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.

 Konrax wrote:

Codex > Rule book

Let me be clear, I would play it that he hits on a 2+, even though rules-wise that is not so. I said before, and I'll do it again that Codex > BRB only comes into the equation when there is a conflict between 2 Permissions OR 2 Restrictions of equal status and specificity. When there is a conflict between a Permission and a Restriction of equal status and specificity, the Restriction wins.

 Ninjakk wrote:


Let me be clear, I would play it that he hits on a 2+, even though rules-wise that is not so. I said before, and I'll do it again that Codex > BRB only comes into the equation when there is a conflict between 2 Permissions OR 2 Restrictions of equal status and specificity. When there is a conflict between a Permission and a Restriction of equal status and specificity, the Restriction wins.

Your right about this, but the permission and restriction in question here are not of equal status.


Gorechild is more specific and advanced that invisibility. It applies to only one model and in one situation whereas invisibility applies to whoever it is cast on and on any shooting or assault directed towards the invisible unit.

 Eihnlazer wrote:


the permission and restriction in question here are not of equal status.


Gorechild is more specific and advanced that invisibility. It applies to only one model and in one situation whereas invisibility applies to whoever it is cast on and on any shooting or assault directed towards the invisible unit.

Both rules fall in the realm of "advanced" because they alter the way that the core rules apply, and both are equally specific in that one explicitly permits hitting on 2+ in CC and the other explicitly restricts those trying to hit them in CC to rolling a 6 to do so.

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Eihnlazer wrote:


the permission and restriction in question here are not of equal status.


Gorechild is more specific and advanced that invisibility. It applies to only one model and in one situation whereas invisibility applies to whoever it is cast on and on any shooting or assault directed towards the invisible unit.

Both rules fall in the realm of "advanced" because they alter the way that the core rules apply, and both are equally specific in that one explicitly permits hitting on 2+ in CC and the other explicitly restricts those trying to hit them in CC to rolling a 6 to do so.

They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

Gorechild is what one model needs to hit all other models... Invisibility is what all other models need to hit one model. Their levels of specificity are exactly equivalent, just in opposite ways.

chanceafs wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

Gorechild is what one model needs to hit all other models... Invisibility is what all other models need to hit one model a unit, which could be anything from one model to 50 models. Their levels of specificity are exactly equivalent, just in opposite ways.

Fixed that for you. They're not exactly the same.

It isn't the number of actual models, but rather the number of possible models.

Invisibility could affect every model involved in the game (possibly). Gorechild can only ever effect, in any realm of possibility, Kharn.

The number of models affected does not alter the specificity of a rule. "This model hits on 2+" and "These models can only be hit on a 6" both refer, specifically, to a particular roll needed in a particular situation, that situation being in close combat.

 Ninjakk wrote:
The number of models affected does not alter the specificity of a rule. "This model hits on 2+" and "These models can only be hit on a 6" both refer, specifically, to a particular roll needed in a particular situation, that situation being in close combat.

I fail to see how something that only applies in a single instance to a single model is of equivalent specificity to something that could apply to every model in an army. That's like, literally the definition of specific when set in opposition to general.

"This one swan is black" is more specific than "These swans are all black" even though the only difference is number.

The number of Models that have access to the Rule is irrelevant when determining which of the Rules in question have priority.

This is because the instructions within the Rulebook for determining such is very much lacking in any detail instruction. It is a single paragraph which details only two types of Rules, basic and Advanced, while also having a clause which literally states that the Rules in the Codex have priority whenever there is a conflict. Because the Rules telling us how to determine these factors do not require us to verify how many Models have access to the Rule, and to use that to determine if the Rule has priority, there is no grounds for us to actually do so. As far as the Rules are concerned these two Rules are "equally Advanced," but we are required to obey the Rule found in the Codex because the book literally states that.

If it was worded instead that the blessing bestows the "Invisible" special rule (same effect, just that it's a special rule), there wouldn't be any confusion about Codex > Rulebook. Why is it different if it's a Rulebook psychic power?

