#1 - If a Necron model is removed from play, can it still use re-animation protocols?

Example 1 - Space Wolves Rune Priest uses Jaws of the World Wolf and removes a Necron Destroyer Lord from play via it's effect. Can the Destroyer Lord use re-animation?

Example 2 - Space Wolves FAQ states that a model removed from play by "The Last Laugh" may still use re-animation. However there's nothing on this, for JotWW giving me the impression that they cannot come back from JotWW.

#2 - If Obyron teleports to a combat involving Nemesor Zandrekh as part of his special rule. Does he count as having joined Nemesor's unit? The rule doesn't state this just says he joins into combat with the unit engaged. Thus if the scenario plays out that Nemesor is in a Challenge with the last surviving model of the unit, after combat resolution. Does this mean Obyron is no longer engaged (no other models to engage, last survivor is in a challenge) and free to consolidate to continue fighting on his own?

#1 - Yes.

#2 - No, he does not join nemesor or his unit, he is his own unit. Yes, it would mean just what you said. Though obyron could just teleport away anytime anyway.

#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Hadn't seen that I'll double check. I did see the one that was for EL but not RP

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Hadn't seen that I'll double check. I did see the one that was for EL but not RP

EL *is* RP, it's just a more advanced version of it and a different counter. Else there'd be no reason for EL models to have RP.

 Kevin949 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Hadn't seen that I'll double check. I did see the one that was for EL but not RP

EL *is* RP, it's just a more advanced version of it and a different counter. Else there'd be no reason for EL models to have RP.

Going from memory and I'm starting to get sick Bare with me

Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

Just to clear things up, from the SW FAQ...

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.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Not seeing anything like that in their faq.

fursphere wrote:
Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

It's for characters. Some characters have the IC rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Not seeing anything like that in their faq.

In tandem with the rulebook, things like Trazyn's surrogate hosts remove from play as a casualty but you are not allowed to make RP/EL rolls. A model with a res orb removed from play is allowed a roll (res orb has no bearing on it, but that's the FAQ ruling). As RP and EL are the same, if an EL model is allowed to then so is an RP only model.

 Kevin949 wrote:

fursphere wrote:
Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

It's for characters. Some characters have the IC rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Not seeing anything like that in their faq.

In tandem with the rulebook, things like Trazyn's surrogate hosts remove from play as a casualty but you are not allowed to make RP/EL rolls. A model with a res orb removed from play is allowed a roll (res orb has no bearing on it, but that's the FAQ ruling). As RP and EL are the same, if an EL model is allowed to then so is an RP only model.

Q: If a model with the Reanimation Protocol special rule is replaced
by another model, for example it is turned into a Chaos Spawn or
replaced by Trazyn the Infinite, do you place a reanimation protocol or
ever-living counter next to the unit? (p29)
A: No.

Alright replacement effects don't cause RP or EL. Specifies both.

Q: Is the roll for an Ever-living counter the same as a Reanimation
Protocol roll; does it benefit from the resurrection orb? (p29)
A: Yes to both questions.

These are the only ones I see.

 grendel083 wrote:
Just to clear things up, from the SW FAQ...

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.

Its downright comical that an FAQ question that specifically names Necron and Sisters of Battle army's is found in the Space Wolves FAQ. (and not in the SoB or Necron's FAQ)

fursphere wrote:
Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

It also works for Royal Court members attached to a unit as they have EL as well. Even if the entire unit they are attached to is wiped out they still get a RP roll due to EL.

RFP and RaaC are the same. This is made obvious through gaining first blood only via RaaC and an example. If the last 2 models in a unit with RP are RFP, if you treat them differently to models RaaC, you cannot roll for the original counters as the unit is destroyed but due to the codex wording you may only remove counters if they are RaaC or the roll is failed. Neither is satisfied, so you have objects with no rules on the table - an absurdity that breaks the game. Therefore they must be equal.

On the other hand, jaws now hits everything so there's that.

The question is stil not clearly answered.

The last laugh is SPECIFICALLY referenced as allowing RP/EL rolls however JotWW gives no allowance in this regard, so is the consensus that it is intended to allow EL/RP?

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
RFP and RaaC are the same. This is made obvious through gaining first blood only via RaaC and an example. If the last 2 models in a unit with RP are RFP, if you treat them differently to models RaaC, you cannot roll for the original counters as the unit is destroyed but due to the codex wording you may only remove counters if they are RaaC or the roll is failed. Neither is satisfied, so you have objects with no rules on the table - an absurdity that breaks the game. Therefore they must be equal.

You have objects that don't effect the game whatsoever with no rules on the table. Nothing breaks.
First Blood is poorly worded - interpreting it literally would mean that vehicles don't count for FB (ignoring the difference between RFP and RFPaaC).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Well consider that JotWW allows NO COVER SAVES because it does not cause wounds.

So it shows that models can be removed by things other than what's normal.

Considering that the last laugh is specifically mentioned in the FAQ as allowing EL/RP rolls where as JotWW is not included as an allowance it to me clearly shows that it is NOT intended to allow reanimnation protocols or ever-living.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

Lucus is remove as casualty

Joww remove from play

2 different rules for 2 different powers. Im on the fence with this one since Joww does not have an faq I am of the opinion that they do not get a RP/EP since theres no mass to reanimate from. Its gone.

This again?!
OK to summarize from all other threads I can remember, RFP=RaaC
Pro:
1.In the Morale section, you roll a check because of casualties when you lose 25% of the unit's models. So losses = casualties
2.SoB FAQ equates RFP and RaaC. And that's the only ruling in existence. There is no rule or FAQ to differentiate between RFP and RaaC. So that FAQ creates a precedent.
3. RFP is found only in 1 or 2 codices by the same author, and its effect or difference from RaaC is never explained No other codex mentions RFP and BRB only mentions casualties.
4. First Blood is granted only when the unit is removed as a casualty. A unit destroyed by RFP should grant First Blood.

Against::
1. "Removed from play" is not the same as "Removed as a casualty". Different words...

 Akaiyou wrote:
Well consider that JotWW allows NO COVER SAVES because it does not cause wounds.

So it shows that models can be removed by things other than what's normal.

Considering that the last laugh is specifically mentioned in the FAQ as allowing EL/RP rolls where as JotWW is not included as an allowance it to me clearly shows that it is NOT intended to allow reanimnation protocols or ever-living.

