PDA

View Full Version : Codex trumps rulebook....when?



Starion
08-10-2009, 03:43 AM
I see the phrase "Codex over Rulebook" (CoR from here) used a lot. Here (my thread about Unique SM chars, and the DH force weapons come to mind), in store, etc.

Can anyone nail down exactly WHEN CoR works? I can see two references to it in the MRB - pg 74, where it specifically references the USRs, and pg 289 - start of the Reference section, where it specfies CoR only in discrepancies between that section and the codex.

Other than those two points, I can't see anywhere that CoR works. So, to call the two threads above into question:
Unique SM characters - There is a ruling for uniqueness in MRB. This appears unaffected by CoR, ergo JWolf's reply stands - A named char is unique and may only be taken once, regardless of typos.

DH Force weapons - As I can't seen anywhere in the CCW types section any reference to codices, the rulebook stands. So a DH force weapon follows the rules for force weapons on pg 50.

With regards to saying when it should occur, I believe a timeline should be used - so the reference section at the back 'should' be used over and codices prior to the 5th ed release, as surely it was designed to update prior codices to the 5th ed level, before the newer codices then take precedence...

Dosadi
08-10-2009, 06:41 AM
I agree with you on this Starion. But in my experience people are going to use CoR only when it suits them. I’ve had people tell me that their DH force weapons can “slay outright” and then turn around in the same game and claim their storm shields give them a 3++ save. I agree that GW should make some sort of ruling on these older rules as we are in a position where there are army lists from two editions ago that are quite popular being used.
For me, I’ve always felt that the main rulebook should trump everything else in terms of weapon profiles and USRs. Most of us will apply common sense to these situations and realize what is intended. Some will take whatever advantage they can twist out of the rules. Those are people I usually only ever play once.


Dosadi

Dezartfox
08-10-2009, 07:56 AM
Unless an errata/faq says so then you use the codex rules first, so for the DH force weapon example, you use that before you look at the rule book. Newer codices say "refer to pg x in the rulebook" for things like that. You either use one or the other, not a mix. So I don't claim my stormshield have a 3+ save as that's not what the rules say in my codex ;)

Nabterayl
08-10-2009, 08:02 AM
I think Starion's question is where, if anywhere, it's stated that the codex trumps the rulebook all the time. Most players (at least all the ones that I know) play that way*, and it seems to be a time-honored principle of the game. But he's right to ask the question. Where does it actually say that? Can anybody actually cite the language?

* Actually most players I know play "codex trumps the rulebook but I'll ask my opponents for exceptions that make sense to all parties involved," which I suspect describes a goodly portion of the non-tournament scene, but everybody I know has somewhere gotten the idea that the codex trumps the rulebook.

EDIT:


the reference section at the back 'should' be used over and codices prior to the 5th ed release, as surely it was designed to update prior codices to the 5th ed level, before the newer codices then take precedence...

That I can disagree with based on the rulebook itself. As it says under "Reference" on the lead-in page to that section, "in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence." So even in the case of codices that predate the current edition rulebook, the codex trumps the reference section.

Tarion
08-10-2009, 08:15 AM
I don't really see what the alternative is, to be honest. The rules are set up based on the idea that the codex modifies the original rules. Codex > Rulebook

If rulebook > codex, then the IG tanks can't take advantage of the Lumbering Behemoth rule, as the rulebook clearly outlines how moving vehicles shoot.

I do agree that GW should give a ruling one way or the other on a lot of stuff (GKs, for example. Bad Storm Shields, bad Assault Cannons, good Force weapons? Joy :p )

Dan-e
08-10-2009, 08:17 AM
Codex > BRB , or MRB as you put it, is constant and is the word of the Holy Emperor

if your Codex tells you to do it like X, and the rulebook talks about doing it like Y, then you do X, good or bad.

Some armies benefit from this, others are hurt. This way you don't have to have as many books or little slips of paper in your books covering erratas. Nor do they have to print off a list of every change to ever thing that effects ever Codex.

So Grey Knights do force weapons different then the Universal rules for force weapons. Thats what makes then special and different, be glad some times.

As far as someone claiming that a DH gets the newest Storm Shield rules is horse wash as far as i know as those aren't in the MRB and even if they were, Codex > MRB. Thats a case of someone picking and choosing rules from a codex and in my book thats cheating.

More cases of this being a good thing is Eldar Pathfinders, they have better Stealth and Better Sniper weapons, Necron lords on destoryer body get a increase to toughness that helps against Instant Death from double strength weapons.

