Say I start with 5 Scarab bases in the Retribution Phalanx formation (Start Collecting! Necrons) box and have a Canoptek Spyder. The Spyder adds one base to the Scarabs making them six bases total.
During my opponents turn, they managed to completely destroy the Scarab unit. During my next turn, the Scarabs respawn as the Overlord is still alive.
My question, how many Scarabs return? 1 as wounds are removed seperately? 3 as that's the minimum size unit? 5 as I started with 5? 6 as I added one base?
In every other instance where a unit is returned to the field after being destroyed, the unit is returned to the field as it existed when Deployment started. This means it Ignores any casualties it took before it was destroyed, but also Ignores any additional models added to it during the game.
It is a good precedent, and I would recommend using it to avoid shenanigans.
I've seen a few thread about this since the box released, and there doesn't seem to be a consensus. Hopefully this will be clarified in the Necron FAQ, but until then, I would go with what Charistoph said. This is the precedent set by similar special rules in formations like the Endless Swarm and the Skyblight Swarm. Also, be sure to talk to you opponent about it before the game starts.
It should be noted that per RAW you would get back the number of scarab bases in the unit that have been removed from the board as casualties, which would include the bases added to the unit by any spyders.
Whether or not you want to ignore the unequivocal RAW is up to you and your play group, but RAW is really clear.
Spoiler:
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special
rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that
is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can
take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If
a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this
manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its
Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created –
on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any
kind allowed.
Spoiler:
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’.
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,
Does not say this:
col_impact wrote: It should be noted that per RAW you would get back the number of scarab bases in the unit that have been removed from the board as casualties, which would include the bases added to the unit by any spyders.
Any more than it includes ICs in the resurrection.
It simply states the unit comes back. It makes no more recognition of added models any more than previously removed models.
Whether or not you want to ignore the unequivocal RAW is up to you and your play group, but RAW does not specify one way or the other.
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn. The unit must set up within 3″ of the Necron Overlord from this Formation,
Does not say this:
col_impact wrote: It should be noted that per RAW you would get back the number of scarab bases in the unit that have been removed from the board as casualties, which would include the bases added to the unit by any spyders.
Any more than it includes ICs in the resurrection.
It simply states the unit comes back. It makes no more recognition of added models any more than previously removed models.
Whether or not you want to ignore the unequivocal RAW is up to you and your play group, but RAW does not specify one way or the other.
I think you need to start with simply reading the rules as they are.
The "From the Sands, We Rise" makes no mention of "original unit". It refers to the unit. You don't have permission to treat the unit as anything but the unit, unless you can somehow show me the word 'original' in the text of the rule. Precedent obviously does not count in discussions of RAW.
The Scarab Hive rule must be followed. The unit size of the unit of scarabs has been increased beyond the starting size. If you return less than the increased size you are disobeying the Scarab Hive rule.
Also, there are specific rules for removing models from the battlefield. They are placed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule is triggered when the unit is entirely removed from the battlefield. Simply return the models that comprise the unit to the battlefield. It's clear and unequivocal what comprises the unit from what has been placed on the side of the table in the course of the game.
So simply follow the rules you are given. Deviate from them and you are doing RAI. That is fine, but don't pretend you are doing RAW. I am not sure why you (Charistoph) so obviously resort to RAI and try to masquerade your argument as RAW. There's nothing wrong with doing RAI. I am just a stickler for people being honest about what they are in fact arguing, and you are not arguing RAW.
Whether or not any ICs attached to the unit would get returned is a grey area. It's not clear in the rules how the IC attachment rule would work in the removed from play zone. A player who wants to return an IC with the unit of scarabs would somehow need to show he has greater justification than the interpretation that says he cannot (ie the burden of proof is on the more broken interpretation in the case of a tie). It's a legitimate grey area in the rules and no clear interpretation wins out so the IC does not get to return with the unit of scarabs since that interpretation has the greater burden of proof.
col_impact wrote: [I think you need to start with simply reading the rules as they are.
I am reading them as they are. And I will show you here how. Not that you ever actually listen.
The "From the Sands, We Rise" makes no mention of "original unit". It refers to the unit. You don't have permission to treat the unit as anything but the unit, unless you can somehow show me the word 'original' in the text of the rule. Precedent obviously does not count in discussions of RAW.
It makes zero mention of size or any potential additions or losses. This is why I have said, "It doesn't say". It doesn't state "original unit", nor did I say it did. It doesn't state anything about added models. It doesn't say anything about which temporal version of the unit we are to reference when we bring it back, period.
The Scarab Hive rule must be followed. The unit size of the unit of scarabs has been increased beyond the starting size. If you return less than the increased size you are disobeying the Scarab Hive rule.
Incorrect. The Scarab Hive can take it beyond its starting size, true, but that does not fully translate to the unit size being actually increased nor allowance to add that size to any resurrecting Special Rule.
Also, there are specific rules for removing models from the battlefield. They are placed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule is triggered when the unit is entirely removed from the battlefield. Simply return the models that comprise the unit to the battlefield. It's clear and unequivocal what comprises the unit from what has been placed on the side of the table in the course of the game.
There are many things put to the side of the table when they die, but From the Sands doesn't specify how it is constituted on the side of the table any more than the original unit. Because it doesn't say.
So simply follow the rules you are given. Deviate from them and you are doing RAI. That is fine, but don't pretend you are doing RAW. I am not sure why you (Charistoph) so obviously resort to RAI and try to masquerade your argument as RAW. There's nothing wrong with doing RAI. I am just a stickler for people being honest about what they are in fact arguing, and you are not arguing RAW.
Do you want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like a passive-aggressive attack?
I have explained my reasons, but you choose not to listen, so that is why you are never sure about why I say what I say.
Whether or not any ICs attached to the unit would get returned is a grey area. It's not clear in the rules how the IC attachment rule would work in the removed from play zone. A player who wants to return an IC with the unit of scarabs would somehow need to show he has greater justification than the interpretation that says he cannot (ie the burden of proof is on the more broken interpretation in the case of a tie). It's a legitimate grey area in the rules and no clear interpretation wins out so the IC does not get to return with the unit of scarabs since that interpretation has the greater burden of proof.
The IC wouldn't, and I think we have been over this before. When the rest of the unit does, the IC leaves that unit at the end of the Phase, whether he is also dead or not.
col_impact wrote: [I think you need to start with simply reading the rules as they are.
I am reading them as they are. And I will show you here how. Not that you ever actually listen.
The "From the Sands, We Rise" makes no mention of "original unit". It refers to the unit. You don't have permission to treat the unit as anything but the unit, unless you can somehow show me the word 'original' in the text of the rule. Precedent obviously does not count in discussions of RAW.
It makes zero mention of size or any potential additions or losses. This is why I have said, "It doesn't say". It doesn't state "original unit", nor did I say it did. It doesn't state anything about added models. It doesn't say anything about which temporal version of the unit we are to reference when we bring it back, period.
The Scarab Hive rule must be followed. The unit size of the unit of scarabs has been increased beyond the starting size. If you return less than the increased size you are disobeying the Scarab Hive rule.
Incorrect. The Scarab Hive can take it beyond its starting size, true, but that does not fully translate to the unit size being actually increased nor allowance to add that size to any resurrecting Special Rule.
Also, there are specific rules for removing models from the battlefield. They are placed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule is triggered when the unit is entirely removed from the battlefield. Simply return the models that comprise the unit to the battlefield. It's clear and unequivocal what comprises the unit from what has been placed on the side of the table in the course of the game.
There are many things put to the side of the table when they die, but From the Sands doesn't specify how it is constituted on the side of the table any more than the original unit. Because it doesn't say.
So simply follow the rules you are given. Deviate from them and you are doing RAI. That is fine, but don't pretend you are doing RAW. I am not sure why you (Charistoph) so obviously resort to RAI and try to masquerade your argument as RAW. There's nothing wrong with doing RAI. I am just a stickler for people being honest about what they are in fact arguing, and you are not arguing RAW.
Do you want to rephrase that so it doesn't sound like a passive-aggressive attack?
I have explained my reasons, but you choose not to listen, so that is why you are never sure about why I say what I say.
Whether or not any ICs attached to the unit would get returned is a grey area. It's not clear in the rules how the IC attachment rule would work in the removed from play zone. A player who wants to return an IC with the unit of scarabs would somehow need to show he has greater justification than the interpretation that says he cannot (ie the burden of proof is on the more broken interpretation in the case of a tie). It's a legitimate grey area in the rules and no clear interpretation wins out so the IC does not get to return with the unit of scarabs since that interpretation has the greater burden of proof.
The IC wouldn't, and I think we have been over this before. When the rest of the unit does, the IC leaves that unit at the end of the Phase, whether he is also dead or not.
The rules make zero mention of "original" so you follow the rules as they are.
"From the Sands, We Rise" tells you to return 'the unit'. You are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules (such as 'original'). You know you are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules. Quit attempting to do so and pretending you aren't.
"The Scarab Hive" rule gives explicit permission to take the unit beyond the starting size. If you add 3 scarab bases to a unit of 9 scarabs you now have a unit of 12 scarabs. If you somehow do not really have a unit of 12 scarabs then you aren't obeying the Scarab Hive rule. When the rules tell you to return the unit to play then you simply return the unit to play. It could not be any simpler or more straightforward.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in the rules here. You are trying to make up ambiguity where absolutely none exists, so you don't have to follow clearly written rules.
Feel free to advance an argument that the Retribution Phalanx should not allow the return of scarab models that have been added to scarab units via the Scarab Hive rule using some RAI line of argumentation or some "Rules are Broken" line of argumentation (with the requisite in-game testing). Quit pretending that you have a RAW argument. It's perfectly fine to adopt a RAI line of argument here. The rule is probably broken here and testing will probably back that up (although testing should still be done).
The IC wouldn't, and I think we have been over this before. When the rest of the unit does, the IC leaves that unit at the end of the Phase, whether he is also dead or not.
Models that are removed from play do not participate in the rules of play, so the IC does not experience an end of Phase since the IC is 'removed from play'. Otherwise you are endorsing allowing models that are removed from play on the side of the table being allowed to move and shoot models on the battlefield (ie casualties can follow the rules of play). We dismiss your argument based on reductio ad absurdum (ie your rule argument causes the whole game to break).
The gray zone comes from whether or not the IC auto-detaches upon being placed in the remove from play zone (since no rules of play can be in play in that zone) or whether the IC is frozen in the state he was when he was in play (ie attached).
In the cases of a tie, or a legitimate gray area, you take the more conservative, less broken read of the rule, which in this case means the IC auto-detaches.
col_impact wrote: The rules make zero mention of "original" so you follow the rules as they are.
Nor have I said they did. Did you pay attention to what I actually said? No, as usual.
It doesn't mention "original". It doesn't mention "maximum size". It doesn't mention "the size at the start of the Phase when it died". Which is why I said, "It doesn't say".
col_impact wrote: "From the Sands, We Rise" tells you to return 'the unit'. You are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules (such as 'original'). You know you are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules. Quit attempting to do so and pretending you aren't.
I never did. You are adding additional specifiers to this rule.
Again, I said, "It doesn't say". As in, "It doesn't say what size of unit is returned".
col_impact wrote: "The Scarab Hive" rule gives explicit permission to take the unit beyond the starting size. If you add 3 scarab bases to a unit of 9 scarabs you now have a unit of 12 scarabs. If you somehow do not really have a unit of 12 scarabs then you aren't obeying the Scarab Hive rule. When the rules tell you to return the unit to play then you simply return the unit to play. It could not be any simpler or more straightforward.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in the rules here. You are trying to make up ambiguity where absolutely none exists, so you don't have to follow clearly written rules.
And From the Sands doesn't say to use enhanced size any more than it does to use the original size. Scarab Hive doesn't say that this can increase the size of the unit when it returns.
So, again, "IT DOESN'T SAY".
col_impact wrote: Feel free to advance an argument that the Retribution Phalanx should not allow the return of scarab models that have been added to scarab units via the Scarab Hive rule using some RAI line of argumentation or some "Rules are Broken" line of argumentation (with the requisite in-game testing). Quit pretending that you have a RAW argument. It's perfectly fine to adopt a RAI line of argument here. The rule is probably broken here and testing will probably back that up (although testing should still be done).
Just be honest.
Just be honest. You are attributing a case I never stated. You are attributing a case that can be used, but is not 100% RAW any more than the precedents because it ignores the fact that it doesn't address which version of the unit we are to return.
col_impact wrote: Models that are removed from play do not participate in the rules of play, so the IC does not experience an end of Phase since the IC is 'removed from play'. Otherwise you are endorsing allowing models that are removed from play on the side of the table being allowed to move and shoot models on the battlefield (ie casualties can follow the rules of play). We dismiss your argument based on reductio ad absurdum (ie your rule argument causes the whole game to break).
I thought we had been over this. You weren't able to prove this before, and you won't be able to prove this now. The IC rules do not care if the unit is deployed or not in order for this to be in effect. And only deployed units can perform the actions which you described.
So we can dismiss your argument on the basis that is ascribes a situation which are not written in the rules, but only in your assumptions.
col_impact wrote: The rules make zero mention of "original" so you follow the rules as they are.
Nor have I said they did. Did you pay attention to what I actually said? No, as usual.
It doesn't mention "original". It doesn't mention "maximum size". It doesn't mention "the size at the start of the Phase when it died". Which is why I said, "It doesn't say".
col_impact wrote: "From the Sands, We Rise" tells you to return 'the unit'. You are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules (such as 'original'). You know you are not allowed to add additional specifiers to rules. Quit attempting to do so and pretending you aren't.
I never did. You are adding additional specifiers to this rule.
Again, I said, "It doesn't say". As in, "It doesn't say what size of unit is returned".
col_impact wrote: "The Scarab Hive" rule gives explicit permission to take the unit beyond the starting size. If you add 3 scarab bases to a unit of 9 scarabs you now have a unit of 12 scarabs. If you somehow do not really have a unit of 12 scarabs then you aren't obeying the Scarab Hive rule. When the rules tell you to return the unit to play then you simply return the unit to play. It could not be any simpler or more straightforward.
There is absolutely no ambiguity in the rules here. You are trying to make up ambiguity where absolutely none exists, so you don't have to follow clearly written rules.
And From the Sands doesn't say to use enhanced size any more than it does to use the original size. Scarab Hive doesn't say that this can increase the size of the unit when it returns.
So, again, "IT DOESN'T SAY".
The rules say add bases to the unit and the rules say return the unit to play. So I do that. If I don't do that then I am actively disobeying the rules. That's how the rules are written.
It is super simple what the rules are telling me to do.
In the absence of specific language then the general language of the rules apply.
The general logic of the rules cover all cases (including resurrection) unless there exists specific language indicating otherwise.
Quit going against plainly stated rules and pretending you are not.
Be honest about what you are proposing, which is a RAI argument or a Rules Are Broken argument.
You can keep stomping your foot and yelling "IT DOESN'T SAY". Yup, it doesn't say. So we apply the rules as they are written and the rules cover all cases. Add bases to the unit. Put models on the side of the table that are casualties. Return the unit to play.
Nothing more to discuss here except you won't admit to not having a RAW argument.
col_impact wrote: Models that are removed from play do not participate in the rules of play, so the IC does not experience an end of Phase since the IC is 'removed from play'. Otherwise you are endorsing allowing models that are removed from play on the side of the table being allowed to move and shoot models on the battlefield (ie casualties can follow the rules of play). We dismiss your argument based on reductio ad absurdum (ie your rule argument causes the whole game to break).
I thought we had been over this. You weren't able to prove this before, and you won't be able to prove this now. The IC rules do not care if the unit is deployed or not in order for this to be in effect. And only deployed units can perform the actions which you described.
So we can dismiss your argument on the basis that is ascribes a situation which are not written in the rules, but only in your assumptions.
Models/units in the "removed from play as casualties" zone are not in the "reserves" zone or are you saying I can bring my deceased IC in next turn from ongoing reserves?
In fact, before saying anything further on this subject you are required to clarify the full scope of what models can and cannot do (and why) in each of these zones.
1) Reserves
2) Battlefield
3) Removed from play as casualties
4) Ongoing reserves
In relation to the zones, can the models shoot, move, participate in the psychic phase?
Your argument will topple the moment you actually go about fleshing out in detail what models can and cannot do in each zone (ie upon full examination your argument is absurd)
Also consider this.
You have an IC attached to a unit in reserves that gets to come onto the battlefield on turn 3. Can I as a player detach the IC from the unit on turn 2 while in the Reserves zone? The answer to that question (and the reason for that answer) proves that you cannot detach an IC in the removed from play as a casualty zone.
col_impact wrote: The rules say add bases to the unit and the rules say return the unit to play. So I do that. If I don't do that then I am actively disobeying the rules. That's how the rules are written.
So then, if the unit was 4 models when it died, but started with 5, lost 3 earlier and then gained two, we should just restore it with 4 models because that was the unit when it died. Do you understand this concept?
col_impact wrote: In the absence of specific language then the general language of the rules apply.
A general supposition for gameplay, but not a requirement.
col_impact wrote: The general logic of the rules cover all cases (including resurrection) unless there exists specific language indicating otherwise.
Quit going against plainly stated rules and pretending you are not.
But the Hive rule does not address affecting other rules, so it wouldn't.
col_impact wrote: Be honest about what you are proposing, which is a RAI argument or a Rules Are Broken argument.
I was being honest, or did you actually miss that part by not listening again? Or do you want me to call you a liar again.
col_impact wrote: You can keep stomping your foot and yelling "IT DOESN'T SAY". Yup, it doesn't say. So we apply the rules as they are written and the rules cover all cases. Add bases to the unit. Put models on the side of the table that are casualties. Return the unit to play.
