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.

 Ghaz wrote:
And the two effects that contradict both occur when there is an attempt to harness a Warp Charge. They both occur at the same time.

Please cite a rule that says when two rules conflict, the one that was 'active' first takes precedence. There is no rule to support that claim.

You can't .. hence why no one has been able to justify any of this thus far

At the same time.. I think there is precedence in the rules with the key word "only" being used in specific rules?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just tossing my opinion out again. Feel free to tear it to shreds

If both effects are on the stack together, then to me, in order to successfully manifest you must satisfy both conditions (AND logic).

a roll of 1-2 -> false & false => clear fail
a roll of 3-5 -> true & false => fails
a roll of 6 -> true & true => Success

 Grizzyzz wrote:

a roll of 1-2 -> false & false => clear fail
a roll of 3-5 -> true & false => fails
a roll of 6 -> true & true => Success

This is the only way to reconcile the Culexus vs Seer Council rules.

It's really no different than the numerous other examples.

Hence I always employ the "Evaluate each combined rules and break no rules".

 whembly wrote:

Hence I always employ the "Evaluate each combined rules and break no rules".

But you ARE breaking a rule. If a rule says you MUST manifest on a 3+, and you roll a 4 but don't manifest, then did you follow that rule?

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Hence I always employ the "Evaluate each combined rules and break no rules".

But you ARE breaking a rule. If a rule says you MUST manifest on a 3+, and you roll a 4 but don't manifest, then did you follow that rule?

I think its not what needs to hold true for this effect and not the other.. it is what holds true for both because both effects are on the stack together. In this case 6+ holds true for both.


** EDIT **

eh i dont think that made any sense but as i can't delete

So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you take the 6+ you ignore the 3+.. but if you take the 3+ you ignore the 6+... etc etc..

As this is not explained anywhere in the brb.. it really doesn't matter what I or anyone else thinks.. your not getting a 100% factual answer unless you email GW and get a response.

So that is how I would play it until someone tells me otherwise .. satisfy both conditions.

Cheers!

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point

But you don't satisfy both. Because psychic might says you DO manifest on a 3. Assume it DIDN'T say 3+ for a moment, and ONLY said 3. If you roll a 3, and don't manifest it, are you still following the rule? Because that's the situation here. It's saying that on a 3, you DO manifest. If you don't, then you're breaking the rule and only following the other one. 3+ essentially means it DOES manifest on a 3, 4, 5, or 6. Ignoring ANY one of those results is JUST as contentious as ignoring the fact that psychic abomination only says 6.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point

But you don't satisfy both. Because psychic might says you DO manifest on a 3. Assume it DIDN'T say 3+ for a moment, and ONLY said 3. If you roll a 3, and don't manifest it, are you still following the rule? Because that's the situation here. It's saying that on a 3, you DO manifest. If you don't, then you're breaking the rule and only following the other one. 3+ essentially means it DOES manifest on a 3, 4, 5, or 6. Ignoring ANY one of those results is JUST as contentious as ignoring the fact that psychic abomination only says 6.

You are correct and I am not refuting that. it is impossible to resolve both at once outside of rolling a 6.. Therefore I am proposing what I think to be the most logical way to House rule this, and that is to take any case that passes both conditions to be the successful outcome, and if neither conditions can produce a successful outcome then it is a failed outcome.

as i wrote above this leaves you with the following:
1-5 -> FF || TF || FT => Fail
6 -> TT => Success * on a 6 you satisfy both *

 Grizzyzz wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
So basically you're ignoring 'Psychic Mastery' in favor of 'Psychic Abomination'.

I am not, on a 6 roll you satisfy both. That is my point

You're NOT satisfying both. We've already covered this. From 'Psychic Might' (emphasis added):

Psychic Might: When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point instead of results of 4+.

You're ignoring the fact that 'Psychic Might' says in no uncertain terms that if you roll a 3,4 or 5 you harness a Warp Charge point, no exceptions. You can't obey both rules at the same time, both are absolutes.

^ read the post just above this.. I have never said you satisfy BOTH conditions at all times.. I am only saying you DO satisfy both conditions on a roll of a 6.. etc etc etc ^^ up there


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The other possible house rule would be to change the text of the Pyshic Might to be: Pyschers in this unit gain +1 to their successful casts...

then both effects could stack.. 4+ becomes 6+.. you then get a +1 modifier .. so you would resolve on a 5+

^ maybe this is a happy middleground .. but in either case it is going to be a house or TO ruling

Cheers!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Does this same thing happen with a cullexus and a Librarian Conclave ?

