Greetings and Salutations,
These things I think I shall keep short and sweet, so two simple questions this week for those who want to play along:
When does a Model gain access to the Special Rules listed on the Datasheet?
In what situations do they lose access to the Special Rules listed on the Datasheet?
You know, lets move things up a little and ask the same question but for wargear, that one was so beautiful to read when I was gone and is likely the same answer:
When does a Model gain access to the Rules attached to the Wargear listed on the Datasheet?
In what situations do they lose access to the Rules attached to the Wargear listed on the Datasheet?
There is one thing I would humbly request, and that is that we ignore the 'More then One Weapon' situation as it was well documented recently enough that people can go back and read all that needs to be said.
Now I will go silent unless directly poked, cause I don't want to lead the discussion on this baseline.
The Datasheet has a list of Special Rules granted to the Models in said Unit... when exactly does said Model have access to those Rules? Pre-game? After deployment? At the start of turn 1?
Off the table? In reserves? When Embarked? When a Casualty?
After the last turn are they still, technically, in play?
Some questions for Rules attached to pieces of war-gear.
The answer, as always with questions this broad, is "depends".
They always have the rule, unless something (including the rule's wording) tells us they don't (More Than One Weapon being another example).
Marneus Calgar always has Eternal Warrior, even when packed away in your closet. A Space Marine Captain with a Lightning Claw always has Shred, unless he's attacking with a different weapon. Illuminor Szeras always has a specific Warlord Trait, unless you've nominated someone else as your Warlord. Etc, etc, etc.
I will say that this is a general statement that can't necessarily be applied in every situation. You'd need to give specific rules examples if you have something in mind.
I was hoping people would get curious with some of these questions and begin to probe for themselves, come to conclusions and then inform us what those conclusions are on their own merits. Not to mention I hate being the Opening Poster and the person dominating a thread at the same time, seems sort of masturbatory. Oh well, I guess I will just have to return to the default way things are handled here... bring up broken situations and then yell at people to provide Rule Quotes when they provide How I Would Play it responses as if they where the actual Rules.
The problem was simple: What wording in the Special Rule, either the body of the Rule itself or those granting permission to access the Rule, prevent them from applying to Models removed as a Casualty?
Clearly, I guess I will have to condone myself with the fact Rule as Written allow me to have Feel No Pain on my Noise Marines even after the banner bearer is killed, and others shenanigans, as no one wants to provide a Rule which strip access to these Rules. Not to mention the numerous way to bring 'Unit Wide effects' while still being on a single Model, the fact they remain part of the Unit and still have access to Special Rules makes them a massive multiplier, as simply killing them is no longer an option to remove the multiplier.
Of course, does make my prime 'Character Hunter' useless... she used to be very good at picking off Models that grant 'Unit Wide' Special Rules or war-gear.
JinxDragon wrote: I was hoping people would get curious with some of these questions and begin to probe for themselves, come to conclusions and then inform us what those conclusions are on their own merits. I guess I will just have to return to the default way things are handled here, bring up broken situations and then yell at people to provide Rule Quotes when they provide How I Would Play it responses as if they where the actual Rules.
The problem is simple:
What wording in the Special Rule itself prevents them from applying to a Model removed as a Casualty?
Same with Wargear?
Jinx, it entirely depends on which rule you're talking about. If Marneus Calgar is removed as a Casualty, he still has Eternal Warrior. Eternal Warrior just won't do anything outside the context of a model being on the table and taking a wound. The overwhelming majority of rules work this way. Shred is useless outside of combat or off the table. A unit with Stealth can't practically benefit from the +1 to cover save if they're in Ongoing Reserves. They still have Stealth... they still get +1 to cover save. They'll just never use it while in Ongoing Reserves.
Do you have an example of a rule you think would cause an issue when a model is removed as a casualty?
Kriswall: Any Special Rule containing the 'One or Model in the Unit' wording would thus cause problems, if there is nothing which removes access when they are 'off the table.' I am trying to find that something!
JinxDragon wrote: Clearly,
I guess I will have to condone myself with the fact Rule as Written allow me to have Feel No Pain on my Noise Marines even after the banner bearer is killed, and others shenanigans, as no one wants to provide a Rule which strip access to these Rules. Not to mention the numerous way to bring 'Unit Wide effects' while still being on a single Model, the fact they remain part of the Unit and still have access to Special Rules makes them a massive multiplier, as simply killing them is no longer an option to remove the multiplier.
Of course, does make my prime 'Character Hunter' useless... she used to be very good at picking off Models that grant 'Unit Wide' Special Rules or war-gear.
Please read the "How do I know what special rules I have" section of the rulebook.
JinxDragon wrote: Kriswall:
Any Special Rule containing the 'One or Model in the Unit' wording would thus cause problems, if there is nothing which removes access when they are 'off the table.'
I am trying to find that something!
Ah, I see what you're beginning to get at.
This connects back to your previous, 'is a dead model still considered part of a unit' question.
My take...
A model which has been removed as a casualty is still part of the Unit for army list purposes. HOWEVER, he's not currently in the Unit. He's off the table. He would still have access to his Special Rules... but again, they wouldn't do anything as he's been removed as a casualty and moved out of the unit and off the table. He's still part of the unit for something like VP calculations. He's just not "in the Unit".
Kriswall Indeed, that is why I wanted to split the two apart without making it damn obvious. Trying to get people to focus on both sides of the problem before they consider how the two situations are interacting and try to dismiss the interaction itself. Didn't handle the matter all that great but hell, the presentation was part of the experiment itself and I got good enough information from it as well. Just reminds me why I don't open many threads, which is sad because there are so many basic problems people over look that I probably won't touch now.... Such as the lack of 'move around' instructions making it impossible to move around terrain without it taking a roughly three turns!
I do have a request before I proceed, as I am at work: Can you PM me the wording of Tank Hunter and a few of the other so I can confirm some things... I don't think I am forgetting something, just want to make sure before I proceed.
JinxDragon wrote: Kriswall
Indeed, that is why I wanted to split the two apart without making it damn obvious. Trying to get people to focus on both sides of the problem before they consider how the two situations are interacting and try to dismiss the interaction itself. Didn't handle the matter all that great but hell, the presentation was part of the experiment itself and I got good enough information from it as well. Just reminds me why I don't open many threads, which is sad because there are so many basic problems people over look that I probably won't touch now.... Such as the lack of 'move around' instructions making it impossible to move around terrain without it taking a roughly three turns!
I do have a request before I proceed, as I am at work:
Can you PM me the wording of Tank Hunter and a few of the other so I can confirm some things... I don't think I am forgetting something, just want to make sure before I proceed.
I can appreciate you wanting to break an argument down into its constituent parts. However, due to the complexity of the game and the many interactions contained therein, it is not an efficient method of communication, and looking at it in parts can lead to improper understandings. For example, the armour penetration roll is Strength + a D6 roll. No one would argue that. However, there are many situations where this is incorrect! If a model is modifying their strength, has a bonus to armour penetration rolls, has armourbane, or counts armour as being lower than the printed value, are all additional situations that might influence the end result.
Following this example, we're worried that you might show up and ask how armour penetration worked. Say we explained, as above, that it was the Strength + D6 roll. But then you might turn around and say that your opponent's Bright Lance armour penetration roll of 5 didn't penetrate or even glance the Leman Russ's front armour of 14, because Strength + D6 was 13. We'd then have to go back and re-explain how, as an exception to that rule, the Brightlance counts the vehicle's armour as being 12, and not 14, and so works. It makes the previously asked question pointless, and at worse causes issues when you go to apply the result in-game.
In this instance, your actual question that you and Kriswall discussed was a valid question! How do you distinguish a model from a unit when a model with a special rule confers a benefit to a unit, and then that model leaves the table? Where in the rules does it state that the unit loses the special rule? But just asking "when does a unit have a special rule?" is misleading. The basic idea is "well, always, whether it's on the table or in your display case, unless a rule says that it no longer has it, and even then it'll just be for the duration of the game". But obviously, if a model has a special rule that it confers to the unit, and the model is removed from the unit, then why shouldn't the model continue to apply its benefit? It's a vastly different question, even if the two may deal with similar-looking things.
As to answer that question, units only exist on the table, and in reserve. In your army list, they are dataslate entries. The dataslate entry's special rules apply at all times, even outside of a game. However, the dataslate entry's special rules won't (generally) be able to apply to anything until the game starts and the units are "created" to be placed onto the table or in reserves.
JinxDragon wrote: Then quote the whole of the four or five related Rules, underline the part which negates the quoted Clause and explain why it does so.
First, let's address the entire rule, and not the butchered version, shall we?
A unit that contains at least one model with this special rule...
(snipped because you're trying to discuss this more general statement and not a specific rule)
Well, how do we know if a model has a special rule?
It may seem obvious, but unless stated otherwise, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type.
Awesome!
Does that mean Army List Entries are used by things not in play? Well, let's back up a bit. What's a model?
Spoiler:
The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as ‘models’ in the rules that follow. Models represent a huge variety of troops, from noble Space Marines and brutal Orks to Warp-spawned Daemons. To reflect all their differences, each model has its own characteristics profile.
And what are Army List Entries?
Spoiler:
Army List Entries
The rules for your Citadel miniatures are found in a wide range of Games Workshop publications, such as codexes, codex supplements and dataslates.
Regardless of where this information is found, it is known as an Army List Entry. Each Army List Entry describes a unit of Citadel miniatures and includes everything you will need to know in order to use that unit in a game of Warhammer 40,000.
In some older codexes, the information for a single unit’s Army List Entry is spread out amongst different sections of the book. Taken together they describe, and are treated for all rules purposes as, a single Army List Entry. When using such a codex, each unit’s Faction is the same as its codex title. For example, all units in Codex: Space Marines belong to the Space Marines Faction, whilst all units in Codex: Chaos Daemons belong to the Chaos Daemons Faction.
Okay, so does the special rule in question exist on the Army List Entry? We'll go with your FNP example.
All models with the Mark of Slannesh in a unit equipped with an icon of excess have the Feel No Pain special rule
Poorly written as it is - the unit can't be equipped with an Icon, only a model in the unit can.
One model in the unit may take an icon of excess...
As opposed to
The unit may take the Veterans of the Long War special rule...
But let's roll with it.
For your assertion to be true, a model must remain part of a unit even while removed as a casualty. Agreed?
If the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.
The rulebook is pretty loose with "RFP" and "RFPaaC", mostly because it equates the terms here. It also uses another phrase to mean the same thing.
f at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
If a model has been removed from play as a casualty (because its Wounds have been reduced to zero) why are you still using it in play? Asserting that the unit still has an icon of excess even though it's been removed from play is absolutely using it in play.
To make a long story short (too late) your premise fails and as such any conclusion based on that premise also fails. Models that have been removed from play cannot be used in play - by definition.
From the Forming a Unit section... "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organized into 'units'."
So, if all models must belong to a unit, what happens when a model dies? Do you form a new unit for each model that is removed as a casualty? I would say no. I would say that nowhere in the rules are we told to form a new unit. As such, we're forced to admit that the model is still "organized" into that same, original unit.
I think this is a fundamental flaw in the game.
1. All models are organized into units.
2. When a model is removed as a casualty, we're not told to form a new unit.
3. Models removed as a casualty must still be organized into the same, original unit.
4. The unit still contains that model if that model is still organized into that unit.
5. We are told that models/units can gain special rules from an army list entry.
6. We are never told that models lose rules when they are removed as a casualty.
7. Special rules such as Shrouded should work for a unit even if the bearer has been removed as a casualty because the model still has the rule and the unit still contains the model (since the model hasn't been organized into a different unit)
Now, common sense says I'm wrong. This can't possibly be how the rules work. Maybe I'm missing some key piece of information. I hope so. This is a stupid loophole that I will never argue for in a real game example. I think it's just another example of extremely sloppy writing.
When does a Model gain access to the Special Rules listed on the Datasheet?
They don't 'gain access'. They have all the special rules listed on the datasheet the moment the models are organized into a legal unit using that datasheet.
In what situations do they lose access to the Rules attached to the Wargear listed on the Datasheet?
The model never looses the rule as it never had it in the 1st place. Instead the wargear looses the rule whenever we are told they loose the rule by any legal source.
Kriswall wrote: From the Forming a Unit section... "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organized into 'units'."
So, if all models must belong to a unit, what happens when a model dies? .
It is removed from play, and so is functionally no longer a part of the army.
