Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc. The owner is considering banning him due to many blatant rule violations.

This past weekend he played a game where he cheated on literally everything, saying that all his sprue-crons (and base-crons) have 3+ invul saves (I know, phase shifters give that but not everything can use those), as well as rolling twice as many dice as he should be. But what we were questioning, apparently his Lord was able to take an invul against a psychic power that would have removed him from play completely. I believe it was "Jaws of the world wolf" or something along those lines.

Any help would be greatly appreciated, as half of the players that were there when I started have left because of this guy.

I'm afraid there's nothing we can do to help, as it seems he shows blatant disregard for anything even remotely resembling rules.

Since JotWW does not cause any wounds, no saves may be taken against it, but good luck trying to drive that home.

Best thing to do here is get the store owner to issue an ultimatum; either he gets his act together, stops being a whiny little man-child, and plays by the rules, or he gets tossed out on his arse.

The closest thing that could do that is the Gloom Prism on a Tomb Spider, but that's ridiculously short range and unlikely to have come into play.

JotWW doesn't allow saves of any kind as it doesn't inflict wounds of any kind. Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

DeathReaper wrote:

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Actually, looks like you might be right. I was basing it on the inference that since she can come back from removes from play when her rules are specific to removed as a casualty the same applies to Necrons. But looking through the Necron FAQ they can't come back after being removed from play when turned into a Spawn, so it's not quite that cut and dried.

baritowned wrote:I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

It is that easy. No gaming is better than bad gaming, so if your only options are "no game" or "a game you will thoroughly hate playing" then the obvious choice is "no game." If you arrange a game with someone else and he won't let you use the last table in the store or something get the manager on to him for wasting the managers resources. You've already said the manager is running out of patience, so this shouldn't be too onerous.

baritowned wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

The owner should simply make clear that this person does not own the store's tables. He can't take one until he has a game arranged with someone. And no one should play him until he agrees to follow the rules. If he agrees but then starts to cheat, immediately stop playing and pack up. Don't tolerate it.

Chrysis wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Actually, looks like you might be right. I was basing it on the inference that since she can come back from removes from play when her rules are specific to removed as a casualty the same applies to Necrons. But looking through the Necron FAQ they can't come back after being removed from play when turned into a Spawn, so it's not quite that cut and dried.

Yeah - it was bandied about a little bit in YMDC when the Sisters FAQ came out, but the FAQ answer is pretty specific to St. C so can't be used as a precedent.

Mannahnin wrote:

baritowned wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

baritowned wrote:Hey everyone, I'm posting on here on behalf of my friends at my FLGS. We have a player there who routinely cheats, and throws a tantrum when he loses, etc.

Simple solution. Do not play him.

I wish it were that easy, but we have a limited number of tables, and he will pretty much take one over completely until someone plays him

The owner should simply make clear that this person does not own the store's tables. He can't take one until he has a game arranged with someone. And no one should play him until he agrees to follow the rules. If he agrees but then starts to cheat, immediately stop playing and pack up. Don't tolerate it.

Exactly this, Refuse to play him. Then ask the owner why he is at a table he is not playing at when you and a friend have arranged a game.

Stand up for yourselves, and get the owner involved if needed, but politely ask him to move first, and if he wont, then get the owner involved.

Do not tolerate his BS.

Thanks for all the advice, guys. I went today, and since there were only three people there including him, I stayed for a few hours, and then left. I did speak to the owner though, apparently he overheard this guy saying he was planning on wrecking Wednesdays as well (which is our other warhammer night). Safe to say, he's getting kicked out next week when our mod comes back from out of town. I'll keep anyone interested updated on what happens next

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Ever-Living rule says "Instead place a counter where the model was removed from play". The RP and EL rules say "removed from play", ""removed as a casualty" and returned to play" for both.

EL breaks any distinction between "removed from play", "removed from play as a casualty, and "removed as a casualty".

SW players used to say "Nothing can come back from JotWW". The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work.

And OP, just don't play the guy.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Ever-Living rule says "Instead place a counter where the model was removed from play". The RP and EL rules say "removed from play", ""removed as a casualty" and returned to play" for both.

EL breaks any distinction between "removed from play", "removed from play as a casualty, and "removed as a casualty".

SW players used to say "Nothing can come back from JotWW". The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work.

And OP, just don't play the guy.

Nice try. Next time do not pick and choose from the EL rule.

"Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

Is in direct relation and result of having been removed as a casualty,

"If a model with this special rule is REMOVED AS A CASUALTY, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit."

The lord gets his EL counter placed AFTER he was removed as a casualty and the counter is placed where he was removed from play.

I'm not 100% sure on the new necron rules, but that's not what he did, he took a 3+ invulnerable against JotWW

1000% he can't use the invu of a phase shifter against jotww.

As for EL, there are faqs that address one case and yet apply to any other similar case ie manticore uses eldar faq to fire as multiple barrage, dominion squads in an immolator use BA faq to use smoke launchers after scout move etc. Same with EL and St Celestine faq.

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

everliving actually does allow it, RP doesnt as the EL actually mentions removed from play where RP doesnt, but your point is still valid lol, he eveidently wasnt rolling for either, he was just cheating

Brother Ramses wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Chrysis wrote:Now, a Necron Lord could take his Resurrection Protocols roll at the end of the phase, but I'm guessing that's not the case here.

I don't think that's correct.
JotWW removes from play. Everliving (What the Necron Lord has) bring you back after being removed from play as a casualty. There's only one model in the game that can come back from a remove from play ability (iirc) - and she ain't a Necron.

Ever-Living rule says "Instead place a counter where the model was removed from play". The RP and EL rules say "removed from play", ""removed as a casualty" and returned to play" for both.

EL breaks any distinction between "removed from play", "removed from play as a casualty, and "removed as a casualty".

SW players used to say "Nothing can come back from JotWW". The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work.

And OP, just don't play the guy.

Nice try. Next time do not pick and choose from the EL rule.

"Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

Is in direct relation and result of having been removed as a casualty,

"If a model with this special rule is REMOVED AS A CASUALTY, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit."

The lord gets his EL counter placed AFTER he was removed as a casualty and the counter is placed where he was removed from play.

I agree with you that it says "removed as a casualty" then it refers to the SAME action as "removed from play". These phrase are used synonymously and destroy any distinction between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play".

