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.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Always on a 6 is more specific than on a 3. There's an absolute missing from one.

That is not a case of "specifics", but of "variableness" or "absoluteness".

Using "more specific" or "more advanced" arguments have no RAW to back them up. There are only "Basic" and "Advanced' rules. Both rules in question are Advanced, and neither "takes precedence" over the other.

However:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Both rules can be applied at the same time without any conflict by simply following both rules.

This meas you need a 6. A 3-5 only satisfies one rule.

This is correct. Both rules are happening. Seer council is allowed to cast on 3+, but when a Culexus in near only 6s satify both rules.

 Galef wrote:
Using "more specific" or "more advanced" arguments have no RAW to back them up. There are only "Basic" and "Advanced' rules.

As was stated before, "more advanced" is a quick term for players to indicate datasheet/codex rules which take precedence over the Advanced Rules of the rulebook. "Higher precedence" would also be applicable, and probably more accurate.

But yes, as you said (and has been said ad nauseum in this thread), no case of "higher precedence" applies between these too rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Sequencing doesn't help

More specific certainly exists, same as permissive rule set exists.

Now you're either making things up or using information from an outdated rulebook. Please cite a source and page that backs up your claim.

 Galef wrote:
Using "more specific" or "more advanced" arguments have no RAW to back them up. There are only "Basic" and "Advanced' rules. Both rules in question are Advanced, and neither "takes precedence" over the other.

However:

 DarknessEternal wrote:

Both rules can be applied at the same time without any conflict by simply following both rules.

This meas you need a 6. A 3-5 only satisfies one rule.

This is correct. Both rules are happening. Seer council is allowed to cast on 3+, but when a Culexus in near only 6s satify both rules.

No, they aren't. If, under your interpretation, you roll a 4, thereby NOT manifesting a power, are you following the rule that says you DO manifest the power on a 3+?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

No, they aren't. If, under your interpretation, you roll a 4, thereby NOT manifesting a power, are you following the rule that says you DO manifest the power on a 3+?

There is no such objective rule. There are two rules working together simultaneously.

1. Warp charges are harnessed on a 3+.
2. Warp charges are harnessed on a 6+.

Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore. Any result which makes both rules apply is the only way to proceed.

When you roll a 4, you've satisfied rule 1, but not rule 2, so it doesn't continue.

This is the fundamental nature of the entire 40k rules system. You're given a collection of rules and carry out legal play by obeying all of them even though almost none refer to each other.

You can follow all of the rules here.

 DarknessEternal wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

No, they aren't. If, under your interpretation, you roll a 4, thereby NOT manifesting a power, are you following the rule that says you DO manifest the power on a 3+?

There is no such objective rule. There are two rules working together simultaneously.

1. Warp charges are harnessed on a 3+.
2. Warp charges are harnessed on a 6+.

Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore. Any result which makes both rules apply is the only way to proceed.

When you roll a 4, you've satisfied rule 1, but not rule 2, so it doesn't continue.

This is the fundamental nature of the entire 40k rules system. You're given a collection of rules and carry out legal play by obeying all of them even though almost none refer to each other.

You can follow all of the rules here.

That's not true. If you don't harness on a 4, you aren't following the part of rule #1 above that says warp charges are harnessed on a 3+, because a 3+ was rolled, and you specifically are not harnessing. That isn't following both rules, that's only following the second one. The word "are" is part of the rule, and it's an affirmation that the warp charge IS harnessed on a 3, 4, 5, 6, or higher due to modifiers. That's part of the rule, and as such, falls under the same restrictions as your own statement:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

That's not true. If you don't harness on a 4, you aren't following the part of rule #1 above that says warp charges are harnessed on a 3+, because a 3+ was rolled, and you specifically are not harnessing. That isn't following both rules, that's only following the second one. The word "are" is part of the rule, and it's an affirmation that the warp charge IS harnessed on a 3, 4, 5, 6, or higher due to modifiers. That's part of the rule, and as such, falls under the same restrictions as your own statement:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
Both of those are rules you're not allowed to ignore.