A perfectly reasonable assumption, and extremely more then likely the RAI. Unfortunately the RAW makes no such assertion. If you look it this from a purely RAW perspective, and you absolutely should not, then a model removed as a casualty is still a model in your army, in that unit, and still has all his special rules.
In which case, as Nos pointed out before, your casualties and the remaining unit members will need to move to regain coherency, which is going to make playing out the rest of the game somewhat problematic.
Kriswall wrote: From the Forming a Unit section... "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organized into 'units'."
So, if all models must belong to a unit, what happens when a model dies? .
It is removed from play, and so is functionally no longer a part of the army.
A perfectly reasonable assumption, and extremely more then likely the RAI. Unfortunately the RAW makes no such assertion. If you look it this from a purely RAW perspective, and you absolutely should not, then a model removed as a casualty is still a model in your army, in that unit, and still has all his special rules.
So you're using it in ply despite the fact that it has been removed from play?
And you're saying that you have rules to support that?
I'd love to see that. Truly I would.
Rigeld2, Putting aside that the few few additional words you quoted changed very little, I will apologize for the oversight. Thank you for a whole bunch of additional Rules that had very little to do with the situation. I will sit here pondering for a while, where in the simple questions put forth did anyone ask what Models are or or what an Army List Entry / Datasheet was, before we get to the point that actually matters. In any case, let us look at what you quoted for the Rule that actually does matter, and a very important one at that, thank you.
REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’. Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned.
Take a look at the wording you quoted and realize there is a problem, you are reversing the sentence to fit your interpretation. I do not see anything within this section that informs me that Models are Removed from Play when they are Removed as a Casualty. The sentence states that models Removed from Play are also considered to have been Removed as a Casualty. This creates an additional effect on 'removed from play,' and while it might be a good Rule to use as an example I don't see how it fixes the problem in and of itself. It also reeks of vestigial, harking back to days where things like Jaws of the World Wolf could wipe whole units 'from play' and other far more common things of those times.
Do you have anything more to support it aside from common sense?
No, because this Rule is not Written to state that at all till you can answer this questions for me:
Where in that rule does it state anything being Removed as a Casualty is to also be considered as having been Removed from Play?
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice Rule and very important but not for the purpose you are using it. It exists to prevent people like me from arguing that the Removed from Play Rules trump anything that can prevent a Model from being Removed as a Casualty. It doesn't, however, state that being Removed as a Casualty causes the Model to also be Removed from Play, but only the opposite. Maybe it was meant to, maybe the Authors want some Special Rules to stay in play when something dies... but the wording you quoted is also considered and re-writing the sentence to read it in reverse, then calling it Rules as Written is not enough.
I just wish I had more time to pull other Rules apart, ones that specifically state 'while alive' and effect Models after being Removed as a Casualty to see what breaks under your interpretation. I don't really care which way the breaks occur, I just find the very poor wording in these Rules something to always consider, but enough time spent on this for I. Work and more work calls to me the morning, and friends hate me enough as it is. I do say one thing in closing, before leaving the floor open to anyone what might want to continue.
Thank you for your input Rigeld2, at least you quoted a friggen Rule and put some spine into it!
Others seemed so willing to simply state 'oh yeah, sure, part of the Unit still unless specifically mentioned otherwise.... Then remain completely silent when asked if that means these sort of things continue to have an effect on the game, till they had a fragment of a Rule to hide behind.
insaniak wrote: In which case, as Nos pointed out before, your casualties and the remaining unit members will need to move to regain coherency, which is going to make playing out the rest of the game somewhat problematic.
Agreed, which is why I said I think this is a fundamental problem with how the rules are written. I certainly don't think anyone would really play this way.
Indeed, I like a Broadside with Heavy Rail Rifle, Champion rank (To lazy to look at the proper rank right now), and Targeting Array for a reason! So we know how I play it, beautiful as she is, she would be useless if she can't couldn't hunt Models with Special Rules and wargear I want gone from play.
insaniak wrote: In which case, as Nos pointed out before, your casualties and the remaining unit members will need to move to regain coherency, which is going to make playing out the rest of the game somewhat problematic.
That and Embarking on transports after a unit loses a model would be impossible if the model that was removed as a casualty is still a part of the unit...
I'm a bit confused as to what the goal of this thread is... I mean, I'm all up for discussion of the interpretation of rules, but is there anything further anyone can say in this thread aside from "yep, GW didn't make absolutely perfect rules, we can't play perfectly RAW"?
Because there genuinely is no further angle to look at here, nothing huge we're missing. It simply boils down to this.... you either assume that a casualty is no longer part of the unit, or any unit that suffers a single casualty creates a wormhole that destroys time and space, because the unit needs to stay in coherency but can't leave the table to maintain coherency with the dead model. Draw a line on the x plane that touches a point on the z plane sort of stuff (assuming the x plane is parallel to the z plane).
So again.... there's no point saying the model is still in the unit. If you try and say the model is in the unit, the unit is destroyed because there's no way to keep it in coherency.... the only way to restore coherency is to remove the whole unit as casualties, or somehow bring back the dead model, only one of which is possible.
JinxDragon wrote: No, because this Rule is not Written to state that at all till you can answer this questions for me:
Where in that rule does it state anything being Removed as a Casualty is to also be considered as having been Removed from Play?
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice Rule and very important but not for the purpose you are using it. It exists to prevent people like me from arguing that the Removed from Play Rules trump anything that can prevent a Model from being Removed as a Casualty. It doesn't, however, state that being Removed as a Casualty causes the Model to also be Removed from Play, but only the opposite. Maybe it was meant to, maybe the Authors want some Special Rules to stay in play when something dies... but the wording you quoted is also considered and re-writing the sentence to read it in reverse, then calling it Rules as Written is not enough.
I just wish I had more time to pull other Rules apart, ones that specifically state 'while alive' and effect Models after being Removed as a Casualty to see what breaks under your interpretation. I don't really care which way the breaks occur, I just find the very poor wording in these Rules something to always consider, but enough time spent on this for I. Work and more work calls to me the morning, and friends hate me enough as it is. I do say one thing in closing, before leaving the floor open to anyone what might want to continue.
Thank you for your input Rigeld2, at least you quoted a friggen Rule and put some spine into it!
Others seemed so willing to simply state 'oh yeah, sure, part of the Unit still unless specifically mentioned otherwise.... Then remain completely silent when asked if that means these sort of things continue to have an effect on the game, till they had a fragment of a Rule to hide behind.
So the rule I quoted that says a model with zero wounds is removed from play as a casualty doesn't mean it's removed from play?
Really?
Did you even read all the rules I quoted?
f at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
As we both know, the shooting phase rules simply refer to this as being removed as a casualty. This means that RaaC is equivalent to RFPaaC.
Technically, by the rules, you need to throw your model into a black hole when it dies to ensure it's been completely destroyed. Since the model no longer exists in this universe, I think it's safe to say that it's no longer part of the unit, because non-existence tends to do that.
EDIT: The book doesn't define completely destroyed, because it assumes that you understand the generally accepted terminology of destroyed. It says to place them to the side, but that they are completely destroyed. It doesn't need to define the continuing existence of a destroyed model because the term "destroyed" has an intrinsic meaning. If "destroy" or "destroyed" didn't have intrinsic meaning, then you couldn't write the rules of Warhammer 40,000, because by the first verb, you'd have to define what the verb means, and couldn't define the verb because it would require an infinite regress of defining. Some language needs to have intrinsic value.
As for my earlier point, I looked up and saw that models don't exist in units until after you purchase them from the Army List Entry, and that you use the Army List Entry to define their existence. Admittedly, I figured this means that a destroyed model is no longer being defined by the Army List entry, because a destroyed and therefore non-existent model no longer exists to be defined.
The rules assume that destroyed has intrinsic meaning. A model that is destroyed is no longer part of a unit, because it no longer exists. We do not need clarification on that.
Yarium wrote: Technically, by the rules, you need to throw your model into a black hole when it dies to ensure it's been completely destroyed. Since the model no longer exists in this universe, I think it's safe to say that it's no longer part of the unit, because non-existence tends to do that.
No, that's not even close to "technically, by the rules" correct.
I'd be the last person to defend GW's rules authoring but let's not exaggerate that much please.
rigeld2 wrote: I'd be the last person to defend GW's rules authoring but let's not exaggerate that much please.
As I clarified in my edit, it actually calls for the models to be placed to the side, I know. The exaggeration is to identify that "destroyed" means "no longer existing" as far as the game is concerned. Once they're "put to the side", they are no longer in the game, and the best way to convey that information is to use the word "destroyed", because an actually destroyed model would no longer be able to be used in the game.
rigeld2 wrote: I'd be the last person to defend GW's rules authoring but let's not exaggerate that much please.
As I clarified in my edit, it actually calls for the models to be placed to the side, I know. The exaggeration is to identify that "destroyed" means "no longer existing" as far as the game is concerned. Once they're "put to the side", they are no longer in the game, and the best way to convey that information is to use the word "destroyed", because an actually destroyed model would no longer be able to be used in the game.
It also says "remove from play" meaning it can't be used in the game. Which is actually the best way to convey that meaning - if they're removed from play you can't play with them.
The core question is "does removed from play equate to removed from the unit".
The rules never say this, but common sense dictates it must be true. Otherwise, a ton of other rules appear to break. In fact, the rules tell us that all models in our army must be organized into units. If a model is removed from play and removed from its unit, then all of a sudden you have a model in your army that is no longer organized into a unit. So... is a model that's been removed as a casualty still a part of your army? If the answer is no, then the requirement to be in a unit goes away.
HIWPI: Removed from play also removes the model from its Unit for the purposes of all special rules interactions. Removed from play models should no longer be considered a part of your army.
If it's removed from play then continuing to consider it part of a unit for any purposes is not leaving it removed from play - you're playing with it, in contrast to the rules.
Remove from play must mean it's removed from the game for all reasons, including being part of a unit.
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
2) Most statements about what special rules a model has do not have an expatriation date. For example, special rules from wargear (optional or standard), or special rules on a datasheet.
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
4) Models are part of units. Again, we have no permission to remove models from units when they are removed from play.
5) Some special rules grant benefits to other members of a unit. These special rules often do not require any member of that unit to be in play.
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
Awesome. So I can use special rule from literally any model in existence? I mean, they aren't in play.
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
Not true. Even Reserves is "in play".
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
If you remove it from play but still use a special rule from it, it's not out of play. Meaning you're not obeying the rules.
rigeld2 wrote: If it's removed from play then continuing to consider it part of a unit for any purposes is not leaving it removed from play - you're playing with it, in contrast to the rules.
Remove from play must mean it's removed from the game for all reasons, including being part of a unit.
100% this.
A model that is removed from play is no longer a part of the unit.
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
Not true. Even Reserves is "in play".
If a Flying monstrous creature is kept in reserves then as soon as it enters play you must choose a flight mode. The flying monstrous creature is clearly in reserves but not in play. There is nothing in the BRB to support the notion that models in reserves are 'in play'. Unless I missed something, in that case please bring up the relevent rule.
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
If you remove it from play but still use a special rule from it, it's not out of play. Meaning you're not obeying the rules.
Can you provide any sort of rule support for that claim? What rules am I not following?
To be clear. I am talking about a strict reading of the RAW. You can either agree the strict reading does not prevent this nonsense or you can quote the rules where it does. Simply put removing the model as a casualty means next to nothing, and removing it from play means literally nothing.
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
Awesome. So I can use special rule from literally any model in existence? I mean, they aren't in play.
No, just those orginised into units using datasheets this game. The models not organised into units using datasheets this game have no special rules .
Why are you cutting it off at "this game"? I can bring the datasheets for literally every model to the game. They don't have to be in play, according to you.
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
Not true. Even Reserves is "in play".
If a Flying monstrous creature is kept in reserves then as soon as it enters play you must choose a flight mode. The flying monstrous creature is clearly in reserves but not in play. There is nothing in the BRB to support the notion that models in reserves are 'in play'. Unless I missed something, in that case please bring up the relevent rule.
What's your point about FMCs? They can only choose a flight mode before they move. They can't move off the table (because there's no rules for it) which is why they need rules on how to manage it.
That said, FMCs do say "If a Flying Monstrous Creature is kept as Reserves then, as soon as it enters play" so models in Reserve also do not get to contribute their abilities as they're demonstrably not in play.
This contradicts numerous other past rulings of things like "... is alive ... " meaning that the rule can be used.
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
If you remove it from play but still use a special rule from it, it's not out of play. Meaning you're not obeying the rules.
