Do higher numbered rules really take precedence over lower?

[cujo8-1]

Hi Folks,

I have seen this stated here before, but as I found the following quote, "but as C13.7 is a higher rated rule it makes no exceptions", it has served to remind me that I wanted to ask about it. I have always felt that the rules fit together as a whole regardless of where particular bits may be found. I have never considered a rule overrides another just because it is found in a later chapter. Furthermore, none of my opponents has ever said this during a game.

Is this declared in the rulebook? Somewhere else in a forum, perhaps? A house rule? Nonsense?

Please advise (and thanks).

 

[Reepicheep]

Is this declared in the rulebook?

It's in the Rulebook as E.2:

Whenever a seeming contradiction occurs between rule cases, the higher alphanumeric rule case (e.g., E1. is a higher numbered rule than A2.) always takes precedence, barring mention of a specific exception.

 

[Sparafucil3]

Check page ii titled Introduction. Last paragraph. -- jim

 

[cujo8-1]

Thanks gentlemen,

I would never have thought such a rule, or convention, would be located in a chapter consisting entirely of "optional" rules.

And I didn't include the preface with the intro in my rulebook.

Now I know.

Mike

 

[NOS]

I had always thought that that quote in chapter E only applied to chapter E rules... since all those rules were "optional", it made sense to me that they might conflict with the mandatory rules and hence precisely such a clarification of precedence made sense.

 

[Robin Reeve]

There remains a problem, IMHO.
If a "higher numbered " rule counts on logics and does not refer to a preceding rule, one could consider it overrides the latter (when it simply doesn't recall all the possible implications due to preceding rules).
The recent question about a Hero ATMM usage attempt comes to mind.
The chapter A Hero rule doesn't speak of a risk of pinning in this case.
The chapter C doesn't state that Heroes are excepted from pinning while attempting to place an ATMM.
Doest chapter C abstain from speaking of the Hero case, as the Hero rules are exhaustive about the exceptions to the Hero pin immunity or does it indirectly add a new exception to the chapter A list?

 

[apbills]

Robin,
I never really looked at the situation you found, but it looked like an interesting question for my morning wakeup excercise. (As I am trying to find something to delay me from paying the bills).

I noticed that in A15.2 it lists several exceptions - the relevant one being PF Checks. When you follow to C13.31, those rules specificially call out -

"If the PF Check dr is an Original 6, the unit has no PF in position to fire and is pinned (even if heroic or berserk)."

Looking at the ATMM situation, the words in C13.7 state - "If the ATMM Check dr is an Original 6, the unit is pinned (even if berserk)..."

These are two very similar actions, and given the specific call out for an exception in A15.2, along with almost exact wording in Chapter C for both, I would play this as if the hero was pinned for PF, but not pinned for ATMM checks.

This may in fact be incorrect, however, v2 did change A15.2 to add in the Collapsed huts exception. Perhaps they did not see the possible inconsistancy at the time they updated the book, but I think we have to assume ( a bad thing generally) that the rule as written was what they wanted.

 

[Robin Reeve]

I would play this as if the hero was pinned for PF, but not pinned for ATMM checks.

So would I too...

 

[caa]

I believe that E.2 is only referring to rules in chapter E. Chapter E is entirely optional (E.1) and was originally supplemental to the core rules. Of course E.2 IS higher numbered than E.1......