories;

A. Model engaged in close-combat. (General rules covering this situation)
------I. Model engaged in close-combat with a walker (special rules covering this situation)
--------------i. Model engaged in close-combat with a walker using a grenade (special rule covering this situation)

-----II. Model with a WTN engaged in close-combat (Special rule covering this situation)
--------------i. Model with a WTN engaged in close-combat with a walker (NO special rule covering this situation.)
-----------------------a. Model with a WTN using a grenade in close-combat with a walker (NO special rule covering this situation.)

When I say there is no special rule covering a circumstance, I mean that there is no rule which SPECIFICALLY says, for example, "When a model with a WTN attacks a walker in close-combat, resolve the combat in thus and such a manner." Figuring out what you have to do in that highly specific situation requires moving back up the decision tree and using the rules which cover more general situations, meaning the rules for a model with a WTN engaging in close-combat.

Situations A.I.i and A.II.i.a are at different levels of specificity; A.I.i only requires two specific circumstances to occur (fighting a walker and using a grenade) whereas A.II.i.a requires three (Fighting a walker, using a grenade, having a WTN). If A.II.i.a had a special rule covering it, that rule would take precedence.

BUT IT DOESN'T.

The WTN rule is EARLIER on the decision tree; at the level of 'engaged in close-combat'. There IS no rule covering this specific situation, we have to use LESS specific rules. Which means we have to move to the next level up on the decision tree, and see if there are any rules covering the slightly-less specific versions of the situation.

What about A.II.i ? Uh. . . nope. Still haven't gotten back to the WTN rule yet. So instead we check A.I.i; and, yep, there's a rule there. That is the most specific rule applicable, because it is the rule which requires the most specific set of circumstances to come into play. Therefore, it's the one which takes precedence. Models equipped with a WTN and using a grenade in close-combat with a walker only hit on a 6+.

arch1angel wrote:but the war gear says, with the FAQ, if you have a comparing WS, you always hit on a 3.
had this disscussion in length with the local TO, and he ruled as it stands with every rule and FAQ in front of him, hit on a 3+
several of us took part in this talk.

Yeah, but here's the thing--you're not comparing WS's. The grenade vs walkers rule is a special effect that's outside of that.

Sir_Prometheus wrote:

arch1angel wrote:but the war gear says, with the FAQ, if you have a comparing WS, you always hit on a 3.
had this disscussion in length with the local TO, and he ruled as it stands with every rule and FAQ in front of him, hit on a 3+
several of us took part in this talk.

Yeah, but here's the thing--you're not comparing WS's. The grenade vs walkers rule is a special effect that's outside of that.

It isn't a comparison of WS, it is a characteristic check to see if a WS exists. That is not comparing. Prior to the FAQ, you could say it was still a comparison. Post-FAQ you are not able.

And Berzerker, as pointed out, WTN does not care about sub-sets of types of attacks, only attacks in close combat.

Is using a grenade against a walker a close combat attack?

Brother Ramses wrote:
And Berzerker, as pointed out, WTN does not care about sub-sets of types of attacks, only attacks in close combat.

You do realize you are using the argument that the WTN is more general to justify using the WTN in a more specific solution.

Keep in mind that specific rules override general rules.

If you accept both of these premises, I do not see how you can make the claim of hit on 3+ in these terms...

Brother Ramses wrote:Is using a grenade against a walker a close combat attack?

I'm failing to see how "all" is more specific than "grenade".

Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack? It is a simple question so just answer it.

That is the only condition set by the WTN. There is no qualifier for sub-sets of close combat attacks or that it is only certain close combat attacks as some have proposed. If it is a close combat attack, the WTN works.

The proof lies in not pointing out that attacking a walker with a grenade is a specific type of close combat attack but that it isn't a close combat attack at all. You can't do that and thus cannot show that the WTN does not work when attacking a walker with a grenade.

Brother Ramses wrote: Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack? It is a simple question so just answer it.

That is the only condition set by the WTN. There is no qualifier for sub-sets of close combat attacks or that it is only certain close combat attacks as some have proposed. If it is a close combat attack, the WTN works.

And that's why the grenade rule takes precedence.

A rule that applies to every weapon is less specific than a rule that applies to a specific weapon.

insaniak wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote: Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack? It is a simple question so just answer it.

That is the only condition set by the WTN. There is no qualifier for sub-sets of close combat attacks or that it is only certain close combat attacks as some have proposed. If it is a close combat attack, the WTN works.

And that's why the grenade rule takes precedence.

A rule that applies to every weapon is less specific than a rule that applies to a specific weapon.

At no time are you told that the WTN applies to a set or sub-set of close combat attacks made with or only made with certain weapons. It tells you any close combat attacks. That encompasses attacks made in close combat. A grenade attack against a walker is made in close combat. That is the qualifier and it is met.

