Codex > BRB or Specific > general

[xxvaderxx]

Personally i have always played Codex > BRB, but since some rules lead to different results depending on which logic you apply, i was wondering if GW has ever hinted on this. Case in point WTN.

[Seahawk]

Codex rules always overwrite anything in the main rules, and that's it (there are no specific/general).

 

What is WTN?

[xxvaderxx]

Codex rules always overwrite anything in the main rules, and that's it (there are no specific/general).

 

What is WTN?

 

WTN = Wolf tooth necklace.

 

That is how i have always played it, but the question was not so much how we play it, as to whether GW had ever stated anything about it.

[Brother Valerius]

Codex rules always overwrite anything in the main rules, and that's it (there are no specific/general).

 

QFT.

 

Within a rulebook, of course, specific overrides general (so a specific rule in the BRB trumps a general BRB rule).

[Frosty the Pyro]

house rule>>errata>>Codex>>BrB>>That thing that one guy on the internet said

[SeattleDV8]

Sorry gents but basic game design is specific trumps general.

In most cases that will mean codex>BRB but not always ie Sweeping Advance.

This is a case where a BRB rule is more specific than a codex rule.

[Morollan]

It's also worth remembering that codex only overwrites the specific parts of the rulebook that are referred to. I've seen several occasions where people try to overextend this and attempt to have a specific phrase in a codex remove or alter whole sections of the rules.

[xxvaderxx]

Sorry gents but basic game design is specific trumps general.

In most cases that will mean codex>BRB but not always ie Sweeping Advance.

This is a case where a BRB rule is more specific than a codex rule.

 

Care to quote the text on the books for this example?. I would agree that Specific overrides with in a given book, but not codex over BRB. In fact, given that line of thought, any rule in the BRB would always be less specific than one on a Codex.

 

But still, no word on this from GW?.

[Gentlemanloser]

It's in the BRB.

 

Couple of places IIRC, can't rememebr exact page references off the top of my head. I'm sure Smoke Laucnhers is one, but I also think it's mentioned elsewhere.

[xxvaderxx]

It's in the BRB.

 

Couple of places IIRC, can't rememebr exact page references off the top of my head. I'm sure Smoke Laucnhers is one, but I also think it's mentioned elsewhere.

 

Personally i dont remember seeing it, but still, unless it specifies that applies to codexes v brb, its a logic contained with in the book it self and well as with in codexes as well, to which i agree. But i dont think it is stated anywhere that applies codexes v brb.

 

Even further, if we were to apply that logic "globally" and we were to agree to the definition of "specific" being, something is more specific if it applies to a lesser amount of particular objects/situation from the realm of the possible interactions, than the something else it is compared to. Then Codexes would always trump brb, since.

 

BRB = all situations involving all codexes.

codex = particular situations involving a particular codex.

 

For the more logically challenged. Assuming we only have 4 codexes total (to make the example shorter), IG, Tyranids, Chaos, SW. Then for any one given situation BRB would apply for this combinations:

 

BRB = {IG v IG, IG v Tyranids, IG v Chaos, IG v SW, Tyranids v Tyranids, Tyranids v Chaos, Tyranids v SW, Chaos v Chaos, Chaos v SW, SW v SW}

 

while lets say codex SW would only apply for:

 

SW = {SW v SW, SW v IG, SW v Nids, SW v Chaos}

 

Which one is more general and more specific?.

[Gentlemanloser]

Yes, it specifies that the rules (for at least Smoke Launchers and I tihnk USRs) in the codex override the ones in the BRB.

[SeattleDV8]

Specific trumps general is basic, it's the way every game is designed.

We get the general or base rules, for example in chess a king can move one space in any direction.

Later we get the exceptions and more specific rules, ie castling, the king can move two or three spaces as long as other rules are met (not in or moving through check)

As far as GW BRB pg. 62

....some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the codex take precedence.

and BRB pg. 74

....if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence (representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race)

Or to put it in a simple form, Specific trumps general.

[xxvaderxx]

Specific trumps general is basic, it's the way every game is designed.

We get the general or base rules, for example in chess a king can move one space in any direction.

Later we get the exceptions and more specific rules, ie castling, the king can move two or three spaces as long as other rules are met (not in or moving through check)

As far as GW BRB pg. 62

....some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the codex take precedence.

and BRB pg. 74

....if any of the Codexes include one of these special rules and the rule is different, the one in the Codex takes precedence (representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race)

Or to put it in a simple form, Specific trumps general.

 

That is ridiculous, that is not how "every game is designed", that design method involves rules overlapping and priority, something "chess" to use your example, has NOT.

 

Also in both examples you quoted from the books, make no reference to what you state, in fact they quite literally make reference to Codex trumps BRB. You are making the assumption as to the reason why, you are interpreting the facts to support your conclusion.

