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.

JinxDragon wrote:
If Specific Vs General is 'Rule as Written,' do me the favor of quoting the Rulebook where it tells us so!

There is an example in this thread. Unstoppable is an advanced rule as is sniper. But it modifies it because it tells us it can. I'm not sure what else you need? Or what you are asking for?

Ffyllotek wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The permission for Unstoppable to directly modify Sniper is encapsulated in the Unstoppable rule itself by direct reference to Sniper. So direct reference is one way Advanced Rules can modify other Advanced Rules.

It can modify sniper all it likes.

Hunters from Hyperspace has nothing to do with sniper. That's why hfh can be used in close combat too.

So it's codex rule trumping anything else.

Edit: if a death mark unit was shooting at an gc not marked for hfh, it would be a 6 to wound. That should be all there is to it.

Sorry. I am not arguing against you, only clarifying how Unstoppable and Sniper interact before HfH does its thing for the discussion FlingItNow and JinxDragon are having. See my above posts for how I resolve Deathmarks vs. Gargantuan. You and I are in agreement with how to resolve HfH.

Col_Impact,
The Rule you posted contained this, correct:
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6

Is it telling us to modify the Sniper Special Rule directly or is it telling us an to do something with the attack itself?

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
The Rule you posted contained this, correct:
In addition, attacks with the Sniper special rule only cause a Wound on a roll of a 6

Is it telling us to modify the Sniper Special Rule directly or is it telling us an to do something with the attack itself?

both, it modifies the sniper rules that have been applied to the attack

This discussion is going to bear on the Vindicare vs Gargantuan and not the Deathmark vs Gargantuan since HfH hammers everything. Is there a thread for us to migrate this discussion to?

Col_impact:
Where in the Rule does it state that we change the 4 within the Sniper Special Rule with a 6 prior to Resolving the Step using the the Sniper Special Rule?

The Unstoppable Special Rule does not contain instructions along the lines of "instead of," a common used term to inform us when a Rule is over-writing a section of another Rule. It does not use any other wording to state that it is changing the contents of another Special Rule, let alone go to the extent of informing us specifically which part of the Rule is being modified and how we go about modifying them. It does nothing more then provides us with instructions that change the To Wound result we are testing against. Those are common instructions, many other Rules contain similar instructions that can be applied to Shots with the Sniper Special Rule and they defiantly do not involve modifying the Sniper Special Rule itself.

This is the core of the problem: What stops "Attacks with the Sniper Special Rule" from being nothing more then the trigger detailing when this Rule auto-evokes?

To expand on this thought concept consider the following:
We grant the Flesh-bane Special Rule, I think that is the one that grants a 2+ To Wound, to a Unit of Snipers prior to shots being fired at an Infantry Unit
What value do they Wound on and why?

Now that same Unit is shooting at a Gargantuan Creature
What value do they Wound on and why?

I'm starting to get confused. are we arguing whether a Marked GC is wounded by DM on a 2+ or 6+; or are we arguing why it is a 2+?

To expand on this thought concept consider the following: 
We grant the Flesh-bane Special Rule, I think that is the one that grants a 2+ To Wound, to a Unit of Snipers prior to shots being fired at an Infantry Unit
What value do they Wound on and why? 

Now that same Unit is shooting at a Gargantuan Creature
What value do they Wound on and why?

RaW there is no way to determine if the to hit roll is made on 4+ or 2+ (or later a 6+ or 2+). The only RaW argument is that I have permission to wound on 4+ and a 2+ thus we can argue that a 4-6 roll wounds via a either rule and a 2-3 still wound but only through Fleshbane. For Gargantuan creatures we have a direct conflict with no specific vs general resolution.

Happyjew,
Understandable... I have sort of hijacked this thread to delve into the finer details of how these Rules interact because 'Attacks with X' is a trigger and not instructions to modify X.
Hunter from Hyperspace clearly falls under 'Advanced Vs Basic,' we can not Resolve the Wound at both "Only 6's" and 2+ and only one of these Rules are codex specific....

Flingitnow,
Earlier you said that Specific Vs General was Rule as Written, why can we not apply that concept to this new puzzle?