Causing a wound or not has nothing to do with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

No, you didn't mention the rulebook in your comment. It's quoted above. " if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely"
That is demonstrably false, as you've admitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
1.In the Morale section, you roll a check because of casualties when you lose 25% of the unit's models. So losses = casualties

The actual rule:

A unit losing 25% or more of its current
models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase
must take a Morale check at the end of that phase.

2.SoB FAQ equates RFP and RaaC. And that's the only ruling in existence. There is no rule or FAQ to differentiate between RFP and RaaC. So that FAQ creates a precedent.

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept it but the ruling is very tightly centered on St. C and not RFP==RFPaaC in general. If it was worded differently I'd agree.

3. RFP is found only in 1 or 2 codices by the same author, and its effect or difference from RaaC is never explained No other codex mentions RFP and BRB only mentions casualties.

That's relevant ... how?

4. First Blood is granted only when the unit is removed as a casualty. A unit destroyed by RFP should grant First Blood.

Therefore vehicles don't grant First Blood. That's a great interpretation, let's go with that.

1. "Removed from play" is not the same as "Removed as a casualty". Different words...

Yes. Different words are different.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

No, you didn't mention the rulebook in your comment. It's quoted above. " if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely"
That is demonstrably false, as you've admitted.

I've admitted nothing of the sort, though you've now shown your penchant for not reading things in their entirety (I.E. this thread).

And no, it's not demonstrably false as they DO use both terms in the FAQ as well as reference abilities in the codex that would/should normally allow an RP roll but do not. A little common sense on the matter goes a long way. If an effect that still causes a model to be removed from play as a casualty (such as trazyn's surrogate hosts), which is the wording used in the RP/EL rules, does not allow RP to be rolled for and an ability that Removes from Play *does* allow for RP rolls to be made then you must ascertain that the two wordings mean the same thing. It is, apparently, not the result of dying that disallows a model an RP roll but apparently the cause of this removal. As such, it would appear that the only cause of removal that does not allow an RP/EL token to be placed would be effects that replace models. Everything else allows a token to be placed, certain circumstances remove these tokens.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

No, you didn't mention the rulebook in your comment. It's quoted above. " if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely"
That is demonstrably false, as you've admitted.

I've admitted nothing of the sort, though you've now shown your penchant for not reading things in their entirety (I.E. this thread).

When you made your post to me, you mentioned literally nothing with respect to the rulebook.
And I apologize - I thought "I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book." was admitting that you were conceding the point.
And you're acting like FAQs can't change rules or force exceptions - Trazyn not allowing you to come back is an exception.

Your original post saying that the FAQ alternated use of RFP and aaC is demonstrably false. I've shown the 4 times the word "remove" is used in the Necron FAQ and none of them are used in that manner.
If you disagree, please cite the ruling.

If an effect that still causes a model to be removed from play as a casualty (such as trazyn's surrogate hosts), which is the wording used in the RP/EL rules, does not allow RP to be rolled for and an ability that Removes from Play *does* allow for RP rolls to be made then you must ascertain that the two wordings mean the same thing.

No, you must not. You must accept that the former is an exception and not a rule.

It is, apparently, not the result of dying that disallows a model an RP roll but apparently the cause of this removal. As such, it would appear that the only cause of removal that does not allow an RP/EL token to be placed would be effects that replace models. Everything else allows a token to be placed, certain circumstances remove these tokens.

That's an argument for intent, not how the rules are written. You should note when you're attempting to discuss intent.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
1.In the Morale section, you roll a check because of casualties when you lose 25% of the unit's models. So losses = casualties

The actual rule:

A unit losing 25% or more of its current
models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase
must take a Morale check at the end of that phase.

Hmmm it seems you forgot something. Let me correct it for you

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

And in the end the "against" side, the only thing it has is "different words". No arguments whatsoever...

PS all international tournaments go with RFP=RaaC.

copper.talos wrote:

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

No. Casualties is the loss of 25% of the models in the unit. So every time the rules tell you to RFPaaC, you must remove 25% or more of the models in the unit.

And in the end the "against" side, the only thing it has is "different words". No arguments whatsoever...

In a language that has words, different words mean different things. For them to mean the same thing you have to be told they mean the same thing.
Are we ever told that RFP means the same thing as RFPaaC? Told, not lightly implied or hinted at.

PS all international tournaments go with RFP=RaaC.

Well why didn't you say so?! You've convinced me. No, really - this is the perfect argument! It's from sources that are cited as valid in the tenets of this forum and everything!
</sarcasm>
When tournaments follow the rules as written instead of divining intent, I'll care what they say when it comes to the rules as written.

Rigeld - I'm not acting like FAQ's can't change the rules, I know they can and have. That has no bearing here though, I'm not making any point of rules changing or anything of that sort (nor do I think others here are). So I don't think this line of reasoning on your part is going to go anywhere.

No, that was not conceding anything, that was filling in a blank that was left out in my earlier post regarding the FAQ's, as I was cross-referencing the two at the time and I didn't bother to make note of that originally.

It's not just trazyn's ability, it's "any" ability that replaces the model with another model. So, getting turned into a chaos spawn, getting turned into a squiq, getting turned into trazyn, or any other such nonsense. So do you know if all of those use the same "Removed from play as a casualty" wording? Trazyn's does, I know that for sure...I'd venture to say that one of the others says "Removed from play and replaced with..." Either way, it is the replacement effect that bypasses RP, not the wording of RFPaaC or RFP.

Yes, you must, as I've stated already there is allowance for "Removed from play" to be allowed a roll to come back, or rather a token to be placed.

There's really a simple way to decide this...does it say, in the rule book, what the difference between RFP and RFPaaC is? Does it say, in *any* codex, what the difference is?
Does the rulebook use the phrase "removed from play" without "as a casualty" or without the word "casualty" directly proceeding or preceding it?

And no, it's not an argument of intent, you just want it to be. That *is* how the rules are written as it is spelled out in the in the FAQ. Though there are two other instances where tokens are not allowed to be placed as well but those are indisputably made clear of that, which are Sweeping advance and Death or Glory. Which, by the way, also RFPaaC.
So I take you back full circle, RFPaaC or RFP, it does not matter. There needs to be more to it than that.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

No. Casualties is the loss of 25% of the models in the unit. So every time the rules tell you to RFPaaC, you must remove 25% or more of the models in the unit.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

No. Casualties is the loss of 25% of the models in the unit. So every time the rules tell you to RFPaaC, you must remove 25% or more of the models in the unit.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

You're asserting that that rule defines casualties. If that's the case then every RFPaaC would force that morale check.