Can you provide any sort of rule support for that claim? What rules am I not following?
To be clear. I am talking about a strict reading of the RAW. You can either agree the strict reading does not prevent this nonsense or you can quote the rules where it does. Simply put removing the model as a casualty means next to nothing, and removing it from play means literally nothing.
... This isn't a strict reading of the RAW - it's strictly a fantasy. As in the actual rules don't support what you've stated at all. I've shown that being removed as a casualty is the same thing as removing from play, and if you're not playing with a model you cannot ever use its rules.
Sunhero wrote: So in the same vain can you use special rules like warlord traits while in reserve?
What about special rules conferred by wargear like "staff of change"?
By the rules, no. Because those models are not in play.
Not true. There is no rule stating that your warlord traits do nothing while in reserve. We know they have them but being in play is not a requirement. This is made more clear when you look at warlord traits like Master of Ambush, Master of Manoeuvre, or Strategic Genius. All of these warlord traits have some aspect to them that requires the model not be in play.
It should be noted that models removed as a casualty do not have a functioning warlord trait anymore.
Rig, If the line you quoted had stated 'Remove from Play' instead of 'Remove as a Casualty' then maybe you would have a point.
You keep saying that Remove from Play and Remove as a Casualty are the same thing, from a Rule as Written standpoint, without realizing the Rule you quoted does not state what you keep saying it states. This Clause is a one way relationship that grants Removed as a Casualty status to any Model that is Removed from play... nothing more. It completely fails to do the reverse, grant Removed from Play status to Models Removed as a Casualty, because it mentions nothing about also considering Removed as Casualty Models as having been Removed from Play.
The reason why I can not accept your answer is simple, you keep rewriting the sentence! From: Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties to: Models that are ‘removed as casualties’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed from play
How is changing the subject matters around, and in doing so changing the whole meaning of the original sentence, fit Rule as Written?!
DJGietzen, The reason I don't bring up Warlord traits myself, even though they have a specific 'ends on death' clause, is the way they are granted in the first place. It is not a Special Rule found listed on the Datasheet, even if you have 'set Warlord Traits,' but one granted by other areas in the main Rulebook or Codex's. This grants a little bit of wriggle room when it comes to interpreting the Rule, making it possible to argue that Warlord Traits are under the Army-Wide umbrella, and therefore has to be treated a little differently to Model or Unit specific Rules.
It is a 'tag' granted to a Model by a secondary Rule, not something specific to the Model itself, so it isn't precise enough to be evidence.
Group at Large, I still must state, much to my great humor as my whole point was just to highlight broken situations, in effort to find a way to deny this broken situation we are walking into another equally broken situation:
If you need to be on the table to be 'in play' And you can only access Special Rules when you are 'in play' Then a Model in Deep Strike reserve can never Deep Strike....
Models that are removed as casualties / destroyed take no further part in the battle, and no longer effect the game in any way. This is different from models that are in Reserve / Ongoing Reserve, or embarked in transports. While such models are also removed from the table, they have rules allowing their re-entry, and because they aren't 'dead' can still impact the game. This prevents 'dead' models from using abilities that could influence the outcome of the game such as, reserve manipulation effects, while allowing 'living' models that are off-table to still arrive via Reserve, or grant benefit from Warlord traits, etc.
I believe this is a valid premise, as the game doesn't work otherwise. Eventually, common understanding of language must be accepted in order for a Permissive Ruleset to be functional. One might disagree with this premise, but doing so would seem to indicate that becoming a "Casualty" in 40k simply prevents moving, psychic power use, shooting and assault. It would not stop you from using rules and abilities that exist outside of those contexts. An Astra Militarum's Senior Officer could be placed "to the side" of the table, within 12" of a unit that is still on the board. During the Shooting Phase, he could issue an order to the unit still on the board, as the only conditions preventing him from doing so are if [AM Codex, pg 28] "... he is not locked in combat, embarked in a vehicle or building, falling back, or has gone to ground." Well, that and the SO must be within 12" of the receiving unit.
Failure to accept the opening premise would allow your opponent to do such a thing. His position does not even need to be fixed, as he simply needs to be placed to the side, according to the rules for removing casualties. At some point, reason requires that in the game of 40k, if a model is removed as a casualty, it has no further impact on the game unless given special rules to do so, such as Yarrick's ability to get back up... which is a replacement effect to being immediately removed as a casualty.
Now, to cite rules that support the idea that a model removed as a casualty, such as the bearer of an Icon of Slaanesh, no longer allows their unit to benefit from the rules given by that model.
40k Rulebook, pg 9, Forming a Unit / Units: "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'. -> "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character... or a rampaging monster, is also considered a unit in its own right."
From this, we recognise that units are typically composed of "models". The whole is the sum of its parts. Those parts can change throughout the game, through the loss of models as casualties, or through the joining and leaving of Independent Characters.
40k Rulebook, pg 156, What Special Rules Do I Have?: "It may seem obvious, but unless otherwise stated, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." [Italic emphasis is mine.]
From this, we see that special rules are granted to units when Models within them have those rules. If the model is no longer a part of the unit, through the loss of models as casualties or through the joining / leaving of Independent Characters, the unit likewise loses those special rules.
40k Rulebook, pg 166, Independent Character: {Joining and Leaving a Unit Section, Special Rules Section, Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects Section}
From this, we see that the game allows the composition of a unit to change, as models are added or removed from it. A unit's composition is never fixed based on the beginning structure, but is instead allowed to change fluidly with game conditions. Some special rules can be gained by a unit through the addition of a Model [ie Stubborn] while others are not. By extension, some special rules can be lost through the leaving of a model, be it by choice or through removal as a casualty. Furthermore, the section Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects describes how, upon joining / departure from a unit, that IC does not confer nor receive the ongoing effects [special rules] that might be effecting one element or the other.
Changes to a unit's model composition are reflected in immediate gain / loss of relevant special rules, as outlined above. The rules for IC's support this notion, and cited rules are requested to disprove this notion, before a meaningful counter argument is entertained.
Chaos Marine Codex, pg 66, Icon of Excess: "Units with the Mark of Slaanesh only. All models with the Mark of Slaanesh in a unit equipped with an icon of excess have the Feel no Pain special rule."
Chaos Marine Codex, pg 99, Noise Marines: "One model in the unit may take an icon of excess.... XX pts"
Observing this, a Noise Marine unit may have one Model take an Icon of Excess. Without that model, the unit does not have the benefits of the IoE. As the structure of a unit is allowed to change with game conditions, the benefits of IoE are lost the moment the MODEL with the icon is removed as a casualty. The model with an IoE may use it's benefit to not be removed as a casualty, as that may prevent its removal as a casualty, but as soon as that model is removed, so is the benefit of the icon.
And that's why I say that a destroyed model, by no longer existing, can't affect anything due to non-existence. It's not just not on the board, it's not in reserves, it's not even a model in your collection. It's destroyed, as in thrown into a black hole, but since you shouldn't do that, just place it to the side for the time being and count it as destroyed.
JinxDragon wrote: Rig,
If the line you quoted had stated 'Remove from Play' instead of 'Remove as a Casualty' then maybe you would have a point.
You keep saying that Remove from Play and Remove as a Casualty are the same thing, from a Rule as Written standpoint, without realizing the Rule you quoted does not state what you keep saying it states. This Clause is a one way relationship that grants Removed as a Casualty status to any Model that is Removed from play... nothing more. It completely fails to do the reverse, grant Removed from Play status to Models Removed as a Casualty, because it mentions nothing about also considering Removed as Casualty Models as having been Removed from Play.
The rules treat them as equal. Your failure to understand that is why your entire premise is wrong.
DJGietzen wrote:
Not true. There is no rule stating that your warlord traits do nothing while in reserve. We know they have them but being in play is not a requirement. This is made more clear when you look at warlord traits like Master of Ambush, Master of Manoeuvre, or Strategic Genius. All of these warlord traits have some aspect to them that requires the model not be in play.
It should be noted that models removed as a casualty do not have a functioning warlord trait anymore.
So models not I play are modifying play?
JinxDragon wrote:
The reason why I can not accept your answer is simple, you keep rewriting the sentence!
From:
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties to:
Models that are ‘removed as casualties’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed from play
How is changing the subject matters around, and in doing so changing the whole meaning of the original sentence, fit Rule as Written?!
So you've not read all of my posts then.
In the characteristics section, what does it say happens to models with zero wounds?
Does it say "removed from play as a casualty"? If so, please retract your statement that I'm rewriting rules.
I've quoted the literal line from the BRB.
If you need to be on the table to be 'in play'
And you can only access Special Rules when you are 'in play'
Then a Model in Deep Strike reserve can never Deep Strike....
Except, you know, for the specific rules allowing it. Pesky that.
DJGietzen wrote:
Not true. There is no rule stating that your warlord traits do nothing while in reserve. We know they have them but being in play is not a requirement. This is made more clear when you look at warlord traits like Master of Ambush, Master of Manoeuvre, or Strategic Genius. All of these warlord traits have some aspect to them that requires the model not be in play.
It should be noted that models removed as a casualty do not have a functioning warlord trait anymore.
So models not I play are modifying play?
JinxDragon wrote:
The reason why I can not accept your answer is simple, you keep rewriting the sentence!
From:
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties to:
Models that are ‘removed as casualties’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed from play
How is changing the subject matters around, and in doing so changing the whole meaning of the original sentence, fit Rule as Written?!
So you've not read all of my posts then.
In the characteristics section, what does it say happens to models with zero wounds?
Does it say "removed from play as a casualty"? If so, please retract your statement that I'm rewriting rules.
I've quoted the literal line from the BRB.
If you need to be on the table to be 'in play'
And you can only access Special Rules when you are 'in play'
Then a Model in Deep Strike reserve can never Deep Strike....
Except, you know, for the specific rules allowing it. Pesky that.
Can you quote the bit that says the Deep Strike rule is able to function when the model is not in play? I'm curious to see what your thinking is.
Kriswall wrote: Can you quote the bit that says the Deep Strike rule is able to function when the model is not in play? I'm curious to see what your thinking is.
In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve.
During Deployment, your army is in play. This and the Reserve rules allow you to put a unit out of play (into Reserves).
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.
Additional permission to keep units out of play.
At the start of your second turn, you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve – these are known as Reserve Rolls. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn.
Permission - rather, command - to allow them an attempt to arrive, and that you don't have a choice to keep them out of play.
Rigeld2, I will make an apology and an explanation, for I only now got a chance to read that section of the book for myself and realize I had misread something you posted as the actual Rule from the mainbook itself. Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be. The line where where you stated If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty is the one that led to this confusion and still highlights an issue with this concept.
While I am reassured that my key-sniper is going to be able to remove Special Rule and War-gear properly, thanks to access to being able to specifically remove a Model from play itself, what about every other situation which lacks that terminology? Reducing these characteristics to 0 is not the only way to be removed as a Casualty, many Rules straight out state to 'remove as a casualty' with no mention from play itself. Vehicles also lack these characteristics, or anything related to being removed from play when they are 'destroyed... and a few Vehicle related Special Rules such as It Will Not Die specifically mention they can not trigger on models removed in such a way. This is still a massive question for me, all you have done is prove the one most common situation and a few minor ones are accounted for. That alone just raises even more questions in and of itself, such as why they felt the need to add Remove from Play to some Rules but not others... and then address a few other Rules as 'this special Rule can not be used on a Model removed as a Casualty.'
Before you come back and point to the 'also considered' clause again, I have a simple yes or no question: Do you consider Squares to be Rhombus?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Rigeld2, We also have a Restriction stating that Models can not use Start of the Turn abilities on the turn they come in from reserves, it has always bothered me cause only Special Rules which modify how we handle Reserves trigger at that time, so what do you say about it? A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve. - Moving on from Reseves
JinxDragon wrote: Rigeld2,
I will make an apology and an explanation, for I only now got a chance to read that section of the book for myself and realize I had misread something you posted as the actual Rule from the mainbook itself. Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be. The line where where you stated If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty is the one that led to this confusion and still highlights an issue with this concept.
While I am reassured that my key-sniper is going to be able to remove Special Rule and War-gear properly, thanks to access to being able to specifically remove a Model from play itself, what about every other situation which lacks that terminology?
Reducing these characteristics to 0 is not the only way to be removed as a Casualty, many Rules straight out state to 'remove as a casualty' with no mention from play itself.
A = B
A = C
B = C
Do we agree there?
