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.

I disagree that these "other considerations" outright trump Kharn's "always hits on a 2+". I would agree that Forgeworld is truly crappy at writing rules even less consistently worded than normal GW's inconsistently worded rules. Other considerations is much more vague than ALWAYS. There is nothing to "consider" when the word always is used. I would accept the premise of whose turn it is getting to choose but it's certainly not cut and dry that the Revenant just plain wins this argument.

no, other considerations is perfectly plain. It means that ANYTHING that would make the target hit on less than a 6+, other than super heavies who by the rule hit on a 5+, is trumped by the rev. titan rules. Also, trust me, FWs stuff is WAAAAAAAY less awkward than GWs, even ignoring the fact that they actually FAQ their gak when necessary.

Malathrim wrote:
I disagree that these "other considerations" outright trump Kharn's "always hits on a 2+". I would agree that Forgeworld is truly crappy at writing rules even less consistently worded than normal GW's inconsistently worded rules. Other considerations is much more vague than ALWAYS. There is nothing to "consider" when the word always is used. I would accept the premise of whose turn it is getting to choose but it's certainly not cut and dry that the Revenant just plain wins this argument.

It clearly is. The wraith titan rule covers Kharn as well as any other modifier to hit.

It does not clearly do that. If it were clear, then nobody would be arguing over it. The word always means in any event, forever, without exception. The word always has the same implications as the weak passive 'regardless of other considerations'. Are all the pro-Eldar people supporting the damn Titan or what?

Kharn says to his wife, "I love you always." Then he says to his mistress, "I love you regardless of other considerations." Which sounds stronger in that context?

'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Lord Krungharr wrote:
It does not clearly do that. If it were clear, then nobody would be arguing over it. The word always means in any event, forever, without exception. The word always has the same implications as the weak passive 'regardless of other considerations'. Are all the pro-Eldar people supporting the damn Titan or what?

Kharn says to his wife, "I love you always." Then he says to his mistress, "I love you regardless of other considerations." Which sounds stronger in that context?

You only hit on a 6 regardless of any other rules.

My rule lets me hit on a 2+.


Easy to see which way is clear. Alot of this discussion is fluff. RAW its clear.

Lord Krungharr wrote:
It does not clearly do that. If it were clear, then nobody would be arguing over it.

That might be so in an emotionally sterile environment, but many a rules argument is had on the basis of what seems fair or what seems too overpowered to be true or any other consideration (pun intended) other than what the rules clearly say.

Are all the pro-Eldar people supporting the damn Titan or what?

Ah, speak of the devil. There's the emotional response. It's not about being pro-Eldar. It's about what the rules clearly say.

Is Kharn's rule of hitting on 2+ a consideration in terms of hitting the Revenant Titan? Yes, so it is overruled.

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Where does it say that?

OomieCrusha wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Where does it say that?

In the definition of 'regardless of'.

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Really? Please provide a page number so I can look it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fail to see how "always hit on 2+" can be ignored by some vocal people here.

Because an absolute restriction beats out an absolute permission. "REGARDLESS OF other considerations"? Well Kharn 2+ is another consideration.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because an absolute restriction beats out an absolute permission. "REGARDLESS OF other considerations"? Well Kharn 2+ is another consideration.

Page for that?

The best I can find is the advice to dice this.

Sorry, not familiar with the rules for either unit, but can kharn actually wound the titan in cc, or, even if he could, would he get annihilated? Because if this I the case, and we arguing over something that will probably never happen, I think that matter is (sort of) resolved.

Anyway, my opinion, is that this cannot really be resolved absolutely. Unless someone can provide a clear event where the word always (or never) is clearly overruled in one of GW's rules then you will just go round in a circle, with no way out.

Naw wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Because an absolute restriction beats out an absolute permission. "REGARDLESS OF other considerations"? Well Kharn 2+ is another consideration.

Page for that?

The best I can find is the advice to dice this.

Its how the rule set is created. Basis of a permissive system.

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Really? Please provide a page number so I can look it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fail to see how "always hit on 2+" can be ignored by some vocal people here.

Can you show us a page number for 'always'? Yeah, I didn't think so. 'Regardless of other considerations' literally means you ignore any other considerations. That is why 'always' is ignored because that is what the rule tells us in plain English.'

Pfffft, screw semantics, pedantics, and dice. Meet in the middle and wound on a 4+.

 Ghaz wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Really? Please provide a page number so I can look it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fail to see how "always hit on 2+" can be ignored by some vocal people here.

Can you show us a page number for 'always'? Yeah, I didn't think so. 'Regardless of other considerations' literally means you ignore any other considerations. That is why 'always' is ignored because that is what the rule tells us in plain English.'

So you have no rules to base this on. You should have said so immediately. Please mark your posts as HIWPI.

