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.

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:Thats the point, it is always been says who?, i have this same thread on a different forum with the exact opposite result. Even 1 in 5 people on this forum disagrees with you. So far, at the very least it depends on who and where you ask.

It has always been says the English language. The game simply cannot work any other way.

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it.

Compare the two versions. I even did it once here on Dakka, but since the search is a bit crappy, I can't find it.

They are word for word identical. The only difference is the removal of WBB as an example.

No it is not the only way it works, that is kind of the point too. It works both ways. Both ways produce different outcomes in some situations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

Thats sort of beside the point, unless you are now claiming that codex always trumps rulebook is only applicable in 5th...

I have not played 4th, neither i am arguing for it, i am arguing for latest codexes and 5th edition.

del'Vhar wrote:

4th edition one might have, 5th edition does not say anything about it. Unless you argue to use the 4th edition BRB and the 5th edition BRB simultaneously.

Thats sort of beside the point, unless you are now claiming that codex always trumps rulebook is only applicable in 5th...

Edit: Another possible example (I'd have to see the wording on living metal to be sure) Dark Eldar Dark Lances/Blasters shooting at Necron Living Metal (Monolith).

Which rule takes precedence?

In this case, the more specific rule for Living Metal trumps the general Lance Weapon rule.

Of course, RaW, Dark Eldar Weapons are not "Lance" weapons, they simply have a rule similar to it, so RaW DE weapons WOULD ignore Living Metal, had the LM rule not had the provision of "S+D6 NO MATTER WHAT."

So in this case, we have a Specific Rule for Eldar Weapons being Trumped by an even more specific LM rule.

But you are arguing that codex trumps rulebook is a valid way of playing Warhammer 40k.

Therefore, in 4th edition, WBB rolls were allowed against SA yes?

Unless codex trumps rulebook is only applicable to editions that arent 4th? Or that 4th edition ceases to have existed now that 5th is around?

xxvaderxx wrote:No it is not the only way it works, that is kind of the point too. It works both ways. Both ways produce different outcomes in some situations.

...

What?

How can the exact same rule have two outcomes? It must have one or the other.

One ignores the rules, one follows them.

I'll stick with following the rules.

del'Vhar wrote:

Edit: Another possible example (I'd have to see the wording on living metal to be sure) Dark Eldar Dark Lances/Blasters shooting at Necron Living Metal (Monolith).

Have not read bright lances. But the wording on Living metal is pretty cut and dry. It states that Lance (and any other effect that makes it armor count as lower) do not affect the monolith, thus they dont.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:But you are arguing that codex trumps rulebook is a valid way of playing Warhammer 40k.

Therefore, in 4th edition, WBB rolls were allowed against SA yes?

Unless codex trumps rulebook is only applicable to editions that arent 4th? Or that 4th edition ceases to have existed now that 5th is around?

Cant argue about 4th, dont have the BRB or the FAQs or the errata. This is strictly 5th+ (with latest codexes).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gwar! wrote:

xxvaderxx wrote:No it is not the only way it works, that is kind of the point too. It works both ways. Both ways produce different outcomes in some situations.

...

What?

How can the exact same rule have two outcomes? It must have one or the other.

One ignores the rules, one follows them.

I'll stick with following the rules.

No man, under each logic each outcome its correct. The question it is not which outcome is correct, is which logic to use. It is also very possible to reach the correct answer using a faulty logic, that is not the point. The point is not if a model with WTN hits a walker with a grenade with 3+ or 6+. The question is if Codex > BRB or Spec > Gen, it might seem the same but it is not, one is the outcome and the other is the logic, if you dont see the difference, please try to go back and re read a few posts.

xxvaderxx wrote:
...

No man, under each logic each outcome its correct. The question it is not which outcome is correct, is which logic to use. It is also very possible to reach the correct answer using a faulty logic, that is not the point. The point is not if a model with WTN hits a walker with a grenade with 3+ or 6+. The question is if Codex > BRB or Spec > Gen, it might seem the same but it is not, one is the outcome and the other is the logic, if you dont see the difference, please try to go back and re read a few posts.

Alright, so you want us to back our claims with logic, but you don't want us to support our logic with evidence of any kind, especially the kind that disproves your premise. In logic you need evidences to find a conclusion.

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits.
the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.
More specific rules therefore override less specific rules, even if the BRB is more specific.

Now prove with logic that codexes ALWAYS trump the BRB. You can't, because there are specific instances where the BRB trumps codexes.

Go ahead and try. If you can prove with formal logic that you are correct, I will believe you.

I dont mind you givin examples, but they have to be examples for the right thing. Stating that F(X) is not a function because G(a)!=F(a), is not a valid argument. Being F(a)==G(a) or F(a)!=G(a), does not make either of them not a function, which is what Gwar! was arguing, only showing that F(a)==C and F(a)==D would you probe that F is not a function, but this is in no way linked to G(X).