You can argue that a grenade is a specific weapon over all general weapons except the argument is faulted because the WTN does is not bound by a weapon type qualifier, but only by being a close combat attack.

The question posed by the WTN is not,

"Is this close combat attack being done by a general weapon or a specific weapon?"

It is,

"Is this a close combat attack being done against a model with a WS value?"

You're correct - WTN doesn't specify.

The problem is that the rules state that a specific rule overrides a general one.

Generally, WTN hits on a 3+ in CC.
Specifically, grenades have a rule mandating a 6+.
Grenades are more specific (all attacks vs Grenade attacks) hence override.

Brother Ramses wrote:At no time are you told that the WTN applies to a set or sub-set of close combat attacks made with or only made with certain weapons. It tells you any close combat attacks. That encompasses attacks made in close combat.

Yes it does. That makes it a rule that applies to all close combat attacks.

A grenade attack against a walker is made in close combat.

A grenade attack against a walker is an attack in close combat that has specific rule that apply specifically to that attack. That makes it more specific than a rule that applies to all close combat attacks.

You can argue that a grenade is a specific weapon over all general weapons except the argument is faulted because the WTN does is not bound by a weapon type qualifier, but only by being a close combat attack.

That's the part you're missing though. It's exactly the lack of qualifiers that makes the WTN a less specific rule, and therefore over-ridden by the grenade rule.

For the WTN to over-ride the more specific grenade rule, it would have to actually specify that it includes attacks made with grenades. Otherwise, we're left with one rule that applies to all attacks, and one that applies to an attack with a specific weapon... and so the specific weapon wins.

Then you are proposing that a close combat attack made with a grenade is not a close combat attack.

And again, the question posed by the WTN is not if the attack is a general or specific close combat attack, ONLY if it is a close combat attack.

Frankly you are being disingenuous with your arguments by continuing to set the standard that it is the specific type of attack that is the measure by which the WTN qualifies and not that it is that it is a close combat attack that qualifies, an umbrella that covers any close combat attack, be it with a weapon, a fish, or a grenade.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I notice that my question remains unanswered,

"Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack?"

Brother Ramses wrote:Then you are proposing that a close combat attack made with a grenade is not a close combat attack.

No I'm not. I'm saying that it's a specific type of attack that follows its own rules.

And again, the question posed by the WTN is not if the attack is a general or specific close combat attack, ONLY if it is a close combat attack.

Ok, now take that logic and have a look at the normal rules for assaulting a vehicle. Not how they also don't ask whether the attack is a normal one or an attack by a specific weapon, just as you are claiming for the WTN.

SO... when do the grenade rules actually apply?

Frankly you are being disingenuous with your arguments by continuing to set the standard that it is the specific type of attack that is the measure by which the WTN qualifies and not that it is that it is a close combat attack that qualifies, an umbrella that covers any close combat attack, be it with a weapon, a fish, or a grenade.

That's not being disingenious... it's the basic principle of the ruleset that allows any special rule that alters the core rules of the game to function.

It is the specific type of attack that determines which rules you use, because that specific type of attack has its own rules that are different from the norm.

Brother Ramses wrote:Then you are proposing that a close combat attack made with a grenade is not a close combat attack.

And again, the question posed by the WTN is not if the attack is a general or specific close combat attack, ONLY if it is a close combat attack.

Frankly you are being disingenuous with your arguments by continuing to set the standard that it is the specific type of attack that is the measure by which the WTN qualifies and not that it is that it is a close combat attack that qualifies, an umbrella that covers any close combat attack, be it with a weapon, a fish, or a grenade.

I'm doing nothing of the sort.

I'm stating (as a fact) that the grenade rules (attacking with a grenade in close combat) are more specific than the WTN rules (attacking with anything in close combat).
Since the grenade follows a different set of rules from a normal CC attack, those rules are more specific and must apply.
If the rules for attacking with a fish were the same as a normal CC attack - even if stated in a completely different place - the WTN would apply, since there is nothing more specific.

It's not that it's a specific type of attack, it's that there are rules covering this specific type of attack, and specific rules trump general rules in all cases.

edit:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
I notice that my question remains unanswered,

"Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack?"

It's not being answered because the answer isn't relevant.

Brother Ramses wrote:Automatically Appended Next Post:
I notice that my question remains unanswered,

"Is a grenade attack against a walker a close combat attack?"

Yes.

So applying your logic, models using grenades get their regular number of attacks, and will hit a walker automatically, since the regular rules for assaulting vehicles never mention special types of attacks.

Thus rendering this entire discussion moot, since the WTN doesn't actually do anything.

Brother Ramses wrote: Berzerker, as pointed out, WTN does not care about sub-sets of types of attacks, only attacks in close combat.

Is using a grenade against a walker a close combat attack?

Yes, it is. But unfortunately, your argument here is exactly counter to how the rules of the game work.

