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.

Brother Ramses wrote:If you are comparing qualifiers Berzerker, the WTN has 3 as well; close combat, WTN, and the target have a WS value.

Doh, there goes that argument about qualifiers being the determining factor.

Ah, I thought we might get to this.

In presenting my analysis, I simply did not list those qualifiers which apply equally to both circumstances, with the sole exception of 'engaged in close-combat' as that qualifier defines the set we're trying to get sub-sets of. We are interested in the DIFFERENCE between the two, not similarities. The rules for using a grenade against a walker ALSO require that the target have a WS. . . because they require that the target be a walker, and in order to be a walker a model must have a WS. Your attempted refutation is thus flawed. If you want to argue that the WTN rule is more specific than the grenade rule, you need to find a qualifier which is NOT shared between the two. It's possible there is one that I've missed; if so, point it out.

And please note that if you do, that isn't a refutation of my argument. In fact, it's an ACCEPTANCE of my argument, and a correction of my CONCLUSION. I am perfectly fine with having my conclusion corrected; I don't play Space Wolves, and I hardly ever use walkers, so this debate doesn't really affect me.

Brother Ramses wrote:Instead of trying to create a hierarchy of close combat attacks based upon nothing more then thinking it is different how about addressing the fact that using a grenade against a walker is considered a close combat attack, which falls under the any close combat attack qualifier of the WTN.

By all means, discount that using a grenade against a walker is NOT a close combat attack and you win the argument. I can wait.

This, here, is the real problem because it demonstrates that you do not yet understand any part of this argument. Answer a question, please. Is it or is it not true that a more specific rule overrides a more general rule?

I ask this because currently, you are asserting that more general rules override more specific rules. You are doing this openly. In fact, you even acknowledged it multiple times, here in this thread. And that is a fundamental misunderstanding of how the rules work.

Yes; the requirements for the WTN have been fulfilled. Everything that needs to be checked off before the rule activates has been checked off.

THAT DOES NOT MATTER. It is not the issue under discussion; it is not relevant in any way, shape, or form. Why? Because there is another rule in question, and all the requirements for that rule have also been fulfilled.

Your argument is just as easily used (and just as invalid) pointed the other way. Isn't the model in question attacking a walker with a grenade? Then how do you justify not using the rule governing models attacking a walker with a grenade? What gives the WTN rule priority over the grenade vs. walker rule? Explain your method. The conditions for both rules are equally fulfilled; you cannot claim priority for the WTN on those grounds, because it doesn't have any. You must have a reason which does not apply equally to the grenade vs. walker rule. What is it?

What people seem to be forgetting/ignoring here is that the exact wording of the Wolf Tail Necklace says 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+'.
It does not say 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+ except when using a genade'.

As such the critical part of this discussion is not specific > general but rather is using a grenade in close combat considered a close combat attack.
The answer here cannot be anything but yes. The attack however is a 'special' close combat attack, but a close combat attack none the less and as such is covered by the word ALWAYS in the Wolf Tail Necklace rule.

JayJay wrote:It does not say 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+ except when using a genade'.

Nor do the regular rules for assaulting a vehicle say that you hit automatically except when using a grenade against a walker... which brings us back the to fact that using this logic, the WTF is completely pointless.

Attacking in close combat has certain rules. The WTF alters those rules.
Attacking in close combat with a grenade also alters those rules, specifically for attacks using a grenade.

So when you are using a grenade in close combat, you use the rules that are most specific to the situation. That's why they exist in the first place.

I do understand both sides of the 'discussion' and Im not 100% sure which side to be on however I really do not see how the word always can be interpreted as sometimes.

I do not have the BRB with me right now but IIRC the assualting a vehicle rules do indeed tell you when you must roll to hit and what result is required. For example you do not automatically hit a vehicle if it has moved, but if it was stationary the hit is automatic.

The way I see the issue is that we have 1 rule telling us to do 1 thing and we have another rule telling us to do something different.
The second rule is telling us to always do something, whereas the first rule is telling us what to do in a specific situation.
What we have to decide is whether we 'should' do as the first rule says, or whether we should follow the second rule covering the specific situation.

Thinking on this more, I would have to side with the WTN 'group' as correct, considering we cannot ignore the word 'always' within the WTN rule without redefining the words meaning within the English language.