Read the Morale paragraph before that passage. It gives you the "common reasons" for a morale check. So one reason is having casualties. And the amount of casualties is defined as 25% losses. So casualties=losses.

I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

Again the reasoning is that the space wolves FAQ specifically designates The Last Laugh as the ALLOWANCE for necrons or st.celestine to be able to come back into play.

Had this not been in the FAQ I would've been inclined to agree that you CAN use ever-living/reanimation to recover from JotWW or The Last Laugh.

So the question is why would they make a clear DISTINCTION between them, a VERY specific distinction about what ability from the codex space wolves allows necrons or st.celestine to come back into play, if every other ability allows it anyway? Why would they not include JotWW in this, considering the FAQ covered it extensively!

So let's look at the wording on BOTH of these and see where they differentiate

1. The Last Laugh = "Should Lukas ever be removed from play....all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties..."

2. Jaws of the World Wolf - "If a model fails this test, it is removed from play"

My opinion is that there is a difference between removed from play as a casualty and removed from play, the same way that there's a difference between a leadership check and a morale check.

Removed from play is to Removed from play as a casualty
as
Leadership check is to Morale check

Meaning removed from play is the bigger branch. The fact that Lukas ability itself activates not when he's removed from play as a casualty, but when he's removed from play period, signals that it is a stronger effect specially when within his same rule it then uses 'removed from play as a casualty' for whatever was in base contact with him at the time.

Both terms are used within 1 rule this is important to note.

The FAQ was created to note that necrons and st.celestine are allowed to return from THIS ability in particular setting a precedent that they can come back from 'removed from play as a casualty', but they can't return from being turned into another model after being removed from play, as in the case of a Chaos Spawn.

However notice that if RFP and RaaC are identical, then if Lukas were to be turned into a Chaos Spawn his ability would NOT be activated according to this logic. Because you are basically saying that Chaos Spawn bypasses these rules.

So RFP and RaaC must mean different things, if we consider that RFP is the higher of the two then everything makes perfect sense. Turning Lukas into a Chaos Spawn triggers his effect as normal.

Any case that's my opinion in all this.

I consider removed from play to be akin to doing something so horrible to the target that it is gone period. Every effect that states REMOVED FROM PLAY is described as being on some next level gak. A sort of ultimate attack.

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

My opinion is that there is a difference between removed from play as a casualty and removed from play, the same way that there's a difference between a leadership check and a morale check.

Removed from play is to Removed from play as a casualty
as
Leadership check is to Morale check

Meaning removed from play is the bigger branch. The fact that Lukas ability itself activates not when he's removed from play as a casualty, but when he's removed from play period, signals that it is a stronger effect specially when within his same rule it then uses 'removed from play as a casualty' for whatever was in base contact with him at the time.

Both terms are used within 1 rule this is important to note.

There is no rule, no faq or even a hint of a rule of what you are saying is true. As rigeld2 has admitted the only argument the "against" side has is different words. That's it. And mind that the absence of a FAQ doesn't mean anything at all.

The "pro" side has a BRB rule that equates all losses to casualties and a FAQ of a different army that creates a precedent. Personally I believe the author of these 2 codices that have RFP effects was just lazy or forgot to edit them. And yes it happens. The Necron codex has a half working wargear that the author forgot to edit.

#1 yes

#2 no

Source: Necrons are OP

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

First of all D-Lords are jump infantry and can't be hit by Jaws anyway.

bagtagger wrote:

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

First of all D-Lords are jump infantry and can't be hit by Jaws anyway.

No such thing as Jump Infantry in 6th IIRC

There is, there are jump monsterous creatures, jump infantry. Jump is now a type that gets added on to the original unit type

bagtagger wrote:

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

First of all D-Lords are jump infantry and can't be hit by Jaws anyway.

Untrue.

Pg 47. Jurnp units are equipped with jump packs, wings, teleport devices or other means of rnoving quickly ovet short distances. Unlike most other unit type categories, '|ump' is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - comrnonly Infantry, sometimes Monsfrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantrywould, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.

bagtagger wrote:
There is, there are jump monsterous creatures, jump infantry. Jump is now a type that gets added on to the original unit type

Those are 5th ed classifications.

copper.talos wrote:
There is no rule, no faq or even a hint of a rule of what you are saying is true. As rigeld2 has admitted the only argument the "against" side has is different words. That's it. And mind that the absence of a FAQ doesn't mean anything at all.

You say that like different words having different meanings isn't enough of a difference. I'm curious as to why you say that.
And a lack of an FAQ could be an implication - Last Laugh was clarified even though it RFPaaC. Jaws wasn't touched.

The "pro" side has a BRB rule that equates all losses to casualties and a FAQ of a different army that creates a precedent. Personally I believe the author of these 2 codices that have RFP effects was just lazy or forgot to edit them. And yes it happens. The Necron codex has a half working wargear that the author forgot to edit.

That BRB rule doesn't do what you think it does. And that FAQ doesn't set a precedent.

Which wargear is that again?

It's the spyder fabricator claw. It gives a CCW which does nothing.

rigeld2 wrote:

That BRB rule doesn't do what you think it does. And that FAQ doesn't set a precedent.

While these may not be 100% on target (otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation time and time again) these are the only cases which you could look into for guidance on how to handle the issue. And both cases are on the RFP=RFPaaC side. The against side hasn't even this. And I can think of 1-2 rules that have different names/use different words but have the same effect. Even smoke launchers or searchlights was written differently from codex to codex. So different words doesn't necessarily mean a different effect.

copper.talos wrote:
It's the spyder fabricator claw. It gives a CCW which does nothing.

So you're assuming it's broken? And that the author "forgot" to edit it?
And it does more than just provide a CCW. Or am I misreading page 46 of the Necron codex?

rigeld2 wrote:
And I can think of 1-2 rules that have different names/use different words but have the same effect. Even smoke launchers or searchlights was differently from codex to codex and yet it was the same effect.

