So...Removed from play, and removed from play as a casualty are not defined in the BRB or anywhere?


Just figured this out...Can anyone cite where in the BRB or a GW FAQ that its differentiated between?
Thanks

Simple English shows they're different.

Remove from play as a Casualty is a subset of remove from play.
Similar to:
Ordering a pizza from Dominoes is a subset of ordering a pizza.

If you get one from dominoes, you've ordered a pizza - but not all pizzas are from dominoes.
If you remove from play as a casualty, you've been removed from play, but not all remove from play are as casualties.

The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

Your right there isnt any definition in the BRB on the diffrence, this is why EV/RP is such a hot topic right now,
as Rigeld2 states there is a diffrence in the dictionary, with luck 6th will fix this issue, doubt it but here is to hoping!!

BTW Papa Johns is better than Dominoes!

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

True. Although to presume that it is exclusive to her is kind of awkward without wording changes - but I do not wish to get into that dispute here. I concur - it's for St. Celestine only.

The question is about Celestine, but the answer creates a precedent under which "removed from play" is equivalent to "removed from play as a casualty".

FAQs frequently contain questions whose answers are applicable to other similar situations and related rules. Like how the Blood Angels FAQ on the Chalice functionally clarifies the timing on the benefits a Tervigon grants to nearby Termagants.

Does that answer really do that?
Under both you are removed from play, is it not just a simple sentence covering both as both rules remove from play.

I do not have a copy of the sisters codex, much as it is, what is the wording of the saint's rule that allows her to come back from the dead?

"Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty..."
The FAQ changed it (without actually rewording it) to include RFP as well.

Ok cool thanks!

Oh - and I agree. 6th will likely change the rules so that all remove from plays are equal.

Its just not that way right now.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you get one from dominoes, you've ordered a pizza - but not all pizzas are from dominoes.
If you remove from play as a casualty, you've been removed from play, but not all remove from play are as casualties.

It's fine to state your preference, but can you provide any reason or proof this is true?

Here's the setup: GW is not consistent. They will use RPF, and the later call it RFPaaC and they will do the opposite. You will find RPFaac and then RFP to describe the same action.

In a very few rules remove from play is used without the "as a casualty". There is no pattern to this. In the beginning of 5th edition there were few enough examples to have some uncertainty. You could take the few examples and claim there was an unwritten convention GW was using. Now we have example after example in the latest FAQs and Codexes where both are used and there is no consistent difference. You can not establish a rule by convention. Following RAW is not an easter egg hunt.

In the BRB all we have is Instant Death which uses both RFPaaC and RFP.

Show me where "Removed From Play" is defined in any rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Because FAQs can change rules, they are rules.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Because FAQs can change rules, they are rules.

I see what you did there.
And the FAQ does change the rules. For St. Celestine. There's nothing in the answer that would imply that they're the same game wide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Show me where "Removed From Play" is defined in any rule.

It's not and I will never, and have never, said that it is.
So either it means nothing, or we go to other ways to define it.
The simplest meaning is that it is a superset of RFPaaC - plain english shows they are not the same, barring a rulebook definition.

rigeld2 wrote:And the FAQ does change the rules. For St. Celestine. There's nothing in the answer that would imply that they're the same game wide.

By this same rationale, do you think we have no guidance for when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives Termagants?

Here's another one:

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.

Last Laugh uses RFPaaC to describe the removal of enemies, yet earlier in the rule it uses RFP to describe how Lucas is removed. Here is another case where the rule and the FAQ use them both with no careful separation between the terms.

A simple explanation is that this is done to add flavor to the rule. It would be too boring to write RFP...RFP...RFP and too long to write RFPaaC...RFPaaC...RFPaaC. This would lack the fluffiness that GW likes in it's writing.

Note: I went through every FAQ searching for the word "removed" to see all instances of both. You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Basimpo wrote:So...Removed from play, and removed from play as a casualty are not defined in the BRB or anywhere?


Just figured this out...Can anyone cite where in the BRB or a GW FAQ that its differentiated between?
Thanks

Removed from Play as a Casualty is a defined process on page 24.

I can't find anywhere in the rule book where the term "Removed from play" is used.

Anyone?

Magpie wrote:I can't find anywhere in the rule book where the term "Removed from play" is used.

Anyone?

I must admit my previous posts are not precisely accurate. I should have said there is Removed and Removed as a Casualty. However, even this is not perfectly accurate: From the BRB these phrases are used.

removed (R?)
removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
removed as a casualty (RaaC)
remove casualties
remove whole models as casualties

I couldn't find RFP or RFPaaC at all. Anyone else?

Mannahnin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And the FAQ does change the rules. For St. Celestine. There's nothing in the answer that would imply that they're the same game wide.

By this same rationale, do you think we have no guidance for when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives Termagants?

I don't think the guidance is needed - the way the chalice was ruled is the only way it makes sense to me.

Plus, the situations aren't really comparable. RFP and RFPaaC (I love that my iPhone will autocorrect those now) are different based on plain English. The chalice and Tervigon rules have leeway that could be confusing.
If Celestine's answer was more than "Yes." I'd say there's a basis for precedent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Last Laugh uses RFPaaC to describe the removal of enemies, yet earlier in the rule it uses RFP to describe how Lucas is removed. Here is another case where the rule and the FAQ use them both with no careful separation between the terms.

The FAQ says RFP which is referring to the RFPaaC that last laugh does. Remember, it's a superset. It's referring to the pizza you already got from dominoes, based on the rule the question is about.

This would lack the fluffiness that GW likes in it's writing.

Because it would be impossible to have one sentence in any FAQ or the BRB saying that all "remove from play" statements refer to RFPaaC.

You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

Go look at the old Space Wolves FAQ before necrons. WBB was denied permission to come back from JotWW, unless I've been smoking crack. The consistency is there as Lon as you remember the relationship between RFP and RFPaaC.

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Demonstrably false. The fact that they've been considered two different things for the past ... how long? Proves that there is more than one conclusion.

ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

Sisters do not fall to Chaos

Nemesor Dave wrote:From the BRB these phrases are used.

removed (R?)
removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
removed as a casualty (RaaC)
remove casualties
remove whole models as casualties

I couldn't find RFP or RFPaaC at all. Anyone else?

"Play" as a game term is only used in the flavor description for Deep Strike (BRB 95). It's never actually defined, and it's not used as part of the core rules. Only army books (and their FAQs) use the term "play," which makes this issue difficult to handle.

Saint Celestine's Miraculous Intervention works when she is "removed as a casualty." (This is the same triggering statement as WBB). If she can use her ability when she is "removed from play" by an attack (such as JotWW), then it would follow that removing models from play (from an "attack") is the same as removing them as casualties.

INAT appears to use this same conclusion:

DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01 – Q: Are models
removed from play by a Crucible of Malediction,
Hexrifle and/or a Shattershard considered to be
removed as casualties?
A: In all cases, yes [clarification].

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

elrabin wrote:
INAT appears to use this same conclusion:

DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01 – Q: Are models
removed from play by a Crucible of Malediction,
Hexrifle and/or a Shattershard considered to be
removed as casualties?
A: In all cases, yes [clarification].

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

I don't think those mean what you say they mean - By the book, units that took 25% casualties due to these abilities would not have to roll.
FAQs and INAT say they count as casualties, which means you take morale checks.

I don't read those INAT FAQs as changing the wording from RFP to RFPaaC, nor do I see any INAT question that says they are the same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

Go look at the old Space Wolves FAQ before necrons. WBB was denied permission to come back from JotWW, unless I've been smoking crack. The consistency is there as Lon as you remember the relationship between RFP and RFPaaC.

GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect. The fact is you don't know why various FAQ rulings are made. They were never considered two different things in the past except maybe by assumption.

rigeld2 wrote:

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Demonstrably false. The fact that they've been considered two different things for the past ... how long? Proves that there is more than one conclusion.

Again - you have 0 proof. And now you have a mountain of evidence is breaking the 'convention theory'.

Simple English shows they're different.

No, there is such a thing as synonymous terms and phrases. This argument is incorrect.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DPBellathrom wrote:ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

The FAQ says she does not come back. Personally I believe this is because they still consider her on the table, but changed. Still, it is an inconsistency without an official explanation.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

Go look at the old Space Wolves FAQ before necrons. WBB was denied permission to come back from JotWW, unless I've been smoking crack. The consistency is there as Lon as you remember the relationship between RFP and RFPaaC.

GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect. The fact is you don't know why various FAQ rulings are made. They were never considered two different things in the past except maybe by yours and others assumption.

WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.
That reinforces the fact that the phrases are different.

rigeld2 wrote:

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Demonstrably false. The fact that they've been considered two different things for the past ... how long? Proves that there is more than one conclusion.

Again - you have 0 proof. And now you have a mountain of evidence is breaking the 'convention theory'.

No, there's absolutely zero evidence. You're making more assumptions to say they're the same than I have to make to say they're different.

Simple English shows they're different.

No, there is such a thing as synonymous terms and phrases. This argument is incorrect.

Yes, there is such a thing as synonymous terms and phrases.
In this case, we have AB and A. Every time you do AB you are doing A, but there are times when A happens that B does not, so they are not the same action.

Or do you only order pizza from dominoes? This really seems like Easter egging to say they're the same. You're having to hunt for rules and interpret stuff incorrectly to make them the same - to say they're different you just use plain english.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

The FAQ says she does not come back. Personally I believe this is because they still consider her on the table, but changed. Still, it is an inconsistency without an official explanation.

Umm, no FAQ says that. Gift of Chaos removes a model as a casualty and replaces it with a spawn, so Celestine would definitely come back.

pretre wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

The FAQ says she does not come back. Personally I believe this is because they still consider her on the table, but changed. Still, it is an inconsistency without an official explanation.

Umm, no FAQ says that. Gift of Chaos removes a model as a casualty and replaces it with a spawn, so Celestine would definitely come back.

Yes, my mistake. She does come back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.

Was it explained in the FAQ that the reason was because JotWW used the phrase RFP? Can you direct me to this FAQ?

rigeld2 wrote:
You're making more assumptions to say they're the same than I have to make to say they're different.

I only have to look in the BRB and find how you remove models. Would you say by reading the BRB that "remove" and "remove as a casualty" are different?

You keep describing how one is a subset of the other. I understand your description and analogy with pizza, but it's not proof. What RAW led you to this conclusion?

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't think those mean what you say they mean - By the book, units that took 25% casualties due to these abilities would not have to roll.
FAQs and INAT say they count as casualties, which means you take morale checks.

I don't read those INAT FAQs as changing the wording from RFP to RFPaaC, nor do I see any INAT question that says they are the same thing.

The "Casualty" morale check happens if you "lose" 25% of your models, there is no restriction that you only count casualties. As written, this would include any models that are simply removed.

Regardless, the SOB FAQ entry on Saint Celestine makes RFP equivalent to RaaC (for Saint Celestine). RAW, this doesn't make the same true for every ability, so I suppose this would be HYWPI.

rigeld2 wrote:WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.
That reinforces the fact that the phrases are different.

This is not a RAW argument. AFAIK, there's nothing stating that Reanimation Protocols don't work with JotWW. Just because this is how it worked in the old codex/FAQ doesn't mean it is the same way now. Since the "trigger condition" of RP and Miraculous Intervention are the same, and Miraculous Intervention works when Celestine is removed from play, it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that RP works in this situation as well. But again, this is not RAW either.

elrabin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't think those mean what you say they mean - By the book, units that took 25% casualties due to these abilities would not have to roll.
FAQs and INAT say they count as casualties, which means you take morale checks.

I don't read those INAT FAQs as changing the wording from RFP to RFPaaC, nor do I see any INAT question that says they are the same thing.

The "Casualty" morale check happens if you "lose" 25% of your models, there is no restriction that you only count casualties. As written, this would include any models that are simply removed.

... but since it's under the Casualties heading, some people thought that only models removed as a casualty counted - which is why those FAQs exist.

Regardless, the SOB FAQ entry on Saint Celestine makes RFP equivalent to RaaC (for Saint Celestine). RAW, this doesn't make the same true for every ability, so I suppose this would be HYWPI.

And you're perfectly free to - I disagree that it should apply everywhere, so I wouldn't play it that way.

rigeld2 wrote:WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.
That reinforces the fact that the phrases are different.

This is not a RAW argument.

Correct. There is no RAW definition of either phrase. So we have to look elsewhere.
Plain english says they're different. Chasing other assumptions and trying to interpret phrases and attempting to discern intent is easter egging.

AFAIK, there's nothing stating that Reanimation Protocols don't work with JotWW.

Aside from one triggering on RFPaaC and the other causing RFP, there isn't.

Just because this is how it worked in the old codex/FAQ doesn't mean it is the same way now.

Look at the reason I brought it up.

Nemesor Dave wrote:GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect.

I was citing an official ruling that there was a difference.

Since the "trigger condition" of RP and Miraculous Intervention are the same, and Miraculous Intervention works when Celestine is removed from play, it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that RP works in this situation as well. But again, this is not RAW either.

I would say that it is unreasonable because there's nothing even close to allowance in the MI FAQ or any phrases that come close to trying to establish a precedent.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect.

I was citing an official ruling that there was a difference.

You cited a ruling. The "why" of the ruling - your assumption that it was something to do with RFP vs RFPaac, do you agree it is not official? I don't believe there was anything official that said "why" or named RFP as the reason.

Granted, so if you take WBB as a precedent and assume it indicates a difference then you must take Celestine as a precedent too and here was have an inconsistency. Without any official ruling Celestine breaks the convention that you might use to assume one is a subset of the other.

In the BRB - we have 1 way to remove models - as a casualty.
If you take WBB as describing a convention then you must take Celestines FAQ as breaking that convention.

Looking at this fresh with all current FAQ's I don't believe you would come to the same conclusions you have come to.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Granted, so if you take WBB as a precedent and assume it indicates a difference then you must take Celestine as a precedent too and here was have an inconsistency. Without any official ruling Celestine breaks the convention that you might use to assume one is a subset of the other.

