RAW question, once and for all!

[XaClocKWorKoX]

as of right now the rulebooks overrules older codexes unless FAQed or stated in rule IE go read smoke launchers

[Toogeloo]

Codex specific rules over ride all or as one of the GW game developers put it;

 

"It works as written (repeat after me ‘codex trumps rulebook, codex trumps rulebook, codex trumps rulebook...’)"

 

as of right now the rulebooks overrules older codexes unless FAQed or stated in rule IE go read smoke launchers

 

 

 

You will not find it ruled anywhere in favor of either of these responses. So technically you both are only guessing RAI. Show me where either of your answers is hard written as rules, and you will have just saved everyone a lot of headache and guess work.

[SpideyScott]

the USR section page 74 says any rules appearing in the rule book and in the codex. The verison in the codex takes precedence, bearing in mind a faq for a codex counts as part of the codex. The psykers section page 50 states the following genral rules explain how psychic powers are used. Exceptions to these rules are covered in the codexes. Finally and the most popular one quoted, page 62 in the smoke launchers box states as normal the rules in the codex take precedence.

 

I am saying in these sections mention you use the codex verision. As for other sections like wargear there is no direct support for the view codex trumps rulebook.

 

After reading these section if you think that the codex doesnt take precedence in those sections i would like to hear your reasoning behind it.

[Toogeloo]

Page 27 of the Dark Angel Codex, I will state it again. If a Dark Angel squad breaks into two separate combat squads, both squads are considered scoring units. This is inclusive to Devastator, Assault, Bike, Company Vets, and Scouts... all non troop choices. However, I highly doubt you will find anyone that allows this no matter how hard you fight "Codex trumps rulebook." I mean, would you accept it?

[SpideyScott]

First page 27 deals with ravenwing where as page 23 deals with combat squads, i assume you meant that page. To answer your question.

 

Yes i would and here is why.

 

If you keep reading that section it says each combat squad is only scoring if half its orignal models remain. Meaning if the squad drop below half they know longer count as scoring. In the rule book a scoring unit remains scoring until it is completly destroyed. In my view codex still trumps rulebook

 

I see no problem in having dark angels being able to have more scoring units but being weaker since you only need to kill over half the squad so they are no longer scoring.

 

What about my points i raised about the rulebook saying the codex takes precedence?

[Thaelion Hexis]

Again, the problem is a newer rulebook, older codices.

 

My opinion: Rules need to be broken down into two types, core and army specific. Core follows the rulebook, army specific the codices.

 

Force weapons, in my opinion are a part of the core rules set, defined by the rulebook as with scoring units. Many armies use them and should follow the same base rules, such as powerfists, power weapons etc.

 

The example used before about the Eldar psychic test of 3d6, that is allowed by army specific wargear, thus army specific. The same with Vanguard's Heroic Intervention rule.

 

This of course is my opinion but does keep things quite simple.

[SpideyScott]

Well true grit used to be a core rule but now its been removed. As for force weapons the reason imo they appear in the rulebook is some codexes specifially state refer to the rule book. Also how do we decided what wargear powers etc are generic/specfic? We have already heard that the new SM gear wont be faqed for everyone so why would force weapons be any different. Every codex is its only army with specfic rules and wargear that are different from the rulebook. If we were supposed to use the update stats why didnt they faq it so, they did for POTMS.

 

What about tyranid lictors that can assault after DS, cant they do that now because there a 4th ed codex? I dont think so.

 

As for power fist etc we dont have rules about them in our codex for the +1 attack etc so we have to use them as written in the rulebook. I dont see how there relevent to this.

[number6]

Oddly, I think I know exactly what Marshal Paul is advocating. I'm pretty sure we see eye to eye on what would constitute a rule in a codex that should have been superceded by main rules in the rule book. In spite of the general "codex supercedes all" dictum.

 

Though even I have to admit that while I think such issues are easy to suss out (e.g., what constitutes a daemon, what consitutes scoring units in a DA Ravenwing army that uses Combat Squads, etc.), not everybody seems to be able to agree with this "common sense" approach. :). I've definitely come to believe that it has less to do with "common sense not being common", than with increasingly legitimate issues with older codexes, sloppy rules verbiage, and GW's inability and unwillingness to clarify these issues in FAQs and Errata documents.