You're missing the point. You have to follow both rules. Not each rule individually, but both rules together.

It's if(A && B) not if(A || B)

You're not applying both rules. You're giving precedence to the 6+ and ignoring the fact that the 3+ can take effect on the roll of a 4 or a 5. They're both set modifiers and need to be applied simultaneously. Therefore 'Sequencing' does come into play.

I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

If I treat a 4 as a success, I have followed one rule and broken another. If I treat a 6 as a success, I have followed two rules and broken none.

Betray - it's how the game is structured. Same as the game is structured as a permissive set. If it weren't then by your reckoning I can disembark from a land raider in reserve, run and still assault.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

No. You're giving precedence to 'Psychic Abomination' and are ignoring the wording of 'Psychic Might':

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

This rule is an absolute. They will harness a Warp Charge point on a 3+, no exceptions are listed. Yet you're trying to add an exception and are essentially trying to make it say the following:

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+ ... unless another rule in play requires a higher value.

That is not what the rule says. It says 3+, end of story. What we have are two set modifiers, one that sets the harnessing of a Warp Charge point at a 3+ (no exceptions) and one that sets it at a 6 (no exceptions). As such, Sequencing comes into play and the player whose turn it is decides which order they are resolved in.

Nothing more can be said. You're deliberately ignoring RAW.

Time to lock this thread.

Please don't make posts that just say someone else isn't doing it right and calling for a thread lock. You aren't adding to the rule debate/thread as a whole by doing that.

 Ghaz wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

No. You're giving precedence to 'Psychic Abomination' and are ignoring the wording of 'Psychic Might':

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

This rule is an absolute. They will harness a Warp Charge point on a 3+, no exceptions are listed. Yet you're trying to add an exception and are essentially trying to make it say the following:

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+ ... unless another rule in play requires a higher value.

That is not what the rule says. It says 3+, end of story. What we have are two set modifiers, one that sets the harnessing of a Warp Charge point at a 3+ (no exceptions) and one that sets it at a 6 (no exceptions). As such, Sequencing comes into play and the player whose turn it is decides which order they are resolved in.

I think this is the best explained case for how the interaction works in the thread. Good job.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Betray - it's how the game is structured. Same as the game is structured as a permissive set. If it weren't then by your reckoning I can disembark from a land raider in reserve, run and still assault.

Nosferatu, I'm not arguing that it isn't a permissive ruleset. ALL games everywhere are a permissive ruleset. I think you specifically stuck that part in there, paired with what you knew I disagreed with in order to derail the argument, as the permissive ruleset side of it doesn't have any bearing on this debate. What DOES matter is that there is NOTHING in the game that would lead us to believe there is some super-subjective "more specific" vs "less specific" rule in the game. There isn't. It's my position that this entire perception was created and proliferated by people misquoting the "basic" vs. "advanced" rules that ARE demonstratably in the rulebook. If you hold a different position, and claim it's a legitimate rule of the game, feel free to cite a book and page. Otherwise, your comments are not adding to the discussion, and are in violation of the 1st and 2nd tenets of this forum.

Incorrect, as explained. Explaining the structure of the game isnt vioalting rule 1. Try again

Again: my example has NOTHING to do with permissive ruleset, but "more specific". REread the rules on disembarking from an asasult vehicle. It does not limit the ability to assault to only removing the restriction on disembarking frmo a vehicle.

Similarly the bezerker plus kharybdis formation lets them assault the turn they disembark. If your concept were true, then they could run and assault the same turn, or have an IC attach and fire a rapid fire weapon, and still assault.

Culexus has an absolute in there. it is more specific than the PM rule.

So .. just playing devils advocate here.. read the arguements and am curious because I play a seer council in my Eldar army!

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

What no one has mentioned and again.. devils advocate.. this rule states you will pass psychic results of 3+ instead of results of 4+... so what this means to me..

If (cast on 4+) then (cast on 3+ instead)

However, the culexus comes in and says "always cast on a 6+"

so now, your normal 4+ rule which i think we can agree is generic, is overruled by the specific 6+ culexus rule. And further because of this... we no longer meet the initial conditional of replacing your 4+ because it is a 6+.