I'm not saying the WBB/JotWW ruling sets a precedent - it reinforces the fact that plain english shows the phrases are different.
The Celestine ruling is narrowly scoped - I don't see how it could apply outside Celestine.

Looking at this fresh with all current FAQ's I don't believe you would come to the same conclusions you have come to.

I believe you're wrong - plain english indicates a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not saying the WBB/JotWW ruling sets a precedent - it reinforces the fact that plain english shows the phrases are different.
The Celestine ruling is narrowly scoped - I don't see how it could apply outside Celestine.

Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

I see more and more people stating that there was a faq that claimed wbb didn't work against jotww. This is 100% wrong and shows how hopelessly these people try to argue in favour of jotww: using imaginery faqs against obsolete rules. The facts are that nowhere removed from play is defined at all and is used as an expression by just one codex writer.The only ruling in existance regarding remove from play effects is that of St Celestine.

elrabin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not saying the WBB/JotWW ruling sets a precedent - it reinforces the fact that plain english shows the phrases are different.
The Celestine ruling is narrowly scoped - I don't see how it could apply outside Celestine.

Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

No. Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are the same? No.
Plain English dictates they are different.

Common language works differently from formal. If one usually orders pizza from Dominoes, then when one asks one's mate to "order the pizza", one means to order it from Dominoes and will be undertandable disappointed when theorder would be made from another pizza vendor.
In common language phrases are often truncated from their exact counterparts without changing their meaning in context (between the sme group of speakers, for example). And so, they serve not as generalisations, but as shorthands.

What language is rulebook written in? Formal or informal/common?

copper.talos wrote:I see more and more people stating that there was a faq that claimed wbb didn't work against jotww. This is 100% wrong and shows how hopelessly these people try to argue in favour of jotww: using imaginery faqs against obsolete rules. The facts are that nowhere removed from play is defined at all and is used as an expression by just one codex writer.The only ruling in existance regarding remove from play effects is that of St Celestine.

1) I'm not arguing for or against any power specifically. I'm arguing that there is a difference.
2) I'm absolutely certain there was something in the old FAQ about JotWW and WBB - I can see the words on my screen in a pdf. I'm trying to find an archived version now.
3) RFPaaC isn't defined at all either - except by taking wounds enough to remove the model. JotWW (and other RFP abilities) do not cause wounds, and therefore cannot remove as a casualty.

That still means that remove from play is undefined with just 1 ruling in existance, that of Celestine. Both INAT and ETC have ruled in favour of RP and simar abilities. Normally all these would have been enough except some people don't want to lose their kill-necron-hq-for-free card...

copper.talos wrote:That still means that remove from play is undefined with just 1 ruling in existance, that of Celestine. Both INAT and ETC have ruled in favour of RP and simar abilities.

It's undefined and Celestine's ruling doesn't apply game wide and also doesn't equate the two.
It doesn't need a definition - plain english is enough to differentiate and explain what the rule does.
And you're going to have to cite where the INAT FAQ "ruled in favour of RP" - I'm not seeing it.
The only thing I can see that would imply that would be the "casualties" thing posted earlier, which I addressed.

Normally all these would have been enough except some people don't want to lose their kill-necron-hq-for-free card...

Are you trying to troll me? Please apologize. I play Tyranids, and only Tyranids. It seems like you're the one injecting bias into the argument. If you disagree, please cite where you think I've been biased.

I have always read it as rigeld2 states.
The fact that there are additional clarifying words in a phrase indicates that something additional needs to be clarified.

Being additional precludes being the same.

INAT says that jotww and all other remove from play abilities create casualties (no ifs no buts). So RP applies as normal. And forgive if I don't take statements such ad 'I play only Tau' at face value since anyone can say anything on the net. Especially here where non existant faqs are used as arguments...

copper.talos wrote:INAT says that jotww and all other remove from play abilities create casualties (no ifs no buts). So RP applies as normal.

The models removed count as casualties. This is clarification for the morale section.
That does not mean that the model was removed from play as a casualty.

And forgive if I don't take statements such ad 'I play only Tau' at face value since anyone can say anything on the net. Especially here where non existant faqs are used as arguments...

... Seriously? You're just going to assume I'm lying to protect my huggalicious JotWW? ... So you are trolling me?
I've never said anything about playing Space Wolves. The most I've done is talked about starting Blood Angels because I've come into some marine models.
I dislike that you're questioning my integrity with absolutely no basis.

As I said jotww creates casualties - no ifs no buts. If you want to make it a more narrow ruling talk to the INAT council...

Just one quick thing, counts as =/= is.
It also doesn't say if they are removed as a casualty or not.

SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do.

I read that as counting towards your 25% casualties for shooting.

copper.talos wrote:As I said jotww creates casualties - no ifs no buts. If you want to make it a more narrow ruling talk to the INAT council...

That's not what the INAT ruling says. Here, I'll paste it for you.

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

Does it say they are removed from play as a casualty? Does it say that RFPaaC and RFP are the same?
I'm still waiting for the apology, or some citation that there's a reason to think I'd lie about what armies I play.
Before you bring up the WBB FAQ, I'll concede that it doesn't exist - until I find it.

rigeld2 wrote:

elrabin wrote:Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

No.
Plain English dictates they are different.

As written in the codex/BRB, I agree. RaaC and RFP should be different. However, the SoB FAQ makes them the same for the purposes of Miraculous Intervention on Saint Celestine. As the abilities are written, there's no reason why her ability should be treated any differently than Reanimation Protocols, etc. GW did not give Miraculous Intervention errata so that it worked when Celestine is RFG. Instead, GW provided clarification on the rules. This is why there is uncertainty here. Miraculous Intervention works only when Celestine is RaaC -- but GW says it also works when she is RFP. So why should it be any different for Reanimation Protocols or EL?

If the SoB FAQ did not address this issue, I would totally agree with you. However, its inclusion seems to indicate (at least to me) that RaaC and RFP are effectively the same.

Given the fuzziness though, I think this subject is really up to personal/group/TO interpretation.

rigeld2 wrote:Does it say they are removed from play as a casualty? Does it say that RFPaaC and RFP are the same?

No and No. However, I referenced this ruling to support my interpretation of the FAQ entry. This ruling is not based on RAW either. Besides, if you are limiting the scope to Morale checks, then it still doesn't address whether or not you can use Reanimation Protocols or Ever Living after being RFP.

copper.talos wrote:And forgive if I don't take statements such ad 'I play only Tau' at face value since anyone can say anything on the net.

There's no need to bring any of this into the discussion. Bias is a non-factor when arguments rely on factual information.

elrabin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

elrabin wrote:Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

No.
Plain English dictates they are different.

As written in the codex/BRB, I agree. RaaC and RFP should be different. However, the SoB FAQ makes them the same for the purposes of Miraculous Intervention on Saint Celestine. As the abilities are written, there's no reason why her ability should be treated any differently than Reanimation Protocols, etc. GW did not give Miraculous Intervention errata so that it worked when Celestine is RFG. Instead, GW provided clarification on the rules. This is why there is uncertainty here. Miraculous Intervention works only when Celestine is RaaC -- but GW says it also works when she is RFP. So why should it be any different for Reanimation Protocols or EL?

Your statement seems to imply that you don't think FAQs can change rules... Is that correct?
FAQs can change how rules operate without changing the text of a rule. For one example that is very similar to this one, look at the Tyranid FAQ.
Venomthropes have Spore Cloud. This ability makes an enemy unit roll a dangerous terrain test when charging a unit within 6" of the Venomthrope.
According to the BRB, simply taking the test is enough to drop your initiative to 1.
The Tyranid FAQ changed that rule, so now enemy units are not penalized for charging - they simply take the dangerous terrain test and keep coming.

The SoB FAQ changed the rules surrounding MI so that it always gets to roll - an errata would have been more appropriate, but an FAQ is sufficient.
It's different for RP and EL because they have no similar FAQ stating that they can come back from RFP.

rigeld2 wrote:Does it say they are removed from play as a casualty? Does it say that RFPaaC and RFP are the same?

No and No. However, I referenced this ruling to support my interpretation of the FAQ entry. This ruling is not based on RAW either. Besides, if you are limiting the scope to Morale checks, then it still doesn't address whether or not you can use Reanimation Protocols or Ever Living after being RFP.

Agreed and Agreed. The INAT ruling in question has no influence on RP or EL coming back from RFP abilities. In other words, it neither supports nor denies.

Does the rulebook define "play"?

I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your statement seems to imply that you don't think FAQs can change rules... Is that correct?

No -- GW does change rules in their FAQs, but it's difficult to know when they are changing/adding rules and when they are simply answering a question. To me, that's what makes this a sticking point. Does the FAQ entry on MI simply answer what happens according to the current rules, or does it implicitly alter the rules of MI? If the former, this would imply that EL/RP can be used after a RFP effect. If the latter, then RFP and RaaC are different and only MI is special.

For me, I prefer to choose the interpretation that results in consistency. It doesn't make sense to me why Celestine should be able to get back up after being RFP'd but a Necron can't. The triggering conditions of EL and MI aren't any different, so allowing one but not the other just seems arbitrary to me.

elrabin wrote:For me, I prefer to choose the interpretation that results in consistency. It doesn't make sense to me why Celestine should be able to get back up after being RFP'd but a Necron can't. The triggering conditions of EL and MI aren't any different, so allowing one but not the other just seems arbitrary to me.

I can see that. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. GW does all kinds of arbitrary things (Venomthrope, as was mentioned, SitW before the most current FAQ) so arbitrarily making a special character more powerful while leaving an entire codex without the ability to get back up from RFP makes perfect sense to me.

angelshade00 wrote:I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

I just wanted to know if there was a BRB or GW FAQ that defined RFP and RFPaaC...There isnt, and thats good enough for me...Until i see otherwise no amount of plain english dictates whatever or theological discussions on the meaning behind the mysterious GW council of Nuln and how, who or where they order pizza will change it otherwise. Im sure that the original play testers of the new necrons fought Space wolves...I think Necrons and maybe celestine are probably the only models in the entire GW line of models that would benefit from RFP and RFPaaC being the same. Its a GW conspiracy...they are distracting us from discussing why their prices are so high or why they are secretly setting up their miniature model factories in florida.

No but really, thanks for taking the time to answer the question. I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and we should all email the gw answer place and ask if RFP and RFPaaC are the same or not...I know i know, the tenets say dont cite the emails because they can be easily spoofed. But if every one of us (thats what, 10-16 people?) email them, then C&P our answer here...Might give us an idea where they are headed with this thing.

Basimpo wrote:I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.

There is. RP/EL trigger when the model is removed as a casualty. The BRB implies (not defines that I saw) that this happens when you run out of wounds.
RFP abilities don't cause wounds, and they don't remove from play as a casualty. Therefore they do not trigger RP/EL.

Redacted!

Basimpo wrote:Which actually, brings me to the example listed on page 26 of the BRB for instant death (found it while looking for whether or not tw-handed weapons give you an additional attack...) If you take JUST the rule of instant death, you can arguably say that the model affected by instant death is just RFP. The example clarifies that its removed as a casualty.

ID is (usually) caused by an unsaved wound, so that lends to being RFPaaC.
Also, the rule says, "Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty."
There's no way to read that that isn't RFPaaC. You don't need the example to clarify that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.

There is. RP/EL trigger when the model is removed as a casualty. The BRB implies (not defines that I saw) that this happens when you run out of wounds.
RFP abilities don't cause wounds, and they don't remove from play as a casualty. Therefore they do not trigger RP/EL.

Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

I know this is a little late, but I've been away from Internet until recently. I noticed Lukas' Last Laugh referenced as to something that refers to RFPaaC but earlier refers to RFP. I would like to point out there is no conflict in terms. "If Lukas is removed from play (does not matter how it happens, be it smacked up in CC or hit by JotWW), both players do "X". If "Y" happens models are removed from play as a casualty (which means things like RP/EL would work). Again apologies on bringing this up so late, but I felt it needed to be clarified.

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:Which actually, brings me to the example listed on page 26 of the BRB for instant death (found it while looking for whether or not tw-handed weapons give you an additional attack...) If you take JUST the rule of instant death, you can arguably say that the model affected by instant death is just RFP. The example clarifies that its removed as a casualty.

ID is (usually) caused by an unsaved wound, so that lends to being RFPaaC.
Also, the rule says, "Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty."
There's no way to read that that isn't RFPaaC. You don't need the example to clarify that.

Youre right! I read it again and did a facepalm.

Also, (since some people are saying that St Celestine sets a preference), would you allow me to strike at Initiative if I assault through Dangerous Terrain created by Writhing Worldscape, because, using the "Spore Cloud" as a precedent, my models would not have reduced Initiative.

Page 54 of the BRB. Trapped! If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back it is destroyed.

No RFP, or RFPaaC here...

Happyjew wrote:Also, (since some people are saying that St Celestine sets a preference), would you allow me to strike at Initiative if I assault through Dangerous Terrain created by Writhing Worldscape, because, using the "Spore Cloud" as a precedent, my models would not have reduced Initiative.

Writhing Worldscape makes difficult terrain dangerous as well.
So you are assaulting through difficult terrain and your initiative is reduced.
I don't see a conflict. Nice try though.
A better comparison of WW would be Sanctuary.

As an aside the word you were looking for was Precedent not preference.

Basimpo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.

There is. RP/EL trigger when the model is removed as a casualty. The BRB implies (not defines that I saw) that this happens when you run out of wounds.
RFP abilities don't cause wounds, and they don't remove from play as a casualty. Therefore they do not trigger RP/EL.

Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

It's not, as I asserted earlier.
So while it's not a guarantee that RFP abilities don't cause wounds, we'll take the example that always gets used - JotWW.
It does not cause wounds.
Therefore, by the implicit definition in the BRB of RFPaaC, you are not removed as a casualty.
JotWW forces the models to be removed from play.
We can use normal english to determine how to remove a model from play (and must, because the BRB doesn't define that, even for RFPaaC)

Basimpo wrote:

Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

Please cite where "the" is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ

Or, you realise that the game isnt completly internally defined, and that where it isnt you fall back on English. And Removed from Play is definitively different to RfPaaC, because the latter adds a specific condition "as a casualty". If you are not removed as a casualty you have not been removed from play as a casualty.

Copper is ignored for blatant trolling, again.

Page 55 BRB under the title morale and fallback moves. Last sentence. Sweeping advance that catches and destroys an artillery piece...

Basimpo wrote:Page 54 of the BRB. Trapped! If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back it is destroyed.

No RFP, or RFPaaC here...

Yep! You have found yet another way to remove models. The other "remove" action is during Sweeping Advances. Whether or not EL and MI works here is still hotly debated, but RAW I would argue that they do not function here.

Basimpo wrote:Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

RFP is not defined in the BRB because it's not language that is used in that rulebook. It is only used in a couple of codexes.

Icemyn wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Also, (since some people are saying that St Celestine sets a preference), would you allow me to strike at Initiative if I assault through Dangerous Terrain created by Writhing Worldscape, because, using the "Spore Cloud" as a precedent, my models would not have reduced Initiative.

Writhing Worldscape makes difficult terrain dangerous as well.
So you are assaulting through difficult terrain and your initiative is reduced.
I don't see a conflict. Nice try though.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/435190.page
I already thought about the "precedent" the Venomthrope FAQ would set.
The issue with that one is that other abilities create difficult/dangerous terrain, which you then roll for.
Spre Cloud forces a roll, but does not create terrain.

I feel its important to note that you haven't really added anything to the conversation Nos and just kind of showed up to flame bait Copper.

But yes your point about every term not being defined is true, pedantic, but true.

Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

Icemyn wrote:Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

Sure - I don't think that's a satisfying result to a rules discussion, however, because a TO or gaming group is free to decide to ignore/put in place any rules they want. All Tyranids have Eternal Warrior from Synapse again! There was much rejoicing!

I believe the necron codex uses the word destroyed in its definition of the rule RP...Its what happens to the model after it fails to come back, fails to be in coherency, or the unit the RP necron flees, leaving the downed necron to self destruct. I dont have it in front of me, so correct me if im wrong

Icemyn wrote:I feel its important to note that you haven't really added anything to the conversation Nos and just kind of showed up to flame bait Copper.

But yes your point about every term not being defined is true, pedantic, but true.

Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

No, wrong, I pointed out that as there is no formal definition of RfP, you fall back on actual English - same as any other phrase that hasnt got a 40k specific meaning. Using this there is a clear difference between RfP and RfPaaC - its the "as a casualty" part. There are many ways to be removed from play - destroyed, Jaw'ed, etc, but only some of them are as a casualty.

Any TO can decide anything they like anyway - have you seen INAT and ETC rulings before now? The Indy UK GT managed to conflate spotting distance and LOS, and so decided that Hive Guard dont need to roll for night fighting as they dont need LOS. Doesnt make them right, as per the rules, and doesnt mean you should *in a rules discussion* pay them any more attention.

Basimpo wrote:I believe the necron codex uses the word destroyed in its definition of the rule RP...Its what happens to the model after it fails to come back, fails to be in coherency, or the unit the RP necron flees, leaving the downed necron to self destruct. I dont have it in front of me, so correct me if im wrong

It says you can't attempt your RP rolls if the unit is destroyed, and then it defines that in game terms: "once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This is why there is some debate with RFP effects, because if RFP is not RaaC, then if the whole unit is RFP'd then the unit still has RP counters. And if RFP counts as casualties (for Morale, etc), then RP still works at the end of the phase.

I think we should comb through all of our rule books (BRB, codex, FAQ) and post the different ways it mentions on how models "die" or are removed from play etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

elrabin wrote:

Basimpo wrote:I believe the necron codex uses the word destroyed in its definition of the rule RP...Its what happens to the model after it fails to come back, fails to be in coherency, or the unit the RP necron flees, leaving the downed necron to self destruct. I dont have it in front of me, so correct me if im wrong

It says you can't attempt your RP rolls if the unit is destroyed, and then it defines that in game terms: "once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This is why there is some debate with RFP effects, because if RFP is not RaaC, then if the whole unit is RFP'd then the unit still has RP counters. And if RFP counts as casualties (for Morale, etc), then RP still works at the end of the phase.

I believe at the very very beginning of the rule it mentions that the untis that are left from a fallback are destroyed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I feel its important to note that you haven't really added anything to the conversation Nos and just kind of showed up to flame bait Copper.

But yes your point about every term not being defined is true, pedantic, but true.

Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

No, wrong, I pointed out that as there is no formal definition of RfP, you fall back on actual English - same as any other phrase that hasnt got a 40k specific meaning. Using this there is a clear difference between RfP and RfPaaC - its the "as a casualty" part. There are many ways to be removed from play - destroyed, Jaw'ed, etc, but only some of them are as a casualty.

Ohhhh you are saying they are two similar things but different? Have different meanings/effects?

I am saying that one is a superset of the other. RfP is the superset of RfPaaC

What is a superset?

Basimpo wrote:What is a superset?

Chevrolet is a superset of Camaros.

All Camaros are Chevrolet, but not all Chevrolets are Camaros.
All Dominoes are pizza joints, but not all pizza joints are Dominoes.

https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+superset#hl=en&safe=off&q=superset&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=IjKDT5bAIJPqtgeU8_WyBg&ved=0CCgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=63fec3479e8fa865&biw=1591&bih=578

horrid link, but there you go.

So...for example...Cherries are a fruit, but not all fruit are cherries...
Does that make EL a superset of RP then?

Supersets= mathematical term.

Basimpo wrote:
I believe at the very very beginning of the rule it mentions that the untis that are left from a fallback are destroyed

It just instructs you to remove all counters from a unit that makes a fall back move -- the reference to self-destructing is fluff.

Red Corsair wrote:Supersets= mathematical term.

gotcha..
wait
wait
wait
GAME CHANGER
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

RFP and RFPaaC are the same!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
by kids i mean its what, for 10+ right? Not that im calling anyone kids, im just saying the language is supposed to be clear for people without higher education to understand and enjoy.

Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Basimpo wrote:
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

RFP and RFPaaC are the same!

If this works for you and your opponents, then that's great!

Unfortunately, this doesn't work for Dakka (and especially this forum). Call again tomorrow and you may get the opposite answer.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

Like i said, i understand the tenets. But now, to me, no amount of easter egging (i think its called) to prove otherwise is going to mean anything. Go ahead and use mathmatical proofs to break down the language of the rulebook and rules to put it in your favor, but its clear that RFP is NOT defined.

The example destroyed i gave. If we took that definition as given by the BRB that means we would be leaving the destroyed models in place where they were. Or they would explode. Page 61 of the BRB.

We know thats ridiculous.

Basimpo - this isnt rules lawyering, or mathematical proof (it isnt - it is purely linguistic) - it is just using basic English.

RfP and RfPaaC are not the same thing. GW customer support are atrocious and entirely unverifiable within this forum or anywhere else for that matter

Careful, nos, next thing you know someone may try to claim that "Coherency" and "Coherency Distance" are the same.

Or that every measurement in the game is between two units

Basimpo wrote:
GAME CHANGER
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

Please don't take this as a jab at you; it really isn't.

This post right here shows how short a time you've been playing 40K. Calling GW's customer service department for rule questions has been a joke for as long as they've had a customer service number you can call.

Many of the people that work the customer service line don't even play 40K and have never even read the BRB. None of them are part of the rules team or the development team. Asking them their opinion on a rules question is like asking a guy at the LGS; neither one is privy to the thoughts behind the writing of the rules and their answer carries no weight with any other GW store or tournament.

Sure, they are not the same thing in the english language. They are the same thing in the game. More and more that it is argued, the more i see that they are one and the same.

Sir, your stance that in game, they are separate RULES does not have a base of its own to stand on. Please cite (i believe this is the third time ive asked, and if you answer, itll be the 3rd time you have said you cannot) where RFP is given a definition, ruling, an anything whatsoever other than how its used in basic english. If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.
destroyed
loses its last wound
removed from play
as a casualty
killed
wiped out
blows up
smash the model into little pieces in front of your opponent

It doesnt matter, they are the same. they are ALL removed from play. Your stance IS rule lawyering. Please cite where in the GW FAQs, or the BRB where Basic English can be fallen back upon and used to determine how rules, that dont exist, work.

Also, define basic english. the wikipedia definition i found does NOT include removed, or casualty in its 860ish word core list of basic english words.
The tenets set down for you make da call say you shouldnt use dictionary definitions because of the differing english used in them.

You know what would be interesting? To get a translated codex and see what its EXACT translation is from the language to english. Im an arabic linguist, so i know that foreign language /= english 100%

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
GAME CHANGER
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

Please don't take this as a jab at you; it really isn't.

This post right here shows how short a time you've been playing 40K. Calling GW's customer service department for rule questions has been a joke for as long as they've had a customer service number you can call.

Many of the people that work the customer service line don't even play 40K and have never even read the BRB. None of them are part of the rules team or the development team. Asking them their opinion on a rules question is like asking a guy at the LGS; neither one is privy to the thoughts behind the writing of the rules and their answer carries no weight with any other GW store or tournament.

Gotcha. I played solidly for about 1-2 years, then stopped for 2 years and ive been playing steadily for 6 months. Im still learning, and thats why I asked these questions in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which brings me to another point....jetpacking into difficult terrain turns it into dangerous....No more tau running away from me in the ruins...

Basimpo wrote:If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.

Use the BRB to define the following - remember, basing the definition solely on the english language is no stance whatsoever.

special (for reference, page 74 in bold)
Measuring (for reference, page 71)
the (used throughout the book)
circumstances (page 43, 2nd word under Morale Check Modifiers)

I'll have more when you're done defining these 4.

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.

...
To reverse that to where I started it, not all RFP effects are RFPaaC, but all RFP effects are potato.

This does not make sense.

And the pizza thing

Not all removed from play type deaths are described the same, but all ARE removed from plays


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.

Use the BRB to define the following - remember, basing the definition solely on the english language is no stance whatsoever.

special (for reference, page 74 in bold)
Measuring (for reference, page 71)
the (used throughout the book)
circumstances (page 43, 2nd word under Morale Check Modifiers)

I'll have more when you're done defining these 4.

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.

...
To reverse that to where I started it, not all RFP effects are RFPaaC, but all RFP effects are potato.

This does not make sense.

Thanks for proving my point!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thats also why i challenged us to to contact gw, and see how in one day their views differ. I knew it wouldnt happen, but, it was worth a shake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What i was saying is, you cant make basic english as your base argument to make believe a "rule" into existence. I suggest that right here, we compile all the RFP rules together and treat them like sweeping advance. In the other thread it was said that a rule has to SPECIFY that it works against sweeping advance, and the precedent was and they shall know no fear. If the RFPs all say that they are NOT casualty causers, and that only rules that specify that they work AGAINST RFPs can be used, also taking in consideration the precendents created by such things as SoB FAQ etc.

Basimpo - in that case, prove they are the same. You cant, because they arent defined in the rules. So you have to fall back onto English and how the phrases are constructed - and the two phrases are very different. Claiming they're not is a ridiculous stance to take.

You're also mixing up / conflating Precedent and Example. ATSKNF is an *example* of a rule which specifies what happens inthe event of a unit being caught by Sweeping Advance, showing what "specify* means. MI does not act as precedent as it gives a single specific answer to a single specific quesiton

Page 24 BRB mentions against wounds which there are no saves. Yes, wounds is in there. Please reference a rule where RFP is used, actually, please quote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually, you fall back on the FAQs which, according to SoB, RFP and RFPaac are the same.

Basimpo wrote:Page 24 BRB mentions against wounds which there are no saves. Yes, wounds is in there. Please reference a rule where RFP is used, actually, please quote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually, you fall back on the FAQs which, according to SoB, RFP and RFPaac are the same.

Jaws and a DE item (forget which) - theyre rules.

Wrong, for the purposes of MI they are the same. You dont "fall back" onto an entirely different FAQ answering a specific question about a specific ability.

And according to the Nids FAQ, assaulting into something that is not terrain but requires a Dangerous Terrain test does not reduce Initiative. Yet, according to the rule book it isn't terrain but the act of taking a terrain test that lowers Initiative.

Basimpo wrote:

angelshade00 wrote:I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

I just wanted to know if there was a BRB or GW FAQ that defined RFP and RFPaaC...

No offense Basimpo, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of restarting the debate, apologies if it sounded that way. You had a perfectly reasonable question and you laid it on the table for everyone. I just meant that I was expecting it to be used as an excuse to start the little flame war we have all been witnessing for the past week or so on the last thread.

Again, apologies.

nos, I believe you were talking about the 'Crucible of Malediction"

angelshade00 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:

angelshade00 wrote:I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

I just wanted to know if there was a BRB or GW FAQ that defined RFP and RFPaaC...

No offense Basimpo, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of restarting the debate, apologies if it sounded that way. You had a perfectly reasonable question and you laid it on the table for everyone. I just meant that I was expecting it to be used as an excuse to start the little flame war we have all been witnessing for the past week or so on the last thread.

Again, apologies.

Dont worry about it no offense taken! Like i said, im new to the game fairly so and i was under the impression that RFP and RFPaaC were actually different, defined rules. Although I AM biased because i play Necrons, before i found out i would say RFP i CANNOT roll to come back from. But, after finding out, it would be UNfair to play that way. Just like my question about nightfighting, it would be UNfair to make people shoot only as far as they can roll. I recently just won my very first game in the entire time i was playing, so, obviously (hopefully) im not a WaaC player. I like playing for fun, but i dislike doing crazy stuff, or being taken advantage of in the rules. Honestly, i think its HILARIOUS to see Trazyn stand up after 16 unsaved wounds and the look on a grey knight players face when my single lord mindshackle scarabs a dreadknight to death.

