You are bringing back lost models, so they have full wounds. I think it's pretty clear cut. There is nothing about them coming back with less wounds. It makes sense because you roll on models now, not wounds.
I'd say with full wounds. if only because the way you assign wounds now.
I have a 3 man Destroyer unit. 2 die and the 3rd lost 1 wound. I manage to get back both Destroyers lost earlier. If they both come back with less wounds then how do you assign wounds when the unit takes damage?
Full wounds, you are replacing previously slain models with new models. I would imagine it would indicate like it did in sixth briefly if they only returned with 1 wound. (Chariots returning with 1 Hull Point etc)
Whacked wrote: Full wounds, you are replacing previously slain models with new models. I would imagine it would indicate like it did in sixth briefly if they only returned with 1 wound. (Chariots returning with 1 Hull Point etc)
It's not a 'new model' according to the rules:
On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to the unit...
While I agree there is nothing stating only a single wound, but it sure seems rather...potent for a unit special rule when dealing with multi-wound units like destroyers. Especially given how you have to pay for blue and brimstone horrors in order to have them replace pink horrors.
It's not really any more potent. A 20 warrior blob has to roll for each individual model. With this, you just get less dice so it's more swingy. The chance of getting a certain % of things back is exactly the same. If anything it's worse for destroyers because you can't roll on lost wounds until a model is dead.
Something to consider, what is the Power Level and Price Point of these units? Do they seem ridiculously high or seem normal to the normal of Wounds?
It isn't a RAW definition, but it could help determine any RAI that you way want to look at.
The problem is that Wounds are not defined at all, one or full, and if the model is returned as is, it is being returned with zero Wounds. Not very well written, either way.
Charistoph wrote: Something to consider, what is the Power Level and Price Point of these units? Do they seem ridiculously high or seem normal to the normal of Wounds?
Destroyers certainly seem very expensive if they only come back with 1 wound. Since last edition, they gained a wound (3 from 2), but their price shot up from 40pts to 63pts.
Charistoph wrote: Something to consider, what is the Power Level and Price Point of these units? Do they seem ridiculously high or seem normal to the normal of Wounds?
Destroyers certainly seem very expensive if they only come back with 1 wound. Since last edition, they gained a wound (3 from 2), but their price shot up from 40pts to 63pts.
Well, they gained a 50% increase in wounds, so a 50% increase in cost is appropriate.
I think it has to be full wounds. No other multi-wound unit is allowed to have more than 1 "wounded" model, as wounds MUST go to the same model until it dies.
By bringing them back with any sort of partial wounds would mean the multiple Destroyers could have wounds on them.
Then what happens? Re-distribute the wounds until only 1 has partial wounds, and "empties" the models you just brought back, killing them again?
That's just silly
ClassicCarraway wrote: Well, they gained a 50% increase in wounds, so a 50% increase in cost is appropriate.
That logic doesn't hold at all.
A ton of other models also gained extra wounds in this edition - often far more than the Destroyers. However, few if any went up by the same % in points (some even went down).
Hence, no, an additional wound alone is nowhere near enough to justify a 50% increase in cost. Especially in an edition where inflicting multiple wounds on high-toughness models is easier than ever.
Galef wrote: I think it has to be full wounds. No other multi-wound unit is allowed to have more than 1 "wounded" model, as wounds MUST go to the same model until it dies.
By bringing them back with any sort of partial wounds would mean the multiple Destroyers could have wounds on them.
Then what happens? Re-distribute the wounds until only 1 has partial wounds, and "empties" the models you just brought back, killing them again?
That's just silly
You are using a step in one process to define everything else.
You would be in that situation, any way, full Wounds or 1 Wound. Those models have already been Wounded, so Wounds would still have to be distributed to them before any of the non-Wounded models have a chance to be Wounded.
Draco765 wrote: If you need a reference as to why they come back at full wounds, check the Surrogate Hosts rule under Trazyn.
How does Trazyn's 'Surrogate Hosts' rule (which only allows him to come back with D3 wounds) mean that Reanimation Protocols allows a model to come back with full wounds? If anything, it implies that they would come back with a random number of wounds.
Draco765 wrote: If they intended multi-wound models come back with less than full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule.
Or "If they intended multi-wound models come back with their full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule". Either way has the same amount of support in the written rules (i.e., none).
Draco765 wrote: If you need a reference as to why they come back at full wounds, check the Surrogate Hosts rule under Trazyn.
How does Trazyn's 'Surrogate Hosts' rule (which only allows him to come back with D3 wounds) mean that Reanimation Protocols allows a model to come back with full wounds? If anything, it implies that they would come back with a random number of wounds.
Draco765 wrote: If they intended multi-wound models come back with less than full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule.
Or "If they intended multi-wound models come back with their full wounds, they would have said so in the Reanimation Protocol rule". Either way has the same amount of support in the written rules (i.e., none).
When the rules want something to comeback with less than full wounds, they say it. Which is why I pointed out the Trazyn rule.
You are trying to add complexity that is unneeded.
And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.
Ghaz wrote: And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.
From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.
Ghaz wrote: And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.
From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.
Ghaz wrote: And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.
From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.
Ghaz wrote: And where do the rules say that? Seems like you're making conclusions without the written rules to back it up. So please, show us where it says a model comes back with its full wounds unless noted otherwise.
From what I've gathered of this edition, there will be a rule that specfically points out a negative, such as coming back with fewer wounds. If it doesn't say that, then you go with the best interpretation.
And where can someone find that rule at?
*sighs*
So is that a "no, you can't find it" or a "no, that rule does not exist"?
Fragile wrote: Its a parallel example that your choosing to ignore.
Not entirely. Its a case that has similar mechanics, but it is not establishing anything one way or another. Does the "D3" go beyond the 1 Wound that is needed to bring the model back on the board, or is it a limitation from the full Wounds the model normally is initially deployed with?
Ghaz has pointed out that there is no baseline to actually work from in this system since it is 100% brand new, so we don't know if Trazyn is getting a bonus or is restriction.
Fragile wrote: Its a parallel example that your choosing to ignore.
Not entirely. Its a case that has similar mechanics, but it is not establishing anything one way or another. Does the "D3" go beyond the 1 Wound that is needed to bring the model back on the board, or is it a limitation from the full Wounds the model normally is initially deployed with?
Ghaz has pointed out that there is no baseline to actually work from in this system since it is 100% brand new, so we don't know if Trazyn is getting a bonus or is restriction.
Understand?
Answer these questions:
When a model is placed on the table how do you determine the number of wounds it has?
What makes you think a multi-wound model being placed on the table lets you change it's wound characteristic below or above it's profile?
Trazyn sets the precedent. Where is there a similar rule in Reanimation protocol?
(This is sounding just like the "is it a spider or is it a unit of spyders")
Draco765 wrote: When a model is placed on the table how do you determine the number of wounds it has?
When Deployed, as many as on its statline. When Disembarking, however many it had when it got on, minus any lost from the Wreck. When being brought on by Reanimation Protocols, unknown as it is not stated. Case of one does not mean case for another.
Draco765 wrote: What makes you think a multi-wound model being placed on the table lets you change it's wound characteristic below or above it's profile?
The model has lost all its Wounds and is being returned to the table. What tells me to place it on the table with more Wounds than it had when it left the table?
Draco765 wrote: Trazyn sets the precedent. Where is there a similar rule in Reanimation protocol?
Trazyn sets no precedent as it is a different rule and specifically states what should be done. Should we roll a D3 for every Multi-Wound RP and apply it then? This is laughable as we have no instruction in any form to do that in RP.
Should we apply it with full Wounds? We have no instruction to do that. On one hand, we think we would be bringing Warriors and Immortals back with full Wounds, but they only have 1 Wound to begin with.
Should have it be 1 Wound? We have no instruction to do that, but we think we would be doing that with every Warrior and Immortal.
Should it be 0 Wounds? Ridiculous, as it would require removing the model as soon as you put it back on the table.
Yeah, I'm not seeing how Trazyn is precedent when there is no "similar rule" involved.
It's full wounds. There is room to make an argument if you want to but it's a stretch. If a destroyer doesn't come back with the wound stat shown on it's profile how do you decide between coming back with 1 wound or 2?
The rule says to set up the model.
The destroyer's wound characteristics is three wounds.
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.
From this we can conclude the current hypothesis is that a destroyer is returned with the full three wounds unless otherwise specified.
I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.
tydrace wrote: The rule says to set up the model.
The destroyer's wound characteristics is three wounds.
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.
From this we can conclude the current hypothesis is that a destroyer is returned with the full three wounds unless otherwise specified.
I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.
tydrace wrote: The rule says to set up the model.
The destroyer's wound characteristics is three wounds.
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.
From this we can conclude the current hypothesis is that a destroyer is returned with the full three wounds unless otherwise specified.
I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.
Yes, I have to agree, in the absence of specifics, we have to go with the least convoluted, which in this case, full wounds. Makes me hate necrons even more
ClassicCarraway wrote: Well, they gained a 50% increase in wounds, so a 50% increase in cost is appropriate.
That logic doesn't hold at all.
A ton of other models also gained extra wounds in this edition - often far more than the Destroyers. However, few if any went up by the same % in points (some even went down).
Hence, no, an additional wound alone is nowhere near enough to justify a 50% increase in cost. Especially in an edition where inflicting multiple wounds on high-toughness models is easier than ever.
Okay, how about the fact that with the Fly keyword, they are not penalized for falling back out of combat (which is very powerful for a heavy weapon squad).
Well, I do find it very interesting(and kinda fluffy) that the only way to get rid of necrons is to hit one unit until it is entirely dead. inflicting heavy casualties can also cause the unit to fail morale(unless necrons have a morale rule I missed) and dissapear. Makes for a bit of unique tactics vs necrons. Might be overpowered though, but I need to see it in play.
ClassicCarraway wrote: Okay, how about the fact that with the Fly keyword, they are not penalized for falling back out of combat (which is very powerful for a heavy weapon squad).
That is nice. However, bear in mind that they lost JSJ in the process - which allowed them to move back behind cover after firing (thus protecting them from ranged fire as well as melee).
More correlation is needed for this to mean anything. Needs tie in from deployment. Remember, not everyone has perused either the shop books or the photos to know everything about it.
tydrace wrote: The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Context is needed in order for this to be a thing. Remember, previous editions said something similar, but it was only for that Attack. Does Wound Allocation require this from previous Attacks? Furthermore, whether full or partial, these models were injured before, so the same consideration would be in play.
tydrace wrote: Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.
Another rule stating a Wound number means nothing as it is another rule. This does nothing to indicate a single Wound or full Wound return is provided.
tydrace wrote: I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.
But rules lawyering is all about logic and semantics. What is needed is to extend beyond logic and semantics to fill in gaps left in the rules.
I can show you logically how 1 Wound is all that is provided just as easily as the full Wound count. After all, logically speaking: you only need 1 Wound for the model to be on the table; most of the models who will be using RP will only be getting 1 Wound back; we have permission to give all the Wounds back when putting it back on to the table. So, just as logically, only 1 Wound will be provided.
When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?
tydrace wrote: There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.
Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.
Restoring a model to have specifically one wound is a very specific number.
The Reanimation rule makes no specification.
The rule either reanimates a 0 wound model (the model as it is in the casualties pile) or it simply restores it as a model per its datasheet.
Provided that we take it on good faith that GW is providing rules that work we reject the proposition of zero wounds (reductio ad absurdum) and can only accept that the rule restores the model per its datasheet.
There is no justification for assigning it 1 wound. That's a very specific number where the rule makes no specification. You might as well be trying to argue that the rule reanimates it with 5.0134 wounds.
If you feel otherwise point to where the rule makes the specification.
There are no rules telling us to replace the slain model with any number of wounds less than what the model has on it's datasheet.
Automatically Appended Next Post: There are no rules telling us to replace the slain model with any number of wounds less than what the model has on it's datasheet.
When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?
Your logic about precedence is backwards.
The presence of those other rules show precedence that rules specify 1 wound when they mean 1 wound.
When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?
Your logic about precedence is backwards.
The presence of those other rules show precedence that rules specify 1 wound when they mean 1 wound.
And we have a precedent with Saint Celestine that when they want the model to come back with full wounds they say 'full wounds'.
tydrace wrote: There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.
Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.
Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.
When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?
Your logic about precedence is backwards.
The presence of those other rules show precedence that rules specify 1 wound when they mean 1 wound.
And we have a precedent with Saint Celestine that when they want the model to come back with full wounds they say 'full wounds'.
Again that is not how precedence works. So we have rules that specify and in this case we have a rule that does not specify.
We are talking about the unspecified case here.
1 wound is extremely specific. Why one wound and not 200 wounds?