JayJay wrote:I do understand both sides of the 'discussion' and Im not 100% sure which side to be on however I really do not see how the word always can be interpreted as sometimes.

It's not.

'Always' makes it something that always applies.

However, a more specific rule will over-ride a rule that always applies, because it is more specific to the actual situation.

That's the basic principle that allows any special rule that alters the core rules to function. Without it. most special rules in the game would be completely useless. The rules don't generally say 'It works like this, except in these situations'... They outline the rules that always apply, and certain situations present exceptions to those rules.

You "always" get an armour save in close combat, except where a power weapon, the more specific rule, says you dont.

SAme situation here: you always strike on a 3+ except when that same model is attacking with a grenade

nosferatu1001 wrote:You "always" get an armour save in close combat, except where a power weapon, the more specific rule, says you dont.

SAme situation here: you always strike on a 3+ except when that same model is attacking with a grenade

Either that or my nids will be really happy now.. armor saves for everyone!

nosferatu1001 wrote:You "always" get an armour save in close combat, except where a power weapon, the more specific rule, says you dont.

SAme situation here: you always strike on a 3+ except when that same model is attacking with a grenade

But that can be added to this issue and reversed as well considering you have....

You "always" get an armour save in close combat (general rule), except where a power weapon (specific rule due to wargear)
You hit on a 6+ when using a grenade in CC (situational specific rule), except where a WTN (specifc rule due to wargear)

What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

JayJay wrote:You hit on a 6+ when using a grenade in CC (situational specific rule), except where a WTN (specifc rule due to wargear)

Except that's backwards. You're trying to make the more general rule (ie:the one that applies to all close combat attacks) count as being more specific than the rule that applies to attacking with a specific close combat weapon.

JayJay wrote:What people seem to be forgetting/ignoring here is that the exact wording of the Wolf Tail Necklace says 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+'.
It does not say 'against models with a WS value, a model with a wolftooth necklace always hits in close combat on the roll of a 3+ except when using a genade'.

As such the critical part of this discussion is not specific > general but rather is using a grenade in close combat considered a close combat attack.
The answer here cannot be anything but yes. The attack however is a 'special' close combat attack, but a close combat attack none the less and as such is covered by the word ALWAYS in the Wolf Tail Necklace rule.

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Brother Ramses.

1. Do more specific rules override general rules?

2. Is three greater than two, or less than two?

It really is that simple.

What you and Ramses are both arguing is that the requirements for the WTN rule to come into effect have been met, and therefore the rule must apply. But what you are ignoring is that the requirements for the grenade rule to come into effect have ALSO been met! Both rules have equal claim, by that standard, and you CANNOT arbitrarily ignore one of them on that basis. You must have some other standard by which to choose between them; and GW has given us that standard. You are not allowed to simply brush it aside.

JayJay wrote:What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

Can you explain how "always" is more specific than "when attacking with a grenade"?

rigeld2 wrote:

JayJay wrote:What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

Can you explain how "always" is more specific than "when attacking with a grenade"?

Its not more specific, it doesnt need to be. The word 'always' allows for no exception. In this instance the WTN means that all attacks made by the model in CC, no matter the weapon used cause a hit on a 3+

Could you explain how 'attacking with a grenade' is not encompassed by the term 'always' when in reference to making an attack?

JayJay wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JayJay wrote:What my issue here is that 'always' as by its very definition is an absolute, and allows no exception.

Can you explain how "always" is more specific than "when attacking with a grenade"?

Its not more specific, it doesnt need to be. The word 'always' allows for no exception. In this instance the WTN means that all attacks made by the model in CC, no matter the weapon used cause a hit on a 3+

Could you explain how 'attacking with a grenade' is not encompassed by the term 'always' when in reference to making an attack?

Because a more specific rule always overrides a general one. Thems the rules. If the grenade rule is a more specific instance, it overrides the general rule.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Brother Ramses.

1. Do more specific rules override general rules?

2. Is three greater than two, or less than two?

It really is that simple.

What you and Ramses are both arguing is that the requirements for the WTN rule to come into effect have been met, and therefore the rule must apply. But what you are ignoring is that the requirements for the grenade rule to come into effect have ALSO been met! Both rules have equal claim, by that standard, and you CANNOT arbitrarily ignore one of them on that basis. You must have some other standard by which to choose between them; and GW has given us that standard. You are not allowed to simply brush it aside.