Also, when i asked the question, i thought the answer would be simple. It either was, or wasnt.

Basimpo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.

Use the BRB to define the following - remember, basing the definition solely on the english language is no stance whatsoever.

special (for reference, page 74 in bold)
Measuring (for reference, page 71)
the (used throughout the book)
circumstances (page 43, 2nd word under Morale Check Modifiers)

I'll have more when you're done defining these 4.

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.

...
To reverse that to where I started it, not all RFP effects are RFPaaC, but all RFP effects are potato.

This does not make sense.

Thanks for proving my point!

How did I prove your point? You asked for rule definitions for phrases that don't have one, and said that normal english language wasn't sufficient. I challenged you to do the exact same thing with some other words common in the rulebook - have you found page numbers yet?

No?

So your stance that you cannot fall back on the english language has been rendered false, correct?

What i was saying is, you cant make basic english as your base argument to make believe a "rule" into existence. I suggest that right here, we compile all the RFP rules together and treat them like sweeping advance. In the other thread it was said that a rule has to SPECIFY that it works against sweeping advance, and the precedent was and they shall know no fear. If the RFPs all say that they are NOT casualty causers, and that only rules that specify that they work AGAINST RFPs can be used, also taking in consideration the precendents created by such things as SoB FAQ etc.

Except you have to in many cases. The word "circumstances" is not defined in the rules. For Morale checks to work - at all - you must use the normal english definition. If you don't, you never take morale checks.

You're slightly naive if you think that every rule is spelled out 100%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:Like i said, im new to the game fairly so and i was under the impression that RFP and RFPaaC were actually different, defined rules. Although I AM biased because i play Necrons, before i found out i would say RFP i CANNOT roll to come back from. But, after finding out, it would be UNfair to play that way. Just like my question about nightfighting, it would be UNfair to make people shoot only as far as they can roll. I recently just won my very first game in the entire time i was playing, so, obviously (hopefully) im not a WaaC player. I like playing for fun, but i dislike doing crazy stuff, or being taken advantage of in the rules. Honestly, i think its HILARIOUS to see Trazyn stand up after 16 unsaved wounds and the look on a grey knight players face when my single lord mindshackle scarabs a dreadknight to death.

Also, when i asked the question, i thought the answer would be simple. It either was, or wasnt.

So your evidence that you found out was
a) asking for a rule definition
b) saying that you can't use the english language to define words that aren't defined in the rulebook
c) ignoring the fact that you were presented with cases where you must use the english language
d) claiming that this presentation proved your point

And that's why you're claiming they're the same?

I didnt say normal english, i said basic. Also, special, and measure are basic english words, and measuring is shown in pictures. You proved my point because, you couldnt do it either.

RFP is a make believe rule. There is no concrete evidence it exists. Its rules lawyering. Ask Celestine what she thinks of RFP's now. I bet you shed say its as if there was a miraculous intervention.

Lets take a look at the fluff. JotWW, what happens? I dont have the codex, or the quoted rule to go off of so im going out on a limb and saying that because its a psychic (im guessing here) power the targeted creatures get sucked into a null place in the warp. Necrons warp traveling? I think not. Miraculous intervention? The Corpse-Emperor sends an iota of thought towards Celestine, sealing the hole in the warp before it even ruffles her hair. Definately, id give it to you.

On the other hand, if JotWW is a physical attack manifested through psychic powers...A roaring fanged mouth emerges from the immaterium and shreds Trazyn into less then microscopic bits of flecks, and pulverizes his retinue along with him, before fading away into the immaterium. A few moments later there is a green glow surrounding the area where the destruction took place and Trazyn and his retinue step into existence and march on relentlessly. Aeons old extremely advanced technology reminiscent of the T1000? Id buy it. A roaring fanged mouth emerges from the immarterium around Celestine and her retinue. The Corpse-Emperor sends out an iota of his thought across the vast distance. After the blood mist and viscera clear, Celestine is standing alone, unharmed in a puddle of blood, bone, and ceramite armor chips. MI at work again.

If RFP were real stuff, id be happy to give it to you all day long.

Its the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend!

Also, when i asked the question, i thought the answer would be simple. It either was, or wasnt.

So your evidence that you found out was
a) asking for a rule definition
b) saying that you can't use the english language to define words that aren't defined in the rulebook
c) ignoring the fact that you were presented with cases where you must use the english language
d) claiming that this presentation proved your point

And that's why you're claiming they're the same?

Perfect example: FNP.
If the roll is a 4+ the injury is ignored. Everyone plays that a Wound is not lost, however, there is no actual definition of "injury" in the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, mis-read your post.

I saw we all eat crayons, first to pass them wins this argument, cos this is as dumb as the undergrad I saw melting a glass rod with a blowtorch over his friends hands.

Removed from play and removed from play as a casualty read differently, basic or any other english you want to use(personally I use Hiberno-Englsih) read them as such. The only question is were they intended to mean the same thing, this is something you should ask the rules team. I am sure they would love to talk to all of is about this burning issue.

Actually, the FNP says specifically wound.

Basimpo wrote:I didnt say normal english, i said basic. Also, special, and measure are basic english words, and measuring is shown in pictures. You proved my point because, you couldnt do it either.

I'm sorry - I guess I don't understand the line you're drawing between "basic" and "normal". And I couldn't do it - but I also proved that requiring rulebook definitions for every word is a failure to understand how the 40k rules are written.

RFP is a make believe rule. There is no concrete evidence it exists. Its rules lawyering. Ask Celestine what she thinks of RFP's now. I bet you shed say its as if there was a miraculous intervention.

So quote the page where remove from play as a casualty is defined. I'll wait. The definition is implied, but not stated anywhere.

Lets take a look at the fluff.

Let's not. YMDC is about discussing RAW - and fluff has little to nothing to do with that. But just for a laugh...

JotWW, what happens? I dont have the codex, or the quoted rule to go off

First of all, this is amusing. You're going to argue fluff when you have no idea what the fluff actually is.

of so im going out on a limb and saying that because its a psychic (im guessing here) power the targeted creatures get sucked into a null place in the warp. Necrons warp traveling? I think not. Miraculous intervention? The Corpse-Emperor sends an iota of thought towards Celestine, sealing the hole in the warp before it even ruffles her hair. Definately, id give it to you.

It actually opens a chasm underneath the line, and if you fail the init test you fall in, then the chasm closes. Necrons might be able to reassemble after being crushed like that, but they'd be in the crust of the planet - not on the battlefield.

If RFP were real stuff, id be happy to give it to you all day long.

Good thing it is, so thanks for playing by the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:Actually, the FNP says specifically wound.

False. It absolutely says to ignore the injury.

It absolutely says the wound on a 1,2 or 3 is taken as normal.

Im not arguing fluff.

RFP is not real. Its make believe.

Casualties are actually defined in the BRB on page 24 at the bottom. Remove from play as a casualty means you remove it from play, as a casualty, as defined on page 24 of the BRB. What does RFP mean? You just take it off the board? So you are saying in a kill point game if i have 2 hqs standing back to back, and you JotWW my HQs, they fall into the pit of doom and are RFP, you do NOT get the kill point right? Kill points on page 91 of the BRB are given when a unit is completely 'destroyed'. Destroyed is only defined in the vehicle section. Following your logic, that means, you would only get a kill point when my unit is wrecked or explodes. Also, RFP does not 'destroy' my unit, you just remove it from play. This way, It would be the safest bet to throw your HQs in the line of fire for RFP because you cant give up a KP for them.

Basimpo wrote:It absolutely says the wound on a 1,2 or 3 is taken as normal.

Sure. Do you see the word injury in the rule?
Can you show me the rulebook definition?

Im not arguing fluff.

So why did you bring it up?

Casualties are actually defined in the BRB on page 24 at the bottom. Remove from play as a casualty means you remove it from play, as a casualty, as defined on page 24 of the BRB. What does RFP mean? You just take it off the board? So you are saying in a kill point game if i have 2 hqs standing back to back, and you JotWW my HQs, they fall into the pit of doom and are RFP, you do NOT get the kill point right? Kill points on page 91 of the BRB are given when a unit is completely 'destroyed'. Destroyed is only defined in the vehicle section. Following your logic, that means, you would only get a kill point when my unit is wrecked or explodes. Also, RFP does not 'destroy' my unit, you just remove it from play. This way, It would be the safest bet to throw your HQs in the line of fire for RFP because you cant give up a KP for them.

No, that doesn't follow my logic. At all. I'm not sure why you think that, so it's hard or me to provide a counter.
RFP means the same thing as the first three letters in RFPaaC. If you know what that means, you know what RFP means.

So...you mean RFP and RFPaaC are the same right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no counter to it. RFP does NOT cause casualties right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forget the rest, here is the question. does RFP cause casualties?

Basimpo wrote:Forget the rest, here is the question. does RFP cause casualties?

Forget that FNP requires English language definition, and you falsely claimed it didn't?

It causes losses (ie for morale purposes). Casualties, by definition, are caused when a model loses all of its wounds, yes?
(away from my BRB atm)

If your answer is NO, RFP does not cause casualties. Ok. Lets go from there. You just take the model off the board. The model is not injured, killed, wounded, destroyed, nothing. NO KPs given for those models RFP'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ill define casualty as per page 24 of the BRB for you one sec


Automatically Appended Next Post:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also incledes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with a very high AP. 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. As long as all the modles in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed.

Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simpley going through the covering terrain!

Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way [actual wording in my BRB-Basimpo]. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was under the header Remove Casualties


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Destroyed - definition on page 67 of the BRB

KP under the heading annihilation on page 91 of the BRB

Annihilation
Some battles are fought with only one goal - find your enemy, crush him utterly and take away his means to mount further resistance.
Victory Conditions
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed.

If a character has a retinue, the character and his retinue are worth 1 kill point each.

The player with the highest total of kill points wins. If the players have the same total, the game is a tactical draw.

Okay so I was correct - RFP does not cause casualties. You have no basis for saying KPs are not awarded at the end of the game.

Also - are you going to admit that you were wrong and some rules require language parsing to work?

Page 45 Under the heading fall back, last sentence if the unit falling back [paraphrased slightly] touches the table edge, the unit is removed from play and counts as destroyed. So...Now i roll to see if they blow up or are wrecked? Or are they casualties? Or is this the only way to score kps?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Where do you get that you were right that RFP does not cause casualties?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My basis for saying RFP on models does not cause KPs is that, the models are now in limbo. They are not destroyed, because RFP does not destroy them.

Casualties are caused by wounds. RFP abilities generally don't cause wounds.

Skimming the rules for falling back, assaults while falling back etc all come up with the word destroyed. In my skimming i havnt seen the word losses...Im probably missing it though


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could language parse what you said generally they dont cause...But i agree, it does require some language parsing. Make believing rules out of nothing because they left fluff etc off it is what i would call Rules Lawyering in never never land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, if RFP does not cause wounds, then, JotWW does not give KPs. Right, wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Do units off of the table at the end of a game count
as destroyed for kill point purposes? (p91)
A: Yes.

Ok JotWW theres your KP!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, doesnt this set a precedent that units that are off the table are counted as destroyed? There was no mention of reserves. Just about models off of the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heres some similar FAQs
dark eldar

Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule
destroys an enemy unit, does it gain a pain token no
matter how the unit was destroyed? For example the
resultant explosion from shooting at a vehicle wipes
out an enemy unit. (p25)
A: Yes.

Heres one i find VERY similar to what weve been talking about

Q: When does a unit with Power from Pain gain a pain
token for destroying a model/unit with the ability to
return to play. For example a Necron with the We’ll be
Back special rule. (p25)
A: The model/unit must be completely destroyed so the
unit will only gain a pain token once the model/unit is
completely removed from play. In the case of a
Necronunit, a pain token will be generated once a unit
has been destroyed (even if some of its models have
returned into other nearby units).

Models off the table at the end of the game. Models in reserve when the game ends are also destroyed.

that last one is a RFP...wait a second...its also destroyed...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Do Ghost Knights removed due to Grand Master
Mordrak’s death in close combat count when
determining the assault result? (p40)
A: Yes.

The rule under grey knights JUST says removed, not RFP or RFPaaC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Does an enemy unit arriving by deep strike or
deploying within 6" of a servo-skull count as moving
to within 6" of it? (p62)
A: Yes, remove the servo-skull from play.

But the last laugh removes from play as casualties, not a great example to use.

Q: When do models with an ability that can bring them
back after they loose their last Wound count towards
The Tally of Pestilence? (p52)
A: Only once they are finally removed from the game,
after failing to come back.

Can someone quote the chaos demons rule for this one for us please?

Saying just "removed" is the same thing as RFP. Removed from what? Unless you answer "play" the rule is useless.

The last one uses removed from the game...but i mentioned it anyway (thought i mentioned it didnt really help much) i found a couple similar just removed FAQs in my search

"...keep a count of all models killed by followers of Nurgle anywhere on the table."

Basimpo wrote:Q: When do models with an ability that can bring them
back after they loose their last Wound count towards
The Tally of Pestilence? (p52)
A: Only once they are finally removed from the game,
after failing to come back.

Can someone quote the chaos demons rule for this one for us please?

It says removed from the game. As in, it doesn't matter how or what removed them. The fact that they are no longer able to be used in the game is the only thing that matters.

Also, it's thread like this that make me want to punch people, especially those who like being Rules Lawyers, in the brain. Also, you all seem to be missing PAGE 24.
------------------------------------------------------
REMOVE CASUALTIES------pg. 24
For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. 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. As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed. Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simply going through covering terrain! Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removed From Play- Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed.