Disregarding the fluff, when a model is killed or otherwise removed from play, the BRB simply says they are "removed". The whole argument that there is actually a difference is based on Phil Kellys preferred description use of "remove from play" differing from other codex writers. People have interpreted that as Space Wolves have some new way of killing a model so that they are not counted as casualty - which is boggling in the first place. The word "casualty" is fluff and the BRB goes on to describe what casualty means. Not necessarily dead, but also maybe wounded, unconcious, missing in action or whatever.

Here Matt Ward uses both phrases to describe the same thing so clearly there is no difference.

copper.talos wrote:Same with EL and St Celestine faq.

St. Celestine's FAQ is very specific for only St. Celesting. It does not set a precedent. The other ones are not as specific - ie more general, which means they can be applied more generally.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I agree with you that it says "removed as a casualty" then it refers to the SAME action as "removed from play". These phrase are used synonymously and destroy any distinction between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play".

It's not just space wolves that have a RFP ability, FYI.

And as far as the quoted - You place the counter when RFPaaC. There's no permission to place the counter if you're removed from play. The phrases are not synonymous.

You probably haven't read those faqs carefully.

Q. How are multiple shots from the Exarch’s Tempest Launcher resolved? (p34)
A. Resolve them as a multiple barrage.
As you can see this faq is specifically about an exarch's tempest launcher. Yet Manticores use it as a precedent.


Q: Can a Baal Predator use smoke launchers during its
Scout move? (p36)
A: Yes.
Same here. This is specifically about baal predators and yet a dominion riding in an immolator can use it as a precedent to use its smoke launchers. Same with any vehicle that scout moves and has smoke launchers.

So yes the SoB faq is about St Celestine, but since is a similar case with EL, it creates a precedent.

copper.talos wrote:You probably haven't read those faqs carefully.

Q. How are multiple shots from the Exarch’s Tempest Launcher resolved? (p34)
A. Resolve them as a multiple barrage.
As you can see this faq is specifically about an exarch's tempest launcher. Yet Manticores use it as a precedent.


Q: Can a Baal Predator use smoke launchers during its
Scout move? (p36)
A: Yes.
Same here. This is specifically about baal predators and yet a dominion riding in an immolator can use it as a precedent to use its smoke launchers. Same with any vehicle that scout moves and has smoke launchers.

So yes the SoB faq is about St Celestine, but since is a similar case with EL, it creates a precedent.

When Necrons get an ability called Miraculous Intervention, they can use it against RFP and RFPaaC.
edit: There's no RAW guidance for multiple Barrage shots from a single model. The Eldar FAQ gives guidance on a similar situation, so many people use that.
The Baal ruling is a vehicle using smoke launchers during a scout move. That's the same thing as another vehicle using smoke launchers during a scout move.

Miraculous Intervention and Everliving are not the same ability, and while some of the wording might be similar, as an ability they're extremely different. That's why you can take the rulings you posted and apply them elsewhere, but not take the SoB one.

But thanks for assuming I didn't read the FAQs or know what rulings you were talking about. I already did, and have addressed them in other threads you brought up. I actually understand the difference between precedent setting and not - you can look at the Venomthrope thread I started to see that.

So by your reasoning the manticore has been firing a tempest launcher all this time...

copper.talos wrote:So by your reasoning the manticore has been firing a tempest launcher all this time...

See my edit.

First of all there is no other GW ruling about how remove as a casualty abilities interract with remove from play abilities. So as you said you you need guidance, and can use the SoB faq as a precedent.

As far as how different those abilities, they are essentially exactly the same up to the point that matters - the placing of the counter.

copper.talos wrote:First of all there is no other GW ruling about how remove as a casualty abilities interract with remove from play abilities. So as you said you you need guidance, and ca use the SoB faq as a precedent.

As far as how different those abilities, they are essentially exactly the same up to the point that matters - the placing of the counter.

There were GW rulings (SW FAQ update removed the WBB references, specifically the one saying no WBB from JotWW). And you don't need a ruling - the ability is 100% playable without trying to conflate RFP and RFPaaC.
The multiple barrage from a single model was not. There were *zero* rules saying how to play it, meaning it was 100% useless.
RP/EL work just fine against RFPaaC. Get hit by Jaws? Not RFPaaC, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.

Are you also asserting that you can come back from a failed DoG?

Necrons had an FAQ come out. Nothing in it implies that EL/RP follow the same rules as MI.

There never was a ruling about WBB and JotWW. And anyway we are talking about EL not WBB...

edit: IG got a new faq too but no mention about the manticore. Same with any army with vehicles that has smoke launchers and can scout move...

copper.talos wrote:There never was a ruling about WBB and JotWW. And anyway we are talking about EL not WBB...

I'm pretty sure there was, but okay.

edit: IG got a new faq too but no mention about the manticore. Same with any army with vehicles that has smoke launchers and can scout move...

Right, so the Manticore either cannot ever fire (wat) or you use the guidance from the Eldar FAQ. It's not RAW, it probably is RAI.
The Scout/Smoke launcher thing is RAW. A vehicle can scout and fire smoke launchers. Although, the more you bring it up, I'd be okay with denying Dominions the ability to scout/smoke. And CSMs who have possessed that pick up Scout. RAI though, I think they'd work.

You have no basis for allowing RP/EL to work through RFP abilities. And by your argument, you're not just allowing EL - you're also allowing RP - since the counter placement method is the same.

The abilities work just fine so there's no reason to go looking for guidance in other FAQs. Since we know that RFP and RFPaaC are not the same thing, the former does not trigger RP/EL.

Sorry copper.talos, but rigeld2 is right: there was a FAQ ruling specifically mentioning JotWW and WBB.

I'm just going to look forward to an official FAQ on the Jaws/EL question, because it honestly is pretty broke against necron characters.

I disagree that it's that broke, but an FAQ would be welcome.

@wolfhead There never was a faq about WBB and JotWW. No faq ever adressed the remove from play and wbb issue. You are welcome to search of course. Same with EL and JotWW.
And again since now necrons have EL and RP which have completely different wordings with wbb, I don't find it relevant at all.

@rigeld2 Of course you could fire the manticore without the eldar faq. You could just roll scatter for each large blast. But there was indeed a need for guidance. So we use the eldar faq. And since there is a dispute about this from day 1 of the Necron codex, there sure is a need a guidance for EL & JotWW too. As is the case with manticore, one can use a similar faq as this purpose. And by the way, good luck trying to convince SoB players they can't use smoke launchers because the faq is about a baal predator

I agree with Copper Talos on this one. Many FAQ rulings are applicable to other codices. The one about when you measure for the Sang Priest's benefit is very important for Tyranids with Tervigons, for another example.

