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.

easier example

Smoke launchers in BT original printing and 5th edition. BT printing you got glancing hits only, 5th edition rulebook you got cover. Not a conflicting set of rules - they can coexist - but you only, as per the rules, got one effect - the codex wins out. Because you have 2 rules with the same name, and you dont know which one to apply

Vindicare - show permission to use both rules, at the same time. The rulebook tells you to only use the codex one.

How can you say there's no conflict?
One rule says one thing, the other something else. That's the conflict! They don't agree.
They may work well together, but nothing allows that. The rules don't agree, they give conflicting information.

Only when they conflict. I do not see a conflict. Nothing in either rule coflicts with anything from the other. A name is not a conflict.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Only when they conflict. I do not see a conflict. Nothing in either rule coflicts with anything from the other. A name is not a conflict.

Nothing in the rules conflicts, the rule as a whole conflicts because they're not the same. They're not the same, therefore they conflict.
Same name, different rules. The two conflict.
How is this not a conflict?

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Only when they conflict. I do not see a conflict. Nothing in either rule coflicts with anything from the other. A name is not a conflict.

Very definition of a conflict. 2 rules with the same name doing 2 different things is most definitely a conflict in rule. Read the BRB requirements again, as you are not allowed to look athte rule contents to determine a conflict, only the rule name.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Though they have the same name, the rules do not conflict at all.

They have the same name but different rules.
That is the definition of a conflict.

The rules themselves don't conflict, but the fact that the rules are different is a conflict.

We have identical shoeboxes. Mine has a pair of mens tennis shoes in them. Yours has a pair of womens high heeled dress shoes.
They are not the same shoebox. There is a conflict.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Read the BRB requirements again, as you are not allowed to look athte rule contents to determine a conflict, only the rule name.

If this were true then there would've been no conflict between "Lumbering behemoth" ad firing ornance as well as other weapons. If this were true then it wouldn'tve been an issue on vehicles taking invulnerable saves. All conflicts I have ever dealt with have always come from the body of a rule, never the name. Lumbering behemoth does not conflict with Lumbering behemoth, it conflicts with ordnance and it wins. Conflicts are in fact bred from the rule contents themselves, never the names.

Right, and the rules are different. So there's a conflict.

There.
Is.
Not.

How do
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, and Invulerable saves

Conflict with
Fear Causing, and a 5++

We have already decided that saves can be changed, added, or taken away. A save is also not in conflict. It comes from a different source. It they could than Celestine would not have a 4++ from the armor of saint Kathrine and a 6++ from shield of faith. Nothing conflicts. NOTHING CONFLICTS.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
There.
Is.
Not.

How do
Fearless, Eternal Warrior, and Invulerable saves

Conflict with
Fear Causing, and a 5++

We have already decided that saves can be changed, added, or taken away. A save is also not in conflict. It comes from a different source. It they could than Celestine would not have a 4++ from the armor of saint Kathrine and a 6++ from shield of faith. Nothing conflicts. NOTHING CONFLICTS.

Because those are separate rules, NOT the Daemon rules.
Daemon: gives Fearless, Eternal Warrior and invulnerable saves.
Daemon: gives Fear and 5++

Daemon is different from Daemon. It's the rule as a whole, not the components.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Only when they conflict. I do not see a conflict. Nothing in either rule coflicts with anything from the other. A name is not a conflict.

Very definition of a conflict. 2 rules with the same name doing 2 different things is most definitely a conflict in rule. Read the BRB requirements again, as you are not allowed to look athte rule contents to determine a conflict, only the rule name.

There are two guys named Joe Smith.

One is a barber, the other is a garbage truck driver.

There is no conflict here.


You can have 2 special rules with the same name that do different things. As long as they don't directly conflict with each other, such as one saying you can't do X and the other saying you must do X.

 Grey Templar wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
Only when they conflict. I do not see a conflict. Nothing in either rule coflicts with anything from the other. A name is not a conflict.

Very definition of a conflict. 2 rules with the same name doing 2 different things is most definitely a conflict in rule. Read the BRB requirements again, as you are not allowed to look athte rule contents to determine a conflict, only the rule name.

There are two guys named Joe Smith.

One is a barber, the other is a garbage truck driver.

There is no conflict here.


You can have 2 special rules with the same name that do different things. As long as they don't directly conflict with each other, such as one saying you can't do X and the other saying you must do X.

That IS a conflict.
If I said I need to Hire Joe Smith, which one would I get?

A name is not a conflict for the thousandth time. If the rules themselves do not conflict, and the name of the rule is the same, there is no reason you should not use both rules.

