Hi Dakka,
This came up in a game today. I tank-shocked a squad of Necrons because I thought they looked lonely sitting on an objective all by themselves. The guy decided (after passing LD) that his lord was going to death or glory with his 2D6 armor pen. The lord chose death.
The death or glory rules say "If the attack fails to stop the vehicle, then the tank shock continues as normal, except that the brave glory seeker is crushed by the vehicle grinding over him - the model is removed, regardless of wounds, saves (invulnerable or not), or any other clever way of staying alive they can think of" (69).
Now, I think that re-animation protocols are a "clever way of staying alive" and the lord is a bug on my windshield, but I'm not 100% sure because of the whole standing up after dying. I didn't get a chance to read the re-animation rules, so if anyone knows them and has any idea how to solve this it would be great.

I think that the "any other clever way of staying alive that they can think of" about covers it.

Is he getting back up again?

If yes, he's staying alive...

DOG beats any way of not-dying you have.

This is exactly what I thought, and showed, but the guy wouldn't accept that. What I need is some proof based on what the Necron codex says.

It says in the codex "removed as a casualty", and the tank shock says "the model is removed". So it hinges on whether it was "removed as a casualty", or just plain old, "removed".
Also, reanimation protocols/ever living aren't about staying alive, more about, not staying dead...

not staying dead = staying alive

Tankshock kills you dead, no save, do not pass go, do not collect a furry weeble....

If you don't want to get dead, don't DOG.

The issue here is down to the old "removed from play as a casualties" gang vs the "removed from play" gang

Its simple you either play it that they are the same so the lord gets his EL, or you play it that their different and removed from play sends your lord to the magical in between casualty and not a casualty land from which there is no EL since in this in between land your lord ceases to exist other than to give kill points to your opponent

I believe the DoG rules are quite clear that there is no way to survive a failed DoG.

So in the spirit of that rule I would say the Lord doesn't get his EL roll.

BrotherVord wrote:I think that the "any other clever way of staying alive that they can think of" about covers it.

Lol this does indeed cover all bases its pretty much saying "the model is dead, no rules lawering is gonna help so dont try"

Formosa wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:I think that the "any other clever way of staying alive that they can think of" about covers it.

Lol this does indeed cover all bases its pretty much saying "the model is dead, no rules lawering is gonna help so dont try"

This.

Formosa wrote:

BrotherVord wrote:I think that the "any other clever way of staying alive that they can think of" about covers it.

Lol this does indeed cover all bases its pretty much saying "the model is dead, no rules lawering is gonna help so dont try"

Yeah, I play Necrons and its pretty cut and try. If you get run over by a Leman Russ, you're not coming back haha.

Or you are coming back repeatedly in it's treads and gears. Either way, you're done for the game.

Yeah, its not that he's actually irreperable. He's just damaged beyond the ability of his repair mechanisims to conduct a field repair. He needs to get hauled back to the Tomb World for a complete overhaul.

I could see a Necron being like Loki in The Avengers after Hulk smashes him into the ground like a rag doll. Run over, indented in the ground, wheezing, but then getting back up.

Yeah, really comes down to "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" why doesn't GW ever clarify this stuff? It comes up often enough. It's like the old "Are Chariots affected by poison?" argument back in 6th ed WHFB....

great. now i want to go see avengers again, just for that scene.


sigh.


maybe i can find a gif of that for my sig


edit: found one : )

That was an awesome scene from that movie.

I wonder would you be able to use a ghost ark to add him back to the squad(assuming he was a regular lord attached to a warrior squad), he would clearly be dead beforehand and then regenerated in the following player turns.

I thought the ghost ark only allowed you to add warriors. Otherwise, what's to stop you (for example) from creating D3 Carnifexes?

the ghost ark only works on warriors, and if warriors exist in the squad. if no warriors remain, the ark cant target a cryptek or lord and add or replace the warriors.

DarthSpader wrote:the ghost ark only works on warriors, and if warriors exist in the squad. if no warriors remain, the ark cant target a cryptek or lord and add or replace the warriors.

It actually doesn't specify - it merely "adds D3 models to the unit"

If you have (or had, rather) a cryptek in the unit, don't see why you couldn't bring it back as well.

(though I stand to be corrected).

"At the start of each Necron Movement ohase, a Ghost Ark can expend energy to repair fallen Necrons. Nominate a unit of Necron Warriors within 6" (or Embarked on) the Ghost Ark and roll a D6. If the score is a 2 or more, add D3 models to the unit"

So yeah, I could see the line of thinking, but I would have to vote on no, you can't bring back the Cryptek or Necron Lord. However, it does only state unit, and not which models of that unit, and as we already know that attached crypteks / lords count as an upgraded character for the unit... So you might be able to lawyers that one...

RAW, you could add new models to the unit

RAI, no adding new units - but the possibility of returning a dead Court still stands.

If the rule had "add D3 models BACK...", it would be a lot easier, but the case for adding a Court model back into the unit still stands.

Basically, it needs to be FAQ'd.

You can use the Ghost Ark on a Warrior unit whose only surviving model is a Cryptek or Lord, because when they're attached at the beginning of the game to that unit, they become a part of that unit for all purposes. Just like if a Wolf Guard is the only surviving guy from a Grey Hunter pack, he's still scoring, and the unit does not give up a kill point, because the GH pack is a Troop unit, and he is a part of that unit for all purposes during the game.