Being reduced to 0 wounds = removed from play as a casualty (from characteristics section)
Removing the last wound = removed as a casualty (from the shooting section)
removed from play as a casualty = removed as a casualty
Vehicles also lack these characteristics, or anything related to being removed from play when they are 'destroyed... and a few Vehicle related Special Rules such as It Will Not Die specifically mention they can not trigger on models removed in such a way. This is still a massive question for me, all you have done is prove the one most common situation and a few minor ones are accounted for. That alone just raises even more questions in and of itself, such as why they felt the need to add Remove from Play to some Rules but not others... and then address a few other Rules as 'this special Rule can not be used on a Model removed as a Casualty.'
Haven't cared to look at Vehicles yet TBH.
Before you come back and point to the 'also considered' clause again, I have a simple yes or no question:
Do you consider Squares to be Rhombus?
Yes. A Square is a Rhombus with right angles. Relevance?
Rigeld2,
We also have a Restriction stating that Models can not use Start of the Turn abilities on the turn they come in from reserves, it has always bothered me cause only Special Rules which modify how we handle Reserves trigger at that time, so what do you say about it?
A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve. - Moving on from Reseves
That is actually a good rule to have - without it, one could make the argument that, since Reserves arrive at the start of turn, you could "stack triggers" and arrive and then trigger the SoT rule.
With this rule in place you can't do that, definitively.
Being shot = being killed
Being stabbed = being killed
being shot =/= being stabbed
Your explanation only works for numbers and not for words/ideas.
But for the purpose of "were you killed" they are the same.
It can work for words/ideas in context. If you have the same thing referred to in two different ways, those two different ways are equivalent.
I disagree with Removed from play as a casualty = removed as a casualty, as one clearly has additional instructions that the other lacks.
As for why many Rules can get away simply stating 'as a Casualty' while others can not? That Rule you posted, the one that I over-looked originally, does not cease to be in effect!
The situations you put forth here all reduce a Models Wounds as part of the process, and in doing so trigger a Rule which does contain the 'Removed from Play' terminology. It is the Special Rules, Psychic Powers, Vehicles and other things which specifically do not modify characteristics that are at question now. You have successfully shown that the majority of the situations are accounted for, you did well in that regard, but that does not prove that every situation has been accounted for. The existence of many which simply remove the Model from the table some how, with no explanation to how to handle these Models, is still a bit of a core problem for me and one Game Workshop can easily fix by creating 'zones' off the table and telling us to use those.
I'll drop the games about the square and simply tell you what conclusion I was trying to lead you to, as you sort of see it already: You are intelligent enough to demand additional evidence that a square is a square, if someone starts throwing around the words 'also considered' and 'Rhombuses.' So why do you so quickly accept that Play and Casualty are the same thing simply because 'also considered' was used by the Author?
As for the secondary question concerning Reserves, nice side step but a simple answer please: In what period of the turn do Models use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their war-gear/datasheet?
Kriswall, Doesn't even work well for numbers! X+Y = Y
JinxDragon wrote: I disagree with Removed from play as a casualty = removed as a casualty, as one clearly has additional instructions that the other lacks.
What happens when a model is reduced to zero wounds?
I'll drop the games about the square and simply tell you what conclusion I was trying to lead you to, as you sort of see it already:
You are intelligent enough to demand additional evidence that a square is a square, if someone starts throwing around the word 'considered' and 'Rhombuses,' so why do you so quickly accept that Play and Casualty are the same thing simply because 'considered' was used by the Author?
Because the rules literally say, and I'll quote them again so that you might see it this time:
f the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
So we know, for a fact, that if a model is reduced to zero wounds it is removed from play as a casualty. We also know that this is referred to as being removed as a casualty. There's no grey area - this isn't a Venn diagram with a partial overlap where "Well, if you are reduced to zero from shooting X happens, but if it's from assault wounds it's Y". Being reduced to zero wounds removes you from play as a casualty.
From that, we know that being removed as a casualty is the same as being removed from play as a casualty - we know this because the Characteristics section says remove from play, and the Shooting section says remove as... while referring to the same status of being at zero wounds.
For RaaC and RFPaaC to potentially mean different things the Shooting phase rule would have to not exist.
As for the secondary question concerning Reserves, nice side step but a simple answer please:
In what period of the turn do Models use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their war-gear/datasheet?
Deployment and then, as I showed, the Reserve rules. It wasn't a side step but a simple answer to a question that presumes there is no answer.
Please stop being condescending.
Kriswall,
Doesn't even work well for numbers!
X+Y = Y
It's almost like I was using logical operators instead of mathematical ones. You're aware of those I'm sure.
We have already concluded that reducing certain characteristics to 0 trigger as specific Remove from Play clause. I am asking about those things which do not reduce a characteristic to 0 and lack the Remove from Play clause!
You keep claiming that they are synonymous, even though one contains additional instructions then the other, so there must be a specific Rules which states that Models Removed as a Casualty are also considered to have been Removed from Play. We know there is a Rule for the reverse, one that would not need to ever exist if your original premise that they are synonymous was supported by a far better worded Rule simply stating 'are the same.' I might simply be over-looking it still, so quote for me the exact line which states that Models removed as a Casualty also trigger Removed from Play conditions.
Side stepped the secondary question again, even if you claim not to... answer the simple question: Using the Phrases and sub-Phrases laid out in your Rulebook, during what period does a Model use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their Datasheet? There is no "reserve phrase" that I remember, quote the Rule if there is and I am simply overlooking it.
JinxDragon wrote: We have already concluded that reducing certain characteristics to 0 trigger as specific Remove from Play clause.
I am asking about those things which do not reduce a characteristic to 0 and lack the Remove from Play clause!
You keep claiming that they are synonymous, even though one contains additional instructions then the other, so there must be a specific Rules which states that Models Removed as a Casualty are also considered to have been Removed from Play. We know there is a Rule for the reverse, one that would not need to ever exist if your original premise that they are synonymous was supported by a far better worded Rule simply stating 'are the same.' I might simply be over-looking it still, so quote for me the exact line which states that Models removed as a Casualty also trigger Removed from Play conditions.
We know that Removed as a Casualty is the "main" (most common) phrase used. Agreed?
We know that being reduced to 0 wounds removes you from play as a casualty, and also removes you as a casualty. Agreed?
Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed.
We also know that being run over by a tank Removes from play as a casualty.
The problem is that no matter what, there are redundant rules in play here. Either it's redundant to clarify that RFP == RaaC, or it's redundant to say RFPaaC.
By the way, for Vehicles we have this:
Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead.
Key word here is "otherwise" - meaning that all of those methods would remove a model from play, but those are not the only methods.
Side stepped the secondary question again, even if you claim not to... answer the simple question:
Using the Phrases and sub-Phrases laid out in your Rulebook, during what period does a Model use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their Datasheet?
There is no "reserve phrase" that I remember, quote the Rule if there is and I am simply overlooking it.
So there's no direction to bring units into play?
There's no permission to put them in a special area out of play?
I know for a fact there is, and I've quoted it. The rule is used during Deployment to be put in "Deep Strike Reserve" a special, out of play, area.
Then, when directed that the unit arrives by the Reserve rules you use the rule again (remember, they're in play now because they've arrived from Reserves) to resolve the Deep Strike.
I've answered this twice now. As clear as day. Side stepping nothing.
Agreed, There is specific instructions which tell us to Remove from Play as a Casualty in three very specific situations There are also instructions which tell us to Remove something from Play There are also instructions which simply tell us to Remove as a Casualty
No one is denying the existence of these clauses, we are arguing if they are synonymous with each other or three completely different set of instructions. I still am finding it hard to understand why you read three completely different worded instructions as a single Clause. Okay, I can understand instruction 2, because there is a secondary Clause telling us to also consider them to be Removed as a Casualty whenever we read those wordings but that is a secondary clause that triggers only in that one situation. The only real Rule as Written evidence put forth that they are synonymous requires me to re-structure the sentence, switching the subjects around, to come to the same conclusion. It also doesn't explain why we would even have such a Clause, if you where already correct and the three where synonymous.
To Clarify: Do you believe the Unit Arriving by Deep-strike is using the Deep Strike Rule found on it's Datasheet in order to do so? Actually, you know what... don't answer. It is a side point and I will address it one day in it's own thread.
JinxDragon wrote: Agreed,
There is specific instructions which tell us to Remove from Play as a Casualty in three very specific situations
There are also instructions which tell us to Remove something from Play
There are also instructions which simply tell us to Remove as a Casualty
No one is denying the existence of these clauses, we are arguing if they are synonymous with each other or three completely different set of instructions. I still am finding it hard to understand why you read three completely different worded instructions as a single Clause. Okay, I can understand instruction 2, because there is a secondary Clause telling us to also consider them to be Removed as a Casualty whenever we read those wordings but that is a secondary clause that triggers only in that one situation. The only real Rule as Written evidence put forth that they are synonymous requires me to re-structure the sentence, switching the subjects around, to come to the same conclusion. It also doesn't explain why we would even have such a Clause, if you where already correct and the three where synonymous.
Maybe you missed a sentence from my post?
The problem is that no matter what, there are redundant rules in play here. Either it's redundant to clarify that RFP == RaaC, or it's redundant to say RFPaaC.
To Clarify:
Do you believe the Unit Arriving by Deep-strike is using the Deep Strike Rule found on it's Datasheet in order to do so?
Actually, you know what... don't answer.
It is a side point and I will address it one day in it's own thread.
Yes, that's correct. During Deployment we use the rule on the Army List Entry to allow us to put it into Reserves. And then we use the Reserves rules to put the unit into play.
I'm confused as to why this isn't acceptable. At no time am I referring to a unit's rules while they are out of play.
In a Rulebook full of redundancy... agreed. The redundancy is poor editing, which I know very well myself, but unless it specifically changes a situation it really is just redundant and nothing more. The redundancy within that one set of instructions, either one it doesn't matter, does not change the fact they are two different set of instructions. I am just happy the one specific to reducing characteristics contains that Redundancy! Imagine how terrible it would be if we didn't have that slight slither, that at least allows you to prove the Authors clearly did not know what they where doing with this Terminology.
We can discuss deep strike, and every other Start of Turn Special Rule, later....
I shouldn't of opened two lines of debate at the same time, I'm trying to cut back at this place!
Also, in case you missed it, I found that vehicles are indisputably removed from play when anything "bad" happens. This is more evidence that RFP==RaaC because treating them differently for Infantry models but the same for Vehicles makes no sense.
Great, more situations being accounted for. Can you post the name of the Rule, or a snippet, so I can verify?
Would also make the Clause within "It Will Not Die" completely redundant, still not taking redundancies as evidence but thought it interesting to mention.
JinxDragon wrote:Great, more situations being accounted for. Can you post the name of the Rule, or a snippet, so I can verify?
Would also make the Clause within "It Will Not Die" completely redundant, still not taking redundancies as evidence but thought it interesting to mention.
rigeld2 wrote:
JinxDragon wrote: We have already concluded that reducing certain characteristics to 0 trigger as specific Remove from Play clause. I am asking about those things which do not reduce a characteristic to 0 and lack the Remove from Play clause!
You keep claiming that they are synonymous, even though one contains additional instructions then the other, so there must be a specific Rules which states that Models Removed as a Casualty are also considered to have been Removed from Play. We know there is a Rule for the reverse, one that would not need to ever exist if your original premise that they are synonymous was supported by a far better worded Rule simply stating 'are the same.' I might simply be over-looking it still, so quote for me the exact line which states that Models removed as a Casualty also trigger Removed from Play conditions.
We know that Removed as a Casualty is the "main" (most common) phrase used. Agreed? We know that being reduced to 0 wounds removes you from play as a casualty, and also removes you as a casualty. Agreed?
Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed.
We also know that being run over by a tank Removes from play as a casualty.
The problem is that no matter what, there are redundant rules in play here. Either it's redundant to clarify that RFP == RaaC, or it's redundant to say RFPaaC.
By the way, for Vehicles we have this:
Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead.
Key word here is "otherwise" - meaning that all of those methods would remove a model from play, but those are not the only methods. --snip--
It gives me the feelbads when you don't read all of my posts man. :p
Agreed, sorry for overlooking that part, but if only it proved your point
Invincible Behemoth is the name of the Rule, and it only informs us what to do in situations where Weapons with one of four specific Clauses hit's this Model. It does not prove that Destroyed = Removed from Play, or that Wrecked = Removed From Play or that Explodes = Removed from play.