Nothing more to discuss here except you won't admit to not having a RAW argument.
So, again, where does the Hive state it affects the unit for resurrection? It doesn't directly. You are going through a roundabout way that could be interpreted as easter egg hunting. I didn't say your method doesn't work. It does. I'm just saying that From the Sands and the Hive do not reference each other. From the Sands doesn't state which version of the unit we use to bring back whether it is the original, maximum size, or the size it was before it died.
col_impact wrote: Models/units in the "removed from play as casualties" zone are not in the "reserves" zone or are you saying I can bring my deceased IC in next turn from ongoing reserves?
Did I say they were in Reserves? Where did I suggest that? And where is "Reserves zone" listed? How about "casualties zone"?
I said that they were not deployed. By deployed, I reference how it is used by Deployment, Reserves, Deep Strike, Infiltrate, and Outflank, and that is "placed on the table".
When a game starts, all the units are either deployed or in Reserves. As the game goes on, they are either in Reserves, Deployed or Destroyed.
col_impact wrote: In fact, before saying anything further on this subject you are required to clarify the full scope of what models can and cannot do (and why) in each of these zones.
1) Reserves
2) Battlefield
3) Removed from play as casualties
4) Ongoing reserves
In relation to the zones, can the models shoot, move, participate in the psychic phase?
Why should I? It is your case that these limits are in place, present the argument with proper references to define each "zone".
You have an IC attached to a unit in reserves that gets to come onto the battlefield on turn 3. Can I as a player detach the IC from the unit on turn 2 while in the Reserves zone? The answer to that question (and the reason for that answer) proves that you cannot detach an IC in the removed from play as a casualty zone.
No, it doesn't.
BRB > Special Rules > Independent Character > 4th Paragraph:
An Independent Character cannot leave a unit while either he or the unit is in Reserves, locked in combat, Falling Back or has Gone to Ground.
Nothing about being destroyed being a factor.
In fact, later on in that same paragraph:
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
Where does it state he has to survive in order for this to be in affect? It does not.
In addition, earlier in the section:
An Independent Character can leave a unit during the Movement phase by moving out of unit coherency with it.
Hard to be define coherency off the "battlefield zone" wouldn't you say?
The BRB section: "REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED" does make a good case for the full "spyder upgraded" Unit returning. ie. start game with 3, upgraded to 4 via spyder, all 4 are destroyed and those 4 return next owner's turn.
Now, because IC's always count as their own unit, even though they are joined to another unit, they would not come back via the Formation bonus, because of that same BRB rule.
Further support for IC's not counting as part of the unit when destroyed: They count as a kill point when they are removed as a casualty, even when the unit they were joined with is not completely destroyed.
Keeping in mind, I know col_impact has done a lot of debate about this subject, but I am not sure I have seen my above thought addressed. If it has, I am sure we will find out soon enough.
col_impact wrote: The rules say add bases to the unit and the rules say return the unit to play. So I do that. If I don't do that then I am actively disobeying the rules. That's how the rules are written.
So then, if the unit was 4 models when it died, but started with 5, lost 3 earlier and then gained two, we should just restore it with 4 models because that was the unit when it died. Do you understand this concept?
col_impact wrote: In the absence of specific language then the general language of the rules apply.
A general supposition for gameplay, but not a requirement.
col_impact wrote: The general logic of the rules cover all cases (including resurrection) unless there exists specific language indicating otherwise.
Quit going against plainly stated rules and pretending you are not.
But the Hive rule does not address affecting other rules, so it wouldn't.
col_impact wrote: Be honest about what you are proposing, which is a RAI argument or a Rules Are Broken argument.
I was being honest, or did you actually miss that part by not listening again? Or do you want me to call you a liar again.
col_impact wrote: You can keep stomping your foot and yelling "IT DOESN'T SAY". Yup, it doesn't say. So we apply the rules as they are written and the rules cover all cases. Add bases to the unit. Put models on the side of the table that are casualties. Return the unit to play.
Nothing more to discuss here except you won't admit to not having a RAW argument.
So, again, where does the Hive state it affects the unit for resurrection? It doesn't directly. You are going through a roundabout way that could be interpreted as easter egg hunting. I didn't say your method doesn't work. It does. I'm just saying that From the Sands and the Hive do not reference each other. From the Sands doesn't state which version of the unit we use to bring back whether it is the original, maximum size, or the size it was before it died.
Cool. Per your admission, my method works and you are unable to offer a counter-argument of merit.
The rules in question do not need to reference each other. They each work generally and independently and RAW works just fine.
If you follow the rules, the unit will be comprised of the models on the side of the table that were in the unit. Whatever bases were added to the unit will be in that unit on the side of the table.
The rules in 40k do not need to specifically reference each other in order to have an impact on each other. The requirement that rules must specifically reference each other is some ridiculous notion in your head.
If the rules writers wanted From the Sands, We Rise to bring back the original unit then it then they would have specified it. The unit and original unit are two very different things. Did the rules writers mess up ? Hard to imagine since scarab farm is an obvious interaction to account for. Even so, slop RAW is still RAW.
You are basically wishlisting at this point (wishing that 'original' was in the From the Sands, We Rise rule). You can't win the RAW argument on this one. To convince people not to play it the more broken way, you would be better off testing out a list with the more broken interpretation. I have. It's not broken, but it does present a few armies with a tough match (those that can't focus out the Spyders or the O Lord). People who play those armies won't like you. But that's true of WK, et. al. so power level doesn't provide compelling evidence. Maybe your tests can show otherwise.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Draco765 wrote: The BRB section: "REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED" does make a good case for the full "spyder upgraded" Unit returning. ie. start game with 3, upgraded to 4 via spyder, all 4 are destroyed and those 4 return next owner's turn.
Now, because IC's always count as their own unit, even though they are joined to another unit, they would not come back via the Formation bonus, because of that same BRB rule.
Further support for IC's not counting as part of the unit when destroyed: They count as a kill point when they are removed as a casualty, even when the unit they were joined with is not completely destroyed.
Keeping in mind, I know col_impact has done a lot of debate about this subject, but I am not sure I have seen my above thought addressed. If it has, I am sure we will find out soon enough.
I agree with not allowing ICs to come back with the unit. I think it's a legitimate grey area and the more conservative read should win out. When a unit is removed from play, do all the rules of play cease to affect the unit? Or is the unit frozen in the state it was in as it was removed from play? Can models that are removed from play still play? If an IC can still do something like detach from a unit, why can't he shoot at something he can draw line of sight from? Even though the BRB just says it flat out with no further explication, 'removed from play' literally means you can't play with this model any more. So unless some rule specifically allows you to affect models that are removed from play, then that model is doing nothing (ie no play).
These issues are interesting to ponder, but I am not going to push for ICs coming back with the From the Sands, We Rise rule. The rules are too murky.
Someone who wants to push for ICs coming back with the unit has the burden of proof on their part.
col_impact wrote: Cool. Per your admission, my method works and you are unable to offer a counter-argument of merit.
It works as an HYWPI, just as much as using the precedents of original unit. But I guess you missed that by not listening to everything and patting your own back. How's the shoulder?
col_impact wrote: The rules in question do not need to reference each other. They each work generally and independently and RAW works just fine.
Not quite. Nothing in From the Sands proper references your point of view any more than it references the Hive. And that is the problem.
col_impact wrote: If you follow the rules, the unit will be comprised of the models on the side of the table that were in the unit. Whatever bases were added to the unit will be in that unit on the side of the table.
So I can still fire all 7 Tactical Marine bolters since they are still part of the unit, even if only the Sergeant is alive? cool.
And just so you know, this is the part of reducto absdurdum you keep talking about.
Dead models are not treated as part of the unit once they are removed as a casualty, otherwise coherency would be crazy.
col_impact wrote: The rules in 40k do not need to specifically reference each other in order to have an impact on each other. The requirement that rules must specifically reference each other is some ridiculous notion in your head.
If it is not referenced, then it cannot properly make the changes to the game needed to work the way you want.
col_impact wrote: If the rules writers wanted From the Sands, We Rise to bring back the original unit then it then they would have specified it. The unit and original unit are two very different things. Did the rules writers mess up? Hard to imagine since scarab farm is an obvious interaction to account for. Even so, slop RAW is still RAW.
Correct. They are different things, or rather one includes the other. The problem again is, which "unit" is addressing? Original, improved, or what last died? And the answer is, "it does not say".
But hey, the Obelisk can cause Swooping Flying Monstrous Creatures to take a Dangerous Terrain test, even though they would automatically pass it by naturally having Move Through Cover as part of their unit type. Did the writers mess up? Hard to imagine since Flying Monstrous Creatures have it as an obvious interaction to account for.
col_impact wrote: You are basically wishlisting at this point (wishing that 'original' was in the From the Sands, We Rise rule). You can't win the RAW argument on this one. To convince people not to play it the more broken way, you would be better off testing out a list with the more broken interpretation. I have. It's not broken, but it does present a few armies with a tough match (those that can't focus out the Spyders or the O Lord). People who play those armies won't like you. But that's true of WK, et. al. so power level doesn't provide compelling evidence. Maybe your tests can show otherwise.
It's hard to win a RAW argument when nothing is properly "W" to discuss. And Power Level is rarely part of how I approach a RAW discussion. It does sometimes, but only from the factor of
col_impact wrote: If you follow the rules, the unit will be comprised of the models on the side of the table that were in the unit. Whatever bases were added to the unit will be in that unit on the side of the table.
So I can still fire all 7 Tactical Marine bolters since they are still part of the unit, even if only the Sergeant is alive? cool.
And just so you know, this is the part of reducto absdurdum you keep talking about.
Dead models are not treated as part of the unit once they are removed as a casualty, otherwise coherency would be crazy.
The BRB declares that dead models are removed from play. That means that they are part of the unit (scoring, resurrection, etc.) but that they take no part at all in play. Coherency, line of sight, measuring distance, movement, shooting, psychic shooting, etc. are all part of play.
In fact, if you somehow treat them as still in play then you will break the game.
From the Sands, We Rise gives specific permission to return the unit - which is now a unit on the side of the table per the rules - to play.
If there are spyders, then the Hive rule adds bases to the unit.
col_impact wrote: Cool. Per your admission, my method works and you are unable to offer a counter-argument of merit.
It works as an HYWPI, just as much as using the precedents of original unit. But I guess you missed that by not listening to everything and patting your own back. How's the shoulder?
You can play any way you want so it's pointless discussing HYWPI unless there are some rubrics or metrics involved (ie you are a tourney organizer and you want to implement 'fair' 40k). If you have some rubrics or metrics then please share them.
This forum discusses RAW and expects people to label their argument HYWPI if it isn't HYWPI so by not labeling your argument HYWPI, I was correctly addressing it as a RAW argument.
col_impact wrote: The rules in 40k do not need to specifically reference each other in order to have an impact on each other. The requirement that rules must specifically reference each other is some ridiculous notion in your head.
If it is not referenced, then it cannot properly make the changes to the game needed to work the way you want.
Both reference the unit, which is all that is required.
col_impact wrote: If the rules writers wanted From the Sands, We Rise to bring back the original unit then it then they would have specified it. The unit and original unit are two very different things. Did the rules writers mess up? Hard to imagine since scarab farm is an obvious interaction to account for. Even so, slop RAW is still RAW.
Correct. They are different things, or rather one includes the other. The problem again is, which "unit" is addressing? Original, improved, or what last died? And the answer is, "it does not say".
When From the Sands, We Rise is triggered (ie when the unit is 'wiped out'), there is a unit of scarabs wholly on the side of the table. So, it's exceedingly clear that you simply bring that unit back to play. If you don't simply do just that then you are actually breaking rules.
col_impact wrote: The BRB declares that dead models are removed from play. That means that they are part of the unit (scoring, resurrection, etc.) but that they take no part at all in play. Coherency, line of sight, measuring distance, movement, shooting, psychic shooting, etc. are all part of play.
Care to provide a quote or at least a proper reference on that?
My point was more to demonstrate that once removed as a casualty, they cannot be treated as part of the unit. If not, then many many issues will arise if they weren't. Nothing states they retain unit connections once all the models are removed, just that the unit is destroyed.
So, from this, we can look at the the unit being returned to how it was right before it was killed. The Hive's numbers may or may not be contributing to this number.
I don't necessarily agree with this as a workable version, either, since it doesn't specify the unit as it last existed any more than original or maximum sized unit, though, but just presenting it as another method of a person may want to run it.
col_impact wrote: You can play any way you want so it's pointless discussing HYWPI unless there are some rubrics or metrics involved (ie you are a tourney organizer and you want to implement 'fair' 40k). If you have some rubrics or metrics then please share them.
This forum discusses RAW and expects people to label their argument HYWPI if it isn't HYWPI so by not labeling your argument HYWPI, I was correctly addressing it as a RAW argument.
Back to not being able to address a post consistently and having to piecemeal it again, I see.
Keep in mind, I was calling YOUR assessment as HYWPI. And HYWPI is perfectly fine when the rules are insufficiently detailed as I had stated. In fact, by stating, "it doesn't say" and by using words like "in every other instance" and "precedent" I am defining it as such.
Not that you bother to listen.
col_impact wrote: Both reference the unit, which is all that is required.
Not really. Because there are many compositions of the unit over the course of the game that need to be identified as to which is being used.
col_impact wrote: When From the Sands, We Rise is triggered (ie when the unit is 'wiped out'), there is a unit of scarabs wholly on the side of the table. So, it's exceedingly clear that you simply bring that unit back to play. If you don't simply do just that then you are actually breaking rules.
Incorrect as I pointed above. The models are on the side of the table, the unit is gone, completely destroyed, also known as ceased to exists. From the Sands does not state, "all the models that were part of the unit return", just the unit.
So, again, it doesn't say which version of the unit is restored.
col_impact wrote: You can play any way you want so it's pointless discussing HYWPI unless there are some rubrics or metrics involved (ie you are a tourney organizer and you want to implement 'fair' 40k). If you have some rubrics or metrics then please share them.
This forum discusses RAW and expects people to label their argument HYWPI if it isn't HYWPI so by not labeling your argument HYWPI, I was correctly addressing it as a RAW argument.
Back to not being able to address a post consistently and having to piecemeal it again, I see.
Keep in mind, I was calling YOUR assessment as HYWPI. And HYWPI is perfectly fine when the rules are insufficiently detailed as I had stated. In fact, by stating, "it doesn't say" and by using words like "in every other instance" and "precedent" I am defining it as such.
Not that you bother to listen.
My assessment is RAW. It follows directly from the rules that we have and breaks no rules. A computer would have no trouble following the instructions given. It's that simple.
The popularity of the RAW interpretation is another issue altogether.
col_impact wrote: My assessment is RAW. It follows directly from the rules that we have and breaks no rules. A computer would have no trouble following the instructions given. It's that simple.
The popularity of the RAW interpretation is another issue altogether.
I have demonstrated that it is as much RAW as any other method for HWWPI.
Happyjew wrote: Query, wouldn't the unit be removed when the last base is killed? Meaning that at the time of unit death, there is only 1 base in the unit?
If there is one base in play then the unit is not 'wiped out'. Once the unit has zero bases in play then the unit is wiped out. From the Sands, We Rise can then trigger and return the unit to play.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - when the unit is destroyed, it somehow isnt destroyed, but sits in a "removed from play" zone, but is still otherwise a "unit"?
Do you have a page ref for that?
Here's the rule.
Spoiler:
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’.
Once all the models in a unit are removed as casualties and placed on the side of the table the unit will be designated 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or some such.
Resurrection USR can then trigger to return the unit to play.
Happyjew wrote:Query, wouldn't the unit be removed when the last base is killed? Meaning that at the time of unit death, there is only 1 base in the unit?
Not necessarily. If the unit is Swept for example.
Kilkrazy wrote:Does all shooting in one phase happen simultaneously?
No, just for each Weapon Group. Even in 6th, it was only for the unit, not all the shooting.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - when the unit is destroyed, it somehow isnt destroyed, but sits in a "removed from play" zone, but is still otherwise a "unit"?
Do you have a page ref for that?
Here's the rule.
Spoiler:
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’.
Once all the models in a unit are removed as casualties and placed on the side of the table the unit will be designated 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or some such.
Resurrection USR can then trigger to return the unit to play.
So, no, you don't have a page reference for the question. Nowhere in that quote does it state that the unit is removed from the table to sit in a "removed from play" zone or any zone. The quote you provided only states that the unit is 'completely destroyed'. It doesn't state that the unit identity is retained after all its models have been removed any more than you consider those removed models as part of the unit.
Col - where is the page reference stating that a unit that is completely destroyed it is still somehow a "unit" identity of models, and not just a bunch of models placed on the side?
That is the issue with your concept - as soon as "the unit" is destroyed, "the unit" as it was on the table cannot exist. In fact the only entry for the unit, any longer, will be on the army list.
"REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED"
- Page 468 electronic, pg 13 Dark Vengeance rule book. I do not have the hard cover so I do not know the page for that one, but it is under CORE RULES.
"Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side."
- Here is the line that does say you set the Models to the side when they are removed as a casualty. They call the zone "one side".
"When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’."
- When the 'one side' contains all of the models from the unit that once was on the field, the unit is now 'completely destroyed'. That is now "The unit" that the Formation rule looks at to return to the field.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
Huh? You are being silly. Where in the rules does it say that the unit no longer exists? You are bringing ontological logic into a game. Very, very silly.