What's not 100% clear is whether you could return another Cryptek or Lord (because you had attached two such models from two different Royal Courts at the beginning of the game). Actually, though, because it says "add d3" models, I think the implication is reasonably clear that it has to be Warriors. If it said "add back" I think the case would be stronger for allowing the second Cryptek or Lord to be revived.

Sweet. D3 Draigos it is!

DakkaHammer wrote:Hi Dakka,
This came up in a game today. I tank-shocked a squad of Necrons because I thought they looked lonely sitting on an objective all by themselves. The guy decided (after passing LD) that his lord was going to death or glory with his 2D6 armor pen. The lord chose death.
The death or glory rules say "If the attack fails to stop the vehicle, then the tank shock continues as normal, except that the brave glory seeker is crushed by the vehicle grinding over him - the model is removed, regardless of wounds, saves (invulnerable or not), or any other clever way of staying alive they can think of" (69).
Now, I think that re-animation protocols are a "clever way of staying alive" and the lord is a bug on my windshield, but I'm not 100% sure because of the whole standing up after dying. I didn't get a chance to read the re-animation rules, so if anyone knows them and has any idea how to solve this it would be great.

Wouldn’t this be a case of the tank is on on the spot the lord died so he cannot stand up even if he was allowed to take the test. Our local nids player likes to stand monster creatures on the dead Necrons so they cannot stand back up and auto fail the test takening them off the broad.

rigeld2 wrote:Sweet. D3 Draigos it is!

Amateur. I'm adding d3 Warlord Titans myself.

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Sweet. D3 Draigos it is!

Amateur. I'm adding d3 Warlord Titans myself.

Yea um, they can not be a part of a warrior unit...

Draigo can since he is an IC.

DeathReaper wrote:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Sweet. D3 Draigos it is!

Amateur. I'm adding d3 Warlord Titans myself.

Yea um, they can not be a part of a warrior unit...

Draigo can since he is an IC.

He's also unique, so you can't have more than one. But thanks for playing the "I can totally say something even dumber than the stupid thing you said that was obviously a joke" game! Winnar!

And the rule lets you add models, it doesn't say what kind of models, or even that they could normally be part of the unit. I'm going to a Anne V and Kate Upton to my warrior unit next time. Odds that anyone will complain? 0.00%

jwolf wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

jwolf wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:Sweet. D3 Draigos it is!

Amateur. I'm adding d3 Warlord Titans myself.

Yea um, they can not be a part of a warrior unit...

Draigo can since he is an IC.

He's also unique, so you can't have more than one. But thanks for playing the "I can totally say something even dumber than the stupid thing you said that was obviously a joke" game! Winnar!

And the rule lets you add models, it doesn't say what kind of models, or even that they could normally be part of the unit. I'm going to a Anne V and Kate Upton to my warrior unit next time. Odds that anyone will complain? 0.00%

You can in Apoc....

It seems that you are the one that won the game there guy.

Pottsey wrote:Wouldn’t this be a case of the tank is on on the spot the lord died so he cannot stand up even if he was allowed to take the test. Our local nids player likes to stand monster creatures on the dead Necrons so they cannot stand back up and auto fail the test takening them off the broad.

That's unlikely, for one, in the example given he was part of a unit, so he can just resurrect anywhere in coherency, whether there is something on his Ever Living token or not.

Even if he isn't part of a unit he has 3 inches within which to resurrect, which means to block him you would have to stand directly on top of the marker with a base at least 2 inches in radius, that would require a base which was over 100mm around, the larger MCs on the oval bases do beat that in length at 120mm, but coming it at only 90mm across, would still allow the model to resurrect.

Basically, no single Nid is going to block a guy from resurrecting here, a Land Raider probably could.

Kharrak wrote:RAW, you could add new models to the unit

RAI, no adding new units - but the possibility of returning a dead Court still stands.

If the rule had "add D3 models BACK...", it would be a lot easier, but the case for adding a Court model back into the unit still stands.

Basically, it needs to be FAQ'd.

I feel like the intent would be just to add warrior models, but I was quite wrong on how the other recent necron FAQ would rule...

Most thought you could only add 1 cryptek to necron units but it turned out to be 2

Most believed that the res orb couldn't be used if the model equipped was dead from failing saves that same phase, but it does

Most didn't think a chronometron could be used to reroll imotekhs night fight roll, but you can


At this point I wouldn't be surprised if they specifically didn't mention to bring back "warrior models" because they intended for it to work on crypteks or attached IC's.

lol....?

BarBoBot wrote:Most believed that the res orb couldn't be used if the model equipped was dead from failing saves that same phase, but it does

What did these people think the purpose of the Resurrection Orb saying "The bearer of the resurrection orb... [passes] Reanimation Protocols rolls on a 4+" was then?

There's no reason for the orb to mention the bearer of it if the orb can't be used when the bearer is dead...

The guy with the Orb gets his 4+ but while he's down only he can benifit from the Orb is my interpertation.

Given that they arn't ICs(except for Overlords) if he's down the rest of the unit probably is too. So its a moot point.

Just curious cause I have heard odd interpretations of that rule before and it just seems so cut and dry to me

I believe that in the previous necron codex the model with the orb had to be alive for anyone else to benefit from it, but it was not just the unit the orb was in, there was an area of effect.