The rules already cover how to handle this situation and has been brought up in the this thread already. When two events occur at the same time (as these do as they're both set modifiers) then the 'Sequencing' rule comes into play and the player who's turn it is decides which order they take place.

 Ghaz wrote:
The rules already cover how to handle this situation and has been brought up in the this thread already. When two events occur at the same time (as these do as they're both set modifiers) then the 'Sequencing' rule comes into play and the player who's turn it is decides which order they take place.

Just being devils advocate here.. but I think "sequencing" was equally debated as not being the proper solution for this here. no?

Essentially tho.. if you go with sequencing.. then Seers always get their way.. and the Cullexus never neutralizes that formation ... maybe that is how it is if the player choses, but doesn't seem the RAI solution.

Then.. i guess they still dont gen all their warp dice.. so they are still limited in that sense. Idk

Why not emphasis the INSTEAD in the Psychic Might rule? Normally a psyker succeeds on 4+, those in the formation do so on 3+. Nothing in Psychic Might says it's always true despite whatever other conditions might apply, it only says they have a different target number than normal.

why is everyone intent on disagreeing when the mechanic is hardly hidden.. it's simply that GW applied a +1 modifier to the seer council roll and a -2 modifier on a assassin roll.. I hate to break this argument into it's constituent parts but you have to to fathom what to do.

please can we stop banging on and on endlessly and take the fakery out of this.. I know why GW didn't say "-2" .. and you do too**... and I know why GW didn't say "+1" ...and you do too** .. but it doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to unpick that they DID actually do that.

And if you unpick what they did then you can re connect it so you do the same thing too..

So to try to inject some actual logic into the proceedings I would want everyone to urge that the common sense thing to do would be to make it a 5+ if you have an assassin near a seer council.

Why is 5+ right?

It clearly mimics what GW were actually doing all along (within the current ruleset) and it clearly favours no rule over another and it clearly allows both parties to benefit fairly. Job done. Move on. Shale hands. Smile.

** if you really don't know it's to do with a avoidance of "relative values" and favouring "absolute values" because it immunises better vs future rule changes, avoids arguments more often and keeps older books usable longer

ConanMan wrote:
why is everyone intent on disagreeing when the mechanic is hardly hidden.. it's simply that GW applied a +1 modifier to the seer council roll and a -2 modifier on a assassin roll.. I hate to break this argument into it's constituent parts but you have to to fathom what to do.

please can we stop banging on and on endlessly and take the fakery out of this.. I know why GW didn't say "-2" .. and you do too**... and I know why GW didn't say "+1" ...and you do too** .. but it doesn't take the wisdom of Solomon to unpick that they DID actually do that.

And if you unpick what they did then you can re connect it so you do the same thing too..

So to try to inject some actual logic into the proceedings I would want everyone to urge that the common sense thing to do would be to make it a 5+ if you have an assassin near a seer council.

Why is 5+ right?

It clearly mimics what GW were actually doing all along (within the current ruleset) and it clearly favours no rule over another and it clearly allows both parties to benefit fairly. Job done. Move on. Shale hands. Smile.

** if you really don't know it's to do with a avoidance of "relative values" and favouring "absolute values" because it immunises better vs future rule changes, avoids arguments more often and keeps older books usable longer

That not how the rules work. Just because "-2" has the same effect as 6+ on its own in a vacuum doesn't mean its the same thing. They interact with rules in different ways (such as when applying Multiple Modifiers)

If GW intended for it to be +1 and -2, they would have made it +1 and -2.

I think the only RAW argument could be based on sequencing (3+), anything else (6+,5+,4+) seems to be RAI territory.

Unless of course you're part of those who believe that "only" overrides "will" (or vice versa).

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

morgoth wrote:
I think the only RAW argument could be based on sequencing (3+), anything else (6+,5+,4+) seems to be RAI territory.

Unless of course you're part of those who believe that "only" overrides "will" (or vice versa).

While playing Warhammer 40,000, you’ll occasionally find that two or more rules are to be resolved at the same time – normally ‘at the start of the Movement phase’ or similar. When this happens, and the wording is not explicit as to which rule is resolved first, then the player whose turn it is chooses the order. If these things occur before or after the game, or at the start or end of a game turn, the players roll-off and the winner decides in what order the rules are resolved in.

No. Sequencing deals with two rules to be resolved, one after the other. This is not an issue of which is resolved first, so Sequencing is irrelevant.

 Ghaz wrote:
The rules already cover how to handle this situation and has been brought up in the this thread already. When two events occur at the same time (as these do as they're both set modifiers) then the 'Sequencing' rule comes into play and the player who's turn it is decides which order they take place.