And those rules are defined. RFP isn't defined (as a casualty or not) that I know of. Since the rules don't define it we have to use normal English definitions. By any normal English definition Phrase A has a different meaning than Phrase B.

Did I say it was broken? Can't you make a proper argument without twisting words? I said it it is a half working wargear. And it is exactly that. It has 2 effects with only one working, and that's because it wasn't edited. Even Yakface told so in an older thread. He was in the test team for an earlier version of the Necron codex and the extra CCW was useful. But then the codex changed and the extra CCW doesn't have any use at all. But it's there. So yes an author may forget to edit a few things, it happens.

And as you said RFP is never defined. And yet all other rules are defined. Why? Rules require definition or they stop being rules. Divining the intent of a phrase to make a new rule just because it uses different words isn't enough.

In the end only 2 cases exist that touch the matter in BRB and FAQs, and both say that RFP=RFPaaC.

copper.talos wrote:
Did I say it was broken? Can't you make a proper argument without twisting words? I said it it is a half working wargear. And it is exactly that. It has 2 effects with only one working, and that's because it wasn't edited. Even Yakface told so in an older thread. He was in the test team for an earlier version of the Necron codex and the extra CCW was useful. But then the codex changed and the extra CCW doesn't have any use at all. But it's there. So yes an author may forget to edit a few things, it happens.

I wasn't trying to twist words - you're asserting that it was forgotten and that it's half working - not working correctly == broken.
It has 2 effects, one of which is meaningless. I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Perhaps after Yakface helped with the testing they decided to change the function of the wargear.
In other words, this assertion that the author forgot is unfounded in my opinion.

And as you said RFP is never defined. And yet all other rules are defined.

Can you help me out here - where is RFPaaC defined?

Why? Rules require definition or they stop being rules. Divining the intent of a phrase to make a new rule just because it uses different words isn't enough.

So every word/phrase in the rulebook that is used as rules has a rules definition?

In the end only 2 cases exist that touch the matter in BRB and FAQs, and both say that RFP=RFPaaC.

For the former, that's not true - and for the latter it's very specifically only for one model. Please stop asserting that it's relevant.

I said half working. Should I repeat it again? It has two effects, only one works.And as yakface told in the older version of the codex both effects worked. In the final version only one works. The extra CCW even got a FAQ to make it 100% sure it won't do anything. It's just a mistake that noone remembered to edit. It happens. Most books have similar mistakes.

And RFPaaC as a term is not defined. Casualties on the other hand are described as the losses of a unit, which, guess what, it's what the english language says so too. Is there anything in any codex, BRB or FAQ that defines RFP? NO. Since only casualties are described in BRB and even in plain English casualties are all kinds of losses in a battle, is there even a hint of how RFP models should not be as casualties? NO.

PS The SoB may involve the St Celestine but it is the only ruling in existance in the RFP vs RFPaaC issue. And the ruling is RFP=RFPaaC. FAQs from other armies do create a precedent for other armies. You have said it your self in other threads too. You just forget it when this issue comes up.

copper.talos wrote:
I said half working. Should I repeat it again? It has two effects, only one works.And as yakface told in the older version of the codex both effects worked. In the final version only one works. The extra CCW even got a FAQ to make it 100% sure it won't do anything. It's just a mistake that noone remembered to edit. It happens. Most books have similar mistakes.

That's not true - it being a CCW works fine. It just doesn't have a purpose. I don't know why you're asserting it's a mistake.

And RFPaaC as a term is not defined. Casualties on the other hand are described as the losses of a unit, which, guess what, it's what the english language says so too. Is there anything in any codex, BRB or FAQ that defines RFP? NO. Since only casualties are described in BRB and even in plain English casualties are all kinds of losses in a battle, is there even a hint of how RFP models should not be as casualties? NO.

Oh, so the statement you made that " And yet all other rules are defined." wasn't true? I just want to clarify that.
Casualties are defined as losing 25% of the models in a unit according to you. So if I force 1 model to be removed as a casualty am I forcing you to remove 25% of the unit?
You can't take that as an absolute definition and use part of the rule to define it. It's all or nothing.

And I'm curious - when I attempt to use plain English to define the difference, you say I can't because the rules are defined. When you say the rules aren't defined so use plain English, somehow it's okay?

PS The SoB may involve the St Celestine but it is the only ruling in existance in the RFP vs RFPaaC issue. And the ruling is RFP=RFPaaC. FAQs from other armies do create a precedent for other armies. You have said it your self in other threads too. You just forget it when this issue comes up.

No - I don't forget. If the FAQ is worded loosely you can use it for precedent.
The St. C. FAQ isn't worded loosely at all - it's very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer.

If it was "Do rules that say to remove a model from play trigger rules that work when a model is removed from play as a casualty - for example, Miraculous Intervention on St. Celestine? Yes." I'd absolutely agree that it would set a precedent.

A question to Rigeld2:

If a model is Removed From Play, does the unit count it towards casualties for that phase?

As a real world question, since we're talking about the English language, if a newspaper or television station were to report these two headlines, are they really different?

A: Man was shot with gun, died as a casualty of his wounds.

B: Man shot with gun, dead.

Both intimate, in our game terms and the English language, that the man was "removed from play", one author just elaborated further, figureatively expressing that he was a casualty. People who die in wartime are all casualties of something, even if it is instant death from a mortar, rocket attack or a large bomb. Because casualty is a term by which the military expresses the losses that we have taken. I view the argument here to be more of a rules lawyering debate where the poorly thought out wording of a writer is being dissected down to what things mean in the english language. Unfortunately, such is the standard fare we receive from GW.

Salacious Greed wrote:
A question to Rigeld2:

If a model is Removed From Play, does the unit count it towards casualties for that phase?

Since the "Casualties" section does not specify RFP or RFPaaC, it would count both - the unit suffered losses.
I've already said why you cannot use the Casualties section of the Morale rules to define the C in RFPaaC.

As a real world question, since we're talking about the English language, if a newspaper or television station were to report these two headlines, are they really different?

I'mma let you finish, but...

This isn't the real world. This is sentences in a rule book. Context matters.

A: Man was shot with gun, died as a casualty of his wounds.

B: Man shot with gun, dead.