Now, you are stating that Codex > BRB is not a valid logic (is not a Function, to keep up with previous efemisms). Then what you need to show is an example of a rule that has no solution or is a logic loop or something, under Codex > BRB.

PS: I am not arguing that Spec > Gen is not a valid logic to follow the rules, i am arguing it is not the only one.

xxvaderxx wrote:PS: I am not arguing that Spec > Gen is not a valid logic to follow the rules, i am arguing it is not the only one.

That doesn't make any sense. It has to be one or the other. The game simply does not work if you use "both".

You really can't argue that both Spec > Gen and Codex > BRB are valid ways of following the rules, then accept that they may come to conflicting conclusions.

This means that there would be no way to resolve some rules disputes if we were both following different functions, because both conclusions would be correct.

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

del'Vhar wrote:You really can't argue that both Spec > Gen and Codex > BRB are valid ways of following the rules, then accept that they may come to conflicting conclusions.

This means that there would be no way to resolve some rules disputes if we were both following different functions, because both conclusions would be correct.

They dont need to reach the same conclusion to be valid logics, byvalent logic, tryvalent logic and difuselogic are all valid and all reach to diferent results. For them to be valid they need to be consistent (always reach the same result in the same situation) and not being congruent (all 3 of them reaching the same conclusion always).

The same way C > B does not need to reach the same outcome as S > G, they are not meant to be used toghether (hardly any logic is), it has to always reach the same outcome regardles of who is using it for a given situation. Of course both players have to use the same logic that is a given.

Well in that case, I declare my own mathematical order of operations.


2+5*3 will now equal 21!

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

When the model makes attacks on the walker (or any vehicle), it can choose one of two options. 1) make attacks as normal. 2) use a grenade 'attack' instead of its normal attacks.

When choosing the grenade attack against a walker that is not immobilized or stunned, instead of using the normal rules for attacking, you roll one die per model (edited from "a single die") (no matter how many attacks the model has) and on a roll of a 6 the model scores a hit against the vehicle regardless of WS. If and only if the walker is immobilized or stunned does the WS of the walker come into play for rolling to hit in close combat.

Let me know if this is not actually RaW, but I believe it is.

Im pretty sure thats basically how RAW states grenades work, though IIRC it says something closer to "one attack per model"

del'Vhar wrote:Well in that case, I declare my own mathematical order of operations.


2+5*3 will now equal 21!

In fact this is more common than you would imagine. The example is a bit complex, but there is an operation called "inner product". This operation is not defined it self, what is deffined is a group of axioms (rules), it has to comply with, and any operation that does so, is an inner product.
In the same way, if you were to redefine + and *, you could do so, as long as you are comply or re define the axioms by which such operation is bound.

A more comon example of this is the operation "substraction", which in reality it algebraically does not exist, neither does the division, they are aplications of addition and multiplications.

...

Now I KNOW you are just trolling.

And in any case, 2+2=5 (for certain values of 2).

2+2≠5 when talking about normal values of 2 however.

The top one is your logic, the bottom one ours.

The bottom one is how 40k works.

Rephistorch wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

When the model makes attacks on the walker (or any vehicle), it can choose one of two options. 1) make attacks as normal. 2) use a grenade 'attack' instead of its normal attacks.

When choosing the grenade attack against a walker that is not immobilized or stunned, instead of using the normal rules for attacking, you roll one die per model (edited from "a single die") (no matter how many attacks the model has) and on a roll of a 6 the model scores a hit against the vehicle regardless of WS. If and only if the walker is immobilized or stunned does the WS of the walker come into play for rolling to hit in close combat.

Let me know if this is not actually RaW, but I believe it is.

And the follow on from that, is if this is the general way in which attacks with grenades are made against walkers, then a bearer of a WTN making an attack against a walker with a grenade is more specific.

Besides, I wasn't redefining + or *, I was merely changing the order of operations to state that all operators are of equal value, and as such an equation should be read left to right.

so:

2+5*3 = 21
but
5*3+2 = 17

Gwar! wrote:...

Now I KNOW you are just trolling.

And in any case, 2+2=5 (for certain values of 2).

2+2≠5 when talking about normal values of 2 however.

The top one is your logic, the bottom one ours.

The bottom one is how 40k works.