The orb has now been FAQ'd to work for the model and his unit even if the model with the orb is dead and attempting its own RP or EL roll.

Grey Templar wrote:The guy with the Orb gets his 4+ but while he's down only he can benifit from the Orb is my interpertation.

This is incorrect. The FAQ states the bearer, and his unit, may benefit from the orb even if the bearer has been removed.

ToBeWilly wrote:This is incorrect. The FAQ states the bearer, and his unit, may benefit from the orb even if the bearer has been removed during the same shooting phase.

Edited for clarity.

When you check RP after the phase in which the orb bearer died, he and the unit benefits from it. If the orb bearer does not return in that RP check, no more Orb benefits for either.

Arguably not needed, but just to be sure

BarBoBot wrote:I believe that in the previous necron codex the model with the orb had to be alive for anyone else to benefit from it, but it was not just the unit the orb was in, there was an area of effect.

The orb has now been FAQ'd to work for the model and his unit even if the model with the orb is dead and attempting its own RP or EL roll.

Nope, any models downed before the bearer went down benefited from it, but any downed after were out of luck. This was back when you didnt roll WBB every phase as you do fo are RP, meaning you could conceivably lose models to shooting that the res orb could resurrect later on.

so if i attach a cryptek and lord to a squad of warriors, and all the warriors die, an ark can target that lord /cryptek and replenish the warriors?

if thats the case, the ark just got a TON better for me....and suddenly warriors also got a bit better

DarthSpader wrote:so if i attach a cryptek and lord to a squad of warriors, and all the warriors die, an ark can target that lord /cryptek and replenish the warriors?

if thats the case, the ark just got a TON better for me....and suddenly warriors also got a bit better

Yes, exactly.

Ok, so... is the consensus then that tank shock splatter = really dead?
Also, it was his overlord with res-orb if it matters at all.

It boils down to if your group plays RFP=RFPaaC (see St. Celestine FAQ for clarity) or not. If you play that it does, then he would get to come back via EL. Otherwise, he would not.

Yeah. Despite the flurry of posts agreeing that he's not allowed to use EL, it's not at all clear that's the case. And the St. Celestine FAQ weakens the case for RFP and RFPaaC being separate things. So the OP's opponent who was insisting he got his roll is very possibly correct. This whole thing is also wrapped up in the whole Sweeping Advance/EL question, they're essentially the same issue. At this point I wouldn't suggest getting emotionally involved until after we see what 6th Ed. changes in this area.

Actually, that's pretty much the case for all rules questions at this point - it's a coin flip that any single rules question is going to be impacted by the new rules, and I'd guess more like 90% that any rules question will at least be tangentially affected by the new rules. So, <shrug>

St Celestine has nothing to do with this. The FAQ specifically allows her to come back from "Remove from Play", which implies that normally you cannot.

The Tank Shock rules are quite clear that there is no way to stay alive.

Assume that Happyjew and I've read all the rules and all the threads on this, Grey. There is no clearly defined distinction between "Removed from Play" and "Removed from Play as a Casualty". The two phrases are not defined, and there is no clear indication that GW doesn't use them interterchangeably. You're asserting that St. Celestine's FAQ indicates an exception to this non-existent distinction. I'm asserting that there is no clear distinction, and that the FAQ reinforces the fact that a model "Removed from Play" can, indeed, return via EL or St. Celestine's similar rule.

The Tank Shock rules are quite clear that there is no way to stay alive. Unfortunately for your argument, EL doesn't deal with "staying alive" - it deals with coming back after being killed.

We don't need to get into another RFP vs RFPaaC thread 11 days before the new edition.

IMO that necron lord has been ground to dust by ur tank, so i dont see how reanimation protocools can fix that

rigeld2 wrote:We don't need to get into another RFP vs RFPaaC thread 11 days before the new edition.

We certainly do not. That was also my point - it's very likely that they've seen enough controversy over the RFP/RFPaaC issue that they'll choose to rewrite it more clearly. Likewise, I think tanks are a bit underpowered - our armor spam issues are more transport than heavy support, so it's also possible they'll modify the Tank Shock rules. Regardless, they're likely to rewrite *something* that'll make any effort expended now superfluous.

All I'm saying is that it is (was?) an ambiguous area, so if one gentleman at a FLGS is trying to play it one way and the question is whether he's a legal leg to stand on, currently the answer to that is clearly "yes, he does".

Except DoG never mentions RfPaaC - just "removed"

EL / RP do not work against "Removed", just "Removed as a Casualty". DoG also mention there is no way to survive failure - if the Lord / Overlord comes back he has certainly survived...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except DoG never mentions RfPaaC - just "removed"

EL / RP do not work against "Removed", just "Removed as a Casualty". DoG also mention there is no way to survive failure - if the Lord / Overlord comes back he has certainly survived...

The horse is long dead, quit beating it.

jwolf wrote:The horse is long dead, quit beating it.

LOL, yeah, this is old hat, there's no "heat" anymore. Hey, nos, how's it going.

Y'know, you're lucky, the timing lays out so that this upcoming weekend is probably the most stable in terms of general rules understanding we'll see in awhile. Everyone either agrees on interpretation of codex and BRB stuffs, or at least understands the gray areas. In a month it'll be like - "no, I don't think you can do that... wait... oh, what the hell?"