 

Sadly, our only recourse is to just agree to play it some way. I know we all want GW to actually follow through in its role as Ultimage Warhammer Authority ... but that just isn't going to happen. All you can do is present your arguments as reasonably as you can. The more you point out how your interpretation isn't exploitive, beardy, cheesy, whatever you want to call it, the more it is likely to be accepted.

 

Ultimately, there is no solution to people who refuse to go along with you, be they abusive rules lawyers or honest folk who just think you're screwed in the head. In which case, remember its a game meant for fun. Try and have as much of that as is possible, even if you can't swing things your way.

[SpideyScott]

No offense but for a RAW disscussion it seems less to do with what is written and has become more about what people think should be written. I yet to read a good arguement to ignore what is written in the core rules and instead follow something along the lines of newer codex = newer rules, wargear for all maybe some of the the time depending on what your oppent argees too.

 

Isnt the simplest soloution if your playing by RAW is use what is written in your codex no matter how beardy, broken it might be. Im not saying you should play like this or that it shouldnt be changed but in answer to the OP i do think Rules as Written in an old Codex overrule contradicting information found in the 5th edition Rulebook unless faqed otherwise.

 

I dont see what is exploitive, beardy, cheesy about playing your codex as written in regards to rules, wargear etc. People played fine with thunder hammers, psychic hoods and assault cannons in 3rd and 4th. So because these things have changed for other armies they should change for us, why? Nothing in the rules states that older codexes are invalid in anyway.

 

You mention there should be core rules and army specfic rules but what about a core rule like Hit and Run which also has a different verison in the WH faq that WH players have been told to use. Clearly GW are happy with the idea of there being a core rule that works differently for an army. They even say so in the USR section of the main rule book.

 

I also think that if more players did this it might encourage GW to be a little bit quicker in addressing these problems in an FAQ but i doubt it.

[Doctor Thunder]

Another thing: According to the new rulebook, I SHOULD be able to equip my canoness with both a Blessed Weapon and a Combi-Flamer (as two-handed only matters now as far as use in close combat). But if you go by Rulebook < Codex < FAQ, I can't do that. Which kinda sucks, but eh...

Luckily you can still use the brazier of holy fire, which is one-handed. :rolleyes:

[Lord Cornilius]

http://www.ageofstrife.com/modules.php?nam...p;p=15617#15617

 

 

CHeck this out, I realize it is only hearsay, but rather appropriate considering our topic

[Toogeloo]

I've read that before (hence the reason I keep bringing up the Dark Angel reference). The main concern is that Jervis may be one of the big wigs, but not even the big wigs see eye to eye.

[Lord Cornilius]

Ok we may be closer to an absolute as this is from the latest Dark Angels FAQ....

 

A. Strictly, you should always use the rules from

your own Codex, and this is the default solution

you must use if you and your opponent can’t

come up with a better one (you’ll find that this

might be the case in tournaments, for example!).

 

 

So it looks like our force weapons are back!

[Melissia]

Indeed they are. Now go out and one-shot a Hive Tyrant for us.

[number6]

Strictly, the DA FAQ does not apply to us. :lol: But one can hope (??) that we'll get a similar treatment in the rumored DH FAQ revision that GW will supposedly be publishing any day (week, month, ...) now.

[Zealadin]

Its kinda unfair that through GWS's laziness we have to suffer with 'judges' who decide whether or not a rule applies from tournament to tournament.

Its very easy for things of huge tactical importance which should be a given to be 'read differently' only for something else which is also a given being in turn read differently, leading to you losing out on something, and your opponent gaining something that simply doesn't exist. (Sure its rare, but it can happen)

 

The reason there is no set answer in stone is because to do that, GWS would have to go through all the main issues and make sure their statement didn't give some race of army variant a huge advantage they don't deserve.

It also lets them force people to buy new models when they finally DO make a decision.

 

In the end all they really care about is money, and fixing something thats in use isn't going to increase profits.