Gwar!, it is abit more complicated than just me saying 2+2=5, i dont want to insult you, but may be what i am asking migth be a little too abstract for you to understand.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

del'Vhar wrote:Besides, I wasn't redefining + or *, I was merely changing the order of operations to state that all operators are of equal value, and as such an equation should be read left to right.

so:

2+5*3 = 21
but
5*3+2 = 17

I understand, and i was trying to point out that that on it self is not a problem. By changing their "priority" you are esentially re defining them, which is not a problem as long as you are consistent with it and realize that all your math will have to stick by this new definition, including what you used to consider correct and incorrect, which will drastically change with the new definition.
This happens in science all the time, There are several formulas and aproximations for Gravity, they are all different, when you make calculations involving G, you have to choose which one to use. If you vary it, you get different outcomes, the important thing is to use the same formula through out all your calculations.

xxvaderxx wrote:

del'Vhar wrote:Well in that case, I declare my own mathematical order of operations.


2+5*3 will now equal 21!

In fact this is more common than you would imagine. The example is a bit complex, but there is an operation called "inner product". This operation is not defined it self, what is deffined is a group of axioms (rules), it has to comply with, and any operation that does so, is an inner product.
In the same way, if you were to redefine + and *, you could do so, as long as you are comply or re define the axioms by which such operation is bound.

Maybe I'm not following, but that doesn't make the math any less accurate using real numbers (or imaginary... but not in the "made up" sense...) and real order of operations.

As I've said earlier, you need to prove that the system works the way you said it does. We don't need to prove it doesn't. I have yet to see you use logic to prove your point. You abstracted to using functions to parallel logic, but I believe that isn't a good analogy of how logic works.

Generally, a logical argument takes the form of:

Fruits grow from a flower containing ovaries.
An apple grows from a flower containing ovaries.
Therefore an apple is a fruit.

That's a really basic example, but hopefully it makes the point of what I am (and probably others are) looking for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

ChrisCP wrote:

Rephistorch wrote:

WTN hitting a walker uses the BRB to determine hits the BRB is more specific in this situation than the codex is.

In which case how is a WTN wearer with WS4 attacking a WS6 opponent any less specific than attacking a walker?

When the model makes attacks on the walker (or any vehicle), it can choose one of two options. 1) make attacks as normal. 2) use a grenade 'attack' instead of its normal attacks.

When choosing the grenade attack against a walker that is not immobilized or stunned, instead of using the normal rules for attacking, you roll one die per model (edited from "a single die") (no matter how many attacks the model has) and on a roll of a 6 the model scores a hit against the vehicle regardless of WS. If and only if the walker is immobilized or stunned does the WS of the walker come into play for rolling to hit in close combat.

Let me know if this is not actually RaW, but I believe it is.

And the follow on from that, is if this is the general way in which attacks with grenades are made against walkers, then a bearer of a WTN making an attack against a walker with a grenade is more specific.

That isn't correct. The standard way attacks are made against walkers is by comparing Weapon Skills to determine a to-hit roll, followed by a units strength + d6 vs the target's front armor to determine if the attack penetrates, glances, or does nothing. WTN allows these normal attacks, which compare weapon skills, to always hit on a 3+, no matter the weapon skill of the target.

The more specific instance is using grenades against a walker which is used instead of making your normal attacks. As long as the walker is not immobilized or stunned, the WS is ignored entirely and the model gets a hit on the vehicle on the roll of a 6. That's a specific rule for attacking in a specific way and ignoring the WS, thus ignoring WTN's abilities.

Rephistorch wrote:

Fruits grow from a flower containing ovaries.
An apple grows from a flower containing ovaries.
Therefore an apple is a fruit.
.

^_^

Fruits grow from a progenitor containing ovaries.
An baby grows from a progenitor containing ovaries.
Therefore a baby is a fruit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Rephistorch wrote:
That isn't correct. The standard way attacks are made against walkers is by comparing Weapon Skills to determine a to-hit roll, followed by a units strength + d6 vs the target's front armor to determine to wound rolls. WTN allows these normal attacks which compare weapon skills to always hit on a 3+, no matter the weapon skill of the target.

The more specific instance is using grenades against a walker which is used instead of making your normal attacks. As long as the walker is not immobilized or stunned, the WS is ignored entirely and the model gets a hit on the vehicle on the roll of a 6. That's a specific rule for attacking in a specific way and ignoring the WS, thus ignoring WTN's abilities.

See, you keep having to bring the fact that the attacker is wearing a WTN into it, that actually makes it a more specific set of circumstances, otherwise one is saying that all attacks against walkers with grenades are made by weares of WTN, no?

BRB defines rules common to all armies.
Codex defines new rules and redefines common rules, particular to and that must be used by the given army.
There for if a rule is redefined in a codex then it must be used by that codexs army.

If my english didnt betray me, that should do it.

PS: By the way, this does not prove anything, it only states how you define your logic and Codex and BRB interaction.

So, after 4 pages, this thread doesn't really seem to be achieving anything beyond generating mod alerts... so I think it's time to move on.