I could see there being confusion between two Codex units that have opposing rules, such as "can only be hit in close combat on a 4+" vs "always hits in close combat on a 2+". Invisibility vs Gorechild is a conflict between Rulebook and Codex, and we are told that the Codex always wins in this situation. Unless it's not a conflict between the Rulebook and the Codex, which it undeniably is.

I really hate that GW put in the "Codex > BRB" thing to take care of little things because it's now some sort of half-baked chant used all the time that doesn't apply in specific situations like this. Nobody even thinks about it any further than that one statement. If that statement stands in every single case, then why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB? It's because restrictions in the BRB CAN and often do overrule permissions in a codex.

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins.

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

It's a simple way to apply an answer to a situation where splitting hairs gets you no closer.
In this situation there's a ability with rules from the BRB, THE other is a weapon with rules for it from a codex. There's a conflict. Other than rolling a dice, the only other option is use the clearly written solution by GW THAT says codex over brb.

Simplified. It does not break the game and is not wrong. What's more frustrating is seeing all the dismissing of a written solutuon.

 Ninjakk wrote:

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins.

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Where are you getting this from? This is a conflict between something from the Rulebook and something from a Codex. In conflicts between the Rulebook and the Codex, the Codex wins. There are no "permissions vs permissions" or "restrictions vs restrictions", and there is no measure of "advanced" or "specific" beyond Rulebook (basic) vs Codex (advanced). You say that we can't use Codex > Rulebook to resolve this situation, so how do you propose we resolve it?

It's a conflict, exactly the kind we are told how to resolve. It's no more complex than that, and it's certainly not "some sort of half-baked chant".

 Ninjakk wrote:
why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB?

Give examples.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Ninjakk wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


They are not equally "advanced" however. They're both advanced rules, but Invisibility is far less specific than Gorechild, and as a general principle for permissive rules-sets, you also must assume that specific rules override general ones.

Gorechild is NOT more specific simply because it only affects one model. The number of models affected doesn't matter in terms of specificity. Specificity refers only to a rule's language in altering the core rules. Both rules refer to what a model needs to hit in CC, and they are therefore equal in this respect.

No, invisibility refers to what "all models" need to hit. Gorechild refers to what "one model" needs to hit. If that isn't the definition of specificity than I don't know what is.

You are correct you do not know how specific vs general works. Specific vs general is about which rule more specifically mentions the situation. For instance sweeping advance clearly states no rule can save you therefore Yarrick's iron will rule doesn't save him after being swept even though it applies to far less models, a rule would would have to specifically mention sweeping advance to be more specific than it. However if someone had a rule that saved them no matter how they were removed from play rule would be equally as specific as sweeping advance (and thus rulebook vs codex would come into play). 

What we have here is "can only be hit on 6" vs "always hits on 2+". So they are indeed equally specific as both claim to always work when called upon. Neither specifically mentions interactions with other rules so neither is more specific that way and neither mentions the others rule so neither is more specific that way. Thus we have a conflict between 2 equally specific rules meaning we have to use Rulebook vs Codex to resolve it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

I  really hate that GW put in the "Codex > BRB" thing to take care of little things because it's now some sort of half-baked chant used all the time that doesn't apply in specific situations like this. Nobody even thinks about it any further than that one statement. If that statement stands in every single case, then why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB? It's because restrictions in the BRB CAN and often do overrule permissions in a codex. 

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins. 

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Please give an example of a restriction that overrides an "always" permission without specifically mentioning it.

 Ninjakk wrote:
Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Frozen Ocean wrote:Where are you getting this from? This is a conflict between something from the Rulebook and something from a Codex. In conflicts between the Rulebook and the Codex, the Codex wins. There are no "permissions vs permissions" or "restrictions vs restrictions", and there is no measure of "advanced" or "specific" beyond Rulebook (basic) vs Codex (advanced). You say that we can't use Codex > Rulebook to resolve this situation, so how do you propose we resolve it?

