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.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

I'd think that would be a short argument. It says it very plainly in the BRB. Unless there is a FAQ amending what the codex says, the codex wins out on any rules discrepancy between the dex and the BRB.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

I'd think that would be a short argument. It says it very plainly in the BRB. Unless there is a FAQ amending what the codex says, the codex wins out on any rules discrepancy between the dex and the BRB.

wish it were that simple.

Many on this forum believe that for a Codex rule to overrule a BRB rule, the Codex rule has to specific say it overrides that BRB rule.

Edit : spelling

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

I'd think that would be a short argument. It says it very plainly in the BRB. Unless there is a FAQ amending what the codex says, the codex wins out on any rules discrepancy between the dex and the BRB.

Only where it specifies an allowance to override the BRB.

DWA doesnt override the allowance to hold 50% or less of your models in reserve by saying you can reserve more than that, so you cant. It only, in fact overrides one key rule - rolling for reserves.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced.

Oh, nice catch. So yeah, I guess based on that, both the rules for fortification, and the rules for terrain say they're advanced. And since there isn't an advanced rule vs advanced rule clarification, I guess that means we would need it to be FAQed.

The rule you quoted about the Purpose-built Fortifications providing a 3+ save is between pages 10 and 31.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced.

Oh, nice catch. So yeah, I guess based on that, both the rules for fortification, and the rules for terrain say they're advanced. And since there isn't an advanced rule vs advanced rule clarification, I guess that means we would need it to be FAQed.

Well your 3+ cover save was only found in the basic section (page 18) so would be replaced by more advanced Defence Line. And out of curiosity, did GW reply to your email?

 Bookwrack wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
However, how do you reliably tell when one part of the BRB is more or less specific than other parts of the BRB. Again, it's obvious when USRs are in play. Eternal Warrior overrides ID; but it also has a special caveat that states this, so there can be no question. But in other cases....?

By reading it.

That's all it takes. Unless you can actually name what these mysterious 'other cases' are, you seem to be asking how do you deal with something that doesn't exist.

Not to start up an old argument that's been put to bed, but the Main Rulebook twice references the fact that any kind of save can never be improved or ever be a 1+.

This is a mysterious "other case" where if Codex overrides General, then the Explicit statement need not have been made, which would be quite odd.

On that note, I have and will continue to concede that should a codex magically have a 1+ armour save, that would indeed void both statements in the rule book.

If you need to know, the statements can be found on pages 2 and 19. Admittedly, 19 is really refering to cover bonuses, rather than armour or invulnerable saves explicitly.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Gravmyr wrote:
Actually the book does define which rules are basic rules, per page 7, the rules found between 10 and 31 are basic rules every other rule in the book is an advanced rule. They then go on to say an advanced rule will override a basic rule. There is no rule for advanced vs advanced.

Here's a thing, that I think Eldarcaveman brought up,

GK codex gives a bonus to strength in the form of hammerhand.

Usually, this bonus would come after the *2 str bonus from a hammer, as per the notes on page 2. (not specifically basic rules). So, we follow BOMDAS (BEDMAS) and get 9, as 4*2+1=9.

GK codex specifically overrides this, giving the strength bonus as 2(4+1), which is 10.

As has already been said codex trumps brb when there is a conflict. The Hammerhand power gives specifics on it's use while the Deathwing rules do not say they can over ride the limit. Deathwing simply gives them the option similar to jump/jet pack units. Unless you have something that specifically tells you that it is other then what the brb tells us then you follow the brb. In the brb everything out of 10 to 31 is basic rules and everything else is advanced.

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

The rule you quoted about the Purpose-built Fortifications providing a 3+ save is between pages 10 and 31.

But the rule defining it as a purpose-built fortification is not. It's on page 109.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

The rule you quoted about the Purpose-built Fortifications providing a 3+ save is between pages 10 and 31.

But the rule defining it as a purpose-built fortification is not. It's on page 109.

Page 109 says Fortifications are purpouse-built battlefield defenses, not purpouse-built fortifications. If you're going to cite rules, do it right.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

The rule you quoted about the Purpose-built Fortifications providing a 3+ save is between pages 10 and 31.