What you seem to be arguing is that the English language in this case is ignored.
You cannot ignore that fact that the word 'always' is an absolute and has no other meaning. As such when rolling to hit in CC against something with a WS whilst equiped with a WTN the result of a D6 roll must be 3 + in order to hit.
The weapon used in the attack doesnt matter, it could be a power weapon, it could be a ticklestick, it could be a grenade. It really makes no difference to the absolute nature of 'always' within the WTN rule.

However, could you explain exactly how the grenade rule is more relevent considering that both rules just tell you to ignore the standard CC to-hit chart, but one only effects grenades and the other always applies.

JayJay wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

I'm going to ask you the same questions I asked Brother Ramses.

1. Do more specific rules override general rules?

2. Is three greater than two, or less than two?

It really is that simple.

What you and Ramses are both arguing is that the requirements for the WTN rule to come into effect have been met, and therefore the rule must apply. But what you are ignoring is that the requirements for the grenade rule to come into effect have ALSO been met! Both rules have equal claim, by that standard, and you CANNOT arbitrarily ignore one of them on that basis. You must have some other standard by which to choose between them; and GW has given us that standard. You are not allowed to simply brush it aside.

What you seem to be arguing is that the English language in this case is ignored.
You cannot ignore that fact that the word 'always' is an absolute and has no other meaning. As such when rolling to hit in CC against something with a WS whilst equiped with a WTN the result of a D6 roll must be 3 + in order to hit.
The weapon used in the attack doesnt matter, it could be a power weapon, it could be a ticklestick, it could be a grenade. It really makes no difference to the absolute nature of 'always' within the WTN rule.

However, could you explain exactly how the grenade rule is more relevent considering that both rules just tell you to ignore the standard CC to-hit chart, but one only effects grenades and the other always applies.

The "always" is ignored because the rules tell you to use the most specific rule. The grenade attack rules are more specific than a generic CC attack. Therefore, you *must* use the grenade rules to make your attack rather than the generic CC rules - which is what WTN is overriding.

But what about codex > brb?
I remember reading somewhere that some rules in the codex will contradict those in the brb and as such players should apply the rule from the codex.
*I'll double check for this when I get home this evening*

This would mean you ignore the grenade rule from the brb because the wtn rule in the codex takes precident.

JayJay wrote:But what about codex > brb?
I remember reading somewhere that some rules in the codex will contradict those in the brb and as such players should apply the rule from the codex.
*I'll double check for this when I get home this evening*

This would mean you ignore the grenade rule from the brb because the wtn rule in the codex takes precident.

You have the rule wrong. There's nothing about codex trumping brb - the only rule is that specific trumps general.

Actually they arent entirely wrong - however the only time "codex trumps rulebook" is true is, as you are told on Smoke Launchers, when the codex AND the BRB BOTH have an *identically* named rule.

In that, and ONLY that instance, you ignore the BRB and go with the codex

From what I read on Page 70 of the BGB, when assaulting walkers with melta bombs, or grenades, you need a roll of a 6+. Unless the walker in question is stunned/ immobilised at the start of the assault phase, then you would be using your grenades and or melta bombs based on a normal comparison of WS. Seems to me that the WTN would only work if the walker was stunned / Immobilised at the start of the assault phase.

tokuruss88 wrote:From what I read on Page 70 of the BGB, when assaulting walkers with melta bombs, or grenades, you need a roll of a 6+. Unless the walker in question is stunned/ immobilised at the start of the assault phase, then you would be using your grenades and or melta bombs based on a normal comparison of WS. Seems to me that the WTN would only work if the vehicle was stunned / Immobilised at the start of the assault phase.

The WTN has been FAQ'd, it no longer relies on WS comparison to work, simply that the model being attacked has a WS.

That said, WTN still doesn't work with grenades, for reasons outlined above.

All attacks by a model hit on a 3+. Grenades create an exception and as such only hit on 6+.

Grenades only hit on 6+. Attacks from a model wearing a WTN always hit on a 3+. Grenades are still more specific than "all attacks" and as such still hit on a 6+ as they create an exception.