Necrons and the new Flyers are the only things that have any real rules twists to them, and I think we're set for those calls. Part of me wishes we were 6 weeks later so that we could have 6th Edition and all the fun of screwing it up - there is something exciting about breaking new ground. But we're looking at a good turnout and a great venue (even if I don't get the shot girls from the hotel), so it's party time.

jwolf - Wish I was going. Have fun.

There are two issues here . First the "any clever ways of staying alive" refers to the lord dying in the first place , which is hard to argue that he is not dead. Second is can he then use a special rule to see if he gets back up. Im leaning towards he can since how is getting hit by a tank worse then a super laser that can blow up that same tank? The whole idea of Necrons,Yarick,Thrawn,bionics and anything else that comes back is coming back from"death"

Wouldn't work for Yarrick, he has to actually lose his last wound.

RAW (currently) the only one who can definitely come back with no argument whatsoever is St Celestine. Of course, she can also be squig-ified multiple times over because of this.

OK... lets simplify this since people are having difficulty understanding the chain of events, lets start from the beginning...

Vehicle tank shocked unit... unit passes leadership and makes a death or glory with the lord... the lord dies in the process... under these conditions he has followed the rules for death or glory and is declared dead, hence "Death" or glory... because he died, and you can look at the codex on this one, the model is removed from play, and is replaced with a counter to represent either the reanimation protocol or ever-living rule... the rules are still being followed... at the end of the phase, that lord will test for ever-living and if a 5 is rolled, he is returned to play...

its not that difficult... if he can be smashed by powerfist, shot with a lascannon/missile, melta'd even, he can get beck up from being run over... period.

I agree but I'm partisan - it's really best to clear this before starting a game. Let's wait a couple weeks.

Also, while I like the idea of a herd of little green gobblies bouncing around going, "me, me, I'm the real St. Celestine!" that one's also debatable.

WarlordRob117 wrote:OK... lets simplify this since people are having difficulty understanding the chain of events, lets start from the beginning...

Vehicle tank shocked unit... unit passes leadership and makes a death or glory with the lord... the lord dies in the process... under these conditions he has followed the rules for death or glory and is declared dead, hence "Death" or glory... because he died, and you can look at the codex on this one, the model is removed from play, and is replaced with a counter to represent either the reanimation protocol or ever-living rule... the rules are still being followed... at the end of the phase, that lord will test for ever-living and if a 5 is rolled, he is returned to play...

its not that difficult... if he can be smashed by powerfist, shot with a lascannon/missile, melta'd even, he can get beck up from being run over... period.

And that is where the issue lies (for about another week at least). Does RFP = RFPaaC? If they do, then Randall's position (and yours) is correct. If they do not, however, as rigeld, nos and I believe, then you would not be able to come back. Hence the reason, I claimed it depends on how your group plays.

[quote=WarlordRob117

Ghaz wrote:[quote=WarlordRob117

under these conditions he has followed the rules for death or glory and is declared dead, hence "Death" or glory..

Yeah, that's never been thought of. You're bringing a newperspective to an argument that's persisted as long as We'll Be Back and it's ilk have been around.

You don't have to be removed from play as a casualty to be a casualty for morale purposes. Nice try though!

My point is just because they use the term 'Death' in the name of the rule doesn't mean that it removes the model as a casualty. Your logic in that regards is flawed.

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, that's never been thought of. You're bringing a newperspective to an argument that's persisted as long as We'll Be Back and it's ilk have been around.

You don't have to be removed from play as a casualty to be a casualty for morale purposes. Nice try though!

funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...


and to explain that which has been dictated so many times before looking at the respective codex writers Matt and Phil... Matt likes to write removed as a casualty... Phil likes to write removed from play... perhaps we should stop looking at what we want to look at and realize the intent behind these writers... or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

Ascalam wrote:not staying dead = staying alive

Tankshock kills you dead, no save, do not pass go, do not collect a furry weeble....

If you don't want to get dead, don't DOG.

ever living is for the lord and if you are going by the "no save = no get up" means any weapon that has ap3 or lower would not ley them rise but yet it does

WarLordRob117 wrote:or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

From the Tenets at the top of the forum:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

The same goes for calling them. Call them with the same yes/no question three different times and you'll get three different answers.

WarlordRob117 wrote:funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...

Are we reading the same rules?

BRB 44 wrote: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

A model that is RFP is lost. A model that is RFPaaC is lost. That does not mean RFP==RFPaaC.

perhaps we should stop looking at what we want to look at and realize the intent behind these writers... or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

Or perhaps you should realize you're in YMDC and that discussing intent is something not normally done, and calling GW for an answer twice will get you 3 different answers to the same question.

Here is a nice post from yakface explaining why removed from play = removed as a casualty

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/449495/4281381.page

Explaining why he thinks*.
His word isn't RAW.

And he makes a poor assumption in there with respect to the morale test - as I posted above, the rule says "A unit losing..." not "A unit suffering 25% casualties..."

rigeld2 wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...

Are we reading the same rules?

BRB 44 wrote: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

A model that is RFP is lost. A model that is RFPaaC is lost. That does not mean RFP==RFPaaC.

perhaps we should stop looking at what we want to look at and realize the intent behind these writers... or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

Or perhaps you should realize you're in YMDC and that discussing intent is something not normally done, and calling GW for an answer twice will get you 3 different answers to the same question.

