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 Kharn still hit an invisible target on a 2+?

And can he also deny a blessing on a 2+?

1) The BRB does not give any insight on how to handle two set modifiers. so no one knows.

2) If the blessing targets him, yes.

I figured that would have been a huge one to clarify on a FAQ

I'd say invisibility over kharns rule

Could you use same time allowance, ie controlling player chooses which is applied first?

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Could you use same time allowance, ie controlling player chooses which is applied first?

Huh?

Kharn hits on 2+ against invisibilty because codex trumps rulebook.

And kharn only DtW on 2+ if his unit is the target of a psychic power which blessings would not do.

Oh boy

1) If there is a conflict between a rulebook and a codex rule, the codex rule always takes precedence. I'd say Kharn will still hit invisible units on a 2+.

2) Kharn and his unit only get the 2+ DTW if they are the target of the power so if you mean can they use it to deny blessings on enemy units it's going to be a no.

Johnnytorrance wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Could you use same time allowance, ie controlling player chooses which is applied first?

Huh?

When two events must occur at the same time, the controlling player chooses the order they are resolved in. So two set modifiers would resolved in order of controlling players choosing - iff it doesn't get overridden anyway by the codex over brb concept

Codex > BRB. Kharn hits on a 2+. However his 2+ dtw only applies when his unit is targeted.

+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

chanceafs wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

Actually RAWRAI is correct. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is for rules that have sequencing conflicts, i.e. both rules are to be applied but they are both described as happening at a specific time e.g. at the start of the movement phase. In such cases both rules can be applied but the 'player whose turn it is' rule allows determination of which is applied first.

In this case the conflict is nothing to do with sequencing; there is a conflict between two separate conditions in which only one can be successfully applied. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is of no relevance in this situation and its simply a case of codex > BRB to determine which condition is used i.e. Kharn always hits on a 2+

RAW, Kharn hits invisibles on a 2+. (one better than the best to hit chance in v6, where there are no invisibles)
RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

This is because Kharn's rule was written before invisibility and therefore did not have to take it into account to reduce ambiguity.

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

Actually RAWRAI is correct. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is for rules that have sequencing conflicts, i.e. both rules are to be applied but they are both described as happening at a specific time e.g. at the start of the movement phase. In such cases both rules can be applied but the 'player whose turn it is' rule allows determination of which is applied first.

In this case the conflict is nothing to do with sequencing; there is a conflict between two separate conditions in which only one can be successfully applied. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is of no relevance in this situation and its simply a case of codex > BRB to determine which condition is used i.e. Kharn always hits on a 2+

and both of these rules are applied at the same time, at the last step of modifying a roll. And we are told that all modifiers are applied and that set modifiers are applied last. Not even that sentence allows room for multiple set modifiers. So since they happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is picks which is applied first, and then the one applied second gets the override. But since the rules explicitly tells you to apply ALL modifiers, and gives you an order in which to apply them, there is not justification for codex v BRB or specific v advanced. Because the conflict is already resolved. Both are applied and the one applied last takes precedence.

Kharn's intention is that he always hits someone, either his target or his friends. So if we are going by RAI are we saying that if he hits invisible targets on 5's does he hit friends on 4, 3, 2, 1? That's a silly way to play it. I agree with the Codex > BRB on this one.

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

chanceafs wrote:

and both of these rules are applied at the same time, at the last step of modifying a roll. And we are told that all modifiers are applied and that set modifiers are applied last. Not even that sentence allows room for multiple set modifiers. So since they happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is picks which is applied first, and then the one applied second gets the override. But since the rules explicitly tells you to apply ALL modifiers, and gives you an order in which to apply them, there is not justification for codex v BRB or specific v advanced. Because the conflict is already resolved. Both are applied and the one applied last takes precedence.

That's just ridiculous. How can you even think that such an interpretation makes sense ?

Hey it's my turn, I hit invisibles on a 2+.
Shoo, it's your turn, I hit invisibles on a 6+, and all my comrades on 1-5.

WTF.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
Kharn's intention is that he always hits someone, either his target or his friends. So if we are going by RAI are we saying that if he hits invisible targets on 5's does he hit friends on 4, 3, 2, 1? That's a silly way to play it. I agree with the Codex > BRB on this one.

I don't think there can be anything sillier than one single character in one single codex landing five times more hits than any other unit in the whole game on a unit benefiting from a rule that was created after that character's ability.

morgoth wrote:

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!

I highly doubt the writers of the rule Invisibility even thought about Kharn. The writers of Kharn however clearly wanted Kharn to hit on a 2+ without exception since at the time there wasnt an exception.

Warhammer 40k is full of crazy crap. Whats wrong with a demonicly driven super human being able to hit people he cant see?

chanceafs wrote:

 Tonberry7 wrote:

chanceafs wrote:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:
+1 Codex trumps BRB for this wording. The "player whose turn it is" sort of thing only decides in tiebreaker situations where there is ambiguity. Invisibility is not an advanced/special rule much less a codex specific
one.

Actually the opposite is true. The 'player whose turn it is' rule gives you a way to resolve both rules without them conflicting, therefor you never have to use codex vs BRB. Both rules are applied, and the rules tell us the order in which they are applied.

Actually RAWRAI is correct. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is for rules that have sequencing conflicts, i.e. both rules are to be applied but they are both described as happening at a specific time e.g. at the start of the movement phase. In such cases both rules can be applied but the 'player whose turn it is' rule allows determination of which is applied first.

