Ok, seriously, codex does NOT override rulebook

[ashnaile]

Please god every post it seems some unimformed person pipes in with "oh but as EVERYONE knows, codex>brb."

Specific Overrides General

If a situation is more specifically clarified in the rulebook than in a codex, it takes precedence in a conflict; see sweeping advance vs WBB. Please stop erroneously claiming codex>brb.

Anyways, just had to say that ...... /rant lol

[DarkLink]

No, Codex trumps BRB. I don't think you're going to get many people, if any, to side with you on this one.

To be precise, in the case of conflict a specific rule trumps a general rule. 99.99% of the time, the codex is more specific than the BRB. I can't think of a case where it isn't.


Now, remember, for one rule to trump another, there must be a conflict. As I recall, though I would have to go back and check, there is no conflict between sweeping advance and WBB rules. I can tell you with certainty that eh sweeping advance rules never say "oh, and necrons don't get WBB".

Because there is no conflict between the rules, there is no need for one rule to trump the other, making your example an irrelevant one as far as I can tell. I could be wrong about this. I don't recall precisely why Necrons don't get WBB against sweeping advances.


However, to put it more simply; if Codex rules did not trump BRB rules, then Abaddon would not be immune to Instant Death. Abaddon gets his immunity from a codex specific rule. There is a conflict, because the BRB states that doubled toughness and force weapons instantly kill a model. Abaddon's rule states that they don't kill him. But because Codex trumps BRB, Abaddon's rule wins out, and he is immune to instant death.

Probably not the best example, but it was the first one that I though of. But the 40k ruleset simply wouldn't work if codex rules did not trump BRB rules.

[fuzzbuket]

darklinks right :p

[david5th]

When a newer rule in a codex conflicts with an older rule in the rulebook surely the latest rule should take precedence.

Besides isn't this why we have FAQ's.

[Melissia]

Even older codices actually have rules that trump the newer BRB. For example, C:WH / C:DH Force Weapons do not count as normal force weapons.

[rbryce]

lol, on top of which GW seem to think codex beats rulebook. Seraphims hit and run is different to that in the BRB(which is the newer of the 2 books btw), and the FAQ agrees with the dex in this case.

[Old_Paladin]

I'm with Dark Link; you're not going to get many takers for your opinion.

The problem with saying that it has nothing to do with codex and only with specificity, is that 'specific' is actually a pretty general word.

Most rules in the BRB say "All units... do x." ALL units is pretty specific, if you ask me, it means everyone follows the rules, no exception. By definition, a codex is a set of exceptions to the main rules.

So, unless players want to get into unwinable arguments about definitions about specific vs. general (which GW never actually defines), it's easily to follow that the codex overrules the main rules.

[UltramarineFan]

Can't find the page but I felt sure that somewhere in the rulebook it says that the codex overrides if there is a conflict between rules.
I have never met anyone who has thought otherwise and I do believe you'll stuggle to find anyone who agrees with you.

[BuFFo]

If Codex didn't beat the Basic Rules 99% of the time, the game would be unplayable.

Next to nothing in your Codex would even work.

For the game to function at all, Codex rules NEED to override basic rules whenever possible.

Sweeping advance versus WBB is not a good example at all. The rules are NOT in conflict.

1) WBB is used when certain criteria is met.

2) Sweeping Advance does not MEET the criteria set forth by WBB.

3) Hence, WBB does not work against Sweeping Advance.

Now if the rules were in conflict in any way, then I bet you Necrons would still be a MUCH MORE viable army to field against Close Combat armies.

[Culven]

I agree with Ashnaile. In a case where there is a conflict between two rules, the specific rule has precedence. Generally, this means that the Codex will overwrite the Rulebook, but it doesn't mean that it isn't possible for the Rulebook to overwrite a Codex. Unfortunately, this also means that we are left to determine which is the general and which the specific, but it shouldn't be too difficult in most cases.

[Paul]

If Codex didn't beat the Basic Rules 99% of the time, the game would be unplayable.

Next to nothing in your Codex would even work.

For the game to function at all, Codex rules NEED to override basic rules whenever possible.

Sweeping advance versus WBB is not a good example at all. The rules are NOT in conflict.

1) WBB is used when certain criteria is met.

2) Sweeping Advance does not MEET the criteria set forth by WBB.

3) Hence, WBB does not work against Sweeping Advance.

Now if the rules were in conflict in any way, then I bet you Necrons would still be a MUCH MORE viable army to field against Close Combat armies.

I disagree with premises 1 and 2.

