Codex and Rulebook

[Nabterayl]

DISCLAIMER: Wall of text ahead. Abandon hope, all ye for whom 850 words is too much.

With 6th edition adding some new types of rules, I thought it might be helpful as a community to discuss the relationship between codices and the basic rulebook (“BRB,” for those of you new to 40K internet slang).

The old saw goes “codex trumps rulebook,” as if 40K rules were a game of hearts (“I play the king of BRB.” “Ha! I trump you with the three of Dark Eldar!” “Argh, you win!”). But this is not actually what the rules say. The BRB actually says that that in the “rare” instances where the BRB and a codex “conflict,” the codex “takes precedence.” More on what this means in a minute. For the moment, let’s look at what this doesn’t mean.

Some players treat codices as if they were a higher sort of rule than the BRB, almost as if they were a constitution. For those of you who haven’t gone to law school, stick with me for a quick law primer. In the United States, “law” comes in several different flavors. One flavor is constitutional. Another is statutory (there are others, but they aren’t important to the analogy I’m drawing). For our purposes, the important difference is that constitutional law is a higher law than statutory law. If the federal constitution says, “Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude … shall exist in the United States,” Congress cannot enact a statute that creates slavery in the United States. Congress cannot even enact a statute that says, “Notwithstanding the federal constitution, slavery shall exist in the United States,” even if the constitutional law is over 100 years old and the conflicting statutory law is brand new. If a statute says the sky is blue, and the constitution says the sky is black, the sky is black. Constitution really does trump statute.

Now that we have in mind an example of one set of rules “trumping” another, I can say this: codex does not trump rulebook. Consider the Force Organization Chart. The BRB says that the Force Organization Chart includes, allies, fortifications, and second primary detachments, even if your codex says that the Force Organization Chart consists only of the old familiar 1/2HQ, 2/6 Troops, 3 Elites, 3 Fast Attack, 3 Heavy Support chart. Think about this for a moment. If the codex really did trump the rulebook, it wouldn’t matter that the BRB expands the FoC. The codex says the FoC looks like X, the BRB says the FoC looks like Y, codex trumps rulebook, the FoC looks like X. Sorted. Done and dusted. Full stop.

Do any of us really believe, even in our deepest darkest rules lawyeriest hearts of hearts, that this is the way the game works? I submit that we do not. So let us consider what the relationship between codex and BRB actually looks like.

Remember that the BRB says nothing about “trumping.” What it actually says is that in the case of a “conflict,” the codex “takes precedence.” Here is the critical question: what does the BRB mean by conflict?

Some players – let’s call them Codex Constitutionalists – seem to think that “conflict” means “the implications of a codex rule for situation X contradict the implications of a BRB rule for the same situation.” We have already seen that this is not true. If it were, the BRB would not be able to expand our FoCs. But there is another option. “Conflict” could mean “a codex rule explicitly contradicts a BRB rule.” This would not come up nearly as often as the Codex Constitutionalists like to play the “codex trumps rulebook” card. But then, the BRB itself states that “conflicts” will be “rare.”

As evidence that this is how GW itself views “conflicts,” consider the infamous Hard to Hit rule. As the BRB FAQ recently clarified, Hard to Hit says, “Only Snap Shots can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures.” Now consider Thunderclap, a Space Wolves psychic shooting attack that places a large blast marker in touch with the casting rune priest, and automatically hits “any model touched by the marker.” As many of you know, GW recently answered via FAQ the question of whether powers like Thunderclap can hit Zooming Flyers and Swooping Monstrous Creatures. Their answer was no.

How can this be? The Space Wolves codex states, plain as day, “any model touched by the marker.” Is that Swooping Harpy a model? Yes? Is it touched by the marker? Yes? Then it’s hit! cry the Codex Constitutionalists. Codex trumps rulebook!

Except, evidently, it doesn’t. If it did – if codices were really “higher law” the way constitutions are – then GW wouldn’t have, couldn’t have, answered the way it did.

So what are we looking for? Not a case where a codex rule’s mere implications contradict the BRB, but where a codex rule’s text contradicts the BRB. Not a case where the BRB says the sky is black and the codex says the sky is blue. We’re looking for the BRB saying the sky is black and the codex saying the sky is not black.