Either you bring back the model with zero wounds (which we can dismiss with reductio ad absurdum) or as it is on its datasheet (which is the unspecified case).
I am taking note that you have failed to point to wording in the reanimation rule that specifies 1 wound. Why are you making that specification? If we can make up specifics let's reanimate all necron models so they come back with 200 wounds. 200 is just as arbitrary as 1.
And why stop there? When we return a necron model let's make leadership 200 and attacks 200 and strength 200.
Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.
tydrace wrote: There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.
Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.
Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.
I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.
tydrace wrote: There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.
Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.
Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.
I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.
Once again you are failing to point out how the rules specifies one wound.
Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.
You don't get to just make up your own specifications.
You are literally throwing out '1 wound' as a made-up arbitrary amount.
Shall we also reanimate a Necron warrior so he has 1 leadership?
Why is the Wound characteristic set to 1 when all other characteristics start at their datasheet values (as per default)?
You have no justification for your claim.
Until you justify your claim, you are simply house ruling.
The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
Because I bet the rule writers didn't think this would actually pose an issue to anyone. The datasheet specifies the amount of wounds a model should have when he is set up. There's no rule which overwrites the most default state the model can be in (unaltered from his datasheet).
When you set up a model at the start of the game, there's no rule which specifically states it should come with full wounds. Do we set up the Necron Destroyers with 1 wound at this point?
The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
Because I bet the rule writers didn't think this would actually pose an issue to anyone. The datasheet specifies the amount of wounds a model should have when he is set up. There's no rule which overwrites the most default state the model can be in (unaltered from his datasheet).
When you set up a model at the start of the game, there's no rule which specifically states it should come with full wounds. Do we set up the Necron Destroyers with 1 wound at this point?
Exactly.
There really is no point of confusion here. The writers made no error. Charistoph et al are simply not adhering to the logic of the rules in this case.
You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
If it does wind up as 1 wound, that will be awesome so things can get bogged down in previous edition type wound allocation shenanigans. It's like a game within a game.
Oaka wrote: That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
Is it the only condition, though? Is there any place on the rulebook that states you lose one wound at a time, even with multi-wound weapons? If a Heavy Destroyer suffers 3+ damage from a single D6 damage weapon; did it ever have just 1 wound left? or did it went straight from 3 to 0 wounds?
Now, if it went from 3 to 0; and it should return with the amount it had before it was reduced to 0; then that means you have to keep track of how many wounds each model had, and roll RP separately for each model; so that you know which one returned.
Oaka wrote: That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
Is it the only condition, though? Is there any place on the rulebook that states you lose one wound at a time, even with multi-wound weapons? If a Heavy Destroyer suffers 3+ damage from a single D6 damage weapon; did it ever have just 1 wound left? or did it went straight from 3 to 0 wounds?
Now, if it went from 3 to 0; and it should return with the amount it had before it was reduced to 0; then that means you have to keep track of how many wounds each model had, and roll RP separately for each model; so that you know which one returned.
Well there is a scattering of rules that let you roll a D6 to ignore an unsaved wound or mortal wound. With command point rerolls, it's necessary to resolve those individually. To me, that's enough to suggest models take wounds one at a time and are removed from play when they reach 0 wounds. Or we could get interesting and start arguing that if a model is taken to -2 wounds then it isn't removed from play.
tydrace wrote: There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.
Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.
Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.
I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.
Once again you are failing to point out how the rules specifies one wound.
The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.
Oaka wrote: You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
Oaka wrote: You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
Good point, though it would be interesting if vehicles could suddenly heal multiwound models merely by their embarking and disembarking.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0. And, again, I don't think a model can lose multiple wounds instantly, I believe they have to be resolved individually. Otherwise, the rules state models are slain at 0 wounds, and wounds are not restricted like other characteristics to a minimum number. One could argue that taking 6 wounds from a single shot could reduce the model to a negative wounds number and, since it is only slain at 0 wounds, immortality.
None of this is in the Reanimation Protocols rules, I'm just applying interpretations of that rule to other areas of the game to glean intent.
Oaka wrote: You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
Col impact was using "set up" to mean that they come back at full wounds because you set them up with RP. Vipoid is merely pointing out that if you try to use "set up" as a precedent for that, then suddenly any multiwound model gets set up at full wounds when it disembarks, no matter how many wounds it had taken before.
Oaka wrote: You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
Col impact was using "set up" to mean that they come back at full wounds because you set them up with RP. Vipoid is merely pointing out that if you try to use "set up" as a precedent for that, then suddenly any multiwound model gets set up at full wounds when it disembarks, no matter how many wounds it had taken before.
tydrace wrote: There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.
Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.
Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.
I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.
Once again you are failing to point out how the rules specifies one wound.
The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.
Someone seemed to have missed the point of my statement that I wasn't supporting either 1 Wound or Full Wounds, but that there is nothing on it. But then, the ignored one often doesn't bother reading what other people write.
I am not supporting one or the other at this point. I find as much logic in supporting 1 Wound as Full Wound restoration, and that's part of the problem. The rule does not state anything regarding Wounds at all. No standard has been presented to support either one as every other rule that does the same thing does specify the Wounds that are returned. Honestly, I do believe that this is something that was passed over in proof-reading and is a form of typo. Hopefully, it will be addressed when the online version of the rules come out. It is on Yakface's FAQ submission, so hopefully it will get addressed quickly.
The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
Because I bet the rule writers didn't think this would actually pose an issue to anyone. The datasheet specifies the amount of wounds a model should have when he is set up. There's no rule which overwrites the most default state the model can be in (unaltered from his datasheet).
When you set up a model at the start of the game, there's no rule which specifically states it should come with full wounds. Do we set up the Necron Destroyers with 1 wound at this point?
They apparently thought about it for St Celestine.
As for the 'set up' phrase, is that the actual phrase used for deployment? Someone also attributed this phrase to Disembarking from a Transport, has anyone confirmed or countered this?
Tyran wrote: Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.
Any chance you could elaborate on that?
Been explained before, but the system for allocating wounds on multi-wound models needs to be only one wounded model in a unit at a time.
No, it has been presented before with no quotes for proper context. That is not explaining. In a situation where not everyone has access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors, it is important to present a proper case.
It was also challenged with no rebuttal by the person who presented it.
Tyran wrote: Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.
Any chance you could elaborate on that?
Been explained before, but the system for allocating wounds on multi-wound models needs to be only one wounded model in a unit at a time.
No, it has been presented before with no quotes for proper context. That is not explaining. In a situation where not everyone has access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors, it is important to present a proper case.
It was also challenged with no rebuttal by the person who presented it.
If you don't have access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors then what are you doing in a discussion about rules?
As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.
Tyran wrote: As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.
If a unit had 2 wounded models, couldn't you just allocate the wound to either of them?
Tyran wrote: As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.
If a unit had 2 wounded models, couldn't you just allocate the wound to either of them?
It would make it an unique case in the entire game.
It needs a FAQ, but the lack of specification, in addition to the allocating wound system and in addition that 8th edition is a permissive system, it makes full wounds the preferred choice.
The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.
It is not undefined or needing a FAQ. The datasheet is literally the definition for the model.
Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.
Someone seemed to have missed the point of my statement that I wasn't supporting either 1 Wound or Full Wounds, but that there is nothing on it. But then, the ignored one often doesn't bother reading what other people write.
I am not supporting one or the other at this point. I find as much logic in supporting 1 Wound as Full Wound restoration, and that's part of the problem. The rule does not state anything regarding Wounds at all. No standard has been presented to support either one as every other rule that does the same thing does specify the Wounds that are returned. Honestly, I do believe that this is something that was passed over in proof-reading and is a form of typo. Hopefully, it will be addressed when the online version of the rules come out. It is on Yakface's FAQ submission, so hopefully it will get addressed quickly.
The rules do provide a standard. The datasheet.
Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.
Tyran wrote: If you don't have access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors then what are you doing in a discussion about rules?
I have actually seen this rule in the index. I have not had time to memorize the entire 14 pages of rules, yet, and the pictures rather suck. I have only managed to be in my LGS for a very short time since they got it, and I have a hard time getting back to them as I have kids and other responsibilities.
Tyran wrote: As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.
Is that a direct quote or just your summary? That's part of the problem, no quoting about this, just a declaration.
The other part of the problem with this specific statement is that these models who have been removed have already been wounded, else why would they have been removed in the first place? This would be in consideration whether they returned with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.
Previous editions stated it as once a model has been Allocated Wounds, it keeps getting Wounds Allocated to it. What is the actual term? If you want this to be solid, please actually provide the paragraph for context. This is a basic tenet for this board.
-----
As a side note, I happened to notice the ignored one's post below the post editor, and I noticed that he completely missed the point again, and went rambling off in a random direction. The "standard" of which I am speaking is that when a model is returned to the table after being removed as a casualty does not have any specific standard in the rulebook as to how many Wounds it has. The Datasheet does not actually state anything about it, it only states what it has at the beginning of the game, and the rule the Index provides states nothing about Wounds, unlike the numerous other versions found in all the indexes.
Oaka wrote: You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
Col impact was using "set up" to mean that they come back at full wounds because you set them up with RP. Vipoid is merely pointing out that if you try to use "set up" as a precedent for that, then suddenly any multiwound model gets set up at full wounds when it disembarks, no matter how many wounds it had taken before.
I think you got the names muddled up a bit there.
Actually, not really, but it wasn't obvious. Col Impact was going on about how it had to be coming back with all its wounds and not one wound, when there's just as little support for that claim as for coming back with one wound. Heck, it could be roll 1D3 for wounds, we don't know unless they FAQ it. He's treating "set up" as mystically healing the model of all wounds, which would mean that in order to be consistent then when you set up models on the battlefield when they disembark they would also have any wounds healed (if it mystically works that say one time then it should mystically work that way all the times it happens).
Tyran wrote: If you don't have access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors then what are you doing in a discussion about rules?
I have actually seen this rule in the index. I have not had time to memorize the entire 14 pages of rules, yet, and the pictures rather suck. I have only managed to be in my LGS for a very short time since they got it, and I have a hard time getting back to them as I have kids and other responsibilities.
Tyran wrote: As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.
Is that a direct quote or just your summary? That's part of the problem, no quoting about this, just a declaration.
If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
There's a logic to RP that makes me think the answer is full wounds. All the other RP models are 1W. They lose one wound, die, and then start rolling for RP, which will let them stand back up with their 1W. The Destroyers get no benefit from RP until they die - i.e. for wounds one and two - while three 1 wound models would. It makes a certain amount of internal sense that Destroyers should roll after taking three times the wounds in order to get back three times the wounds.
Not a mic drop argument at all, but I think it's the most balanced application of RP on a per-wound basis.
vipoid wrote: If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?
And again, how does Reanimation Protocols remove the concept of not having lost any Wounds so this wouldn't be in consideration whether it be 1 Wound or Full Wounds?
These are the questions I presented to Ghalef on the first page, and he didn't answer them.
vipoid wrote: If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?
And again, how does Reanimation Protocols remove the concept of not having lost any Wounds so this wouldn't be in consideration whether it be 1 Wound or Full Wounds?
All previous attacks.
Reanimation Protocols never mentions Wounds, it simply says the model returns to its unit.
vipoid wrote: If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?
Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.
Oaka wrote: You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
Col impact was using "set up" to mean that they come back at full wounds because you set them up with RP. Vipoid is merely pointing out that if you try to use "set up" as a precedent for that, then suddenly any multiwound model gets set up at full wounds when it disembarks, no matter how many wounds it had taken before.
I think you got the names muddled up a bit there.
Actually, not really, but it wasn't obvious. Col Impact was going on about how it had to be coming back with all its wounds and not one wound, when there's just as little support for that claim as for coming back with one wound. Heck, it could be roll 1D3 for wounds, we don't know unless they FAQ it. He's treating "set up" as mystically healing the model of all wounds, which would mean that in order to be consistent then when you set up models on the battlefield when they disembark they would also have any wounds healed (if it mystically works that say one time then it should mystically work that way all the times it happens).
I am not saying that at all.
I am saying that the datasheet is the definition and standard to apply when reanimating.
Reanimating makes no specification as to 1 wound or full wounds.
However, in the lack of any specification, the datasheet provides the standard.
The datasheet for the Destroyers just happens to have 3 wounds on it.
So our argument is proven.
Until you can point to something that overrides the datasheet, you have no argument.
vipoid wrote: If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?
And again, how does Reanimation Protocols remove the concept of not having lost any Wounds so this wouldn't be in consideration whether it be 1 Wound or Full Wounds?
All previous attacks.
So the sentence is alone and there is no time-frame context provided by the paragraph it is in or the paragraphs surrounding them?
Tyran wrote:Reanimation Protocols never mentions Wounds, it simply says the model returns to its unit.
Exactly the problem and the point.