1) Actually, it is NOT used when certain criteria are met. Otherwise, it IS assumed to be used.
Support:
"At the start of every Necron Turn damaged Necrons may Self-Repair."
1a) The only times a Necron may not use WBB is:
- It has suffered a wound from a close-combat weapon that disallows armor saves.
- A weapon whose Strength is twice the Toughness of said warrior.

2) Sweeping Advance causes a unit to be destroyed. It also says "Unless specified otherwise" nothing may save the unit. This is where it is fishy:

Does WBB "specify otherwise"? Or does it simply not allow it by virtue of the WBB rule not mentioning Sweeping Advance at all?

I don't care much, I play IG armored company. But I find it interesting.

[DarkLink]

By definition, a codex is a set of exceptions to the main rules.

That's actually a good description. A codex is a list of units you can use, and any exceptions to the main rules regarding those units.

[TheBitzBarn]

DarkLink has nailed it right on the head

[BuFFo]

If I may show me side of the discussion please...


I disagree with premises 1 and 2.

1) Actually, it is NOT used when certain criteria are met. Otherwise, it IS assumed to be used.

1) Sweeping Advance states there is no way to save the unit unless otherwise specified.

2) WBB does not state it overrides Sweeping Advance.

Hence the criteria has not been met. WBB special rule does not override a basic rule. It looks like WBB overrides SOME of the wording within the rule, but not the entire rule.


2) Sweeping Advance causes a unit to be destroyed. It also says "Unless specified otherwise" nothing may save the unit.

Yes, the unit is destroyed under Sweeping Advance, but if you read the rest of the rule, Sweeping Advance flatly states the destroyed unit is removed immediately. The unit is off the table.

This is what WBB does not override.

So yeah, I agree, WBB overrides Sweeping Advance in that if the models were allowed to stay on the table they could use WBB, but WBB does not override Sweeping Advance in that the models are removed from play entirely.

See my point, sir?

[Paul]

If I may show me side of the discussion please...



1) Sweeping Advance states there is no way to save the unit unless otherwise specified.

2) WBB does not state it overrides Sweeping Advance.

Hence the criteria has not been met. WBB special rule does not override a basic rule. It looks like WBB overrides SOME of the wording within the rule, but not the entire rule.



Yes, the unit is destroyed under Sweeping Advance, but if you read the rest of the rule, Sweeping Advance flatly states the destroyed unit is removed immediately. The unit is off the table.

This is what WBB does not override.

So yeah, I agree, WBB overrides Sweeping Advance in that if the models were allowed to stay on the table they could use WBB, but WBB does not override Sweeping Advance in that the models are removed from play entirely.

See my point, sir?

Yeah I get it! Thank you for clarifying that. Now, when some necron player throws that at me, I'll be prepared.

Thank you very much!

[Lerra]

Yes, the unit is destroyed under Sweeping Advance, but if you read the rest of the rule, Sweeping Advance flatly states the destroyed unit is removed immediately. The unit is off the table.

This is what WBB does not override.

So yeah, I agree, WBB overrides Sweeping Advance in that if the models were allowed to stay on the table they could use WBB, but WBB does not override Sweeping Advance in that the models are removed from play entirely.

Sweeping advance says that the model is removed, but the Necron codex states "Any Necron model that is reduced to 0 wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged."

To me, that looks like WBB prevents the models from being "removed immediately" as is stated in the Sweeping Advance rules. So every model in a squad that is swept down is damaged, but not removed.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, looking at the rule now I'm not entirely certain about the sweeping advance death anymore. How'd that conclusion come about, anyone remember?

[Old_Paladin]

Probably due to WBB not allowing a roll from things like combat attacks that allow no save.
Sweeping is only done in combat, and it doesn't allow a save (just saying).

Or it could be the part that says "models reduced to zero wounds."
Sweeping doesn't cause any wounds, it removes units from the table outright.


The odd thing is that people think it's a 5th edition problem... shouldn't it have been a 3rd edition problem? Did 'Crons get a save against the "cross-fire" rule? Has the 'removed from the board, with no saves' issue never been resolved in a FAQ?

[AirHorse]

Surely that cant be the reason? Sweeping advance isnt a close combat attack, its sweeping advance.

Not sure about the removing the unit outright from the board either, surely WBB prevents them from being removed as thats what the rule tells you to do?

[Old_Paladin]

It's probably not the direct reason, but must be similar trains of thought.
I didn't come up with the method of play; I'm just trying to work backwards from where we are.