Hope this makes any form of sense

 Grizzyzz wrote:
So .. just playing devils advocate here.. read the arguements and am curious because I play a seer council in my Eldar army!

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

What no one has mentioned and again.. devils advocate.. this rule states you will pass psychic results of 3+ instead of results of 4+... so what this means to me..

If (cast on 4+) then (cast on 3+ instead)

However, the culexus comes in and says "always cast on a 6+"

so now, your normal 4+ rule which i think we can agree is generic, is overruled by the specific 6+ culexus rule. And further because of this... we no longer meet the initial conditional of replacing your 4+ because it is a 6+.

Hope this makes any form of sense

Yes that is how I saw it too. Just a slightly different angle - I see it that both requirements must be met the 3+ AND the 6+ which results in needing a 6+.

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

If I treat a 4 as a success, I have followed one rule and broken another. If I treat a 6 as a success, I have followed two rules and broken none.

Conversely, if you treat a 4 as a failure, you've followed one rule and broken another. This is the issue. You can't follow both rules AND not have a conflict. We know that Codex trumps Core Rules, but we don't have any instructions on what to do when Codex conflicts with Codex. The game breaks and we need to make a call.

 Kriswall wrote:

 DarknessEternal wrote:
I'm not giving precedence to anything. I'm following all of the rules at the same time.

If I treat a 4 as a success, I have followed one rule and broken another. If I treat a 6 as a success, I have followed two rules and broken none.

Conversely, if you treat a 4 as a failure, you've followed one rule and broken another. This is the issue. You can't follow both rules AND not have a conflict. We know that Codex trumps Core Rules, but we don't have any instructions on what to do when Codex conflicts with Codex. The game breaks and we need to make a call.

That is precisely why I think my interpretation could be correct.

BRB (generic) -> cast on 4+

Culexus (codex/specific) -> cast on 6+ -> which overrides generic

Seers (codex/specific) -> cast on 3+ instead of 4+ -> which is not met in this stack.

This might actually be one of the few times I think GW worded this exactly right... but it is still my interpretation..

Look at the following diagram - it shows it is not a timing issue since the order does not matter. Each requirement must be fulfilled or else a rule is being disregarded.

The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Incorrect, as explained. Explaining the structure of the game isnt vioalting rule 1. Try again

Again: my example has NOTHING to do with permissive ruleset, but "more specific". REread the rules on disembarking from an asasult vehicle. It does not limit the ability to assault to only removing the restriction on disembarking frmo a vehicle.

Similarly the bezerker plus kharybdis formation lets them assault the turn they disembark. If your concept were true, then they could run and assault the same turn, or have an IC attach and fire a rapid fire weapon, and still assault.

Culexus has an absolute in there. it is more specific than the PM rule.

None of those make sense or apply to this situation nosferatu. There is no "more specific" vs. "less specific" rule in 40k. If you claim there is, for the 3rd time, cite a page or please stop with your nonsensical arguments. An advanced rule MAY override another advanced rule if it specifically, overtly SAYS it does. But that's not a case of "more specific", it's a case of it SAYING it overrides another rule. Other than that, no, and that isn't the case here. They're both absolutes.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
Look at the following diagram - it shows it is not a timing issue since the order does not matter. Each requirement must be fulfilled or else a rule is being disregarded.

Your flowchart is misleading because the ability that causes you to manifest on a 3+ isn't conditional on passing any other tests. It says you DO manifest. If you don't manifest, you never make it past the 3+ point on your flowchart.

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

This. The part that says "instead of a 4+" is just referring to the default. It doesn't actually change anything.

So without a rule stating the game is permissive, it isn't?

So do you believe the bezerkers can assault? Yes or no. If not, please explain how this is compatible with your idea that there are no rules that are more or less specific.

It's how the game is constructed. Same as permissive. Deny it all you want, you remain incorrect.

