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.

I'm pretty sure the answer is obvious, but just in case I've stumbled across a gem.

Invisibility States a unit is only hit on a roll of a 6 in combat.

Kharn States his close combat attacks ALWAYS hit on a 2+ even if they would otherwise hit automatically...

So is kharn hitting an invisible unit on a 2+ or 6+ in combat?

If those are the exact words from his entry, I'm inclined to believe them (and my Thousand Sons do not like that)

Codex trumps rulebook. Kharn hits on 2+

OK, so I thought it was obvious, it seems I have actually stumbled across a gem!

I actually don't think this is a case of codex trumps rule book, I've seen some tournament FAQs stating that the player who's turn it is should decide which one overwrites.
The most recent 11th company podcast actually covered this topic, it was clear there isn't a perfect answer.

Usually rules that contradict one another are dealt with by removing both.

for example, if a weapon with shred is required to reroll successful rolls to wound, then you just get rid of both rules and roll to wound normally.

personally I'd say the two cancel out and kharne would roll on weaponskill for a mutually agreeable solution.

though i hate invisibility, so go on kharne, hit on a 2+!

 some bloke wrote:
Usually rules that contradict one another are dealt with by removing both.

for example, if a weapon with shred is required to reroll successful rolls to wound, then you just get rid of both rules and roll to wound normally.

That only works because that's how it works mathematically. There is no general rule to "cancel out" effects like this.

But the "Codex > Rulebook" does seem to apply here.

 Cheexsta wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Usually rules that contradict one another are dealt with by removing both.

for example, if a weapon with shred is required to reroll successful rolls to wound, then you just get rid of both rules and roll to wound normally.

That only works because that's how it works mathematically. There is no general rule to "cancel out" effects like this.

But the "Codex > Rulebook" does seem to apply here.

It makes me laugh. 99% of the time people bang on about how codex trumps rulebook. And then a gem like this appears and suddenly everyone decides.... Actually codex doesn't always trump rulebook.

It seems people tend to pick which takes precedence based on what they prefer. Rather than applying the rules universally. After giving it some thought, I'm sticking with codex trumps rulebook. Kharns entry States that all his melee attacks always hit on a 2+. That's good enough for me.

And that's easily justified by him knowing something's there and flailing about like he's a Blood raged mad man. Which he is.

NauticalKendall wrote:
And that's easily justified by him knowing something's there and flailing about like he's a Blood raged mad man. Which he is.

Never thought of it from a fluff view point, but yeah!

If there is a rules conflict, Codex > Rulebook. It's 100% clear, Kharn hits invisible units on a 2+ in CC. No question.

Yep, as above

 Khaine's Wrath wrote:

 Cheexsta wrote:

 some bloke wrote:
Usually rules that contradict one another are dealt with by removing both.

for example, if a weapon with shred is required to reroll successful rolls to wound, then you just get rid of both rules and roll to wound normally.

That only works because that's how it works mathematically. There is no general rule to "cancel out" effects like this.

But the "Codex > Rulebook" does seem to apply here.

It makes me laugh. 99% of the time people bang on about how codex trumps rulebook. And then a gem like this appears and suddenly everyone decides.... Actually codex doesn't always trump rulebook.

It seems people tend to pick which takes precedence based on what they prefer. Rather than applying the rules universally. After giving it some thought, I'm sticking with codex trumps rulebook. Kharns entry States that all his melee attacks always hit on a 2+. That's good enough for me.

Its not picking and choosing, it's codex trumping rulebook with consideration that the it won't always override restrictions, that it's not always black and white, this can sometimes cause some debate with codex rules as we try and pull them apart to dis concern what they actually override.

The post which covers all that stuff > http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107

The part particular on the codex.

Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.

But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.

The reason some Torns have decided to 'compromise' this in some way (Player taking turns etc) is because it's a bit wishy washy. While Invis is a restriction with a 'can only', Khan does include the clause 'Always' which makes the whole thing not as clear as no.

And when it's not clear which to use, you use the codex rule.

Fluff stand point about this?, Kharn's always hit something...always...

Devil's advocate, here. If restrictions override permissions, would not that give priority to Invisibility?
From the above quoted post.

2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

Kharn has permission to his on a 2+ . Invisibility restricts him to hitting on a 6. Would this not mean that he must hit on a 6 since it is a restriction?

Excepte Kharn din't ask permission to wreck things up, he simply does it, thats how he is.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
Excepte Kharn din't ask permission to wreck things up, he simply does it, thats how he is.

I like the way you think.

Wasn't this already discussed recently?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My bad same thread.

It's so hard not to vote with ones heart. I so want Kharn to hit those invisible cowards. He's crazy like a rabid Khorne touched fox.

Here's what you do to avoid that dilemma. You make KHARN invisible, and invisible = invisible, so it's moot.

On a more serious note, although it's not super clear, I would tend to go with the codex > BRB when in doubt clause. And I do love Kharn. Easily my favorite fluff character of all time

I don't think anyone can read Betrayer and end up not thinking Kharn is the baddest CSM ever.

Bojazz wrote:
Devil's advocate, here. If restrictions override permissions, would not that give priority to Invisibility?
From the above quoted post.

2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

Kharn has permission to his on a 2+ . Invisibility restricts him to hitting on a 6. Would this not mean that he must hit on a 6 since it is a restriction?