The rules say "removed as a casalty" not "removed from play." Similar, yet different enough for people to debate the meaning.

The actual reason come be as simple as "5th ed. made it harder for 'Crons... hey, lets play a cruel joke on James (the local Necron player)..." and it got out of control.
Or, since Necron got worse in the new quick and brutal style of close combat, a couple of Necron players just started giving up, putting the swept 'Crons away and people started thinking that was how the rules are played.
Could be anything in the end.

[SeattleDV8]

The rule is unchanged from 4th ed except for the line 'no special rules, like WBB, can be used.
SW removes units, not models. The entire unit goes away.

[BuFFo]

Sweeping advance says that the model is removed, but the Necron codex states "Any Necron model that is reduced to 0 wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged."

To me, that looks like WBB prevents the models from being "removed immediately" as is stated in the Sweeping Advance rules. So every model in a squad that is swept down is damaged, but not removed.

You make a good point.

Sweeping Adavnce removes units, but WBB saves Models, and Sweeping Advance does not cause casualties, it just flat out removes them from the game, and WBB saves casualties.

Those are the only counter issues to your point I see, otherwise, your side of the coin makes sense to me as well.

[addamsfamily36]

Just curious, but how can you sweeping advance, unless every model in the unit is destroyed?If every model is destroyed then you can;t WBB anyways unless there is a similar unit or resurrection orb within range ? and if a whole unit is destroyed, but can still return from a resurrection orb etc, then it doesn't count as a unit anymore so how can you sweeping advance them?

Just curious

[Nabterayl]

Destroying the unit has nothing to do with whether or not you can Sweep, addamsfamily. In order to be able to Sweep, you need to have won the combat, and the losers need to have failed their Leadership check (which means some of the losing unit is still alive). Then you make opposed Initiative checks (using the term loosely, Tynskel! ;)), and if the winner wins or ties the Initiative roll the losing unit is "destroyed" and "removed immediately" "unless otherwise specified."

So the question is, does WBB "otherwise specify?" WBB only works on necrons that are removed as "casualties," and Sweeping Advance never says that the victims become casualties. They're simply "removed." That is the traditional reason given for why WBB doesn't apply to Sweeping Advances.

What Lerra's suggesting is that "otherwise removed as a casualty" should be read as applying to effects that remove models in ways other than as casualties or, alternatively, that victims of a Sweeping Advance are casualties, at least for purposes of WBB.

Personally I think that's the way it should work, and I'd be totally fine with allowing it as a house rule. But I do think that "as a casualty" has to be read as limiting "otherwise removed" from an English standpoint, which just leaves the question of whether "casualties" should be read as a defined term.

[addamsfamily36]

Destroying the unit has nothing to do with whether or not you can Sweep, addamsfamily. In order to be able to Sweep, you need to have won the combat, and the losers need to have failed their Leadership check (which means some of the losing unit is still alive). Then you make opposed Initiative checks (using the term loosely, Tynskel! ), and if the winner wins or ties the Initiative roll the losing unit is "destroyed" and "removed immediately" "unless otherwise specified."

So the question is, does WBB "otherwise specify?" WBB only works on necrons that are removed as "casualties," and Sweeping Advance never says that the victims become casualties. They're simply "removed." That is the traditional reason given for why WBB doesn't apply to Sweeping Advances.

What Lerra's suggesting is that "otherwise removed as a casualty" should be read as applying to effects that remove models in ways other than as casualties or, alternatively, that victims of a Sweeping Advance are casualties, at least for purposes of WBB.

Personally I think that's the way it should work, and I'd be totally fine with allowing it as a house rule. But I do think that "as a casualty" has to be read as limiting "otherwise removed" from an English standpoint, which just leaves the question of whether "casualties" should be read as a defined term.

Yeh sorry, i was really tiered earlier and wasn;t even thinking straight, scrap my entire comment i was mixing up sweeping advance and consolidation, i have to stop posting when im not thinking properly :D

[Paul]

So the question is, does WBB "otherwise specify?" WBB only works on necrons that are removed as "casualties," and Sweeping Advance never says that the victims become casualties. They're simply "removed." That is the traditional reason given for why WBB doesn't apply to Sweeping Advances.

What Lerra's suggesting is that "otherwise removed as a casualty" should be read as applying to effects that remove models in ways other than as casualties or, alternatively, that victims of a Sweeping Advance are casualties, at least for purposes of WBB.