Whether "removed from play" is functionally the same thing as "removed as a casualty" is somewhat ambigious, but St. Celestine's rule does equate them. And I'm not aware of any other current ruling to the contrary.

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no basis for allowing RP/EL to work through RFP abilities. And by your argument, you're not just allowing EL - you're also allowing RP - since the counter placement method is the same.

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play." RFP? Check, pass go, collect $200.

Removed from play - necrons haz it.

Well lets see...

Necron Codex wrote:If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty...

According to RP, you must be removed as a casualty, so if somehting just removes you from play, no RP token.

If a model with this special rule [Ever-living] is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit

Again, in order to place an EL token, you must be removed as a casualty.

It's been established that "Remove From Play" =/= "Remove From Play As A Casualty". The ONLY reason St. Celestine is given permission to come back when removed from play, is because the FAQ allows it. And (personally I think) GW is heavily biased.

Happyjew wrote:Well lets see...

Necron Codex wrote:If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty...

According to RP, you must be removed as a casualty, so if somehting just removes you from play, no RP token.

If a model with this special rule [Ever-living] is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit

Again, in order to place an EL token, you must be removed as a casualty.

It's been established that "Remove From Play" =/= "Remove From Play As A Casualty". The ONLY reason St. Celestine is given permission to come back when removed from play, is because the FAQ allows it. And (personally I think) GW is heavily biased.

You selectively quoted the parts the rule that don't say "removed from play" while ignoring the part that actually uses those exact words. "removed from play". Not a very honest way to argue RAW.

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

Ever-Living does include the phrase "removed from play".

You mean the one line that says "Instead place a token down where the model was removed from play"? Only one problem, the "Instead" refers to placing an RP token. You still do not have permission to for EL to work with a RFP ability.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no basis for allowing RP/EL to work through RFP abilities. And by your argument, you're not just allowing EL - you're also allowing RP - since the counter placement method is the same.

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play." RFP? Check, pass go, collect $200.

Removed from play - necrons haz it.

To place the token you have to have been Removed From Play as a Casualty. The model was removed from play (the latter part of the rule) as a casualty.

Context matters. Selectively picking words and pretending they're relevant is disengenious.

And the St. Celestine ruling now equates the two things.

Mannahnin wrote:And the St. Celestine ruling now equates the two things.

For St. Celestine and Miraculous Intervention.

There's no reason in the question or answer to attempt to extend the definition beyond that scope.

This isn't the US Supreme Court; GW didn't say "this ruling doesn't create a precedent."

Are you arging that we have no guidance as to when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives to nearby Termagants?

Mannahnin wrote:This isn't the US Supreme Court; GW didn't say "this ruling doesn't create a precedent."

Are you arging that we have no guidance as to when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives to nearby Termagants?

Actually I'd argue that it didn't need an FAQ - that's the only method that makes sense.

Many players opine that it makes sense for the Termagants and for BA to get Furious Assault if they're in range at the time they launch the assault.

Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense, and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same. Play the rules as written until a specific faq comes out.

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you.

That is fluff, and not rules.

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense,

A) That's fluff.
B) I'm not sure; how does alien robot supertechnology work? Do you have a more in-depth understanding of how it works, or how miracles work?

JonST wrote:...and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same.

You sure can, and in fact that's often the best and smartest thing to do. Like using the Eldar Tempest Launcher ruling to help you understand how to use a Manticore. And using the Blood Chalice ruling to help you understand how to use the Tervigon.

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense, and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same. Play the rules as written until a specific faq comes out.

Probably in a similar way they escape a stasis bomb (which was FAQ'd that RP/EL works against Lukas' Last Laugh).

Space Wolves FAQ 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.

Mannahnin wrote:

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense,

A) That's fluff.
B) I'm not sure; how does alien robot supertechnology work? Do you have a more in-depth understanding of how it works, or how miracles work?

JonST wrote:...and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same.

You sure can, and in fact that's often the best and smartest thing to do. Like using the Eldar Tempest Launcher ruling to help you understand how to use a Manticore. And using the Blood Chalice ruling to help you understand how to use the Tervigon.

I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of? For example all space marines are adeptus astartes, however because they have different gene-seeds they have different abilities/gear/powers which means different rules for models that otherwise are the same, and these rules are based purely on fluff. Now the reason brought a fluff reference up is that when you said the smartest thing is to say that similar things work the same are you saying that because space wolves and CSM are similar that space wolves shouldn't be able to put terminators in a drop pod? Or that all space marines should have counterattack because some do. No the fluff is what seperates them.

Of course I don't have any inkling how the terminator-like robots work. However I can read a codex and as I understood it from what I read, the Necron Lord has EL and StC has something called Miraculous Intervention which gives her EL with the ability to get beck up from either RFP or RFPaC. Now if you say the two are the same I can understand the argument because it is a reasonable one but then let me pose this question:

RP can take a piece of wargear called a Chooser of the Slain. Njal Stormcaller has Nightwing which as the codex states is a Chooser of the Slain. It goes on to say that in the assault phase a single model in base contact with Njall takes a certain number of hits from Nightwing. Nowhere does it say that other CotS can not do this, or that only Nightwing can do this. So do all my RP's CotS get to add some hits in the assault phase?

I would lean towards no, while both are CotS Nightwing is a special more powerful variant. Just like how Miraculous Intervetion is a special more powerful variant of EL. Its just something to think about when saying that Miraculous Intervention works the same as EL.

That said, I have played games with EL used both ways and as its way too tiring to argue I usually dont bother or just role for it as all I really want is to play the game lol.

EDIT - I forgot to add that it makes perfect sense when something is broken, missing, or is not clear to go by a clarified similar rule like the BA scout smoke stuff, it just seems like EL reads pretty clearly with the RFPaC part.



@Mannahnin On a side note, if you like the Arthur series with Derfel you should check out the Uhthred series its very similar and by Bernard Cornwell, I read both and liked them equally the Uhthred ones are based more in history as opposed to the Arthur legend, though the main character is almost the same.

JonST wrote: I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of?

Yes , but if you played the game by the fluff, marines could move and fire their Bolters at full range, since the bullets will travel the same distance regardless of if the person firing the weapon was moving or not.

and other silliness.

So we Must stick with the actual rules.

DeathReaper wrote:

JonST wrote: I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of?

Yes , but if you played the game by the fluff, marines could move and fire their Bolters at full range, since the bullets will travel the same distance regardless of if the person firing the weapon was moving or not.

and other silliness.