Removed from play as a casualty- This term is used "from play" is never used in the BRB. However, "removed as a casualty" is used 6 times. Page 20 dictates how this works with model that have only 1 wound.
--------------------------------------
TAKE SAVING THROWS
If all the models in a unit are the same, and have a single Wound each, such as a squad of Eldar Rangers or Necron Warriors, then this is a very simple process. You roll all the saves for the unit in one go (as described below), and a model of your choice is removed as a casualty for each failure.
--------------------------------------

Page 26 goes further, explaining how this works with multi-wound models, and also how Instant Death works.
--------------------------------------------MULTI-WOUND MODELS
When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to them.

INSTANT DEATH
Even though a creature might have multiple Wounds, there are plenty of weapons in the 41st Millennium that are powerful enough to kill it instantly. If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty. It can be imagined that the creature is vapourised, burned to a pile of ash, blasted limb from limb or otherwise mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion.
--------------------------------------------

What happens when a model is removed as a casualty? If part of an Assault, their removal counts towards resolving the combat. If in the Shooting Phase, their death counts towards the 25% Casualties threshold to take a morale test/check.

What happens if a model is simply removed from play? It doesnot count towards resolving a combat in the Assault phase as it is not a casualty and no wounds were caused.

How does this affect gameplay? It in fact makes the Necrons more powerful and weakens other armies, mostly Dark Eldar, yet still maintains balance . Both Tesseract Labyrinths and Transdimensional Beamers say "remove as a casualty with no saves allowed." This means that when models are removed from play, they are casualties, and so count towards the 25% casualties morale test in the shooting phase (for the Beamer) and towards the combat resolution in the Assault Phase (Labyrinth). However, the Dark Eldar Crucible of Malediction and Hexrifle (and Jaws of the World Wolf) do not cause casualties. The models are simply removed from play. These removals do not count towards anything.

Necron Reanimation Protocols/Ever-Living (and Justicar Thawn's entry) also mention that these abilities are only used when removed from play as a casualty. This increases the power of abilities/weapons that simply remove models from play. Interestingly, if you read the description for each weapon/ability, no wounds are caused. Crucible of Malediction? Psyker falls over with the mother of all migranes, disabled. Hexrifle? Turn to glass. Jaws of the World Wolf? Fall down huge pit. Boon of Mutation? You mutate into a Chaos Spawn. Also note that they all require a Characteristic Test of some kind. Jaws? Initiative. Crucible? Leadership. Hexrifle? Wounds. Boon? Toughness. These weapons don't kill you (well, Jaws of the World Wolf does, and I am fairly certain that being turned to glass is fatal), they literally make you unable to fight anymore. Whether it's the Boon of Mutation forcefully transforming you into a Chaos Spawn, or a Hexrifle turning you into glass, you can't fight anymore.

Interesting Note: Heroic Sacrifice, a GK HQ special ability, specifically mentions remove from play. As both the Necron and Grey Knight codices were written by Matt Ward, it would seem that Ward thinks ahead when ensuring his Grey Knights do as much damage as possible before fully dying. Against his own codices, at any rate.

McNinja wrote:What happens if a model is simply removed from play? It doesnot count towards resolving a combat or the 25% casualties morale test/check, as it is not a casualty.

Well actually, if you read P.44 it says "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back..."

So anytime 25% or more of a units models are lost during a single phase, that will trigger a Morale check.

So models simply removed from play will actually trigger the 25% casualties Morale check.

DeathReaper wrote:

McNinja wrote:What happens if a model is simply removed from play? It doesnot count towards resolving a combat or the 25% casualties morale test/check, as it is not a casualty.

Well actually, if you read P.44 it says "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back..."

So anytime 25% or more of a units models are lost during a single phase, that will trigger a Morale check.

So models simply removed from play will actually trigger the 25% casualties Morale check.

True. I shall edit my post.

Rigeld2 - It causes losses (ie for morale purposes). Casualties, by definition, are caused when a model loses all of its wounds, yes?

No - instant death can happen when a model still has wounds left.

Rigeld2 - Saying just "removed" is the same thing as RFP. Removed from what? Unless you answer "play" the rule is useless.

Removed from the table.

Rigeld2, you have described WHAT you believe. Please describe using CURRENT FAQs and rules to describe the steps you take to come to your conclusion. Please explain the WHY. I am interested in seeing your fresh perspective based only on current FAQs.

This thread is based on a false assumption that there are only two phrases used to describe how a model is removed from the table.

In the BRB anytime it mentions removing a model, it refers to it as a "casualty" in some way. Why would you believe the below are not casualties?

1) removed (R?)
2) removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
3) taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
4) removed as a casualty (RaaC)
5) remove casualties
6) remove whole models as casualties
7) removed from play
8) revmoed from play as a casualty

By language they are all different but the BRB does define "casualty".

BRB p. 24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

I believe "casualty" is a descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset.

Using the BRB's definition of casualty, you may replace "casualty" with "dead or unconcious or incapacitated in some other way".
JotWW - you fall down a hole and are removed from play as "dead or unconscious or too far down a hole to climb back up, in any case no longer fit to particpate in the battle." Is this wrong?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Rigeld2 - It causes losses (ie for morale purposes). Casualties, by definition, are caused when a model loses all of its wounds, yes?

No - instant death can happen when a model still has wounds left.

Rigeld2 - Saying just "removed" is the same thing as RFP. Removed from what? Unless you answer "play" the rule is useless.

Removed from the table.

Rigeld2, you have described WHAT you believe. Please describe using CURRENT FAQs and rules to describe the steps you take to come to your conclusion. Please explain the WHY. I am interested in seeing your fresh perspective based only on current FAQs.

This thread is based on a false assumption that there are only two phrases used to describe how a model is removed from the table.

In the BRB anytime it mentions removing a model, it refers to it as a "casualty" in some way. Why would you believe the below are not casualties?

1) removed (R?)
2) removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
3) taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
4) removed as a casualty (RaaC)
5) remove casualties
6) remove whole models as casualties
7) removed from play
8) revmoed from play as a casualty

By language they are all different but the BRB does define "casualty".

BRB p. 24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

I believe "casualty" is a descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset.

Using the BRB's definition of casualty, you may replace "casualty" with "dead or unconcious or incapacitated in some other way".
JotWW - you fall down a hole and are removed from play as "dead or unconscious or too far down a hole to climb back up, in any case no longer fit to particpate in the battle." Is this wrong?

See my post above.

McNinja wrote:See my post above.

You lost me at:

Removed From Play - Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed..

By the BRB definition these are still "casualties" as defined on p.24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

You insist on ignoring the very RAW of the BRB that defines what being removed from play as a casualty constitutes and instead are trying to play a semantic game with,

"I believe "casualty" is a descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset."

Which then even shuts down your own argument of trying to classify what JotWW and other non-wound producing mechanics that remove from play as a, "descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset.".


We can do without the digs and personal comments thanks.
Reds8n

Brother Ramses wrote:
There is no other conclusion then you are a cheater and a horrible rules lawyer. Not horrible as in you are a skilled rules lawyer actually able to find a loophole in the rules, but that you are a clueless and incapable easter egg hunter.

Do I smell like elderberries?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

McNinja wrote:See my post above.

You lost me at:

Removed From Play - Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed..

By the BRB definition these are still "casualties" as defined on p.24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

it doesn't matter. No wounds were caused, which is the only thing that matters. A model can only become a casualty after all wounds have been lost. Remove from play does not cause wounds. Remove from play as a casualty treats the target as if they lost all wounds. In the case of the Tesseract Labyrinth, this would mean that if in an assault both sides, but an overlord had used a tesseact labyrinth on Draigo, who then failed the test, the Necrons would win the assault by four wounds

McNinja wrote:it doesn't matter. No wounds were caused, which is the only thing that matters. A model can only become a casualty after all wounds have been lost.

What rule tells you this?

A model with 6 wounds, that suffers Instant Death has taken only 1 wound. It is removed and still has 5 wounds left.

I support Nemesor Dave. Please, from the BRB, or the FAQs, define what happens to a model that is removed from play.
Strange that GW went and defined casualties, but kept what happens to a model that is removed from play secret.
Strange that in all of GW faqs, removed from play is not listed, nor clarified.
Strange that Removed from play is not answered. Is it not a frequently asked question? Earlier, i challenged everyone to contact GW today in some way and ask them that question. I understand the tenets, my point isnt to prove it through the so-called unreliable GW support line, its to get a bunch of people to ask a question- frequently, and to post their replies. Even if you fake the answer it would still provide some sort of view of what GW says, today.

Once again, I understand GW support is not a reliable source. If you are going to post and contradict me on its reliability, please, reread what i just wrote above.

All the evidence and proofs point further and further that RFP and RFPaaC are one and the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think a timeline should be created to show when RFP came into existence. It is not listed in the BRB, right? SO what was the first FAQ or codex to list it? When was this codex written? Before, or after the 5th edition rules? If before, what does the 4th edition rules say about RFP and RFPaaC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How many writers have been involved in the making of the current codexes, 5th edition rulebook, and GW faqs? What are the chances that those many people did not use exactly the same "language/style" (not english etc, but their own styles) throughout every single writing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To go through and say OH! In this codex for THIS piece of wargear they actually mean THIS specifically, and THATS now a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im no english major, but to repetitively use a word, or phrase repeatedly in a single paragraph is bad form, and dreary reading. EL is a good example of that. One sentence they use removed from play as a casualty, and the VERY next sentence they use just removed from play. Why? Because if every sentence contained the same words, repeatedly, then you would repeatedly get bored of the repetition being repeated, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Making rules, it MAKES SENSE to be repetitive and dreary, and honestly, if GW were, this argument would probably not exist. Also, the game would probably never have taken off due to the boredom it caused just perusing the rules. But in a lightly fluffed and salted rulebook, they use different means of describing casualties. No where in the BRB is destroyed defined except as what occurs to a vehicle! And its the primary way they describe units taking casualties throughout the rest of the BRB!

Basimpo- you have yet to list ANY evidencevthat they are the same. Absolutely none

Both codexes are 5th edition codexes

nosferatu1001 wrote:Basimpo- you have yet to list ANY evidencevthat they are the same. Absolutely none

Both codexes are 5th edition codexes

Perhaps you can explain (without using outdated materials) how you come to the conclusion they are different?

The materials use:
removed
removed from play
removed as a casualty
removed from play as a casualty
removed from the table as a casualty

The BRB explains a casualty is a model no longer fit to participate in the battle. Surely wouldn't any method of removing a model also fit this description?

Nos, i feel that you are just trying to fan the fires...
But, heres a shot

Answer this question.
If a model is removed from play, can it still assault, shoot, and move during its turn as normal?
If your answer is NO, then, the model falls under the rules and definition given on page 24 of the BRB. This is the Warhammer 40k 5th edition rulebook, which is the basis of playing 5th edition warhammer 40k.

If your answer is YES, then we can expect FAQs/amendments/errata to come out on the RFP wargear/rules because they are horrendously broken and allow models to do what the controlling player wants to do with them.

How much clearer can this be made?

And what do you mean, both codexes are 5th edition codexes? Starting with the BRB, and moving on to the codexes, dark angels, blood angels, tyranids, sisters of battle, tau empire, necrons, space wolves, space marines, black templars, chaos space marines, chaos demons, grey knights, eldar, dark eldar, imperial guard and ork...did i miss any? How many of THOSE are written by different authors?

RFP[aaC -Implied]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only other way i know how to describe a model that is NOT a casualty AND is off the board, is IN reserves. So, does this actually mean RFP[and put into reserves?] If that is so, why does Celestine get to use her MI against a RFP, if all a RFP is is putting the model into reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just ran through the grey knights 5th edition codex. Only one place in the entire codex mentioned remove from play WITHOUT as a casualty, and that was describing a piece of equipment and only used removed from play after self-destructs, or flees the battlefield. What happens to a unit that flees the battlefield? It is destroyed. This is a piece of equipment, so no proof of RFP there.

ALSO
The very first page of the codex under a huuuge bold print of INTRODUCTION it says the 40k rulebook contains what you need to know to fight battles in the 41st millienium setting. The codex itself says it details the army of the grey knights.

In neither the BRB or the grey knights codex is RFP defined as a separate entity, superset, or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, BEFORE you try to contradict me, or tell me im wrong, tell US what HAPPENS to a model that is RFP'D? NO one has yet to say what happens to the model when it is removed from play!

It's removed... From play.
Just like if it was as a casualty, but it isnt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

McNinja wrote:See my post above.

You lost me at:

Removed From Play - Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed..

By the BRB definition these are still "casualties" as defined on p.24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

I don't see any rules in your quote. I see fluff.

rigeld2 wrote:

nemesor dave wrote:
Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

I don't see any rules in your quote. I see fluff.

I agree completely. "Casualty" is defined as fluff. "Removed" is the only word that matters.

RFP = removed.
RFPaaC = removed.
removed from the table as a casualty = removed

The fluff in either case makes no difference.

No, casualty is defined as losing all your wounds. The sentence you quoted is fluff, but earlier in the paragraph you'll see the actual definition of casualty and how to become one.
So RFPaaC is being removed because you lost all your wounds.

Does JotWW cause wounds?

rigeld2 wrote:No, casualty is defined as losing all your wounds. The sentence you quoted is fluff, but earlier in the paragraph you'll see the actual definition of casualty and how to become one.
So RFPaaC is being removed because you lost all your wounds.

Does JotWW cause wounds?

This is incorrect. p. 26 BRB "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty." Care to try again?

...no. Because page 24 defines a casualty. It was posted I. This thread.

Just because other things also remove as casualty the definition doesn't change. Specific > general ya know.

rigeld2 wrote:...no. Because page 24 defines a casualty. It was posted I. This thread.

Just because other things also remove as casualty the definition doesn't change. Specific > general ya know.

You're trying to define a convention. Like this - hey I noticed all rules using RFP don't cause wounds, therefore RFP means dying without taking a wound.

Yet the BRB never says anything about there being a difference. It describes how to remove models and uses "casualty" for every way a model is removed.

