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.

Does the Catacomb Command Barge convey 2 sets of Sweep attacks? One set from the rule in the Necron Codex entry and one from the FAQ adding Chariot to its profile? I don't see anything in the FAQ that negates the Sweep Attack entry in the codex.

I don't think so as the rules are named the same. I would throw this in the same class as when codex explains how a usr works that is in the black book. The obvious intention is these are the same rule in different places, but depending on how much of a TFG you want to be you could definitely make the case for it have two sets.

Course you'd have to get around the fact that they are explicitly the same special rule, namely 'Sweep Attack'. Sure the one in the Necron codex supersedes the one in the BRB, but there isn't any indication that you'd get to benefit from it twice.

By RAW yes you have 2 sweeping attacks, since I'm making one with the Chariot Profile and one with the Catacomb Barrage Profile.

By RAI obviously not.

By Local Meta, if you still want games then don't do it.

It's an overlap as the CCB was released before the Chariot rule existed.

By RAW, you can only make a limited number of sweep attacks in a turn (Necron - 3, BRB - equal to your models attack statistic)

Given how fulfilling one precludes the other and they are both the same rule by virtue of having the same name, how on earth are people coming to the conclusion that you can do both?

I played a kid at my local store who pulled this on me. His OL did a Sweep Attack and swung 6 times against my Land Raider (3 from the codex rule and 3 from the chariot rule).

I don't argue rules when playing at the local GW store with youngin's, so I let the LR get toasted.

I went and checked the rules when I got home and posted this thread since I didn't see anything RAW preventing his interpertation.

Thanks for the clarification. I can now see that the rule having the same name means you only get it once. I will kindly explain that to him next time.

Pyrrhus of Epirus wrote:


I can now see that the rule having the same name means you only get it once.

Citation needed.

I'm pretty sure there are other things that have the same name but don't do the same thing.

It would be saying that the Eldar Pathfinder is the same Pathfinder as the Tau one.

One is the BRB sweep attack and one is the Necron sweep attack.

One is under the profile of Chariots and one is under the Catacomb command barge's profile.

He has all in the rights by RAQ to do the profile in the codex and in the book.

If they want to change how the codex works they will say remove "blah" from page "blah", paragraph "blah".

Really? you want someone to 'prove' that you can only use a given rule once unless otherwise explicitly indicated? alright: (From page 32 of the BRB)"...Unless specifically stated, a model cannot gain the benefit of a special rule more than once..."

Now then, will you kindly provide the rules which indicate you may benefit from the same rule more than once at a given time in this specific instance?

It's not the same rule though, one is for the chariot profile and one is for the catacomb barge.
Aka one is BRB sweep attack and one is Necron sweep attack.

And where does it say treat all same named things the same?

im not saying i would play this way but it's something that needs to be faqd.

It doesn't get more clearly indicated that they are both called the same thing, and therefore 'are' the same thing regardless of where or how often they show up.

What you are suggesting is akin to saying you can get a 2+ cover save from 5 different applications of 'Stealth', or +6 attacks on a charge from 3 different sources of 'Rage'.

The rules have quite clearly put a kibosh on that sort of thing, so once again can you quote where you are getting permission to bypass that from?

 Neorealist wrote:
It doesn't get more clearly indicated that they are both called the same thing, and therefore 'are' the same thing regardless of where or how often they show up.

Assault Vehicle is defined at least twice - once in IA and once in the BRB. Which one "wins"?

Whichever of those two is considered to be the more 'advanced' rule, so likely whichever was published more recently unless it also appears in a codex.

(I'd presume Imperial Armor is considered a basic rulebook rather than a codex)

rigeld2 wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
It doesn't get more clearly indicated that they are both called the same thing, and therefore 'are' the same thing regardless of where or how often they show up.

Assault Vehicle is defined at least twice - once in IA and once in the BRB. Which one "wins"?

The one which has the rules for the vehicle you are using, at a guess. The Assault Vehicle rule for the lucius is, by definition, more specific than the general rulebook rule

 Neorealist wrote:
It doesn't get more clearly indicated that they are both called the same thing, and therefore 'are' the same thing regardless of where or how often they show up.

What you are suggesting is akin to saying you can get a 2+ cover save from 5 different applications of 'Stealth', or +6 attacks on a charge from 3 different sources of 'Rage'.

The rules have quite clearly put a kibosh on that sort of thing, so once again can you quote where you are getting permission to bypass that from?

If the rule isn't defined within your own codex it tells you to reference the BRB.

The sweep attack within the Necron codex is clearly defined by itself and hence is allowed to utilize the one in the Necron Codex, and use the one in BRB for the Chariot profile.
Keep in mind that these are 2 rules for 2 different profiles, it just happens that this particular unit has both.