I am getting this from the most basic tenets of writing rules, but I guess no one cares about those. Rulebook is not considered basic, and Codex is not considered advanced. There is a way to gauge it, but it seems to elude many people. I have stated how it should be resolved. Were this a restriction vs a restriction, the Codex one would win. Were it a permission vs a permission, the Codex one would win. In a restriction vs permission situation (of equal specificity and status), the restriction wins. By the most basic idea behind writing a rule set, this must always be so.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:

I  really hate that GW put in the "Codex > BRB" thing to take care of little things because it's now some sort of half-baked chant used all the time that doesn't apply in specific situations like this. Nobody even thinks about it any further than that one statement. If that statement stands in every single case, then why are there rules in some codices that ARE overruled by the BRB? It's because restrictions in the BRB CAN and often do overrule permissions in a codex. 

Forgot to quote, but Frozen Ocean, it wouldn't matter if Invisibility was actually a USR because it is STILL just as specific and advanced as Kharn's rule, but the restriction wins. 

Once again, and hopefully for the final time, Codex > BRB is used to determine whether one permission takes precedence over another permission or one restriction takes precedence over another restriction. It is NOT used when determining whether or not a restriction takes precedence over a permission. Such is always the case with equally specific and equally advanced rules.

Please give an example of a restriction that overrides an "always" permission without specifically mentioning it.

How about you give an example of a permission that overrides an "only" restriction without specifically mentioning it? In no other situation would anyone even have cause to think that a restriction is overruled by a permission (again, of equal specificity and status).

The only problem with that Ninjakk, is that the rulebook makes no difference between a permissive or a restrictive rule. We all know there is a difference in a permissive rule set, but that is not how they decided to handle conflicts. without a difference in the rules and neither being more specific, the only way you have to resolve the conflict is between the codex and the rulebook. Permissive rule set or not, they have chosen a Codex rule as taken priority over a Core rulebook rule.

If they had indeed acknowledged the difference in permissive and restrictive rules, the outcome would be different. But they didn't, so the only raw outcome is that Kharn hits on a 2+

Nanjakk,
There is a way to show that Basic Vs Advanced does not apply to a situation, simply prove that there is no conflict to be resolved and that whole section no longer applies. This method has been pulled out repetitively in the past on this very site, most famously in the whole Outflank-Disembark from Landraider-Assault debate that is almost considered "precedent" around these parts. Should you wish to silence the people that are stating a direct conflict exists you only need to do one very 'simple' thing: Prove we can obey both an Always command and an Only command at the same time, in that no situation will ever exist to force us to break one or the other.

Without creating the foundation that Basic Vs Advanced does not apply, everything else you put forth for how we should resolve these situations is leading to conclusions violating the Written Rules themselves. While Fundamentals are very important to understanding how rule systems work, they do not allow us to over-turn a Written Rule within any game should it tell us to do something that would normally run counter to these Fundamentals. So even if you could prove that your interpretation of Permissions is correct, I will not try to argue if it is or isn't, you still run into the problem of violating a Written Rule. Disagree with the Rule all you want, but if you are going to be posting as in a way that suggests your argument is 'Rule Supported' then expect people to point out what you are doing is illegal by the very Rule you disagree with.

For hair splitters who think "always hits on a 2+" means something other than "always hits on a 2+" and may be grasping at straws to justify it...

When can Kharn miss? Well, he "Always hits on a 2+" so he can only miss on a 1. "Always hits on a 2+" is a restriction on when Kharn can miss, not just a permission on when he hits.

Kharn. Always. Hits on a 2+. Always.

And I don't even have a Daemon(CSM?)army.

pyre wrote:
The only problem with that Ninjakk, is that the rulebook makes no difference between a permissive or a restrictive rule. We all know there is a difference in a permissive rule set, but that is not how they decided to handle conflicts. without a difference in the rules and neither being more specific, the only way you have to resolve the conflict is between the codex and the rulebook. Permissive rule set or not, they have chosen a Codex rule as taken priority over a Core rulebook rule.

If they had indeed acknowledged the difference in permissive and restrictive rules, the outcome would be different. But they didn't, so the only raw outcome is that Kharn hits on a 2+

A situation should never arise where the most basic concept of rule-writing has to be explained, and in situations where it DOES arise, everyone seems to forget these basic concepts.