Those have clearly defined sections however... well, Wrecked and Explode does. Wrecked Models mention nothing about being Removed from Play, in fact it contains instructions to leave the Model in play with a 'treat it as scenery' clause attached! Explodes contains instruction to remove the Model from the Battlefield, which means we have to throw yet another 'Removed as' to the list... that's 4 very similar instructions worded very differently. Destroyed is undefined... the closest I found in quick review was: Once the nearest model in the squadron is destroyed (i.e. is Wrecked or Explodes!), the next hit is allocated against the new nearest model, and so on. Wrecked OR Explodes, with both being two completely different set of instructions....
How can Destroyed=Wrecked=Explode=Removed from Play if it is impossible to obey both Explodes and Wrecked at the same time?
Except there is nothing informing us that they are Removed from Play when they are removed from the battlefield.
Also... one of those four doesn't even remove the Model from the Battlefield!
JinxDragon wrote: Except there is nothing informing us that they are Removed from Play when they are removed from the battlefield.
Also... one of those four doesn't even remove the Model from the Battlefield!
rigeld2 wrote: I didn't say they were all equivalent.
I said that they all ended up removed from play.
It does prove that by saying if X, RFP. If Y, RFP.
All of those are RFP actions.
The rules tell us that being removed from play is also considered to be removed as a casualty.
The rules DON'T tell us that being removed as a casualty is also considered to be removed from play. They actually tell us that removed as a casualty means removed from the table and set aside. Embarking a vehicle also involves being removed from the table and set aside. I don't think anyone would argue that embarked units have been removed from play. You can still measure to and from them. You can still shoot with them (assuming fire points). Etc. Etc.
Since this is a permissive rule set, we need to be told that models that have been removed as a casualty are no longer considered in play. I have yet to find this anywhere in the rules.
A (Removed From Play)
B (Removed as a Casualty)
We are told that A leads to B.
We are not told that B leads to A.
DISCLAIMER: I don't think dead models should impact game play. I just can't find anything in the rules saying that models removed as casualties are no longer considered in play. I think GW made assumptions and never actually wrote this down.
The shot may contain clauses A or B or C, or D If A, do Y instead of X If B, do Y instead of X If C, do Y instead of X If D, do Y instead of X Doesn't matter that we do the same thing within all four situations, nothing is informing us that A is B and C and therefore D.
Besides: How does your interpenetration account for Wrecked, scenario B, informing us to leave the Model on the Battlefield if it is also Removed from Play?
If A, do Y instead of X
If B, do Y instead of X
If C, do Y instead of X
If D, do Y instead of X
Doesn't matter that we do the same thing for all four situations, it is still four completely different situations being addressed.
So yes, you're ignoring the phrase "or is otherwise removed from play". Otherwise being the key word here.
I can't help you understand a phrase other than to say "By using plain English definitions, my statement is true."
Again:
How does your interpenetration account for Wrecked, scenario B, informing us to leave the Model on the Battlefield if it is also Removed from Play?
In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.
If A, do Y instead of X
If B, do Y instead of X
If C, do Y instead of X
If D, do Y instead of X
Doesn't matter that we do the same thing for all four situations, it is still four completely different situations being addressed.
So yes, you're ignoring the phrase "or is otherwise removed from play". Otherwise being the key word here.
I can't help you understand a phrase other than to say "By using plain English definitions, my statement is true."
Again:
How does your interpenetration account for Wrecked, scenario B, informing us to leave the Model on the Battlefield if it is also Removed from Play?
In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.
Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."
So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other? Aside from the Tenets pointing out why dictionary debates are pointless, this very word has many definitions depending on how it is used. This including being used in ways to define different states or situations, point 3 if you Google the word!
Besides, how are you not seeing this flaw in your logic though: Both are mentioned along side each other in the Rule you quote as 'evidence' that they all must be the same thing Yet it is impossible to follow the instructions of both Explodes and Wrecked at the same time... highlighting how different they are!
JinxDragon wrote: So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?
No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.
I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.
Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."
Sure, I worded my statement poorly.
It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.
JinxDragon wrote: So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?
No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.
I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.
Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."
Sure, I worded my statement poorly.
It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.
...but Wrecked demonstrably doesn't remove the model from play. It very explicitly requires the model be left in place. The model is clearly not removed from play.
JinxDragon wrote: So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?
No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.
I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.
Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."
Sure, I worded my statement poorly.
It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.
...but Wrecked demonstrably doesn't remove the model from play. It very explicitly requires the model be left in place. The model is clearly not removed from play.
OH NO! We have a conflict in the rules! Whatever shall we do!?!
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
In general, all of those things remove a model from play. Specific to Wrecked, the physical model stays but there's no conflict with the rest of removing a model from play, so we still do that. This is reinforced by the fact that we must treat it as scenery and not a unit.
Lets ignore that there is only a conflict in your interpretation and see if what you posted had merit: Wrecked and Explode are both found in the same section of the book, and I will be lazy and not try to determine if that makes them both Advanced or Basic. Regardless, they will both fall under the same category as the Basic vs Advanced Rules is very much a problem in itself. Both of these Rules are either Advanced or Basic, so neither having permission to trump the other using the Rule you quoted. If we where to ask people which is more "specific," ignoring that the concept of 'more specific' is not defined in the Rules either, it would not be Wrecked.
Wrecked occurs whenever something is reduced to 0 Hull Points, so it occurs even if there is not a specific 'this wrecks the vehicle' clause in play. Explode only occurs if something specifically mentions that that the Vehicle Explodes, such as the Damage Table.
Again: Why would there even be a conflict at all if they where synonymous?
JinxDragon wrote: So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?
No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.
I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.
Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."
Sure, I worded my statement poorly.
It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.
...but Wrecked demonstrably doesn't remove the model from play. It very explicitly requires the model be left in place. The model is clearly not removed from play.
OH NO! We have a conflict in the rules! Whatever shall we do!?!
Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.
In general, all of those things remove a model from play. Specific to Wrecked, the physical model stays but there's no conflict with the rest of removing a model from play, so we still do that. This is reinforced by the fact that we must treat it as scenery and not a unit.
Can you provide the rule that says Wrecked models are removed from play? I can't find it. Without a written rule, there is no conflict. I don't accept that the 'otherwise' statement proves that Wrecked models are removed from play. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
JinxDragon wrote: Why would there be a conflict at all if they where synonymous?
Stop saying they're synonymous. I've never said they were, you're on a literal straw man argument right now and I refuse to play that game.
I'm done with you. I used to think you were interested in honest debate but this thread proves otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Can you provide the rule that says Wrecked models are removed from play? I can't find it. Without a written rule, there is no conflict. I don't accept that the 'otherwise' statement proves that Wrecked models are removed from play. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
Well, if you don't accept actual rules I can't help you.
Please, what does "or otherwise" mean then? Enlighten me.
Then explain your position a little better so I can stop coming to that conclusion: Are you not saying that the Invincible Behemoth proves that Wrecked, Destroyed, Explode all cause the Model to be 'Remove from Play?'
JinxDragon wrote: Then explain your position a little better so I can stop coming to that conclusion:
Are you not saying that the Invincible Behemoth proves that Wrecked, Destroyed, Explode all cause the Model to be 'Remove from Play?'
Yes, I am saying it does that.
I am not saying, and have never said in any post in this thread, that Invincible Behemoth makes Wrecked, Destroyed, etc. synonymous with each other.
You pretended I said that and then argued against that point - repeatedly - instead of my actual argument.
Kriswall wrote: Can you quote the bit that says the Deep Strike rule is able to function when the model is not in play? I'm curious to see what your thinking is.
In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve.
During Deployment, your army is in play. This and the Reserve rules allow you to put a unit out of play (into Reserves).
When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.
Additional permission to keep units out of play.
At the start of your second turn, you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve – these are known as Reserve Rolls. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn.
Permission - rather, command - to allow them an attempt to arrive, and that you don't have a choice to keep them out of play.
One big issue with this. it does not show permission to deep strike. You've shown permission to hold units in reserve, and you've shown permission to permission to deploy those units after the game begins. But permission to deep strike those units still comes from the special rule those units posses. We've shown units held in reserve are not in play. If the special rules of units not in play are 'inactive' how can a unit in reserve ever deep strike?
Only Destroyed has no definition, the closest thing we are told is that it incorporates both Wrecked and Explode Wrecked actually requires us to leave the Model on the battlefield, which is how you defined 'in play' earlier
How can you say Vehicles are Removed from Play without instructions within the individual Rules themselves telling you to Remove them from Play? More so when one of the Rules you quote as being 'remove from play' requires the Model to be left 'in play?'
DJGietzen wrote: One big issue with this. it does not show permission to deep strike. You've shown permission to hold units in reserve, and you've shown permission to permission to deploy those units after the game begins. But permission to deep strike those units still comes from the special rule those units posses. We've shown units held in reserve are not in play. If the special rules of units not in play are 'inactive' how can a unit in reserve ever deep strike?
a) They had permission to Deep Strike when arriving from Reserves due to the Deep Strike rule.
b) The Reserves rule brings them into play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: Only Destroyed has no definition, the closest thing we are told is that it incorporates both Wrecked and Explode
Wrecked actually requires us to leave the Model on the battlefield, which is how you defined 'in play' earlier
I'm not sure I said "things only on the battlefield" because that's not entirely true - things are in play during Deployment and there's obviously nothing on the field then.
How can you say Vehicles are Removed from Play without instructions within the individual Rules themselves telling you to Remove them from Play?
Because... of that... rule... right there... that I quoted.
More so when one of the Rules you quote as being 'remove from play' requires the Model to be left 'in play?'
Read the thread please - this has been addressed.
Conflicts in rules have a rule demonstrating how to resolve them.
JinxDragon wrote: Why would there be a conflict at all if they where synonymous?
Stop saying they're synonymous. I've never said they were, you're on a literal straw man argument right now and I refuse to play that game.
I'm done with you. I used to think you were interested in honest debate but this thread proves otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: Can you provide the rule that says Wrecked models are removed from play? I can't find it. Without a written rule, there is no conflict. I don't accept that the 'otherwise' statement proves that Wrecked models are removed from play. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.
Well, if you don't accept actual rules I can't help you.
Please, what does "or otherwise" mean then? Enlighten me.
oth·er·wise
ˈəT͟Hərˌwīz/
adverb
adverb: otherwise
1.
in circumstances different from those present or considered; or else.
"the collection brings visitors who might not come to the college otherwise"
synonyms: or, or else, if not
"hurry up, otherwise we'll be late"
2.
in other respects; apart from that.
"an otherwise totally black cat with a single white whisker"
synonyms: in other respects, apart from that
"she's exhausted, but otherwise she's fine"
The rules you presented...
"Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead."
So, if an attack would destroy OR wreck OR explode OR remove from play in circumstances not involving being destroyed, wrecked, or exploding, you do something.
Nothing inherent in this sentence assumes being wrecked means the model must be removed from play. The sentence just tells us that if a model is wrecked OR removed from play in a circumstance that doesn't involve being wrecked, you do something instead.
The rules for Wrecking tell us that the model is left in place and is treated as terrain.
If the red delicious apple is green, misshapen or otherwise rotten, don't eat it.
breaks into...
If the red delicious apple is green, don't eat it.
If the red delicious apple is misshapen, don't eat it.
If the red delicious apple is rotten in a circumstance different from being green or misshapen, don't eat it. Maybe the apple is mushy. That would be a different circumstance.
A green apple isn't necessarily rotten. Maybe it's a Granny Smith and it was mislabelled. I don't want you to eat it because I need to research who messed up the labelling. You can't assume that green means rotten or that misshapen means rotten. That's what you're doing with wrecked and removed from play.
Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?
I will simply state this about Invincible Behemoth:
The Rule doesn't do what you think it does.
You clearly believe being mentioned together in a secondary Rule, one which isn't even present in many battles as it is Super-Heavy related, is enough to forge a relationship that has to be present outside of that Rule. I do not know any more ways I can try to highlight how this is incorrect, not without you seeming to think it is a Straw-man argument. Simply put: This Rule tells us how to resolve situations V, X, Y and Z... no more, no less. Wrecked and Explode would require specific 'Remove from Play' instructions before we can state these Rules remove something from Play.
Game-workshop's mistake for having FOUR different terminologies for very similar actions!
DJGietzen wrote: One big issue with this. it does not show permission to deep strike. You've shown permission to hold units in reserve, and you've shown permission to permission to deploy those units after the game begins. But permission to deep strike those units still comes from the special rule those units posses. We've shown units held in reserve are not in play. If the special rules of units not in play are 'inactive' how can a unit in reserve ever deep strike?
a) They had permission to Deep Strike when arriving from Reserves due to the Deep Strike rule.
b) The Reserves rule brings them into play.