In this case the conflict is nothing to do with sequencing; there is a conflict between two separate conditions in which only one can be successfully applied. The 'player whose turn it is' rule is of no relevance in this situation and its simply a case of codex > BRB to determine which condition is used i.e. Kharn always hits on a 2+

and both of these rules are applied at the same time

Except they can't be because of the conflict. Codex > BRB tells us which takes precedence.

chanceafs wrote:
, at the last step of modifying a roll. And we are told that all modifiers are applied and that set modifiers are applied last. Not even that sentence allows room for multiple set modifiers.

Last time I checked, the roll required to hit a target is not a Characteristic Value. The rules for modifying Characteristics are therefore irrelevant.

chanceafs wrote:
So since they happen at the same time, the player whose turn it is picks which is applied first, and then the one applied second gets the override

Nothing in the rules for either Invisibility or Gorechild states a specific time when they are to be resolved. The sequencing rule is therefore not relevant and does not even come into consideration.

chanceafs wrote:
, But since the rules explicitly tells you to apply ALL modifiers, and gives you an order in which to apply them, there is not justification for codex v BRB or specific v advanced.

This is the BRB procedure to handle basic vs advanced rules. I've inserted the relevant rules being discussed here for clarity.

"Where advanced rules (Gorechild) apply to a specific model (Kharn), they always override any contradicting basic rules (Invisibility)." "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook (Invisibility), and one printed in a codex (Gorechild). Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex (Gorechild) or Army List Entry always takes precedence.

Kharn melee attacks always hit on a 2+.

IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

 Brotherjanus wrote:
IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

The only reason I can see for it is because then the player who wants super invisibility on their point sink deathstar would have to adapt. That's the same reason they'll try to say Wall of Death (advanced/special rule), somehow doesn't trump the basic snapshot rule either. They don't want there to be ANY counter other than 36 dice to wound (before saves).

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

Zimko wrote:

morgoth wrote:

RAI, Kharn hits invisibles on a 5+.(one better than the best to hit chance on invisibles in v7)

That is HYWPI and is probably a unique way of playing it. Saying their intent is to give Kharn 1 better than anyone else is interesting but I doubt that was their intention. I believe their intention is to give him 2+... which is what his rule does.

Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!

I highly doubt the writers of the rule Invisibility even thought about Kharn. The writers of Kharn however clearly wanted Kharn to hit on a 2+ without exception since at the time there wasnt an exception.

Warhammer 40k is full of crazy crap. Whats wrong with a demonicly driven super human being able to hit people he cant see?

Since you have nothing against my point, I just reiterate it: Of course, GW intended for Kharn to hit invisibles (that did not exist) on a 2+ ! OF COURSE !! WHAT ELSE !!!



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

Because it's an unintended effect of the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RAWRAIrobblerobble wrote:

 Brotherjanus wrote:
IMO the rules are clear on this. My question is, why is it such a problem for 1 model in 1 army to bypass an extremely good blessing?

The only reason I can see for it is because then the player who wants super invisibility on their point sink deathstar would have to adapt. That's the same reason they'll try to say Wall of Death (advanced/special rule), somehow doesn't trump the basic snapshot rule either. They don't want there to be ANY counter other than 36 dice to wound (before saves).

This is not how a rules discussion works.

The only reason to judge for Kharn is that people hate invisibility.

The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

Premise 1: GW did errata the CSM codex rewriting rules for 7ed, thus changing how they were intended to work
Premise 2: Kharn's rule did not change during this errata

Conclusion: Kharn's rule is currently written as intended for 7ed, and is as valid a rule as is invisibility.

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

Premise 1: GW did errata the CSM codex rewriting rules for 7ed, thus changing how they were intended to work
Premise 2: Kharn's rule did not change during this errata

Conclusion: Kharn's rule is currently written as intended for 7ed, and is as valid a rule as is invisibility.

Premise 1 and 2 do not cause the conclusion, because it happens all the time that GW does not address everything in their FAQ / errata, which is proven by the amount of uncertainty in some of the YMDC threads.

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:

 CrownAxe wrote:

morgoth wrote:
The main reason to judge against Kharn is that his ability's effects on invisibility could not have been intended.

How do you know that? For all we know this is what GW wanted and left it as is because it works as such. If they didn't intend for it to work like that GW could have errated it or FAQed it.

Premise 1: GW are known to not FAQ most things
Premise 2: Kharn's rule was written long before invisibility
Premise 3: Kharn's rule's effect in its original context was simply to hit everything as if he had WS11 and +1 to hit, hitting friends on a roll of 1.

Conclusion: GW never intended for Kharn's rule to break invisibility. They did not FAQ it because they don't FAQ most things, which is why there is a YMDC forum section.

Premise 1: GW did errata the CSM codex rewriting rules for 7ed, thus changing how they were intended to work
Premise 2: Kharn's rule did not change during this errata

Conclusion: Kharn's rule is currently written as intended for 7ed, and is as valid a rule as is invisibility.

Premise 1 and 2 do not cause the conclusion, because it happens all the time that GW does not address everything in their FAQ / errata, which is proven by the amount of uncertainty in some of the YMDC threads.

Nor does your argument prove that GW has kept the same intentions since 6ed. Its still a complete possibility that GW intends Kharn to hit on 2+ (because the rule was written with the intention to make Kharn hit on 2+).

If anything your concept that Kharn's rule represents "WS11 with +1 to hit" is so convoluted that it would be absurd if GW also thought of kharn's rule to work that way.

Indeed. And even better, the raw works. You can argue RAI all you want morgoth, however you're not being that convincing.