Are those rules quotes from the rulebook? Or just statements from someone on Dakka?

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
Devil's advocate, here. If restrictions override permissions, would not that give priority to Invisibility?
From the above quoted post.

2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

Kharn has permission to his on a 2+ . Invisibility restricts him to hitting on a 6. Would this not mean that he must hit on a 6 since it is a restriction?

Are those rules quotes from the rulebook? Or just statements from someone on Dakka?

They are logical, well-though conclusions from someone who's spent a lot of time analysing this

As for the answer to the above:

Invisibility is a general restriction that all models will snap fire/ Hit on 6s (combined in one sentence) at the selected Unit.

Kharn has a model-specific, To Hit-specific Rule that he always Hits. Enemy models on 2+ and allies on 1s.
Invisibility would need a specific "Kharn hits Invisible units on 6s" for the point 3) to apply.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

That is in the case of: "Kharn can Hit invisible Units on 2+" V "Invisible Units can only be Hit be Kharn on 6"

Most major GT's I have attended and local RTT's in the area say the going players turn chooses which modifiers are applied first.

If its Kharn's players turn, he decides that invis is applied first, then his 2+

Invis player will decide that Kharn's rule is applied then invis is applied.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Bojazz wrote:
Devil's advocate, here. If restrictions override permissions, would not that give priority to Invisibility?
From the above quoted post.

2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.

3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.

Kharn has permission to his on a 2+ . Invisibility restricts him to hitting on a 6. Would this not mean that he must hit on a 6 since it is a restriction?

Are those rules quotes from the rulebook? Or just statements from someone on Dakka?

They are logical, well-though conclusions from someone who's spent a lot of time analysing this

Yeah I didn't think they were from the rulebook. So according to the actual rules, Kharn does indeed hit invisible units on a 2+. Glad we cleared that up.

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yeah I didn't think they were from the rulebook. So according to the actual rules, Kharn does indeed hit invisible units on a 2+. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem rather sure for a post without any rules support. Which was your very first complaint upon participating in the thread.... Glad you're following all the Tenets


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lord Commissar wrote:
Most major GT's I have attended and local RTT's in the area say the going players turn chooses which modifiers are applied first.

If its Kharn's players turn, he decides that invis is applied first, then his 2+

Invis player will decide that Kharn's rule is applied then invis is applied.

Unless, of course, you go by the General V Specific ruling as i posted just above. Kharn's rule is very specific about what he needs to roll To Hit. The general rule of having to snap shoot / Hit on 6s might not apply here at all...

 BlackTalos wrote:

You seem rather sure for a post without any rules support. Which was your very first complaint upon participating in the thread.... Glad you're following all the Tenets

Yeah, the tenet where instead of agreeing with someone, you have to quote chain a massive post, restate exactly why you're agreeing and then state your agreement while reposting the rules others stated earlier? Maybe you're confusing annoying common practice with an actual tenet.

 Lobukia wrote:

 BlackTalos wrote:

You seem rather sure for a post without any rules support. Which was your very first complaint upon participating in the thread.... Glad you're following all the Tenets

Yeah, the tenet where instead of agreeing with someone, you have to quote chain a massive post, restate exactly why you're agreeing and then state your agreement while reposting the rules others stated earlier? Maybe you're confusing annoying common practice with an actual tenet.

That method would actually help massively in some page-spanning arguments.
You get pretty boxes out of it too

As for the subject at hand, i am glad everyone came to an agreement , even if some of the background basics are under considerable scrutiny / ignored.

 BlackTalos wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
Yeah I didn't think they were from the rulebook. So according to the actual rules, Kharn does indeed hit invisible units on a 2+. Glad we cleared that up.

You seem rather sure for a post without any rules support. Which was your very first complaint upon participating in the thread.... Glad you're following all the Tenets

Yes, I'm rather sure. And there is most definitely rules support. Firstly there's the two rules in question; that regarding Kharns melee attacks, and Invisibility:

CSM Codex p59: "Kharns melee attacks always hit on a 2+ (even if they would otherwise hit automatically)"
7th Ed. Rulebook, Invisibility "Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6"

So in the instance of Kharn in CC against an invisible unit, this leads to a rules conflict. You probably couldn't find a clearer example of a conflict if you tried. However in the core rules section of the rulebook (sorry no page numbers - digital edition) there is the following rule:

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."

This gives us a simple, unambiguous way to resolve the conflict, which in this case means Kharn hits invisible units on a 2+ with his melee attacks.

The argument for the counter-position (i.e. Kharn still needs a 6+ to hit the invisible unit) appears to be based on another post outlining a convoluted theory which draws the contradictory (and therefore flawed) conclusions that:

"codex > rulebook' ........ ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction", and
"restrictions always override permissions where the two (rules) conflict"

Either there is a conflict, or there isn't. You can't claim that permissive and restrictive rules can't conflict and also say that when they do actually conflict the restriction overrides the permission. Applying those flawed conclusions (which are ultimately just an opinion and blatantly ignore the codex > rulebook RAW) to the Kharn vs invisibility situation leads to the premise that invisibility would take precedence because there isn't actually a rules conflict, which is frankly hilarious. Just read the two rules again. If you think that Kharn needs a 6 to hit invisible units in CC then I'd recommend discussing it with your opponent before a game if that situation may arise.