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.

So if I'm getting Morgoth's argument correct Kharn doesn't hit Centurions on a 2+ because they didn't exist when his rule was written so they couldn't have possibly intended him to hit Centurions or Riptides or Wraith Knights or Wyverns on a 2+. Good to know.

morgoth is also saying Gw intention was for kharn to always hit "one better than everyone else"

GWs intention has been that kharn hits on a 2+, and hits friendlies on a 1, he's been that way since 3rd edition. history of the character shows what their intention was.

he's hitting on 2+

 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 do like this interpretation though, in fluff...

Kharn does not see Invisible enemies.
Kharn knows they are around him.
Kharn slashes everywhere, ripping apart his team-mates while getting an opponent or 2...
Kharn is happy.

Ok so, I have a theoretical question for all of you using the codex>BRB logic. What if Invisibility (or a power that did basically the same thing) were in a codex? What happens then? Is there a way to resolve it?

chanceafs wrote:
Ok so, I have a theoretical question for all of you using the codex>BRB logic. What if Invisibility (or a power that did basically the same thing) were in a codex? What happens then? Is there a way to resolve it?

Nos's suggestion would probably be best - person who turn decides.

Don't think there's much else written on such things, but something like this could certainly be a codex power.

Anything > Invisibilty. Because it is a crutch that needs to be kicked out from underneath the weak.

I say split the difference and he hits on a 4+.

 Nem wrote:

chanceafs wrote:
Ok so, I have a theoretical question for all of you using the codex>BRB logic. What if Invisibility (or a power that did basically the same thing) were in a codex? What happens then? Is there a way to resolve it?

Nos's suggestion would probably be best - person who turn decides.

Don't think there's much else written on such things, but something like this could certainly be a codex power.

As written? Kharn would still win, because Invisibility isn't a special rule. It is a modifier to basic rules. and Kharne (presumably) say "always hits on a 2+". "Always hits" conditions trump "can only" or anything but anything but "never hits" style verbiage.

 namiel wrote:
I say split the difference and he hits on a 4+.

A sure way to leave everyone unhappy, (insert quip about good compromise) much like the "roll off" crowd. The guy who knows he's wrong still wins 50% in that situation. It's fine the first time it comes up in a game, but YMDC is to avoid that the next go around

And where does it say special rules cancel out psychic powers? Psychic powers are not basic rules and they are not in themselves special rules. They ate both modifying basic rules as all special rules, wargear and powers do.


Always hits on a x does not always cancel out other rules, we know this because those things can not hit zooming flyers or swooping fmcs, infact a better case based on precedent can be made for quite the opposite, it can even breach the codex wins premise here, as presidents can be made for these circumstances those rules not being so literal. Then there is the issue that normally we would prioritize the most restrictive rules, invisibility causes conflicts we are not used to seeing in this environment, and I'm sure if they FAQd it, it could go either way, but I would quit while ahead.

 Nem wrote:
And where does it say special rules cancel out psychic powers? Psychic powers are not basic rules and they are not in themselves special rules. They ate both modifying basic rules as all special rules, wargear and powers do.

Psychic powers all have different rules and effects. Invisibility 's effects modify basic rules, which are subordinate to special rules, which are in turn subordinate to codex rules as explicitly noted elsewhere.

"Invisibility is a blessing that targets a single friendly unit within 24". Whilst the power is in effect, enemy units can only fire Snap Shots at the target unit and in close combat will only hit models in it on To Hit rolls of a 6."

BRB<codex
Hit on a 6>< Kharn hits on a 2+.

Kharn hits on a 2.

 Nem wrote:
Always hits on a x does not always cancel out other rules, we know this because those things can not hit zooming flyers or swooping fmcs, infact a better case based on precedent can be made for quite the opposite.

No, you would need to be able to roll x to hit, but otherwise? "always hits on a 2+" means you are hit on a 2+ unless you have a specific, overriding exemption, "can only be hit on a 6, regardless of any special rules the targetted model may have." Do you think that Invisible units are immune to scattered blasts? Buildings collapsing? Vector Strike? Torrent weapons which happen to touch them? Strike those questions, there'e another thread for that if yo want o argue it. Instead, can you provide an example of "always hits on a 2" that can't hit a flyer, assuming it can roll in the first place? We don't need to get bogged down in ground CC troops not being able to assault flyers. Please include actual RAW quotes that others can validate.


Otherwise, Kharn hits on a 2+. Note: I don't play whatever army has Kharn (Daemons I assume?)

Powers are Subordinate to special rules - will need a rules quote to confirm that as I've not come across it in any YMDC or any rule book I've seen,

As for the flyers thing I'm sure there are rules equivalent to Khans but for shooting / other - will look them up when on a pc.