The unit is simply designated as 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or 'removed from play' if it's wholly on the side of the table but a resurrection rule can access the 'one side [zone]' and remove the designation of 'completely destroyed' and restore the unit to play.
These designations are all just game designations.
In fact, 'From the Sands, We Rise' triggers after a unit is 'wiped out' so there is most assuredly still a game concept of a unit in the 'one side [zone]'. To be precise, there is a unit of scarabs designated 'wiped out' in the 'one side [zone]'.
Spoiler:
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So something that is destroyed still exists? Page ref please.
The unit is placed to 'one side' and designated 'completely destroyed' and treated as 'removed from play'. It's simply a game designation and functional distinction (ie 'removed from play'). The models actually still exist and have not gone through the shredder or otherwise incenerated. The designation can be removed by a separate game rule designed to return units back to play (ie 'From the Sands, We Rise').
I think you need to step back and consider we are talking about a game here and not real world physics. Page ref please for 40k adhering to real world physics. I will adhere to 40k game logic and rules. Thanks.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
Huh? You are being silly. Where in the rules does it say that the unit no longer exists?
The unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or 'removed from play' but a resurrection rule can access the 'one side [zone]' to restore the unit to play.
In fact, 'From the Sands, We Rise' triggers after a unit is 'wiped out' so there is most assuredly still a concept of a unit in the 'one side [zone]'
Spoiler:
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn.
What does "completely destroyed" mean then?
It does not say "return from the one sides zone", because the unit was not ever put in the "one sides zone", just its models. As noted, models removed as casualties cannot be considered part of the unit in order for the rest of the game to work. If they are no longer part of the unit when they go there, then they won't be part of the unit when it is brought back, as we have no instructions to reunite those models with the unit.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
Huh? You are being silly. Where in the rules does it say that the unit no longer exists?
The unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or 'removed from play' but a resurrection rule can access the 'one side [zone]' to restore the unit to play.
In fact, 'From the Sands, We Rise' triggers after a unit is 'wiped out' so there is most assuredly still a concept of a unit in the 'one side [zone]'
Spoiler:
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn.
What does "completely destroyed" mean then?
It does not say "return from the one sides zone", because the unit was not ever put in the "one sides zone", just its models. As noted, models removed as casualties cannot be considered part of the unit in order for the rest of the game to work. If they are no longer part of the unit when they go there, then they won't be part of the unit when it is brought back, as we have no instructions to reunite those models with the unit.
More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
Spoiler:
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
col_impact wrote: More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Who said anything about real world physics? I asked about the words and terms used in these rules themselves and the terms YOU made up for your convenience of presenting the concept.
Where does it define "completely destroyed" as anything other than the normal use of the terms?
You also have not answered the other questions I have presented regarding your theory. Namely, if the models are not to be treated as part of the unit when removed from play (in order to avoid issues with things like movement), how are they returned to the unit by From the Sand when the unit is restored?
Any definition you apply at this point will be nothing but an assumption, and assumptions are the realm of HYWPI since they are not Written.
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
col_impact wrote: More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Who said anything about real world physics? I asked about the words and terms used in these rules themselves and the terms YOU made up for your convenience of presenting the concept.
Where does it define "completely destroyed" as anything other than the normal use of the terms?
The normal use of the term would involve models being pulverized.
This is a game. 'Completely destroyed' refers to a game state that the models are in.
Game concepts do not correspond to real world definitions.
A unit that is completely destroyed or wiped out is set to the side of the table and placed in a removed from play state and referenced for things like scoring and resurrection effects but are otherwise 'removed from play'. No models are being shredded. Oh the silliness!
You also have not answered the other questions I have presented regarding your theory. Namely, if the models are not to be treated as part of the unit when removed from play (in order to avoid issues with things like movement), how are they returned to the unit by From the Sand when the unit is restored?
Any definition you apply at this point will be nothing but an assumption, and assumptions are the realm of HYWPI since they are not Written.
The models are removed from play as casualties per the rules. They are still organizationally part of the unit but do not interact with the unit in terms of play. Pretty simple really. The BRB just requires you to treat 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
Per the rules, models are always organized in units so when you are dealing with a model directly there is always a unit organization in consideration. The unit level of organization is never 'not there'.
col_impact wrote: More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Who said anything about real world physics? I asked about the words and terms used in these rules themselves and the terms YOU made up for your convenience of presenting the concept.
Where does it define "completely destroyed" as anything other than the normal use of the terms?
You also have not answered the other questions I have presented regarding your theory. Namely, if the models are not to be treated as part of the unit when removed from play (in order to avoid issues with things like movement), how are they returned to the unit by From the Sand when the unit is restored?
Any definition you apply at this point will be nothing but an assumption, and assumptions are the realm of HYWPI since they are not Written.
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
The rule "REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED" is where the term is defined. It is defined as "When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been
‘completely destroyed’." That completely destroyed unit is what the Formation ability looks for to return.
Now, on the other hand, if you really want to get technical, "wiped out" has no defined ruling on what it means to the game, thus the Formation bonus will never happen.
col_impact wrote: The normal use of the term would involve models being pulverized.
This is a game. 'Completely destroyed' refers to a game state that the models are in.
Game concepts do not correspond to real world definitions.
A unit that is completely destroyed or wiped out is set to the side of the table and placed in a removed from play state and referenced for things like scoring and resurrection effects but are otherwise 'removed from play'. No models are being shredded. Oh the silliness!
Shredded? What the are you talking about? Are you still confusing models with units?
A unit is an organizational concept, as in "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’." In the real world, when a organization is completely destroyed, it doesn't mean it was pulverized, it means that the cohesion that united it is no longer in play. The individual components can still exist outside of this organization as their own, but that's not the same thing. In the military, it is not uncommon for a unit in wartime to be destroyed by taking extreme or total casualties. Sometimes the unit can lose all members, but be retained in existence and filled with all new members.
For the game, though, a unit that is "completely destroyed" is not set to the side of the table. A unit that is "completely destroyed" is a unit that has all its models removed as casualties and set to the side of the table. Note that they don't even have to be placed on the side of the table together. This is not too far from the concept of a unit being destroyed when all of its components have had their connections severed, but that is only a way to demonstrate the concept.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the connections between model and unit must be treated as severed when the model is removed or the situation with things like "unit coherency" get out of wack. From the Sands does not specifically address reestablishing this link when it restores the unit.
"Completely destroyed" is never associated with models, only the unit. If you think that I stated otherwise, you are deluding yourself or just not listening.
col_impact wrote: The models are removed from play as casualties per the rules. They are still organizationally part of the unit but do not interact with the unit in terms of play. Pretty simple really. The BRB just requires you to treat 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
Reference please.
The only place I see identifying "removed from play" does not state this. It translates "removed from play" as "removed as a casualty", which means "removed from the table and placed to one side".
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
Per the rules, models are always organized in units so when you are dealing with a model directly there is always a unit organization in consideration. The unit level of organization is never 'not there'.
Reread what you wrote. Now, read Select a Weapon and tell me what is in consideration there for Line of Sight, Range, and capacity to shoot, unit or model?
Read Dangerous Terrain, does the unit take the test or do the models?
When firing a Heavy Weapon, does the game care if the unit moved or the model moved?
Which suffers Wounds, model or unit?
So, my point was not that the "unit is not there" it was to the fact that you said, "the game never deals with models directly.", which is complete and utter . Just a demonstration of the fact that you don't listen, even to yourself.
Col - still no page ref to back up your increasingly...interesting assertions.
The unit, ie the set of models, is completely destroyed. The unit no longer exists. The models do - but the unit (set) they were organised into no longer exists. The only place it exists is in the data sheet.
col_impact wrote:
Per the rules, models are always organized in units so when you are dealing with a model directly there is always a unit organization in consideration. The unit level of organization is never 'not there'.
Reread what you wrote. Now, read Select a Weapon and tell me what is in consideration there for Line of Sight, Range, and capacity to shoot, unit or model?
Read Dangerous Terrain, does the unit take the test or do the models?
When firing a Heavy Weapon, does the game care if the unit moved or the model moved?
Which suffers Wounds, model or unit?
So, my point was not that the "unit is not there" it was to the fact that you said, "the game never deals with models directly.", which is complete and utter . Just a demonstration of the fact that you don't listen, even to yourself.
You are mistaken. The game never deals with models directly. Models are always organized in units and the rules of play involve units and not models directly. So reread the rules. A model is never in play that is outside of the organization of the unit.
Feel free to point to an instance where a model that is not in a unit can participate in the shooting phase, the movement phase, or the psychic phase, etc.
Spoiler:
FORMING A UNIT
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
Units
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named
groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of
the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! 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, a tank, a war
engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.
Spoiler:
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected
weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that
have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Spoiler:
THE MOVEMENT PHASE
[. . . ]
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to
their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement,
you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the
units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move
before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of
your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll
explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and
change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - still no page ref to back up your increasingly...interesting assertions.
The unit, ie the set of models, is completely destroyed. The unit no longer exists. The models do - but the unit (set) they were organised into no longer exists. The only place it exists is in the data sheet.
Already answered.
Spoiler:
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
'Completely destroyed' means that the unit is on the side of table removed from play. Can you point to rules that say the models in the unit are no longer organizationally part of the unit? Looks like you can't.
I have pointed to rules that say models are always organized in units. So long as there are models on the side of the table they must be organized in some unit or units. The burden is on you to provide textual support for the silly things that your argument is trying to advance.
'From the Sands, We Rise' has no problems referencing the unit in the "wiped out" zone and is in itself textual support that unit is an organizational game concept in the 'removed from play' zone. The argument that you are trying to advance is that the rule cannot reference the unit in the "wiped out" zone. Are you trying to argue that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does not work at all since there are no units in the "wiped out" zone? Such silliness. You guys literally have no argument.
If col is right then why even go for scarabs when you could just add more warriors to the warrior unit via ghost ark repair. Sure you need the unit to be shot at first but hey your still adding models to the unit.
col_impact wrote: You are mistaken. The game never deals with models directly. Models are always organized in units and the rules of play involve units and not models directly. So reread the rules. A model is never in play that is outside of the organization of the unit.
Feel free to point out where I said a model in play is outside of an organization. I thought we were focusing on models removed from play?
What I was countering your assertion that "the game never deals with models directly."
To demonstrate my point, since you cannot be bothered to listen and research from there:
Select A Weapon ...
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
...
A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers. This must be declared before rolling To Hit. If a model chooses not to shoot with the currently selected weapon now, it cannot fire that weapon later during the same phase (but it can shoot a differently named weapon it is equipped with). All of the models in the unit that are firing the selected weapon shoot at the same time, regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together...
While it is models in a unit, it is still models that the game is addressing directly in this section.
Dangerous Terrain Dangerous terrain follows all the rules for difficult terrain – you’ve got to watch your step! In addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
Heavy Weapons ...
When shooting, a model with a Heavy weapon shoots the number of times indicated. If a model carrying a Heavy weapon moved in the preceding Movement phase, he can fire it in the Shooting phase but only as Snap Shots. Remember that weapons with the Blast special rule cannot fire Snap Shots. Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
So, yeah, from this small sample, the game definitely deals directly with models.
Allocate Wounds First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
'Completely destroyed' means that the unit is on the side of table removed from play. Can you point to rules that say the models in the unit are no longer organizationally part of the unit? Looks like you can't.
Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
col_impact wrote: I have pointed to rules that say models are always organized in units. So long as there are models on the side of the table they must be organized in some unit or units. The burden is on you to provide textual support for the silly things that your argument is trying to advance.
'From the Sands, We Rise' has no problems referencing the unit in the "wiped out" zone and is in itself textual support that unit is an organizational game concept in the 'removed from play' zone. The argument that you are trying to advance is that the rule cannot reference the unit in the "wiped out" zone. Are you trying to argue that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does not work at all since there are no units in the "wiped out" zone? Such silliness. You guys literally have no argument.
Can you reference where it defines this "wiped out" zone?
These questions have been asked a few times, but you have refused to even acknowledge what they are by providing improper answers. Can you listen to what is asked and answer properly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oberron wrote: If col is right then why even go for scarabs when you could just add more warriors to the warrior unit via ghost ark repair. Sure you need the unit to be shot at first but hey your still adding models to the unit.
The Scarab Hive can take a unit beyond their starting number, the Ghost Ark specifically states that it cannot.
Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
col_impact wrote: You are mistaken. The game never deals with models directly. Models are always organized in units and the rules of play involve units and not models directly. So reread the rules. A model is never in play that is outside of the organization of the unit.
Feel free to point out where I said a model in play is outside of an organization. I thought we were focusing on models removed from play?
What I was countering your assertion that "the game never deals with models directly."
To demonstrate my point, since you cannot be bothered to listen and research from there:
Select A Weapon ...
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
...
A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers. This must be declared before rolling To Hit. If a model chooses not to shoot with the currently selected weapon now, it cannot fire that weapon later during the same phase (but it can shoot a differently named weapon it is equipped with). All of the models in the unit that are firing the selected weapon shoot at the same time, regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together...
While it is models in a unit, it is still models that the game is addressing directly in this section.
Dangerous Terrain Dangerous terrain follows all the rules for difficult terrain – you’ve got to watch your step! In addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
Heavy Weapons ...
When shooting, a model with a Heavy weapon shoots the number of times indicated. If a model carrying a Heavy weapon moved in the preceding Movement phase, he can fire it in the Shooting phase but only as Snap Shots. Remember that weapons with the Blast special rule cannot fire Snap Shots. Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
So, yeah, from this small sample, the game definitely deals directly with models.
Allocate Wounds First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.
In all of the examples you list, not once are you showing me a model that is not in a unit. So you have utterly failed to prove your point. I am waiting for you to show me a case where you are dealing with a model not in a unit, not a case where the rules simply don't mention unit out of not wanting to be excessively redundant.
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
'Completely destroyed' means that the unit is on the side of table removed from play. Can you point to rules that say the models in the unit are no longer organizationally part of the unit? Looks like you can't.
Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
My argument still stands. I have pointed to rules that settle the issue. All models in 40k are organized in units.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The game is not played outside of the battlefield (except for specific exceptions as noted).
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect. By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play.
A model that is "removed as a casualty" cannot shoot, move, or engage in the psychic phase because it has been "removed" and is no longer on the game space (ie the battlefield). Once a model or a unit is removed from the battlefield that is usually the end of it for those models or units. Once removed as a casualty, models or units are almost always doing nothing henceforth. However, a rule like From the Sands, We Rise can specifically return units that have been removed from the battlefield as casualties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
The most clear point I see here is if the unit died and only had three models left, you wouldn't claim the unit may only return with the model count it had the turn it died.
Since the rule in question grants the ability to resurrect a unit chosen as part of a formation, then the unit returning would have to be the one that was purchased.
Any other action would cause the entire situation to fall appart because (under the idea of allowing the added units to return) I could kill all but one model one turn, then wait until the next turn to eliminate it and then claim you can only resurect the "unit" as it existed at the time of death.
You cant have one option without the other because the point of reference made is only speaking of the unit size being different than the starting size. Since unit size can be modified up and down in this instance there is precedent for the unit to return at its starting size.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The most clear point I see here is if the unit died and only had three models left, you wouldn't claim the unit may only return with the model count it had the turn it died.
Since the rule in question grants the ability to resurrect a unit chosen as part of a formation, then the unit returning would have to be the one that was purchased.
Any other action would cause the entire situation to fall appart because (under the idea of allowing the added units to return) I could kill all but one model one turn, then wait until the next turn to eliminate it and then claim you can only resurect the "unit" as it existed at the time of death.
You cant have one option without the other because the point of reference made is only speaking of the unit size being different than the starting size. Since unit size can be modified up and down in this instance there is precedent for the unit to return at its starting size.
Unit size has nothing to do with it. The rule grants the ability to return the unit of scarabs. Simply return the unit of scarabs that has been removed as a casualty from the battlefield which you will find on the side of the table. Whether that is 9 or 12 or however many scarab bases depends on what the unit is comprised of on the side of the table. The rule does not specify "original" or "purchased" or "size just before it was wiped out". It just specified "the unit . . . wiped out" which is the unit on the side of the table. Simple. Simple. Simple.
col_impact wrote:In all of the examples you list, not once are you showing me a model that is not in a unit. So you have utterly failed to prove your point. I am waiting for you to show me a case where you are dealing with a model not in a unit, not a case where the rules simply don't mention unit out of not wanting to be excessively redundant.
And you demonstrate your inability/unwillingness to listen. Should I just mark this as trolling?
You said "the game never deals directly with a model". Those rules are definitely dealing directly with models. The fact that models are part of units is irrelevant since your statement did not state "the game do not directly deal with a model outside of a unit".
And even that concept is out of order. Because you have to separate models from a unit somehow in order for models removed as a casualty to not affect coherency. Then in some cases those models who have been removed gain a chance to come back, particularly from Necrons, Tyranids, and formerly Imperial Guard.
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
My argument still stands. I have pointed to rules that settle the issue. All models in 40k are organized in units.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The game is not played outside of the battlefield (except for specific exceptions as noted).
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect. By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play.
A model that is "removed as a casualty" cannot shoot, move, or engage in the psychic phase because it has been "removed" and is no longer on the game space (ie the battlefield). Once a model or a unit is removed from the battlefield that is usually the end of it for those models or units. Once removed as a casualty, models or units are almost always doing nothing henceforth. However, a rule like From the Sands, We Rise can specifically return units that have been removed from the battlefield as casualties.