1) Apparently we are, so then that would mean that the Lord does get his ever-living save. thank you for proving my point

2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping

3) doesnt really matter what the norm is does it? fact of the matter is that there is something called implication that relies on common sense to get the job, and it drives me nuts when I have to resort to calling a company in order for them to disolve situations like this, because some where along the lines, this was discussed on a tournament floor. I have no problem admitting Im wrong, provided the men up stairs (GW) tell me I am.

Editing this slightly to make it easier to reply to.

WarlordRob117 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...

Are we reading the same rules?

1) Apparently we are, so then that would mean that the Lord does get his ever-living save. thank you for proving my point

What? What did I prove where?

BRB 44 wrote: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

A model that is RFP is lost. A model that is RFPaaC is lost. That does not mean RFP==RFPaaC.

2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping

WarlordRob117 wrote:

1) Apparently we are, so then that would mean that the Lord does get his ever-living save. thank you for proving my point

No point has been proven on either side.

2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping

Nah, that would be "A clever way of staying alive", which is against the rules.

3) doesnt really matter what the norm is does it? fact of the matter is that there is something called implication that relies on common sense to get the job, and it drives me nuts when I have to resort to calling a company in order for them to disolve situations like this, because some where along the lines, this was discussed on a tournament floor. I have no problem admitting Im wrong, provided the men up stairs (GW) tell me I am.

Common sense isn't that common, and GW has the least of it. I'll let you in on a little secret: GW doesn't give their rulesboys (the people you call on the phone) any extra training; they're same people you call when you have a problem with your product. They don't know any more about the rules than the average poster here on Dakka. In most cases they know orders of magnitude less about the rules than your average poster on Dakka. They aren't games developers, they don't have access to the games developers, most of them haven't ever SEEN one of the games developers, much less met one.

TLDR: Calling the customer service line for an answer is far less reliable than reading the 12 page debate on the subject here on Dakka.

Im not gonna quote all that because Im sure we got enough peoples heads spinning as it is... proof that I am familiar with the tenets, having broken several and been set straight many times. My point with that is that if we are making a call, it should be an astute, well-educated call based on the intent of the rules... the intent of the rules is to provide a game, where things are fair whenever possible. Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a representative that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:
2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping.
Nah, that would be "A clever way of staying alive", which is against the rules.

Nah... nah it isnt... the model died, exactly as the rules said... there is a "chance" he could come back... meaning he would still be withint the confines of the rules, because removed from play is removed as a casualty...

Just because I'm feeling ornery, I've fixed a bit of that for you and clarified other bits.

WarlordRob117 wrote: Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

Whom you did not speak to on the phone.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by minimum wage workers who may or may not even play the game, but get paid to answer the phones at GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a minimum wage worker who answers the phone that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.

That guy is no more an authority on how the rules work than I am.

WarlordRob117 wrote:Im not gonna quote all that because Im sure we got enough peoples heads spinning as it is... proof that I am familiar with the tenets, having broken several and been set straight many times. My point with that is that if we are making a call, it should be an astute, well-educated call based on the intent of the rules... the intent of the rules is to provide a game, where things are fair whenever possible. Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a representative that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.

Play by a house rule if you wish, you have the freedom to do just that.

Just remember that we can not possibly know the intent of the GW game designers, so we must stick to RAW where possible.

And keep in mind that the person with the rule should always take the least advantageous interpretation of a rule when there is a rules question and things are not clear, like in this case.

It is just good sportsmanship to do so.

As noted here:

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate, Appendix C: On Rules Ethics wrote:When we discuss rules, it may not always be clear which argument has weight. If you have any question, or you have any doubt in a claim, there is a simple system to follow to ensure you get yourself into the least amount of trouble and make the least amount of people unhappy:

If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.

So if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. But it's important that this is only reserved for situations where there is a legitimate grey area.

taken from here: Click Here

Oh I can understand, relate, and dig that completely reaper... we decided by rolling a dice... on a 1,2, or 3 I and others that play necrons at the shop would be allowed to... 4,5, or 6 the opposite... the store owner rolled a 2... thats about as fair as it gets even though everyone at the store agreed he should be able to, we did it anyway to dispel anymore issues that could occur during a tournament... I stand corrected, everyone agreed except they two grey knights players... they were rule nazis...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:Just because I'm feeling ornery, I've fixed a bit of that for you and clarified other bits.

WarlordRob117 wrote: Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

Whom you did not speak to on the phone.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by minimum wage workers who may or may not even play the game, but get paid to answer the phones at GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a minimum wage worker who answers the phone that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.

That guy is no more an authority on how the rules work than I am.

it must be fun for you belittling people huh? makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

WarlordRob117 wrote:

it must be fun for you belittling people huh? makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

I wasn't belittling anybody. I was stating facts. Well ok, I made a supposition. GW may very well pay their customers service guys more than minimum wage. The fact remains that calling the customer service line for answers does not put you in touch with anybody even remotely connected to the rules team.

More so than discussing it here, in my opinion... for example, you are playing at a GW store, and the store owners hears this debate during a game and says 'Lordhat is correct this is the way its supposed to be..." or vice-versa... are we to then turn towards this person and call them a minimum wage worker who only answers phones? or do we be civilized human beings and accept it and move on... further more, I understand that calling a GW rep may not be credible on this forum due to the lack of proof but it works for me when I play my games, and that is sufficient....