They can mean different things. Man was shot with gun in his big toe - he was then run over by a bus. Losing his toe hurt a lot but he would have lived if it wasn't for the damn bus. Asserting that they must mean the same thing is simply not correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

And I'm curious - when I attempt to use plain English to define the difference, you say I can't because the rules are defined. When you say the rules aren't defined so use plain English, somehow it's okay?

BRB describes casualties as the losses of a unit. So models that "die" are removed from play as casualties. If you advocate that RFP victims are not casualties, that means they are an exception, then you must base it on an existing rule that describes the exception ie do models that die from RFP trigger a morale check? There is absolutely nothing. You tried using just the English language to point that RFP models are not casualties, but as I said even in plain english they would be considered casualties.

rigeld2 wrote:

No - I don't forget. If the FAQ is worded loosely you can use it for precedent. The St. C. FAQ isn't worded loosely at all - it's very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer.

The Baal Predator-smoke launcher is also very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer. And yet all other vehicles can use it too. The St Celestine-RFP is the same case.

Salacious Greed wrote:
A question to Rigeld2:

If a model is Removed From Play, does the unit count it towards casualties for that phase?

As a real world question, since we're talking about the English language, if a newspaper or television station were to report these two headlines, are they really different?

A: Man was shot with gun, died as a casualty of his wounds.

B: Man shot with gun, dead.

Both intimate, in our game terms and the English language, that the man was "removed from play", one author just elaborated further, figureatively expressing that he was a casualty. People who die in wartime are all casualties of something, even if it is instant death from a mortar, rocket attack or a large bomb. Because casualty is a term by which the military expresses the losses that we have taken. I view the argument here to be more of a rules lawyering debate where the poorly thought out wording of a writer is being dissected down to what things mean in the english language. Unfortunately, such is the standard fare we receive from GW.

I'll do you a better one because we all know there's no such thing as B..it would typically read 'man shot AND killed with gun" in real world news.

A: Man shot and mortally wounded, dies on way to hospital.

B: Man shot and killed.

However the debate is not in A or B, the debate here is on C

C: Man struck by lightning and disappears, presumed dead.

The fact is REMOVED FROM PLAY does not = KILLED. It is simply removed. Most (if not all) of the removed from play effects aren't your run of the mill kills, they sent enemies packing to another dimension, obliterate them in some spectacular way or just do something else really nasty from where they shouldn't be able to just rebuild themselves from.

If it doesn't state that it is a casualty then we would be wrong to assume that it is.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And I'm curious - when I attempt to use plain English to define the difference, you say I can't because the rules are defined. When you say the rules aren't defined so use plain English, somehow it's okay?

BRB describes casualties as the losses of a unit.

False. It defines one of the ways to cause a Morale test. You're trying to take a specific definition and apply it generally.
And you've failed to address the fact that trying to use that as a definition would mean that "RFPaaC" means you "RFPaa 25% loss to your unit".

that means they are an exception, then you must base it on an existing rule that describes the exception ie do models that die from RFP trigger a morale check? There is absolutely nothing. You tried using just the English language to point that RFP models are not casualties, but as I said even in plain english they would be considered casualties.

For the purposes of morale yes - because that rule cites losses, not simply casualties.
In plain English the two phrases are different. They cannot be considered to mean the same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

No - I don't forget. If the FAQ is worded loosely you can use it for precedent. The St. C. FAQ isn't worded loosely at all - it's very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer.

The Baal Predator-smoke launcher is also very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer. And yet all other vehicles can use it too. The St Celestine-RFP is the same case.

And for the Baal Predator applying elsewhere I admitted that it was not RAW that it applied. I said that it demonstrated probable intent.
You've refused to consider that your making an argument for intent, so I haven't been addressing that. If you'd like to discuss intent we can.

All losses are casualties. Are victims of jotWW considered losses? Yes.
If the victims-models are 25% of the unit will they trigger a casualties morale check? Yes.

Removed from play models are considered casualties. And don't forget that SoB FAQ.

I was going to make the statement that perhaps people on YMDC like reading into things but that would be a silly claim to make...

This reminds me of a similar discussion as to whether Necron Lords can get back up after failing to stop a tank that attempted a tank shock... which they do btw

 Akaiyou wrote:

The fact is REMOVED FROM PLAY does not = KILLED. It is simply removed. Most (if not all) of the removed from play effects aren't your run of the mill kills, they sent enemies packing to another dimension, obliterate them in some spectacular way or just do something else really nasty from where they shouldn't be able to just rebuild themselves from.

If it doesn't state that it is a casualty then we would be wrong to assume that it is.

Sorry, but if we're bringing fluffy-ness into this then we're going way off track. Though I don't know the page numbers or anything, I know in the past that GW has described in their books that "not all casualties are dead models, some are simply rendered combat ineffective." obviously I'm paraphrasing, but put into an example where models that run off the board, while not dead, are "removed from play as casualties" as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I was going to make the statement that perhaps people on YMDC like reading into things but that would be a silly claim to make...

This reminds me of a similar discussion as to whether Necron Lords can get back up after failing to stop a tank that attempted a tank shock... which they do btw

?? No, they wouldn't, as the death or glory rule does specifically say "the model is removed, regardless of wounds, saves, or any other clever way of staying alive they can think of."

In context of THIS debate, note the rule says "Model is Removed" and does not say "From Play" or "As a casualty".

Though this could bring up a good debate on whether failed DoG grants first blood or not.

copper.talos wrote:
All losses are casualties for the purposes of morale. Are victims of jotWW considered losses in that context? Yes.

Fixed that for you. Ignoring context is a bad idea.

Removed from play models are considered casualties. And don't forget that SoB FAQ.

So you're arguing intent now?

rigeld2 wrote:

And for the Baal Predator applying elsewhere I admitted that it was not RAW that it applied. I said that it demonstrated probable intent.

This is a rules forum, we discuss questions about rules. Most of the times those questions do not have a 100% RAW answer so we should try to give an answer as fair as possible.
The question is can baal use the smoke launchers when doing a scout move. It's a valid question, it made it to the FAQ didn't it? We have an answer. Now it is only logical that the same valid question may come up in a game with another vehicle. But in this case there is no FAQ. One can either stop the game and stop playing against armies that don't have all the issues faqed or try to find a fair answer. So we use the Baal FAQ.