If you say that the BRB name and Codex Names are the same then Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

 Makutsu wrote:
Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

a) Read the FAQs
b) This specific situation didn't even need an FAQ because the actual rules state that Flak is an upgrade in some codexes. Until the SW codex lists it as an upgrade, you can't be shooting flak.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

a) Read the FAQs
b) This specific situation didn't even need an FAQ because the actual rules state that Flak is an upgrade in some codexes. Until the SW codex lists it as an upgrade, you can't be shooting flak.

But one of his claims is that since it's the same name hence it has to overwrite the one in the codex.
Obviously is not the case, and hence needs a FAQ.

Makutsu wrote: If you say that the BRB name and Codex Names are the same then Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

They are defined as the same thing, namely 'Sweep Attack'. I didn't decide to arbitrarily group them together for no reason like you are implying, I group them together because they are called the same thing in the rules.

Your spacewolves comment is mildly disingenuous because it has nothing to do with a catacomb barge, but I'll address it anyway. The reason that spacewolves (and indeed any other codex without flak missiles listed in their missile launchers' profile) do not get flak missiles is because of this line "...and sorne have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles..." which indicates the codex profile must list flak missiles in order to benefit from them.

 Makutsu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

a) Read the FAQs
b) This specific situation didn't even need an FAQ because the actual rules state that Flak is an upgrade in some codexes. Until the SW codex lists it as an upgrade, you can't be shooting flak.

But one of his claims is that since it's the same name hence it has to overwrite the one in the codex.
Obviously is not the case, and hence needs a FAQ.

Codex Over-rides BRB when there is a conflict (Page 2 or 3 from memory)

Therefore you use Sweep Attack in the Necron Codex, not the Sweep Attack in the BRB.

 DeathReaper wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Makutsu wrote:
Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

a) Read the FAQs
b) This specific situation didn't even need an FAQ because the actual rules state that Flak is an upgrade in some codexes. Until the SW codex lists it as an upgrade, you can't be shooting flak.

But one of his claims is that since it's the same name hence it has to overwrite the one in the codex.
Obviously is not the case, and hence needs a FAQ.

Codex Over-rides BRB when there is a conflict (Page 2 or 3 from memory)

Therefore you use Sweep Attack in the Necron Codex, not the Sweep Attack in the BRB.

Is it a conflict? They both say the same thing, so how can there be a conflict?

This is the exact same argument that was in play with the Daemon rule from the old Daemon's Codex and the Daemon rule from the BRB.
Do you guys remember how GW ruled on that one?

40k-noob wrote:
Is it a conflict? They both say the same thing, so how can there be a conflict?

This is the exact same argument that was in play with the Daemon rule from the old Daemon's Codex and the Daemon rule from the BRB.
Do you guys remember how GW ruled on that one?

They are worded slightly differently. To be clear though i'm not saying the necron one doesn't overwrite the BRB version (I believe that it does exactly that incidentally). What I am saying is that it's just as wrong to use both sets of rules at the same time as it would be to apply the Stealth USR from nightfighting (for example) 'and' one granted to the model via wargear at the same time.

 Neorealist wrote:

Makutsu wrote: If you say that the BRB name and Codex Names are the same then Space Wolves can start shooting flak missles all they like since the "missle Launcher" has 3 profiles of flak as well.

They are defined as the same thing, namely 'Sweep Attack'. I didn't decide to arbitrarily group them together for no reason like you are implying, I group them together because they are called the same thing in the rules.

Your spacewolves comment is mildly disingenuous because it has nothing to do with a catacomb barge, but I'll address it anyway. The reason that spacewolves (and indeed any other codex without flak missiles listed in their missile launchers' profile) do not get flak missiles is because of this line "...and sorne have the option to upgrade to include flakk missiles..." which indicates the codex profile must list flak missiles in order to benefit from them.

Codex Over-rides BRB when there is a conflict (Page 2 or 3 from memory)

Therefore you use Sweep Attack in the Necron Codex, not the Sweep Attack in the BRB.

They are the similar rules.
And even if they were they are not under the same profile.
Unless there is a restriction of only allowing me to use rules from one profile and not the other, there is absolutely nothing stopping me from using the Chariot once and the one from Catacomb Barge once.
What you are saying is RAI that the names are same is equal same rule. Unless you have a specific citation that "same name = same rule" then they are different for all purposes.

Catacomb Barge has the Sweep Attack Rule specific to it.
A Chariot has Sweep Attack Rule specific to a Chariot.

A Catacomb Barge is a Chariot and hence benefits from both rules.
Hence, you can use both.

Again, unless you can find where same name = same rules then the player is allowed to use both profiles' sweep attack.

That is an interesting perspective. Why do you feel them being from a different profile makes them anything other than two different versions of the same rule?

How 'else' would you determine what is a discrete rule, other than it's name?

I personally don't think they should be treated differently but that's what one could argue.

There's no RAW about this, so you'd have to treat it differently under profiles.

It's like unbreakable hide and warp-forged armour. They both give a 3+ Armor save but as far as RAW goes they are different.
Of course this is not the best example, but it would seem really silly to get 2 armor saves of same value.
But RAW is RAW, even though they do the exact same thing there's no ruling to make them different.