Insufficient to the task requested. You provided one quote and that did not define what "in play" means, nor did it properly define what "not in play" means, all it provided is where. You also incorrectly stated that a unit is removed from play when rules you have quoted state otherwise. I left the portion you quoted in to demonstrate your failure. Now, I will repeat the questions to emphasize their point.
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"? Not where it is, but what it means.
Can you reference where it states that models "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
Can you reference where it defines this "wiped out" zone?
If you can properly reference them, do so. If you cannot, just admit it. Don't just use your assertions.
col_impact wrote:Unit size has nothing to do with it. The rule grants the ability to return the unit of scarabs. Simply return the unit of scarabs that has been removed as a casualty from the battlefield which you will find on the side of the table. Whether that is 9 or 12 or however many scarab bases depends on what the unit is comprised of on the side of the table. The rule does not specify "original" or "purchased" or "size just before it was wiped out". It just specified "the unit . . . wiped out" which is the unit on the side of the table. Simple. Simple. Simple.
Unit size has everything to do with this discussion. That is the original question in the OP.
And your refusal to properly acknowledge rules you have quoted and have been demonstrated several times is tantamount to trolling. No where does it state a unit is "removed from play", only the models are. Units who have had all their models "removed from play" are "completely destroyed".
In addition, the unit cannot reference those models that have been removed as casualties at any time while it is "in play" otherwise they would have to run to the board edge to attempt to stay in coherency (and consistently fail). Unless you can demonstrate where it says otherwise, this point has no more legs than anything else stated as a solution in this thread.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yet there is no longer a unit. It was completely destroyed.
The unit is on the side of the table designated completely destroyed per the rules. You lack a rule to counter the rule in place (the models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’). You do follow the rules, right? In my play group we follow the rules.
col_impact wrote:In all of the examples you list, not once are you showing me a model that is not in a unit. So you have utterly failed to prove your point. I am waiting for you to show me a case where you are dealing with a model not in a unit, not a case where the rules simply don't mention unit out of not wanting to be excessively redundant.
And you demonstrate your inability/unwillingness to listen. Should I just mark this as trolling?
You said "the game never deals directly with a model". Those rules are definitely dealing directly with models. The fact that models are part of units is irrelevant since your statement did not state "the game do not directly deal with a model outside of a unit".
And even that concept is out of order. Because you have to separate models from a unit somehow in order for models removed as a casualty to not affect coherency. Then in some cases those models who have been removed gain a chance to come back, particularly from Necrons, Tyranids, and formerly Imperial Guard.
Still waiting for you to present a case where the game allows you to deal with models not organized in units. Accusing me of trolling is a smoke screen to cover up your failure to make a case. The game of 40k does not allow you to deal with models directly outside of units.
Charistoph wrote: Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
My argument still stands. I have pointed to rules that settle the issue. All models in 40k are organized in units.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The game is not played outside of the battlefield (except for specific exceptions as noted).
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect. By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play.
A model that is "removed as a casualty" cannot shoot, move, or engage in the psychic phase because it has been "removed" and is no longer on the game space (ie the battlefield). Once a model or a unit is removed from the battlefield that is usually the end of it for those models or units. Once removed as a casualty, models or units are almost always doing nothing henceforth. However, a rule like From the Sands, We Rise can specifically return units that have been removed from the battlefield as casualties.
Insufficient to the task requested. You provided one quote and that did not define what "in play" means, nor did it properly define what "not in play" means, all it provided is where. You also incorrectly stated that a unit is removed from play when rules you have quoted state otherwise. I left the portion you quoted in to demonstrate your failure. Now, I will repeat the questions to emphasize their point.
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"? Not where it is, but what it means.
Can you reference where it states that models "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
Can you reference where it defines this "wiped out" zone?
If you can properly reference them, do so. If you cannot, just admit it. Don't just use your assertions.
These have all been properly referenced. The Battlefield is where the game gives permission for play to occur. 'Game play' is divided into 4 main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. If you are not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in those phases except by rules that specifically permit you to do so. 40k is a game of permission. This is why a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency. In fact, you are being disingenuous to insist that I point out what is fully referenced and obvious. "Wiped out" is obviously synonomous with 'removed as a casualty'. Feel free to make the counter-argument to the thread that "wiped out" doesn't mean anything and that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does nothing as a rule and see how that goes for you. I will not bother arguing things that are patently obvious and that will not come into contention in any game of 40k and that you will not provide a counter-argument in good faith.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed, yet you claim the unit exists. Page and graph, fifth time of asking.
Spoiler:
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
Fifth time answered.
Are you having trouble with reading the rule I keep posting? It seems pretty clear to me.
A unit that is completely destroyed sits on the side of the table along with everything else that has been destroyed, removed as a casualty, removed from the game, wiped out, etc.
col_impact wrote: The unit is on the side of the table designated completely destroyed per the rules. You lack a rule to counter the rule in place (the models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’). You do follow the rules, right? In my play group we follow the rules.
False. The unit is never noted as being on the side of the table, only the models are. The unit whose models are all on the side of the table is "completely destroyed".
Reread:
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’.
What is the designation of the unit stated in the above statement?
col_impact wrote: Still waiting for you to present a case where the game allows you to deal with models not organized in units. Accusing me of trolling is a smoke screen to cover up your failure to make a case. The game of 40k does not allow you to deal with models directly outside of units.
You misspoke. You then tried to accuse me of something I did not state in connection to your misspeaking. You are attempting to make this about something which has no connection to the original statement. This is the trolling behavior.
If you want to correct that misstatement, then go ahead, but so far, you have not even acknowledged you stated it. You keep trying to push that you were stating as something that you did not state in order to hide your grievous error. It is for this reason when you do this, I accuse you of not listening.
No, they have not been properly referenced. Alluded to, perhaps, but that is not the same thing. Proper referenced is where it states this concept. Here, let me show you by point this out.
col_impact wrote: 'Game play' is divided into 4 main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. If you are not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in those phases except by rules that specifically permit you to do so.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that if an entity is not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in these phase?
col_impact wrote: This is why a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency?
col_impact wrote: In fact, you are being disingenuous to insist that I point out what is fully referenced and obvious. "Wiped out" is obviously synonomous with 'removed as a casualty'. Feel free to make the counter-argument to the thread that "wiped out" doesn't mean anything and that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does nothing as a rule and see how that goes for you.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that a unit that is "wiped out" is "removed as a casualty" when that is a status associated with models and not units? Usually it is more synonymous with "completely destroyed", which IS associated with units.
col_impact wrote: I will not bother arguing things that are patently obvious and that will not come into contention in any game of 40k and that you will not provide a counter-argument in good faith.
Patently obvious to you does not mean patently obvious to another, especially when they ask for clarification by reference. If a person asked those questions, it means that it is not "patently obvious". You have done the same thing to me, so don't think that you will get away with it.
So, you cannot or will not properly reference answer these questions and any further points you make regarding this without properly referencing the rulebook can be ignored.
col_impact wrote: 'Game play' is divided into 4 main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. If you are not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in those phases except by rules that specifically permit you to do so.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that if an entity is not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in these phase?
col_impact wrote: This is why a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency?
Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
col_impact wrote: Still waiting for you to present a case where the game allows you to deal with models not organized in units. Accusing me of trolling is a smoke screen to cover up your failure to make a case. The game of 40k does not allow you to deal with models directly outside of units.
You misspoke. You then tried to accuse me of something I did not state in connection to your misspeaking. You are attempting to make this about something which has no connection to the original statement. This is the trolling behavior.
If you want to correct that misstatement, then go ahead, but so far, you have not even acknowledged you stated it. You keep trying to push that you were stating as something that you did not state in order to hide your grievous error. It is for this reason when you do this, I accuse you of not listening.
I fully accept the title of bad listener. You have the title of 'man with no argument'. I am still waiting for you to present a case.
col_impact wrote: The unit is on the side of the table designated completely destroyed per the rules. You lack a rule to counter the rule in place (the models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’). You do follow the rules, right? In my play group we follow the rules.
False. The unit is never noted as being on the side of the table, only the models are. The unit whose models are all on the side of the table is "completely destroyed".
Reread:
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
I place the unit on the side of the table and I say (ie designate) "completely destroyed". 'Completely destroyed' is a designation in the game that can be revoked by resurrection rule.
col_impact wrote: I will not bother arguing things that are patently obvious and that will not come into contention in any game of 40k and that you will not provide a counter-argument in good faith.
Patently obvious to you does not mean patently obvious to another, especially when they ask for clarification by reference. If a person asked those questions, it means that it is not "patently obvious". You have done the same thing to me, so don't think that you will get away with it.
So, you cannot or will not properly reference answer these questions and any further points you make regarding this without properly referencing the rulebook can be ignored.
I will not answer questions that are patently obvious. You have to be prepared to present a full counter-argument in good faith for it to be worthy of my attention. Bad faith arguments are ignored.
Is this the best you guys can do? Throw a bunch of bad faith arguments that no one will take seriously? My RAW argument stands uncontested.
nosferatu1001 wrote: So that is an absolute statement, that cannot be overwritten by another rule? Oh wait, it isn't such a thing....
Fact: the unit IS completely destroyed. If you try to point to a unit, that is completely destroyed, you are failing to head this rule
You love to ignore inconvenient rules. It's amusing.
You are mixing game logic with real world physics. The game designates the unit as completely destroyed and puts the unit wholly on the side of the table and then 'From the Sands, We Rise' returns the completely destroyed unit on the side of the table to play. Somehow you think something existentially has happened to the unit when all that has happened is a simple change in game state. Your argument is plain silly.
Is this the best you can do? Silly lines of argumentation like this only bolster my RAW argument.
The unit, which the models were a part of, no longer exists. It cannot do so, because it has been "completely destroyed"
Your argument cannot be raw, because it ignores written rules and how the game is constructed. Par for the course.
Where does it say that the unit no longer exists? I see a rule which says that the unit is said to be completely destroyed. So there is a unit designated as completely destroyed with all of its models on the side of the table. And there is a rule that can take a "wiped out" unit and return it to play.
Your continued persistence in this line of argumentation is very amusing. Please keep going. I am loving how strong it makes my argument look.
You ignoring a rule makes your argument stronger? That's a perverse view on argumentation, but whatever...
You're treating something that is destroyed as if it isn't destroyed. Keep going, I want to see what else you will gloss over because it is inconvenient.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You ignoring a rule makes your argument stronger? That's a perverse view on argumentation, but whatever...
You're treating something that is destroyed as if it isn't destroyed. Keep going, I want to see what else you will gloss over because it is inconvenient.
I am ignoring no rules. It is all RAW. It's really hard to cause an organizational concept like unit to cease to exist since it has no tangible existence in the first place. LOL.
In fact, if we follow your line of argumentation to its rational conclusion, 'From the Sands, We Rise' doesn't even work. Care to expand on that?
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
So now ghost ark does nothing ever? Ghost ark does not say take a model that was destroyed and return it to play it clearly says add. Either the ghost ark adding to the warriors works just the same as ths scarab swarm in regards to rise from the sands or the ghost ark does nothing because you can't add models to the warrior unit to repair them because they are somehow always at full unit count.
You are ignoring that the basic rule is overwritten by the more advanced rule. Thus your argument is not raw. This is proven, as you cannot dispute the fact of the written rule, you just ignore it. You can disagree, but your disagreement has no objective value as you are failing to apply a rule.
The unit is destroyed. Thus the rule fails to function, as it gives us nothing to determine what is brought back. Min unit, starting unit, unit after additions are all possibilities, but the rule is lacking this information and thus fails
Which you've been told all along, yet you cling to this comical argument that ignoring rules makes you right.
You are ignoring that the basic rule is overwritten by the more advanced rule. Thus your argument is not raw. This is proven, as you cannot dispute the fact of the written rule, you just ignore it. You can disagree, but your disagreement has no objective value as you are failing to apply a rule.
The unit is destroyed. Thus the rule fails to function, as it gives us nothing to determine what is brought back. Min unit, starting unit, unit after additions are all possibilities, but the rule is lacking this information and thus fails
Which you've been told all along, yet you cling to this comical argument that ignoring rules makes you right.
The unit is said to be completely destroyed. So now there is a unit designated as completely destroyed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' returns the unit to play. This is about as simple a RAW argument as they come.
The fact that you cannot manage to understand a notion of game state is thoroughly amusing. The game of 40k can do whatever it pleases with its rules and is not bound by you rant "but, but, but how can it bring a unit back if its completely destroyed."
The title of the rule - 'From the Sands, We Rise' supports the dynamic of being able to bring back to life something that has been reduced to ashes! The game of 40k can certainly have rules which make the miraculous happen. Arguing against the power that rules can have is making you look silly.
Please keep going. I am loving all the support your argument is giving mine.
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
So now ghost ark does nothing ever? Ghost ark does not say take a model that was destroyed and return it to play it clearly says add. Either the ghost ark adding to the warriors works just the same as ths scarab swarm in regards to rise from the sands or the ghost ark does nothing because you can't add models to the warrior unit to repair them because they are somehow always at full unit count.
The rule effectively requires you to add from the pool of warriors on the side of the table that would have been in the Ghost Ark. If you add warriors from some other pool such as to go beyond your unit size, that violates the Ghost Ark rule. So as others have pointed out, the Ghost Ark case sheds no light here. The Scarab Hive specifically allows the starting size of the scarab unit to be increased and the Ghost Ark rule specifically disallows it.
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
So now ghost ark does nothing ever? Ghost ark does not say take a model that was destroyed and return it to play it clearly says add. Either the ghost ark adding to the warriors works just the same as ths scarab swarm in regards to rise from the sands or the ghost ark does nothing because you can't add models to the warrior unit to repair them because they are somehow always at full unit count.
The rule effectively requires you to add from the pool of warriors on the side of the table that would have been in the Ghost Ark. If you add warriors from some other pool such as to go beyond your unit size, that violates the Ghost Ark rule. So as others have pointed out, the Ghost Ark case sheds no light here. The Scarab Hive specifically allows the starting size of the scarab unit to be increased and the Ghost Ark rule specifically disallows it.
But that clearly isn't what the rule says with ghost ark "...Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result - this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if its currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle's Transport Capacity (any excess are destroyed)...."
Taking warriors from the side of the table that were destroyed isn't adding necron warriors to the unit, it is replacing them on the table, which is not what the rule says. If you take the warriors that were part of that unit and set aside you are not adding warriors to the unit and are breaking the rules for ghost ark since that is not adding to the unit.
Again either the ghost ark can add warriors to the unit (not replacing already destroyed warriors since that isn't what the rule says) and then if the entire unit is destroyed return all the warriors back on, or the Repair Barge special rule is broken and does not work ever since you are insisting that the unit's size is always counting models on and off the table.
But that clearly isn't what the rule says with ghost ark "...Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result - this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if its currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle's Transport Capacity (any excess are destroyed)...."
Taking warriors from the side of the table that were destroyed isn't adding necron warriors to the unit, it is replacing them on the table, which is not what the rule says. If you take the warriors that were part of that unit and set aside you are not adding warriors to the unit and are breaking the rules for ghost ark since that is not adding to the unit.
Again either the ghost ark can add warriors to the unit (not replacing already destroyed warriors since that isn't what the rule says) and then if the entire unit is destroyed return all the warriors back on, or the Repair Barge special rule is broken and does not work ever since you are insisting that the unit's size is always counting models on and off the table.
Incorrect. The rule does not say you can add new bases to the unit and increase the unit size. You need express permission to do that The Scarab Hive rule says that.
The rules are clear that the unit is comprised of a set number of models. Models that are on the side of the table as casualties are still organizationally part of the unit. They are just not on the Battlefied and are not participating in the game. The Ghost Ark can re-add them back to the Ghost Ark. The Repair Barge rule requires you to keep the unit size intact and does not give you permission to add new bases to the unit.
But that clearly isn't what the rule says with ghost ark "...Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result - this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if its currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle's Transport Capacity (any excess are destroyed)...."
Taking warriors from the side of the table that were destroyed isn't adding necron warriors to the unit, it is replacing them on the table, which is not what the rule says. If you take the warriors that were part of that unit and set aside you are not adding warriors to the unit and are breaking the rules for ghost ark since that is not adding to the unit.
Again either the ghost ark can add warriors to the unit (not replacing already destroyed warriors since that isn't what the rule says) and then if the entire unit is destroyed return all the warriors back on, or the Repair Barge special rule is broken and does not work ever since you are insisting that the unit's size is always counting models on and off the table.
Incorrect. The rule does not say you can add new bases to the unit and increase the unit size. You need express permission to do that The Scarab Hive rule says that.
The rules are clear that the unit is comprised of a set number of models. Models that are on the side of the table as casualties are still organizationally part of the unit. They are just not on the Battlefied and are not participating in the game. The Ghost Ark can re-add them back to the Ghost Ark. The Repair Barge rule requires you to keep the unit size intact.
Nothing really to discuss here.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
not participating in the game
So then they have no game rules attached to them? Now you are contradicting yourself if they are not part of the game.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Except it doesn't say "place a warrior that was removed" it says ADD just like the scarabs rule says add. Adding is adding not replacing. There are rules in the game that say return the model to the battlefield, repair barge is not one of them.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Except it doesn't say "place a warrior that was removed" it says ADD just like the scarabs rule says add. Adding is adding not replacing. There are rules in the game that say return the model to the battlefield, repair barge is not one of them.
It does not say add a BASE to the unit. That's the rub.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Except it doesn't say "place a warrior that was removed" it says ADD just like the scarabs rule says add. Adding is adding not replacing. There are rules in the game that say return the model to the battlefield, repair barge is not one of them.
It does not say add a BASE to the unit. That's the rub.