For GCs we have absolute resolution. Sniper on 6+. Why are you confused?

And HfH on a 2+, as per the codex rule overriding the GC rule.

Ffyllotek,
I have permission to Wound on a 2+, with Fleshbane or whatever Special Rule it is, so what revokes that permission?

JinxDragon wrote:
Ffyllotek,
I have permission to Wound on a 2+, with Fleshbane or whatever Special Rule it is, so what revokes that permission?

It's hunters from Hyperspace. Which as I've already said has nothing to do with snipers, modified by gc or not.

The question just asked was about snipers and gc. That's a 6+

If a group of deathmarks mark a gc, it becomes 2+. There is no argument.

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_impact:
Where in the Rule does it state that we change the 4 within the Sniper Special Rule with a 6 prior to Resolving the Step using the the Sniper Special Rule?

The Unstoppable Special Rule does not contain instructions along the lines of "instead of," a common used term to inform us when a Rule is over-writing a section of another Rule. It does not use any other wording to state that it is changing the contents of another Special Rule, let alone go to the extent of informing us specifically which part of the Rule is being modified and how we go about modifying them. It does nothing more then provides us with instructions that change the To Wound result we are testing against. Those are common instructions, many other Rules contain similar instructions that can be applied to Shots with the Sniper Special Rule and they defiantly do not involve modifying the Sniper Special Rule itself.

This is the core of the problem: What stops "Attacks with the Sniper Special Rule" from being nothing more then the trigger detailing when this Rule auto-evokes?

To expand on this thought concept consider the following:
We grant the Flesh-bane Special Rule, I think that is the one that grants a 2+ To Wound, to a Unit of Snipers prior to shots being fired at an Infantry Unit
What value do they Wound on and why?

Now that same Unit is shooting at a Gargantuan Creature
What value do they Wound on and why?

Fleshbane

Sniper


UNSTOPPABLE


Interestingly, Unstoppable does have an "instead" in the rule and it carries that "instead" over with "in addition." That's pretty loose though so I don't think we can justify based on that alone.

We grant the Flesh-bane Special Rule, I think that is the one that grants a 2+ To Wound, to a Unit of Snipers prior to shots being fired at an Infantry Unit
What value do they Wound on and why?

The answer is 2+ here. Sniper and Fleshbane co-exist and on a roll of 2 the Fleshbane scores the wound.

Now that same Unit is shooting at a Gargantuan Creature
What value do they Wound on and why?

Sniper, Unstoppable, and Fleshbane co-exist here. The answer is 2+ here again. On a roll of 2 the Fleshbane scores the wound.

There is a real quandary here though since Basic versus Advanced does not apply and you can't order the rules queue, so to speak. If the fleshbane is a codex rule then it's easy to go forward. If all of these are being applied via the same source (ie the BRB) then you have conflicts and not a clean way forward.
But structurally in this example (assuming all from the same BRB source) they co-exist and I would resolve it as 2+ (Fleshbane scores the wound). You might have a different take and could very well have a sound argument supporting your take. Thus the no clean way forward.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ffyllotek wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Ffyllotek,
I have permission to Wound on a 2+, with Fleshbane or whatever Special Rule it is, so what revokes that permission?

It's hunters from Hyperspace. Which as I've already said has nothing to do with snipers, modified by gc or not.

The question just asked was about snipers and gc. That's a 6+

If a group of deathmarks mark a gc, it becomes 2+. There is no argument.

Yea, you are 100% correct. JinkDragon has hi-jacked the thread on a discussion of particulars that does not bear on the OP question. The OP question has touched off a discussion of the inner workings of rules and we are now talking about hypotheticals. The OP question has been answered already.

col_impact wrote:
The permission for Unstoppable to directly modify Sniper is encapsulated in the Unstoppable rule itself by direct reference to Sniper. So direct reference is one way Advanced Rules can modify other Advanced Rules.

Unstoppable would have to reference Hunters from Hyperspace to apply.