Starion
08-10-2009, 08:45 AM
I think Starion's question is where, if anywhere, it's stated that the codex trumps the rulebook all the time.

Yup, that about sums up the main question. I can only find the two cited examples in the rulebook which specify which parts they refer to.
But, as with the DH/FW example, the 5th ed rules for FWs are neither in the USR section, nor the Reference section (that covers only unit and ranged weapon stats). And as the CCW section mentions nowhere CoR, then surely rulebook wins.

As another example: Assault cannon for Space Wolves. It's listed as a Term. Wolf Guard heavy weapon, in the unit entry. It doesn't appear in the armoury anywhere (so not even referencing C:SM), an appears in the summary of C:SW as it's 3rd ed form: S6, Ap4, Hv3 *, where the * says see the MRB for further rules (it jammed on a triple 1, iirc). As the weapons section of the 5th ed MRB carries no rules for it, does that mean I need to take my 3rd ed MRB to play that 1 weapon? The 5th ed Reference section puts Wolves in along side other Marines, and gives all Marines the one weapons list, where the AC now has it's 4th ed stats (same as 5th ed)



That I can disagree with based on the rulebook itself. As it says under "Reference" on the lead-in page to that section, "in the event of any contradiction between this section and any of the individual codexes, the codexes always take precedence." So even in the case of codices that predate the current edition rulebook, the codex trumps the reference section.

I wasn't saying that's how it must be played, more my opinion of how it should be played (hence the 's around 'should'). Otherwise what was the point of adding that section, along with a few minor updates to weapon types (ie, DE Blasters + Dark Lances now have "Lance" as part of their type - yes, I know they had that rule anyway, but now it has a name, they put it in to bring it in line with 5th ed), if they then say essentially "Go back to what the codex from 2 editions ago says"

The Green Git
08-10-2009, 09:16 AM
Codex > BRB , or MRB as you put it, is constant and is the word of the Holy Emperor

if your Codex tells you to do it like X, and the rulebook talks about doing it like Y, then you do X, good or bad.


Unless you are an Ork with Ld 20 due to Mob Rule... then you are at Ld 10. Please explain how Codex trumps Rulebook here?

BuFFo
08-10-2009, 09:54 AM
This is a common sense issue hobbyists need.

If you do not have Codex overrides MRB, then you essentially cannot play the game. It just won't work.

Tarion
08-10-2009, 10:37 AM
Page 62 of the rulebook, Smoke Launchers (Yes, its a bit of an odd place to take it from, but its the one I found first :p )

"It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence"

So, the big book acknowledges that in the example of Smoke Launchers, the codex > rulebook, as normal.

Nabterayl
08-10-2009, 10:52 AM
[EDIT: This is what I had written, while Tarion was busy digging up the actual cite]

Starion,

Here's a question for you: what if we just read the two books side by side?

"Codex over Rulebook" may be the inviolate way that many people play the game, but it's not persuasive absent some kind of errata-level statement by Games Workshop or an explicit statement to that effect in a rulebook. I haven't been playing the game long enough to know if there was ever such an authoritative statement, but I wouldn't be surprised if this was one of those things that the community has just accepted as inviolable since time immemorial because ... well, because the community has just accepted it as inviolable since time immemorial, and it's a reasonable approximation of what the rules actually say.

So let me ask you this: what if neither is, by default, authoritative?

Neither of the two cases you cite are literal conflicts. In the case of space marine special characters, SeattleDV8's/Jwolf's answer (i.e., p. 49 of the rulebook) doesn't depend on CoR vs. RoC. Codex: Space Marines doesn't explicitly say that you can take two named characters, after all. It only fails to place the "Unique" special rule in the right place. Page 49 doesn't depend on a named special rule at all.

Similarly, the *H codices' versions of force weapons aren't literal conflicts with page 50. The *H codices describe what force weapons chosen from those codices do, which includes "slaying outright," and page 50 says that force weapons grant an extra psychic power, which functions as described, which includes inflicting Instant Death. Read the two as equally authoritative and you end up with *H force weapons that can, if you pass a psychic test, slay en enemy outright, and can, if you pass a psychic test, inflict Instant Death. I see no reason why the *H force weapons can't essentially grant their bearers both powers.

This "side by side" interpretation would mean that the March 2009 FAQ on dedicated transports is wrong, as that answer directly conflicts with page 67 ("The only limitation"). But that's a FAQ, not an erratum.