A conflict is when 2 elements of something go against each other. A conflict is, by definition, when something cannot work together. There is no reason these cannot work together.

My name is john, My co-worker's name is john. We are different people, but even though our names are the same, we can work together.

A name in itself is not ground for a conflict.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
My name is john, My co-worker's name is john. We are different people, but even though our names are the same, we can work together.

A name in itself is not ground for a conflict.

Until the day John gets fired.
Which one?

Oh, according to you - both of you because you're hopelessly intertwined.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
A name is not a conflict for the thousandth time. If the rules themselves do not conflict, and the name of the rule is the same, there is no reason you should not use both rules.

A conflict is when 2 elements of something go against each other. A conflict is, by definition, when something cannot work together. There is no reason these cannot work together.

My name is john, My co-worker's name is john. We are different people, but even though our names are the same, we can work together.

A name in itself is not ground for a conflict.

And there's your conflict right there.
If I asked for John to be sent to me, which one would arrive? I only want one, not both.
If the job involves one person, they can't work together. So which one works?
Same name, different conflicting rules.

But thats the beauty of it, we have 2 diferent applicaitons, clock in cards, scheduels, ect. (Metaphor for sources)

So john who has been with the company for 6 years will come to your house. and John who has been stealing from the company for 10 will get fired. Its easy to tell them apart because we have paperwirk to differentiate, and because of that, there is not conflict in identity.

And they still have the same official name(John Smith) for all legal purposes. The secondary identifiers are simply for ease in identifying them apart and serve no official purpose.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
But thats the beauty of it, we have 2 diferent applicaitons, clock in cards, scheduels, ect. (Metaphor for sources)

So john who has been with the company for 6 years will come to your house. and John who has been stealing from the company for 10 will get fired. Its easy to tell them apart because we have paperwirk to differentiate, and because of that, there is not conflict in identity.

Same thing here, because they're not the same we know to use the Codex rule instead of the BRB rule.
John and John conflict because they're not the same person. But we have ways of telling them apart and getting the one we want.
You're describing a conflict and its resolution.

Except its not a rules conflict, its a mental conflict in the mind of the person that needs to identify them. So he adds an unofficial mental aid to tell them apart.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Except its not a rules conflict, its a mental conflict in the mind of the person that needs to identify them. So he adds an unofficial mental aid to tell them apart.

But it is. Two rules of the same name with different content. They don't say the same thing, so we need to know which one applies. We have no permission to use both.

Except for the permission granted to us becuase we have the rule in our entry. Any model with this special rule gets.......

as well as in the BRB
and model with this rule gets.......

it does not say any model with this rule gets....... and not .........

Its that simple. We have permission because we have the rule name in our special rule and nothing tells us not to use both. Do I need a special rule to be allowed to shoot the bolter I have? no. I have it therefore I use it. Do I need a special rule to place a sister of battle on the field? no. I have paid for the model thus I can place it on the field. Its as simple as that.

 Vindicare-Obsession wrote:
. We have permission because we have the rule name in our special rule and nothing tells us not to use both.

Where is your special permission to use both?
There's no such rule.
You DO need permission to use both. "There's no rule to say I can't" is NOT permission.
It's really that simple, as you say.

So, with the syllogistic discussions at a stand still, what is the verdict? Have we figured out that the Grey Knights FAQ clarified what counts as a daemon for the purposes of Preferred Enemy? Or has that FAQ magically spread to apply to other codexes unlike any other FAQ's rules?

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, with the syllogistic discussions at a stand still, what is the verdict? Have we figured out that the Grey Knights FAQ clarified what counts as a daemon for the purposes of Preferred Enemy? Or has that FAQ magically spread to apply to other codexes unlike any other FAQ's rules?

The Grey Knight FAQ causes no problems. Daemons should use the BRB definition, unless they have a Codex rule that overrides it.

Obviously Vindi is not going to convince us about the application of two rules with same name but different definitions and we are not going to convince him.

Lets just stop beating the dead horse here.

It seems that only an official GW publication of either a new 'dex or FAQ will settle this.

At this point I think thats the only thing we will agree on.

 grendel083 wrote:

 SoloFalcon1138 wrote:
So, with the syllogistic discussions at a stand still, what is the verdict? Have we figured out that the Grey Knights FAQ clarified what counts as a daemon for the purposes of Preferred Enemy? Or has that FAQ magically spread to apply to other codexes unlike any other FAQ's rules?

The Grey Knight FAQ causes no problems. Daemons should use the BRB definition, unless they have a Codex rule that overrides it.

The Grey Knights FAQ relates to how GKs deal with certain models/units. It does not define the special rules of those other units. Haven't seen an FAQ for one codex grant a rule to units of another codex.