In this case it's even more specific since the full name of the rule could be thought of as:
Necron Catacomb Barge Sweep Attack
and
BRB Chariot Sweep Attack.

We can use the above example due to the fact that for example Harlequines in the Eldar and Dark Eldar codexes are different units by all means.
Hence psychic powers that affect Eldar:Harlequins cannot affect Dark Eldar:Harlequins which they have the exact same rules and profiles but are treated differently.

Funny you should mention elder and dark eldar as they serve to illustrate my point.

Dark Eldar can receive 'Furious Charge' from slaying enemy units.

Eldar harlequins also have 'Furious Charge'.

Should a unit composed of a Dark Eldar IC (presuming a strength of 3 base) with a couple of pain tokens and an elder unit of harlequins, What is it's strength total if the unit charges something?

Furious charge is model to model basis.
So only that model itself with the rule gets the benefit, not what you were trying to prove here...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Furious is not defined in the codex itself, but to reference the BRB.

I don't know how the Eldar example proves your points as it clearly states that they are different units even though the name is the same.
What you are trying to prove is same name = same thing.

The point I was making is that the squad would receive Furious Charge twice; Once from the base rules provided to every model in a squad of harlequins, and once from the Power through Pain special rule as provided by the IC. If I'm not mistaken the rule grants the entire unit the special rule, not just the model itself. If it works otherwise? I apologise, I'm not as familiar with either codex as I'd like.

That said: using your interpretation of how special rules interact and given both 'Furious Charge' rules come from different sources but reference the same special rule; the squad must benefit from both of them on the charge correct?

I personally don't think they should be treated differently but that's what one could argue.

You can argue anything... Doesn't make it right though.

It's like unbreakable hide and warp-forged armour. They both give a 3+ Armor save but as far as RAW goes they are different.

No they are exactly the same thing - a 3+ armor save... That's it.

In this case it's even more specific since the full name of the rule could be thought of as:
Necron Catacomb Barge Sweep Attack
and
BRB Chariot Sweep Attack

It's obvious the CCB simply got updated to sixth edition. That's no excuse to rules lawyer something you can't really do.

 Neorealist wrote:
The point I was making is that the squad would receive Furious Charge twice; Once from the base rules provided to every model in a squad of harlequins, and once from the Power through Pain special rule as provided by the IC. If I'm not mistaken the rule grants the entire unit the special rule, not just the model itself. If it works otherwise? I apologise, I'm not as familiar with either codex as I'd like.

That said: using your interpretation of how special rules interact and given both 'Furious Charge' rules come from different sources but reference the same special rule; the squad must benefit from both of them on the charge correct?

First of all power from pain is a model specific rule.
And a pain token grants the ability of furious charge which tells you to go reference the BRB.
Your entire argument is invalid as neither rules confers to the unit/
And again Furious charge is not defined in the codex itself it is defined in the BRB.
But sweep attack is defined in both places under 2 different profiles.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dozer Blades wrote:

I personally don't think they should be treated differently but that's what one could argue.

You can argue anything... Doesn't make it right though.

It's like unbreakable hide and warp-forged armour. They both give a 3+ Armor save but as far as RAW goes they are different.

No they are exactly the same thing - a 3+ armor save... That's it.

In this case it's even more specific since the full name of the rule could be thought of as:
Necron Catacomb Barge Sweep Attack
and
BRB Chariot Sweep Attack

It's obvious the CCB simply got updated to sixth edition. That's no excuse to rules lawyer something you can't really do.

Oops, I meant that I'd personally play that they are the same.

Yes, they give a 3+ Armor save but you don't get a reroll due to that.
So in the end you'll end up with 2 3+ armor saves.
Just to make this clearer for those who don't play the CD codex.
You get to reroll gifts if they end up as the same, but clearly you don't even though they have the exact functionality.

It's obvious that it got an update, but the rule is still there.
There has been no update on the specific CCB's sweeping attack.

For things such as fliers they would remove specific rules of the corresponding unit.
Like the Dark Eldar Razorwing it was allowed to fire 4 missles prior to any FAQ that was released since Aerial Assault allowed you to do that.

Makutsu wrote:
First of all power from pain is a model specific rule.
And a pain token grants the ability of furious charge which tells you to go reference the BRB.
Your entire argument is invalid as neither rules confers to the unit/
And again Furious charge is not defined in the codex itself it is defined in the BRB.
But sweep attack is defined in both places under 2 different profiles.

Look the point wasn't to discuss the specifics of how Eldar and Dark Eldar work, as it's difficult for me to care less about either. The point was to highlight your error in logic, namely that you can stack two different sources of the same effect rather than have one supersede the other.

It is a given that one source of 'Sweep Attack' comes from the necron codex, and a different version comes from the BRB. The onus is still on you to prove that these are in fact different rules rather than different variations of the same rule such as their name would indicate.