Same thing applies to the St Celestine FAQ. The same question may come up with Necrons. There is no 100% RAW answer, but to be fair one can use the SoB FAQ. If tomorrow the SoB FAQ changes to "No", then I would still say to use the St Celestine FAQ for Necrons.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And for the Baal Predator applying elsewhere I admitted that it was not RAW that it applied. I said that it demonstrated probable intent.

This is a rules forum, we discuss questions about rules. Most of the times those questions do not have a 100% RAW answer so we should try to give an answer as fair as possible.
The question is can baal use the smoke launchers when doing a scout move. It's a valid question, it made it to the FAQ didn't it? We have an answer. Now it is only logical that the same valid question may come up in a game with another vehicle. But in this case there is no FAQ. One can either stop the game and stop playing against armies that don't have all the issues faqed or try to find a fair answer. So we use the Baal FAQ.

Before the FAQ, it was absolutely RAW that the Baal Pred could use smoke launchers during the scout move. Saying that the game would stop without that FAQ is incorrect.

Same thing applies to the St Celestine FAQ. The same question may come up with Necrons. There is no 100% RAW answer, but to be fair one can use the SoB FAQ. If tomorrow the SoB FAQ changes to "No", then I would still say to use the St Celestine FAQ for Necrons.

Right, so you're arguing to demonstrate intent then. No problem - it's just a good idea to make that clear.

Yes - I can agree that based on the St. C FAQ and other indicators, the intent is probable that GW equates the terms.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - I can agree that based on the St. C FAQ and other indicators, the intent is probable that GW equates the terms.

Nice to have an agreement. My fingers were getting tired from all this typing

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - I can agree that based on the St. C FAQ and other indicators, the intent is probable that GW equates the terms.

Nice to have an agreement. My fingers were getting tired from all this typing

Just remember the bolded section - without an FAQ/errata it's not RAW.

It does seem they're trying to phase that out however as most of the newer codices seem to use "remove from play as a casualty" for everything.

Actually Kev it allowed as the model is not kept alive by any sneaky rules as per the BRB. a tekn is placed to represent the fallen model, and if the necessary roll is made, then the model replaces the token. It has been ruled that since the model was removed as a casualty, he is in compliance, and the codex allows the model to be returned to play.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Actually Kev it allowed as the model is not kept alive by any sneaky rules as per the BRB. a tekn is placed to represent the fallen model, and if the necessary roll is made, then the model replaces the token. It has been ruled that since the model was removed as a casualty, he is in compliance, and the codex allows the model to be returned to play.

Where has it been ruled it's removed as a casualty? The rule book simply says "removed". If they meant removed as a casualty they would have said so. It doesn't even say "removed from play" which would/should be shorthand for RFPaaC.

So easily my argument was cast aside. First blood is a fine example - it may be poorly worded but that's a debate for elsewhee. It says RaaC. There is no way around that - arguably a vehicle can be a casualty but you cannot pick and choose when you apply RFP as RaaC and when you apply it as RaaC. You either always do it or never. Things on a table must have rules or else you get stuck. My example on page 1 is a good example - is a model a counter and vice versa? Then it becomes invincible scoring. If it isn't a unit? Well then you have something totally impassible - it isn't terrain so you cannot move over them. If you house rule you can then you still get an issue with several other interactions such as tank shocking. It's a silly attempt to justify something not written and which goes against common sense.

As for the intent arguments, they're even worse. The tesseract labyrinth is an example of this. Powerful enough to enslave gods but not quite as good as making a hole in the floor? Come on. Combined with the fact RFP is only in Phil Kelly codices and you are shouting at the sea. Necrons are powerful but this argument has no basis in reality.

Eyjio wrote:
arguably a vehicle can be a casualty

No, really - that's not arguable. They can't.

Things on a table must have rules or else you get stuck.

Um... no? I put my pen on the table. There's no rules for this.

My example on page 1 is a good example - is a model a counter and vice versa? Then it becomes invincible scoring. If it isn't a unit? Well then you have something totally impassible - it isn't terrain so you cannot move over them. If you house rule you can then you still get an issue with several other interactions such as tank shocking. It's a silly attempt to justify something not written and which goes against common sense.

No - counters are counters. There's no rules for interaction so you ... don't interact.

As for the intent arguments, they're even worse. The tesseract labyrinth is an example of this. Powerful enough to enslave gods but not quite as good as making a hole in the floor? Come on. Combined with the fact RFP is only in Phil Kelly codices and you are shouting at the sea. Necrons are powerful but this argument has no basis in reality.

That's fluff - have fun with that.

Eyjio wrote:
So easily my argument was cast aside. First blood is a fine example - it may be poorly worded but that's a debate for elsewhee. It says RaaC. There is no way around that - arguably a vehicle can be a casualty but you cannot pick and choose when you apply RFP as RaaC and when you apply it as RaaC. You either always do it or never. Things on a table must have rules or else you get stuck. My example on page 1 is a good example - is a model a counter and vice versa? Then it becomes invincible scoring. If it isn't a unit? Well then you have something totally impassible - it isn't terrain so you cannot move over them. If you house rule you can then you still get an issue with several other interactions such as tank shocking. It's a silly attempt to justify something not written and which goes against common sense.

As for the intent arguments, they're even worse. The tesseract labyrinth is an example of this. Powerful enough to enslave gods but not quite as good as making a hole in the floor? Come on. Combined with the fact RFP is only in Phil Kelly codices and you are shouting at the sea. Necrons are powerful but this argument has no basis in reality.

Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Eyjio wrote:
So easily my argument was cast aside. First blood is a fine example - it may be poorly worded but that's a debate for elsewhee. It says RaaC. There is no way around that - arguably a vehicle can be a casualty

As already stated, but I'd like to add that the "It will not die" special rule adds a slightly clearer distinction between casualty and destroyed as well. Honestly, reading that special rule made me start to re-think vehicles granting first blood at all. But it doesn't matter to me anymore, honestly.

rigeld2 wrote:No, really - that's not arguable. They can't

Okay, they don't grant first blood then. Seems reasonable. They don't bleed after all. Doesn't help you as that's RAW. That's also for a different thread - the point stands. Either you treat them equally or not. You cannot pick and choose.

Um... no? I put my pen on the table. There's no rules for this.