Fragile wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The permission for Unstoppable to directly modify Sniper is encapsulated in the Unstoppable rule itself by direct reference to Sniper. So direct reference is one way Advanced Rules can modify other Advanced Rules.

Unstoppable would have to reference Hunters from Hyperspace to apply.

Sorry, I was responding to JinkDragon's tangent which doesn't have to do with the OP question about HfH.

JinkDragon, we really need to migrate this tangential discussion to another thread. People are getting confused.

Apologies. Yes , you are talking about something else.

I'll go away.

Fwiw, I don't think any sniper weapon also have fleshbane.

Flingitnow, 
Earlier you said that Specific Vs General was Rule as Written, why can we not apply that concept to this new puzzle?

Because neither rule specifically mentions the situation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Why would you think you can use Specific vs General when neither rule is more specific than the other?

Col_Impact,
Not only is it a little weak, but actually supports my point more then it does the counter. Not only does the Instant Death portion of the Rule contains instructions to do X instead of Y, it specifically informs us why we are doing Y instead of X. We are told as part of the instructions that any Rule which 'removes as a Casualty' will instead be replaced with D3 dice. Had the Sniper clause also contained words along the lines of 'instead of Wounding on 4' it would be directly relating to the instructions within the Special Rule itself and telling us how we go about changing that part of the Rule.

Currently, it still looks like nothing more then a Trigger to inform us when the 'Can Only be wounded on a 6' portion of the Rule takes effect.

As for the hypothetical I put forward, it does highlight the huge problem with Basic Vs Advanced does it not?
Even if the flesh-bane is granted by an source within a Codex, the Rule itself is still found within the Basic Rulebook and falls under the definition of 'advanced' not 'codex.' It will be very easy for Units with this Rule to be firing at a Gargantuan Creature, so we would need to know how to deal with conflicts of this nature between straight up Advanced Rules in order to function. As there is no Rule as Written answer that can easily be provided, the fundamental concepts become even more important to try and figure out how we are meant to proceed.

So once more back to that annoying word only found within Unstoppable, and what that means for any Rule applied to the Shot/Attack which also modifies the To Wound step....

Ffyllotek,
I apologize as I thought you where responding to my hypothetical, not the original post...
We can not resolve the To Wound step with both 'only 6' and '2+,' so one of these needs to be discarded and Basic Vs Advance informs us which.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flingitnow,
I am still pointing out your misuse of the words Rule as Written, if Specific vs General was a Written Rule we would have instructions telling us how to determine if one is more specific then another.

JinxDragon wrote:
Col_Impact,
Not only is it a little weak, but actually supports my point more then it does the counter. Not only does the Instant Death portion of the Rule contains instructions to do X instead of Y, it specifically informs us why we are doing Y instead of X. We are told as part of the instructions that any Rule which 'removes as a Casualty' will instead be replaced with D3 dice. Had the Sniper clause also contained words along the lines of 'instead of Wounding on 4' it would be directly relating to the instructions within the Special Rule itself and telling us how we go about changing that part of the Rule.

Currently, it still looks like nothing more then a Trigger to inform us when the 'Can Only be wounded on a 6' portion of the Rule takes effect.

As for the hypothetical I put forward, it does highlight the huge problem with Basic Vs Advanced does it not?
Even if the flesh-bane is granted by an source within a Codex, the Rule itself is still found within the Basic Rulebook and falls under the definition of 'advanced' not 'codex.' It will be very easy for Units with this Rule to be firing at a Gargantuan Creature, so we would need to know how to deal with conflicts of this nature between straight up Advanced Rules in order to function. As there is no Rule as Written answer that can easily be provided, the fundamental concepts become even more important to try and figure out how we are meant to proceed.

So once more back to that annoying word only found within Unstoppable, and what that means for any Rule applied to the Shot/Attack which also modifies the To Wound step....

Ffyllotek,
I apologize as I thought you where responding to my hypothetical, not the original post...
We can not resolve the To Wound step with both 'only 6' and '2+,' so one of these needs to be discarded and Basic Vs Advance informs us which.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flingitnow,
I am still pointing out your misuse of the words Rule as Written, if Specific vs General was a Written Rule we would have instructions telling us how to determine if one is more specific then another.