How about you give an example of a permission that overrides an "only" restriction without specifically mentioning it? In no other situation would anyone even have cause to think that a restriction is overruled by a permission (again, of equal specificity and status)

"Unstoppable" Gargantuan Creatures: Weapons with Sniper wound only on 6+

Vindicare Rifle: Has the Sniper quality, but its specific Hellfire round always wounds on a 2+. The other ammo types do not. Vindicare hellfire rounds also do not carry the Poison trait (which also only Wound on 6+ vs Gargantuan Creatures), they just specifically Wound on 2+ against anything they hit, as there is nothing about the Hellfire round that is explicitly affecting the Sniper rule of the weapon. It just wounds on 2+. The Exitus Ammo (of which Hellfire is one) is the applied rule, as it can be fired by any weapon the Vindicare uses.

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different thread.

Conflicts are conflicts. I'm still not seeing anything to support "restrictions can not override permissions" and vice versa.

 Ninjakk wrote:

I am getting this from the most basic tenets of writing rules, but I guess no one cares about those.

That is completely unsubstantiated. You can't just say "I'm getting this from common sense, so therefore I am right, but I guess everyone else is just dumb" while making things up. Please cite where in the 7th Edition Rulebook these "basic tenets" are written.

 Frozen Ocean wrote:
Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6.

Yes, and since those two rules conflict the Codex > BRB so Hellfire shots still wound Gargantuan creatures on a 2+

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different threa

It says "any weapon the Vindicare fires"...

... he could be manning the quad-gun on an ADL and load his hellfire round into it. That'll Wound on a 2+. So it's not the Sniper trait granting the 2+, it's the bullet, specifically. Or, put another way, Vindicare Hellfire is not a +2 bonus to the Sniper rules normal effects (4+), it's a flat-out "wounds on 2+"

... just like Kharn is a flat-out "hits on 2+". Doesn't matter what he's swinging at, he hits it on a 2+. On a 1, he hits someone else. Kharn never misses, he just doesn't always hit the target he (most likely) intended.

 Psienesis wrote:

Hellfire shots from an Exitus rifle still carry the Sniper trait, however, and weapons with the Sniper trait can only wound a Gargantuan Creature on a 6. Either way, that's an entirely different threa

It says "any weapon the Vindicare fires"...

Huh. Mine says "Shots from a hellfire round always wound on a 2+."

Unless there was an update I didn't catch.

Well, a round cannot be the shooter, it is the shootee. Unless the Imperium has developed recursive technology that allows bullets to shoot bullets?

So this is stating that the anytime a Vindicare shoots a Hellfire round (out of something), it wounds on a 2+. This would imply that it a) supersedes all other concerns or b) can be fired out of something other than the Exitus rifle.

... but this is really more appropriate in the other thread.

Psienesis,
Please quote the Rule that states what you are claiming...
Or simply answer this question for me: As all Exitus Ammo types are granted via a Special Rule found on the two Weapon Profiles, how is it being applied to a Weapon which lacks this Special Rule?

Mostly off-topic, but I'm fairly certain that Exitus Ammunition is on the Exitus rifle/pistol, not the Vindicare himself. Firing a quad gun with Exitus ammunition would be crazy, but no. In the other thread, it has been pointed out that the ammunition types modify the existing profile, otherwise Hellfire Rounds would wound on a 2+ but have no range or AP. Therefore, Hellfire Rounds are in addition to everything else on the Exitus rifle, including the Sniper rule. However, the Exitus pistol firing Hellfire absolutely could wound a Gargantuan on a 2+, because that makes sense. If you disagree, bring it to the other thread!

So do they hit Flyers on a 2+? If not that answers Flings request for a example - though I suspect (I can't remember any) Always and only there has never been FAQ'd; just making it a debate feast.


I mean, Hard to hit is a BRB Flyers or FMC rule, these rules are not in the codex. Logic on this thread says Codex related hit stats should over ride them, hard to hit is worded 'Only' and at least during 6th we never questioned codex precedence on it, hard to hit restriction was above all else, and as far as I can tell this is still true. This makes 'Always' and 'Only' pretty important, imo. Hard to hit is probably the most known example of Codex VS rulebook does not work the way you think it does, as H2H stuck it's middle finger up throughout 6th.