Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What it seems here is we need to define what a casualy is. According to the dictionary a casualty is - a military person lost through death, wounds, injury, sickness, internment, or capture or through being missing in action This seems to apply to any reason a model would be removed from play. As such all models removed from play are casualties. Since the rules offer no other definition of casualty we must use the standard definition.

Haroon - see Rigeld, your attempt at saying "Casualties" (the heading) defines the rule in toto is a fallacy, as has been pointed out.

Also, it's "lying", and I wasnt

rigeld2 wrote:

haroon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: You stated that "Casualties" (the heading) means that the wording of what they actually defined can be ignored, yet that ISNT how the rulebook is actually structured.

You are just making stuff up now, I cant discuss this with you as your just knowingly lieing. I never stated that anything should be ignore lol... You have created yet another straw men out of a fictional statement.

His point is that if you accept that a heading defines the rules that follow it (anything under the Casualties heading defines all losses as casualties) then the following must be true:

There are no penalties for assaulting after being hit by a Nightspinner, nor assaulting through a Venomthrope's aura, as the penalties for assault have a heading "Assaulting through cover".
You cannot roll armor, cover, or invulnerable saves versus anything but shooting, since those are all defined under the Shooting section of the rulebook.


Removed as a casualty and removed from play are two completely different things. If your model is removed from play you may not use abilities that require you to be removed as a casualty.

Just like an ability that happens when you suffer your last wound - being Jaws'ed wouldn't allow that, and being Deffrolla'd, suffering from a failed DoG, or other effects that don't cause wounds wouldn't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, nos isn't lying about anything. Continuing to suggest that is in pretty bad form.

He should have tried to make his point with out resorting to falsehoods so quickly. I did not suggest that the rules should be ignored and I certainly did not "state" it and he knows that. He simply lied.

@Garrick, please note per the tenets of YMDC, dictionary definitions don't mean squat.

Also, the Dark Eldar have something similar to the JOTWW, called the Shattershard. It says:
"Any non-vehicle model hit by the Shattershard must take a Toughness test. If they fail this test they are removed from play with no saves of any kind allowed".

No saves, no ID, no removed as a casualty. It is just gone.
Also, it is a template weapon

I was pointing out that the rulebook never defines what a casualty is in game terms. This leads us to fall back on what the word normally means- a loss of man power due to any thing but fleeing. Now how do you agrue how the rules work when you don't define what the words that make up the rules mean. If the rulebook defined what a casualty meant in game turns I would understand your objection, but since it uses the term without giving it a new definition we are left to fall back on the original definition. Which would leave us to conclude that any model that is removed from the game is a casualty.

Haroon - no, I never lied, I used your argument and applied it to other areas of the rulebook. If you dont understand that argument....sigh.

like i said before, there is a lack of proof either way, so its RAW, Hence

RP: can not come back
EL: Can come back

short of the FAQ, that is pretty much the only way to do it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Haroon - see Rigeld, your attempt at saying "Casualties" (the heading) defines the rule in toto is a fallacy, as has been pointed out.

Also, it's "lying", and I wasnt

So, in your previous argument about the Necron RP rule referring to removing "any" counter, you argued the term "any counter" only referred to the RP counters and not the Ever-living counters since the rule was listed under the rule Reanimation Protocol. Now you're arguing the title/heading of a rule doesn't convey or define the rules beneath it. Which is it? Do heading matter or not?

Page 24 of the BRB, under the heading "REMOVE CASUALTIES", states a model suffers a wound when the model fails its save, including wounds "which no save can be attempted" (BRB, page 24). When the a one wound model has loses its wound it "is immediately removed from the table as a casualty." Page 26 discusses multi-wound models, which are removed as casualty when they lose their last wound. Further, page 24 states casualties are not necessarily dead just "...no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Page 39 states close combat casualties are handled the same way as Shooting.

Page 44, under the sub-heading "Casualties" a unit losing more than 25% of more models during a single phase must pass a Morale check.

Clearly, the rules do NOT make a distinction between "remove as a casualty" or simply "removed". For purposes of the game, a model removed from play is a casualty. Page 24 and 26 describe that. Morality checks, defined on page 44, make no distinction.

In regards to RP and EL, this seems pretty straight forward. Under RP, it states "Models returning to play.." and under EL it states "...where the model was removed from play" and "...it must be returned to play."

If a model is "returning to play" then at some point it was "removed from play", either by losing its last wound, failing a Characteristic test, etc.

TGA - yet again you miss out sslightly important parts of the rules.

Notice that bit about wounds? What about when you dont suffer wounds? Remove from play, when you dont suffer any wounds, is NOT the same as remove as a casualty.

Ignoring the fact you cant tell the difference between EL and RP, leave that to the other thread

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - yet again you miss out sslightly important parts of the rules.

Notice that bit about wounds? What about when you dont suffer wounds? Remove from play, when you dont suffer any wounds, is NOT the same as remove as a casualty.

For every model that has failed it save, "including wounds against which no save can be attempted". (BRB, page 24). Again, casualties are not necessary dead models just models no longer fit to participate in the battle. Removing a model from the table IS by definition a casualty.