The situation we are positing, just like most situations in this game, does not have a single rule covering it, but many rules. These rules are often contradictory. The rule for the WTN itself falls into this category; it contradicts the normal rules for close-combat, by stating that a model equipped with a WTN hits on a 3+, rather than comparing WS. In short, the WTN rule REMOVES part of the close-combat rule and REPLACES it, in certain situations. This is what is known as a 'special' rule; one which only applies in a certain, specific situation.

Special rules - ALL special rules - work by contradicting the general rules. They let a model do something it shouldn't be able to under the general rule, or let it do something it could normally do in a different manner, or depending on a different roll of the dice. But the important thing to realize here is that contradiction is necessary. EVERY SINGLE TIME you do something by invoking a special rule, you are breaking the general rules of the game.

If there wasn't a way to determine which rule took priority, the game couldn't be played. There would be no way to resolve what happens when a model uses a special rule, because they would necessarily be breaking some other rule, and you aren't allowed to break rules. You'd have to house-rule everything. GW, however, wrote a fix into their ruleset; they told us that the more specific rules override more general rules, whenever they come into conflict. Without this the WTN would do absolutely NOTHING, because every time you use that special rule, you are breaking the general rules of close-combat.

So what does it mean that a more specific rule overrides a general rule? It means that a rule which deals with a specific situation - a sub-set of the larger set covered under a general rule - takes precedence over a more general rule when that specific situation occurs. And what does THAT mean? It means that a rule which requires more qualifiers before it comes into action overrides a rule which requires fewer qualifiers whenever the two contradict each other.

The WTN necklace rule has TWO qualifying conditions; the model must possess a WTN, and it must be in close-combat. Whenever those TWO conditions are met, the WTN rule applies, and overrides the general rule for close-combat.

The rule for attacking a walker with a grenade has THREE qualifying conditions; the model must be in close-combat, it must be attacking a walker, and it must elect to use a grenade. Whenever those THREE conditions are met, this rule applies, and overrides the general rule for close combat. It also overrides ANY other special combat rule which has fewer qualifying conditions if the two conflict, because it is more specific than they are!

These two rules are conflicting, because they both affect the same die-roll. One cannot hit on a 3+ AND a 6+; one rule must take precedence. According to the rules, when you have to choose between multiple contradictory rules which affect the same action, you abide by the one with the most qualifying conditions, and do not apply the one with the fewest.

So this whole debate boils down to one very simple question; is three greater than or less than two? The answer to that question will also answer the question at hand.

If you don't like that, you don't have to play it that way. Feel free to decide that the WTN applies to grenade attacks made against walkers. But understand that if you do that, you are not following the rules as GW wrote them; you are making a house rule.

*claps* Well said Berzerker.

... What he said. Except in my words, because I can't express myself like that. Or something.. >.>

Look in the FAQ. It states that the Necklace only works on attacks that require WS. Since attacking Vehicles requires no such thing, it doesn't work.

BlapBlapBlap wrote:Look in the FAQ. It states that the Necklace only works on attacks that require WS. Since attacking Vehicles requires no such thing, it doesn't work.

Read the thread. This is about walkers. Walkers have a WS. Heck, the thread title even mentions "v walkers".

BlapBlapBlap: The FAQ (well errata anyway) says Replace with "Against models with a WS value, a model with a wolfttoth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of 3+" In CC with Walkers you do use WS unless using grenades. It's not until the walker is immobilized that you use WS for grenade attacks.

If you are comparing qualifiers Berzerker, the WTN has 3 as well; close combat, WTN, and the target have a WS value.

Doh, there goes that argument about qualifiers being the determining factor.

Instead of trying to create a hierarchy of close combat attacks based upon nothing more then thinking it is different how about addressing the fact that using a grenade against a walker is considered a close combat attack, which falls under the any close combat attack qualifier of the WTN.

By all means, discount that using a grenade against a walker is NOT a close combat attack and you win the argument. I can wait.

Brother Ramses wrote:By all means, discount that using a grenade against a walker is NOT a close combat attack and you win the argument. I can wait.

By all means, show how "any CC attack" is more specific than "throwing a grenade in CC". I can wait.

Brother Ramses wrote:If you are comparing qualifiers Berzerker, the WTN has 3 as well; close combat, WTN, and the target have a WS value.

Doh, there goes that argument about qualifiers being the determining factor.

Okay I am willing to accept your '3 qualifiers' Let's try to be consistent and look at the model using grenades now...

1 - Close combat
2 - WTN
3 - Has WS value
4 - Attack with grenade...

Looks like grenades are still more specific? This is not a created hierarchy, this is literally how the actual game rules really work. If it wasn't for this arrangement no special rules would work.

For example, the WTN let's you hit on a 3+. Unfortuantely, the general rules for hitting in CC are more general and cover this situation, so you need to read from the chart. The only way WTN works at all is if you are willing to accept the premise of specific rules override general rules for particular situations.