If all we do is return the model to its unit, without any reference to Wounds, then it is returned to its unit with 0 Wounds, at which point we take them away and that could be a fun interaction with Battleshock, now wouldn't it?
Fenris-77 wrote: @col_impact - as much as I mostly agree that full wounds is the answer, he does indeed have an argument, whether you like it or not.
Sadly the presence of the datasheet doesn't prove your argument either. The issue at hand doesn't hinge on the datasheet.
I think full wounds is both easy and reasonable, but that's not what YMDC is about.
Incorrect.
The datasheet is the standard and definition to use when putting a model into play.
Unless something is overriding the datasheet with something specific, you have no choice but to reference the datasheet.
They have no argument until they can point to something that overrides the standard of the datasheet.
You can't reanimate a Destroyer with 1 leadership, so how can you possibly reanimate a Destroyer with 1 wounds, unless something is specifically telling you to do so?
Tyran wrote:Reanimation Protocols never mentions Wounds, it simply says the model returns to its unit.
Exactly the problem and the point.
If all we do is return the model to its unit, without any reference to Wounds, then it is returned to its unit with 0 Wounds, at which point we take them away and that could be a fun interaction with Battleshock, no wouldn't it?
We either return the model with zero wounds or per the datasheet. No other rule is saying otherwise.
We use reductio ad absurdum to rule out the zero wound solution as completely and utterly implausible and ridiculously silly.
So we are left with the Destroyers reanimating as per the number of wounds on their datasheet.
That number happens to be three. Nothing is specifying it. We are simply implementing the standard we have - the datasheet.
I don't think anyone would even question if RP meant full wounds if it hadn't worked that way in previous editions, and i think the only reason it did then was because it also applied to necron characters. No one buying the new indexes and learning how to play from the text provided would assume it's 1 wound and i don't think we have any real reason to assume that either. I think the only reason celestine mentions full wounds is because there are now multiple instances of resurrecting characters across several armies, including sister's own 'spirit of the martyr' act of faith, and all of those do specify that they return with 1 wound and they wanted to make sure you understood hers is a more saintly ability. Also destroyers are not the only multi wound necrons with RP. Tomb blades, lychguard, and triarch preatorians are all 2 wounds each and all seem costed to take this into account.
Actinium wrote: I don't think anyone would even question if RP meant full wounds if it hadn't worked that way in previous editions, and i think the only reason it did then was because it also applied to necron characters. No one buying the new indexes and learning how to play from the text provided would assume it's 1 wound and i don't think we have any real reason to assume that either.
I think the only reason celestine mentions full wounds is because there are now multiple instances of resurrecting characters across several armies, including sister's own 'spirit of the martyr' act of faith, and all of those do specify that they return with 1 wound and they wanted to make sure you understood hers is a more saintly ability.
Also destroyers are not the only multi wound necrons with RP. Tomb blades, lychguard, and triarch preatorians are all 2 wounds each and all seem costed to take this into account.
Interestingly enough, the 3rd & 5th Edition codex had them all come back with only 1 Wound, not full Wounds. It didn't matter in 7th Edition because it was only a modified FNP, rather than a resurrection.
But also to consider, this is a brand new system with brand new mechanics, unlike other systems before, which is why there is no precedence regarding this situation.
Actinium wrote: I don't think anyone would even question if RP meant full wounds if it hadn't worked that way in previous editions, and i think the only reason it did then was because it also applied to necron characters. No one buying the new indexes and learning how to play from the text provided would assume it's 1 wound and i don't think we have any real reason to assume that either.
I think the only reason celestine mentions full wounds is because there are now multiple instances of resurrecting characters across several armies, including sister's own 'spirit of the martyr' act of faith, and all of those do specify that they return with 1 wound and they wanted to make sure you understood hers is a more saintly ability.
Also destroyers are not the only multi wound necrons with RP. Tomb blades, lychguard, and triarch preatorians are all 2 wounds each and all seem costed to take this into account.
Interestingly enough, the 3rd & 5th Edition codex had them all come back with only 1 Wound, not full Wounds. It didn't matter in 7th Edition because it was only a modified FNP, rather than a resurrection.
But also to consider, this is a brand new system with brand new mechanics, unlike other systems before, which is why there is no precedence regarding this situation.
Exactly.
What happened in the past bears nothing on this edition.
The standard that we have is the datasheet. Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds. No rule says otherwise. And everything is crystal clear based on the datasheet.
There really is nothing to argue here.
No one has pointed to any rule saying "1 wound".
Zero wounds can be dismissed as utterly implausible and silly.
And we are left with a datasheet that indicates 3 wounds when the Destroyer reanimates.
Just looked at the wording and the units with multi wounds (most of which are severely limited in the number of models they can bring). Based on those 2 aspects i would say full wounds. Since a full unit of destroyers would cost around 400 points and the most you could roll is 5 dice your getting back 1.5 per turn, which is easily to deal with.
doktor_g wrote: Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.
It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.
And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.
doktor_g wrote: Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.
It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.
And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.
There is no ambiguity.
Zero wounds is ridiculous. You are trying to argue zero wounds to create ambiguity but we dismiss your zero wound solution as completely implausible and silly.
No rule says '1 wound' so you follow the standard of the datasheet.
Destroyer comes in with the amount of wounds on its datasheet. Just like it comes in with the same Toughness, Strength, Leadership , Attacks, Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, and Save stats.
doktor_g wrote: Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.
It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.
And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.
Actually, he got teleported back to the Tomb World after his body was destroyed so it could be repaired, then teleported back to the battlefield with the rest of his unit. Why Necrons can't use this same technology to teleport around the battlefield, though, is beyond me.
doktor_g wrote: Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.
It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.
And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.
Actually, he got teleported back to the Tomb World after his body was destroyed so it could be repaired, then teleported back to the battlefield with the rest of his unit. Why Necrons can't use this same technology to teleport around the battlefield, though, is beyond me.
Why their characters can't use the same technology is beyond me.
doktor_g wrote: Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.
It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.
And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.
Actually, he got teleported back to the Tomb World after his body was destroyed so it could be repaired, then teleported back to the battlefield with the rest of his unit. Why Necrons can't use this same technology to teleport around the battlefield, though, is beyond me.
Why their characters can't use the same technology is beyond me.
Totally off topic, but I guess they need the rest of the unit as a homing beacon. Still, you'd think they'd at least be able to warp him in through a Night Scythe or Monolith. *shrug* Or maybe its just for balance.
The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.
It is not undefined or needing a FAQ. The datasheet is literally the definition for the model.
Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.
So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.
No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.
So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.
See, snark aside, you could actually make a reasonable argument for that being the case (in terms of RAW if not RAI).
The rules are so shallow that the idea of tracking wounds is largely implied, rather than clearly spelled out.
doctortom wrote: No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.
I think full wounds is a reasonable assumption (given that the only real alternative would be 0 wounds), but I agree that an faq would be useful.
So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.
See, snark aside, you could actually make a reasonable argument for that being the case (in terms of RAW if not RAI).
The rules are so shallow that the idea of tracking wounds is largely implied, rather than clearly spelled out.
DoctorTom brought up this connection to Disembarking earlier in the thread. And if we are to be tracking Wounds for Disembarking, why are we not doing it for Reanimation Protocols? That is the question which requires proof of an answer one way or another. I think the snark came from previous encounters with the person he responded to and the fact that he had already addressed this concept previously.
doctortom wrote: No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.
I think full wounds is a reasonable assumption (given that the only real alternative would be 0 wounds), but I agree that an faq would be useful.
I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.
After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound. When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound. That makes 1 Wound a perfectly valid argument. From a fluff perspective, they have been repaired sufficiently to reenter the battlefield, which only requires 1 Wound.
Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment. Realistically, this is the only actual support for this concept. The concept that having fewer than full Wounds confuses the Wound Allocation system is a red herring, as it is considering "wounded" models, which these already have been, Full Wounds or not. Fluffwise, it is indicating that they will choose not to reenter battle until they are at full fighting trim.
So, either is possible. It could be that the new price point and the Power Level is considering them being restored at Full Wounds, but we have seen them be very wonky with pricing before. Just look at the difference between 5th and 7th Edition pricing for units in this army for those units which are now multi-Wound.
DoctorTom brought up this connection to Disembarking earlier in the thread. And if we are to be tracking Wounds for Disembarking, why are we not doing it for Reanimation Protocols?
I've no idea why you quoted me with that question, because that's the exact opposite of the point I made.
That aside, RPs doesn't even imply that you're supposed to track wounds. Why would you? There is only one possible wound value the unit could have had when it was removed prior to RPs - 0.
I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.
After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound.
Sure. But for them 1 wound is still full wounds. You are not told to bring them back on 1 wound - that's just the maximum they have on their profile.
Charistoph wrote: When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound.
You can't make that sort of assumption based on previous rulesets. Especially since both the rule and the army (not to mention the game) have changed considerably since them.
Hell, in the past it was really only the Necron characters that had more than 1 wound. Destroyers used to have only 1 wound. Lychguard and Praetorians had just 1 wound in 5th, and didn't even exist in the time of WBB.
Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment.
Not quite - it goes back to setting models up on the table (and from a place where wounds are not tracked). You do not have permission to modify their stats in any way (including wounds). Hence, you use what's on their stats unless the rule indicates otherwise. The alternative would be to set them up with 0 wounds, which I think we can agree would be absurd.
Charistoph wrote: The concept that having fewer than full Wounds confuses the Wound Allocation system is a red herring
Agreed. I don't think we should draw any conclusions based on this.
The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.
It is not undefined or needing a FAQ. The datasheet is literally the definition for the model.
Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.
So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.
No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.
Who said anything about ascribing meaning to "set up"? Quit straw-manning my argument.
The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.
A model is defined by the datasheet.
The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.
We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.
That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.
There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.
Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.
'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.
You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.
If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.
Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one (see YMDC tenet #1).
My argument is simple. The rule says return model and the datasheet defines the model.
I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.
After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound. When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound. That makes 1 Wound a perfectly valid argument. From a fluff perspective, they have been repaired sufficiently to reenter the battlefield, which only requires 1 Wound.
Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment. Realistically, this is the only actual support for this concept. The concept that having fewer than full Wounds confuses the Wound Allocation system is a red herring, as it is considering "wounded" models, which these already have been, Full Wounds or not. Fluffwise, it is indicating that they will choose not to reenter battle until they are at full fighting trim.
So, either is possible. It could be that the new price point and the Power Level is considering them being restored at Full Wounds, but we have seen them be very wonky with pricing before. Just look at the difference between 5th and 7th Edition pricing for units in this army for those units which are now multi-Wound.
So you can only point to prior editions or 'fluff rationale' to justify '1 wound' as a solution?
That means you are making up a solution and are house ruling.
You have no argument based on the rules themselves.
The only viable RAW solution is to reanimate the model per the datasheet.
YMDC has certain standards for what counts as an argument and arguing based on fluff or prior editions doesn't cut it.
You guys have no argument of merit here.
Why are you persisting in re-posting arguments that have no merit?
If you feel otherwise then substantiate your claim that the models are reanimated with '1 wound' (see Tenet #1).
My argument is substantiated very simply by the definition of the model provided by the datasheet.
The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.
A model is defined by the datasheet.
The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.
Translated: "I'm making an assumption here. It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption. Despite that, I'm going to assert that it has to be what is RAW despite there being no mention at all of the number of wounds the model comes back with in the actual rule."
col_impact wrote: We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.
That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.
There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.
Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.
'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.
You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.
If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.
Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one.
Straw man argument - you are treating my argument as if I insist it must come back with one wound. That is a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that there is NO statement about how many wounds you come back with, so that there needs to be a FAQ to definitively establish how many wounds you come back with. You want some basis for my "claim"? I submit the entire "Reanimation Protocols" rule - show me where it states you come back with full wounds, or specifies how many wounds you come back with. If you are resorting to "the only logically conceivable options" in your argument, then you have conceeded that it does not specify in the rule the number of wounds you come back with, otherwise you would not need to logically conceive of options. I'm not saying the 1 wound option is right, all I'm saying is that you have as little RAW basis for your stance as someone does for saying it comes back with 1 or 0 wounds. If you disagree with this, feel free to provide the quotation from Reanimation Protocols that specifically states that the model returns with full wounds.
So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.
See, snark aside, you could actually make a reasonable argument for that being the case (in terms of RAW if not RAI).
The rules are so shallow that the idea of tracking wounds is largely implied, rather than clearly spelled out.
doctortom wrote: No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.
I think full wounds is a reasonable assumption (given that the only real alternative would be 0 wounds), but I agree that an faq would be useful.