I don't think you proceed from here by looking at Fundamentals. I think the true rules quandary permits you to make a stab at intent, since the only way forward is by house rule at this point. The Unstoppable rule is not properly constructed. Is Unstoppable meant to hammer away all other USR and not just restrict Sniper? I think it is meant to just throttle Sniper and not any USR on any attack that has been tagged with the USR Sniper.

Sometimes the answer isn't "let's quest to find the truth GW has hidden in the rules" but "let's fix these broken rules"

Agreed,
I do not believe the Authors intended for this Rule, which singles out Sniper, to force a 6 in situations where an alternative Rule is giving us the favorable To Wound value.

Flingitnow,
I am still pointing out your misuse of the words Rule as Written, if Specific vs General was a Written Rule we would have instructions telling us how to determine if one is more specific then another.

I didn't misuse RaW. Specific vs General is absolutely RaW, because it is the rules in conflict themselves which tell us which is more specific.

Again please explain why if Rule A says it modifies Rule B why do you need another rule telling you that Rule A can modify Rule B?

Flingitnow,
I will ask you again then:
Quote me the Lines from the book which tell us how to determine if a Rule is more specific then another Rule.

This isn't about needing a Rule to tell us to do something we should understand how to do from a simple understanding of the underlining system which Rules are written for. My Replies to you are due to the misuse of the words Rules as Written, as a Written Rule is something that is penned down in the book explaining how to do X or Y. If Specific vs General was a Written Rule, there would be something in the book that tells us how to go about determining if a Rule is more specific then another. If you want to prove me wrong at this point you will need to support the words 'Rules as Written' with an actual Rule quote showing the Written Rule.

Why would I need that rule? Do even understand what Specific vs General means? The rules in question tell you which is more specific so why would you need another rule saying yes we really meant that?

Again FlingitNow,
It is not that Fundamental Concepts needs to be written down in the book before we can apply the concept that is the problem, it is the fact you keep claiming they are Rules as Written supported that is causing my ire. I call them fundamental concepts because they are not written in the book, but are clearly how the system is designed to work on a fundamental level. My Replies to you are due to your constant claim that Specific vs General is 'Rules as Written' more then the requirement to need them to be written in order for the game to function.

So as simple as I can put it:
Rules as Written requires requires the Rule to be Written down in the book!

So as simple as I can put it: 
Rules as Written requires requires the Rule to be Written down in the book!

Exactly hence Specific vs General is RaW. As one rule is specifically written to over rule the more general rule.

Again I ask why you feel Rule A says it modifies Rule B means you need a 3rd rule (say Rule 1) that states that rules that tell you they modify other rules ate allowed to modify those rules. Please explain how Rule 1 is not entirely redundant?

Flingitnow,
I originally thought it was simply an error in communication occurring, but I see now it is simply nothing more then a straw-man attempt.

This whole conversation was created for one reason, you mis-used the words 'Rules as Written.' To highlight that Rules as Written require the words to actually be written in the book, I asked you to provide a Rule Quote that will tell us how we can go about determining if a Rule is more specific then another Rule. Anything in the book that will support the concept that a more specific Rule has permission to over-turn a general Rule would be nice, but I know for a fact no such set of instructions exist. Instead of providing evidence to support your claim that General Vs Specific is 'Rules as Written' you are trying to deflect by fixating on the example of where it would be required instead of why it would be required!

So let me tell you why I require such a specific Rule at this point in time:
You keep stating Specific Rules over-writing Generic Rules is 'Rule as Written,' so you should be able to quote the exact words written down in the book that tells us how to go about determining when this occurs... correct?

So for instance unstoppable is an advanced rule correct? Sniper also correct?

So which wins between those rules. Well look at Unstoppable the actual written words tell you it is more specific than Sniper as it actually tells you it. Lets throw any "convention" out of the window. Yet still absolute RaW Unstoppable wins because it is more specific. Why would you need another written rule telling you that Unstoppable does in fact over rule Sniper when Unstoppable already tells us this?

Please, please stop.

Ffyllotek,
By all means, I shall.