So we Must stick with the actual rules.

I said that the rules are based off the fluff, not that anyone should play by the fluff. If I am not mistaken the idea behind the move and only 12 inches range on the bolter is based on the fluff that if you move you made the choice of not standing still and steadying yourself for a nice aimed long range shot. But lets ignore the whole fluff conversation thing cus thats way off this topic. What about the rest of what I said?

What is the actual wording of Miraclulous Intervention?

JonST wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

JonST wrote:...and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same.

You sure can, and in fact that's often the best and smartest thing to do. Like using the Eldar Tempest Launcher ruling to help you understand how to use a Manticore. And using the Blood Chalice ruling to help you understand how to use the Tervigon.

I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of? For example all space marines are adeptus astartes, however because they have different gene-seeds they have different abilities/gear/powers which means different rules for models that otherwise are the same, and these rules are based purely on fluff. Now the reason brought a fluff reference up is that when you said the smartest thing is to say that similar things work the same are you saying that because space wolves and CSM are similar that space wolves shouldn't be able to put terminators in a drop pod? Or that all space marines should have counterattack because some do. No the fluff is what seperates them.

I agree that fluff is important, but not in the sense of being a useful tool for rules interpretation. The fluff is used by the codex writers, and can be used by us to envision the story part of the game. That being said, fluff is usually a poor tool for understanding how a rule works, because you can make the fluff work whatever way you want. I can come up with a story-based justification for anything.

JonST wrote:However I can read a codex and as I understood it from what I read, the Necron Lord has EL and StC has something called Miraculous Intervention which gives her EL with the ability to get beck up from either RFP or RFPaC. Now if you say the two are the same I can understand the argument because it is a reasonable one...

I don't think they're the same. And Miraculous Intervention doesn't give Everliving. They're different but similar rules. Both involve returning a dead model to play. Both use similar language. One has been specifically ruled to work against JotWW. The other has actually (in the Lukas ruling) also been ruled to work against another effect which Removes Models from Play.

JonST wrote:EDIT - I forgot to add that it makes perfect sense when something is broken, missing, or is not clear to go by a clarified similar rule like the BA scout smoke stuff, it just seems like EL reads pretty clearly with the RFPaC part.

For my money this seems like a case where two similar rules should both work in the same situation.

JonST wrote:@Mannahnin On a side note, if you like the Arthur series with Derfel you should check out the Uhthred series its very similar and by Bernard Cornwell, I read both and liked them equally the Uhthred ones are based more in history as opposed to the Arthur legend, though the main character is almost the same.

Yeah, I read the Saxon books first, and just finished the Warlord books recently. Cornwell's great.

It would be nice if GW just released a clear FAQ on this already, its only been a point argued for a long time now....

I actually think that EL should be able to come back from JOTWW, its really too powerful against Necrons otherwise, and even if they do its still an almost certain way to force them to take that test, or pick off a big chunck of a squad. I just don't think the rule reads that way.

For the record - doesn't Lukas' ability remove from play as a casualty?

Ok, so heres a wrench, according to the INAT:

SW.37h.04: Do models removed from play by JotWW count as casualties? A:Yes they do


Discuss.

Lunchmonkey wrote:Ok, so heres a wrench, according to the INAT:

SW.37h.04: Do models removed from play by JotWW count as casualties? A:Yes they do


Discuss.

Not answering the question you think it is.

It's clarifying that they count as casualties when it comes to checking morale at the end of the shooting phase - not that they were removed from play as a casualty.

It does reference DE:60E.05/DE:61C:01/DE:61G.01:
Are Models removed from play by a Crucible/Hexrifle/Shatterfield considered to be removed as casualties?

A: In all cases Yes

This leads ME (for what thats worth) to believe that I can indeed take my RP/EL save.

Lunchmonkey wrote:It does reference DE:60E.05/DE:61C:01/DE:61G.01:
Are Models removed from play by a Crucible/Hexrifle/Shatterfield considered to be removed as casualties?

A: In all cases Yes

This leads ME (for what thats worth) to believe that I can indeed take my RP/EL save.

Again, it's not answering what you think it is.
Unless you are removed from play as a casualty, by the rules you aren't counted towards the 25% requirement to test for morale.

Those questions are clarifying that you do.

They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

Lunchmonkey wrote:They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

No.

RP/EL trigger when removed from play as a casualty. Jaws, et. al. remove from play.

When totaling losses for Morale purposes, you count models removed by Jaws, et. al. for that purpose.

The precedent for FAQ from one code applying to another codex is primarily when the FAQ clarifies a general rule, not a codex specific rule.

In this instance, Miraculous Intervention is referencing a codex specific rule in regard to JotWW. Until EL gets the same ruling in the form of a FAQ, EL does not protect from being removed from play.

INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

copper.talos wrote:INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

INAT has tules that models affected by JotWW count as casualties for the purposes of morale.
INAT did not change the wording to "removed from play as a casualty".
INAT has not conflated the two things.

GW will likely never FAQ it.
Decide amongst your group how to handle JotWW as far as morale casualties goes, but RAW it's pretty clear that RFP != RFPaaC.

This is the full INAT ruling
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].
Ref: DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01
Do you read any mention of morale? No? Then it's a generic ruling. If you want to add words like "morale" to that ruling, then contact the INAT council.

Furthermore the next ruling is this:
SW.37H.05 – Q: If Jaws of the World Wolf is used
alongside other shooting from the Rune Priest’s unit,
when exactly are the casualties from ‘JotWW’
removed?
A: Casualty removal for ‘JotWW’ attacks are done at the same
time as with any other shooting attacks made by the firing
unit. When allocating wounds for a complex unit to take saves,
models that have failed their characteristic test can still have
wounds allocated to them as normal (as a failed characteristic
test is not a wound) [clarification].

Another instance where INAT considers models affected by jotww as casualties.

Brother Ramses wrote:The precedent for FAQ from one code applying to another codex is primarily when the FAQ clarifies a general rule, not a codex specific rule.

In this instance, Miraculous Intervention is referencing a codex specific rule in regard to JotWW. Until EL gets the same ruling in the form of a FAQ, EL does not protect from being removed from play.

Are you deliberately ignoring the wording of the Necron Codex. Maybe you don't have a copy?

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

Nemesor Dave wrote:You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

I'm not.
Ever-Living only allows you to place a counter if you were removed from play as a casualty.
All other references to "removed from play" must be referencing that instance.

Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The precedent for FAQ from one code applying to another codex is primarily when the FAQ clarifies a general rule, not a codex specific rule.

In this instance, Miraculous Intervention is referencing a codex specific rule in regard to JotWW. Until EL gets the same ruling in the form of a FAQ, EL does not protect from being removed from play.

Are you deliberately ignoring the wording of the Necron Codex. Maybe you don't have a copy?

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

Yea, I already addressed your nit picking of the rules that allows you to try and pigeonhole your assumption. As both Rig and Happy have pointed out, being removed from play for EL is dependent on being removed as a casualty. You cannot get around that rule, not matter how much you try. The COMPLETE rule, not your paraphrase, destroys your own argument.

Yep, it was addressed clearly already, yet ND repeated it as if the argument still had any merit.

I'm shocked.

You place a token if you are rmeoved as a casualty. If you havent been removed as a casualty you dont place a token.

Happyjew wrote:Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

The key to this rule is time vs. location

WHEN a model is removed as a casualty ... place a token WHERE it was removed from play

Thus, EL only works WHEN the model is a casualty. The token is placed WHERE you remove the model from the table

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

The key to this rule is time vs. location

WHEN a model is removed as a casualty ... place a token WHERE it was removed from play

Thus, EL only works WHEN the model is a casualty. The token is placed WHERE you remove the model from the table

Hmmm, this guy knows a thing or two about something.

Did the guy get kicked out of the shop, that's all I read the last 2 pages to find out!!!

Happyjew wrote:Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

There is another logical explanation: "Removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" are the same thing.

You can have an "instead" if they both mean the same thing. This is what I am saying this means. The Necron codex uses the two phrases interchangeably and only you guys keep claiming they have separate meanings.

In the BRB there is only one description of removing casualties - they are removed. All the rest is fluff.

"as a casualty" is fluff. The BRB has more fluff to describe what casualty means - "not necessarily dead".

Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

Faqs answer specific questions.
Can Celestine get up if she is hit with remove from play effects? Faq: Yes
Can a model with everliving get up if it is hit with remove from play effects? Faq:???
The question is the same but the everliving model has no faq. So you look to any similar faqs for guidance. The only one ever is that of celestine. Everliving and miraculous intervention both have essentially the same wording up to the crucial part of placing the counter. To keep it short both models place the counter when they get removed as a casualty, so it is elligible to use it as a precedent. A similar case like manticore where you use the eldar exarch tempest launcher faq,

Lehnsherr wrote:Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

Ouch!

Basically looks like an argument of convience. When the FAQ is convient it is used, when not it is challeneged.

Lehnsherr wrote:Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

I agree with your point and its one I was thinking about how to state it best. There are a few different ways the FAQ's are used in various threads.

1. Straightforward Answer: Simple straightforward answer to a question. You usually must agree unless there is some ambiguity in the question or answer.
If A is true then B? Yes/No.

2. Parallel: Like the Celestine FAQ:
Celestine and Necrons come back from out of play. The wording in both rules is similar. Celestine is FAQed to come back from JAWS therefore without a FAQ we may consider a possible parallel and decide based on that. I would agree with your point here - this is an argument not based on RAW. It is using a similar FAQ Q/A and applying it to the question at hand. Most threads that come to the conclusion "the rules don't specify" dont end there, but devolve into "how should we play this?" And this at least tells us GW would probably rule the same in the future if they do FAQ this and adds something to discussion.

3. Implied: Like the Imotekh thread:
The FAQ implies something that is not part of the question it is answering. It unfortunately says "must Imotekh roll". This has lead to some arguments that require a leap in logic based on suggested game play. If Imotekh is rolling, its his roll. If its his roll, he must be in play to roll. If its his roll, and his unit is pinned, he cannot roll. All this contradicts the original understanding everyone agreed to based on the RAW in the codex. This isn't based on RAW but on a FAQs false assumption about the nature of some loosely related rule.

#3 is too far from a precise answer about related rules to base any real argument on yet some still try. They should at leas be honest and admit their arguments are not based on RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Ouch!

Basically looks like an argument of convience. When the FAQ is convient it is used, when not it is challeneged.

I had stopped bringing up Celestine. I agree, the parallel between the rules for Celestine and FAQ and the EL rule (though no FAQ) are not the strongest argument.

My last comment on this is about how "removed from play" is treated as synonymously with "removed as a casualty" in the Necron Codex. This is based purely on RAW.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Lehnsherr wrote:Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

I agree with your point and its one I was thinking about how to state it best. There are a few different ways the FAQ's are used in various threads.

1. Straightforward Answer: Simple straightforward answer to a question. You usually must agree unless there is some ambiguity in the question or answer.
If A is true then B? Yes/No.

2. Parallel: Like the Celestine FAQ:
Celestine and Necrons come back from out of play. The wording in both rules is similar. Celestine is FAQed to come back from JAWS therefore without a FAQ we may consider a possible parallel and decide based on that. I would agree with your point here - this is an argument not based on RAW. It is using a similar FAQ Q/A and applying it to the question at hand. Most threads that come to the conclusion "the rules don't specify" dont end there, but devolve into "how should we play this?" And this at least tells us GW would probably rule the same in the future if they do FAQ this and adds something to discussion.

3. Implied: Like the Imotekh thread:
The FAQ implies something that is not part of the question it is answering. It unfortunately says "must Imotekh roll". This has lead to some arguments that require a leap in logic based on suggested game play. If Imotekh is rolling, its his roll. If its his roll, he must be in play to roll. If its his roll, and his unit is pinned, he cannot roll. All this contradicts the original understanding everyone agreed to based on the RAW in the codex. This isn't based on RAW but on a FAQs false assumption about the nature of some loosely related rule.

#3 is too far from a precise answer about related rules to base any real argument on yet some still try. They should at leas be honest and admit their arguments are not based on RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Ouch!

Basically looks like an argument of convience. When the FAQ is convient it is used, when not it is challeneged.

I had stopped bringing up Celestine. I agree, the parallel between the rules for Celestine and FAQ and the EL rule (though no FAQ) are not the strongest argument.

My last comment on this is about how "removed from play" is treated as synonymously with "removed as a casualty" in the Necron Codex. This is based purely on RAW.

And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty. It has been brought up several times and yet you continue to gloss over it without a single acknowledgement because it destroys your argument.

At not time whatsoever can an EL counter be placed unless the model was first removed as a casualty. You cannot argue around that facet of the rule and because of that you cannot even begin to tackle the fact that EL works against JotWW.