WarlordRob117 wrote:More so than discussing it here, in my opinion... for example, you are playing at a GW store, and the store owners hears this debate during a game and says 'Lordhat is correct this is the way its supposed to be..." or vice-versa... are we to then turn towards this person and call them a minimum wage worker who only answers phones? or do we be civilized human beings and accept it and move on... further more, I understand that calling a GW rep may not be credible on this forum due to the lack of proof but it works for me when I play my games, and that is sufficient....

Fair enough. I'm not trying to stop you from playing, and hopefully it won't matter in another two weeks or so. The main purpose was to iterate that the CS line at GW isn't a font of rules knowledge; they have access to the same materials we do, and don't often look at those when asked a question. If they do look, it's not with the attention to detail we do here; their job is to get you an answer, any answer and get back to what GW actually pays them to do: resolve customer complaints about the actual product quality.

Unfortunately GW doesn't ascribe the same level of importance to having quality rules as they do to making sure every box has all it's pieces. This is why we get rules that say that no models can "Stay alive" instead of no models may "avoid being permanently removed as a casualty". Apparently if the former isn't clear anough for you and your opponent, you're playing wrong.

Lordhat wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:More so than discussing it here, in my opinion... for example, you are playing at a GW store, and the store owners hears this debate during a game and says 'Lordhat is correct this is the way its supposed to be..." or vice-versa... are we to then turn towards this person and call them a minimum wage worker who only answers phones? or do we be civilized human beings and accept it and move on... further more, I understand that calling a GW rep may not be credible on this forum due to the lack of proof but it works for me when I play my games, and that is sufficient....

Fair enough. I'm not trying to stop you from playing, and hopefully it won't matter in another two weeks or so. The main purpose was to iterate that the CS line at GW isn't a font of rules knowledge; they have access to the same materials we do, and don't often look at those when asked a question. If they do look, it's not with the attention to detail we do here; their job is to get you an answer, any answer and get back to what GW actually pays them to do: resolve customer complaints about the actual product quality.

Unfortunately GW doesn't ascribe the same level of importance to having quality rules as they do to making sure every box has all it's pieces. This is why we get rules that say that no models can "Stay alive" instead of no models may "avoid being permanently removed as a casualty". Apparently if the former isn't clear anough for you and your opponent, you're playing wrong.

I humbly disagree

"any other clever way of staying alive that they can think of"

model is not staying alive... he died... then came back to life... staying alive means surviving the initial attack... he didnt survive... like getting hit with a lascannon... he didnt survive... ID by force weapon... didnt survive... he can still get back up

He also didnt get removed from play as a casualty, he was just removed.

The two arent the same.

PLay by a house rule for 10 days if you wish, just please follow the tenets of this forum - the CS guys are NOT a source of information for this forum. Ever.

Lordhat wrote: The main purpose was to iterate that the CS line at GW isn't a font of rules knowledge; they have access to the same materials we do, and don't often look at those when asked a question. If they do look, it's not with the attention to detail we do here; their job is to get you an answer, any answer and get back to what GW actually pays them to do: resolve customer complaints about the actual product quality.

Unfortunately GW doesn't ascribe the same level of importance to having quality rules as they do to making sure every box has all it's pieces. This is why we get rules that say that no models can "Stay alive" instead of no models may "avoid being permanently removed as a casualty". Apparently if the former isn't clear anough for you and your opponent, you're playing wrong.

And sadly this goes for any store that lives on selling models - while they might have a gaming table or several that's not what brings them the money, it's pure sales. The guys working there might play some of the games they sell, but nothing requires them to be actual experts on the games systems they sell. In fact I've had only bad experiences from letting rules disputes get as far as the stores - 100% incorrect rules interpretations so far.

This debate is identicle to three threads' worth of EL vs Sweeping Advance, except now its DoG vs EL. Been in 'em all, all of em got locked.

Has the celestine point been made yet? As far as I can tell, Ever Living works almost exactly the same way as her divine intervention. I agree that he dies, I also agree that he cannot stay alive in any clever way, however, 1 he dosent, he dies and then comes back. 2 I also remember that Codex > Rulebook. You can say "Necrons can never win ever" in the Rulebook but if the necs codex says "We always win no matter what" then necs win, no matter what. That is an extreme example but you get the idea. I would say if Celestine can get back up after she is squished so can a Cron with Ever Living. I assume that wsa the idea in this players mind as he DoG'd as I would've done the same thing. No risk and all that, you know.

No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

I will politely disagree without offering a chance to convince. I've had the Codex V Rulebook argument many times and changing my mind is not likely. With my input thrown in I am satisfied with my contributions to this thread.

Grey Templar wrote:No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

Neither rule interferes with, or contradicts, the other. Both work fine without breaking the game. DoG removes the model. EL drops a token. Vehicle completes Tank Shock move. Phase ends and EL token is rolled for.

-Yad

Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you still arguing about 5th ed rules?

Yad wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

Neither rule interferes with, or contradicts, the other. Both work fine without breaking the game. DoG removes the model. EL drops a token. Vehicle completes Tank Shock move. Phase ends and EL token is rolled for.

-Yad

and if EL is passed the model comes back, saving it from dying, which breaks the DoG rules.

Concur.