But the models not in play have the deep strike rue. If the models not in play don;t have 'active' special rules then they can't enter play via deep strike because they don't have permission to do so until after they are in play. The deep strike special rule has elements to it that require you to take actions before the unit with that rule is deployed. You can't claim the rule does nothing, then also take those actions. Deep strike isn't alone in this either, there are other special rules that require you to alter the game rules before the model is 'in play'.
Now. you've claimed that models not in play have inactive special rules. Where is the support for this claim? We know they have these rules, we know these rules alter the normal game rules. I have seen nothing in the RAW that says these things are only true while the model is on the table top, in play, deployed or any other variant we might think of. If you continue to insist such a statement is in the RAW you must provide proof as the burden is on you.
JinxDragon wrote: Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?
I NEVER SAID IT DID.
Seriously, how the feth are you back on this about them being synonymous again? What is your goal with this question?
JinxDragon wrote: Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?
I NEVER SAID IT DID.
Seriously, how the feth are you back on this about them being synonymous again? What is your goal with this question?
Screaming and cursing doesn't help anyone. Let's try to keep this civil, please.
Ultimately, we have no wording that a Wrecked result causes a model to be removed from play. In fact, we have explicit instructions to keep the model in play, but to treat it as a different type. This isn't a basic versus advanced situation at all as both wording are only applicable to a small subset of vehicles. At best it's advanced versus advanced with the result being only useful in the relatively small context of that same subset of vehicles.
My take, as usual, is that Games Workshop writes sloppy rules and expects us to fill in the gaps when the rules break down. This is such a situation.
The only time Basic Vs Advanced matters is if there are two conflicting Rules in play... and of course, one has to be Basic while the other Advanced. Even if a Rule could conflict with itself, outside of bad Rule writing, Basic vs Advanced would not allow us to simply choose which of the conflicts to ignore.
If you believe there is a conflict, it has to come from an outside source telling us to remove Wrecked vehicles from Play. Do you have a quote that says exactly that, and no Invulnerable Behemoth does not state that no matter how many times you try and claim it does.
Even if it did, it begs the question: If there is no Models with this Special Rule in any of the armies... how can you bring this Rule into play?
Well, the seemingly straight forward answer would be that a model is in play when it is physically on the battlefield, or is in a "counts as on the battlefield" situation such as being embarked in a transport or building. In such situations, a model can [potentially] engage in the 4 phases of the game. Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. A model does not require special rules to be active while "in play".
A model would be out of play prior to deployment, while held in reserves, in ongoing reserves, and when removed as a dead / destroyed model. I have no interest in mincing the nuances of dead, destroyed, removed from the game... in my interpretation of the rules a model is either Alive / Functional [no need to discriminate against Necrons or Eldar Wraith-Constructs. ] or Dead / Destroyed. While out of play, a model requires special rules to interact with the game, such as being forced to deploy before the game starts, or following the Reserves process, or being allowed to have your Warlord Trait impact the rest of your army. Models that are out of play are unable to engage in the standard turn phases, though they may be allowed to impact the game through special rules.
Again, following the "Opening Premise" I presented earlier, the only thing that completely prevents a model from interacting with the game is the condition of being dead / destroyed. In an attempt to avoid the nuances that seem to be plaguing this thread, a model is generally dead or destroyed in any situation that reduces wounds or hull points to zero, though there are potentially other scenarios in which this could also happen as laid out in those unusual circumstances.
As there are rules that allow units to have functions while "off the board" it is reasonable that living models are allowed to do so. So long as a model is Alive / Functional, it may use relevant special rules whilst not in play. Once a model is Dead / Destroyed, it can't, unless it has exceptional rules that allow actions whilst in that condition. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Certain units are allowed to be recycled once completely destroyed [Some of the Leviathan Tyranid Formations] but even then, the rules are a Command Benefit so do not require a living model to allow it.
This interpretation would require the acceptance of a premise that the terms "In Play" and "On the battlefield / Counts-as on the battlefield" are effectively interchangeable. Whilst perhaps a poor choice of words, models that are "Out of play / Off the battlefield" are still capable of utilizing rules that apply whilst they are in that condition. Refusal to accept this premise would seem to prevent models from deploying at the start of the battle, ever making reserve rolls [even though required to do so!] or re-entering play from Ongoing Reserves. The very first issue, preventing models from deploying at the start of the game would... well... make it impossible to ever play, so it would seem a reasonable premise to work with.
JinxDragon wrote: . Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be.
I find it ironic that you attempt to dissect rules down to their component words when you know GW does not even be consistent with their own terminology.
JinxDragon wrote: . Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be.
I find it ironic that you attempt to dissect rules down to their component words when you know GW does not even be consistent with their own terminology.
Yes. We're all very good at peeing in each other's corn flakes. Does anyone object to the either of the premises outlined above? I think they're required to be able to have a working game of 40k, but perhaps you feel differently? That could lead to productive discussion.
JinxDragon wrote: Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?
I NEVER SAID IT DID.
Seriously, how the feth are you back on this about them being synonymous again? What is your goal with this question?
Screaming and cursing doesn't help anyone. Let's try to keep this civil, please.
Ultimately, we have no wording that a Wrecked result causes a model to be removed from play. In fact, we have explicit instructions to keep the model in play, but to treat it as a different type. This isn't a basic versus advanced situation at all as both wording are only applicable to a small subset of vehicles. At best it's advanced versus advanced with the result being only useful in the relatively small context of that same subset of vehicles.
My take, as usual, is that Games Workshop writes sloppy rules and expects us to fill in the gaps when the rules break down. This is such a situation.
It isn't the same model, however. We know this because the definition of model includes it's stats. The stats for a wrecked vehicle are not those of the vehicle, as told.
So it is the same physical representation, but as proven, a different model. Next.
In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.
This was quite clear to me:
The model is removed "from play" but then there is a Scenery piece on the board that just happens to look a lot like your model... Although a Wrecked vehicle staying "in play" with lowered BS or efficiency would be quite appealing. 'Becomes a scenery with 1 HP and BS2 and -2 AV '
In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.
Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.
This was quite clear to me:
The model is removed "from play" but then there is a Scenery piece on the board that just happens to look a lot like your model... Although a Wrecked vehicle staying "in play" with lowered BS or efficiency would be quite appealing. 'Becomes a scenery with 1 HP and BS2 and -2 AV '
All very good, except that the rules actually tell us to leave the model in place and then to treat it as something different. We are never told to remove it from play. On the contrary, we are very unambiguously told to leave it where it is. If my Rhino becomes Wrecked, several things happen. One, it is destroyed. This is important for VP calculations. Two, it is left in place. The model never moves. It's not removed from play and replaced with something else. It stays exactly where it became wrecked. Three, it is now treated as a piece of difficult terrain. It's no longer treated as a Vehicle. The Rhino simply changes function. Does a piece of scenery (not a Fortification, mind you) have the option to shoot? to move? to assault? No.
Then why did they use a 'Counts/Treat as' Clause? Those exist to force the Rules to resolve X as if it was Y... because it is still X but needs to be treated as Y.
Disagreed.
It is a way of telling us to ignore what the object really is, and to instead resolve the Rules as if the object was something completely different.
If Game Workshop wants to turn X into Y, they tell us that X is Y.
Like they did for Claimed Buildings, they simply ARE Friendly Units....
JinxDragon wrote: Disagreed.
It is a way of telling us to ignore what the object really is, and to instead resolve the Rules as if the object was something completely different.
If Game Workshop wants to turn X into Y, they tell us that X is Y.
Like they did for Claimed Buildings, they simply ARE Friendly Units....
Do we need to have another lesson on how GW actually uses that phrase to mean "is"?
Wouldn't make your assumption correct.
You have this problem when it comes to 'count/treat as' clauses... you look at the end result and assume that X must have been Y, because the Rule resolved as if it was Y.
The Rule was resolved that way only because we where informed to treat the object as something entirely different... not because it is something else.
JinxDragon wrote: Wouldn't make your assumption correct.
You have this problem when it comes to 'count/treat as' clauses... you look at the end result and assume that X must have been Y, because the Rule resolved as if it was Y.
The Rule was resolved that way only because we where informed to treat the object as something entirely different... not because it is something else.
If, for literally all purposes, you resolve a rule as if X was Y, how is X not Y for all purposes?
We would not need to be informed to count X as Y for the duration of Z, unless X is not Y during Z. Just because the end result is identical to Y, still doesn't make the X into a Y.
Besides, have you thought of this twist: If the Model is removed from Play, then a count as Clause added to the Model would be useless... it is attached to a Model which is not in play!
nosferatu1001 wrote: The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.
How is it's data sheet different? It's a Rhino that we're currently being told to treat as a piece of Difficult Terrain. We're never told anything in relation to data sheets. Please provide your rules citation for thinking so.
We would not need to be informed to count X as Y for the duration of Z, unless X is not Y during Z.
Just because the end result is identical to Y, still doesn't make the X into a Y.
If they're identical for all purposes, they're the same thing.
You're attempting to argue an absolutely irrelevant point.
Besides, have you thought of this twist:
If the Model is removed from Play, then a count as Clause added to the Model would be useless... it is attached to a Model which is not in play!
Since it's been mentioned in this thread and addressed already - yes, yes I have.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.
How is it's data sheet different? It's a Rhino that we're currently being told to treat as a piece of Difficult Terrain. We're never told anything in relation to data sheets. Please provide your rules citation for thinking so.
All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.
The Rhino does not have a Terrain type. Therefore we are not dealing with a Rhino, we're dealing with terrain.
Terrain does not have a Vehicle type. It doesn't have an Armor Value. Therefore the data sheet cannot be the same.
We would not need to be informed to count X as Y for the duration of Z, unless X is not Y during Z.
Just because the end result is identical to Y, still doesn't make the X into a Y.
If they're identical for all purposes, they're the same thing.
You're attempting to argue an absolutely irrelevant point.
Besides, have you thought of this twist:
If the Model is removed from Play, then a count as Clause added to the Model would be useless... it is attached to a Model which is not in play!
Since it's been mentioned in this thread and addressed already - yes, yes I have.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.
How is it's data sheet different? It's a Rhino that we're currently being told to treat as a piece of Difficult Terrain. We're never told anything in relation to data sheets. Please provide your rules citation for thinking so.
All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.
The Rhino does not have a Terrain type. Therefore we are not dealing with a Rhino, we're dealing with terrain.
Terrain does not have a Vehicle type. It doesn't have an Armor Value. Therefore the data sheet cannot be the same.
We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.
Kriswall wrote: We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.
So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?
The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.
Kriswall wrote: We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.
So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?
The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.
Treat as isn't the same as is.
John's parents treat him as a girl. They dress him like a girl. They buy him Barbies. Etc. Etc.
John isn't actually a girl. He's just being treated as one. John is demonstrably still male.
The Rhino isn't actually a piece of Citadel Terrain. It's just being treated as one.
Kriswall wrote: We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.
So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?
The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.
Treat as isn't the same as is.
John's parents treat him as a girl. They dress him like a girl. They buy him Barbies. Etc. Etc.
John isn't actually a girl. He's just being treated as one. John is demonstrably still male.
The Rhino isn't actually a piece of Citadel Terrain. It's just being treated as one.
"Is" is demonstrably different from "Treated As".
Bad analogy is bad.
As far as GW is concerned, saying that they're different causes the rules to fail completely.
Kriswall wrote: We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.
So you also don't believe that "treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW?
Despite the fact that it's been proven to be true multiple times?
The data sheet cannot be exactly the same as a data sheet for Terrain is nothing like a data sheet for a Vehicle. Primarily because Vehicles don't have data sheets, they have Army List Entries.
Treat as isn't the same as is.
John's parents treat him as a girl. They dress him like a girl. They buy him Barbies. Etc. Etc.
John isn't actually a girl. He's just being treated as one. John is demonstrably still male.
The Rhino isn't actually a piece of Citadel Terrain. It's just being treated as one.
"Is" is demonstrably different from "Treated As".
Bad analogy is bad.
As far as GW is concerned, saying that they're different causes the rules to fail completely.
First, why is the analogy bad? Because it demonstrates the difference between is and treated as?
Second, my whole point is that the rules are bad and fail in this situation. Everyone 'knows' the 'correct' way to play this. I don't think anyone would actually argue that 'dead' models should still be able to use their rules. This is an easy situation in real games where 99.99% of people agree on 'HIWPI'. BUT... GW is known for writing internal inconsistent rules. My stance is that this is another one of those situations.