What evidence is there supporting your counter argument? Where in the rules does it state a model removed from play is different from a model removed from play as a casualty? Further, are you suggesting, if a unit of four models loses a model by being removed from play DOESN'T have to pass a Morale test while the same unit, if a model is removed from play as a casualty, does?

Ignoring the fact you cant tell the difference between EL and RP, leave that to the other thread

Actually I can tell the difference. The issue here is you've stated in THIS thread the title/heading/sub-heading doesn't factor into the rule itself "Haroon - see Rigeld, your attempt at saying "Casualties" (the heading) defines the rule in toto is a fallacy, as has been pointed out." Yet, you said the exact opposite in the the Ever-living fleeing thread (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/409915.page) where the rules detailed under the RP section deal strictly with RP and the rule for EL deal strictly with EL. The problem is you're talking out both sides of your mouth to validate your arguments.

Jaws never wounds you, so "including WOUNDS against which no save can be taken" does not cover Jaws. Or any other "remove from play" action.

You keep missing that vital word WOUNDS - which Jaws et al never cause.

Evidence has been provided, you just like to ignore it. Again.

Again - OT stuff ignored. You apparently cant tell the difference between the two arguments.

Nos has it solidly explained. This is a non-issue unless you one of those that has problems with reading.

The FAQ will tell...

The FAQ that was totally silent on WBB, which uses the same trigger mechanic?

Removed from play /= Removed as a casualty.

Actually the SW faq characterized WBB as a "return to play" ability. So it totally worked on JOTWW. Guess what will happen in the FAQ then...

Actually it didnt. You could return from Last Laugh, which - guess what - removed as a casualty.

Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g. Necrons,
St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule even after
being removed from play by The Last Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule works
just fine.


I didn't say that the faq addressed JOTWW directly. I said WBB was characterized as "return to play" which means it counters "remove from play".
And if that is not enough, in the faq the Last Laugh is characterized as remove from play and still WBB applies.

As I said before the FAQ will tell. Interestingly nosferatu had a knee jerk reaction claiming that it would never be addressed. Some would say he is afraid of something...

I'd say that on the whole, having read these posts so far, that there's (as always) some common sense, some inference and some contradiction in GWs rules, books, layouts etc so there will always be a lack of definite examples whereas plenty of part-evidence for both sides to fuel the fires of discussion.

From my side, I'd say they're different. Removed from play can be as a casualty, but also just "removed". This might "count as" a casualty for other purposes (eg morale), without actually being one.

It's still ambiguous, but provided you agree b4 play how you handle such things or roll off during in the spirit of gamesmanship, you will probably survive until the FAQ comes out.

Unless you're removed from play...

copper.talos wrote:Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g. Necrons,
St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule even after
being removed from play by The Last Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule works
just fine.


I didn't say that the faq addressed JOTWW directly. I said WBB was characterized as "return to play" which means it counters "remove from play".
And if that is not enough, in the faq the Last Laugh is characterized as remove from play and still WBB applies.

As I said before the FAQ will tell. Interestingly nosferatu had a knee jerk reaction claiming that it would never be addressed. Some would say he is afraid of something...

I like how you conveniently ignored my earlier post about this.

That FAQ doesn't prove your point, it backs up the Space Wolf codex. I can tell you haven't actually read the codex, so I'll sum it up for you.

In the Space Wolf Codex,

JOTWW is stated as "remove from play"
The Last Laugh is stated as "remove from play as a casualty"

And what did the Space Wolf FAQ do? It ignored the "remove from play" ability since units couldn't return after getting hit by it, and addressed the "remove from play as casualty" ability, setting the precedent for how the two different wordings should be played.

I'm still waiting on the how "remove from play" is different from "remove from play as a causality" seeing as how the BRB doesn't make a distinction.

What page number shows the distinction again? Apparently I missed it the first time it wasn't posted.

Both are treated the same by the rules. The rules have been sited, with page numbers, to support the claim. I'm waiting for the support of the counter argument, beyond "I'm right you're wrong."

"cited"

The counter has been given, many times. The fact you keep conveniently ignoring "wounds against which...." and pretend it supports your argument makes it very difficut to argue.

The fact the phrase is different, with a very different meaning in English, is sufficient - no page number required. Or, again, please find "the" defined somewhere.

@omerakk I only reffered to the FAQ that WBB is described as a "return to play" effect which counters "remove from play".

It really doesn't. You were removed from play as a casualty. The only way to get back in the game is to "return to play". Unless you were expecting it to say "returned to play as a non-casualty"?

copper.talos wrote:@omerakk I only reffered to the FAQ that WBB is described as a "return to play" effect which counters "remove from play".

Yes, but you can't ignore the codex which the faq is citing. There was a very clear reason why they faq'ed last laugh, but none of the other abilities; because that was the only one that said "remove as casualty"

copper.talos wrote:@omerakk I only reffered to the FAQ that WBB is described as a "return to play" effect which counters "remove from play".

Again, logical fallacy to make an argument.

The rule does not say remove from play, but remove from play AS A CASUALTY. Please read the whole rule, not a part