Personally I think that's the way it should work, and I'd be totally fine with allowing it as a house rule. But I do think that "as a casualty" has to be read as limiting "otherwise removed" from an English standpoint, which just leaves the question of whether "casualties" should be read as a defined term.

I dunno. I think Sweeping Advance causes casualties. After all, it's not like all of the fleeing models suddenly vaporize, or teleport back to the tomb world, or something. They get cut down.

So if SW DOES cause casualties (rather than outright killing a unit, lol), then they totally get WBB lol.

[Duke]

Yeh sorry, i was really tiered earlier and wasn;t even thinking straight, scrap my entire comment i was mixing up sweeping advance and consolidation, i have to stop posting when im not thinking properly :D

Don't worry about it, I do it all the time... In fact some of my best work is done when my brain ant get in the way.

Duke

[Nabterayl]

I dunno. I think Sweeping Advance causes casualties. After all, it's not like all of the fleeing models suddenly vaporize, or teleport back to the tomb world, or something. They get cut down.

So if SW DOES cause casualties (rather than outright killing a unit, lol), then they totally get WBB lol.

Well, that's the thing, they don't necessarily get cut down. "We assume that the already demoralized foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding."

Now, it's arguable whether necrons would flee and hide (presumably this would mean teleport back to their base/tomb world/mothership) - on the one hand they're terminators, and so you might think that they would always fight to the death; on the other hand, they do clearly have a sense of force preservation - but it's definitely not true that a swept unit is cut down.

[Melissia]

My guess is that they do not have unlimited resources, and so they don't really like to have an entire force wiped out and have to be repaired.

[AirHorse]

Nab, while it does say that about sweeping advances I think being wiped out by a sweeping advance does count as being cut down in game terms, lets face it there are loads of things which are counted as something more simplistic in game terms but dont really cover the whole story.

Personally I think that a sweeping advance removing models from the table is casualties, but ultimately have no problem playing the game either way(not that i expect a necron opponent will choose to play without his extra rule :P)

[Renegade]

Going back to the opener, my codex states that it overrules the rule book if there is a rules conflict.

Given that the tin men... xeno, are likely to be getting redone soon anyway is now really the time to debate this? Some one should have thought of this ages ago.

But from what I am reading, SA gives no saves and is a special rule as is not in any descript phase, so no WBB.

[Lerra]

What about when a Rez orb is nearby? With a rez orb, you are allowed to repair even if you were destroyed by an attack that doesn't allow a save.

It's a pretty hairy issue without a clear answer. I'm inclined to allow WBB after a sweeping advance - at the very least, models that were damaged in the shooting phase or earlier in the assault phase feel like they should get their WBB roll.

I'm sure it will be clarified in the new codex (if WBB even remains in the new codex) but that's still nearly a year away.

[Renegade]

I am not that familiar with whats in the necron codex. Perhaps if there is a Monolith for them to come out of, otherwise I can see it working in a cinematic way and its going to make the whole consolidation thing awkward if they rise up at the same time in the same place. Can't move through a unit, but the unit is technically wiped out and those taking a rest are awaiting the fate the dice have for them.

This is one I would put down to discuss or dice off before a game if your going to play it as over riding the rule book, given the age of the codex and how the rule has been played.

I wouldn't refuse if it a player wanted to play it this way, could be interesting as long as it didn't mess up the rules for SA.

Anyone tested it out to see if it runs smooth or grinds?

[sorienor]

The OP is entirely correct. Specific > general.

A codex rule has to have a specifically spelled out conflict with a basic rule for the codex to over ride. General ideas not specifically spelled out do not count.

Let's go over some examples:

1. Eldritch Storm

Eldritch Storm is a psychic shooting attack that has the statement in the description "The Eldar player places the large blast template..." In addition, the power has a stat line that says "large blast".

The first, incorrect, interpretation is that the marker does not scatter as the rule says "place". However the wording lacks any specific language that indicates it is an auto-hit or in any way bypasses the standard blast rules (unlike the Ork psychic power "Frazzle") so the power would use the standard rules for blast templates. Thus it scatters as normal.

2. Bjorn/MegaDred

Both of these walkers have in their rules a 5+ invulnerable save. Both have very specific wording indicating they have a 5+ invulnerable save against glancing and penetrating hits. Normally invul saves can only taken against wounds but because of the very specific wording the two vehicles may use them. Specific > general.

I could go on, but the colloquialism "codex > brb" simply isn't accurate.

[BuFFo]

I could go on, but the colloquialism "codex > brb" simply isn't accurate.

Um... Your post just proved that it is... lol.