BR, check out my last post in the NIghtfighting/Imotekh off the board thread.

Brother Ramses wrote:

And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty. It has been brought up several times and yet you continue to gloss over it without a single acknowledgement because it destroys your argument.

At not time whatsoever can an EL counter be placed unless the model was first removed as a casualty. You cannot argue around that facet of the rule and because of that you cannot even begin to tackle the fact that EL works against JotWW.

Your logic is circular:

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty

This statement depends on the presumption that they are not synonymous. Do you see the paradox in your statement? There is no dependency if the phrases are synonymous. You must assume they are not synonymous for there to be a dependency.

It's simple really:

This part is rules:
BRB p. 24 Remove Casualties: "...model is immediately removed from the table..."
This part is fluff:
"... as a casualty..."
As is this part also fluff:
"Casualties are not necessarily dead."

The only part of any rule that is not fluff from the Codex, BRB or anywhere is the part that says "remove", "remove from play" or "remove from the table".

So you're arguing that Remove from play as a casualty is the same thing - game wide - as Remove from play?

rigeld2 wrote:So you're arguing that Remove from play as a casualty is the same thing - game wide - as Remove from play?

There are two parts to my argument.

The Necron codex uses Removed From Play and Removed as a Casualty synonymously. For the sake of EL they are the same.

The rest of my argument could be construed as game wide, they are the same thing. Based on the quotes I presented this is true. Perhaps someone else can prove this false.

Your first statement is incorrect. If they are not the same, references to remove from play after a requirement of being removed from play as a casualty can only refer to the original removal - as a casualty.

I'll construct an argument to the latter statement later today.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty. It has been brought up several times and yet you continue to gloss over it without a single acknowledgement because it destroys your argument.

At not time whatsoever can an EL counter be placed unless the model was first removed as a casualty. You cannot argue around that facet of the rule and because of that you cannot even begin to tackle the fact that EL works against JotWW.

Your logic is circular:

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty

This statement depends on the presumption that they are not synonymous. Do you see the paradox in your statement? There is no dependency if the phrases are synonymous. You must assume they are not synonymous for there to be a dependency.

It's simple really:

This part is rules:
BRB p. 24 Remove Casualties: "...model is immediately removed from the table..."
This part is fluff:
"... as a casualty..."
As is this part also fluff:
"Casualties are not necessarily dead."

The only part of any rule that is not fluff from the Codex, BRB or anywhere is the part that says "remove", "remove from play" or "remove from the table".

Again, willful ignorance.

Let me ask you this ND, how do you place an EL counter if the model is not first removed as a casualty?

And way to cite a rule that has absolutely nothing to do with JotWW and again in typical Nemesor Dave fashion, nitpicking the rule to fit your argument. BRB page 24, Remove Casualties;

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So at what point is a wound taken, a save failed, and a model removed as a casualty from the use of JotWW? You are trying to backdoor EL in by reversing the actions of the rule to sync up remove as a casualty with remove from play. We know that being removed as a casualty involves unsaved wounds, which JotWW does not cause wounds. However, you fail at addressing that without first being removed as a casualty (meaning being removed due to unsaved wounds) must happen before an EL counter can be placed where the model was removed from play.

By all means, try and rectify how the model with EL has unsaved wounds from JotWW to be removed as a casualty and have an EL counter placed.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lunchmonkey wrote:They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

No.

RP/EL trigger when removed from play as a casualty. Jaws, et. al. remove from play.

When totaling losses for Morale purposes, you count models removed by Jaws, et. al. for that purpose.

If you get a chance to read this, take note of Last Laugh from P. 52 the SW codex where the two are used synonymously but going the other directly:
"Should Lukas ever be removed from play..." "...models in base contact are also removed from play as casualties."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Again, willful ignorance.

Let me ask you this ND, how do you place an EL counter if the model is not first removed as a casualty?

All models removed from the game are removed from the game "as casualties". Casualty is a fluff term as explained in the BRB "not necessarily dead". Another statement you make that assumes the premise that the two phrases are not synonymous in order to prove they are not synonymous. I am wondering if you know what i mean by RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Brother Ramses wrote:
And way to cite a rule that has absolutely nothing to do with JotWW and again in typical Nemesor Dave fashion, nitpicking the rule to fit your argument. BRB page 24, Remove Casualties;

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So at what point is a wound taken, a save failed, and a model removed as a casualty from the use of JotWW? You are trying to backdoor EL in by reversing the actions of the rule to sync up remove as a casualty with remove from play. We know that being removed as a casualty involves unsaved wounds, which JotWW does not cause wounds. However, you fail at addressing that without first being removed as a casualty (meaning being removed due to unsaved wounds) must happen before an EL counter can be placed where the model was removed from play.

By all means, try and rectify how the model with EL has unsaved wounds from JotWW to be removed as a casualty and have an EL counter placed.

Your are assuming some agreed definition of RFPaaC as having taken wounds and RFP as not having taken wounds. Sorry to "nitpick" but please cite the page numbers where these are separately explained. I don't know of any distinction made in the rules.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lunchmonkey wrote:They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

No.

RP/EL trigger when removed from play as a casualty. Jaws, et. al. remove from play.

When totaling losses for Morale purposes, you count models removed by Jaws, et. al. for that purpose.

If you get a chance to read this, take note of Last Laugh from P. 52 the SW codex where the two are used synonymously but going the other directly:
"Should Lukas ever be removed from play..." "...models in base contact are also removed from play as casualties."

Some serious yoga stretching taking place here.

Keying in on "also" is trying to play a semantics game that you just as easily lose when "also" relates to said models being in base to base with Lukas "also" suffer a consequence of Last Laugh. However your modus operandi is to exclude what does not support your argument.

Note that Lukas is removed from play and models in base to base with him are removed as casualties. Why verbiage if the exact same? Lukas is removed from play (nothing can bring him back) whereas the models in base to base are removed as casualties (can be brought back).

This is difference is supported by the SW FAQ.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

If you get a chance to read this, take note of Last Laugh from P. 52 the SW codex where the two are used synonymously but going the other directly:
"Should Lukas ever be removed from play..." "...models in base contact are also removed from play as casualties."

Some serious yoga stretching taking place here.

Keying in on "also" is trying to play a semantics game that you just as easily lose when "also" relates to said models being in base to base with Lukas "also" suffer a consequence of Last Laugh. However your modus operandi is to exclude what does not support your argument.