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Really? Please provide a page number so I can look it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fail to see how "always hit on 2+" can be ignored by some vocal people here.

Can you show us a page number for 'always'? Yeah, I didn't think so. 'Regardless of other considerations' literally means you ignore any other considerations. That is why 'always' is ignored because that is what the rule tells us in plain English.'

So you have no rules to base this on. You should have said so immediately. Please mark your posts as HIWPI.

So you have no understanding as to how the ruleset works? Restrictions trump permissions.

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Really? Please provide a page number so I can look it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fail to see how "always hit on 2+" can be ignored by some vocal people here.

Can you show us a page number for 'always'? Yeah, I didn't think so. 'Regardless of other considerations' literally means you ignore any other considerations. That is why 'always' is ignored because that is what the rule tells us in plain English.'

So you have no rules to base this on. You should have said so immediately. Please mark your posts as HIWPI.

I have more rules to base it on than you do. Please show us your rule for 'always', or take your own advice and mark your post appropriately.

Fragile wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

Naw wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
'Regardless of' has the stronger context in the rules.

Really? Please provide a page number so I can look it up?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I fail to see how "always hit on 2+" can be ignored by some vocal people here.

Can you show us a page number for 'always'? Yeah, I didn't think so. 'Regardless of other considerations' literally means you ignore any other considerations. That is why 'always' is ignored because that is what the rule tells us in plain English.'

So you have no rules to base this on. You should have said so immediately. Please mark your posts as HIWPI.

So you have no understanding as to how the ruleset works? Restrictions trump permissions.

No, I do not have a difficulty understanding how these rules work. The answer was already given in page 1, in case you missed it, please look it up.

We are now stuck with "regardless of" that isn't a rule. In case you get in an argument with your opponent, again, the best choice I could find was to dice it. That was also mentioned in the first page.

Hopefully this clarifies the issue and we can move on to other topics.

There is no need to dice it off. The Titan rule is more specific and applies to Kharn.

Fragile wrote:
There is no need to dice it off. The Titan rule is more specific and applies to Kharn.

Seriously? You try to say that "always hit on 2+" is less specific? Really?

Can you finally provide the page in the rulebook where we are explained "more specific"? You keep dodging that.

The Titan rule is more specific because it calls out every other ability that can hit it in melee with "other considerations"

That other consideration is any other special rule. Pretty simple.

Fragile wrote:
The Titan rule is more specific because it calls out every other ability that can hit it in melee with "other considerations"

That other consideration is any other special rule. Pretty simple.

100% this.

Regardless of other considerations trumps every other rule.

Always has an implicit permission to.. you know, ALWAYS work.

But let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Naw wrote:
Always has an implicit permission to.. you know, ALWAYS work.

But let's just agree to disagree and move on.

"Do you exercise regularly?"
"Oh yeah, I always run in the evening."
"Even when it's snowing?"
"Well, yeah, not then."

An 'always' statement in isolation will of course give way to relevant exceptions. In this case Kharne's always has a relevant exception.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

Naw wrote:
Always has an implicit permission to.. you know, ALWAYS work.

But let's just agree to disagree and move on.

"Do you exercise regularly?"
"Oh yeah, I always run in the evening."
"Even when it's snowing?"
"Well, yeah, not then."

An 'always' statement in isolation will of course give way to relevant exceptions. In this case Kharne's always has a relevant exception.

But that's not the definition of 'always' is it though, it's just a way we use it, and in the rules we should use the dictionary definition of words, or every single sentence could be debated. Both are very specific, both saying always do something. So my point above still stands.

 The_Grey_Knight wrote:
...and in the rules we should use the dictionary definition of words

This I think is your major mistake, assuming reference must be made to dictionary definitions in isolation from how words are actually used. The rules aren't written in computer code made up of absolute values or meanings.

or every single sentence could be debated.

Many could be, and indeed are, for the reason I just stated.

Both are very specific, both saying always do something. So my point above still stands.

One goes beyond simply "always" and qualifies that by explaining it overrides other considerations, which Kharn's rule would include. It should be incredibly straightforward.

Both the rules are very specific. Both are extremely specific. However. The Wraith Titan rule states that anything other than another titan or gargantuan creature can only hit it on a 6+ regardless of weapon skill or other considerations. That means any unit with Wraith Titan special rule cause any other unit attacking it in melee combat to lose their special rule allowing them to hit the titan on anything other than a 6+ in close combat. Kharn basically just loses his special rule due to the titan's special rule. It's really that simple.

Naw wrote:
Always has an implicit permission to.. you know, ALWAYS work.

But let's just agree to disagree and move on.

Except in a permissive ruleset, if something gives you permission to do Thing A, and something else says you can not do Thing A, then you can not do Thing A.

Disagree all you want, but the rules back what I am saying. Your argument is not correct.