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

Then I think at this point from what I have read through the thread, there is no RAW answer to this, and it is up to the TO or your gaming group to decide which interpretation to take.

RAI, I think would favor the Culexus, being as it is the most restrictive of the "specific" rules in play. ... what i mean is .. the seer rule is always in play.. where the culexus rule is only in play when the 12" bubble is met (aka more restrictive).

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So without a rule stating the game is permissive, it isn't?

So do you believe the bezerkers can assault? Yes or no. If not, please explain how this is compatible with your idea that there are no rules that are more or less specific.

It's how the game is constructed. Same as permissive. Deny it all you want, you remain incorrect.

We're not talking about permissive. No game anywhere can NOT be permissive, whereas it's entirely possible for a game to NOT have a "more specific vs. less specific" clause, so you're making a straw man argument. One being true does not make the other true. Now get on topic, or get out. Cite your source, and follow the rules of this forum. You're being disruptive while providing no actual substance in your arguments. Declaring someone wrong with no supporting evidence doesn't make you right.

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

Then I think at this point from what I have read through the thread, there is no RAW answer to this, and it is up to the TO or your gaming group to decide which interpretation to take.

RAI, I think would favor the Culexus, being as it is the most restrictive of the "specific" rules in play. ... what i mean is .. the seer rule is always in play.. where the culexus rule is only in play when the 12" bubble is met (aka more restrictive).

Neither rule is 'always' in play. Both only come into play when it comes time to harness a Warp Charge.

 Ghaz wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
The "... instead of a 4+..." is a non-issue. All it does is remind you of what you would normally need to harness a Warp Charge. Psychic Abomination basically tells you the same thing without reminding you that you're harnessing a Warp Charge on a 6 instead of a 4+.

Then I think at this point from what I have read through the thread, there is no RAW answer to this, and it is up to the TO or your gaming group to decide which interpretation to take.

RAI, I think would favor the Culexus, being as it is the most restrictive of the "specific" rules in play. ... what i mean is .. the seer rule is always in play.. where the culexus rule is only in play when the 12" bubble is met (aka more restrictive).

Neither rule is 'always' in play. Both only come into play when it comes time to harness a Warp Charge.

That is really nit picking what I said to be fair....

given that it is the psychic phase where any of this debate even really matters.... the seer rules are always in play.... where then only if the culexus meets it's distance requirement will it come into play.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
So without a rule stating the game is permissive, it isn't?

So do you believe the bezerkers can assault? Yes or no. If not, please explain how this is compatible with your idea that there are no rules that are more or less specific.

It's how the game is constructed. Same as permissive. Deny it all you want, you remain incorrect.

We're not talking about permissive. No game anywhere can NOT be permissive, whereas it's entirely possible for a game to NOT have a "more specific vs. less specific" clause, so you're making a straw man argument. One being true does not make the other true. Now get on topic, or get out. Cite your source, and follow the rules of this forum. You're being disruptive while providing no actual substance in your arguments. Declaring someone wrong with no supporting evidence doesn't make you right.

No, that isn't a strawman argument. For a start, I never claimed it was your argument. To give you a quick clue here is a short link to what a strawman argument is - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (I know it's wiki, but it's a good begjpinners guide for you into the wonderful world of logical fallaclies)

My source is : how the game is constructed. As evidence I gave example,s where your interpretation leads to results directlyncontradicted by the game, meaning my case is made (proof by contradiction )

So , maybe you should "get out" or maybe, instead of playing moderator, you can click the yellow triangle of friendship and see what an actual mod says?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Hmm, I'm sorry, but that seems pretty flimsy to me. One says always on 3+, the other says only 6+. Only doesn't really indicate that it overrides a similar ability.

In your previous post in the thread you added the word 'always' into the rule from the Seer Council when it is not in there.

It does not say they 'always' harness on a 3+

The Culexus rule does state though they they 'only' harness on a 6+

And the two effects that contradict both occur when there is an attempt to harness a Warp Charge. They both occur at the same time.

Please cite a rule that says when two rules conflict, the one that was 'active' first takes precedence. There is no rule to support that claim.