Yes, there are a lot of implications. 1 wound may be the alternative as opposed to 0 wounds in your last statement, and I would not be surprised if they meant it to be full wounds. It may be a reasonable assumption. It's just that someone does not want to acknowledge that it is in fact an assumption and wants to treat it as if coming back with full wounds had been an official commandment carved into a stone tablet and carried down the mountain with Moses.
If I read the words "strawman argument" one more time on this board I swear I will break that person in so many pieces even the greatest Necron Uberlord couldn't reanimate you.
All jokes aside, I wouldn't have expected it, but I guess we need an FAQ for people because goddamn I don't want to have this argument in a pug.
DoctorTom brought up this connection to Disembarking earlier in the thread. And if we are to be tracking Wounds for Disembarking, why are we not doing it for Reanimation Protocols?
I've no idea why you quoted me with that question, because that's the exact opposite of the point I made.
I was explaining why DoctorTom was presenting it, and why the snark that was added on to it.
vipoid wrote: That aside, RPs doesn't even imply that you're supposed to track wounds. Why would you? There is only one possible wound value the unit could have had when it was removed prior to RPs - 0.
Do the Transport rules state we track the Wounds on the models?
The whole problem is that RP doesn't say a single word regarding Wounds. None.
I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.
After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound.
Sure. But for them 1 wound is still full wounds. You are not told to bring them back on 1 wound - that's just the maximum they have on their profile.
It's just as valid to use the Warrior's 1 Wound as it would be to use Trazyn's D3 or Celestine's Full Wounds. All we have are assumptions.
Charistoph wrote: When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound.
You can't make that sort of assumption based on previous rulesets. Especially since both the rule and the army (not to mention the game) have changed considerably since them.
Hell, in the past it was really only the Necron characters that had more than 1 wound. Destroyers used to have only 1 wound. Lychguard and Praetorians had just 1 wound in 5th, and didn't even exist in the time of WBB.
Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound. That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.
Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment.
Not quite - it goes back to setting models up on the table (and from a place where wounds are not tracked). You do not have permission to modify their stats in any way (including wounds). Hence, you use what's on their stats unless the rule indicates otherwise. The alternative would be to set them up with 0 wounds, which I think we can agree would be absurd.
We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds. You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.
Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.
I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.
The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.
A model is defined by the datasheet.
The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.
Translated: "I'm making an assumption here. It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption. Despite that, I'm going to assert that it has to be what is RAW despite there being no mention at all of the number of wounds the model comes back with in the actual rule."
col_impact wrote: We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.
That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.
There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.
Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.
'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.
You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.
If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.
Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one.
Straw man argument - you are treating my argument as if I insist it must come back with one wound. That is a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that there is NO statement about how many wounds you come back with, so that there needs to be a FAQ to definitively establish how many wounds you come back with. You want some basis for my "claim"? I submit the entire "Reanimation Protocols" rule - show me where it states you come back with full wounds, or specifies how many wounds you come back with. If you are resorting to "the only logically conceivable options" in your argument, then you have conceeded that it does not specify in the rule the number of wounds you come back with, otherwise you would not need to logically conceive of options. I'm not saying the 1 wound option is right, all I'm saying is that you have as little RAW basis for your stance as someone does for saying it comes back with 1 or 0 wounds. If you disagree with this, feel free to provide the quotation from Reanimation Protocols that specifically states that the model returns with full wounds.
The Reanimation rule says to return the model.
The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.
The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.
My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.
No FAQ is needed.
There is no ambiguity here.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tydrace wrote: If I read the words "strawman argument" one more time on this board I swear I will break that person in so many pieces even the greatest Necron Uberlord couldn't reanimate you.
All jokes aside, I wouldn't have expected it, but I guess we need an FAQ for people because goddamn I don't want to have this argument in a pug.
Charistoph, doctor_tom, et al are being obtuse here.
vipoid wrote: That aside, RPs doesn't even imply that you're supposed to track wounds. Why would you? There is only one possible wound value the unit could have had when it was removed prior to RPs - 0.
Do the Transport rules state we track the Wounds on the models?
The whole problem is that RP doesn't say a single word regarding Wounds. None.
What do the Transport rules have to do with anything?
The RP rule says return the model, just like the Scarab Hive rule.
The datasheet defines the model.
We put a model on the battlefield per the datasheet since that is what RP tells us to do.
Charistoph wrote: When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound.
You can't make that sort of assumption based on previous rulesets. Especially since both the rule and the army (not to mention the game) have changed considerably since them.
Hell, in the past it was really only the Necron characters that had more than 1 wound. Destroyers used to have only 1 wound. Lychguard and Praetorians had just 1 wound in 5th, and didn't even exist in the time of WBB.
Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound. That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.
What happened in prior editions has ZERO RELEVANCE to the discussion at hand.
If you want to continue in your line of argumentation, I suggest you post in the Proposed Rules section.
Posting in YMDC requires that you substantiate your argument as I have.
We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds. You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.
Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.
I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.
The 'zero wound' solution is implausible and silly. You can't return a model to the battlefield with 'zero wounds' and so cannot fulfill the directive of Reanimation Protocols.
Reanimation Protocol tells us to return the model.
The datasheet provides the definition of the model.
In the absence of any rule overriding the datasheet, the datasheet provides the definition for the model.
The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds on it representing 'full wounds'.
No rule needed to specify full wounds.
The datasheet provides that without specification.
You guys have no argument to speak of.
Nothing is specifying 'one wound'.
The RP rule clearly says to return the model.
The datasheet defines the model.
So we return the model to the battlefield per the datasheet.
That's all my argument is saying. We return the model per the datasheet. The datasheet defines the model.
We look on the datasheet and it just so happens to say '3 Wounds'.
Nowhere do I have to find something that says 'full wounds'. The datasheet indicated 'full wounds' by default.
Until you guys can SUBSTANTIATE your argument about '1 wound' then there is nothing more to argue here.
My argument is substantiated. Your argument is not. It's that simple.
It's just as valid to use the Warrior's 1 Wound as it would be to use Trazyn's D3 or Celestine's Full Wounds. All we have are assumptions.
That's not true at all. d3 wounds can be immediately written off because you have no permission to determine wounds that way. The other two are both coming back with the number of wounds on their profile.
Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound.
Because characters had more than one wound.
Charistoph wrote: That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.
I never disputed that. What I said was that used to be irrelevant for non-character models, as they only ever had 1 wound anyway.
I also said (and maintain) that this is completely irrelevant. You can't make assumptions on a rule based on past incarnations of that rule.
I mean, if we're using the 5th edition ruling for wounds restored, can we also assume that characters were supposed to have RPs as well (one that isn't reliant on having an intact unit to activate)? Because that was also a thing in 4th and 5th (and 7th, in fact, though the rule was also quite different then).
We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds.
That's not true at all. Nowhere in the rule does it specify that they return with a single wound (or the 'minimum wounds required to keep them on the table').
Charistoph wrote: You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.
By RAW they are simply returned. A wound value is not specified and you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. So you can either return them with 0 wounds (the value they had when they left the table) or you return them with wounds equal to their standard profile. We can reasonably rule out 0 wounds ad being absurd, which leaves us with them returning with full wounds.
Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.
I don't either.
Charistoph wrote: I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.
As I said, I think an faq would be useful. However, I think the current evidence points to them returning on full wounds - anything else seems to require inserting text into the rule where none exists.
"Disembark: Any unit that begins its movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield...."
"set it up"
So, if reanimation includes setting models up and setting up means that we follow the data card then the logic continues that any wounded, multi-wound models which disembark from a transport are instantly healed.
It's just as valid to use the Warrior's 1 Wound as it would be to use Trazyn's D3 or Celestine's Full Wounds. All we have are assumptions.
That's not true at all. d3 wounds can be immediately written off because you have no permission to determine wounds that way. The other two are both coming back with the number of wounds on their profile.
Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.
Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound.
Because characters had more than one wound.
And yet, the RP rule, which ICs did not have, still specified 1 Wound.
vipoid wrote:
Charistoph wrote: That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.
I never disputed that. What I said was that used to be irrelevant for non-character models, as they only ever had 1 wound anyway.
I also said (and maintain) that this is completely irrelevant. You can't make assumptions on a rule based on past incarnations of that rule.
I mean, if we're using the 5th edition ruling for wounds restored, can we also assume that characters were supposed to have RPs as well (one that isn't reliant on having an intact unit to activate)? Because that was also a thing in 4th and 5th (and 7th, in fact, though the rule was also quite different then).
ICs didn't have RP, they had Ever-Living. Much like RP in 8th, RP in 5th still required models of the same unit to be around in order to work.
Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.
We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds.
That's not true at all. Nowhere in the rule does it specify that they return with a single wound (or the 'minimum wounds required to keep them on the table').
Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about Wounds, so it says as much about 1 Wound as it does about Full Wounds. That makes it very true. You glossed over the point of the statement just to complain about the first part.
vipoid wrote:
Charistoph wrote: You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.
By RAW they are simply returned. A wound value is not specified and you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. So you can either return them with 0 wounds (the value they had when they left the table) or you return them with wounds equal to their standard profile. We can reasonably rule out 0 wounds ad being absurd, which leaves us with them returning with full wounds.
Assumption. No instruction is made to restore their Wounds. By RAW, it is 0 Wounds. Anything else is pure speculation and assumption. By your own statement, "we do not have permission to modify their stats".
Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.
I don't either.
Just going over the arguments that have been used and addressing them. That's why it was in a new paragraph.
vipoid wrote:
Charistoph wrote: I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.
As I said, I think an faq would be useful. However, I think the current evidence points to them returning on full wounds - anything else seems to require inserting text into the rule where none exists.
There is no current evidence which points to them returning with any Wounds, much less 1. Any "evidence" is purely speculative at this point, and requires "inserting text into the rule where none exists," be it full Wounds or 1 Wound.
Except we don't have permission to restore their Wounds to them when they Disembark.
Nor are you told to track their wounds when they're off the table. The way the rules are written, units in a transport basically cease to exist until they disembark again.
(I very much doubt that this is the intent, I'm just saying that the rules are so vague that you could make a reasonable case for it.)
Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.
No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.
Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.
As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.
Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about Wounds, so it says as much about 1 Wound as it does about Full Wounds. That makes it very true. You glossed over the point of the statement just to complain about the first part.
Again, the whole point is that you are given no permission to deviate from the models profile - which is exactly what you're doing if you bring back a 3-wound model with only 1 wound. You have altered its profile without permission from the rule.
I mean, when a unit enters play from reserves, do you say that they have to enter with 1 wound because their rule doesn't specify otherwise?
Assumption. No instruction is made to restore their Wounds. By RAW, it is 0 Wounds. Anything else is pure speculation and assumption. By your own statement, "we do not have permission to modify their stats".
You are the one making assumptions - you are assuming that you have to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. Nothing in the rules supports this claim. It is not impossible, but seems far more far-fetched than the idea that you simply use a model's profile unless instructed otherwise.
There is no current evidence which points to them returning with any Wounds, much less 1. Any "evidence" is purely speculative at this point, and requires "inserting text into the rule where none exists," be it full Wounds or 1 Wound.
But, by that logic, is there any rule which states that models have their full wounds when you first deploy them?
Except we don't have permission to restore their Wounds to them when they Disembark.
Nor are you told to track their wounds when they're off the table. The way the rules are written, units in a transport basically cease to exist until they disembark again.
(I very much doubt that this is the intent, I'm just saying that the rules are so vague that you could make a reasonable case for it.)
This goes back to your statement that "we do not have permission to modify the stats" (which I agree with).
How is returning a model to the table with 1 Wound any more different than recognizing previously lost Wounds or returning with Full Wounds when it comes to having "permission to modify the stats"?
This is a double standard here. In either case of a Wounded model Disembarking or returning through RP, they have previously lost Wounds through directions to modify the stat. Yet, the case being presented is that we DO modify the stat back to origin point without any specific direction to do so.
So, which is it? Do we modify the stats without instruction or not? If there is an instruction to modify the stats, where is it and why has it yet to be presented?
Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.
No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.
Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.
Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.
As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.
It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.
Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about Wounds, so it says as much about 1 Wound as it does about Full Wounds. That makes it very true. You glossed over the point of the statement just to complain about the first part.
Again, the whole point is that you are given no permission to deviate from the models profile - which is exactly what you're doing if you bring back a 3-wound model with only 1 wound. You have altered its profile without permission from the rule.
I mean, when a unit enters play from reserves, do you say that they have to enter with 1 wound because their rule doesn't specify otherwise?
False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?
When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.
Assumption. No instruction is made to restore their Wounds. By RAW, it is 0 Wounds. Anything else is pure speculation and assumption. By your own statement, "we do not have permission to modify their stats".
You are the one making assumptions - you are assuming that you have to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. Nothing in the rules supports this claim. It is not impossible, but seems far more far-fetched than the idea that you simply use a model's profile unless instructed otherwise.