Can anybody think of such an instance? So far I can’t.

[Dlatrex]

I am intrigued by your ideas and would like to subscribe to your newsletter.
Well written friend!

[Mr.Pickelz]

This is why GW makes FAQ's/Errata's to their respective books. So that way people can draw conclusions to rules disputes or misprints from the designer's view point, and to help answer some of the questions that arise during gameplay. It is unfortunate that the FAQ/Errata section is purely online, and ghostly updated(by that i mean unannounced), but overall there is just somethings(Lots of things) that will come down to the Sportsmanship quality among it's players.

Edit: One such instance of "codex vs BRB" is in the Ork Codex, a Big Mek with a Shokk Attack Gun can assault a Zooming Flyer.

[Tynskel]

that's incorrect.
Blasts cannot hit Flyers.

[Denzark]

Nabby

Good examples. But those examples are in themselves rules lawyering. Firstly, FoC. The reason there is not an entry anywhere to the effect of "Notwithstanding the codex-detailed FoC, in 6th edition you can now add..." is because GW does not nail down every eventuality in their rules writing. Not because this issue is the exeption that proves the rule.

With regard to SW psychic powers, with rules as written and with the 'Codex taking preference in clashes' people would have been quite right to do so - and still would be if the change detailed was a FAQ and not an errata. See ole Buffy's threads ad infinitum about the 'legality' of FAQs vs Erratas.

However just because GW has voiced an exception neither proves nor disproves you position. The consitutional vs statutor analogy doesn't follow as GW will fanny around with their rules at whim (remember SW counter attack and the furious charge FAQ) and don't call FAQs as official rules updates.

I think this will descend into an argument about semantics so I am checking out here.

[Wildcard]

that's incorrect.
Blasts cannot hit Flyers.

It could be that i am wrong, since Orks do have all kinds of weird named guns that i just cannot remember.. However, wasn't shokk attack gun the one that with some weird roll 'teleported the mek and the unit he is with' to the target unit, and it counts as is the mek had charged the target.

Could be totally wrong tho

[Nabterayl]

Yes, it is. However, the SAG still has to hit the unit in question, and it fires a large blast. As the ork codex says, "Roll 2d6 after placing the template." Hence, before you even rolled on the SAG table to find out what the shot's Strength or other effect will be, the attack would fail because it is a large blast. As the "Zoink" result occurs before rolling to scatter, there is no chance that we have to decide how Zoink interacts with a SAG template that scatters onto a Zooming flyer.

[Nabterayl]

Wildcard, you inspire me to come up with another example from the ork codex. As Ramshackle says, "“If a Trukk suffers an Explodes result on the Vehicle Damage table or is Wrecked as a result of being reduced to 0 Hull Points, roll on the Ramshackle table below and apply the result instead of the usual effects" (emphasis mine).

Here we have a case where the codex explicitly recognizes a BRB rule, and says, "Nevertheless, do this instead." Here, surely, is a case where the BRB and codex are squarely in conflict, and the BRB itself bids us allow the codex to take precedence.

[Kevlarshark]

Well you could aim at the flyer hoping for a a Zoink result! But there is no chance of it happening by accident.

Not sure if the US law examples are the most relevent to a game written by British designers working out of Nottingham, but I see your point. I just don't necessarily agree with you.

I personally have used the "codex trumps rulebook" saying at least a few times to kill off silly rules arguments. Generally what I mean is "when in doubt check your codex".

There are a lot of people who do not seem to get it. Its pretty simple, the Big Rule book gives you the rules for the game, your codex gives you the rules for your army. Yes they occasionally overlap, they are supposed to. When the overlap seems conflicting GWs guidance is to 'go with the version in the codex'. When this seems unfair or weird they FAQ it (eventually) to clear up disputes. This is going to be more common till we get some codexes newer than the BRB and the rules for flyers and the like are incorporated into the codexes.

I get the impression you have taken slight to the term "trumps", call it what ever you like, but it is the rules.

[Nabterayl]

What I'm trying to get at with the word "trumps" is this notion that the codex sits above the BRB. GW simply does not act as if that is true. The analogies to US law are simply meant to illustrate some players' attitudes. GW doesn't act as if the codex were a constitution, you're quite right.