Show me with a rule that base is what matters when the rule says adding.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Except it doesn't say "place a warrior that was removed" it says ADD just like the scarabs rule says add. Adding is adding not replacing. There are rules in the game that say return the model to the battlefield, repair barge is not one of them.
It does not say add a BASE to the unit. That's the rub.
Show me with a rule that base is what matters when the rule says adding.
The burden is on you. If it doesn't say you can add bases to the unit then you cannot add bases to the unit.
Add a number of Necron Warriors does say to add necron warriors to the unit though which is the same as adding bases, you are correct that it does not say it increases the unit size. Repair barge does not say replace a necron warrior that was destroyed back in unit cohericy with the unit it says add. There are several rules that DO say replace the model back on the table. This is using your exact argument that this can cause rise from the sands to return the warrior unit with more warriors than originally set up as. Repair barge isn't increaseing the unit size beyond its starting amount Rise from the Sands rule is.
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Except it doesn't say "place a warrior that was removed" it says ADD just like the scarabs rule says add. Adding is adding not replacing. There are rules in the game that say return the model to the battlefield, repair barge is not one of them.
It does not say add a BASE to the unit. That's the rub.
Show me with a rule that base is what matters when the rule says adding.
The burden is on you. If it doesn't say you can add bases to the unit then you cannot add bases to the unit.
you are the one makeing the claim that base is what matters. Burden is on you to prove your point. I've already proved mine that it says add a necron warrior and not "place a warrior that was removed".
you are the one makeing the claim that base is what matters. Burden is on you to prove your point. I've already proved mine that it says add a necron warrior and not "place a warrior that was removed".
Once you add a base to the unit you have changed the unit size. Does Repair Barge allow you to change the unit size, yes or no?
you are the one makeing the claim that base is what matters. Burden is on you to prove your point. I've already proved mine that it says add a necron warrior and not "place a warrior that was removed".
Once you add a base to the unit you have changed the unit size. Does Repair Barge allow you to change the unit size, yes or no?
That is a loaded question. Repair barge tells us to add necron warriors to the target unit, it does not tell us to replace a warrior that was destroyed.
Edit: Still waiting on proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not.
you are the one makeing the claim that base is what matters. Burden is on you to prove your point. I've already proved mine that it says add a necron warrior and not "place a warrior that was removed".
Once you add a base to the unit you have changed the unit size. Does Repair Barge allow you to change the unit size, yes or no?
That is a loaded question. Repair barge tells us to add necron warriors to the target unit, it does not tell us to replace a warrior that was destroyed.
Edit: Still waiting on proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not.
Huh? It's not a loaded question at all. If you add a base to the unit you change the unit size. The rule needs to give you permission to do it. Does Repair Barge give you the permission to change the unit size or does it make clear that you cannot change the unit size?
Spoiler:
Repair Barge: At the start of each friendly Movement phase, this model can repair fallen
Necron Warriors. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Necron Warriors that is either within
6" of this model or embarked upon it, and roll a D3. Add a number of Necron Warriors to the
unit equal to the result – this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if it is
currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle’s Transport Capacity (any excess are
destroyed). These Necron Warriors must be placed within 6" of the Ghost Ark, or if the unit is
currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, within it. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it
is destroyed. Necron Warriors repaired in this manner can move and act normally this turn.
If the rule flat out does not let you take the unit beyond its starting size then there is literally nothing to discuss. You cannot add bases to the unit.
you are the one makeing the claim that base is what matters. Burden is on you to prove your point. I've already proved mine that it says add a necron warrior and not "place a warrior that was removed".
Once you add a base to the unit you have changed the unit size. Does Repair Barge allow you to change the unit size, yes or no?
That is a loaded question. Repair barge tells us to add necron warriors to the target unit, it does not tell us to replace a warrior that was destroyed.
Edit: Still waiting on proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not.
Huh? It's not a loaded question at all. If you add a base to the unit you change the unit size. The rule needs to give you permission to do it. Does Repair Barge give you the permission to change the unit size or does it make clear that you cannot change the unit size?
Spoiler:
Repair Barge: At the start of each friendly Movement phase, this model can repair fallen
Necron Warriors. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Necron Warriors that is either within
6" of this model or embarked upon it, and roll a D3. ]Add a number of Necron Warriors to the
unit equal to the result – this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if it is
currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle’s Transport Capacity (any excess are
destroyed). These Necron Warriors must be placed within 6" of the Ghost Ark, or if the unit is
currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, within it. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it
is destroyed. Necron Warriors repaired in this manner can move and act normally this turn.
If the rule flat out does not let you take the unit beyond its starting size then there is literally nothing to discuss. You cannot add bases to the unit.
And yet the rule flat out tells us to add warriors to a unit. if a unit of warriors loose a few models and repair barge is used to add warriors, warriors are added to the unit. Add a number of Necron Warriors to the
unit equal to the result
There is no permission to use replace necron warriors that were removed from play back to that unit. We do have permission to add warriors to it.
Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not.
a unit of scarabs have 5 models in play, one is destroyed, a spyder then adds one to the unit. What is the unit's size?
A unit of warriors have 5 models in play, one is destroyed, a ghost ark then adds one to the unit. What is the unit's size?
col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
Again, where is that a rule?
col_impact wrote:I fully accept the title of bad listener. You have the title of 'man with no argument'. I am still waiting for you to present a case.
I have presented my case, right at the beginning. Your counter is your case. You need to support your case with something more than broad assumptions.
col_impact wrote:Incorrect.
Spoiler:
When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
I place the unit on the side of the table and I say (ie designate) "completely destroyed". 'Completely destroyed' is a designation in the game that can be revoked by resurrection rule.
Quite Correct. Even if it is "said to have been 'completely destroyed'", the rule does not state "the unit is placed to the side" like it is for the models.
Remember, just because it says a model does something, doesn't necessarily mean that the unit does the same thing. You are adding this arbitrarily.
col_impact wrote:I will not answer questions that are patently obvious. You have to be prepared to present a full counter-argument in good faith for it to be worthy of my attention. Bad faith arguments are ignored.
Sorry, no, bad listener strikes again.
Asking for references to your arguments is an indication that it is not patently obvious to a person, and it hasn't been just me asking them. If you want this to be a reliable case, you need evidence. Evidence in this case is proper references. Aside of a definition of where "in play" is, you have provided zero references WHAT "in play" actually means to fit your case.
And if you refuse to properly answer the question, it means one of two things, you are either to lazy to find and present your evidence or you know you have no evidence and prefer to just keep repeating it in hopes that others will just accept it. This is part of what is called The Big Lie in politics and media.
col_impact wrote:Is this the best you guys can do? Throw a bunch of bad faith arguments that no one will take seriously? My RAW argument stands uncontested.
You have yet to present anything that would allow us to accept any good faith arguments from you. To us, all you have presented are bad faith arguments and why we keep questioning where you are getting them from.
col_impact wrote:Once you add a base to the unit you have changed the unit size. Does Repair Barge allow you to change the unit size, yes or no?
But if you do not add the model base(s) to the unit, you are not following the instructions of the rule. The rule does not state to restore a model to the unit. So, either your interpretations are crap, or Repair Barge doesn't work.
Never mind what the physical aspect of the situation is. A player could have spare models lying below, models removed from that specific unit on the side of the table, or models that were removed from a different Warrior unit sitting on the side of the table. The rule simply does not care. And because of that, is another indication that models removed as casualties no longer count as part of the unit for unit size. They certainly don't after having taken casualties and an IC joins them.
And if models removed as casualties do not count for part of the unit size for Transport Capacity or Repair Barge, they won't when it comes time to restore the unit back to the field. Remember, they "aren't in play" any more.
And yet the rule flat out tells us to add warriors to a unit. if a unit of warriors loose a few models and repair barge is used to add warriors, warriors are added to the unit. Add a number of Necron Warriors to the
unit equal to the result
There is no permission to use replace necron warriors that were removed from play back to that unit. We do have permission to add warriors to it.
Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not.
a unit of scarabs have 5 models in play, one is destroyed, a spyder then adds one to the unit. What is the unit's size?
A unit of warriors have 5 models in play, one is destroyed, a ghost ark then adds one to the unit. What is the unit's size?
The unit of scarabs is now unit size 6. Scarab Hive adds bases to the unit and is permitted to increase the unit's size/
The unit of warriors remains unit size 5. Repair Barge is forbidden from increasing the unit size.
I have provided rules support. Repair Barge forbids you from increasing the unit size so if add a warrior then you need to insure a warrior is removed from the casualty pile. The unit size cannot increase.
col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
Again, where is that a rule?
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
Spoiler:
THE TURN
Behold the terrible splendour of war! Squads of courageous warriors pick their
way through the rubble and ruin, advancing under the covering fire of mighty
war engines. Lances and bolts of energy pierce the smoke-wreathed air, and
power-armoured brutes hurl themselves into the enemy ranks, letting fly with
chainsword and power axe.
A Warhammer 40,000 battle is a chaotic affair. To bring a modicum of order to the
anarchy of battle, players alternate moving and fighting with their units. So, one player
will move and fight with his forces, and then their opponent will move and fight. This
process is then repeated, with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on, until
the game is done.
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
col_impact wrote:I fully accept the title of bad listener. You have the title of 'man with no argument'. I am still waiting for you to present a case.
I have presented my case, right at the beginning. Your counter is your case. You need to support your case with something more than broad assumptions.
Now you are just dodging. You have failed to present a case of models outside of unit. You weren't able to. And now you are trying to obscure that fact.
And yet the rule flat out tells us to add warriors to a unit. if a unit of warriors loose a few models and repair barge is used to add warriors, warriors are added to the unit. Add a number of Necron Warriors to the
unit equal to the result
There is no permission to use replace necron warriors that were removed from play back to that unit. We do have permission to add warriors to it.
Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not.
a unit of scarabs have 5 models in play, one is destroyed, a spyder then adds one to the unit. What is the unit's size?
A unit of warriors have 5 models in play, one is destroyed, a ghost ark then adds one to the unit. What is the unit's size?
The unit of scarabs is now unit size 6. Scarab Hive adds bases to the unit and is permitted to increase the unit's size/
The unit of warriors remains unit size 5. Repair Barge is forbidden from increasing the unit size.
I have provided rules support. Repair Barge forbids you from increasing the unit size so if add a warrior then you need to insure a warrior is removed from the casualty pile. The unit size cannot increase.
col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
Insisting that in order to add a necron warrior to the unit it must come from the "casualty pile" is going against the rules you have posted. There is no permission granted to take a warrior from the "casualty pile" and replace it on the battle field. There IS permission to add a necron warrior to the unit.
Does that unit of scarabs have 24 melee attacks then if you think that it is now 6?
Edit: Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not. If you think you have posted a rule that states that a base is what matters when adding anything to a unit re-post it and highlight it for me because currently I have not seen you post one.
col_impact wrote:I will not answer questions that are patently obvious. You have to be prepared to present a full counter-argument in good faith for it to be worthy of my attention. Bad faith arguments are ignored.
Sorry, no, bad listener strikes again.
Asking for references to your arguments is an indication that it is not patently obvious to a person, and it hasn't been just me asking them. If you want this to be a reliable case, you need evidence. Evidence in this case is proper references. Aside of a definition of where "in play" is, you have provided zero references WHAT "in play" actually means to fit your case.
And if you refuse to properly answer the question, it means one of two things, you are either to lazy to find and present your evidence or you know you have no evidence and prefer to just keep repeating it in hopes that others will just accept it. This is part of what is called The Big Lie in politics and media.
My argument is super simple and follows RAW precisely. I have done nothing but have been super straightforward from the start about textual support since I have so much of it.
Scarab Hive adds bases to the unit. Those bases get removed from the battlefield as casualties. From the Sands, We Rise returns the unit to play after it is wiped out. If you obey the rules you have no choice but to return the unit designated completely destroyed on the side of the table to the battlefield.
The Battlefield is where the game is played and game play involves the Turn Sequence. If something is not on the Battlefield it is not permitted to do the Turn Sequence or much of anything at all unless it has specific rules to do so (such as the case of units in Reserve having specific permission to do certain things but cannot participate in the Turn Sequence since they are not on the Battlefield)
Insisting that in order to add a necron warrior to the unit it must come from the "casualty pile" is going against the rules you have posted. There is no permission granted to take a warrior from the "casualty pile" and replace it on the battle field. There IS permission to add a necron warrior to the unit.
Edit: Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not. If you think you have posted a rule that states that a base is what matters when adding anything to a unit re-post it and highlight it for me because currently I have not seen you post one.
In order to follow the rule you must not change the size of the unit. This has been explained to the umpteenth time. If you change the size of the unit you are cheating. Adding bases to the unit changes the unit size. That is cheating and not following the rules. This is a forum on interpreting the rules, not willfully cheating.
col_impact wrote:Is this the best you guys can do? Throw a bunch of bad faith arguments that no one will take seriously? My RAW argument stands uncontested.
You have yet to present anything that would allow us to accept any good faith arguments from you. To us, all you have presented are bad faith arguments and why we keep questioning where you are getting them from.
That's what I figured. You are unable to present substantial counter arguments. My argument remains uncontested.
You may have models to the side of the table that were never Incorporated into the unit, so simply having models at the side doesn't mean you can bring them back. So no, not simple.
Or, what if you simply had the models but never got the unit above its maximum size. Would you conclude that the unit brought back should ADD the models that were replaced earlier?
No. No you would not. Since the size of the unit at the time of death has no bearing on what unit was selected at the time the army was created, and there is nothing telling you to take into account the unit's size when destroyed the only conclusion that may be made is the unit that was purchased originally, in it's entirety, with no modifications is subject to the rule granted to it via the formation.
Anything that you would point to allowing the resurrection of models not originally purchased can be used as definitive proof of being forced to resurect the unit at a smaller size due to casualties sustained before the point the unit was destroyed. Until you can prove that not to be the case, you have no case to the opposite.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if a unit may not be increased behind its starting g size, the units size is still modified when a model is removed or added. A 9 man strong warrior unit is NOT still a 10man unit. It is a 9 man unit.
So yes, when you add models to a unit of warriors, you are actually changing the unit size. Just not the size it was when purchased. So the argument that a unit of scarabs is modified when "bases" are added, but a unit of warriors is not modified when "models" are added is patently false.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: You may have models to the side of the table that were never Incorporated into the unit, so simply having models at the side doesn't mean you can bring them back. So no, not simple.
Or, what if you simply had the models but never got the unit above its maximum size. Would you conclude that the unit brought back should ADD the models that were replaced earlier?
No. No you would not. Since the size of the unit at the time of death has no bearing on what unit was selected at the time the army was created, and there is nothing telling you to take into account the unit's size when destroyed the only conclusion that may be made is the unit that was purchased originally, in it's entirety, with no modifications is subject to the rule granted to it via the formation.
Anything that you would point to allowing the resurrection of models not originally purchased can be used as definitive proof of being forced to resurect the unit at a smaller size due to casualties sustained before the point the unit was destroyed. Until you can prove that not to be the case, you have no case to the opposite.
No proof needed from me. The rule says "the unit", not the "original unit" or the "purchased unit". You are the one coming up short in the rules department.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, if a unit may not be increased behind its starting g size, the units size is still modified when a model is removed or added. A 9 man strong warrior unit is NOT still a 10man unit. It is a 9 man unit.
So yes, when you add models to a unit of warriors, you are actually changing the unit size. Just not the size it was when purchased. So the argument that a unit of scarabs is modified when "bases" are added, but a unit of warriors is not modified when "models" are added is patently false.
Feel free to point to rules in the BRB which discuss how unit size is tracked. You will not find a discussion anywhere in the BRB on unit size. So it is a static characteristic that only certain USR can change, like the Scarab Hive rule.
A 10 man unit with 1 model on the side of the table and 9 models in play is not a unit with a unit size of 9. That unit may have 9 models on the Battlefield but it is a unit with a unit size of 10 (with one casualty).
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
At the end of the game you are told to score victory points for units that have been destroyed, how does that work? I'm not even sure how this fits with the OP's question
That said, Charistoph got it correct in his first message. We are not told to include newly added models, so we won't. What is written in the roster is what the unit's size is and that is the only allocation we have.
Morale. If we were to follow your logic, then morale would never be taken as the unit would always cou t as being the original unit size. If you believe that the unit always counts as the starting number of models, when would you need to roll double ones to regroup? Those are explicit examples of a unit's size changing due to gameplay circumstances.
Also, if you were to follow your own logic further you would notice that the permission to bring back the whole unit would require you to have every single base created to bring back. So, if you took casualties and replaced them in addition to adding models over time you would reach a point where you may not have enough models to bring back.
Since you have decided that the new total is the unit that must be brought back, and have no rules stating you can return less than the full unit, then you are now never going to be able to bring the unt back. You logic falls flat in every situation besides one where you have an unlimited number of scarab bases while also flying in the face of common sense.
As for it being RAW, you are assuming unit size to be a static number where there is no rule telling you to do so. Since the rules require the interactions of units by way of number of models in a unit performing an action there is no basis for you belief that changing the unit size by way of removing g them is different from adding to the unit with a special rule. A unit may be larger or smaller in model count based on timing and gameplay, what you are arguing is that only the one that is a benefit to your unit should count when there is no rule stating that to be seen anywhere.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
At the end of the game you are told to score victory points for units that have been destroyed, how does that work? I'm not even sure how this fits with the OP's question
That said, Charistoph got it correct in his first message. We are not told to include newly added models, so we won't. What is written in the roster is what the unit's size is and that is the only allocation we have.
'From the Sands, We Rise' resurrects the unit, not the original unit or the starting unit. You are not permitted to add 'original' or 'starting' to the rule.