I am making zero assumptions here. I am stating things as they are. Refer to the first quote above for more information.
Charistoph wrote: There is no current evidence which points to them returning with any Wounds, much less 1. Any "evidence" is purely speculative at this point, and requires "inserting text into the rule where none exists," be it full Wounds or 1 Wound.
But, by that logic, is there any rule which states that models have their full wounds when you first deploy them?
Their original profile. But as you agreed, RP is not originally deploying them, and RP does not refer to that at all. So, there is no point in trying to use that as a case.
Remember, RP has the model returning to its unit, this is not a "brand new" model being added to the unit like the Tervigon does with Gaunts. If it was a "brand new" model being added to the unit, using the original profile would be the proper course of action, just as it would be when deploying the model at the start of the game. But that is not the case here.
The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.
A model is defined by the datasheet.
The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.
Translated: "I'm making an assumption here. It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption. Despite that, I'm going to assert that it has to be what is RAW despite there being no mention at all of the number of wounds the model comes back with in the actual rule."
col_impact wrote: We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.
That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.
There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.
Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.
'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.
You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.
If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.
Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one.
Straw man argument - you are treating my argument as if I insist it must come back with one wound. That is a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that there is NO statement about how many wounds you come back with, so that there needs to be a FAQ to definitively establish how many wounds you come back with. You want some basis for my "claim"? I submit the entire "Reanimation Protocols" rule - show me where it states you come back with full wounds, or specifies how many wounds you come back with. If you are resorting to "the only logically conceivable options" in your argument, then you have conceeded that it does not specify in the rule the number of wounds you come back with, otherwise you would not need to logically conceive of options. I'm not saying the 1 wound option is right, all I'm saying is that you have as little RAW basis for your stance as someone does for saying it comes back with 1 or 0 wounds. If you disagree with this, feel free to provide the quotation from Reanimation Protocols that specifically states that the model returns with full wounds.
The Reanimation rule says to return the model.
Fine. You return the model to the board. It does not say how many wounds you return him with.
col_impact wrote: The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.
The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.
So what? As you point out, the rule says " return the model", as you put it. It does NOT say to place a different model. You are returning the model. The model had gone to 0 wounds when he was taken off the board. The rule does not specify that he returns with full wounds. It does not specify the number of wounds he comes back with. Technically, by RAW he would come back with 0 wounds since no level of wound recovery is stated, but I think most people would agree that GW certainly didn't intend that. However, "return the model" is not the same as "return the model with full wounds".
col_impact wrote: [My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.
No, it is filled with assumptions and does not have any basis in RAW. You failed to provide a quotation that states how many wounds the model comes back with. Saying you return a wounded/ casualty model to the board in no way specifies how many wounds you return it to the board with. You are making an assumption, which you should admit that you conceeded with your "the only logically conceivable alternative" argument earler. If it were RAW, you would not have to consider options, it would have been stated.
There is, at least for people with normal reading comprehension skills who can determine that they are trying to factor in assumptions when there actually isn't something mentioned in the rules.
By RAW they are simply returned. A wound value is not specified and you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. So you can either return them with 0 wounds (the value they had when they left the table) or you return them with wounds equal to their standard profile. We can reasonably rule out 0 wounds ad being absurd, which leaves us with them returning with full wounds.
The first sentence is the crucial one in play here. A wound value is not specified and, as you say, you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. That applies to full wounds as much as almost any other level The number of wounds is undefined. You can make assumptions that you come back with full wounds, and they might be reasonable assumptions, but they are still assumptions (despite what col_impact states). By RAW you merely get returned to the board. Technically that would mean being returned with 0 wounds. That doesn't make sense, but that's all we have from the RAW. Therefore, they do need a FAQ to make clear how many wounds you come back with. Until then I don't see any
problems house ruling that you come back with full wounds, since it's a reasonable argument, but people just need to realize that it's a house rule built on some assumptions.
vipoid wrote:
You are the one making assumptions - you are assuming that you have to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. Nothing in the rules supports this claim. It is not impossible, but seems far more far-fetched than the idea that you simply use a model's profile unless instructed otherwise.
Assuming that you remove from a model when you are told to return it to the table is as much an assumption as having to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. It has an equal level of rules support as what you were chastising Charistoph about. One seems more likely than the other (less far-fetched, as you say), but is not spelled out in the rules. This is why it should be FAQ'd.
col_impact wrote: The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.
The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.
So what? As you point out, the rule says " return the model", as you put it. It does NOT say to place a different model. You are returning the model. The model had gone to 0 wounds when he was taken off the board. The rule does not specify that he returns with full wounds. It does not specify the number of wounds he comes back with. Technically, by RAW he would come back with 0 wounds since no level of wound recovery is stated, but I think most people would agree that GW certainly didn't intend that. However, "return the model" is not the same as "return the model with full wounds".
The 'zero wound' solution is ridiculous and implausible. You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.
So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet.
It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet.
col_impact wrote: [My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.
No, it is filled with assumptions and does not have any basis in RAW. You failed to provide a quotation that states how many wounds the model comes back with. Saying you return a wounded/ casualty model to the board in no way specifies how many wounds you return it to the board with. You are making an assumption, which you should admit that you conceeded with your "the only logically conceivable alternative" argument earler. If it were RAW, you would not have to consider options, it would have been stated.
No. I am able to quote the datasheet as the definition of the model. When the RP rule says 'return the model' you return the model per the datasheet unless there is some rule overriding the values on the datasheet. In this case there is no overriding rule so the Destroyer comes back with however many wounds are on its datasheet. That number happens to be three.
Because the datasheet is a rule that I can quote in the rulebook, my argument is completely substantiated.
Your argument is entirely unsubstantiated. You have no rules to substantiate your argument.
There is, at least for people with normal reading comprehension skills who can determine that they are trying to factor in assumptions when there actually isn't something mentioned in the rules.
Apparently you are unable to read the datasheet that defines the model.
When you read the datasheet and the RP rule that says 'return the model' then you have no other way to proceed than to return the Destroyer model per the datasheet.
No FAQ is needed. Players are expected to have read all of the rules, which include the rules for the datasheet. Your refusal to read the datasheet rule does not mean we need a FAQ. You simply need to read the rules.
Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.
No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.
Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.
You have permission to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. No rule specifies the number of wounds. The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds that corresponds to 'full wounds' on it.
Unless you find some rule that overrides the datasheet, your argument is hopelessly unsubstantiated.
This isn't really a debate here. You keep spouting off the same completely unjustified argument.
False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?
When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.
Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.
The datasheet is a rule in the book.
There is no rule in the book that says reanimate the model with 1 wound.
Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.
In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.
Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.
As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.
It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.
OMG.
Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.
The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.
You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.
To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.
col_impact wrote: The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.
The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.
So what? As you point out, the rule says " return the model", as you put it. It does NOT say to place a different model. You are returning the model. The model had gone to 0 wounds when he was taken off the board. The rule does not specify that he returns with full wounds. It does not specify the number of wounds he comes back with. Technically, by RAW he would come back with 0 wounds since no level of wound recovery is stated, but I think most people would agree that GW certainly didn't intend that. However, "return the model" is not the same as "return the model with full wounds".
The 'zero wound' solution is ridiculous and implausible.
Nobody's saying it isn't ridiculous or that it's what they intended. Please pay attention.
col_impact wrote: You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.
So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet. .
No. You have "return the model." It does not say "return the model as it is on the datasheet". It does not say "return the model at full health." It merely says "return the model" without making any statement about wounds. Whichever level of wounds your group chooses to return it at is a choice based on assumptions trying to fill in the void left by the rules text not dealing with it. Is it a reasonable assumption? Could very well be. Does that make it any less of an assumption? Not in the slightest.
col_impact wrote: It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet..
So any rule which returns a model to the board means the model goes to full wounds? What about a wounded multiwound model you embark in a vehicle than later disembark? It's left the table, then you return it to the table when you disembark. Does it suddenly have full wounds also because it has a certain number of wounds on its datasheet? There's no mention of the datasheet with "return the model" in Reanimation Protocols, and no mention of how many wounds the model has when you return it. You have failed to provide a rules quotation that specifies how many wounds it has. You have only mentioned a rule then made some assumptions, probably logical assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. That's not RAW, that's HIWPI and an educated guess at RAI. I don't care if that's how you want to play it, I just want you to admit that coming back at full wounds is not cast-in-stone RAW given what is said so far. If it were, you would be able to provide a direct quote without having to make any inferences or assumptions.
col_impact wrote: [My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.
No, it is filled with assumptions and does not have any basis in RAW. You failed to provide a quotation that states how many wounds the model comes back with. Saying you return a wounded/ casualty model to the board in no way specifies how many wounds you return it to the board with. You are making an assumption, which you should admit that you conceeded with your "the only logically conceivable alternative" argument earler. If it were RAW, you would not have to consider options, it would have been stated.
No. I am able to quote the datasheet as the definition of the model. When the RP rule says 'return the model' you return the model per the datasheet unless there is some rule overriding the values on the datasheet. In this case there is no overriding rule so the Destroyer comes back with however many wounds are on its datasheet. That number happens to be three.
Because the datasheet is a rule that I can quote in the rulebook, my argument is completely substantiated.
Your argument is entirely unsubstantiated. You have no rules to substantiate your argument.
Oh, that's actually pretty darn funny. I'm saying there are no rules at all to state how many wounds a model comes back with, and you reply that I have no rules to substantiate my argument. Helllloooo, McFly!!!! I really have to applaud you for efforts above and beyond this time. You don't really have a grasp on what you're arguing against, do you? What kind of rules would you expect me to cite to show that there are no rules to cite for what we're talking about?
You are able to quote the datasheet in question. You have, however, no rule that states that you bring back the model which has been damaged at the value that it has on datasheet. Your argument is totally unsubstantiated because you can not provide a rules quote that states the level of wounds he comes back with, or that when you set him back up on the board that you use the full wounds on the datasheet. Please provide a quotation from Reanimation that mentions the datasheet when bringing the model back so that we know we are to reference the full wounds on the datasheet. When we bring a wounded model back onto the board by disembarking, we do not bring him back at full wounds. Where is the rules citiing for bringing the model back at any wound level other than what he went off the board at? Stupid RAW? Yes. The only RAW? Yes. Is looking at the wounds on the datasheet and bringing him back at that level an ssumption to get around stupid RAW? For a third time, yes.
Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.
No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.
Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.
You have permission to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. No rule specifies the number of wounds. The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds that corresponds to 'full wounds' on it.
Unless you find some rule that overrides the datasheet, your argument is hopelessly unsubstantiated.
This isn't really a debate here. You keep spouting off the same completely unjustified argument.
False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?
When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.
Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.
The datasheet is a rule in the book.
There is no rule in the book that says reanimate the model with 1 wound.
Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.
In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.
Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.
As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.
It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.
OMG.
Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.
The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.
You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.
To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.
Quoted and appended so that Charistoph might read it and respond if he has the desire. I think, though, that saying Charistoph's argument is flat out ridiculous here, given that he just tried to give me an argument that my assertion that we don't have any rules to tell us how many wounds a model comes back with doesn't have any rules to back it up.
col_impact wrote: It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet..
So any rule which returns a model to the board means the model goes to full wounds? What about a wounded multiwound model you embark in a vehicle than later disembark? It's left the table, then you return it to the table when you disembark. Does it suddenly have full wounds also because it has a certain number of wounds on its datasheet? There's no mention of the datasheet with "return the model" in Reanimation Protocols, and no mention of how many wounds the model has when you return it. You have failed to provide a rules quotation that specifies how many wounds it has. You have only mentioned a rule then made some assumptions, probably logical assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. That's not RAW, that's HIWPI and an educated guess at RAI. I don't care if that's how you want to play it, I just want you to admit that coming back at full wounds is not cast-in-stone RAW given what is said so far. If it were, you would be able to provide a direct quote without having to make any inferences or assumptions.
The Transport rules make no mention of 'returning the model'.
The Scarab Hive rule uses those words and in a similar fashion a scarab model will be returned to the battlefield per the datasheet (at full wounds).
When we are told to return a model that is a casualty we have no choice but to return a model per the datasheet.
No assumptions are made.
We are simply following rules that we can directly quote ('return the model', datasheet).
No rule is telling us to return the model with 1 wound.
So since nothing is overriding the values of datasheet, the Destroyer model is returned with however many wounds are on its datasheet.
And a scarab model is returned to the scarab unit with however many wounds are on its datasheet.
My argument is fully substantiated and justified.
Your argument has no substantiation and is in violation of tenet #1 of this forum.
col_impact wrote: You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.
So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet. .
No. You have "return the model." It does not say "return the model as it is on the datasheet". It does not say "return the model at full health." It merely says "return the model" without making any statement about wounds. Whichever level of wounds your group chooses to return it at is a choice based on assumptions trying to fill in the void left by the rules text not dealing with it. Is it a reasonable assumption? Could very well be. Does that make it any less of an assumption? Not in the slightest.