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

Only logical and rules based solution is to satisfy both rules to be able to manifest a power.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Why not emphasis the INSTEAD in the Psychic Might rule? Normally a psyker succeeds on 4+, those in the formation do so on 3+. Nothing in Psychic Might says it's always true despite whatever other conditions might apply, it only says they have a different target number than normal.

People choose to ignore that as it doesn't support their position at all, on the contrary. So normally 4+ is needed, but as Culexus changes the requirement to 6+ then Psychic Might cannot trigger at all. Then they point out that sequencing, but it also fails as there is still the second rule in effect and it cannot be ignored.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Naw wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spetulhu wrote:
Why not emphasis the INSTEAD in the Psychic Might rule? Normally a psyker succeeds on 4+, those in the formation do so on 3+. Nothing in Psychic Might says it's always true despite whatever other conditions might apply, it only says they have a different target number than normal.

People choose to ignore that as it doesn't support their position at all, on the contrary. So normally 4+ is needed, but as Culexus changes the requirement to 6+ then Psychic Might cannot trigger at all. Then they point out that sequencing, but it also fails as there is still the second rule in effect and it cannot be ignored.

That's another interesting way to look at sequencing.

Still, I don't see a RAW justified answer in this thread yet, your invention of satisfying both a roll of 3+ and 6+ on the same roll is completely unheard of.

I mean, it might be 6+, or 3+, but you don't have a RAW backed argument for either so far.

Naw wrote:

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how sequencing works with two absolute values, which is why you're not understanding.

1. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 3+ rule first, you now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 6+ rule second. You now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You fail.
2. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 6+ rule first, you now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 3+ rule second. You now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You succeed.

At no time do ANY of the 3 rules function simultaneously because they're ALL absolute values. So sequencing does come into play.

This is how all absolute value abilities work in game. It's how Kharne's autohit on 2's power works against Invisibility's 6's. There is no reason it should work differently here.

Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies. Otherwise you allow a land raider embarked unit entering from reserves to assault the turn they disembark.

Which you refuse yo answer, lest it destroy your argument. Keep ducking, it is noticed by all....

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies.

There is no such rule or concept in 40k. There is only basic vs. advanced. For the 5th time, please stop saying that nonsense without citing supporting evidence from a GW publication. It IS a violation of the rules of YMDC!

Let's leave snide asides out of our posts, it's not remotely polite. Stick to the rules, and the tenets of the forum. And if you think someone isn't, just use the yellow triangle, no need to post about it as well. Thanks.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies.

There is no such rule or concept in 40k. There is only basic vs. advanced. For the 5th time, please stop saying that nonsense without citing supporting evidence from a GW publication. It IS a violation of the rules of YMDC!

There is no more need for a rule supporting the idea that a more specific rule overrides a less specific one than there is for a rule supporting the die face with a six on it representing a roll of a six.

Its a fundamental underpinning of the very nature of a ruleset.

As above.

It's as fundamental as permissive rule set.

Without it, I WILL assault the turn I arrive from reserves, because I disembarked a land raider . Or I will run and charge my bezerkers, because they disembarked from their kharybdis.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Naw wrote:

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how sequencing works with two absolute values, which is why you're not understanding.

1. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 3+ rule first, you now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 6+ rule second. You now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You fail.
2. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 6+ rule first, you now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 3+ rule second. You now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You succeed.

So you modify the rule to say "instead of 4+, 3+ succeeds"? That's excellent. Can I also modify the wording in the rules to support my position?

At no time do ANY of the 3 rules function simultaneously because they're ALL absolute values. So sequencing does come into play.

No, it doesn't, because you are incorrect above. If Psychic Might just said "a roll of 3+ manifests the power" then you could claim that, but it does not.

 insaniak wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Except the game construction concept of "more specific" still applies.

There is no such rule or concept in 40k. There is only basic vs. advanced. For the 5th time, please stop saying that nonsense without citing supporting evidence from a GW publication. It IS a violation of the rules of YMDC!

There is no more need for a rule supporting the idea that a more specific rule overrides a less specific one than there is for a rule supporting the die face with a six on it representing a roll of a six.

Its a fundamental underpinning of the very nature of a ruleset.