You ignore the pen which is different to it having no rules. It would impede play were you forced to incorporate it in the same way. This is a dodge because you can see how it's a ridiculous scenario. Why do you suppose the writers intended RFP and RaaC to be different? All it does is creates oddities. I mean using the definition of casualty it makes no sense and they aren't clearly distinguished in any scenario, be it the BRB or FAQ so there must be SOME logical reason?

That's fluff - have fun with that.

Of course it is, that was why I said the INTENT arguments were absurd. You know, in the same way yours is as the rules don't distinguish and it makes nothing but problems when you do.

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

Kevin949 wrote:As already stated, but I'd like to add that the "It will not die" special rule adds a slightly clearer distinction between casualty and destroyed as well. Honestly, reading that special rule made me start to re-think vehicles granting first blood at all. But it doesn't matter to me anymore, honestly.

Interesting. Never noticed that before. It's clearly done for vehicles too. Maybe first blood is significantly harder to get vs mech than I thought. Nevermind, it doesn't change anything.

I know this has come across as aggressive and I'm sorry for that. It just frustrates me that people try to weasel massive holes in the rules then blame GW for.not being completely precise and FAQing literally every exception even with clear precidents set.

Eyjio wrote:

You ignore the pen which is different to it having no rules. It would impede play were you forced to incorporate it in the same way. This is a dodge because you can see how it's a ridiculous scenario. Why do you suppose the writers intended RFP and RaaC to be different? All it does is creates oddities. I mean using the definition of casualty it makes no sense and they aren't clearly distinguished in any scenario, be it the BRB or FAQ so there must be SOME logical reason?

It's not a ridiculous scenario. You have no rules requiring interaction with those counters. You have no rules requiring interaction with the pen. Trying to say the counters are special doesn't make sense.

It's not my job to divine why the writers wanted to make them different. Perhaps to have a way of removing things so that they could not come back from WBB/RP/EL?

They are clearly distinguished - the fact that the phrases are different is all the difference required.

Of course it is, that was why I said the INTENT arguments were absurd. You know, in the same way yours is as the rules don't distinguish and it makes nothing but problems when you do.

You're creating problems where there are none.

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

You're right, it does say the first unit removed as a casualty. I was away from my book when I posted and was unsure if it said RaaC or RFPaaC so I used the generic "removed". As it is Units are never removed as a casualty except in the two listed situations. Every other time it is models that are removed.

Urgh, it's like talking to a wall.

You don't get first blood. This is a problem.

You get phantom counters. This is absurd.

They have never said the phrases are different and regularly use one in place of the other.

Can you literally not see how ridiculous this is? It's like drawing a line between "killing" a unit and "destroying" a unit. No practical difference and English equates the two, yet hyper literally, they are not the same phrase so cannot be the same rules wise. It's foolish and creates absurdities but it's still playable. At this point I don't even know if you're trolling. You cannot get around either the counters or first blood. The only way it functions is if they are the same. That alone should be enough and the fact it isn't is ringing alarm bells.

"They have never said the phrases are different and regularly use one in place of the other. "

yes they have (because the words are different) and I assume you have some actual rules quotes for the latter claim? Given they actually dont use the two terms interchangeably

Happyjew wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

You're right, it does say the first unit removed as a casualty. I was away from my book when I posted and was unsure if it said RaaC or RFPaaC so I used the generic "removed". As it is Units are never removed as a casualty except in the two listed situations. Every other time it is models that are removed.

Easy mistake. However, you're still wrong - p15 3rd paragraph says "If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty". That covers shooting. Assault has similar wording on p25. So there are many ways to be a casualty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"They have never said the phrases are different and regularly use one in place of the other. "

yes they have (because the words are different) and I assume you have some actual rules quotes for the latter claim? Given they actually dont use the two terms interchangeably

The last laugh FAQ switches. Everliving switches. That's 2 from the top of my head. Sweeping advance also changed from 5th despite RP explicitly denying it I note. It is also totally functionally unchanged. On top of that, functionally equivalent weapons which require a characteristic test or death are all RaaC in Wardexes and all RFP in Kellydexes. Your move.

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

You're right, it does say the first unit removed as a casualty. I was away from my book when I posted and was unsure if it said RaaC or RFPaaC so I used the generic "removed". As it is Units are never removed as a casualty except in the two listed situations. Every other time it is models that are removed.

Easy mistake. However, you're still wrong - p15 3rd paragraph says "If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty". That covers shooting. Assault has similar wording on p25. So there are many ways to be a casualty.

Good job, you have found how models are RaaC. Now other than the two scenarios I mentioned (SA and Falling Back) please show me how a unit is RaaC (which is what First Blood requires).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way I realised another reason why EL cannot be used after being swept. The models are not removed as casualties, the unit is. Since in order for RP to work the model has to be removed as a casualty.

Edit: Said RP not EL, oops.

...still p15. The sentence immediately after says "Continue allocating unsaved Wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left or the whole unit has been removed as casualties."

Pretty clear. All models RaaC=unit RaaC. Of course this also breaks if the last model is RFP and RFP is different but frankly one problem is enough. There is just no way out.

Ey - no, you have found where modes are removed as casualties. The rule for FB requires the unit to be removed as a casualty.

Last Laugh does NOT say removed from play and removed from play as a casualty are the same. Your move.

Everliving only covers RfPaaC. Your move.

try some quotes, that would help

Get your own quotes, I'm typing from a phone. Everliving says where the model was RFP in the first or second paragraph. Not RaaC, not RFPaaC though that occurs later, it says RFP. The last laugh uses RaaC but the FAQ uses RFP. They are valid examples.

As for the ridiculous assertion that units=/=all models in a unit, I covered that above on p15. This is exactly what I was moaning about earlier - you can't admit you're wrong so are trying to force open imaginary loopholes.

Eyjio wrote:
Get your own quotes, I'm typing from a phone. Everliving says where the model was RFP in the first or second paragraph. Not RaaC, not RFPaaC though that occurs later, it says RFP. The last laugh uses RaaC but the FAQ uses RFP. They are valid examples.

As for the ridiculous assertion that units=/=all models in a unit, I covered that above on p15. This is exactly what I was moaning about earlier - you can't admit you're wrong so are trying to force open imaginary loopholes.

RP (and EL) the very first sentence "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty..." EL then says to place a counter where the model was removed from play, that is correct, however, that is a reference to the first sentence which specifically says "as a casualty". This is the same as the FAQ regarding Last Laugh. It uses removed from play in reference to RFPaaC (similar to how I used "removed" earlier referring to RaaC).