You can even draw a logical conclusion using the BRB vs codexes.

From the BRB:
1) Rules use both "removed" and "removed as a casualty" in the same sections describing how to remove models. These are clearly equal - right?

From the Codexes:
2) In the codexes you have "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty". Like in algebra, lets remove the elements from both sides that are the same - the "from play" since they are both "from play". This leaves us with "removed" and "removed as a casualty" - both used to describe the same thing in the BRB - Removing Casualties.


"Removed from play as a casualty" is not in the BRB. The closest thing we have is "removed as a casualty". "removed from play" is also not in the BRB. The closest we have is "removed". In the BRB the two are the same, therefore you must conclude in the codexes they are the same.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Like in algebra, lets remove the elements from both sides that are the same - the "from play" since they are both "from play". This leaves us with "removed" and "removed as a casualty" - both used to describe the same thing in the BRB - Removing Casualties.

If you removed the "like terms" you would have "as a casualty" and nothing else, you are only removing some of the like terms (from play) and leaving one like term (Removed) in place.

Can I try this line and bear with me.
Removed from play is taken off the board.
Destroyed, for a unit or non vehicle model, as per a
-deepstrike or outflanking mishap,
-not being able to get out of a destroyed vehicle,
-being sweeping advanced(they need to rename this, SA was so very different in 3rd ed.),
takes the model off the board and the rulebook says that any model not on the board at the end of the game is dead and gives up a killpoint(someone quoted something to this effect yesterday).

When it comes to wounds and removed as a casualty, these are cases where the rules have covered in the brb, the brb also deals with instant death so I see that as being clear.
Do these weapons and powers like JOTWW have a strength value, are the poisoned, or do they say in their NON-FLUFF sections that they inflict wounds?
I don't think the answer is yes to any of that so this is not a question of casualties and wounds. So any analysis of casualties relating to how the power behaves when it comes to wounds is moot.
Also the faq says it doesn't cause wounds.

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow cover saves? (p37)
A. No – you could take a cover save if the power caused wounds, but as it does not cause wounds, no cover saves are allowed.

The next issue is do these powers counting towards the 25% losses moral check? It is understandable in a RAI method that seeing your buddies fall into the earth or be taking into a realm of death as per cube 2: hypercube (if you are a necron player) but also as pg44 says "loosing 25% of the models" and doesn't give any restrictions on how that could happen other then not during assaults.

The codices brought in these rules and as such are more specific then the brb, I think they stand on their own(plus their faq as it applies directly to them) and should be read as such. Yes JOTWW is powerful at 24", yes it can mess your day up as a Necron player but it can do the same for anyone with low I models.
The rules for ever living seem to me to be poorly worded but the 1st paragraph's "where it was removed from play" doesn't mean that the model was "removed from play" IMHO it just designates where the counter should be placed. The rest of the rule talks about as a casualty, so I would leave it to a TO to decide but personally I'd rule that it was only for cases of loosing wounds or things covered in the BRB.

Just wanted to add this to the discussion. (I added this last time it came up but was to late to the party for a response if you are keeping track):

On pg. 29 of the Necron Codex, left column 4th paragraph:

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

Reading this statement, it is telling me fairly clearly that I cannot attempt RP rolls if my unit is destroyed, destroyed then being defined as the last model has been "removed as a casualty", then instructed to remove all counters.

So, here's the question.

IF I take the side of the "Removed from Play" (RFP) is not the same thing as "Remove from Play as a Casualty" (RFPaaC)

- Then by this wording, is it then true that if my last model is "removed from play" but not "as a casualty", say by JotWW, then my unit is not considered destroyed and I get my RP rolls? As per the above, I only remove counters when my unit is destroyed by the last model being removed "as a casualty".

Interesting, so I assume the rest of the squad has been taken out in that turn of shooting. So long as the last model was removed by JOTWW then you have found yourself a loophole. That is some RAW.
Destroyed isn't just last model out as a casualty though, there are other times when a squad gets destroyed.

So when I use jaws I need to use it first.

I like the fluff explaination of that one, they repaired due to the guy 100 feet below the earth still being alive, lol

It is indeed a loophole if we take the side of "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are not the same thing.

If we take the side of the "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are synonymous, it's a proof by contradiction that they are synonymous.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

That is not a definition of casualty. For one thing, it doesn't define that figures removed for other causes are not casualties.

Given that "play" and "casualty" are not defined, it seems impossible to have an official definition of either phrase.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

That is not a definition of casualty. For one thing, it doesn't define that figures removed for other causes are not casualties.

Given that "play" and "casualty" are not defined, it seems impossible to have an official definition of either phrase.

Casualty IS defined, on page 24 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is a big bold title on page XII that is called OVERVIEW OF PLAY


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems to me that GW's massive oversight in not defining what happens to a model when it is "removed from play" but it is not a casualty, is not put into reserves, and is not replaced with another model on the board (Trayzyns, chaos demons) AND GW did not rectify this oversight in any FAQs is indicative that...RFP does not exist! It is not "assumed" we know what RFP means. It IS assumed we know what destroyed means-the models are now casualties. RFP is not a separate entity.

I'm certainly not impartial on this issue, but at this point in the face of the mounting evidence that RFP == RFPaaC...

1) Celestine FAQ
2) Lack of definition of RFP and RFPaaC in the rulebook from which a distinction could be drawn or is made
3) Constant use of the two terms in what, in a simple reading, looks synonymous (taking the RP rules for example)
4) The introduction of the complexity and absurdity if we state they aren't the same (see the situation I proposed above) and more
5) The myriad other ways of saying "remove" such as "remove from table" or the 8-10 or so that have already been posted...
6) The INAT FAQs which support (not prove of course) the verdict
7) The Lukas the Trickster FAQ
8) just the arguments posed in this thread...

To be asked to believe that they are different because the people who wrote the rulebook, whom we all know are not technical writers to begin with (which is no proof of course), wrote a myriad way of saying "this model is dead" (many of which have been pointed out but even in my example above "remove as casualty" is used and not even "remove from play as a casualty" adding even more absurdity)

... to be asked believe that the statement written was intended to show a difference simply because it was written down EVEN in the face of lack of any definition or mention of the phrases in question anywhere else in the rulebook to draw such a distinction...

.The point for me is that it is clear that both sides are "right" in this issue, but the available precedents and evidence seems to support one "right" over another. At this point it is clear that neither side will concede this issue, but I do believe after having read this again and again that there is a lot of willful ignorance going on and that the answer is pretty clear.

My opinion of course!

Celestine isn't proof of one or the other, it just expands the power of the saint so that a very weak character can actually be worth the points. It is explicit permission for her and her alone to come back.

Lukas the trickster doesn't remove from play, he removes from play as a casualty. Once you are removed from play as a casualty, you have been removed from play but with some added provisions.

The english language is a wonderful thing that has been enforced on most of the world but the method by which a model is removed can dictate and does dictate how other rules effect it.
You can't come back from being destroyed, so why can you come back from effects that "remove from play" without an explicit permission to do so.

Basimpo wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

That is not a definition of casualty. For one thing, it doesn't define that figures removed for other causes are not casualties.

Given that "play" and "casualty" are not defined, it seems impossible to have an official definition of either phrase.

Casualty IS defined, on page 24 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is a big bold title on page XII that is called OVERVIEW OF PLAY


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems to me that GW's massive oversight in not defining what happens to a model when it is "removed from play" but it is not a casualty, is not put into reserves, and is not replaced with another model on the board (Trayzyns, chaos demons) AND GW did not rectify this oversight in any FAQs is indicative that...RFP does not exist! It is not "assumed" we know what RFP means. It IS assumed we know what destroyed means-the models are now casualties. RFP is not a separate entity.

That's not a definition of casualty. It specifies that units which have lost all their wounds are casualties. This does not define that casualties are units that have lost all their wounds. That would be a syllogism.

It is true, as has been stated that neither the Lukas nor Celestine FAQs explicitly prove that RFP == RFPaaC (and I'll extend this to any way in which a model is removed, whatever you want to call it), and this is true. You can't argue it.

However, that's the funny thing about circumstantial evidence, it still convicts people because it is assumed that if it quacks, walks, smells, and tastes like a duck, it's a duck.

In other words, stating that those FAQs are completely irrelevant simply because they don't 100% prove a point is being willfully ignorant that they certainly do present a precedent. A precedent is exactly that, not a proof or a rule but a good indication of what similar interpretations should be made.

This is entirely the point of what this argument has become. Neither side is wrong.

However, in my opinion, to continue with the course of each and every way in which a model dies is a separate "thing" even though there is no reference anywhere which defines them nor attempts to draw such a distinction, it certainly seems like to accept it requires some willful ignorance of precedent and an acceptance of rules absurdity, such as the proposition I made above concerning models receiving their RP rolls if the last one is removed by JotWW.

Any statement based on an assumed fact that RFP != RFPaaC (which again, in my opinion requires willful ignorance of precedent and acceptance of rules absurdity) is irrelevant to the overall argument which is clearly about if the two statement are synonymous not about any result of one or the other being true.

Lukas has nothing to do with this. At all.

I'm on my phone and I'll post more later from the hotel.

Well, I've found another person on these forums who can't read. Welcome to my ignore list.

Why are we still having this argument? It changes only a few things in the game, namely RP and E-L and calculating assault results. Big deal. You still have to take 25% casualties check in the shooting phase if hit with JotWW, a hexrifle, or the crucible of malediction, so the only reason any of this should be going on is because people don't know how to read.

ngilstrap wrote:It is indeed a loophole if we take the side of "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are not the same thing.

If we take the side of the "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are synonymous, it's a proof by contradiction that they are synonymous.

I'll add one to this. If we assume RFP and RFPaaC as not the same thing, check Last Laugh.

"Should Lukas ever be removed from play, both players roll a dice - if the Space Wolves player rolls equal to or higher than his opponent, all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but Lucas' last hows of laughter to keep them company for eternity."

So this rule only works if Lucas has been killed by something that doesn't cause wounds (like JotWW) but otherwise does nothing? And then models in base contact with him are removed as casualtes (which Rigeld2 would say means they take wounds)?

Is this rule really meant to be that complicated?

Edit: oh look, I found a rule that removes a model without causing wounds that uses RFPaaC. How does this fit with the convention of RFP < RFPaaC?

ngilstrap wrote:However, that's the funny thing about circumstantial evidence, it still convicts people because it is assumed that if it quacks, walks, smells, and tastes like a duck, it's a duck.

Thankfully I live in a country where circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict and as far as I am aware so are you but YMMV with that.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth there, neither side is wrong but I am right is the jist of what you are saying. Arse to that.
The tennent of RAW is that if it reads differently then it is. Precedent doesn't prove beyond a doubt, the precedence you are quoting is a castle on sand and I don't agree that it is aplicable across the board. Inference is not proof. Please feel free to watch the video in my signature.

BTW that is an absurdity that will never come up

Nemesor Dave wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:It is indeed a loophole if we take the side of "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are not the same thing.

If we take the side of the "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are synonymous, it's a proof by contradiction that they are synonymous.

I'll add one to this. If we assume RFP and RFPaaC as not the same thing, check Last Laugh.

"Should Lukas ever be removed from play, both players roll a dice - if the Space Wolves player rolls equal to or higher than his opponent, all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but Lucas' last hows of laughter to keep them company for eternity."

So this rule only works if Lucas has been killed by something that doesn't cause wounds (like JotWW) but otherwise does nothing? And then models in base contact with him are removed as casualtes (which Rigeld2 would say means they take wounds)?

Is this rule really meant to be that complicated?

Removed from play means in any fashion, RFPaaC is a specific situation. Subset and superset, once again. RFP is not exclusive of RFPaaC, it's inclusive of it.

As above. And actually, I addressed Last Laugh in this thread earlier (that or in the most recent EL?SA thread, but fairly certain this thread). As I pointed out, it does not matter how Lukas is removed, however, models in base contact are RFPaaC.

The funny thing about subsets and supersets is that in order to develop the superset-subset relationship both must be clearly defined. Is this the case? Absolutely not.
And I am still waiting those that said that there was a faq against using wbb after jotww to admit thst it existed only in their imagination

Lordhat wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

ngilstrap wrote:It is indeed a loophole if we take the side of "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are not the same thing.

If we take the side of the "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are synonymous, it's a proof by contradiction that they are synonymous.

I'll add one to this. If we assume RFP and RFPaaC as not the same thing, check Last Laugh.

"Should Lukas ever be removed from play, both players roll a dice - if the Space Wolves player rolls equal to or higher than his opponent, all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but Lucas' last hows of laughter to keep them company for eternity."

So this rule only works if Lucas has been killed by something that doesn't cause wounds (like JotWW) but otherwise does nothing? And then models in base contact with him are removed as casualtes (which Rigeld2 would say means they take wounds)?

Is this rule really meant to be that complicated?

Removed from play means in any fashion, RFPaaC is a specific situation. Subset and superset, once again. RFP is not exclusive of RFPaaC, it's inclusive of it.

Removed from play is not mentioned in the BRB, at least, not that ive read. Please cite, or quote where I missed removed from play in the Warhammer 40k 5th editiion rulebook.

Also, Id like to take this time and point out that if the credits are correct which are listed in the back of the book, then 10 people had a hand in writing the rulebook, with main rules being credited to one person.

10 people, some of which have gone on and made codexes, and yet, no mention of the Super set of RFP, as defined by Lordhat.

Some fundamental facets of English and logic are crying.

Basimpo wrote:
Removed from play is not mentioned in the BRB, at least, not that ive read. Please cite, or quote where I missed removed from play in the Warhammer 40k 5th editiion rulebook.

Please cite or quote where "Everliving" is mentioned in the Warhammer 40K 5th edition rulebook.

Just because X does not appear in the main rules, does not mean that "X" = "Y". It only means that "X" is not in the main rules.