Apparently, I am the only one who is going to follow the straight read of the rules as they are written and not add anything or subtract anything from that read.
There is a difference between wanting a rule to read a certain way and being honest about what the rule actually says. I am being honest about what the rule actually says.
Everyone else on this thread simply needs to just read the rules as they are.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Morale. If we were to follow your logic, then morale would never be taken as the unit would always cou t as being the original unit size. If you believe that the unit always counts as the starting number of models, when would you need to roll double ones to regroup? Those are explicit examples of a unit's size changing due to gameplay circumstances.
Also, if you were to follow your own logic further you would notice that the permission to bring back the whole unit would require you to have every single base created to bring back. So, if you took casualties and replaced them in addition to adding models over time you would reach a point where you may not have enough models to bring back.
Since you have decided that the new total is the unit that must be brought back, and have no rules stating you can return less than the full unit, then you are now never going to be able to bring the unt back. You logic falls flat in every situation besides one where you have an unlimited number of scarab bases while also flying in the face of common sense.
As for it being RAW, you are assuming unit size to be a static number where there is no rule telling you to do so. Since the rules require the interactions of units by way of number of models in a unit performing an action there is no basis for you belief that changing the unit size by way of removing g them is different from adding to the unit with a special rule. A unit may be larger or smaller in model count based on timing and gameplay, what you are arguing is that only the one that is a benefit to your unit should count when there is no rule stating that to be seen anywhere.
You need to pop open the BRB and see what "unit size" refers to. Do your research first then let's continue the discussion. As it is, your argument is not grounded in anything.
I looked around and saw nothing talking about unit size at all.
Do you have a page number? Since (near as I can tell) you are making up the idea that a unit's size is a static number that can only be added to not subtracted from then you have no basis in the rules for your argument as well.
Also, I noticed you ignored my point. Since the scarab swarm adds models to a unit, and may increase the unit beyond its original size, why are you not counting models added that don't go over that capacity? Is it because you may have realised that this would mean you would run out of models and therefor NOT be able to bring them back with the from the sNds rule? Since you are bringing back the unit, and you yourself have said that includes models added to the unit via scarab swarm, AND nowhere does it say you may resurect part of the unit, then once you have created a situation where you added more bases than you have when adding them to the original scarab swarm you are not allowed to bring the unit back.
It says the unit, you changed what that entailed, you made it so the unit may never return even though you have the models to do so.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Perhaps I should make my case clearer with actual numbers.
You have 6 scarab bases.
4 start in the unit.
I kill three of them.
You, over the course of the game, bring in three bases of scarabs before I eliminated ate the unit.
Now, according to your stance the unit has had bases added to it. These are a part of the unit for all rules purposes even after being eliminated (because scarab farm says you add to the unit, you are not replacing dead bases)
Now, since you have a unit you want to return to play, you would have to return the unit. Not part of, the whole unit. Except now the unit of scarabs is 7 bases in number (the original four + the three you ADDED later) but you only have 6 bases to place on the table. The scarabs can no longer be resurected because (according to you) the unit size is now 7. Remember that scarab farm ADDS bases, and may be increased beyond the starting size of the unit. It doesn't say anywhere that the addition of bases only counts as an addition if you exceed the starting number. You are adding bases to the unit.
So, unless you want this entirely possible yet nonsensical situation to plague you whenever you attempt to use the ideas you posted it may be better to go with the idea that the unit referenced for a special rule FROM a formation should be the exact unit purchased FOR the formation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
At the end of the game you are told to score victory points for units that have been destroyed, how does that work? I'm not even sure how this fits with the OP's question
That said, Charistoph got it correct in his first message. We are not told to include newly added models, so we won't. What is written in the roster is what the unit's size is and that is the only allocation we have.
'From the Sands, We Rise' resurrects the unit, not the original unit or the starting unit. You are not permitted to add 'original' or 'starting' to the rule.
I am not adding anything, you are. You are changing the unit's size even when you are not told to do so. The _only_ time you are allowed to do that is in the movement phase where _another_ special rule lets you do so.
Apparently, I am the only one who is going to follow the straight read of the rules as they are written and not add anything or subtract anything from that read.
There is a difference between wanting a rule to read a certain way and being honest about what the rule actually says. I am being honest about what the rule actually says.
Everyone else on this thread simply needs to just read the rules as they are.
Please quote the permission to bring in any other amount of scarabs than what your roster says. The parts you quote do not cover this and you know it.
So I haven't read this whole argument, as it gets frustratingly repetitive at points, so excuse me if this has been answered already, but I have a question for Col.
I am just curious as to how you play it, RAW or RAI?
I feel playing RAW could make it pretty broken as a concept.
There is reasoning to play it as RAW, but I feel RAI is fairer to both sides.
Scenario: Basic Retribution Phalanx, no upgrades starts at 3 Canoptek Scarabs. Turn 1, the Spyder from your CAD adds one to the Scarab Unit, you move them and run them max distance into cover. The ork Burna boys that you forgot were near and in a Truk move over disembark for max flamer template coverage and wipes out the whole unit. Ork Player finishes their turn.
Start of Necron turn 2, the formation sets up a set of logic gate questions to see if that unit is able to return.
Is it the owner's next turn yet? Yes.
Is the Overlord from the formation still on the battlefield? Yes.
What unit was wiped out last turn? Canoptek Scarabs from the formation.
What size was the unit when it was wiped out? Four.
The game now has the answers that the formation needs to return a unit of 4 Scarabs starting within 3" of the Overlord from this formation.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
At the end of the game you are told to score victory points for units that have been destroyed, how does that work? I'm not even sure how this fits with the OP's question
That said, Charistoph got it correct in his first message. We are not told to include newly added models, so we won't. What is written in the roster is what the unit's size is and that is the only allocation we have.
'From the Sands, We Rise' resurrects the unit, not the original unit or the starting unit. You are not permitted to add 'original' or 'starting' to the rule.
I am not adding anything, you are. You are changing the unit's size even when you are not told to do so. The _only_ time you are allowed to do that is in the movement phase where _another_ special rule lets you do so.
The unit size has been changed. I just follow the From the Sands, We Rise rule to bring the unit back after it is wiped out.
col_impact wrote:Apparently, I am the only one who is going to follow the straight read of the rules as they are written and not add anything or subtract anything from that read.
There is a difference between wanting a rule to read a certain way and being honest about what the rule actually says. I am being honest about what the rule actually says.
Everyone else on this thread simply needs to just read the rules as they are.
Please quote the permission to bring in any other amount of scarabs than what your roster says. The parts you quote do not cover this and you know it.
From the Sands, We Rise brings the unit back. You don't have permission to go back to the start of the game and re-construct the unit from scratch. The From the Sands, We Rise does not specify "original" or "starting" so you do not get to reset the unit to "original" or "starting". It's as simple as that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: "The unit" is not defined, and does not exist. Cold problem remains that their contention is, as ever, unsupported by the actual rules.
Your inability to keep Game Concepts separate from physical concepts continues to be humorous.
Please keep on with your argument. It only underscores how weak the counter-argument is.
Draco765 wrote: Scenario: Basic Retribution Phalanx, no upgrades starts at 3 Canoptek Scarabs. Turn 1, the Spyder from your CAD adds one to the Scarab Unit, you move them and run them max distance into cover. The ork Burna boys that you forgot were near and in a Truk move over disembark for max flamer template coverage and wipes out the whole unit. Ork Player finishes their turn.
Start of Necron turn 2, the formation sets up a set of logic gate questions to see if that unit is able to return.
Is it the owner's next turn yet? Yes.
Is the Overlord from the formation still on the battlefield? Yes.
What unit was wiped out last turn? Canoptek Scarabs from the formation.
What size was the unit when it was wiped out? Four.
The game now has the answers that the formation needs to return a unit of 4 Scarabs starting within 3" of the Overlord from this formation.
Go ahead and follow you exact same logic, but the burna boyz kill all but one and charge the last, killing it then. Since you feel you can only resurect the unit based on size when killed, you get to bring back one scarab base.
There is no rules difference whatsoever whenever you add or subtract a model from the unit. The size of the unit still changes. So, either you have to use it the same way all the time, or you bring back the same unit you purchased as part of the formation. No other interpretation can be made because the distinction you are looking for does not exist.
Draco765 wrote: Scenario: Basic Retribution Phalanx, no upgrades starts at 3 Canoptek Scarabs. Turn 1, the Spyder from your CAD adds one to the Scarab Unit, you move them and run them max distance into cover. The ork Burna boys that you forgot were near and in a Truk move over disembark for max flamer template coverage and wipes out the whole unit. Ork Player finishes their turn.
Start of Necron turn 2, the formation sets up a set of logic gate questions to see if that unit is able to return.
Is it the owner's next turn yet? Yes.
Is the Overlord from the formation still on the battlefield? Yes.
What unit was wiped out last turn? Canoptek Scarabs from the formation.
What size was the unit when it was wiped out? Four.
The game now has the answers that the formation needs to return a unit of 4 Scarabs starting within 3" of the Overlord from this formation.
Yup. You just follow the rules as they are written. As you note, it couldn't be any simpler.
Draco765 wrote: Scenario: Basic Retribution Phalanx, no upgrades starts at 3 Canoptek Scarabs. Turn 1, the Spyder from your CAD adds one to the Scarab Unit, you move them and run them max distance into cover. The ork Burna boys that you forgot were near and in a Truk move over disembark for max flamer template coverage and wipes out the whole unit. Ork Player finishes their turn.
Start of Necron turn 2, the formation sets up a set of logic gate questions to see if that unit is able to return.
Is it the owner's next turn yet? Yes.
Is the Overlord from the formation still on the battlefield? Yes.
What unit was wiped out last turn? Canoptek Scarabs from the formation.
What size was the unit when it was wiped out? Four.
The game now has the answers that the formation needs to return a unit of 4 Scarabs starting within 3" of the Overlord from this formation.
Go ahead and follow you exact same logic, but the burna boyz kill all but one and charge the last, killing it then. Since you feel you can only resurect the unit based on size when killed, you get to bring back one scarab base.
There is no rules difference whatsoever whenever you add or subtract a model from the unit. The size of the unit still changes. So, either you have to use it the same way all the time, or you bring back the same unit you purchased as part of the formation. No other interpretation can be made because the distinction you are looking for does not exist.
Incorrect. Whenever you add bases to the unit the unit size changes. So if you add 3 bases to a unit of 4 then the unit size is now 7. If that unit is then wiped out next turn you are told by the rule to return 7 and not 1.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
EnTyme wrote: Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?
The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.
Let's be honest here, the problem is people don't like the 'broken interaction'.
I have tested the Formation played out as RAW and I found that the formation is not broken.
EnTyme wrote: Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?
The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.
.
Yep. That explains the three-page debate.
People are just uncomfortable with what they feel is a broken interaction when the follow the rules as written in the most straightforward way possible.
Seriously, just follow the rules as they are written. Play out a few games according to the RAW. Let us know if it's broken or not. If you think it's broken then maybe suggest to your play group that you play it some other way than RAW.
EnTyme wrote: Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?
The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.
.
Yep. That explains the three-page debate.
People are just uncomfortable with what they feel is a broken interaction when the follow the rules as written in the most straightforward way possible.
Seriously, just follow the rules as they are written. Play out a few games according to the RAW. Let us know if it's broken or not. If you think it's broken then maybe suggest to your play group that you play it some other way than RAW.
It's not that it's broken, it's that your interpretation goes against the precedent set by similar rules (Skyblight Swarm, Endless Swarm, etc.). I personally could care less, but if RAW as clear as you claim it is, we wouldn't still be having this discussion, would you?
EnTyme wrote: Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?
The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.
.
Yep. That explains the three-page debate.
People are just uncomfortable with what they feel is a broken interaction when the follow the rules as written in the most straightforward way possible.
Seriously, just follow the rules as they are written. Play out a few games according to the RAW. Let us know if it's broken or not. If you think it's broken then maybe suggest to your play group that you play it some other way than RAW.
It's not that it's broken, it's that your interpretation goes against the precedent set by similar rules (Skyblight Swarm, Endless Swarm, etc.). I personally could care less, but if RAW as clear as you claim it is, we wouldn't still be having this discussion, would you?
Precedent doesn't factor into RAW. My RAW interpretation runs straight off the rules provided and does not add anything (such as precedent or unjustified qualifiers such as 'original' or 'starting')
RAW really is as clear as I claim. It's just that there are quite a few rules lawyers and sophists on this forum.
In your second turn you add one base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4. You assault an enemy unit, whiff and lose 3 bases and opponent hits and runs out of combat.
In enemy's turn your last base is shot off the board.
According to your reading of RAW you now get to bring back one base. What is the size of the unit that now has one model left?
As you will anyway claim that the unit's size is now 4, please quote the rule that tells you to use this number rather than what your roster says? The Sands rule does not say so.
You have no basis within the rules to consider a unit to be different size when a model is added and NOT do so when one is removed.
Again, so it can be understood, unit size is fluid, both increasing and decreasing in the game as rules allow. If you are claiming that increasing the number of models makes the unit larger indefinitely, then once a scarab base has been added the unit may no longer be destroyed.
Also, since you have actively ignored the point where I proved that your ruling is false and would cause a unit to be unable to return if you have the models you claim to make up the unit but have the models to make up the original unit I am going g to assume you recognise the utter failure on your part of the rules comprehension and are simply ignoring it to continue feeling correct.
In your second turn you add one base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4. You assault an enemy unit, whiff and lose 3 bases and opponent hits and runs out of combat.
In enemy's turn your last base is shot off the board.
According to your reading of RAW you now get to bring back one base. What is the size of the unit that now has one model left?
As you will anyway claim that the unit's size is now 4, please quote the rule that tells you to use this number rather than what your roster says? The Sands rule does not say so.
The Scarab Hive rule says to add a base to the unit.
The Sands rule says to bring back the unit. It makes no mention of any roster. It does not use the words "original" or "starting". If we throw those words into the rule we are breaking the rules and cheating.
So I bring back the unit.
And guess what the unit has 4 scarab bases in it. Imagine that. I follow the rules provided and I get the unit of scarabs returned to play with 4 scarab bases in it.
You have no basis within the rules to consider a unit to be different size when a model is added and NOT do so when one is removed.
Again, so it can be understood, unit size is fluid, both increasing and decreasing in the game as rules allow. If you are claiming.ing that increasing the number of models makes the unit larger indefinitely, then once a scarab base has been added the unit may no longer be destroyed.
Also, since you have actively ignored the point where I proved that your full g is false and would cause a unit to be unable to return if you have the models you claim to make up the unit but have the models to make up the original unit I am going g to assume you recognise the utter failure on your part of the rules comprehension and are simply ignoring it to continue feeling correct.
Incorrect. Whenever a base is added to a unit the unit size is changed. Removing a model as a casualty does not change the unit size. It just changes the number of models on the battlefield versus the number of models on the side of the table in that unit.
Happyjew wrote: OK, I'm confused. What exactly is "unit size"?
Good question since it's not really a fully articulated thing in the rules.
Spoiler:
7. Unit Composition: This section shows the number and type of models that form the
basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.
Spoiler:
10. Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do
so, alongside the associated points cost for each. Where an option states that you may
exchange one weapon ‘and/or’ another, you may replace either or both, provided you pay the
points cost for each. The abbreviation ‘pts’ stands for ‘points’ and ‘pts/model’ stands for
‘points per model’. Where applicable, this section also refers to any Transports the unit may
take. These have their own datasheets. Dedicated Transports do not use up any slots on a
Force Organisation Chart, but otherwise function as separate units. The Detachments
section of Warhammer 40,000: The Rules explains how Dedicated Transports work.
So between the Unit Composition and the Options section a player can tell the minimum unit size and maximum unit size a unit can legally have, but 'unit size' here is player terminology.
Repair Barge rule and Scarab Hive rule make mention of "starting size". The Scarab Hive rule can explicitly take the unit beyond the "starting size" by adding bases to the unit.
So a scarab unit that has had bases added to it has some "size" that is not the "starting size".
When a model is removed as a casualty it is merely removed from the battlefield where play takes place and put on the side of the table where models do not have permission to participate in the game play of the turn sequence.
No mention is made of decrementing any "size" parameter when a model is removed as a casualty, nor is there any mention of removing the model from the organizational concept of the unit which it must be incorporated into per the rules.
col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
Again, where is that a rule?
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
Spoiler:
THE TURN
Behold the terrible splendour of war! Squads of courageous warriors pick their way through the rubble and ruin, advancing under the covering fire of mighty war engines. Lances and bolts of energy pierce the smoke-wreathed air, and power-armoured brutes hurl themselves into the enemy ranks, letting fly with chainsword and power axe.
A Warhammer 40,000 battle is a chaotic affair. To bring a modicum of order to the anarchy of battle, players alternate moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces, and then their opponent will move and fight. This process is then repeated, with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on, until the game is done.
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).
No reference of Battlefield or "in play" in the Turn quote you presented, and "in play" is only used with the Vortex special rule rule in the entire rulebook. I was hoping your Spoiler actually held something worthwile when i saw it. Still operating on your own assumptions on how the game works.
And still can't address a whole post at once, can you. You can only do piecemeal, and still cannot pay attention to what a person says or asks, or even what you post. Rather pitiful, actually.
col_impact wrote:I fully accept the title of bad listener. You have the title of 'man with no argument'. I am still waiting for you to present a case.
I have presented my case, right at the beginning. Your counter is your case. You need to support your case with something more than broad assumptions.
Now you are just dodging. You have failed to present a case of models outside of unit. You weren't able to. And now you are trying to obscure that fact.