And blasts are a completely different issue, they do not conflict with invisibility at all, as those things you listed do not target the invisible unit. Khans rule and invisibility conflict directly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think Khans SM?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just going in there, if Khans ability does not modify basic rules then he's hitting on his WS like the basic rules tell you to.

 Nem wrote:
Powers are Subordinate to special rules - will need a rules quote to confirm that as I've not come across it in any YMDC or any rule book I've seen,

It is also not a premise I made. That's a straw man.

I said different powers had different rules and that Invisbility modifies basic rules. My premises are
1) that codex>special>basic rules.
2) Invisibility is not a special rule, just a modifer to basic rules (aka snap shot etc).

 Nem wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And just going in there, if Khans ability does not modify basic rules they he's hitting on his WS like the basic rules tell you to.

"always hits on a 2+" is the quoted rule I've been told. Assuming it is actually worded that way... he hits on a 2+, regardless of his weapon skill or any other non-codex rule worded to trump it "can never be hit except on a" verbiage. If he has a gun and that rules applies to it/ranged combat, he'd hit flyers too since codex>snapshot (basic). That's not a basic stat modifier its a model specific codex rule.

My Avatar, even manning a twin-linked quad gun with nightvision power and BS10, only hits on a (twinlinked) 6 though, because HE doesn't have any "always hits on a " verbiage.

Kharn's ability doesn't modify his BS/WS (a basic rule), it says he hits in a 2+.

And I'm saying, all your premises are based on assumptions you have not quoted any rules or any possible precedents for, the only bit backed by the rule book is that the codex takes president, which was not worth arguing with how badly that sentence is written but there... I can only cover those based on 6ed faq's as they are the only possible answers we have.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/580096.page#6549209

That is from 6th and showing a the flyers rule trumping a codex rule. You can compare but there codex president line was in the last rule book as was hard to hit - as in those rules have not changed so why would it work differently now?


The best case is always vs can only but I don't think that's so watertight either, then again I can't think of another always off the top of my head that has contended with hard to hit (which uses can only). Many things have tried and failed at overruling hard to hit, which uses the can only wording.

 Nem wrote:
And I'm saying, all your premises are based on assumptions you have not quoted any rules or any possible precedents for, the only bit backed by the rule book is that the codex takes president, which was not worth arguing with how badly that sentence is written

The best case is always vs can only but I don't think that's so watertight either, then again I can't think of another always off the top of my head that has contended with hard to hit (which uses can only). Many things have tried and failed at overruling hard to hit, which uses the can only wording.

My first premise:
1) that codex>special>basic rules.

"Basic Versus Advanced
Basic rules apply to all the models in the game, unless stated otherwise. They include the rules for movement, shooting and close combat
...snip....
Advanced rules apply to specific types of models, whether because they have a special kind of weapon (such as a boltgun), unusual skills
...snip...
For example, the basic rules state that a model must take a Morale check under certain situations. If, however, that model has a special rule that makes it immune to Morale checks, then it does not take such checks – the advanced rule takes precedence. On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence.
"

I don't see how that is vague or poorly worded.


Premise 2:
2) Invisibility is not a special rule, just a modifier to basic rules (aka snap shot etc).

Where does it say Invisibilty is or grants a special/advanced rule? It is not in the special rules section. If we look at the Shrouding power which immediately precedes Invisibility, we see this:
"have the Shrouded special rule"

Shrouding is a psychic power that grants explicitly grants a special rule. Invisibility does not grant the "Hard to Hit" special rule or any other. RAW they do not get the "Hard to Hit Rule". Even if they did, the codex still trumps BRB per premise 1, which has already been proven with explicit quotes.

The "Hard to Hit rule" states:
" is a very difficult target for units without specialised weapons. Shots resolved at such a target can only be resolved as Snap Shots unless the model or weapon has the Skyfire special rule."

I'm guessing Kharn would count as a specialised guy in that YMDC debate if he wasn't a codex rule user and was a BRB unit but I'd have to see the whole rules for him to be sure.

Does he hit on a 2+ or on his WS? Hitting on WS is a basic rule, is Khan doesn't then he is by definition doing something other than the basic rule... He overrides the rules on WS chart and what is needed to hit, invisibility does the same. The are both the same sort of modification.

And under premise one this doesn't mention special rules hierarchical to advanced rules, just there are basic and advanced rules (special rules included).

Codec conflict rule book has been demonstrated to read as where it's conflict on the same rule. Such as Khan hits on ws (basic), Khan hits on 2's (codex takes precedent), this doesn't necessarily read that 2 different rules to the same.

It's not a sequencing problem. Therefore codex vs rule book every time. It's simple straight forward. It's not like people use khorne armies anyway.

Kharn's ability to hit is based purely on his sense of smell. Being invisible does nothing to deny his acute olfactory abilities to home in on your location and whack you in your invisible face.