Grugknuckle wrote:Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you still arguing about 5th ed rules?

Well, for one thing, many scheduled tournaments have a policy of not switching to new rules immediately on release, on the basis that people (especially the judges) won't have had time to learn the new rules yet. It's a common convention that if a new book was released less than a month prior to an event, that they won't use that book yet. So we should expect 5th ed to keep being discussed at least for another month or so; all through July I think we'll want to make sure all threads are labeled with the edition in the subject line.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Has the celestine point been made yet? As far as I can tell, Ever Living works almost exactly the same way as her divine intervention. I agree that he dies, I also agree that he cannot stay alive in any clever way, however, 1 he dosent, he dies and then comes back. 2 I also remember that Codex > Rulebook. You can say "Necrons can never win ever" in the Rulebook but if the necs codex says "We always win no matter what" then necs win, no matter what. That is an extreme example but you get the idea. I would say if Celestine can get back up after she is squished so can a Cron with Ever Living. I assume that wsa the idea in this players mind as he DoG'd as I would've done the same thing. No risk and all that, you know.

He doesn't "die then come back". He'd be a kill point farm if that was the case since the unit (of one) was destroyed more than once.

And you have no basis for codex overriding BRB. It's specific overrides general.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you still arguing about 5th ed rules?

Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you bothering to click threads in YMDC?

DeathReaper wrote:

Yad wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

Neither rule interferes with, or contradicts, the other. Both work fine without breaking the game. DoG removes the model. EL drops a token. Vehicle completes Tank Shock move. Phase ends and EL token is rolled for.

-Yad

and if EL is passed the model comes back, saving it from dying, which breaks the DoG rules.

This is where I think the failure is. If EL is passed is does not save the model from dying. The EL model has already 'died'. A failed DoG attempt has resulted in the EL model being killed and removed. EL is not a save.

-Yad

The model was killed and removed.
It's the last member of its unit, so the unit is destroyed.
The model comes back. Is this a new unit?
If the model is still the same unit that was destroyed, it has stayed alive in a clever way.
If the model is not the same unit that was destroyed, it's time to farm for kill points.

rigeld2 wrote:

The model was killed and removed.
It's the last member of its unit, so the unit is destroyed.
The model comes back. Is this a new unit?
If the model is still the same unit that was destroyed, it has stayed alive in a clever way.
If the model is not the same unit that was destroyed, it's time to farm for kill points.

Bold and Italics added.

Premise 3 is invalid. These cannot both be true. We accept that for all intents and purposes a Lord and/or Cryptek is considered to be part of the unit (which negates your 4th point). Additionally, I had thought it commonly accepted that the unit only gives a kill point when the model(s) is irrevocably removed from play (exception for the Lone Wolf I think) I.e., the Lord/Cryptek has failed its EL roll. All the DoG mechanic cares about [in a failure scenario] is that the model which failed the attempt is removed with no way to prevent the removal. EL doesn't doesn't do this. EL doesn't stop the removal as caused by a failed DoG attempt. After all that is resolved you are then required to roll for the EL token..

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get what you're trying to do here, I just don't think the mechanics in question work the way you think they do.

DakkaHammer wrote:Hi Dakka,
This came up in a game today. I tank-shocked a squad of Necrons because I thought they looked lonely sitting on an objective all by themselves. The guy decided (after passing LD) that his lord was going to death or glory with his 2D6 armor pen. The lord chose death.

This made me laugh. I have no idea about the rules, but I found this post hilarious.

Eidolon wrote:

DakkaHammer wrote:Hi Dakka,
This came up in a game today. I tank-shocked a squad of Necrons because I thought they looked lonely sitting on an objective all by themselves. The guy decided (after passing LD) that his lord was going to death or glory with his 2D6 armor pen. The lord chose death.

This made me laugh. I have no idea about the rules, but I found this post hilarious.

We are glad you are amused.

Yad wrote: We accept that for all intents and purposes a Lord and/or Cryptek is considered to be part of the unit (which negates your 4th point).

It doesn't negate anything.
If you're argument was limited to Lords/Crypteks you might have a point. Unfortunately it's not. It cannot be. You're arguing for all EL models, some of which are single model units. Therefore any argument that proves you wrong for single model units proves you wrong for all EL models.

Additionally, I had thought it commonly accepted that the unit only gives a kill point when the model(s) is irrevocably removed from play (exception for the Lone Wolf I think) I.e., the Lord/Cryptek has failed its EL roll.

Correct. Which means that the unit is not destroyed if a model is allowed to make an EL roll.
If a unit is not destroyed, the model was not removed "regardless of ... Any other clever way of staying alive".
If the model was not removed, DoG has not been satisfied.

All the DoG mechanic cares about [in a failure scenario] is that the model which failed the attempt is removed with no way to prevent the removal. EL doesn't doesn't do this. EL doesn't stop the removal as caused by a failed DoG attempt. After all that is resolved you are then required to roll for the EL token..

Your bold is an assumption and your interpretation.

And this also ignores that DoG doesn't remove as a casualty which is how EL is triggered.

I get what you're trying to do here, I just don't think the mechanics in question work the way you think they do.

It'd be great if you could post why instead of just saying you think I'm wrong. Do you have rules to back up your statement?

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:
We accept that for all intents and purposes a Lord and/or Cryptek is considered to be part of the unit (which negates your 4th point).