You never properly addressed that. Every time you brought it up recently was in my response to your point that "the game never deals directly with a model".
And yes, I actually have stated a case where models have to be dealt with outside of a unit, one way or another, even if it is completely ignoring their unit connection or disconnecting them from the unit completely. And that is the numbers game this discussion has been about all along. I brought up several points, but you still cannot seem to grasp them or completely ignored them. I will get in to them later where it is more appropriate to respond.
EnTyme wrote:Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?
Agreed. I pretty much said that in the beginning.
col_impact wrote:Incorrect. Whenever you add bases to the unit the unit size changes. So if you add 3 bases to a unit of 4 then the unit size is now 7. If that unit is then wiped out next turn you are told by the rule to return 7 and not 1.
I thought you said the rulebook doesn't address unit sizes. If it doesn't, how can you say this and ascribe it as RAW?
Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:
Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...
Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...
So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.
Now, let's look at their restrictions on how far it can go:
Repair Barge: ... this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if it is currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle’s Transport Capacity...
Scarab Hive: ... this can take the unit beyond its starting size...
So, if the models that have been removed as casualties are still part of the unit, the Repair Barge can do absolutely nothing, since the models that have been removed still count towards the unit's starting size.
In addition, while the Scarab Hive CAN take the unit beyond its starting size, does not mean it automatically does, or if it takes casualties, that these additional models automatically increase the overall size of the unit. All it means is that if the unit has not taken casualties, and the Scarab Hive goes off, it increases the unit's model count for that time.
In addition, according to Transport Capacity, if you have a Tactical Squad that was reduced to 6 models from 10, they still could not Embark on a Razorback since:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
Then let us look at the following sentence which would make it impossible to even Embark that same unit on a Rhino even if they just lost one model:
The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
If part of the unit has been removed as a casualty and set in the "not in play" zone, then the entire unit could no longer embark on the Transport. No exception is made for models not in play.
Now, let's go back to Unit Coherency, which you said only affects models in play:
UNIT COHERENCY When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum movement distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.
During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored coherency). If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have that option.
No mention of excluding models that have been removed as casualties. No mention of only the models in play. It simply states, "the models in the {unit} must form an imaginary chain".
Here are just a few cases of the situation your case is ignoring while also ignoring what each one actually states.
And if these models are removed from consideration for the unit at these points, why must they be included for consideration with other rules that do not specifically call them out?
Remember, that if a unit is completely destroyed/wiped out, ALL of its models are removed as casualties and so are considered as part of the unit for From the Sands as much as they would be for being Embarked, Movement, or Repair Barge.
From there, the only other way the unit could be returned properly is either nothing happens, since no models can be connected to the unit, or we refer to the original starting unit to bring it back.
The alternative is completely unacceptable by not allowing Repair Barge to work at all, units attempting to achieve coherency with models off the table, and preventing units that have taken casualties from Embarking in to their own Dedicated Transports that they started in.
col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
Again, where is that a rule?
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
Spoiler:
THE TURN
Behold the terrible splendour of war! Squads of courageous warriors pick their way through the rubble and ruin, advancing under the covering fire of mighty war engines. Lances and bolts of energy pierce the smoke-wreathed air, and power-armoured brutes hurl themselves into the enemy ranks, letting fly with chainsword and power axe.
A Warhammer 40,000 battle is a chaotic affair. To bring a modicum of order to the anarchy of battle, players alternate moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces, and then their opponent will move and fight. This process is then repeated, with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on, until the game is done.
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).
No reference of Battlefield or "in play" in the Turn quote you presented, and "in play" is only used with the Vortex special rule rule in the entire rulebook. I was hoping your Spoiler actually held something worthwile when i saw it. Still operating on your own assumptions on how the game works.
And still can't address a whole post at once, can you. You can only do piecemeal, and still cannot pay attention to what a person says or asks, or even what you post. Rather pitiful, actually.
It's all there in the quotes. The Battlefield is where the game is played. If a model is removed as a casualty and placed on the side of the table, the model is no longer where the game is played.
Game play involves the Turn Sequence. Models on the side of the table do not have permission to participate in the Turn Sequence.
You can ignore these spoilers, but everyone on this thread knows they disprove your argument and show you to be nothing but a sophist who can't admit when he or she has lost the argument. Now that is what is pitiful.
col_impact wrote:Incorrect. Whenever you add bases to the unit the unit size changes. So if you add 3 bases to a unit of 4 then the unit size is now 7. If that unit is then wiped out next turn you are told by the rule to return 7 and not 1.
I thought you said the rulebook doesn't address unit sizes. If it doesn't, how can you say this and ascribe it as RAW?
The Scarab Hive rule refers to a new size that is beyond the starting size and that will be associated with "the unit". I have to obey the rule in order to claim RAW. You (Charistophe) choose to disobey the rule. That's why your interpretation is not RAW.
Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:
Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...
Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...
So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. The Repair Barge does not add bases to the unit (and therewith will have zero impact on the size of the unit and moreover is forbidden from impacting the size of the unit). The rest of your argument is wholly invalid and not worthy of any further discussion.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Here is where Charistoph tries to critique my argument . . .
In addition, according to Transport Capacity, if you have a Tactical Squad that was reduced to 6 models from 10, they still could not Embark on a Razorback since:
A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.
Then let us look at the following sentence which would make it impossible to even Embark that same unit on a Rhino even if they just lost one model:
The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.
If part of the unit has been removed as a casualty and set in the "not in play" zone, then the entire unit could no longer embark on the Transport. No exception is made for models not in play.
Now, let's go back to Unit Coherency, which you said only affects models in play:
UNIT COHERENCY When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum movement distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.
During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored coherency). If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have that option.
No mention of excluding models that have been removed as casualties. No mention of only the models in play. It simply states, "the models in the {unit} must form an imaginary chain".
Here are just a few cases of the situation your case is ignoring while also ignoring what each one actually states.
And if these models are removed from consideration for the unit at these points, why must they be included for consideration with other rules that do not specifically call them out?
Remember, that if a unit is completely destroyed/wiped out, ALL of its models are removed as casualties and so are considered as part of the unit for From the Sands as much as they would be for being Embarked, Movement, or Repair Barge.
From there, the only other way the unit could be returned properly is either nothing happens, since no models can be connected to the unit, or we refer to the original starting unit to bring it back.
The alternative is completely unacceptable by not allowing Repair Barge to work at all, units attempting to achieve coherency with models off the table, and preventing units that have taken casualties from Embarking in to their own Dedicated Transports that they started in.
As already proven, models that have been placed on the side of the table off the Battlefield are no longer where the game is played or part of the game play of the Turn Sequence. Those models are skipped when it comes to Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge.
So basically . . .
you have no argument. All of your criticisms of my RAW argument are without substance.
Care to recoup your tactics and come back to the discussion when you have an argument?
Except the rule is specifying the scarab unit chosen by the formation. Not just any scarab unit. Otherwise you could resurect OTHER scarab units at will. Since adding a base to the size of the unit is in no way shape or form different than removing a base from the unit as far as unit size goes within the context of the rules of this game, your assertion would therefore allow the situation mentioned by myself and others where you would have to resurect smaller units depending on unit size at the time.
Also the situation I put forth where you adding models to the unit is ALWAYS adding models to the unit so it doesn't matter if they never went beyond the starting size and you have no permission to resurect less than the whole unit. Which would invalidate the rule completely and render the whole issue illegal.
You are resurecting the unit chosen by the formation. That is all you are allowed to do. Changing the unit size by increasing g or decreasing the number of models in the unit in no way changes the unit the formation special rule indicates. Since there was a specified number of models in the formation, any change to that would be you ignoring what the rule says. Blatantly.
You bring back what unit of scarabs?
The one chosen as part of this formation.
How many bases does that unit in this formation have?
Whatever it shows on your army roster.
Why is that?
Because otherwise the unit could return with one base or a dozen, but could never return at all if you don't have the number of bases required to field the entire unit.
Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:
Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...
Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...
So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. The Repair Barge does not add bases to the unit (and therewith will have zero impact on the size of the unit and moreover is forbidden from impacting the size of the unit).
Here is what I am taking away from your claims in this thread. Unit size is solely determined by number of bases. Repair Barge adds models not bases so does not affect unit size. Logical extension is when adding models from this effect they should not be attached to bases and you can add however many you roll regardless of unit size. Since that violates BRB guidelines that models should attached to the bases suplied in the kits I think we can safely say that is not correct. Adding models and adding bases must be the same thing since the two are attached to each other. Which means per your interpretation Repair Barge does literally nothing.
Alternatively, and as virtually everyone else seems to read, once a model has been removed as a casualty it is no longer part of your army, and unless specifically referenced otherwise not part of the game anymore. Support by a general lack of reference to those models after removal. Since they are not part of your army anymore they are not required to be organized in units as you keep repeating as your only real support for your position. Using any other interpretation causes significant problems with other rules such as coherency and morale checks as previously mentioned. So I challenge you, where do you see rules support that a casualty removed model is still part of your army?
Assuming you can't provide that, there are only two was I see to resolve the Sands rule as written. First it could be the size of the unit at the start of the wound pool that destroyed it. Additions or subtractions prior being irrelevant since no rules give permission to check that. Second it could be the unit size listed on your roster since after it has been destroyed that is the only place it is still referenced as a unit. Rules don't clearly specify which but I'm inclined to think the second was the intent.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Except the rule is specifying the scarab unit chosen by the formation. Not just any scarab unit. Otherwise you could resurect OTHER scarab units at will. Since adding a base to the size of the unit is in no way shape or form different than removing a base from the unit as far as unit size goes within the context of the rules of this game, your assertion would therefore allow the situation mentioned by myself and others where you would have to resurect smaller units depending on unit size at the time.
Also the situation I put forth where you adding models to the unit is ALWAYS adding models to the unit so it doesn't matter if they never went beyond the starting size and you have no permission to resurect less than the whole unit. Which would invalidate the rule completely and render the whole issue illegal.
You are resurecting the unit chosen by the formation. That is all you are allowed to do. Changing the unit size by increasing g or decreasing the number of models in the unit in no way changes the unit the formation special rule indicates. Since there was a specified number of models in the formation, any change to that would be you ignoring what the rule says. Blatantly.
You bring back what unit of scarabs?
The one chosen as part of this formation.
How many bases does that unit in this formation have?
Whatever it shows on your army roster.
Why is that?
Because otherwise the unit could return with one base or a dozen, but could never return at all if you don't have the number of bases required to field the entire unit.
Please point to rules that allow you to add or remove bases from units. AFAIK, there is only one rule, and that one rule (Scarab Hive) allows you to add bases to scarab units.
So . . . the 'Scarab Hive' rule allows you to add bases to the scarab unit that is part of the Retribution Phalanx and 'From the Sands, We Rise' allows you to return the scarab unit to the Battlefield.
Here is what I am taking away from your claims in this thread. Unit size is solely determined by number of bases. Repair Barge adds models not bases so does not affect unit size. Logical extension is when adding models from this effect they should not be attached to bases and you can add however many you roll regardless of unit size. Since that violates BRB guidelines that models should attached to the bases suplied in the kits I think we can safely say that is not correct. Adding models and adding bases must be the same thing since the two are attached to each other. Which means per your interpretation Repair Barge does literally nothing.
BZZZZZTTTTTT. The Repair Barge rule allows you to add Necron Warriors but forbids you from going beyond starting size. This requires you to use the pool of casualties for the unit in question on the side of the table or to start bookkeeping the number of casualties on the side of table if you choose to pull your warriors from some other source (if the Repair Barge rule is going to get complicated by the 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule). Normally, the Repair Barge rule is easy to manage and will only get complicated if the Ghost Ark is part of a Retribution Phalanx.
Alternatively, and as virtually everyone else seems to read, once a model has been removed as a casualty it is no longer part of your army, and unless specifically referenced otherwise not part of the game anymore. Support by a general lack of reference to those models after removal. Since they are not part of your army anymore they are not required to be organized in units as you keep repeating as your only real support for your position. Using any other interpretation causes significant problems with other rules such as coherency and morale checks as previously mentioned. So I challenge you, where do you see rules support that a casualty removed model is still part of your army?
Assuming you can't provide that, there are only two was I see to resolve the Sands rule as written. First it could be the size of the unit at the start of the wound pool that destroyed it. Additions or subtractions prior being irrelevant since no rules give permission to check that. Second it could be the unit size listed on your roster since after it has been destroyed that is the only place it is still referenced as a unit. Rules don't clearly specify which but I'm inclined to think the second was the intent.
The rules are fully on my side. And you have zero rules on your side.
This is all repeated information.
Spoiler:
FORMING A UNIT
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
So unless a model has been specifically removed from a unit and put in a unit-less state (which never happens in the game), every model in your army is organized in a unit, whether it's a casualty or not. The burden is on you to provide textual support which shows that a casualty is removed from the unt. You cannot. Therefore my interpretation is correct.
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The Battlefield is where the game is played. If a model is removed as a casualty and placed on the side of the table, the model is no longer where the game is played.
Spoiler:
THE TURN
Behold the terrible splendour of war! Squads of courageous warriors pick their way through the rubble and ruin, advancing under the covering fire of mighty war engines. Lances and bolts of energy pierce the smoke-wreathed air, and power-armoured brutes hurl themselves into the enemy ranks, letting fly with chainsword and power axe.
A Warhammer 40,000 battle is a chaotic affair. To bring a modicum of order to the anarchy of battle, players alternate moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces, and then their opponent will move and fight. This process is then repeated, with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on, until the game is done.
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).
Game play involves the Turn Sequence. Models on the side of the table do not have permission to participate in the Turn Sequence.
Models that have been placed on the side of the table off the Battlefield are no longer where the game is played or part of the game play of the Turn Sequence. Those models are skipped when it comes to Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge.
#########################
So I have provided ample textual support for my position and your side is unable to provide any textual support.
Go ahead and take some time to recoup and rethink your argument before your next rebuttal.
Your previous statement was Repair Barge does don't add to the unit, now you say it does. There is a lack of consistency to your arguments that is seriously hurting your credibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually now that I think about it, your entire argument is based on inconsistency. You claim removed models are still subject to requirements to be in units, but are exempt from all rules related to units because they were removed from the play area. I don't see how you are justifying only applying the rules that fit your interpretation. Either the rules apply, in which case you need to apply all the rules, or the rules don't apply because it was removed from play, in which case it does not count as part of the unit. If you have rules basis for why you are applying some but not all rules to removed models I would love to see it.
Fhionnuisce wrote: Your previous statement was Repair Barge does don't add to the unit, now you say it does. There is a lack of consistency to your arguments that is seriously hurting your credibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually now that I think about it, your entire argument is based on inconsistency. You claim removed models are still subject to requirements to be in units, but are exempt from all rules related to units because they were removed from the play area. I don't see how you are justifying only applying the rules that fit your interpretation. Either the rules apply, in which case you need to apply all the rules, or the rules don't apply because it was removed from play, in which case it does not count as part of the unit. If you have rules basis for why you are applying some but not all rules to removed models I would love to see it.
I have been wholly consistent.
Simply look at my above post. Either models are over the Battlefield where the game is played or they are not on the Battlefield where the game is played. That is just the way the rules are written. I did not write the rules. Feel free to contact GW if you have a complaint about how they write their rules.
Don't worry about my credibility. I have all the textual support. You should start to attend to your complete and utter lack of textual support.
Feel free to take the time to rethink your argument and read the BRB. I am still waiting for you to pose a serious counter-argument
Fhionnuisce wrote: Your previous statement was Repair Barge does don't add to the unit, now you say it does. There is a lack of consistency to your arguments that is seriously hurting your credibility.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Actually now that I think about it, your entire argument is based on inconsistency. You claim removed models are still subject to requirements to be in units, but are exempt from all rules related to units because they were removed from the play area. I don't see how you are justifying only applying the rules that fit your interpretation. Either the rules apply, in which case you need to apply all the rules, or the rules don't apply because it was removed from play, in which case it does not count as part of the unit. If you have rules basis for why you are applying some but not all rules to removed models I would love to see it.
I have been wholly consistent.
Simply look at my above post. Either models are over the Battlefield where the game is played or they are not on the Battlefield where the game is played. That is just the way the rules are written. I did not write the rules. Feel free to contact GW if you have a complaint about how they write their rules.
Don't worry about my credibility. I have all the textual support. You should start to attend to your complete and utter lack of textual support.
Feel free to take the time to rethink your argument and read the BRB. I am still waiting for you to pose a serious counter-argument
No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.
Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?
So, because it references the base if the model, you believe that means something different than adding a model.
Fine, you may add as many bases as you wish. But bases have no statlines. You may have as many bases as you like, but they have no statistics. Since the statistics of a MODEL in this game ALWAYS refer to the model and you aren't adding models but bases...
Yes, you are correct. You have a million bases of necron scarabs. You just don't get to attack, move, claim objectives, or anything else because you decided that bases are different than models and all we know how to play with is models.
Congratulations you have won by failing utterly at understanding how to play the game. With that I will leave you to your trolling and move along.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZTTT No you have not. You have still yet to show a rule that says a rule must have the word base in its text to be adding to a unit even though there are many other examples of such rules that do not include the word base. You have also been inconsistent with simple math
The unit of scarabs is now unit size 6. Scarab Hive adds bases to the unit and is permitted to increase the unit's size/
The unit of warriors remains unit size 5. Repair Barge is forbidden from increasing the unit size.