But the rule defining it as a purpose-built fortification is not. It's on page 109.

Page 109 says Fortifications are purpouse-built battlefield defenses, not purpouse-built fortifications. If you're going to cite rules, do it right.

They're the same thing. Aside from it saying that right under the heading "fortifications", fortifications share a definition with battlefield defenses.

for•ti•fi•ca•tion (ˌfɔr tə fɪˈkeɪ ʃən)

n.

1. plural, fortifications. Military works constructed in order to defend or strengthen a position on the battlefield.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They're the same thing.

I assume you have a rule or page number to prove that "Purpose-built Fortification" and "Fortification" are the same thing?
Either way, everything that would suggest a 3+ save is in the 'basic' part of the rules. Therefore overruled.

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They're the same thing.

I assume you have a rule or page number to prove that "Purpose-built Fortification" and "Fortification" are the same thing?
Either way, everything that would suggest a 3+ save is in the 'basic' part of the rules. Therefore overruled.

Yes, page 109 says "Fortifications: These represent purpose-built battlefield defenses." As per the definition of the word "fortifications" I just provided you, they are synonymous with battlefield defenses.

And again, that's on page 109, defining them as purpose-built fortifications, so not overruled.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They're the same thing.

I assume you have a rule or page number to prove that "Purpose-built Fortification" and "Fortification" are the same thing?
Either way, everything that would suggest a 3+ save is in the 'basic' part of the rules. Therefore overruled.

Yes, page 109 says "Fortifications: These represent purpose-built battlefield defenses." As per the definition of the word "fortifications" I just provided you, they are synonymous with battlefield defenses.

And again, that's on page 109, defining them as purpose-built fortifications, so not overruled.

Your quote shows that a Fortification is a Fortification. Nothing more.
We still have a Basic rule showing Fortifications give a 3+ cover save, and an Advanced rule saying the Aegis specifically gives a 4+.
Following the rule of Basic Vs. Advanced, why should it not be a 4+?
You still haven't shown anything to contradict this rule. Page numbers please, and something a little more concrete than "it says Fortification".

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They're the same thing.

I assume you have a rule or page number to prove that "Purpose-built Fortification" and "Fortification" are the same thing?
Either way, everything that would suggest a 3+ save is in the 'basic' part of the rules. Therefore overruled.

Yes, page 109 says "Fortifications: These represent purpose-built battlefield defenses." As per the definition of the word "fortifications" I just provided you, they are synonymous with battlefield defenses.

And again, that's on page 109, defining them as purpose-built fortifications, so not overruled.

So lets take the basic rule (from cover saves) and replace "fortification" with the definition found later "Purpose-built purpose-built battlefield defenses..." Is the ADL purpose-built purpose-built battlefield defenses?

 Happyjew wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They're the same thing.

I assume you have a rule or page number to prove that "Purpose-built Fortification" and "Fortification" are the same thing?
Either way, everything that would suggest a 3+ save is in the 'basic' part of the rules. Therefore overruled.

Yes, page 109 says "Fortifications: These represent purpose-built battlefield defenses." As per the definition of the word "fortifications" I just provided you, they are synonymous with battlefield defenses.

And again, that's on page 109, defining them as purpose-built fortifications, so not overruled.

So lets take the basic rule (from cover saves) and replace "fortification" with the definition found later "Purpose-built purpose-built battlefield defenses..." Is the ADL purpose-built purpose-built battlefield defenses?

Congratulations on derailing the thread, guys!

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

for•ti•fi•ca•tion (ˌfɔr tə fɪˈkeɪ ʃən)

n.

1. plural, fortifications. Military works constructed in order to defend or strengthen a position on the battlefield.

About that:

Tenets of You Make Da Call wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

 Scipio Africanus wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
They're the same thing.

I assume you have a rule or page number to prove that "Purpose-built Fortification" and "Fortification" are the same thing?
Either way, everything that would suggest a 3+ save is in the 'basic' part of the rules. Therefore overruled.

Yes, page 109 says "Fortifications: These represent purpose-built battlefield defenses." As per the definition of the word "fortifications" I just provided you, they are synonymous with battlefield defenses.