 Nem wrote:
Does he hit on a 2+ or on his WS? Hitting on WS is a basic rule, is Khan doesn't then he is by definition doing something other than the basic rule... He overrides the rules on WS chart and what is needed to hit, invisibility does the same. The are both the same sort of modification.

And under premise one this doesn't mention special rules hierarchical to advanced rules, just there are basic and advanced rules (special rules included).

Codec conflict rule book has been demonstrated to read as where it's conflict on the same rule. Such as Khan hits on ws (basic), Khan hits on 2's (codex takes precedent), this doesn't necessarily read that 2 different rules to the same.

Kharn hitting on 2+ is courtesy of the rules for Gorechild, his massive chainaxe. The exact wording is: "Kharn's melee attacks always hit on a 2+"

It really is as simple as Codex > BRB in this case. As I outlined earlier:

 Tonberry7 wrote:
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+.

RAWRAIRobbleRobble,
Technically there is only Basic and Advanced Rules, with specific permission for Advanced Rules in Codex's to 'trump' those found in the Rulebook. The instruction on what incorporates a basic Rule or an Advanced Rule is found right back in the Core Section of the Rulebook. It is very lacking in detail, it is not even a page to explain the concept of how their Rules interact with each other in the hierarchy, and is just a-typical of Game Workshop. Now if the Psychic Power in question and Special Rule both fall under 'Advanced Rules' and both where found in a Codex?

This is not an unknown situation, the answer is always the same...
Bang your head against the wall along side us, it will do just as much good as trying to figure out which one is 'more advanced.'

"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

JinxDragon wrote:
RAWRAIRobbleRobble,
Technically there is only Basic and Advanced Rules, with specific permission for Advanced Rules in Codex's to 'trump' those found in the Rulebook. The instruction on what incorporates a basic Rule or an Advanced Rule is found right back in the Core Section of the Rulebook. It is very lacking in detail, it is not even a page to explain the concept of how their Rules interact with each other in the hierarchy, and is just a-typical of Game Workshop. Now if the Psychic Power in question and Special Rule both fall under 'Advanced Rules' and both where found in a Codex?

This is not an unknown situation, the answer is always the same...
Bang your head against the wall along side us, it will do just as much good as trying to figure out which one is 'more advanced.'

Thank you Jinx this is what I was trying to put across when I started posting.

AlexRae wrote:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.

There is a similar discussion in:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/615151.page

To phrase it in the same way there,
Khan hits on WS (BRB), Khan hits on 2+ (Codex) is a example of a rule in the rulebook and one printed in the codex conflicting.

Now the literal sentence in its form looks like it extends to any time two rules collide - but there's a whole host of situations where we know this is not true, the times where this isn't true, is two different rules conflicting, where one is present in the BRB and one in the codex, we see BRB taking precedent where they are both advanced rules, actual rule applications of this sentence are not that clear cut.

In general, you'll find people posting that have a problem with being quoted the codex and BRB bits, mainly as it's used to justify so much.
This post> http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/520554.page#5505107 notes everything on specific and general, and codex and BRB. To quote a section;

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.

That above, should explain why it's entirely possible for if a FAQ to come out for it to say Invisibility wins, we've seen it time and time again when FAQ's are released (I mean, you know that tie when GW was actually releasing useful FAQ's) and over the years of 40k this is a very annoying sentence which isn't clear and has very annoying implications.

'Always' again, looks clear on the surface but when we say specific were normally looking for the permission to give a specific exemption or worded in a way to override the restriction we are looking for -Regardless of any other restrictions/even against invisibility- would suffice, or is what we'd normally be looking for to say it's more spercific. In the case of Tau markerlights, there is one (Going from memory now!) which increases the BS of the firing unit - however only the marker lights which specifically say they can effect the BS of snap snots (As snapshots is essentially a restriction) can raise the BS of snap shots, even though one is a basic rule and one is a codex rule.

It's all a bit wibbly wobbly and in 6th we were able to identify which way they wanted us to play these new instances fairly early from FAQ's, but there's a FAQ draught upon 7th.

 Nem wrote:

AlexRae wrote:
"On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence. "

If this is word for word what the BRB says, then this is a non-issue. There is no ambiguity. The rule for Gorechild printed in the Codex takes precedence over the rule for Invisibility written in the BRB.

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.

For Kharn vs Invisibility there is no ambiguity apart from that which you seem to be trying to manufacture. That quote from the BRB is probably one of the least ambiguous statements in there.

 Nem wrote:
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.

Not according to: "On rare occasions, a conflict will arise between a rule in this rulebook, and one printed in a codex. Where this occurs, the rule printed in the codex or Army List Entry always takes precedence."