As always, I think that player agreement is the best way to go. As a textual matter though, and if for some reason we feel the need to articulate an inviolable principle, in the absence of an authoritative statement or a really convincing proof that either CoR or RoC is necessary to make the game work, it seems to me that the most natural approach is to treat SbS as the default state of affairs.

EDIT: Ah, I see Tarion finally found the citation. Good enough for me.

Culven
08-10-2009, 12:35 PM
There are a couple of references to codecies always overriding the rulebook. Even without them, as BuFFo said, the game just wouldn't work without this principle. The rulebook sets the groundrules for the game, and the codex modifies them.

Starion
08-10-2009, 12:36 PM
Page 62 of the rulebook, Smoke Launchers (Yes, its a bit of an odd place to take it from, but its the one I found first :p )

"It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence"

So, the big book acknowledges that in the example of Smoke Launchers, the codex > rulebook, as normal.

Good Sir, I bow to you superior book-scanning skills. Point conceded.



So let me ask you this: what if neither is, by default, authoritative?

Interesting way to think of it, actually. I suppose at the end of the day, it all boils down to The Most Important Rule (page 2, MRB). If both players agree to "If the psyker passes the test, the wounded model's owner gets the next round of beers in", then why shouldn't that be the rule for the game?

Nabterayl
08-10-2009, 12:40 PM
Interesting way to think of it, actually. I suppose at the end of the day, it all boils down to The Most Important Rule (page 2, MRB). If both players agree to "If the psyker passes the test, the wounded model's owner gets the next round of beers in", then why shouldn't that be the rule for the game?

It should, obviously. As GW says (http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/article.jsp?catId=cat210004&categoryId=600005&section=&aId=3400019),


[W]e encourage you to shape the game around your needs and your taste. We firmly believe that wargaming is about two (or more!) people creating a gaming experience they are both going to enjoy.

Whenever somebody on the internet asks "what's the rule?" I prefer to mentally gloss that as asking, "What does this this piece of text say?" The rule is whatever the hell you and your opponent agree to.

GrandmasterRay
08-10-2009, 07:08 PM
If anyone was looking for a direct conflict between Codex and MRB, look no further than the previously mentioned Daemonhunters codex.

MRB p. 67 says "The only limitation of a dedicated transport is that when it is deployed, it can only carry the unit it was selected with (plus any independent characters). After the game begins, it can then transport any friendly infantry unit, subject to transport capacity and other special exclusions, as explained in the unit's entry (it might not be able to transport terminators, for example)."

This next statement is NOT in the unit's entry. It is under the transports section in general.
C: DH p.30 says "Transports are always taken as an upgrade for another unit and may only transport the unit it was bought for."

Does that mean grey knights in expensive rhinos or chimeras that were bought for storm troopers that rove forward to trounce enemies while their lowly storm trooper peons hold rear objectives?

RoC = Yes
CoR = No

I believe strictly in CoR. Luckily in this situation, they cleared it up in the 40k Rulebook FAQ. According to this, the answer is universally, no.

Nabterayl
08-10-2009, 07:11 PM
I was thinking about that one too.

If it weren't actually for the page 62 clause (which is still the only written statement I can find of CoR), I'd actually say that the rulebook FAQ got that one wrong. Errata I'll accept, but GW doesn't claim that their FAQ answers are rules. In light of page 62, though, I agree the FAQ is the correct resolution.

imperialsavant
08-10-2009, 10:23 PM
:
Page 62 of the rulebook, Smoke Launchers (Yes, its a bit of an odd place to take it from, but its the one I found first :p )

"It is worth pointing out that some armies might use different versions of smoke launchers, which have slightly different rules. As normal, the rules in the Codex take precedence"

So, the big book acknowledges that in the example of Smoke Launchers, the codex > rulebook, as normal.

:) Yes & one example is the Black templars Rule Book which has the Smoke rule as per the Previous Rule Book & of course the Orb.:rolleyes:

RexScarlet
08-12-2009, 06:00 PM
Maybe a better question is;
Why is a 4th edition Codex not “obsolete?”
If GW is not going to “update” an “old” 4th edition Codex with a “current” and "correct" FAQ/errata for 5th edition, then why is a player allowed to use a 4th edition Codex in a 5th edition GT? (Let me dust off my Rogue Trader) When the IRS updates the tax laws/rules, people are not allowed to use the “old rules” to file their taxes.