It doesn't negate anything.
If you're argument was limited to Lords/Crypteks you might have a point. Unfortunately it's not. It cannot be. You're arguing for all EL models, some of which are single model units. Therefore any argument that proves you wrong for single model units proves you wrong for all EL models.

My argument was initially focused on Lords/Crypteks and I'm spot on about that (there's no 'might' about it). You're supposition is that I'm arguing for all EL models. Given a sufficient difference in type an argument for one does not always constitute an argument for all. Regardless, in EL's interaction with DoG it holds equally true for all EL models.

rigeld2 wrote:

Additionally, I had thought it commonly accepted that the unit only gives a kill point when the model(s) is irrevocably removed from play (exception for the Lone Wolf I think) I.e., the Lord/Cryptek has failed its EL roll.

Correct. Which means that the unit is not destroyed if a model is allowed to make an EL roll.
If a unit is not destroyed, the model was not removed "regardless of ... Any other clever way of staying alive".
If the model was not removed, DoG has not been satisfied.

Again, those to positions cannot both be true. You cannot 'kill', i.e., remove a model from play and subsequently claim that it has managed to stay alive. The model is first 'killed'. Then it checks to see if it can come back onto the board. There's a subtle difference there that you're missing.

rigeld2 wrote:

All the DoG mechanic cares about [in a failure scenario] is that the model which failed the attempt is removed with no way to prevent the removal. EL doesn't doesn't do this. EL doesn't stop the removal as caused by a failed DoG attempt. After all that is resolved you are then required to roll for the EL token..

Your bold is an assumption and your interpretation.

And this also ignores that DoG doesn't remove as a casualty which is how EL is triggered.

Hardly my interpretation. Is there any other way to describe how DoG is evaluated to be successful (on a failure). No way to prevent the removal speaks directly to the player's inability to prevent the model's death as a result of a failed DoG. EL is never described as a save and never rolled in response to a DoG.

I get what you're trying to do here, I just don't think the mechanics in question work the way you think they do.

It'd be great if you could post why instead of just saying you think I'm wrong. Do you have rules to back up your statement?

It's removed from play. Therefore unless the rule says it comes back into play it's dead...

Yad - can you post rules why you get to activate Removed as a Casualty abilities when the model is only Removed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - can you post rules why you get to activate Removed as a Casualty abilities when the model is only Removed?

RFP and RFPaaC are the same. Mainly due to the lack of a clearly defined definition of the two. With regards as to the why...Yakface summed it up nicely enough. The only thing that I would add is if you require as an entry point into a specific rule, a specific trigger, then that trigger had better be clearly defined and uniform across the ruleset. Treating RFPaaC as a 'thing' is not really supported as it's never properly defined as a game mechanic.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - can you post rules why you get to activate Removed as a Casualty abilities when the model is only Removed?

RFP and RFPaaC are the same. Mainly due to the lack of a clearly defined definition of the two. With regards as to the why...Yakface summed it up nicely enough. The only thing that I would add is if you require as an entry point into a specific rule, a specific trigger, then that trigger had better be clearly defined and uniform across the ruleset. Treating RFPaaC as a 'thing' is not really supported as it's never properly defined as a game mechanic.

-Yad

You are just regurgitating Randall Turner and other clown that were trying to equate them as being the same despite the overwhelming evidence of rules showing them being distinct actions taken by distinct rules.

If you are going down that road, you might as well start bringing up the definition of removing as a casualty as well from the BRB to show that it doesn't necessary mean a model is dead.

Since you refer to those that advocate removed as a casualty is the same as removed from play in a very derogatory manner, may I remind you that yakface himself says so too.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/449495/4281381.page

And I believe his opinion holds a lot more value that yours.

This isnt even RfP, just "Removed"

copper.talos wrote:Since you refer to those that advocate removed as a casualty is the same as removed from play in a very derogatory manner, may I remind you that yakface himself says so too.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/449495/4281381.page

And I believe his opinion holds a lot more value that yours.

Which is just about relevant as posting up an email from GW customer service. INAT rulings have had to be corrected in the past due to GW FAQ and errata. What Yakface may or may not deem is his opinion and only his opinion.

Now, if you want to believe that GW is making an exception just for Celestine that's your right, but in my mind an effect that just removes a model from play has always been nebulous.

Therefore IMHO, I've always treated any model removed from play by any kind of attack as being removed as a casualty. Although it is clear that some rules actually say 'removed from play as a casualty' and others just say 'removed from play' I see this as a case of sloppy writing rather than any kind of deliberate intent to create some sort of shadow realm of model removal.

Just from that post alone. He is going not by any rules but his own opinion. He even acknowledges that it is clear that there is a distinction in some rules between RFPAAC and RFP, he just dismisses it as sloppy writing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This isnt even RfP, just "Removed"

A point obviously lost by some that are going to just classify "removed" as they see fit to support the argument.

So if RP and/or EL are cleaver ways of staying alive does that not mean that Surrogate Host is also by passed by failed Death or Glory.

NL_Cirrus wrote:So if RP and/or EL are cleaver ways of staying alive does that not mean that Surrogate Host is also by passed by failed Death or Glory.

Re-reading the rules for Surrogate Hosts, brings up an interesting observation.
The model he replaces is RFPaaC, however, the model does not get to try and come back. Interesting if you ask me.