The datasheet provides the definition of the model. When a rule says 'return the model' it means return the entity defined by the datasheet.
No assumptions are being made. I am simply following the rules as they are.
There needs to be a rule overriding the datasheet values in order for the outcome to be any different.
There is no rule overriding the datasheet.
Until you can point to a rule overriding the datasheet then you have no argument.
Quoted and appended so that Charistoph might read it and respond if he has the desire. I think, though, that saying Charistoph's argument is flat out ridiculous here, given that he just tried to give me an argument that my assertion that we don't have any rules to tell us how many wounds a model comes back with doesn't have any rules to back it up.
Charistoph is relying on personal belief and prior editions for support for his argument. So indeed his argument is ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated.
Oh, that's actually pretty darn funny. I'm saying there are no rules at all to state how many wounds a model comes back with, and you reply that I have no rules to substantiate my argument. Helllloooo, McFly!!!! I really have to applaud you for efforts above and beyond this time. You don't really have a grasp on what you're arguing against, do you? What kind of rules would you expect me to cite to show that there are no rules to cite for what we're talking about?
You are able to quote the datasheet in question. You have, however, no rule that states that you bring back the model which has been damaged at the value that it has on datasheet. Your argument is totally unsubstantiated because you can not provide a rules quote that states the level of wounds he comes back with, or that when you set him back up on the board that you use the full wounds on the datasheet. Please provide a quotation from Reanimation that mentions the datasheet when bringing the model back so that we know we are to reference the full wounds on the datasheet. When we bring a wounded model back onto the board by disembarking, we do not bring him back at full wounds. Where is the rules citiing for bringing the model back at any wound level other than what he went off the board at? Stupid RAW? Yes. The only RAW? Yes. Is looking at the wounds on the datasheet and bringing him back at that level an ssumption to get around stupid RAW? For a third time, yes.
I am able to quote 'return the model' and the datasheet.
There is no rule overriding the values on the datasheet.
So we follow the rules and the model is returned according to the values on the datasheet.
The values on the datasheet happen to correspond with 'full wounds' and not '1 wound'
My argument is fully substantiated and justified.
Your argument has nothing justifying it or substantiating it.
There is no rule that says '1 wound' and you have been unable to offer any argument of merit.
Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.
No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.
Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.
You have permission to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. No rule specifies the number of wounds. The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds that corresponds to 'full wounds' on it.
Unless you find some rule that overrides the datasheet, your argument is hopelessly unsubstantiated.
This isn't really a debate here. You keep spouting off the same completely unjustified argument.
Lack of listening doesn't help your case. Reanimation Protocols says NOTHING about the Wounds. NOTHING. Look up the definition of "nothing" to understand the point I was making.
You even state here that the rule does not specify the number of Wounds, yet you keep insisting that it comes back at full strength. Hence, why there is as much to support it returning with 1 Wound as Full Wounds, i.e. NOTHING.
I have a rule for removing Wounds from the model's stat on the datasheet. It comes from the various different Attacks. I CAN NOT GIVE THEM BACK without permission. Where is the permission?
Yes, the Datasheet indicates what the Full Wounds of the model are, the point is 'What in Reanimation Protocols or the datasheet says I should care what that is?"
Do the Lychguard/Praetorian/Destoyer Datasheets provide each an Ability to return with Full Wounds? Do the Warriors and Immortals provide an Ability to have them return with 1 Wound?
If you have it, quote it. If you don't, admit it and we can go on our way.
False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?
When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.
Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.
Who said anything about belief? Reread it again if you are confused.
col_impact wrote: Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.
In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.
First, you do not seem to understand comparisons, because the passage you quoted was comparing the validity of the two arguments, not presenting an actual argument for 1 Wound over Full Wounds. Go read up on the purpose of comparisons and reread that passage with renewed understanding before bothering to respond to this. If you don't, you are either presenting yourself as a fool or a deliberate troll. The choice is yours as to how you want to present yourself.
Second, I am well within the Tenet #1 of YMDC because I have insisted that there is NOTHING in the rule which provides the number of Wounds a returning model has, which makes 1 Wound and Full Wounds equally valid, i.e. not valid at all. The only thing I can insist as RAW is that they come back with 0 Wounds, and either 1 Wound or Full Wounds is HYWPI.
Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.
As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.
It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.
OMG.
Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.
The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.
You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.
To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.
It is not ridiculous because you are not reading it with proper understanding regarding how a comparison is written and why a comparison is written.
To restate, I have as much permission to consider the historical versions in interpreting Reanimation Protocols as I do in considering the datasheet's original value as if it was deploying, in other words, none, zero, zip, nada. By stating I cannot use the rules from prior editions in your argument (partially false when trying to make a precedence without further information), I cannot use the datasheet's original value as if the model was deploying fresh for the first time.
Lack of listening doesn't help your case. Reanimation Protocols says NOTHING about the Wounds. NOTHING. Look up the definition of "nothing" to understand the point I was making.
You even state here that the rule does not specify the number of Wounds, yet you keep insisting that it comes back at full strength. Hence, why there is as much to support it returning with 1 Wound as Full Wounds, i.e. NOTHING.
I have a rule for removing Wounds from the model's stat on the datasheet. It comes from the various different Attacks. I CAN NOT GIVE THEM BACK without permission. Where is the permission?
Yes, the Datasheet indicates what the Full Wounds of the model are, the point is 'What in Reanimation Protocols or the datasheet says I should care what that is?"
Do the Lychguard/Praetorian/Destoyer Datasheets provide each an Ability to return with Full Wounds? Do the Warriors and Immortals provide an Ability to have them return with 1 Wound?
If you have it, quote it. If you don't, admit it and we can go on our way.
The rule says 'return the model'. The datasheet defines the model.
So you return the model per the values on the datasheet. I only keep insisting that you return the model per the datasheet and nothing more since that is exactly what the rules instruct me to do.
The datasheet itself could have any value for wounds on it. It just so happens to have the amount for the 'full wounds' on it.
The RP rule and the datasheet provide full support for my argument.
col_impact wrote: Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.
In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.
First, you do not seem to understand comparisons, because the passage you quoted was comparing the validity of the two arguments, not presenting an actual argument for 1 Wound over Full Wounds. Go read up on the purpose of comparisons and reread that passage with renewed understanding before bothering to respond to this. If you don't, you are either presenting yourself as a fool or a deliberate troll. The choice is yours as to how you want to present yourself.
Second, I am well within the Tenet #1 of YMDC because I have insisted that there is NOTHING in the rule which provides the number of Wounds a returning model has, which makes 1 Wound and Full Wounds equally valid, i.e. not valid at all. The only thing I can insist as RAW is that they come back with 0 Wounds, and either 1 Wound or Full Wounds is HYWPI.
The datasheet is a rule and that rule provides the number of wounds a model has. The RP rule says 'return the model' and we have no choice but to follow that instruction and return the model to the battlefield per the datasheet.
There is no rule overriding the values of the datasheet definition of the model so there is no choice but to return the model with the number of wounds on the datasheet.
RAW the only solution is returning the model as it is defined by the datasheet.
The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.
You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.
To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.
It is not ridiculous because you are not reading it with proper understanding regarding how a comparison is written and why a comparison is written.
To restate, I have as much permission to consider the historical versions in interpreting Reanimation Protocols as I do in considering the datasheet's original value as if it was deploying, in other words, none, zero, zip, nada. By stating I cannot use the rules from prior editions in your argument (partially false when trying to make a precedence without further information), I cannot use the datasheet's original value as if the model was deploying fresh for the first time.
Do you understand this concept?
The 7th edition rules have ZERO relevance to 8th edition. So making any comparisons with 7th editiion is completely and utterly pointless.
The datasheet on the other hand is a rule in 8th edition and is completely relevant and on point. The datasheet defines the model.
The RP rule says 'return the model'.
I have no choice but to return the model as it is defined by the datasheet. Doing something else would be in direct violation of the rules.
The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
orknado wrote: The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
Col hasn't proven himself with rules. And how are Doctortom and Charistoph supposed to prove themselves with rules when their position is that there is no rules to begin with? Seems like you've totally missed their point.
orknado wrote: The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
Col hasn't proven himself with rules. And how are Doctortom and Charistoph supposed to prove themselves with rules when their position is that there is no rules to begin with? Seems like you've totally missed their point.
Col is saying that your return the model per the model definition which can be found in the datasheet. Since reanimation tells you to return the model and the datasheet is a definition for the model, his argument is solid and prove with rules in the book. So he is providing actual rules which can be found in 8th edition. Doctortom and Charistof aren't providing any rules to support what they say and haven't proven his argument wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but that means Col is the one who has the argument with proof and doctortom and Charistof have no proof to speak of. Does YMDC care about which person has proof for their argument? Please let me know. If you obey the rules you have to reanimate the Destroyer model according to its datasheet which is 3 wounds.
Except Col doesn't have anything that says that. Where does it say that a model returns with the full wounds as presented on his datasheet. Until you can show where it says that, then no, he's not provided any proof to support his argument.
Ghaz wrote: Except Col doesn't have anything that says that. Where does it say that a model returns with the full wounds as presented on his datasheet. Until you can show where it says that, then no, he's not provided any proof to support his argument.
The datasheet is a rule and Col has provided that as proof for his argument so your claim that he has not provided any proof is completely wrong. Reanimation says to return the model. Ok, so you return the model. How do you do that? You look at a datasheet. Ok I look at the datasheet. I return the model. It now has 3 wounds on it. A rule doesn't have to say 'full wounds'. The datasheet does that already. That's what I mean by my comment that Col's argument is the only one supported by the rules. The datasheet is a rule. Col has provided that rule in support of his argument. You or doctortom or Charistof haven't disproved that the datasheet applies in this case. And the datasheet says right on there the number of wounds the model has. Does YMDC care whose argument is supported by the rules? How are you going to disprove that the datasheet has 3 wounds on it? All of this works just like the Scarab Hive rule. Are people saying that scarabs get repopulated at 1 wound? No. There should be some standard in this forum that people have to support what they say with rules. So far in this thread only the people who are arguing that reanimation brings back the model as defined by the datasheet have supported what they say with rules.
No. You return the model. You don't place a new model. The returned model lost all of it's wounds, so where do Reanimation Protocols say the model has all of the wounds of a new model. Please quote the actual rule.
This has all been covered in this thread already. Please take the time to read the thread instead of repeating what's already been disproved.
Ghaz wrote: No. You return the model. You don't place a new model. The returned model lost all of it's wounds, so where do Reanimation Protocols say the model has all of the wounds of a new model. Please quote the actual rule.
This has all been covered in this thread already. Please take the time to read the thread instead of repeating what's already been disproved.
I have read the thread. It's really funny and it's cringe-worthy how some people are arguing with nothing to support their arguments.
A model in the casualty pile has zero wounds. So you can't bring a model back that has zero wounds. So the only way to satisfy the rule and return back a model to the battlefield is to return the model. Ok so I return the model. Now how is it defined? Ok, I look at the datasheet. I know from the datasheet what it's stats are. It has strength, toughness, attacks, weapon skill, ballistic skill, and a save along with other information such as the number of wounds the model has. When the model is returned it is returned as defined. We don't return models as modified in any way unless there is a rule telling us to modify it. I need permission to change anything as defined on the datasheet. So when the model is returned it has the number of wounds on its datasheet. If you read the datasheet it has 3 wounds. This all works just like the Scarab Hive rule. When you return a scarab base with the Scarab Hive rule the scarab base is returned to the unit according to its datasheet just the same. I have provided proof for mine and Col's argument. Does it matter on this forum that you have proof or not? Please let me know.
People have been using disembarking models as an example in this discussion, but I have a much better one....
...Mawlocs.
They even use the same "return to the battlefield" language as RPs (which is not found verbatim in the transport rules).
Are my Mawlocs immortal? Please tell me yes.
Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?
People have been using disembarking models as an example in this discussion, but I have a much better one....
...Mawlocs.
They even use the same "return to the battlefield" language as RPs (which is not found verbatim in the transport rules).
Are my Mawlocs immortal? Please tell me yes.
Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?
Like I said, I was just looking for fireworks (by introducing an example I was surprised to see had not come up already, due to its similar wording).
For the record, there's no such thing as a casualty pile. Necrons return from the same nebulous "negative game space" that Mawlocs seem to
People have been using disembarking models as an example in this discussion, but I have a much better one....
...Mawlocs.
They even use the same "return to the battlefield" language as RPs (which is not found verbatim in the transport rules).
Are my Mawlocs immortal? Please tell me yes.
Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?