Why add a model to the scarab unit that is outside this "casualty pile" you keep insisting exist but yet for warriors who have the same wording you have to return a model from the "casualty pile" even though that is strictly breaking the rules on what repair barge says to do.That is cheating and not following the rules. This is a forum on interpreting the rules, not willfully cheating and bending rules to fit your own view on how rules work.
The models are removed from play as casualties per the rules. They are still organizationally part of the unit but do not interact with the unit in terms of play. Pretty simple really. The BRB just requires you to treat 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
The game never deals with models directly.
BZZZZZZZZZZZT incorrect and inconsistent with what you have said, there have been several times that people have pointed out where the game deals with models directly, you yourself included.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Repair barge does not give any specific rule to replace models that were removed as a casualty back into play. According to your own words repair barge MUST add warriors to the unit that were not removed.
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect.[colo=green] By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play. [/color]
Again you are being inconsistant here. You are saying that the model or unit when off the table it is literally being removed from game play meaning the game's rules do not apply to them yet they still do somehow because reasons that you like to pick and choose when they are and aren't. Feel free to take the time to rethink your argument
Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.
Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not. If you think you have posted a rule that states that a base is what matters when adding anything to a unit re-post it and highlight it for me because currently I have not seen you post one. The part is red is not what the rules say to do, you are not allowed to add to the game rules and are thus cheating.
No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.
Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?
Col_impact it's not contradicting itself, since the very beginning he's just arguing that according to one rule, you must keep the unit casualties in "a side of the table(or a specific box for the sake of clarification)" just to keep track of them, when all the unit is removed from the table (and thus the full number of models that compose it are in "that side of the table or the specific box" the unit is destroyed.
Due the fact he's using a canoptek spyder to keep adding "bases or new models beyond the original number" to the unit when the scarab unit is gone that "specific box" may contain anywhere between the original number of model/bases plus any extra ones and only when the whole unit is destroyed and whitin that "specific box" you can deploy it again all the models in it since all of them are the very same unit.
It may go against other similar formation rules and probably an oversight from GW when making the formation rule.
No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.
Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?
Feel free to point to where I contradict myself.
The rules of 40k only permit the the models that are on the battlefield to partake in the Turn Sequence. I have quoted my textual support above.
No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.
Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?
Col_impact it's not contradicting itself, since the very beginning he's just arguing that according to one rule, you must keep the unit casualties in "a side of the table(or a specific box for the sake of clarification)" just to keep track of them, when all the unit is removed from the table (and thus the full number of models that compose it are in "that side of the table or the specific box" the unit is destroyed.
Due the fact he's using a canoptek spyder to keep adding "bases or new models beyond the original number" to the unit when the scarab unit is gone that "specific box" may contain anywhere between the original number of model/bases plus any extra ones and only when the whole unit is destroyed and whitin that "specific box" you can deploy it again all the models in it since all of them are the very same unit.
It may go against other similar formation rules and probably an oversight from GW when making the formation rule.
Thanks for the summary. RAW is pretty clear and simple and straightforward as you note and I have been fully consistent.
Is it RAI? There are good reasons to think that it is not RAI so many of you may want to play it differently than the RAW.
However, I play RAW in my play group, so for me the RAW is very important.
Naw wrote: Let's try something more simple, Col_impact.
My roster says I have purchased a unit of 10 necron warriors. I have attached a lord to it and lost 5 warriors to shooting.
What is the size of the unit?
I add 1 scarab base in my movement base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4, then lose 2 bases to shooting.
What is the size of the unit?
I have no idea why you keep arguing this as you don't have a case.
Your argument in futile. Col_Impact picks pieces of rules to interpret for his arguments and refuses to acknowledge any other point of view even when proven wrong. He wont change his stance regardless of how many times he has been proven incorrect.
Naw wrote: Let's try something more simple, Col_impact.
My roster says I have purchased a unit of 10 necron warriors. I have attached a lord to it and lost 5 warriors to shooting.
What is the size of the unit?
Per the rules, the 'size' of the unit is 11. There are 5 warrior models and an Overlord on the Battlefield and 5 warrior models on the side of the table. The 5 warrior models on the side of the table skip the Turn Sequence per the rules and do not factor into the 'current number' of models on the Battlefield for the unit.
I add 1 scarab base in my movement base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4, then lose 2 bases to shooting.
What is the size of the unit?
I have no idea why you keep arguing this as you don't have a case.
Per the rules, the 'size' of the scarab unit is 4. There are 2 scarab bases on the Battlefield and 2 scarab bases on the side of the table. The 2 scarab bases on the side of the table skip the Turn Sequence per the rules and do not factor into the 'current number' of models on the Battlefield for the unit.
This is how it works when you use the rules provided. I have shown you rules that indicate all models are part of units, that indicate the Battlefield is where the game is played, and that give permission to participate in the Turn Sequence only to those models that are on the Battlefield
You are the one who doesn't have a case.
You lack rules for extracting models from the organizational game concept of the unit when they are placed on the side of the table. So models on the side of the table are still part of the unit per the rules. Your argument will have problems with Unit Coherency and models able to shoot from the side of the table at models on the Battlefield. My argument does not have problems with this since models on the side of the table do not have permission to partake in the Turn Sequence.
You also lack rules for decrementing the 'size' of the unit. The rules we have talk about the 'current number of models [in that phase]'
Basically, you have not presented anywhere near a complete argument and you have no case.
Come back to the thread when you have an argument of substance to share.
Your argument in futile. Col_Impact picks pieces of rules to interpret for his arguments and refuses to acknowledge any other point of view even when proven wrong. He wont change his stance regardless of how many times he has been proven incorrect.
Thanks Futile. By providing nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack you have underscored that the counter-argument to my argument has no rules support and no case.
Basically, your contentless attack on my argument is as good an indication as I will ever get out of this thread that I have won this argument.
Funny that I disproved you entire interpretation 3 separate times and you have chosen to ignore it col Impact.
Why does adding bases above the starting number count as adding to the unit when you are always adding bases when using the scarab swarm? You have no rules basis to back this up.
Where does one find the magical set of rules for bases in this game? Because a base is just what the model is.
Did it never occur to you that they say "base" because a scarab "model" would be a single, solitary scarab and they want you to have more than that per swarm?
Yes, I came back into this. But I cannot abide someone willfully ignoring how wrong they are. A base of models has no difference whatsoever to a model. Period. End of story. There is NO rule in existence that says otherwise.
But somehow you point to THAT (nonexistent) difference as price of you idea. It doesn't matter whether or not you have permission to increase beyond the starting unit size, you are told to add models to the unit.
If your interpretation is correct, then even if those die later (and this would include any that did not increase unit size) then resurrecting the unit would become impossible to do eventually because of lack of models.
And since you must resurrect the WHOLE unit with the special rule you are negating the ability to do so at all.
What scarab swarm is resurrected? The one CHOSEN as part of this formation. Any, and I mean ANY other interpretation would allow for the unit to count as whatever size it was when it died. This includes any characters attached when it was killed since the necron lord doesn't have a statline in the scarab unit entry.
Your argument only has merit if you ignore the fact that there is no definition for what a "base" is in regards to game mechanics.
I think I might have stumbled onto an issue while thinking this out today, maybe col_impact can elaborate.
Ghost ark says "Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result – this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size ... (any excess are destroyed)".
Then the rule we keep using "When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’." does set up the unit is now as big as the total causalities from that Unit.
The issue becomes if the total number of casualties from that unit is how many are being returned for the Formation bonus, how does that interact with the newly added Models to the unit?
Example: Start with normal 10, lose 2, G-ark Adds 3, one is destroyed due to G-ark rule. Then that unit is wiped out next turn.
That was a unit of 10 legal models on the field, but 13 total casualties.
Would Formation bonus return 13, as that was the total number of casualties?
Would Formation bonus return 12, as the extra warrior was destroyed before joining the unit?
Would Formation bonus return 10, as the ones added by G-ark can not take the unit over starting size, even though the G-ark rule is not causing it to go over starting size right now?
Same situation with scarabs, start with 3, gain 1, 2 are lost, gain another 1, all are wiped out. The total size of that unit after they are all casualties is 5.
Draco765 wrote: I think I might have stumbled onto an issue while thinking this out today, maybe col_impact can elaborate.
Ghost ark says "Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result – this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size ... (any excess are destroyed)".
Then the rule we keep using "When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’." does set up the unit is now as big as the total causalities from that Unit.
The issue becomes if the total number of casualties from that unit is how many are being returned for the Formation bonus, how does that interact with the newly added Models to the unit?
Example: Start with normal 10, lose 2, G-ark Adds 3, one is destroyed due to G-ark rule. Then that unit is wiped out next turn.
That was a unit of 10 legal models on the field, but 13 total casualties.
Would Formation bonus return 13, as that was the total number of casualties?
Would Formation bonus return 12, as the extra warrior was destroyed before joining the unit?
Would Formation bonus return 10, as the ones added by G-ark can not take the unit over starting size, even though the G-ark rule is not causing it to go over starting size right now?
Same situation with scarabs, start with 3, gain 1, 2 are lost, gain another 1, all are wiped out. The total size of that unit after they are all casualties is 5.
The G-Ark unit has 10 casualties total when the unit is completely destroyed on the side of the table. The Repair Barge rule forbids monkeying with the size so the total size of the unit on the battlefield and on the side of the table is fixed at the starting size.
The scarab unit has 5 casualties total when the unit completely destroyed on the side of the table. The Scarab Hive rule explicitly permits adding bases and increasing the size of the unit.
This is a permissive ruleset. You are not allowed to do something unless you have permission to do it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Funny that I disproved you entire interpretation 3 separate times and you have chosen to ignore it col Impact.
Why does adding bases above the starting number count as adding to the unit when you are always adding bases when using the scarab swarm? You have no rules basis to back this up.
Where does one find the magical set of rules for bases in this game? Because a base is just what the model is.
Did it never occur to you that they say "base" because a scarab "model" would be a single, solitary scarab and they want you to have more than that per swarm?
Yes, I came back into this. But I cannot abide someone willfully ignoring how wrong they are. A base of models has no difference whatsoever to a model. Period. End of story. There is NO rule in existence that says otherwise.
But somehow you point to THAT (nonexistent) difference as price of you idea. It doesn't matter whether or not you have permission to increase beyond the starting unit size, you are told to add models to the unit.
If your interpretation is correct, then even if those die later (and this would include any that did not increase unit size) then resurrecting the unit would become impossible to do eventually because of lack of models.
And since you must resurrect the WHOLE unit with the special rule you are negating the ability to do so at all.
What scarab swarm is resurrected? The one CHOSEN as part of this formation. Any, and I mean ANY other interpretation would allow for the unit to count as whatever size it was when it died. This includes any characters attached when it was killed since the necron lord doesn't have a statline in the scarab unit entry.
Your argument only has merit if you ignore the fact that there is no definition for what a "base" is in regards to game mechanics.
I am just following the rules provided. Repair Barge does not let you add bases in such a way as to change the size of the unit. Scarab Hive rule does allow you to add bases to change the size of the unit.
You can answer all of your own questions if you simply read the rules.
What you are failing to understand is that your interpretation would never allow necron warriors to be resurrected at all with the ghost ark. You claim the unit is whatever size it was with casualties being placed to the side. Since this ghost ark ADDS models to the unit (not replaces, adds, exactly like the scarab hive rule) and your contention is that the model's still count as being part of the unit though they are set to the side. The necron warriors cannot have ANY models added because the unit is already full size (lost two to casualties, but your interpretation makes it a 10 man unit with tho models off to the side)
Now, I can bring a big bucket of warriors to add to my units, because I am ADDING to the unit. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE does it state you bring the lost models back. This also means that per your interpretation of the rules any models added to the scarab unit will count as being higher than the starting point because the casualties are still counted as being part of the unit.
As you can see, this would mean that you could never use the ghost ark's ability on ANY necron warrior unit and that once you have added more models to the scarab swarm than you have total models, no matter if you actually increased the size beyond its starting size on the table, you will be unable to resurect the unit because there aren't enough for me to represent them on the table.
Congratulations, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the game doesn't work at all the way you think it does because if it did none of these rules would do anything at all in the game.
Go ahead, think about your argument. You don't appear to have done so thus far.
col_impact wrote: It's all there in the quotes. The Battlefield is where the game is played. If a model is removed as a casualty and placed on the side of the table, the model is no longer where the game is played.
Game play involves the Turn Sequence. Models on the side of the table do not have permission to participate in the Turn Sequence.
You can ignore these spoilers, but everyone on this thread knows they disprove your argument and show you to be nothing but a sophist who can't admit when he or she has lost the argument. Now that is what is pitiful.
And yet you persist on things lasting past this phase anyway when they are no longer in play when you say they cannot be included. You contradict yourself in this approach. Either models do not contribute to the unit size when removed as a casualty or they do. If they do not contribute to the unit size when removed as a casualty, then they do not contribute when they are called upon to be restored without directly addressing this. If the do contribute to the unit size when removed as a casualty, then numerous different aspects of the game will no longer work as I stated in the section you so causally dismissed.
col_impact wrote: The Scarab Hive rule refers to a new size that is beyond the starting size and that will be associated with "the unit". I have to obey the rule in order to claim RAW. You (Charistophe) choose to disobey the rule. That's why your interpretation is not RAW.
I do not. I have read the entire rule. You've missed the key component every time. The Scarab Hive CAN take it beyond the unit's starting size. This can only take place if the unit is not taken below it's starting size. It never states it takes it beyond the unit's ultimate size any more than From the Sands states to "restore all the models removed from play" back to the board.
Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:
Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...
Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...
So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.
BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. The Repair Barge does not add bases to the unit (and therewith will have zero impact on the size of the unit and moreover is forbidden from impacting the size of the unit). The rest of your argument is wholly invalid and not worthy of any further discussion.
You are incorrect and in error. It seems you are unaware of how each of these units works if you think that this is the significant difference. Let me illuminate you.
Necron Datasheet Legend:
7. Unit Composition: This section shows the number and type of models that form the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.
10. Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.
Necron Warriors Datasheet:
UNIT COMPOSITION: 10 Necron Warriors
OPTIONS: • May include up to ten additional Necron Warriors...
Necron Canoptek Scarabs Datasheet:
UNIT COMPOSITION: 3 Canoptek Scarab bases
OPTIONS: • May include up to six additional Canoptek Scarab bases…
Basically, when it comes to adding to a unit, "bases" are "models". Swarms are just listed as bases as their model type. So, Repair Barge and Scarab Hive both add models to the unit, even if the models the Scarab Hive lists are called "bases".
So, if we go by your interpretation, and the ultimate unit size is increased in size when the Scarab Hive adds to a Scarabs unit, then so is the Warriors, even if their casualties have reduced them to below their starting size. If that Warrior Squad took 19 Casualties and 6 added by the Barge when the last one dies, then the returning Warrior Squad would be 20, even though it started at 14.
If it cannot do this, then either one of three things is in error.
1) The Repair Barge (and numerous other rules) can do nothing because we take the unit's total size, including casualties, in to account. This would also mean that Transports cannot Embark units that have taken casualties since the whole unit must Embark.
2) Both the Repair Barge and the Scarab Hive (and all the other rules that reference unit size in gameplay) only consider the unit size in existence on the table when adding models to the unit. This would mean that any models added by the Ghost Ark would be returned along with the rest of the Unit along with all the Scarabs added by the Scarab Hive since they are added to the whole unit.
3) Once the game starts, the game rules only considers the unit size in existence on the tabletop, and only models on the tabletop or in Reserves as part of the unit. Once the unit size drops below 1, it is completely destroyed and the unit no longer exists as an organization that can be called upon by the game to perform actions. From the Sands now references an organization that no longer exists and does not state which form to restore. Precedence from other rules state to restore the starting unit, so we use that or From the Sands now fails.
col_impact wrote: As already proven, models that have been placed on the side of the table off the Battlefield are no longer where the game is played or part of the game play of the Turn Sequence. Those models are skipped when it comes to Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge.
Then they are also ignored by Scarab Hive and From the Sands since neither of them directly refer to models removed as casualties any more than Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge, either.
Either they work the same for everything or nothing. Not just because the impacted colon decides they work.
Naw wrote: Let's try something more simple, Col_impact.
My roster says I have purchased a unit of 10 necron warriors. I have attached a lord to it and lost 5 warriors to shooting.
What is the size of the unit?
Per the rules, the 'size' of the unit is 11. There are 5 warrior models and an Overlord on the Battlefield and 5 warrior models on the side of the table. The 5 warrior models on the side of the table skip the Turn Sequence per the rules and do not factor into the 'current number' of models on the Battlefield for the unit.
I add 1 scarab base in my movement base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4, then lose 2 bases to shooting.
What is the size of the unit?
I have no idea why you keep arguing this as you don't have a case.
Per the rules, the 'size' of the scarab unit is 4. There are 2 scarab bases on the Battlefield and 2 scarab bases on the side of the table. The 2 scarab bases on the side of the table skip the Turn Sequence per the rules and do not factor into the 'current number' of models on the Battlefield for the unit.
I'm sure this will make the Daemon players happy when they field their pink horrors. Killed 5 horrors? Don't care, the unit size is still 11!
I see col is persisting with this ever increasingly bizarre argument.
Maybe let them believe they've "won" on this? We know from past threads that they cannot be persuaded to agree the sky is blue, if they started off saying it is pink.
Well it's clear that the rule isn't going to be solved by a clear RAW state since two sides have gone on for five pages (and I'm also not sure why the Necron Warriors were brought into the discussion since that's not what I asked).
I'm going to ask a mod to lock this because it doesn't look like the discussion is going to be solved any time soon. I can only hope it is address in the Necron specific FAQ when it's released.
and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Such silliness. You guys literally have no argument.