Happyjew wrote:
Please cite or quote where "Everliving" is mentioned in the Warhammer 40K 5th edition rulebook.

Just because X does not appear in the main rules, does not mean that "X" = "Y". It only means that "X" is not in the main rules.

Wow, wow, wow. Are you saying that the codices supliment and augment the rules to allow for individal and seperate armies? To suggest such a thing would make one a fool and a communit!

copper.talos wrote:
And I am still waiting those that said that there was a faq against using wbb after jotww to admit thst it existed only in their imagination

Actually I already conceded that point - until I can find it. But you go with your crusade. Have fun.

kirsanth wrote:Some fundamental facets of English and logic are crying.

this.

If you cannot understand that the qualifier "as a casualty" has meaning, then you simply dont comprehend English well enough to take part in a debate about rues written in English.

Basimpo - can you stop with your requests for every single rule to be defined in the BRB? You do realise that there are a ton of rules NOT defined in the BRB, yet somehow they still work?

Happyjew wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
Removed from play is not mentioned in the BRB, at least, not that ive read. Please cite, or quote where I missed removed from play in the Warhammer 40k 5th editiion rulebook.

Please cite or quote where "Everliving" is mentioned in the Warhammer 40K 5th edition rulebook.

Just because X does not appear in the main rules, does not mean that "X" = "Y". It only means that "X" is not in the main rules.

You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

ngilstrap wrote:
1) Celestine FAQ

Very limited in scope to just Celestine

2) Lack of definition of RFP and RFPaaC in the rulebook from which a distinction could be drawn or is made

Lack of evidence is evidence?

3) Constant use of the two terms in what, in a simple reading, looks synonymous (taking the RP rules for example)

Except that's a misreading. In the RP rules (your example) the "removed from play" is a reference to the "removed from play as a casualty". It does not mean they're synonymous.

4) The introduction of the complexity and absurdity if we state they aren't the same (see the situation I proposed above) and more

Damn me for leaving my BRB at home when I travel.

5) The myriad other ways of saying "remove" such as "remove from table" or the 8-10 or so that have already been posted...

Remove from table I'd say is synonymous with Remove from play - as anything not on the table is not in play. Context is important, however.

6) The INAT FAQs which support (not prove of course) the verdict

Except they don't.

7) The Lukas the Trickster FAQ

Completely wrong. You need to explain this one.

8) just the arguments posed in this thread...

You mean points 1-7 in your list above? Yeah, no.

My opinion of course!

Saying someone is being willfully ignorant and then trying to save it by saying "That's just, like, my opinion, man." is pretty low. Have fun with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

Space Wolves codex, under the JotWW rules.
Remove from play has a basic English meaning, so it's defined.

Basimpo wrote:You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

Removed from play is an aspect of a rule while Everliving is a full rule. GW will never define aspects of rules unless they need to, ask for an faq or maybe ring them. Personally send an email to dictonary corner at countdown and see if they will help you out with the meaning of the phrase.

Aspect of a rule? Jeez, we are really pulling them out now arnt we? They probably didnt feel the need to define this "aspect" because it is already defined...on page 24 of the BRB.

Aspect, part, section, clause, term, iota, substituent, would you like some more synonyms? I know my grasp of english is not on par with some people but I think I can understand context and the use of words. Please PM me if you have any questions about the words I use in my replies, I would not like to have my arguements messed up by my poor explainations.

Page 24 doesn't talk about removed from play. And the paragraph you love "Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." That is fluff, in fact it is the fluff for those that wish to craft the stories about their armies, specific characters and how they progressed over the years in their games.

the INAT FAQ doesn't agree?

DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01 – Q: Are models removed from play by a Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle and/or a Shattershard considered to be removed as casualties? A: In all cases, yes [clarification]. Ref: SW 37H.04

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

liturgies of blood wrote:Aspect, part, section, clause, term, iota, substituent, would you like some more synonyms? I know my grasp of english is not on par with some people but I think I can understand context and the use of words. Please PM me if you have any questions about the words I use in my replies, I would not like to have my arguements messed up by my poor explainations.

Page 24 doesn't talk about removed from play. And the paragraph you love "Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." That is fluff, in fact it is the fluff for those that wish to craft the stories about their armies, specific characters and how they progressed over the years in their games.

Then as a casualty is fluff, and that leaves removed from play. But, GW across the board uses as a casualty.

INAT isn't god, or in this case GW but count as casualties =/= removed as casualties. And if they say that Jotww does remove as a casualty then I politely disagree with them, as casualties are dealt with on page 24 as Basimpo tells us so well and include considerations of wounds while jotww has nothing to do with wounds as per the FAQ.

While it is a compramise used to run tournaments by and is clearly flagged as the ultimate arbitrater by some, their and similar groups calls are not always in line with what GW calls.

So liturgies, what happens to the models that are removed from play?

They are removed from play.

Look I believe a TO's word is final no matter the call, you go with it as that is the rule of tournament law(usually in bold and underlined in the rules pack). I reserve my right to express my opinion of how I read, specifically how I read the rules. INAT decided to conflate the two things for convinience and I can imagine that there are, at big tournaments, lots of fights over fringe rules so they need to make a call to expedite things.

I never said casualties were fluff I said that the paragraph you love on pg 24 is fluff, the 1st 2 paragraphs in that section are rather important but in a more general sense to the game.

liturgies of blood wrote:They are removed from play.

Look I believe a TO's word is final no matter the call, you go with it as that is the rule of tournament law(usually in bold and underlined in the rules pack). I reserve my right to express my opinion of how I read, specifically how I read the rules. INAT decided to conflate the two things for convinience and I can imagine that there are, at big tournaments, lots of fights over fringe rules so they need to make a call to expedite things.

I never said casualties were fluff I said that the paragraph you love on pg 24 is fluff, the 1st 2 paragraphs in that section are rather important but in a more general sense to the game.

I like how you phrased your response. +1.

Im at the point where im tired of arguing it.
Hopefully, 6th edition will come out and say either or.
Im taking from this that RFP does not exist, and that there are two states of "being" so to speak, actually, three states of "being" for models. If they are in play, they are on the board, if they are not in play, they are either in reserves, or, a casualty.

JotWW cause adverse effects on your opponents models, making them casualties, forcing them to remove them from play. Only 2 places to go, reserves, or the casualty pile.

The claim they are different relies on "removed" models falling into two categories:

A) Removed from play as a Casualty
These models are "casualties".

p. 24 tells you what a casualty is. "not necessarily dead...".

B) Removed from play as simply removed from play.
In fluff terms as defined in the BRB, what are these models? ... "casualties"

All removed models are casualties.

1) There is no consistent way RFP and RFPaaC is used. JotWW does not cause wounds, removes the model with RFP. Last laugh does not cause wounds and removes enemy models with RFPaaC.
2) Celestines FAQ says her RFPaaC ability works if she has been RFP by JotWW. FAQs for similar rules can be applied.
3) Casualty is defined as fluff.
4) GW rules support says they are the same

However, unfortunately there is no possible earthly explanation that would convince some people in this thread.

OK, I agree that RFP and RFPaac is not used as consistently as it should be to clearly define two seperate cases.

The whole pg24 things is a load of arse, if you are using the fluff paragraphs from the brb and codices to define rules then wait for the crap other people will pull.

Not all removed models are casualties, you can RP and EL from casualties, you can't RP and EL from SA, being destroyed as per examples that have been listed earlier. That falls right there. Also models can be removed and replaced with squigs, that is funny as hell and they aren't a casualty, they are a squig.

Where does GW rules support say that they are the same?

Removing and replacing a model is covered by the faqs. Covered in Necrons faq regarding Trazyns surrogate host ability (absolutely love that one), and a couple of others.

liturgies of blood wrote:OK, I agree that RFP and RFPaac is not used as consistently as it should be to clearly define two seperate cases.

The whole pg24 things is a load of arse, if you are using the fluff paragraphs from the brb and codices to define rules then wait for the crap other people will pull.

Not all removed models are casualties, you can RP and EL from casualties, you can't RP and EL from SA, being destroyed as per examples that have been listed earlier. That falls right there. Also models can be removed and replaced with squigs, that is funny as hell and they aren't a casualty, they are a squig.

Where does GW rules support say that they are the same?

Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

The very word means:
1) Removed from play as knocked unconcious
2) Removed from play as too injured to carry on fighting
3) Removed from play as incapacitated in some way
4) Removed from play as no longer fit to participate in the battle
5) Removed from play as killed
6) Removed from play as vapourized
7) Removed from play as burned to a pile of ash
8) Removed from play as blasted limb from limb
9) Removed from play as mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion

In the case of JotWW
10) Removed from play as falling down a hole.

Though it doesn't use "as a casualty" in the same sentence, the fluff regarding "how" the model is being removed is still there in the rule. "As a casualty" is how the model dies. We dont care, it's fluff. We only care that the model is "removed from play".

Basimpo wrote:

You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

So you dont even know what rule youre arguing? Brilliant. 2 Codexes, Jaws and Crucible of Malediction.

Nemesor Dave wrote: Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

So we agree there are times when a model is taken from the board where it is not taken off the board as a causaulty?

I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

Where is that coming from, there is no sentence that contains the words "a casualty is" I checked (no really I did). Casualties are not defined, there is an implication that they are what you get when you loose your last unsaved wound but that is not a great leg to stand on.

I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, we remove models in different ways as we agreed. Models are taken off the board in the brb for two reasons, 1) as a casualty for loosing wounds, being instant killed, cc wounds and 2) being destroyed. As it stands there are ways a model can be removed from play but not be classified as a casualty. Now since it is not clear that RFP is a real thing or not YMMV on how a TO wants to read those paragraphs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:

You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

So you dont even know what rule youre arguing? Brilliant. 2 Codexes, Jaws and Crucible of Malediction.

When i said main codex, I actually meant main rulebook. Thanks for not catching that like everyone else did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote: Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

So we agree there are times when a model is taken from the board where it is not taken off the board as a causaulty?

I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

Where is that coming from, there is no sentence that contains the words "a casualty is" I checked (no really I did). Casualties are not defined, there is an implication that they are what you get when you loose your last unsaved wound but that is not a great leg to stand on.

I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, we remove models in different ways as we agreed. Models are taken off the board in the brb for two reasons, 1) as a casualty for loosing wounds, being instant killed, cc wounds and 2) being destroyed. As it stands there are ways a model can be removed from play but not be classified as a casualty. Now since it is not clear that RFP is a real thing or not YMMV on how a TO wants to read those paragraphs.

Destroyed is defined as being wrecked and left on the table, or, exploding.

Really? So after a sweeping advance the unit is wecked and left on the table?

3rd paragraph page 40.
Falling back and Trapped page 45
Assaulting while falling back page 46
Cannot exit wrecked transpot page 67

All those mention destroying units.

Nvm

liturgies of blood wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote: Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

So we agree there are times when a model is taken from the board where it is not taken off the board as a causaulty?

Yes true.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

Where is that coming from, there is no sentence that contains the words "a casualty is" I checked (no really I did). Casualties are not defined, there is an implication that they are what you get when you loose your last unsaved wound but that is not a great leg to stand on.

I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, we remove models in different ways as we agreed. Models are taken off the board in the brb for two reasons, 1) as a casualty for loosing wounds, being instant killed, cc wounds and 2) being destroyed. As it stands there are ways a model can be removed from play but not be classified as a casualty. Now since it is not clear that RFP is a real thing or not YMMV on how a TO wants to read those paragraphs.

My quote should read "Casualties are..." On page 24. It tells you what a casualty is defined as. The rest of the post still stands.

I would agree with your assessment, the BRB has two groups of removed models:
1) casualties
2) destroyed

Since in the codexes the rules for casualties have "removed and "removed as a casualty". It is reasonable to draw a comparison to "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" and put them in category 1.

Wouldn't destroyed be casualties anyway? By the rule "No longer fit to participate in the battle"

I see where you are coming from with the removed from play and removed as a casualty comparison. I am not sure of the intended goal so I will apply how i read RAW for now.

I am not sure that paragraph on page 24 is very good reasoning. It reads like fluff to me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
OMG I just found it.
pg 15 "Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

Is that a definition of casualties?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes i just easter egged.

remove casualties is page 24?

Just above the fluff that explains what casualties actually are?

edit: it's on Pg 15 too sorry

Magpie wrote:Wouldn't destroyed be casualties anyway? By the rule "No longer fit to participate in the battle"

Unfortunately the recent Necron FAQ's using the term "wiped out" could be applied here to mean also units that are destroyed. RAW this would mean you could place EL tokens when a unit is destroyed from being trapped while falling back for instance. This is not how I would play it though.

Yes it is on page 24 but my question is does what is written on page 15 count as a definition, I think it might. As such it would call into question the use of the paragraph at the bottom of page 24 as anything more then fluff.

Sorry my bad, edited the posts to show page 15, as that is where my quote is from. Specifically in the shooting order box.

So by my reading of that, the most basic part of the entire rules for shooting, which is where our rules for casualties comes from, I think casualties are the remit of effects that cause wounds.

liturgies of blood wrote:Yes it is on page 24 but my question is does what is written on page 15 count as a definition, I think it might. As such it would call into question the use of the paragraph at the bottom of page 24 as anything more then fluff.

Sorry my bad, edited the posts to show page 15, as that is where my quote is from. Specifically in the shooting order box.

So by my reading of that, the most basic part of the entire rules for shooting, which is where our rules for casualties comes from, I think casualties are the remit of effects that cause wounds.

P. 15 is not a definition for casualties, but it does explain the rules on how to "Remove Casualties". There is no section on "Remove From Play (as simply removed from play)".

The p.24 tells you what the rulebook means by "casualties". If the rulebook uses fluff to define a word, is not that word itself fluff?

God I got through 10 pages of that last thread to find it locked so I'm going to skip pages 2-7 here to post about the SA vs EL debate/debacle.