Kriswall wrote: First, why is the analogy bad? Because it demonstrates the difference between is and treated as?
No. Because real life != rules.
And the actual meaning of a phrase != how GW uses it.
Second, my whole point is that the rules are bad and fail in this situation. Everyone 'knows' the 'correct' way to play this. I don't think anyone would actually argue that 'dead' models should still be able to use their rules. This is an easy situation in real games where 99.99% of people agree on 'HIWPI'. BUT... GW is known for writing internal inconsistent rules. My stance is that this is another one of those situations.
In this case, however, you're saying that it's written poorly because you're forcing an inconsistency that is accepted literally everywhere else in the rules. Yes, I'll agree - when you make words mean different things at different times, the rules aren't consistent. GW, however, consistently uses "treated/counts as" to mean "is".
Kriswall wrote: First, why is the analogy bad? Because it demonstrates the difference between is and treated as?
No. Because real life != rules.
And the actual meaning of a phrase != how GW uses it.
Second, my whole point is that the rules are bad and fail in this situation. Everyone 'knows' the 'correct' way to play this. I don't think anyone would actually argue that 'dead' models should still be able to use their rules. This is an easy situation in real games where 99.99% of people agree on 'HIWPI'. BUT... GW is known for writing internal inconsistent rules. My stance is that this is another one of those situations.
In this case, however, you're saying that it's written poorly because you're forcing an inconsistency that is accepted literally everywhere else in the rules. Yes, I'll agree - when you make words mean different things at different times, the rules aren't consistent. GW, however, consistently uses "treated/counts as" to mean "is".
Please provide your examples. I need rules citations and not your word that GW consistently uses treated/counts as to mean is. Treated/counted as actually means "isn't, but pretend like it is" in the real world. Without a specific, contradictory game definition (like they provide for 'and/or' in the army list entry definition section of most codices), we generally assume the real world definition is being used.
Treat this (noun A) as a (noun B). Is noun A a noun B? No.
Treat this Rhino as a Citadel Scenery Piece. Is this Rhino a Citadel Scenery Piece? No, but pretend like it is.
Treat this Banana as an Apple. Is this Banana an Apple? No, but pretend like it is.
I also disagree that "treated as" = "is". That equality is only the case for the subject described, not as a constant....
So for bikes, Difficult terrain = Dangerous terrain, Difficult terrain "is" Dangerous terrain, but then for anyone else Difficult terrain =/= Dangerous terrain, etc.
I don't think "treated as" = "is" completely, even if it might seem most rules need that... But please continue this discussion
Unless otherwise stated, Poisoned weapons are treated as having a Strength of 1.
So what's their Strength again? How do you resolve a Poison weapon with no listed S hitting a vehicle? Please support your statements with rule citations - because this weapon doesn't have a S.
Battlements are treated as an Access Point for their building, meaning that a unit inside the building can disembark onto the battlements, or vice-versa.
So how do you get into Battlements? They're not an Access Point after all.
Battlements are treated as a separate piece of terrain from the building that they are on top of.
Especially since they're just part of the same piece of terrain - man, those rules are messed up.
Models that are in base contact with a defence line are treated as being in base contact with any enemy models who are directly opposite them and in base contact with the other side of that defence line.
But they're not, so any rule requiring base contact doesn't work.
When a Super-heavy vehicle makes a shooting attack, it is always treated as if it had remained stationary in the Movement phase (even if it actually moved), and it may fire each of its weapons at different targets if desired.
What does that even mean? After all, if it moved then it moved - since treated as isn't the same thing as is, rules that require you to be stationary can't be met.
However, a Chariot is always treated as a single model.
But it has two profiles! And a model can only have one profile! But this is a Chariot... if only "treated as" meant the same as "is" we wouldn't have confusing rules here...
If they do, all weapons they fire that phase are treated as having the Skyfire special rule.
But they don't have it, and so they must snapshot at Fliers.
Spoiler:
Fighting the Assault
Hitting vehicles in close combat is very straightforward due to their size. We can safely assume that any unit that has been able to reach a vehicle has been travelling swiftly enough to land a blow upon it with relative ease – though care must still be taken to strike a vital point. Accordingly, all vehicles are treated as being Weapon Skill 1. The exceptions are Walkers and Chariots, which have varying Weapon Skills, and Immobilised non-Walker vehicles, which are always treated as having Weapon Skill 0.
What's the WS of a vehicle again? Not what you want to pretend it is, but what is it actually? Because the rules care about your actual weapon skill.
A Grounded Flying Monstrous Creature is treated as if it is in Glide mode with immediate effect, and can therefore be charged in the following Assault phase.
But wait - it's not in Glide mode so it can't be charged. But we have specific allowance to do so. But since it's not actually Gliding, does it still benefit from Hard to Hit?
Spoiler:
Note that if a Flying Monstrous Creature is Grounded during the enemy’s turn, it will start its own Movement phase in Glide mode and so can declare a charge during its turn if it chooses to do so, unless it chooses to change flight modes.
Waitaminute. If it was only "treated as" Gliding and not actually Gliding, this doesn't make sense! It can't start its turn in a mode it wasn't in before and can't declare a charge the turn it changes modes!
If a model is not specifically stated as having a weapon with the Melee type, it is treated as being armed with a single close combat weapon.
But it doesn't actually have one, so how is combat handled?
or if a special rule refers to Random Allocation, do the following: randomly determine a model in the unit – that model is treated as being the closest model to the attack and remains so until either the attack ends or the model is slain.
But it's not the closest model to the attack - and since you can only allocate wounds to the closest model, no wound scan be allocated.
When the power is resolved, the new unit then arrives via Deep Strike, within the power’s maximum range; the new unit is under your control and is treated as having arrived from Reserves for all rules purposes.
But it didn't arrive from Reserves so feel free to declare a Charge.
Moving on to counts as.
A model that made a Vector Strike in its Movement phase counts as having already fired one weapon in its following Shooting phase.
So how many weapons can a FMC fire after Vector Striking - 1 or 2? I mean, it didn't actually fire a weapon.
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
But he's not part of the unit, so feel free to target him independently all you want.
And I'm done... there's more but I'll let you do a modicum of research on the matter.
I think you have mistaken what the request was:
Can you quote where Game workshop actual said that 'Count As' equals "Is?"
PS:
Every Rule you quoted works because we are told to ignore the reality of the subject in question, in order to resolve the situation differently to normal.
JinxDragon wrote: I think you have mistaken what the request was:
Can you quote where Game workshop actual said that 'Count As' equals "Is?"
No, he literally said
Please provide your examples. I need rules citations and not your word that GW consistently uses treated/counts as to mean is.
But thanks for keeping up.
PS:
Every Rule you quoted works because we are told to ignore the reality of the subject in question, in order to resolve the situation differently to normal.
No. The rules don't ask you to look up what you're pretending your Weapon Skill is, they ask you to look up what it is.
If you treat "treated as" and "is" differently, you have to word everything differently.
You made the assertion. I'm not sure why it's my job to prove your point for you.
You list a series of examples where we're told to treat something that isn't X as being X. Every weapon has a Strength value. Sometimes that Strength value is "-". Take the following weapon.
Stabby Knife
Range: -; S -; AP -; Melee, Poisoned (2+)
What is the Strength of this weapon? The Strength is "-". It's right there in the profile. However, we know the weapon has the Poisoned special rule, so we know that we should treat the weapon as if it were Strength 1 whenever we need a Strength value. The Strength isn't actually 1, but we pretend it is because we're told to treat it as 1. This is how "treat as" works.
I could do this for every example you listed, but it's obvious you've already made up your mind that "treat as" somehow transforms the thing into whatever you're treating it as.
"I don't care if you respect your father, but I do require that you treat him as if you respected him."
Me treating my father with respect doesn't mean I respect him. Treat has has an element of pretend. I feel like you're not understanding this. I also know you don't like real life examples, but I think confirmation bias may be clouding your vision as relates to the in game ones.
And I'm done... there's more but I'll let you do a modicum of research on the matter.
Again, your monkeys, your circus. You made the claim. You need to be the one who provides the examples. This is how backing up your claims with citations in a debate scenario works.
Kriswall wrote: You list a series of examples where we're told to treat something that isn't X as being X. Every weapon has a Strength value. Sometimes that Strength value is "-". Take the following weapon.
Stabby Knife Range: -; S -; AP -; Melee, Poisoned (2+)
What is the Strength of this weapon? The Strength is "-". It's right there in the profile. However, we know the weapon has the Poisoned special rule, so we know that we should treat the weapon as if it were Strength 1 whenever we need a Strength value. The Strength isn't actually 1, but we pretend it is because we're told to treat it as 1. This is how "treat as" works.
Great! Now, how do you resolve a hit with that weapon against a Vehicle? You can't use S = 1 because the actual rule requires the S, not what you pretend it to be.
I could do this for every example you listed, but it's obvious you've already made up your mind that "treat as" somehow transforms the thing into whatever you're treating it as.
Well, because otherwise the rules simply don't work.
"I don't care if you respect your father, but I do require that you treat him as if you respected him."
Me treating my father with respect doesn't mean I respect him. Treat has has an element of pretend. I feel like you're not understanding this. I also know you don't like real life examples, but I think confirmation bias may be clouding your vision as relates to the in game ones.
Yes, absolutely - treat has an element of pretend. That's my point. Do the Armor Penetration rules ask for what you pretend the attack's S to be, or what the S is? According to you there's a difference, so the rules must take that difference into account, right? And it's not just me "not liking" real life examples - they literally don't apply when discussing the rules of a game.
Again, your monkeys, your circus. You made the claim. You need to be the one who provides the examples. This is how backing up your claims with citations in a debate scenario works.
I've proven it before - and I believe you were involved in some of the threads I've done this in. So pardon me when I get tired of repeating myself on this. And, in fact, when something is so prevalent as to be assumed as fact it's not the person asserting the fact that has to prove it.. the person challenging the factuality of the statement has to come up with a reason why it's incorrect.
I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.
You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.
"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.
Kriswall wrote: I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.
You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.
"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.
"Treats as" and "is" are the same concepts as far as the 40 K rules are concerned.
Kriswall wrote: I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.
You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.
"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.
"Treats as" and "is" are the same concepts as far as the 40 K rules are concerned.
"treat as" means the same thing as "is" to GW.
I challenge that statement as there is nothing in the rulebook modifying the standard meaning. GW uses and/or to mean something other than what it normally means. We know this because they define the new meaning in the Codices. Do you have any citations providing a non-standard definition of "treat as"?
Also, it sounds dangerously like you're arguing intent. Are you saying that GW intended for treats as to mean is but simply forgot to define the term? I'm ok with you saying this is not RaW, but you think it's probably RaI. RaI is an entirely different discussion. I also agree that this is probably what GW intended. I don't agree that it's what they wrote.
I think the biggest thing here is that GW just didn't expect people to play semantics so hard with their rules. GW didn't feel they had to inform you that when a model with a rocket launcher dies that the rocket launcher and hte model are now dead and not in play and do not effect play in anyway. Same applies to buffs like DLS, after my warboss dies my unit loses that +1 WS.
honestly would anyone try to argue these rules in a game, be it friendly or competitive?
Ghazkuul wrote: I think the biggest thing here is that GW just didn't expect people to play semantics so hard with their rules. GW didn't feel they had to inform you that when a model with a rocket launcher dies that the rocket launcher and hte model are now dead and not in play and do not effect play in anyway. Same applies to buffs like DLS, after my warboss dies my unit loses that +1 WS.
honestly would anyone try to argue these rules in a game, be it friendly or competitive?
I would never try to argue these rules in a game. As has been stated, I think most people simply accept that dead models don't typically impact game play.
Now, in an online forum dedicated to debating the fine details of the rule set... that's an entirely different story.
Net result... GW writes sloppy rules that are unplayable in many instances. The only reason we are able to play a successful game is that we assume certain house rules.
Compare this rule set to something like Magic: The Gathering. MtG has an absolutely airtight rule set that a lawyer would have trouble finding fault with. Warhammer 40k is terrible in comparison. Part of the appeal of this forum for me is trying to identify and patch all the holes.
Kriswall wrote: I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.
There wasn't any sarcasm in that post.
You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.
Oh, I'm open to ideas. Just not ideas that are chasing some "higher understanding" of the rules that - when implementing said idea - literally causes the rules to stop functioning. Not just "not working as intended" but not working at all.