And again, that's on page 109, defining them as purpose-built fortifications, so not overruled.

So lets take the basic rule (from cover saves) and replace "fortification" with the definition found later "Purpose-built purpose-built battlefield defenses..." Is the ADL purpose-built purpose-built battlefield defenses?

Congratulations on derailing the thread, guys!

I think the thread was already derailed. As it is I believe it is high time we get back to the original topic.

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

Could you misrepresent people more?

Codex trumps BRB when there's a conflict. That's in the actual rules instead of what you want to pretend. If there's no conflict the BRB wins.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

Could you misrepresent people more?

Codex trumps BRB when there's a conflict. That's in the actual rules instead of what you want to pretend. If there's no conflict the BRB wins.

If there's no conflict, there should be no question.

Getting back to the original topic:

This is an incredibly misunderstood topic. GW attempted to add clarity by mentioning that codex overrides rulebook and advanced rules override basic rules, but since people do not understand what this actually means, by them putting that in the rules it has actually led to more confusion rather than less.


The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.

When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:


1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.


However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.

By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:


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


So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?


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


Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.

If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.

However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.

It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.

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.


So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.

That was a very enlightening post. Keeping it in mind will definitely help my problem in the future.

 DeathReaper wrote:
Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

Purpose-built fortifications is the same as purpose-built battlefield defenses, assuming you know the definition of fortifications. Since it was being argued that they were NOT the same, the English language definition was necessary to end that argument, as calling them different is a misuse of either word.

If it wasn't obvious to you, then perhaps my definition that I posted was helpful after all, because it was very obvious to me.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

Purpose-built fortifications is the same as purpose-built battlefield defenses, assuming you know the definition of fortifications. Since it was being argued that they were NOT the same, the English language definition was necessary to end that argument, as calling them different is a misuse of either word.

If it wasn't obvious to you, then perhaps my definition that I posted was helpful after all, because it was very obvious to me.

Except for the fact GW is known to use the same word for two different things - such as attack and Attack.

Or gun emplacements vs emplaced guns.

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

Could you misrepresent people more?

Codex trumps BRB when there's a conflict. That's in the actual rules instead of what you want to pretend. If there's no conflict the BRB wins.

So you do not believe that "..all rules in the codex trump both" ?

you don't do you? So how have I misrepresented you?

Oh but in answer to your question, yes I can misrepresent people more, since I have not have misrepresented anyone in this case, I am sure I could do better than zero.

40k-noob wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

40k-noob wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

40k-noob wrote:
So would something like the Deathwing Assault special rule which only applies to certain Dark Angels units be considered an Advanced rule?

Erm, that's from a codex, right? Anything in a codex doesn't have to worry about basic vs advanced, because all rules in the codex trump both.

Many here have argued they dont.

Could you misrepresent people more?

Codex trumps BRB when there's a conflict. That's in the actual rules instead of what you want to pretend. If there's no conflict the BRB wins.

So you do not believe that "..all rules in the codex trump both" ?

I can say with a guarantee that all rules in a codex do not always trump the BRB. It's an absolutely false statement.

you don't do you? So how have I misrepresented you?

People have argued (truthfully) that you need a conflict to override the rule book.
You implied that people were taking an unreasonable (and incorrect) stance.

Oh but in answer to your question, yes I can misrepresent people more, since I have not have misrepresented anyone in this case, I am sure I could do better than zero.

You absolutely did. You can pretend you meant something else, but your implication is pretty clear.

Saying that the codex will always win (especially in reference to DWA) is just absolutely false. Just like the actual rules say.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 DeathReaper wrote:
No, they were not using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner

Purpose-built fortifications is the same as purpose-built battlefield defenses, assuming you know the definition of fortifications. Since it was being argued that they were NOT the same, the English language definition was necessary to end that argument, as calling them different is a misuse of either word.

If it wasn't obvious to you, then perhaps my definition that I posted was helpful after all, because it was very obvious to me.

I'll indulge you for the moment. What page of the advanced rules state that the ADL, or any fortification; purpose built or otherwise, has a 3+ cover save again?