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.

The relic says

Each time an attack is made against the bearer, an unmodified wound roll of 1-3 for that attack fails, irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or the model making the attack may have.

How does it interact with

Attacks made with this weapon wound INFANTRY units on a 2+.

Is the addition of "irrespective of any ability ..." enough to circumvent Attacker's Priority?

While resolving attacks, you'll occasionally find that two rules cannot both apply — for example, when an attacking model with an ability that enables it to always score a successful hit on a 2+ targets a model that has an ability that states it can only be hit on a 6+. When this happens, the attacking model’s rules take precedence.

I'd argue the "irrespective of any abilities..." text probably does override the Attacker's Priority rules interaction.

However, I'd also argue this is another example of GW failing at rules writing. Why have that Attacker's Priority rare rule then have a bunch of situations where it would apply but doesn't because you've added on another clause to overrule a specific clause that overrules a general rule? It's just so unnecessary.

The weapon normally wounds on a 2+. The relic ignores that ability because it specifically says that it does. 2s and 3s will not wound.

Slipspace wrote:
I'd argue the "irrespective of any abilities..." text probably does override the Attacker's Priority rules interaction.

However, I'd also argue this is another example of GW failing at rules writing. Why have that Attacker's Priority rare rule then have a bunch of situations where it would apply but doesn't because you've added on another clause to overrule a specific clause that overrules a general rule? It's just so unnecessary.

Agreed.

Slipspace wrote:
I'd argue the "irrespective of any abilities..." text probably does override the Attacker's Priority rules interaction.

However, I'd also argue this is another example of GW failing at rules writing. Why have that Attacker's Priority rare rule then have a bunch of situations where it would apply but doesn't because you've added on another clause to overrule a specific clause that overrules a general rule? It's just so unnecessary.

It's a matter of setting precedence in rules, including the option to override the normal rules for precedence.

Poison wounds on an X+ regardless of the target's Toughness, but the target can only be wounded on a Natural Y+ regardless of any other rules saying otherwise.

Doesn't Attacker's Priority take affect here? Fir instance, a Vindicaire would wound her on a 2+. Because the attacker's rules always take precedence during a rule conflict.

No, because “irrespective of any abilities that the weapon or model making the attack may have” overrides it.

As above
In order to use attackers priority, yiu have to sue the ability. And, as you're explicitly denied that, yiure breaking the rule.