Like I said, I was just looking for fireworks (by introducing an example I was surprised to see had not come up already, due to its similar wording).
For the record, there's no such thing as a casualty pile. Necrons return from the same nebulous "negative game space" that Mawlocs seem to
The Destroyer when it dies is in the removed from play zone. The Mawloc is never in the removed from play zone. So reanimation returns the model from the removed from play zone. So it's not the same situation at all. The Mawloc would have it's wounds tracked as its always considered in play. The Mawloc only gets removed from the battlefield, not from play.
Sometimes it takes a new person to see which arguments are supported and which arguments are not.
As you pointed out, the datasheet and the Reanimation Protocol rule to 'return the model' from 'removed from play' mean that my argument is directly supported by the rules.
For at least some of us on YMDC, providing support with rules for what you argue is key.
We know one argument is superior to other arguments based on which argument has the greater rule support.
For the case at hand, my argument (and yours) is the only one with direct rules support.
orknado wrote:The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
No, the datasheet is not a rule. It is a representation of a model which references and contains many rules.
The datasheet provides the model with the ability Reanimation Protocols.
Reanimation Protocols states:
On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise, they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up.
Now, quote it back and highlight where it says "Wound" or "Datasheet" in it. I will even accept "new model" as an alternate as that would indicate that you are deploying a new model instead of taking a killed model and putting it back in the unit.
It is this exercise which provides the evidence that DoctorTom and I are following to say, "it doesn't say anything about how many Wounds it comes back with."
orknado wrote:Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
I'm sorry, what does having been in the "casualty pile" have to do with anything? Where is the general rule that states that when a model is returned from the "casualty pile", it returns with full Wounds unless the rule states otherwise?
Do not employ a double standard here, prove your point with actual rules.
orknado wrote:The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?
Please quote the Scarab Hive rule to justify your case. It's not always easy to track down a leak of a specific model, and I'm not at my game store.
orknado wrote:The Destroyer when it dies is in the removed from play zone. The Mawloc is never in the removed from play zone. So reanimation returns the model from the removed from play zone. So it's not the same situation at all. The Mawloc would have it's wounds tracked as its always considered in play. The Mawloc only gets removed from the battlefield, not from play.
If the Mawloc is returning to the table, where was it before?
Please provide the page on which I can read up on these "play zone" and "casualty pile" phrases. I have not heard of them in any of the leaked information provided so far.
Why is being in Reserves in the "play zone" and being in the "casualty pile" is not? Please provide proper rules references to support your claim.
Otherwise, I'm just going to assume you are pulling a col_impact and making up rules to suit your fantasy of how the game is structured.
orknado wrote:The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
No, the datasheet is not a rule. It is a representation of a model which references and contains many rules.
The datasheet provides the model with the ability Reanimation Protocols.
Reanimation Protocols states:
On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise, they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up.
Now, quote it back and highlight where it says "Wound" or "Datasheet" in it. I will even accept "new model" as an alternate as that would indicate that you are deploying a new model instead of taking a killed model and putting it back in the unit.
It is this exercise which provides the evidence that DoctorTom and I are following to say, "it doesn't say anything about how many Wounds it comes back with."
The datasheet has a rule associated with it. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, and abilities of the models in that unit . . ." So when Reanimation Protocols asks us to 'return the model' we reference the datasheet for what that model is and the characteristics and abilities associated with that model. The model has a value of 3 for the Wounds characteristic. There is no rule giving us permission to modify the Wound characteristic so the model returns with 3 for its wound characteristic.
orknado wrote:Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
I'm sorry, what does having been in the "casualty pile" have to do with anything? Where is the general rule that states that when a model is returned from the "casualty pile", it returns with full Wounds unless the rule states otherwise?
Do not employ a double standard here, prove your point with actual rules.
I am not employing a double standard. I was assuming that you read the rules. When a model is reduced to zero wounds it is removed from play (pg. 181). This means that when reanimation protocol returns a model, it is returning a model that was not in play to become a model that is once again in play. This makes the situation different than the Mawloc example. The Mawloc is never not in play. The Mawloc just leaves the battlefield but remains in play.
orknado wrote:The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?
Please quote the Scarab Hive rule to justify your case. It's not always easy to track down a leak of a specific model, and I'm not at my game store.
The Scarab Hive rule reads thus: "At the beginning of your turn you can roll a D6 for each friendly <DYNASTY> Canoptek Scarabs unit that is below its starting number of models. On a roll of 1, one of those Canoptek Spyders units suffers D3 mortal wounds. On a 2+ one of the Canoptek Spyders units unleashes reinforcements: return a Canoptek Scarab Swarm to the depleted unit, in unit coherency and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up." As you can see it's the exact same situation. It is returning a model that has been removed from play.
orknado wrote:The Destroyer when it dies is in the removed from play zone. The Mawloc is never in the removed from play zone. So reanimation returns the model from the removed from play zone. So it's not the same situation at all. The Mawloc would have it's wounds tracked as its always considered in play. The Mawloc only gets removed from the battlefield, not from play.
If the Mawloc is returning to the table, where was it before?
Please provide the page on which I can read up on these "play zone" and "casualty pile" phrases. I have not heard of them in any of the leaked information provided so far.
Why is being in Reserves in the "play zone" and being in the "casualty pile" is not? Please provide proper rules references to support your claim.
Otherwise, I'm just going to assume you are pulling a col_impact and making up rules to suit your fantasy of how the game is structured.
The Mawloc is 'underground' but is not removed from play (Xenos 2:107). A model that has been reduced to zero wounds is 'removed from play' (pg. 181). You can't make comparisons between the two. You can only make valid comparisons with models that are removed from play. When the model is returned to play by Reanimation protocols then we use the datasheet to know what the characteristics are for the model. There is no rule giving us any permission at all to change the value of the Wound characteristic which is defined at 3. This means that when the model returns to play its going to have 3 wounds on it. That's how the datasheet works. It defines the model. This is a permissive ruleset. You can't change any of its characteristics without a rule giving you permission to do so. The YMDC forum is about supporting your argument is with rules. I have supported my argument with rules. And you haven't supported your argument with rules. You don't have any rules giving you permission to change the Wound characteristic of the Destroyer model to anything but the value on the datasheet.
Charistof, I have proved my argument with rules quotes. Now show me the rule which gives you permission to modify the wound characteristic from its given value of 3 to a value of 1 as you would have it. You cannot. So far I have only seen you make cringe-worthy arguments that reference how reanimation was done in 5th edition as if that had anything at all to do with what we are discussing. So Charistof please follow the rules of the forum and back up what you say with RELEVANT rules support.
orknado wrote:The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
No, the datasheet is not a rule. It is a representation of a model which references and contains many rules.
The datasheet provides the model with the ability Reanimation Protocols.
Reanimation Protocols states:
On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise, they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that has not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up.
Now, quote it back and highlight where it says "Wound" or "Datasheet" in it. I will even accept "new model" as an alternate as that would indicate that you are deploying a new model instead of taking a killed model and putting it back in the unit.
It is this exercise which provides the evidence that DoctorTom and I are following to say, "it doesn't say anything about how many Wounds it comes back with."
The datasheet has a rule associated with it. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear, and abilities of the models in that unit . . ." So when Reanimation Protocols asks us to 'return the model' we reference the datasheet for what that model is and the characteristics and abilities associated with that model. The model has a value of 3 for the Wounds characteristic. There is no rule giving us permission to modify the Wound characteristic so the model returns with 3 for its wound characteristic.
Yeah, I notice you didn't bother addressing the exercise. Please try it or admit that it's not there, please.
You are trying to apply the same theory that others have, and which have been debunked due to the lack of proper language. When you return the model to the unit, its not starting brand new afresh. This is not a new model, but one that has had its Wounds removed from it (in most cases). In a very literal sense, by the instructions given, that model is returning back with just as many Wounds at it left, zero. We are given no instructions to provide a new model. We are given no instructions to restore a single Wound, much less all of them. We are given no instructions in Reanimation Protocols to reference the datasheet to determine the number of Wounds this returned model has.
So, I ask you, if a model Embarks on a Transport, it is removed from the table and the game space. When you Disembark and return the model to the table and game space, are we supposed to return it with full Wounds again? From what I have seen presented and no one has said is wrong, the language is exactly the same for this.
orknado wrote:Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
I'm sorry, what does having been in the "casualty pile" have to do with anything? Where is the general rule that states that when a model is returned from the "casualty pile", it returns with full Wounds unless the rule states otherwise?
Do not employ a double standard here, prove your point with actual rules.
I am not employing a double standard. I was assuming that you read the rules. When a model is reduced to zero wounds it is removed from play (pg. 181). This means that when reanimation protocol returns a model, it is returning a model that was not in play to become a model that is once again in play. This makes the situation different than the Mawloc example. The Mawloc is never not in play. The Mawloc just leaves the battlefield but remains in play.
I don't have a lot of time at my game store right now, and I could not find an image of it. So, are you saying that there is no actual "casualty pile" in the general rules, and that is just your term for where models are placed when removed from play?
I note that you didn't actually answer the questions. So, again, Where is the general rule that states that when a model is returned from being "removed from play" that it returns with full Wounds unless the rule that brings it back states otherwise?
How is this any different then when a model returns from Reserves?
orknado wrote:The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?
Please quote the Scarab Hive rule to justify your case. It's not always easy to track down a leak of a specific model, and I'm not at my game store.
The Scarab Hive rule reads thus: "At the beginning of your turn you can roll a D6 for each friendly <DYNASTY> Canoptek Scarabs unit that is below its starting number of models. On a roll of 1, one of those Canoptek Spyders units suffers D3 mortal wounds. On a 2+ one of the Canoptek Spyders units unleashes reinforcements: return a Canoptek Scarab Swarm to the depleted unit, in unit coherency and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up." As you can see it's the exact same situation. It is returning a model that has been removed from play.
Okay, so it presents the exact same information as Reanimation Protocols. This is not a good precedent to consider for your case because it is in the exact same situation. Where in that rule does it state anything about the returning Swarm's Wounds?
orknado wrote:The Destroyer when it dies is in the removed from play zone. The Mawloc is never in the removed from play zone. So reanimation returns the model from the removed from play zone. So it's not the same situation at all. The Mawloc would have it's wounds tracked as its always considered in play. The Mawloc only gets removed from the battlefield, not from play.
If the Mawloc is returning to the table, where was it before?
Please provide the page on which I can read up on these "play zone" and "casualty pile" phrases. I have not heard of them in any of the leaked information provided so far.
Why is being in Reserves in the "play zone" and being in the "casualty pile" is not? Please provide proper rules references to support your claim.
Otherwise, I'm just going to assume you are pulling a col_impact and making up rules to suit your fantasy of how the game is structured.
The Mawloc is 'underground' but is not removed from play (Xenos 2:107). A model that has been reduced to zero wounds is 'removed from play' (pg. 181). You can't make comparisons between the two. You can only make valid comparisons with models that are removed from play. When the model is returned to play by Reanimation protocols then we use the datasheet to know what the characteristics are for the model. There is no rule giving us any permission at all to change the value of the Wound characteristic which is defined at 3. This means that when the model returns to play its going to have 3 wounds on it. That's how the datasheet works. It defines the model. This is a permissive ruleset. You can't change any of its characteristics without a rule giving you permission to do so. The YMDC forum is about supporting your argument is with rules. I have supported my argument with rules. And you haven't supported your argument with rules. You don't have any rules giving you permission to change the Wound characteristic of the Destroyer model to anything but the value on the datasheet.
People can make comparisons if they use the same language. That was the point of referencing the Mawloc and Transports, or did you miss that?
And yes, you cannot change the Wounds characteristic without a rule telling you to do so. I talked about this with Vipoid, but you seemed to have ignored it or missed it. Now, as I asked him, Where in the quote of Reanimation Protocols does it specifically tell you to change the Wounds Characteristic of the returning model?
orknado wrote: Charistof, I have proved my argument with rules quotes. Now show me the rule which gives you permission to modify the wound characteristic from its given value of 3 to a value of 1 as you would have it. You cannot. So far I have only seen you make cringe-worthy arguments that reference how reanimation was done in 5th edition as if that had anything at all to do with what we are discussing. So Charistof please follow the rules of the forum and back up what you say with RELEVANT rules support.
1) Please spell my name correctly. You come across as ignorant or trolling if you repeatedly misspell it. It's not like it isn't in the quote box for easy reference.
2) You have proved nothing because you have provided no rules to support your case. Just like everyone else saying "full wounds", you are going by an assumption that when you return the model to the unit, it is the same as deploying the model the first time. We have zero instructions on doing so. It's not a new model, it is a model that has been removed from play. Unless it was just removed without reducing its Wounds, it left the table with zero Wounds. Unless we are told otherwise, it will come back to the table with zero Wounds.