 Nem wrote:
That above, should explain why it's entirely possible for if a FAQ to come out for it to say Invisibility wins, we've seen it time and time again when FAQ's are released (I mean, you know that tie when GW was actually releasing useful FAQ's) and over the years of 40k this is a very annoying sentence which isn't clear and has very annoying implications.

It is possible that a future FAQ could rule that Kharn needs a 6 to hit Invisible units in melee just like everyone else. This is however irrelevant as no such FAQ exists at this time, and remember that GW did errata each Codex to make any changes to codex rules they deemed necessary for 7th edition. That BRB sentence is perfectly clear and only annoying if you don't like its implications for any given rule conflict.

 Nem wrote:
It's all a bit wibbly wobbly and in 6th we were able to identify which way they wanted us to play these new instances fairly early from FAQ's, but there's a FAQ draught upon 7th.

It's probably just best to stick to the RAW in the absence of an FAQ then. But you do have the option of playing the game any way that you like.

 Nem wrote:

I think there is some ambiguity - at least in what the scope of that sentence means.


Khan hits on WS (BRB), Khan hits on 2+ (Codex) is a example of a rule in the rulebook and one printed in the codex conflicting

Page/para that states Kharn ever uses his WS in a melee attack. You're making this part up. He never uses WS for any melee attacks, per his rule "Always hits on a 2+"

This is a clear case of codex > rulebook, there's no 'ambiguity' about it

Does the rule specifically say "always"? If yes, then he...well...always hits at 2+.

Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

>> play an army that relies on invisibility
>> get defeated...a lot
>> be bitter
>> ask for rules changes

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

Thank you for a perfect example of a strawman argument that in no way resembles the argument Morgoth presented. Now, if the Wraithknight had a rule that said, "This model can only be wounded on a To Wound Roll of 6" that would be a fair comparison to a rule that says always when compared to another rule that says it can't happen comes out in a later codex... which takes priority.

Misrepresenting an argument made by someone else doesn't help your case, it merely points out that you're argument is so week you have to change your opponents argument to argue against it.

chanceafs wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

Thank you for a perfect example of a strawman argument that in no way resembles the argument Morgoth presented. Now, if the Wraithknight had a rule that said, "This model can only be wounded on a To Wound Roll of 6" that would be a fair comparison to a rule that says always when compared to another rule that says it can't happen comes out in a later codex... which takes priority.

Misrepresenting an argument made by someone else doesn't help your case, it merely points out that you're argument is so week you have to change your opponents argument to argue against it.

Eh, morgoth's argument may have been misrepresented, but that does not make the argument for 'Kharn hits invisibility on a 2+' weak.

I don't think morgoth's argument is correct. He is saying that Kharn should hit on a 5+ because its 'one better' then 6. This is assuming the intention was for Kharn hit like normal, except 1 better. If that was the intention, then I think the rule would have been written to just give Kharn a +1 to hit modifier. This way if Kharn was fighting someone of equal WS, he would hit on a 3+ instead of 4+. However, that is not the case. Kharn hits everyone, including people of equal of greater WS, on a 2+.

And as always, the specific codex ruels for Kharn overrides the rules for invisibility in the rule book.

chanceafs wrote:

 NuggzTheNinja wrote:
Not sure why people are even arguing this.

Codex > BRB, and always means always last time I checked.



This whole RAI argument from Morgoth is absolutely absurd. BRB, DE poisoned weapons don't work against Wraith Knights because they didn't exist when the DE codex came out. Obviously wounding a T8 MC on a 4+ is an unintended abuse of the rules!

Seriously, where do people come up with this gak...

Thank you for a perfect example of a strawman argument that in no way resembles the argument Morgoth presented. Now, if the Wraithknight had a rule that said, "This model can only be wounded on a To Wound Roll of 6" that would be a fair comparison to a rule that says always when compared to another rule that says it can't happen comes out in a later codex... which takes priority.

Misrepresenting an argument made by someone else doesn't help your case, it merely points out that you're argument is so week you have to change your opponents argument to argue against it.

You are erroneously equating invisibility with a rule specific to codex: Eldar pertaining to Wraithknights.

 Tonberry7 wrote:

Kharn hitting on 2+ is courtesy of the rules for Gorechild, his massive chainaxe. The exact wording is: "Kharn's melee attacks always hit on a 2+"

As has been repeatedly pointed out, Kharn always hits on a 2+, not because he has amazeballs WS or anything red herrings people want to claim, but because his codex specific, model specific, weapon specific rule says he "always hits on a 2+" as Tonberry quoted.

If you want to say that is not the quote, and that Tonberry is outright fabricating a quote, be prepared to quote the actual Chaos codex rule and not some personal interpretation of what they may have meant to write instead. Otherwise we can all shoot S10 AP1 apocalypse blast weapons as an assault 50 weapon, because obviously my guys stuff should always win...

Kharn "always hits on a 2+".