Kharn the Betrayer vs. Skimmers

[MVBrandt]

Kharne's axe special rule states that he ALWAYS hits on a 2+ in close combat. It does not list any exceptions. This resembles, to me, Bio-plasma in that even against a skimmer he is going to hit it on a 2+ even if it moved fast, whatever.

Unstoppable Force vs. Impenetrable Wall

Yes?

[Tekore]

Kharne's axe special rule states that he ALWAYS hits on a 2+ in close combat. It does not list any exceptions. This resembles, to me, Bio-plasma in that even against a skimmer he is going to hit it on a 2+ even if it moved fast, whatever.

Unstoppable Force vs. Impenetrable Wall

Yes?

Yes.

There was a thread on this a while back, and the results were pretty easily split. It's best just to roll off on this, as it's not clear, and you're going to have passionate arguments on both sides otherwise, which is fine for here but not so good for the table. At least that's my two cents.

Tekore

[Wicky]

Hmmm, old wounds are going to be opened here but I would go with the Codex specific “always hits on a 2” over the generic BGB “needs a 6 to hit.”

The BGB works against all items unless mentioned, and in Kharn’s case it most definitely is.

Cheers.

[eiglepulper]

Yes, I too would tend towards what Tekore suggested as a solution. One rule states one thing, the other countermands it. Each time Kharn wants to wallop a Skimmer, I would do a dice-off to see which rule takes precedence for that specific occasion. Saves any arguments at the table.

E.

[PoptartsNinja]

Yes, I too would tend towards what Tekore suggested as a solution. One rule states one thing, the other countermands it. Each time Kharn wants to wallop a Skimmer, I would do a dice-off to see which rule takes precedence for that specific occasion. Saves any arguments at the table.

E.

A codex generally supercedes any rules from the BGB. In this case, the skimmer only being hit on a 6 in CC is trumped by a specific entry in a codex stating that a unit equipped with a certain piece of wargear always hits on an X+ in close combat.

If your opponent has an issue with it, by all means dice-off... but in a tournament setting, it may be a good idea to clarify rules with tournament judges beforehand, especially if you expect there will be contention at some point.

[eiglepulper]

Ref Tournament situations, that would be a definite necessity. With friendly games though, a word beforehand between the players to decide what way something like this which *may* crop up is to be dealt with should prevent WW3 breaking out at the table.

I agree that the Codex is usually taken in preference to the BGB. However, it's perhaps a good idea to pre-empt any problems too.

E.

[Wicky]

Where one rule is in conflict with another you need to seek out which one takes precedence.

In every case that I have seen the Codex (especially when printed at a later date) overrides the BGB, so why the need to dice off for this?

The BGB states what happens to a skimmer in a certain case when nothing to modifies it and then along comes a modifier from a Codex. This seems more than clear to me.

I very much doubt that tournament organisers would ask for a dice off here.

[Splata]

I agree with Wicky here (except that older codex's than the rulebook should still take precedence), it is a codex and it says close combat attacks always hit on a 2+. is a vehicle hit a close combat hit? yes. hence 2+.

damn this hurts skimmers...

[Cheredanine]

Bah,
1. Codecies only over ride BGB if they are produced later (eg USR)
2. Chaos codex was produced after BGB so over rides
3. codex says kharne always hits on a 3+ in close combat
4. BGB says that vehicles without weapon skills can be assaulted but are never in close combat
5. Kharne hits skimmers just the same as everyone else, not on a 3+

[MVBrandt]

Actually, it says Vehicles w/out weapon skills are never LOCKED in close combat. It does not say they are never IN close combat. Kharne and any other unit that attacks uses its close combat abilities and statistics, not its ranged ones. So, since close combat attacks are made, I see it as "all close combat attacks always hit on a 2+." Not a 3+ btw, a 2+.