"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.
They don't apply because - and this is the important part that you keep skipping over -
They don't take into account the fact that GW uses the phrases in an abnormal way.
I can illustrate just fine that I can shoot into a mob of people. I can even, depending on where I'm standing, shoot into a mob of people and have a low chance of hitting a friendly.
GW disagrees.
Pointing out that Game Workshop has misused terminology in the past does zero to prove this is one such situations. The traditional meaning of the word 'count as' comes to the exact same outcome... How can you come to the conclusion they are using the phrase incorrectly?!
JinxDragon wrote: Pointing out that Game Workshop has misused terminology in the past does zero to prove this is one such situations.
The traditional meaning of the word 'count as' comes to the exact same outcome...
How can you come to the conclusion they are using the phrase incorrectly?!
Except it doesn't come to the same outcome. If you treat the phrases differently, you must word things surrounding those phrases differently.
Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.
Kriswall wrote: I won't continue this debate if you're going to just be sarcastic.
There wasn't any sarcasm in that post.
You've obviously already made up your mind and don't appear open to any other ideas.
Oh, I'm open to ideas. Just not ideas that are chasing some "higher understanding" of the rules that - when implementing said idea - literally causes the rules to stop functioning. Not just "not working as intended" but not working at all.
"Treats as" and "is" are not the same concepts. My examples demonstrate this clearly. The apply just fine as they're intended as illustrative examples.
They don't apply because - and this is the important part that you keep skipping over -
They don't take into account the fact that GW uses the phrases in an abnormal way.
I can illustrate just fine that I can shoot into a mob of people. I can even, depending on where I'm standing, shoot into a mob of people and have a low chance of hitting a friendly.
GW disagrees.
Can you provide a citation similar to the army list entry definition for 'and/or' stating that GW has redefined 'treat as'? You admit that you think the usage is abnormal. For it to mean something other than the standard definition, you need something in writing.
I don't know why you find this explanation that hard to gasp, and have to come to the same conclusions that you are vested in not understanding the concept, but I will try at least once more before I go back to work: We resolve the situation with the different number... not because the numbers have changed, but because a more advanced Rule told us to use an entirely different number!
Let me put forth this thought experiment: We have a Basic Rule with a count as clause... don't know how, but somehow we do We have an Advanced Rule with a count as clause, using a different value entirely
Which value would you use and what grants you permission to chose that value over the other?
JinxDragon wrote: I don't know why you find this explanation that hard to gasp, and have to come to the same conclusions that you are vested in not understanding the concept, but I will try at least once more before I go back to work:
We resolve the situation with the different number... not because the numbers have changed, but because a more advanced Rule told us to use an entirely different number!
You resolve it "as" if its S was 1. Its S is not 1, which is proven by the rule listed.
This has been proven many times. But your just arguing for the sake of argument rather than trying to resolve a rule or problem.
Kriswall wrote: Can you provide a citation similar to the army list entry definition for 'and/or' stating that GW has redefined 'treat as'? You admit that you think the usage is abnormal. For it to mean something other than the standard definition, you need something in writing.
Factually incorrect.
But we're obviously done. I've proven that GW doesn't use that phrase in the normal manner using examples you asked for, and now you are saying "Nuh uh y00 need rulez!" No. I don't. You asked for evidence. I provided it. Instead of accepting it like someone interested in an honest debate, you move the goalposts, just like this entire thread.
You're not interested in finding some "higher understanding" of the rules. You and Jnix are both just interested in pointing and laughing at what you think is an "exploit" in the rules, no matter how literally irrelevant it might be.
Let me ask you this:
You've both admitted you'd never bring it up at the table.
The intent is extremely obvious here.
What is your actual goal in this discussion?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JinxDragon wrote: I don't know why you find this explanation that hard to gasp, and have to come to the same conclusions that you are vested in not understanding the concept, but I will try at least once more before I go back to work:
We resolve the situation with the different number... not because the numbers have changed, but because a more advanced Rule told us to use an entirely different number!
So you don't feel like answering my question, but would rather pretend I asked something I didn't? Cool story bro.
Which value would you use and what grants you permission to chose that value over the other?
The answer is both obvious and irrelevant to the question at hand.
My only issue with this whole mess is why people would ever get so heated over something that can so easily be interpreted by common sense. GW can't be expected to explain every possible scenario, or else we would likely be paying in the thousands for the largest tome of a rule book ever made
It seems the most fundamental rule has been forgotten, Have Fun. If anything else clouds or imposes on this than it wouldn't be worth the stress.
Of all this, my answer to the question, GW never defines what a piece a terrain must be (such as a certain product or range of such) and as thus it is assumed that proxying things is acceptable seeing as how nothing claims that it is not
JinxDragon wrote: To answer again:
We ignore what is on the profile because a more advanced Rule is telling us to count the value as a different number entirely!
To ask again:
Do you have a Quote form Game Workshop informing us to ignore the default, and working, definition of count's as in favour of "is?"
Every single instance where it tells you to treat it as something else.
JinxDragon wrote: To answer again:
We ignore what is on the profile because a more advanced Rule is telling us to count the value as a different number entirely!
So.. Accusing me of sidestepping when I actually directly answered your question and yet you go out of your way to side step answering mine.
Awesome.
To ask again:
Do you have a Quote form Game Workshop informing us to ignore the default, and working, definition of count's as in favour of "is?"
Except it doesn't work. And again, you've shifted goal posts so many times I couldn't care less that I have to answer "No." because a) you already knew the answer and b) it's irrelevant.
okay, I am curious... your question was: Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle. Correct?
So how does this answer not fit: A More advanced Rule (Special Rule - Poison) tells me to use a different value (1), so the original (-) is ignored entirely.
And I don't understand this whole 'it doesn't work' thing either so I am just going have to out right ask: What do you think 'count as' means in the normal, everyday world? And why do you think that can not be applied to situations where Game Workshop states 'Count X as Y?'
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, before I just stop trying if I can't even explain a basic concept clearly enough, is it possible for you to answer the same question you put forth in one sentence or less... as I really want to know where this divide comes from.
Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.
Seriously, as soon as we appear to have all agreed that there is only one reasonable way to resolve the whole, "When does a model stop giving unit-wide benefits?" question, and then resolved that there's only one reasonable way to resolve "What's In Play, What's out of Play, and what does it matter?" question, we've now moved onto dissecting the difference between "Is" and "Counts-as?"
All because a vehicle model becomes a piece of terrain if it doesn't explode. I mean, really. What the feth is the point?
I'm more clever than you are!
I'm more clever than you are!
I'm more clever than you are, and my dick's bigger!
It all seems kind of masturbatory, and I'm sick of getting splash-over. Again, the working premise is that when something "Counts-as" you have to treat it as if it "is", even if it isn't. When you embark into a vehicle, you don't actually crush your models down until they fit inside the transport model. They are instead "counted as" being inside that vehicle for all gaming purposes, such as range, being able to use the firepoints, etc. There's no difference to how the rules work if you physically put models inside, or you just pretend they're in there.
Quit jerking off, trying to impress people with how cleverly you can point out flaws in the wording of a publication. You know how far I can kick a puppy? From my front door to the road, but I'm not going to get a medal for it. Maybe arrested, but no medals. How hard is it to point out that GW wrote rules that you can wiggle a needle into and then pull apart? Congratulations, you've won the special Olympics of lawyerdom. You know what's better than winning the special Olympics? Not being slowed. Stop being slowed. Discuss rules, not whether or not you can point out the inconsistencies in writing.
The fundamental flaw of that sort of activity is that it's not "right". You can't play a game when you apply those interpretations. Therefore, they are inimically "wrong", no matter how literally you can mince the words. If you mince the words, and create an irreconcilable state in the game, you have failed at correctly interpreting the rules. I've never had a game of 40k literally end in a stalemate. I've never once encountered a situation, no matter how poorly written the rules may be, that I couldn't complete a game from start to finish by using reason to determine the outcome of an inquiry.
Oh I agree,
This is 'Lego Talk' for Rules, and do want the Mods to shut it down quite soon because it has long proven it's point.
I would just like one more post from Rigeld2 so I can maybe figure out where the discord is, why 'count as' can not simply be 'count as!'
And there's another splash, calling a guy out over something that means nothing. You are so busy being clever, figure it out. It doesn't matter. Let it go.
There was a documentary about it. Something about an ice Princess that needed to "Let it go" so that spring could come, or something. I'm not a scientist, I just took a quick look at it while my kids were watching.
You know what the answer's going to be. Something you [plural] will needlessly disagree on. We all know that when something "Counts-as" you need to, at the very least temporarily, treat it as though it "is" for the game to work. Models that "count-as" being inside an exploding vehicle will take hits from the explosion damage. Whether the models actually "are" or "count-as being" inside the transport, you get the same results. A bunch of Guardsmen die, or a couple of Marines need to touch up the paint on their armour.
The rules aren't written to create a stalemate or any kind of impasse. Improper interpretation of the rules does that. You [plural] aren't debating. There's a master in front of that activity. You're [again, plural] creating imaginary loop holes to pork. It's fruitless.
Interesting attitude to take on a Rule debate forum though, more so when we have already stated we would never play Rule as Written because... it's broken. *Gasp* Still going to wait for Rigeld2's response because it would actually be interesting to read.
JinxDragon wrote: okay, I am curious... your question was: Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle. Correct?
So how does this answer not fit: A More advanced Rule (Special Rule - Poison) tells me to use a different value (1), so the original (-) is ignored entirely.
a) That wasn't your answer - you've modified it. b) That's not an explanation of how to resolve it. It just points to different rules.
And I don't understand this whole 'it doesn't work' thing either so I am just going have to out right ask:
That's a first - instead of beating around the bush.
What do you think 'count as' means in the normal, everyday world?
You pretend X is Y.
And why do you think that can not be applied to situations where Game Workshop states 'Count X as Y?'
Because GW doesn't write rules to account for things that are pretending to be other things. The wording of something like that must be different if "counts as" and "is" are two different things..
Please explain how to resolve the above Stabby Knife that Kriswall posted in an attack on a Vehicle.
Well, we know that the S of the Knife is 1 and therefore use that. Since your argument is that the S of the Knife is not 1, you cannot use it in the formula that asks for the S of the Knife.
Thank you, I have all I need....
Not sure I am comfortable having run this experiment, with how damning the results where, but Mods can lock this thread now.
greatbigtree wrote: Seriously, as soon as we appear to have all agreed that there is only one reasonable way to resolve the whole, "When does a model stop giving unit-wide benefits?" question, and then resolved that there's only one reasonable way to resolve "What's In Play, What's out of Play, and what does it matter?" question, we've now moved onto dissecting the difference between "Is" and "Counts-as?"
All because a vehicle model becomes a piece of terrain if it doesn't explode. I mean, really. What the feth is the point?
I'm more clever than you are!
I'm more clever than you are!
I'm more clever than you are, and my dick's bigger!
It all seems kind of masturbatory, and I'm sick of getting splash-over. Again, the working premise is that when something "Counts-as" you have to treat it as if it "is", even if it isn't. When you embark into a vehicle, you don't actually crush your models down until they fit inside the transport model. They are instead "counted as" being inside that vehicle for all gaming purposes, such as range, being able to use the firepoints, etc. There's no difference to how the rules work if you physically put models inside, or you just pretend they're in there.
Quit jerking off, trying to impress people with how cleverly you can point out flaws in the wording of a publication. You know how far I can kick a puppy? From my front door to the road, but I'm not going to get a medal for it. Maybe arrested, but no medals. How hard is it to point out that GW wrote rules that you can wiggle a needle into and then pull apart? Congratulations, you've won the special Olympics of lawyerdom. You know what's better than winning the special Olympics? Not being slowed. Stop being slowed. Discuss rules, not whether or not you can point out the inconsistencies in writing.
The fundamental flaw of that sort of activity is that it's not "right". You can't play a game when you apply those interpretations. Therefore, they are inimically "wrong", no matter how literally you can mince the words. If you mince the words, and create an irreconcilable state in the game, you have failed at correctly interpreting the rules. I've never had a game of 40k literally end in a stalemate. I've never once encountered a situation, no matter how poorly written the rules may be, that I couldn't complete a game from start to finish by using reason to determine the outcome of an inquiry.
This is possibly the best thing I've ever read in YMDC
Eventually, common understanding of language must be accepted in order for a Permissive Ruleset to be functional. One might disagree with this premise, but doing so would seem to indicate that becoming a "Casualty" in 
At some point, reason requires that in the game of 