I looked for any way I could be misreading this and the way "also" is used. To paraphrase for clarity this rule:
1) Should Lukas be RFP
2) both players roll dice
3) if the SW player rolls higher or equal
4) "all models in base contact with Lukas are also RFPaaC"

There are two actions in this sentence - remove Lukas, and if conditions are met, "also" remove your models in B2B. The word "also" is equating what is done to Lukas and the models in B2B. RFP = RFPaaC. If there is any other way to read this I'd be happy to hear a reasonable alternative.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Note that Lukas is removed from play and models in base to base with him are removed as casualties. Why verbiage if the exact same? Lukas is removed from play (nothing can bring him back) whereas the models in base to base are removed as casualties (can be brought back).

This is difference is supported by the SW FAQ.

You never responded to this:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Your logic is circular:

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty

This statement depends on the presumption that they are not synonymous. Do you see the paradox in your statement? There is no dependency if the phrases are synonymous. You must assume they are not synonymous for there to be a dependency.

If I'm shot with a machine gun, you should also shoot the other guy.

Is everyone that shoots the other guy shooting a machine gun?

You're reading the sentence wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:If I'm shot with a machine gun, you should also shoot the other guy.

Is everyone that shoots the other guy shooting a machine gun?

You're reading the sentence wrong.

To use your phrase it would be more like this:

If I'm shot with that machine gun, you should also be shot with a black machine gun.

I do see how it could be read the way you're saying though. I hope you can see that reading it the way I presented is also reasonable.

And you're saying that all machine guns are black (using that sentence)?

rigeld2 wrote:And you're saying that all machine guns are black (using that sentence)?

No, just that in my example "that machine gun" and "the black machine gun" are the same gun. I see your understanding now but it could also be read the way I have put it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And you're saying that all machine guns are black (using that sentence)?

No, just that in my example "that machine gun" and "the black machine gun" are the same gun. I see your understanding now but it could also be read the way I have put it.

Only in a very simplistic (and I don't believe correct) manner.
You have logical, or contextual, reason to assume that both machine guns are the same.
Similar to how you have no logical or contextual reason to assume RFP and RFPaaC are the same.

Ok Nemesor Dave, since you have avoided it the entire thread,

How can an EL token be placed where the model was removed from play if the model was not first removed as a casualty?

As much as you want to match one with the other you cannot. I took your own BRB pagr 24 rule citation and showed you where you were wrong in equating remove from play as a casualty and remove from play.

You then try and nitpick exactly what constutes a casualty per the BRB and fail yet again because despite what a casualty can consist of, the BRB defines how a casualty is determined.

Has a Necron lord with EL suffered a unsaved wound from JotWW? So how does he then place an EL counter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just do a simple exercise;

I use my rune priest and cast JotWW with the line passing through your Necron Lord and he fails his initiative test.

Now using the RAW, explain how you place an EL counter.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

INAT has tules that models affected by JotWW count as casualties for the purposes of morale.
INAT did not change the wording to "removed from play as a casualty".
INAT has not conflated the two things.

GW will likely never FAQ it.
Decide amongst your group how to handle JotWW as far as morale casualties goes, but RAW it's pretty clear that RFP != RFPaaC.

In the BRB p.24-26 "as a causualty" is fluff. "Casualties" are defined as "not necessarily dead". It doesn't matter how the model died - even models with full wounds removed by instant death are casualties. Throughout this part of the rules, the word "casualty" is used to describe a model that is removed from play, regardless of how it got removed.

RAW does not define RFP differently than RFPaaC. In fact it uses the two interchangeably.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

INAT has tules that models affected by JotWW count as casualties for the purposes of morale.
INAT did not change the wording to "removed from play as a casualty".
INAT has not conflated the two things.

GW will likely never FAQ it.
Decide amongst your group how to handle JotWW as far as morale casualties goes, but RAW it's pretty clear that RFP != RFPaaC.

In the BRB p.24-26 "as a causualty" is fluff. "Casualties" are defined as "not necessarily dead". It doesn't matter how the model died - even models with full wounds removed by instant death are casualties. Throughout this part of the rules, the word "casualty" is used to describe a model that is removed from play, regardless of how it got removed.

RAW does not define RFP differently than RFPaaC. In fact it uses the two interchangeably.

Again with the nit picking of the rules to fit what you are arguing. I already quoted the complete rule on page 24 which shut down your attempt at pigeonholing casualties into your argument.

Determining casualties is defined in the BRB. I agree, it doesn't matter how they died or that they are not "necessarily dead", but how you determine a casualty is pure clear RAW. Suffering an unsaved wound that reduces your wound profile to zero results in being removed from the table as a casualty. Paraphrased from page 24, but that is the BRB definition more or less of determining a casualty. Btw, instant death removes all the wounds from your profile, hence per the BRB, that is why it is a casualty.

And again since you refuse to answer yet again,

How do you place an EL counter if the model was not first removed as a casualty?

Brother Ramses wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

In the BRB p.24-26 "as a causualty" is fluff. "Casualties" are defined as "not necessarily dead". It doesn't matter how the model died - even models with full wounds removed by instant death are casualties. Throughout this part of the rules, the word "casualty" is used to describe a model that is removed from play, regardless of how it got removed.

RAW does not define RFP differently than RFPaaC. In fact it uses the two interchangeably.

Again with the nit picking of the rules to fit what you are arguing. I already quoted the complete rule on page 24 which shut down your attempt at pigeonholing casualties into your argument.

Determining casualties is defined in the BRB. I agree, it doesn't matter how they died or that they are not "necessarily dead", but how you determine a casualty is pure clear RAW. Suffering an unsaved wound that reduces your wound profile to zero results in being removed from the table as a casualty. Paraphrased from page 24, but that is the BRB definition more or less of determining a casualty. Btw, instant death removes all the wounds from your profile, hence per the BRB, that is why it is a casualty.

And again since you refuse to answer yet again,

How do you place an EL counter if the model was not first removed as a casualty?

An EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play. "as a casualty" is fluff.

Instant Death rule does not reduce all wounds to zero. "..killed outright and removed as a casualty". p.24 BRB says nothing about reducing wounds to zero. In this you are incorrect and should re-read this page.

The "as a casualty" and other fluff is interspersed within the rules to make it more descriptive of a battle. Don't confuse fluff for rules.

You may be new to this board, but you'll find that quoting rules and repeatedly referring to a precise wording of the rules is not "nitpicking". It is necessary to make any case for RAW.

Your supposed precise wording leaves out the inconvient parts of the rule that hurt your argument.