Why so many differences in 4th edition Codices verse the 5th edition MRB and/or 5th edition Codices? Because, it is 4th edition verse 5th edition. This is why players abide by GW GT rules (what supersedes what, what Codices are allowed, FAQ, points, missions, etc.), because there are “so many” discrepancies, that the GW GT is all players have to sort it all out.

In 20 years the issues/discrepancies have never changed, just the names;
Four Graviton guns on a Dread with a jump-pack.
The Vet Sgt drops the Vortex grenade at his feet and the grenade only deviates half the distance thrown (i.e. ˝ of zero=zero) and wipes out an entire deep striking Terminator squad, then the Sgt makes his Displacer-field save and lives.
The Multi-Melta Attack-Bike shoots at zero inches with a 2” template that covers the entire enemy squad and partially covers the AB, the squad is wiped-out, and the AB has to roll on the “targeting matrix” grid, which the owning/firing player gets to move the rolls, i.e. away from the AB image, etc…)

The answer is; “just do the best you can.” (Or use “the most important rule;” just make-up rules as you see fit; pew-pew, ka-boom, I just kilt all yours guys with my Vortex-Cannon)

Emperors-speed…

Lord Inquisitor
08-12-2009, 08:22 PM
Codex always trumps rulebook. Plain and simple. If a DH player uses his SS Terminator with 3++ he is a cheater.

TheKingElessar
08-12-2009, 08:41 PM
As said, Codex always trumps Rulebook, but only in a DIRECT contradiction. To use the Green Git's ridiculous Trolling example, that he may not even have asked rhetoricallly, the Ork Codex never overrides the rule stating the maximum or any characteristic, excepting AV and A, is always ten. Truth hurts, sometimes.

Tarion
08-13-2009, 07:52 AM
Codex always trumps rulebook. Plain and simple. If a DH player uses his SS Terminator with 3++ he is a cheater.Eh? I'm not even sure how that makes sense.

Storm Shields aren't even in the rulebook, as I recall. Codex > Rulebook has nothing to do with the relationships between various codices.

Anyway, you should remember that it really goes FAQ > Codex > Rulebook. And, according to the DA FAQ,
"On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!".

;)

Aegis
08-13-2009, 08:52 AM
Anyway, you should remember that it really goes FAQ > Codex > Rulebook. And, according to the DA FAQ,
"On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!".

;)Maybe I just lack the relevant download, but I just looked through my FAQ's and Errata's, and did not come by that particular note. Where did you find it?

BuFFo
08-13-2009, 09:35 AM
Eh? I'm not even sure how that makes sense.

Storm Shields aren't even in the rulebook, as I recall. Codex > Rulebook has nothing to do with the relationships between various codices.

Anyway, you should remember that it really goes FAQ > Codex > Rulebook. And, according to the DA FAQ,
"On this basis if an opponent asks you if it’s okay for them to use the latest version of the rules for a piece of equipment, or if they can use a new item from Codex: Space Marines in their own army, then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!".

;)

1) Erratas are changes to the rules you MUST follow. FAQs are just suggestions by GW which are may not be followed if you want. This is all written in the Shrine of Knowledge page.

2) "then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!"" Which means that even if FAQs were forced rules to be followed, this particular ruling is a choice anyway.

Why someone would say no is beyond me anyway.

Tarion
08-13-2009, 11:04 AM
Maybe I just lack the relevant download, but I just looked through my FAQ's and Errata's, and did not come by that particular note. Where did you find it?

Dark Angels FAQ, because it effects them the most.

1) Erratas are changes to the rules you MUST follow. FAQs are just suggestions by GW which are may not be followed if you want. This is all written in the Shrine of Knowledge page.

2) "then you should say ‘Yes, of course you can!"" Which means that even if FAQs were forced rules to be followed, this particular ruling is a choice anyway.

Why someone would say no is beyond me anyway.Not arguing with that at all. Just saying, calling them a "cheater" is a bit of an extreme example.

BuFFo
08-13-2009, 12:04 PM
Eh, he is just not familiar with the faqs and general idea behind this game. No biggie.

TSINI
08-13-2009, 12:45 PM
This is a tough one really to define one way or the other

space wolves for example, using the current add-on codex use the Counter-attack USR rule in the new 5th edition rulebook, not the one in the codex.

but i can see there are arguments for ignoring the new rulebook over the older codex aswell.