Last paragraph of the RP rules states, "RP rolls cannot be attempted if the unit is destroyed." And SA destroys units. Now I can get behind a character being destroyed in this fashion if swept, since in this case the character is being swept.

However if the character dies before the unit it was with gets swept, it still gets to use EL as in that same last paragraph of the RP rules it says, "Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for the purpose of RP". So in this instance the character would not be part of the unit destroyed by a SA. Since it was removed as a casualty it would roll for EL at the end of phase as normal. This assumes that EL is a subset of RP with specific exemptions from the line, "...just as you would for a RP counter."

As for RFP vs RFPaaC. They've both been used in an alternating fashion in FAQs and codexes that you could infer their interchangability. Though Rigfield's explanation by uses of subsets would clear most of that up. However I'd like to point out the absurdity from the fluff standpoint that RP can't be used from being trapped underground or if suffering from "glass plague", but popping back in from a pocket dimension? No problem (unless by way of the dark eldar)! Curse GW for not holding every author to identical phrasing amongst different rulebooks. (Seriously hire new editors or development team leaders. I mean if WotC can do it so can GW, though I guess it helps that they don't need to change the rulebook entirely every few years.)

I certainly HOPE page 15 isn't the definition of casualties.

Remove casualties.
The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved.

The way I read that is any wounds that have not been saved causes a casualty that has to be removed. Which kinda sux for 3 wound models that have suffered 1

Tarrasq wrote:God I got through 10 pages of that last thread to find it locked so I'm going to skip pages 2-7 here to post about the SA vs EL debate/debacle.

This thread isn't really a continuation of that thread. You should read this thread before tread jacking it for that other topic.

Magpie wrote:I certainly HOPE page 15 isn't the definition of casualties. The way I read that is any wounds that have not been saved causes a casualty that has to be removed. Which kinda sux for 3 wound models that have suffered 1

Don't worry, the rules then go on to talk about multi wound models later so you're good. As you know the rules deal with the majority first, 1W models in units with all the same weapon and build on complexity from there.

Pg 15 doesn't tell you how to remove casualties, it just says "Remove casualties." as a heading and tells you what generates casualties.
I think that makes it clear that an effect that doesn't cause a wound is not a casualty as unsaved wounds are required. That is also consistant with the other methods to take a model off the board in the brb which are mostly under the heading of "destroyed" in a list I put up there already.

If that is the case then the wording of Jaws doesn't matter at all so long as it doesn't wound it isn't a casualty problem. Though st. celestine comes back from everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Tarrasq wrote:God I got through 10 pages of that last thread to find it locked so I'm going to skip pages 2-7 here to post about the SA vs EL debate/debacle.

This thread isn't really a continuation of that thread. You should read this thread before tread jacking it for that other topic.

100% with you there. I am only using Jaws as it is the rule that I know from the list of oddities that remove from play without causing wounds.
Actually Tarrasq I am not sure what you are actually bringing to this deabte? I don't mean to sound rude but what does any of that have to do with rfp vis rfpaac?

Since the English language is being used to say removed from play and removed from play as a casualty are different ,lets use a real life instance.

In a real battle involving real people ,when the people have been wounded ,killed, blown up lost down a hole ,eaten by animals ,squashed and so forth they have been removed from the battle they are then counted as casualties but they have still been removed from the battle ,

If i was to say that A squad is out of the fight ,it would mean they have been removed form the battle/war i don't need to say as casualties , because it is a fact anything removed form the battle due to enemy action is a casualty(even captured you are classed as a casualty of war) , even civilians can be casualties of war with no wounds what so ever ,say the have lost there home and so forth ,they are now casualties of war .

So by that simple fact if a model is removed from the table because it was SA'd ,failed a save ,was sent to the warp ,fell down a hole ,or any other such thing the commander would count that model as a casualty of war .

If we use English to argue this point you would have to ask why would a model being killed or lost from the material plane,dropped down a hole and so forth by anything, be it a gun, psychic power or magic blob, why would it not following the English language, be a casualty of the battle ?

if you are saying no ,then anything removed from play ,can not under the English language be classed as killed ,destroyed or anything else, they must then still exit somewhere alive and well, AKA MIA(although MIA can still be classed as a casualty ,so that means they are not available to be counted and KP'S

Remember this is based on using the definition of the English language not me saying you are wrong or right ,just that using the language to fit what you like and not using it when it dose not suit is wrong

Snakel, I get what you are saying but I think you are using a more formal version of english. In the same way that when I am in a chemistry lab percipiation and evolve have very specific meanings. (Form a solid out of a solution and give off)

The rules are definitely more informal then a military setting but not as informal as me in a pub. The work office of GW is probably a bit formal but not gak and tie formal.

liturgies of blood wrote: but not as informal as me in a pub.

Eureka ! Let's all get pissed THEN read the rule book. All will become clear.

That's how they write them.

Magpie wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote: but not as informal as me in a pub.

Eureka ! Let's all get pissed THEN read the rule book. All will become clear.

Please continue this thread in the evening at your Local Friendly Pub, after consuming more than you should of your preferred alcoholic beverage. Not only will the rules make sense, but everyone will have a good time. For those who are under the legal drinking age of your country, too bad. For those who cannot drink due to health reasons, I am very sorry.

Please note, I do not condone binge drinking, and this whole post is meant to be taken as a joke.

Basimpo wrote:
You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

Basimpo wrote:
When i said main codex, I actually meant main rulebook. Thanks for not catching that like everyone else did.

Sorry, what? Now youre just making more gak up. You asked WHAT CODEX "removed from play" is given in, and context - given you had just talked about the necron codex - didnt mean the main rulebook. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, it doesnt wash.

I'm ordering Pizza. I'm ordering pizza from dominoes . Anyone noticed that those two sentences arent the same? The latter is a more specific version of the former.

Exactly like removed from play and removed from play as a casualty. The latter is more specific than the former.

Oh, and destroyed ONLY means wrecked or exploded Basimpo? Erm, nope. Destroyed is the general term, explodes or wrecked are the more specific....

I'm ordering pizza. I'm ordering from Dominos.

This analogy works if the only pizza place in town is Dominos. Just like the only rule defined in the BRB is removing models as casualties.

Nemesor Dave wrote:I'm ordering pizza. I'm ordering from Dominos.

This analogy works if the only pizza place in town is Dominos. Just like the only rule defined in the BRB is removing models as casualties.

And destroyed, I'll have a double decedance with perpperoni and extra cheese.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

Basimpo wrote:
When i said main codex, I actually meant main rulebook. Thanks for not catching that like everyone else did.

Sorry, what? Now youre just making more gak up. You asked WHAT CODEX "removed from play" is given in, and context - given you had just talked about the necron codex - didnt mean the main rulebook. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, it doesnt wash.

I'm ordering Pizza. I'm ordering pizza from dominoes . Anyone noticed that those two sentences arent the same? The latter is a more specific version of the former.

Exactly like removed from play and removed from play as a casualty. The latter is more specific than the former.

Oh, and destroyed ONLY means wrecked or exploded Basimpo? Erm, nope. Destroyed is the general term, explodes or wrecked are the more specific....

No, i said TRUE, everliving does NOT show up in the main codex [RULEBOOK-clarification]

I also asked WHERE in WHICH codex is RFP given FORM and DEFINITION, like, EVERLIVING is given form and definition in the necron codex. As in, to further clarify, WHERE is the rule RFP given definition, because it is not previously mentioned in any other rule book.

Also, taking the fact the RFPaaC is SPECIFIC, then, DESTROYED is SPECIFIC. The only place in the main rulebook that defines what destroyed is, is in the vehicle section. It says specifically
destroyed - wrecked
destroyed - explodes

What does destroyed mean, as per the BRB, if I am incorrect, following your logic? (And trust me, Im incorrect)

Basimpo wrote:
Also, taking the fact the RFPaaC is SPECIFIC, then, DESTROYED is SPECIFIC. The only place in the main rulebook that defines what destroyed is, is in the vehicle section. It says specifically
destroyed - wrecked
destroyed - explodes

What does destroyed mean, as per the BRB, if I am incorrect, following your logic? (And trust me, Im incorrect)

3rd paragraph page 40.
Falling back and Trapped page 45
Assaulting while falling back page 46
Cannot exit wrecked transpot page 67

Destroyed units are removed immediately. That is what the brb says. It doesn't define what it means it gives examples of what units count as destroyed and what to do with them.
Destoryed is specific, it it both 1) a damage chart outcome and 2) a means by which units are removed.

I suggest every one reading this thread email GW asking them this question. Maybe it will make the faq faster if a lot of people ask it.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
Also, taking the fact the RFPaaC is SPECIFIC, then, DESTROYED is SPECIFIC. The only place in the main rulebook that defines what destroyed is, is in the vehicle section. It says specifically
destroyed - wrecked
destroyed - explodes

What does destroyed mean, as per the BRB, if I am incorrect, following your logic? (And trust me, Im incorrect)

3rd paragraph page 40.
Falling back and Trapped page 45
Assaulting while falling back page 46
Cannot exit wrecked transpot page 67

Destroyed units are removed immediately. That is what the brb says. It doesn't define what it means it gives examples of what units count as destroyed and what to do with them.
Destoryed is specific, it it both 1) a damage chart outcome and 2) a means by which units are removed.

So...a unit that is destroyed and removed is not a casualty though? Hmmm sounds logical! Right? Right? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

haroon wrote:I suggest every one reading this thread email GW asking them this question. Maybe it will make the faq faster if a lot of people ask it.

Ive already said this twice, i doubt anyone paid attention, except to tell me that the people in customer support are [supposedly] incompetent.

Customer support is for the parent who's kid has eaten the paint or is licking the metal models, so they can tell them it's fine without any legal crap.

Basimpo you can ignore destroyed all you want but the models are removed without mention of casualties and rules that allow casualties to come back do not apply to them.

liturgies of blood wrote:Customer support is for the parent who's kid has eaten the paint or is licking the metal models, so they can tell them it's fine without any legal crap.

Basimpo you can ignore destroyed all you want but the models are removed without mention of casualties and rules that allow casualties to come back do not apply to them.

I dont mean the phone number, I mean emailing them so they put it in the official FAQ.

I know you did, I have emailed the rules team already, I just think ringing the guys on customer support is a waste of time.

The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Never underestimate the ability of a TO to be an idiot. I know I've been an idiot once or twice.

liturgies of blood wrote:I know you did, I have emailed the rules team already, I just think ringing the guys on customer support is a waste of time.

This isn't hard to do. I got a response on an earlier issue (Imotekh using LotS from reserve) from a guy whose picture is in the BRB, I could get a response on this if I tried. Problem is that if you do, you can't publicize it. Correspondence privacy and all that, if they ask that you don't, you can't.

@Lordhat - I'm pretty sure a TO will just go this route, ie, ask. Not likely they'll wade thru this crap.

Edit: well, they'll probably just take the INAT ruling and go with it.

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

The independent part is what limits their ability to dictate what is and is not 40K. GW are the only ones that get to say what is and isn't.

liturgies of blood wrote:The independent part is what limits their ability to dictate what is and is not 40K. GW are the only ones that get to say what is and isn't.

He was refereeing to tournament organizers, and since there are no more tournaments organized by GW, your comment is pointless.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

Your lack of etiquette leaves much to be desired. INAT isn't not the ultimate arbitrar of 40k, a TO has the right to make hte decisions on what is what in their tournament. While ramses may not have been the most polite in his response he is right that a TO may tell you to jog on. Just cos a big tournament makes a ruling doesn't make it canonical with the ruleset, yes many people use the INATFaq, many don't. GW are the only ones that say what rules are but the fringes are that TO's remit.

To use an example, most people in scientific organisations though eugenics, specifically the sterilisation of hte poor, was cool in the 1890's-1920's. Large groups of people can be wrong.

So once again we are all at a point where we all disagree with each, and disagree that we should be disagreeing, and we are all wrong, except for ourselves. I think the lines have been drawn, trenches dug, fortifications built, and both sides are just shooting at each other, short of the walls.

Can someone lock this thread now? Its getting circular. In about 10 posts (or less) were going to have someone mention how english should make it obvious the other side is wrong. Then someone will quote RP which obviously shows that it works under being destroyed, then someone will parse that, then someone will quote the rulebook, then someone will quote the faqs, and then someone will quote INAT and THEN someone will tell that person to eat a log.

liturgies of blood wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

Your lack of etiquette leaves much to be desired. INAT isn't not the ultimate arbitrar of 40k, a TO has the right to make hte decisions on what is what in their tournament. While ramses may not have been the most polite in his response he is right that a TO may tell you to jog on. Just cos a big tournament makes a ruling doesn't make it canonical with the ruleset, yes many people use the INATFaq, many don't. GW are the only ones that say what rules are but the fringes are that TO's remit.

To use an example, most people in scientific organisations though eugenics, specifically the sterilisation of hte poor, was cool in the 1890's-1920's. Large groups of people can be wrong.

And the small vocal minority on Dakka don't dictate the rules either. In fact bringing up discussions from Dakka are more likely to get you laughed out of a tournament than suggesting the use of the INAT FAQ. GW was even using the INAT FAQ, for 'ard boyz, shocking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:So once again we are all at a point where we all disagree with each, and disagree that we should be disagreeing, and we are all wrong, except for ourselves. I think the lines have been drawn, trenches dug, fortifications built, and both sides are just shooting at each other, short of the walls.

Can someone lock this thread now? Its getting circular. In about 10 posts (or less) were going to have someone mention how english should make it obvious the other side is wrong. Then someone will quote RP which obviously shows that it works under being destroyed, then someone will parse that, then someone will quote the rulebook, then someone will quote the faqs, and then someone will quote INAT and THEN someone will tell that person to eat a log.

Yeah, Nos hasn't posted on this page yet so you are right on track.

Challenging the TO cos you are a bad sport is the fastest way to get kicked out.
As I said back on page 3, this is how I read the brb and codices but the TO gets the final word.

Again personal remarks are neither big or clever.