I never claimed otherwise. I was asked to show where they had been switched and so I did. If it said RFP first I suspect this debate wouldn't exist.

They aren't "switched".
Te context of the latter reference means that "as a casualty" must be inferred.

They ARE switched. In one part it says one, in the next the other. This is now ignoring the issues from before. They are switched from a grammatical stance. I didn't equate them and it's irrelevant to the real problem that you cannot make first blood work under your interpretation.

Eyjio wrote:
They ARE switched. In one part it says one, in the next the other. This is now ignoring the issues from before. They are switched from a grammatical stance. I didn't equate them and it's irrelevant to the real problem that you cannot make first blood work under your interpretation.

As you said, First Blood is for a different thread and already doesn't work RAW.

Context proves they are not switched. If you ignore context you're right - but that leads to other miserable failures and impossible rules.

No, I said it was for another thread to decide upon whether vehicles count. First blood itself is totally functional otherwise. Well, unless you don't treat RFP as RaaC, then it breaks.

And with that we've looped. I'm going to bed, let me know how you attempt to get first blood meanwhile, it'll be more interesting than this Stochastic Processes module...

Theres really no compromise, as of yet, whether Jotww or Last laugh still allows RP or EL. Rather than getting of topic can we stick with the matter at hand. This topic of discussion is quite interesting and I will like to see what Dakka compromises the result to be.

Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

In other words, you are saying that while Jaws does not currently allow RP or EL the RAI strongly points in the favour of the Necrons?

If this does end up being the case, when do you make the distinction in using RAI rather than RAW in a game?

I would only imagine that GW would only address this issue through the use of a FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

The latter is true. The former is based on an abstraction which requires the assumption that being removed and being a casualty are separate. It's "RAW" only from a hyper literal view which, as I've said is the same as not equating destroyed and killed. So it is in fact an RAI argument as it assumes the intent of the author. The argument against simply points out where that breaks.

 sounddemon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

In other words, you are saying that while Jaws does not currently allow RP or EL the RAI strongly points in the favour of the Necrons?

If this does end up being the case, when do you make the distinction in using RAI rather than RAW in a game?

I would only imagine that GW would only address this issue through the use of a FAQ.

When RAI is absolutely obvious, I go with it (for example, majority toughness/WS in a challenge).
When it's not absolutely obvious and my opponent disagrees with the RAW reading I'll roll off and not have any issue playing it either way.
I'm generally a pretty easy-going guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

The latter is true. The former is based on an abstraction which requires the assumption that being removed and being a casualty are separate. It's "RAW" only from a hyper literal view which, as I've said is the same as not equating destroyed and killed. So it is in fact an RAI argument as it assumes the intent of the author. The argument against simply points out where that breaks.

It's not a RAI argument - it's the actual words on the page. I'm not reading intent into it.

And it doesn't break anything. You haven't proven that at all.

You don't think not getting first blood and having Reanimation Protocols counters in perpetuity isn't breaking? Then you dodge my point about your argument completely even though p29 clearly defines casualties as models being removed, which is undeniable also. You argue you're not going for intent but when issued with evidence they switch in some entries for reasons of fluency and to not repeat casualty, you still argue it must be different.

We're done here. You are wrong and will not see it. There is little point continuing this.

Eyjio wrote:
You don't think not getting first blood and having Reanimation Protocols counters in perpetuity isn't breaking?

First Blood is already broken, and I've addressed the counters - they break nothing.

Then you dodge my point about your argument completely even though p29 clearly defines casualties as models being removed, which is undeniable also.

Page 29 "defines" casualties as a 25% loss. If you want to use that definition, every time you're told to RFPaaC you must remove 25% of the unit.

You argue you're not going for intent but when issued with evidence they switch in some entries for reasons of fluency and to not repeat casualty, you still argue it must be different.

We're done here. You are wrong and will not see it. There is little point continuing this.

No, that's exactly my point. When you read each occurrence individually it looks like they use them interchangably. That's not how you read English however - you have to read the paragraph as a whole to understand this little thing called "context". It's pretty important to understanding what someone has written.

Humour me then, in what way exactly is first blood broken? How is it more broken than making RP bug out? Oh yeah, it isn't.

Wrong on casualties too, what a shock. You take a morale check for losing 25% of your models but the example shows us losing a model is a casualty. It's called casualties because if you remove a model... they're a casualty. Which handily brings us to your last point.

Context. It's funny how ironic this is. You are fufilling every condition in English to call the removal a casualty. You refuse to as it isn't explicitly called one in the codex. Taken in context, you cannot do that - it literally makes no sense to do so. The model has died as a mental construct. It is a casualty. It doesn't make sense to not be. This is akin to the ridiculous arguments that you can have damaging non weapons in 40k. You go against English without permission to do so.

As I said, you are wrong. You are wrong RAW, RAI and in English itself. Not quite sure how you aren't getting that.

Or,perhaps, Rigeld isnt.

I suggest you look back over the history of this; you have shown no new argument on this.

I have. There is no need when the arguments weren't disproven.

For morale they're considered casualties. For RP they are not. That is illogical.

First blood doesn't allow anything that isn't RaaC. You wouldn't get it killing a model with jaws and it isn't demonstrably broken itself. That is illogical.

In English the action you are doing is in the definition of casualties. You don't call it one as it doesn't say the word anywhere. That is illogical.

RaaC and RFP are regularly switched yet you hold onto the idea they are separate because it only happens in certain entries. That is narrow minded.

Functionally identical weapons in different codices use different wording. In Phil Kelly's they are RFP. In Mat Ward's they are RaaC. There is no other difference to the functionality yet you treat them as totally separate entities. That is almost ridiculous and definitely stupid.

RP counters clearly go wrong. You can say it's not breaking but it's obviously unintended behaviour. That is foolish again.

The fun thing is I do have more places it makes these illogical bits in the rules now - I don't need them. Not one point was refuted. Not one. I expect another "lol yeah but it doesnt say casualty" even though you're happy to bend it for morale. Enjoy playing the game wrong I guess. Do remember not to cheatily give yourself first blood though.

ERm, yep, they were - couple of times. You just aggressively yelled "youre wrong" and ignored thew arguments.