Why exactly is a model removed as a casualty when it suffers and unsaved wound from a weapon that is double it toughness? The model is killed outright why? Because one unsaved wound from a weapon that is double its toughness reduces it'wound profile to zero despite only suffering one unsaved wound. Funny how you can expound on abstract concepts of remove as a casualty and removed from play yet fail to see the mechanics behind suffering an unsaved wound from a weapon with double toughness and the subsequent loss of all wounds due to the instant death rule.

Btw, being removed as a casualty is defined in the BRB. It tells you exactly how a casualty is determined. A Necron Lord with EL never suffers an unsaved wound from JotWW and thus is never removed as a casualty as defined by the BRB. I expected you to try to backdoor the removed from play to try and equate it to being removed as a casualty, but I was expecting a better attempt.

You need to reread page 24 entirely and see that being removed as a casualty is not fluff. It is a defined process that a Necron Lord with EL does not suffer when hit with JotWW.

And attacking join dates? Nice sign of a losing argument. How about attacking my sig or avatar next?

Brother Ramses wrote:Your supposed precise wording leaves out the inconvient parts of the rule that hurt your argument.

Why exactly is a model removed as a casualty when it suffers and unsaved wound from a weapon that is double it toughness? The model is killed outright why? Because one unsaved wound from a weapon that is double its toughness reduces it'wound profile to zero despite only suffering one unsaved wound. Funny how you can expound on abstract concepts of remove as a casualty and removed from play yet fail to see the mechanics behind suffering an unsaved wound from a weapon with double toughness and the subsequent loss of all wounds due to the instant death rule.

Btw, being removed as a casualty is defined in the BRB. It tells you exactly how a casualty is determined. A Necron Lord with EL never suffers an unsaved wound from JotWW and thus is never removed as a casualty as defined by the BRB. I expected you to try to backdoor the removed from play to try and equate it to being removed as a casualty, but I was expecting a better attempt.

You need to reread page 24 entirely and see that being removed as a casualty is not fluff. It is a defined process that a Necron Lord with EL does not suffer when hit with JotWW.

And attacking join dates? Nice sign of a losing argument. How about attacking my sig or avatar next?

Being removed and in other words "removed from play" is the in game action. "As a casualty" is fluff and it is explained as such. The model doesn't really die. It's not really hurt either. In the BRB every explanation of removing a model is reffered to "removed as a casualty". The only part that is not fluff is removing the model from the table.

Where is removing a model but "not as a casualty" defined in the rules? It's not. You will not find it anywhere.

Brother Ramses wrote:a weapon that is double its toughness reduces it's wound profile to zero

Here we are arguing RAW. Try sticking to what is written on the page. The wounds are not reduced to zero - instead the model is simply removed. This is another key failure in your argument.

At the very best you are arguing that there is an unwritten convention being applied here that you can guess. However this convention you claim is inconsistent and the rules use RFP and RFPaaC interchangeably. Your argument is simply not based on RAW.

Wait - ND, you are saying BR is new to the board? Really?

Apparently your selective reading of rules, ignoring incovenient words like "distance", "as a casualty" et al now extends to making up joining dates?

Seriously, I can attack both your join date AND your avatar in one BR, you ready?

"You may be just a pup on this board..."

See, I'm calling you new and I'm inferring that you are a pup because you're avatar is obviously a SW.

You got me good Happyjew!

However my join date and avatar are interchangeable as "avatar" is just fluff.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

You may be new to this board, but you'll find that quoting rules and repeatedly referring to a precise wording of the rules is not "nitpicking". It is necessary to make any case for RAW.

Nemesor Dave - Join Date: 1/10/2012

Brother Ramses - Join Date: 5/5/2009


I can't thank you enough. It was a long day at law school, and I really needed a laugh.

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

You may be new to this board, but you'll find that quoting rules and repeatedly referring to a precise wording of the rules is not "nitpicking". It is necessary to make any case for RAW.

Nemesor Dave - Join Date: 1/10/2012

Brother Ramses - Join Date: 5/5/2009


I can't thank you enough. It was a long day at law school, and I really needed a laugh.

ITT people who don't get sarcasm. You see, he has about a thousand and a half posts, but keeps calling my references to the exact wording of a rule as "nitpicking" as if he doesn't get that following RAW requires a precise understanding. Jolly good times.

/over explaining - heh!

Wow, I don't check something for a few days and this is what happens... While I thank everyone for their replies, the question wasn't regarding the use of EL against JotWW, it was if an invulnerable save could be taken against it.

And yes, to the person that asked, he was kicked out. We actually had 12-16 people there this past Saturday (about triple what it has been for the last month or so), which co-incidentally was his first gaming day being banned.

Lol sorry Brandon, thanks for asking this for me, didnt know that 2 thousand people would read it

Honestly....I would NOT play him again if he has that much trouble following clearly written rules.

@baritowned congratulations on getting rid off such a lousy opponent. As for the EL/JotWW endless argument, I guess is something like a hobby here. When there is nothing to do, dig up old hopelessly unresolved arguments and repeat them all over again... and again. I am now waiting for the next fnp& entropic strike grand slam...

I personally think that they should just get rid of jotww as its an incredibly filthy psychic power an its existence is a huge middle finger to the entire necron army.

copper.talos wrote:@baritowned congratulations on getting rid off such a lousy opponent. As for the EL/JotWW endless argument, I guess is something like a hobby here. When there is nothing to do, dig up old hopelessly unresolved arguments and repeat them all over again... and again. I am now waiting for the next fnp& entropic strike grand slam...

^Agree

Litanyoffury1 wrote:I personally think that they should just get rid of jotww as its an incredibly filthy psychic power an its existence is a huge middle finger to the entire necron army.

^Agree


Look, there's conciseness on this thread!

Yes, but Necron are Xeno, and SW are Space Marines.
...
do you REALLY think GW would nerf a SM ability for the sake of a Xeno?

(though, I've always thought the fact that GW refuse to address confusing rule clashes as rather ridiculous. Surely updating the FAQs more than once every year couldn't be that hard. It's almost as if they weren't on the internet).

Just a quick follow-up on this because I think this needs an FAQ as well.

If RFP and RFPaaC are not the same thing, then resolve this one for me.

Necron Codex: PG 29 Left side

"Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters."

The first half of this statement refers to destroyed, while the second half clarifies that to mean the last model has been removed as a casualty.

So it would seem that if RFP != RFPaaC, then would it not follow that if the last model in a unit was removed by JotWW then the counters are not removed because the last model was not removed as a casualty?