[SeattleDV8]

Well, I disagree.

This is simple game design.

You state the basic rules and then add the exceptions and add more complexity.

Note also in the BRB pg. 52 Different Unit Types it explains this same idea.

 

 

Chess is a very easy game to learn, the rules are very cut and dry, but even it has certain twists like Castling and en passant.

They are not the normal rules, you can only use them in certain situations.

 

In both cases they state if the BRB and the Codex have the same rule or wargear the Codex version has precedence because it is 'representing how the general special rule applies to that specific race'

There it is (granted it is worded a bit wonky) Specific > General

 

The vast majority of the Codex rules are the more specific and do trump the BRB, but not always.

What about Sweeping Advance? That is a BRB rule.

There are several rules in different Codices that can save a unit, but only And They Shall Know No Fear has the specific wording that allows it to trump the BRB.

Your idea that the Codex always over-rules the BRB falls apart in this case.

It also is no help when comparing rules from different Codices, where specific>general is a great help.

Does it always work? No of course not, GW doesn't write a tight enough rule set.

That said it still is a better judge of what rule has precedence.

[Gentlemanloser]

Anyway, those are the two BRB quotes that state that Codex > BRB.

 

Which should answer your OP. :sweat:

[Something Wycked]

Well, I disagree.

This is simple game design.

You state the basic rules and then add the exceptions and add more complexity.

+1

 

Pawns can only ever move one space forward. Unless its their first move, and then they can move two spaces.

 

Pawns can only ever attack pieces which are diagonally forward to them. Except when an opposing pawn moves two spaces and ends its move to either side of your pawn; you may then attack the empty space behind the opposing pawn and capture it.

 

Kings can only ever move one space in any direction. Unless its his first move, and his Rook has not moved, and there are no pieces between them, and none of the spaces between them are threatened by an enemy piece, and then the King may move two spaces toward the Rook, and the Rook may move to the opposite side of the King.

 

In Magic the Gathering, you may only ever draw one card per turn. Unless you have an artifact/enchantment/creature/etc. that increases or decreases the number of cards you draw.

 

In Warhammer 40k, you may never assault after using the Run action. Unless you have the Fleet USR. You also may not move and shoot weapons with the Heavy rule, unless you have the Relentless USR. etc etc etc.

 

Except in rare cases, specific always overrides general. As codices are more specific rules than the BRB, codices almost always override the BRB. Unless there's another, more specific exception that states the more general rules still apply :D

[xxvaderxx]

Well, I disagree.

This is simple game design.

You state the basic rules and then add the exceptions and add more complexity.

+1

 

Pawns can only ever move one space forward. Unless its their first move, and then they can move two spaces.

 

Pawns can only ever attack pieces which are diagonally forward to them. Except when an opposing pawn moves two spaces and ends its move to either side of your pawn; you may then attack the empty space behind the opposing pawn and capture it.

 

Kings can only ever move one space in any direction. Unless its his first move, and his Rook has not moved, and there are no pieces between them, and none of the spaces between them are threatened by an enemy piece, and then the King may move two spaces toward the Rook, and the Rook may move to the opposite side of the King.

 

In Magic the Gathering, you may only ever draw one card per turn. Unless you have an artifact/enchantment/creature/etc. that increases or decreases the number of cards you draw.

 

In Warhammer 40k, you may never assault after using the Run action. Unless you have the Fleet USR. You also may not move and shoot weapons with the Heavy rule, unless you have the Relentless USR. etc etc etc.

 

Except in rare cases, specific always overrides general. As codices are more specific rules than the BRB, codices almost always override the BRB. Unless there's another, more specific exception that states the more general rules still apply ;)

 

I disagree, what you see as specific cases of a general rule, i see as other rules, with nothing what so ever that would justify that logic other than preference of interpretation.

 

To put it in programming terms, just because inheritance is there, it does not mean it is the only option available.

[Seahawk]

My gamer friend is a programmer, and he very quickly said that if you try to make 40k a program, it will self-destruct and implode at the same time. Don't try, any effort will be in vain.

[Morollan]

xxvaderxx - what exactly are you arguing? I've genuinely lost track of whatever question it was that you wanted to answer or point that you wanted to make.

[Isiah]

So have I :lol:.

[Something Wycked]

I disagree, what you see as specific cases of a general rule, i see as other rules

Its funny that you think you disagree, when you essentially just restate what Seattle's point is. ;) Your "other rules" is included in:

 

You state the basic rules and then add the exceptions and add more complexity.

Exceptions and complexity are added by "other rules," as you see it. :sweat:

 

That they are related to the same game concepts, ie, movement, shooting, or assaulting, etc., is what brings in the "specific cases of a general rule" that you do not perceive. :)

 

In any case, the text from the BRB has been quoted some posts above, and specific does indeed override general. Even if they aren't "specific vs general" and are instead "other rules." :)