That's completely untrue in the sense that everyone tries to argue "more specific" as being far more broad than is necessary to a functional ruleset. 2 units that both have an advanced rule that conflict, but one says it only functions during the enemy turn is "more specific" by definition but doesn't make it default to being the rule that is followed in the case of 2 advanced rules conflicting. A rule that effects a specific, named character that conflicts with a rule that effects all models could be easily argued to be "more specific" as well, but it DOES NOT override the rule that effects all models just because it only effects a single named character. I KNOW you understand this, but the unwashed masses DO NOT. It is unhealthy for the gaming community at large to continuously espouse a "more specific > less specific" stance because 95% of the times that it's used as an argument aren't applicable. I can argue game theory with you, or we can agree and accept that there is no written rule in 40k that says more specific > less specific, while understanding that if a rule directly says something to be the case, directly saying it overrides another special rule, it may do that. THAT is what more specific means as a game function in 40k, and in ALL games. If I have a special rule that says I can fly, and there is a special rule that says it specifically takes away my special ability to fly, it may do so. But 2 rules that conflict without clearly indicating that it is overriding an existing, known rule, it is a conflict that must be resolved using the SPECIFIC game rules we have for resolving the conflict between 2 advanced rules.

Naw wrote:

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:

Naw wrote:

I'm sorry but as has been said multiple timed sequencing doesn't apply here.

Let's break this down:

1) You roll 5 with your d6, then say you apply the 6+ requirement first and 3+ next, saying you succeeded. Why? You failed a check.
2) You roll 5 with your d6, then apply 3+ first and 6+ second, saying you succeeded. Why? You still don't satisfy the 6 requirement.
3) You roll 5, apply 3+ and say you don't need to make the second rule. It doesn't work that way.

That's not how sequencing works with two absolute values, which is why you're not understanding.

1. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 3+ rule first, you now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 6+ rule second. You now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You fail.
2. Normally, you require a 4+(And ONLY a 4+, as it's an absolute value). If you apply the 6+ rule first, you now require a 6+(and ONLY a 6+ as it's an absolute value). Then you apply the 3+ rule second. You now require a 3+(and ONLY a 3+ as it's an absolute value). You roll a 5. You succeed.

So you modify the rule to say "instead of 4+, 3+ succeeds"? That's excellent. Can I also modify the wording in the rules to support my position?

At no time do ANY of the 3 rules function simultaneously because they're ALL absolute values. So sequencing does come into play.

No, it doesn't, because you are incorrect above. If Psychic Might just said "a roll of 3+ manifests the power" then you could claim that, but it does not.

That IS what it says. I don't appreciate you insinuating that I'm modifying the wording of the rule. Here is a direct copy/paste: "When models from this Formation make Psychic tests, results of 3+ will harness a Warp Charge point".

There is no written rule stating the game is permissive either.
Doesn't alter that it is. Same as the game does pay attention to specific > general.

Your theory results in results which break the way the game operates. That highly suggests your theory is invalid.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There is no written rule stating the game is permissive either.
Doesn't alter that it is. Same as the game does pay attention to specific > general.

Your theory results in results which break the way the game operates. That highly suggests your theory is invalid.

You're making a straw man argument again. Just because ALL games have permissive rulesets doesn't mean all games operate on a "more specific vs. less specific" basis. One has nothing to do with the other. You have a very limited understanding of the more specific vs. less specific argument that you seem to be making.

Yes, more specific applies in THIS case:

Advanced rule: All of my models are to be considered red.
2nd Advanced rule: If another advanced rule makes colors red, this rule overrides it, making the color green.

But that doesn't make "more specific" a universal indicator of correctness. "More specific" isn't what makes the second rule override the first. It's that the second rule specifically overrides the first. The only time "more specific" would ever apply would be completely and painfully obvious, as outlined above. It's situations where there really is no rules debate, because the rules specifically tell you what to do in no uncertain terms. That doesn't mean we have a "more specific > less specific" ruleset. It means we can understand that a rule can override another rule if it specifically says it does so. Otherwise, it is first subject to the "basic vs. advanced" rules, THEN subject to the "FAQ>Codex>Rulebook" rules, and if still not resolved, refer to the "sequencing rules". Never in that process is a "more specific vs, less specific" parameter checked, because it isn't a system used to resolve rules conflicts. If it were specific enough to fall under "more specific vs. less specific", there would be no rules conflict. And besides, we're never instructed to do so in this permissive ruleset. Show me the permission to use "more specific vs. less specific" in lieu of basic vs advanced and sequencing to resolve a rules conflict. You can't, because it's not meant as a process to clarify rules that aren't clear. We have other systems in place to do just that.

So again, we have no "More Specific > Less specific" rule in 40k. Stop making it up and misinforming the noobs.

 BetrayTheWorld wrote:
You can't, because it's not meant as a process to clarify rules that aren't clear. We have other systems in place to do just that.

They don't appear to be working very well.


I think this thread has gone as far as it's likely to. Moving on.