And a model with zero wounds cannot lose wounds because it has no wounds to lose. Thus RP-returned Necrons are unstoppable. The only way to defeat them is to NOT kill them as they return with literally nothing to lose.
Yeah, I notice you didn't bother addressing the exercise. Please try it or admit that it's not there, please.
You are trying to apply the same theory that others have, and which have been debunked due to the lack of proper language. When you return the model to the unit, its not starting brand new afresh. This is not a new model, but one that has had its Wounds removed from it (in most cases). In a very literal sense, by the instructions given, that model is returning back with just as many Wounds at it left, zero. We are given no instructions to provide a new model. We are given no instructions to restore a single Wound, much less all of them. We are given no instructions in Reanimation Protocols to reference the datasheet to determine the number of Wounds this returned model has.
So, I ask you, if a model Embarks on a Transport, it is removed from the table and the game space. When you Disembark and return the model to the table and game space, are we supposed to return it with full Wounds again? From what I have seen presented and no one has said is wrong, the language is exactly the same for this.
Zero wounds is never logically an option. A model cannot be returned to play ever with zero wounds since at zero wounds it is defined as 'removed from play'. So the 'zero wounds' needs to not to be the case in order for the model to actually return to play. So now we have debunked completely the 'zero wounds' argument that you keep bringing up as if it is not completely absurd already to suggest it.
When a model embarks on a transport it is simply removed from the battlefield and set to the side (p.181) so the language of Transports has nothing to do with the case at hand. For Reanimation Protocols we are returning a model that has been removed from play, not one that has simply been removed from the battlefield and set aside. And when we return it to play we know that 'zero wounds' is an impossibility.
orknado wrote:Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
I'm sorry, what does having been in the "casualty pile" have to do with anything? Where is the general rule that states that when a model is returned from the "casualty pile", it returns with full Wounds unless the rule states otherwise?
Do not employ a double standard here, prove your point with actual rules.
I am not employing a double standard. I was assuming that you read the rules. When a model is reduced to zero wounds it is removed from play (pg. 181). This means that when reanimation protocol returns a model, it is returning a model that was not in play to become a model that is once again in play. This makes the situation different than the Mawloc example. The Mawloc is never not in play. The Mawloc just leaves the battlefield but remains in play.
I don't have a lot of time at my game store right now, and I could not find an image of it. So, are you saying that there is no actual "casualty pile" in the general rules, and that is just your term for where models are placed when removed from play?
I note that you didn't actually answer the questions. So, again, Where is the general rule that states that when a model is returned from being "removed from play" that it returns with full Wounds unless the rule that brings it back states otherwise?
How is this any different then when a model returns from Reserves?
The Reanimation Protocol says to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. The model cannot be returned to play with zero wounds so that is a logical impossibility. We are bound by the datasheet rule to apply the characteristics to the model that are found on the datasheet. No rule has permission to modify the values on the datasheet. So the model is returned with the characteristics on the datasheet. The wound characteristic reads "3". Until you or anyone can point to a rule that has permission to override the "3" value in the datasheet, then that is the value that the Destroyer model has per the rules. You haven't yet been able to show any rule that has permission to change the wound characteristic so it is proved to be "3" in the case of the Destroyer.
People can make comparisons if they use the same language. That was the point of referencing the Mawloc and Transports, or did you miss that?
And yes, you cannot change the Wounds characteristic without a rule telling you to do so. I talked about this with Vipoid, but you seemed to have ignored it or missed it. Now, as I asked him, Where in the quote of Reanimation Protocols does it specifically tell you to change the Wounds Characteristic of the returning model?
Until you can show that the Mawloc or the Transports 'remove from play' then you cannot make a valid comparison, or did you miss that? The wound characteristic cannot be zero. A 'zero wound' model is removed from play. So in order for the model to be returned to play then it must not be 'zero wounds'. When we return the model to play, we use the datasheet to know what characteristics that the model has. I am bound by the datasheet to apply the characteristics on the datasheet to the model. The datasheet has 3 wounds on it. No rule has permission to change that 3 wound value so that is what the Destroyer returns to play with. I have rules backing up my argument. You have no rules backing up your argument.
1) Please spell my name correctly. You come across as ignorant or trolling if you repeatedly misspell it. It's not like it isn't in the quote box for easy reference.
2) You have proved nothing because you have provided no rules to support your case. Just like everyone else saying "full wounds", you are going by an assumption that when you return the model to the unit, it is the same as deploying the model the first time. We have zero instructions on doing so. It's not a new model, it is a model that has been removed from play. Unless it was just removed without reducing its Wounds, it left the table with zero Wounds. Unless we are told otherwise, it will come back to the table with zero Wounds.
I have already pointed out that not only is 'zero wounds' an absurd suggestion, the Reanimation Protocol rule which tells us to return the model means that 'zero wounds' is not logically possible since 'zero wounds' is what defines a model as 'removed from play'. So with the very act of returning the model to play then the 'zero wound' state has been logically excluded as a possibility.
I have made no claim with regards to 'full wounds'. I have merely asserted that there is no rule giving permission to modify the characteristic on the datasheet when the model is returned to play. There is indeed no rule that modifies the wound characteristic. Therefore the Destroyer returns to play with the wound characteristic on the datasheet. That value accidentally happens to correspond with 'full wounds' but my argument makes no claim that there is some rule saying 'full wounds. Rather there is nothing overriding the datasheet characteristic value so I have no choice but to adhere to what the datasheet tells me to do. I am just following the rules as they have been clearly laid out.
So now that I have shown that 'zero wounds' is logically impossible and that there is no rule giving permission to modify the wound characteristic on the datasheet, then we are left with the model having the exact value for the wound characteristic when it returns to play. I have supported my argument fully with rules quotes. I suggest you start doing the same, Charistof. You can no longer make the absurd suggestion that the model is returned to play with 'zero wounds'. I have thoroughly debunked that suggestion. So please make suggestions that are not absurd and that are supported by actual rules. That is the point of YMDC, right? People (you included) need to make valid (non-absurd) arguments that are supported by the rules.
Until you can show that the Mawloc or the Transports 'remove from play' then you cannot make a valid comparison, or did you miss that?
Inflict Damage (rulebook pg. 181)- If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play.
Catastrophic Collapse (Xenos 1 pg. 38)- If this model is reduced to 0 wounds, roll a D6 before removing it from the battlefield.
Embark (rulebook pg. 183)- Remove the unit from the battlefield and place it to one side, it is now embarked inside the transport.
The language is clearly interchangeable. When I first brought up the term 'set up' and used the example of disembarking to show similarities in the language with Reanimation Protocols, it was to argue that if you are going to interpret a rule in a certain way then you must apply it across the entire rules set. Now we're introducing new rules of 'being returned' and 'casualty piles'? Come on, people.
Quick solution, then, when I reduce a Necron to 0 wounds, it is either slain or destroyed. I choose destroyed, as per the rulebook. Reanimation Protocols only applies to models that are slain, as per their rules. Or, perhaps, slain and destroyed are equivalent, much like removed from play and removed from the battlefield are?
col_impact wrote: It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet..
So any rule which returns a model to the board means the model goes to full wounds? What about a wounded multiwound model you embark in a vehicle than later disembark? It's left the table, then you return it to the table when you disembark. Does it suddenly have full wounds also because it has a certain number of wounds on its datasheet? There's no mention of the datasheet with "return the model" in Reanimation Protocols, and no mention of how many wounds the model has when you return it. You have failed to provide a rules quotation that specifies how many wounds it has. You have only mentioned a rule then made some assumptions, probably logical assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. That's not RAW, that's HIWPI and an educated guess at RAI. I don't care if that's how you want to play it, I just want you to admit that coming back at full wounds is not cast-in-stone RAW given what is said so far. If it were, you would be able to provide a direct quote without having to make any inferences or assumptions.
The Transport rules make no mention of 'returning the model'.
The Scarab Hive rule uses those words and in a similar fashion a scarab model will be returned to the battlefield per the datasheet (at full wounds).
When we are told to return a model that is a casualty we have no choice but to return a model per the datasheet.
This is not true. We have no choice but to return a model. It is purely an assumption on your part that the model is returned with full wounds, as there is no reference in the rule returning them to the datasheet or the number of wounds. You have demonstrated before that you have arrived at "full wounds" by "logical" assumptions. RAW =/= assumptions. It may be RAI and is certainly how most people would play it, but it is not RAW as RAW is mute on the subject of the number of wounds. You have nor provided a rules quotation for the model referring back to its starting wounds on the datasheet, or in fact any rule referencing number of wounds at all when it is returned.
Oh, then you should have no problem quoting the rule stating that you return at full wounds, whether it refers the model back to the datasheet's full wounds or merely states that it comes back at full wounds. Unless you can do that, you have one great whopping assumption that you refuse to acknowledge.
col_impact wrote: [We are simply following rules that we can directly quote ('return the model', datasheet).
Then provide the rules quotation that states you return with the full wounds or return with the number of wounds listed on the datasheet. So far you have only provided "return the model" as a quoatation, which makes absolutely no reference at all to the number of wounds he is returned at. You can see from the other people who have posted here that even the ones that think you use full wounds are making it on a (reasoned) assumption - as you state, it wouldn't be logical to return it at 0 wounds. RAW wouldn't require having to make those analyses and assumptions, it would state it. It doesn't, so it's not RAW. It's not bad HIWPI, but it's not RAW.
col_impact wrote: No rule is telling us to return the model with 1 wound.
And this is something I find quite distressing about you - your complete misrepresentation of what I am saying. I don't know if it's lack of comprehension or you just not reading what I say. I have not said that you have RAW to return the m model with 1 wound. I am saying you don't have a rule stating you return it at one wound, but likewise you don't have a rule stating you return it at full wounds. You merely have a rule stating you return the model to the table, without any rule specifically stating how many wounds it has. Don't set me up with arguments I am not making.
col_impact wrote: So since nothing is overriding the values of datasheet, the Destroyer model is returned with however many wounds are on its datasheet.
Simply not true. You are told to return the model to the table. You are not told to put a new model on the table. The values on the datasheet were overridden when it took that damage that required it to be taken off the table, so it was at 0 wounds. You have to show what level of wounds it has when it's returned to the table; the rule returning it would need to indicate the wound level or that you refer back to its pristine condition. Otherwise, you are merely making an assumption that it is returned at full wounds. Your fundamental lack of comprehension is focused on the fact that you are making an assumption here that is not stated in the rules. It may be a logical assumption, but it is an assumption nonetheless. This means that it isn't RAW. I don't have any problem with you making that assumption; I only have a problem when you insist that it's RAW, don't provide a rules quotation that proves it RAW, completely misrepresent what I'm saying and insist that I have to prove that I have to counter your non-RAW with a rules quote. No, sorry, it doesn't work that way. YOU provide the rules quote verifying that the model comes back at full wounds. You have to show an explicit statement in the rules that it comes back with full wounds, whether by saying "full wounds", specifying the number of wounds, or referring you back to the datasheet for the number of wounds. Making an assumption that it's the number of wounds on the datasheet when you aren't told by the rules to refer to that doesn't cut it as RAW.
col_impact wrote: [My argument is fully substantiated and justified.
Not even slightly, as I outlined beforehand.
col_impact wrote: Your argument has no substantiation and is in violation of tenet #1 of this forum.
Well, "my" argument has no substantiation when you falsified what I was saying to claim that I stated it comes back with one wound. My argument is that we have NO RULE STATING HOW MANY WOUNDS YOU COME BACK WITH. It's laughable that you cite tenet #1 of this forum, ?Don't make a statement without backing it up." This is what you did in your previous reply to me, stating I don't have any rules to back up my assertion that there aren't rules to cover this. It you wish to cite violation of forum tenets, though, you are technically in violation of tenets #1 and #4 - you have not provided the rules quotations to back up your assertions, and your assumptions you are trying to pass off as RAW violate Tenet #4 - you are making a HIWPI argument with the lack of rules support and trying to claim it as RAW.
col_impact wrote: You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.
So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet. .
No. You have "return the model." It does not say "return the model as it is on the datasheet". It does not say "return the model at full health." It merely says "return the model" without making any statement about wounds. Whichever level of wounds your group chooses to return it at is a choice based on assumptions trying to fill in the void left by the rules text not dealing with it. Is it a reasonable assumption? Could very well be. Does that make it any less of an assumption? Not in the slightest.
The datasheet provides the definition of the model. When a rule says 'return the model' it means return the entity defined by the datasheet.
Then provide a rules quotation that explictly states that. Without such, it's an assumption and therefore not RAW.
col_impact wrote: No assumptions are being made. I am simply following the rules as they are.
Then provide a rules quotation that explictly states that the model is reutrned with full wounds or with the wounds indicated on its datasheet. Without such, it's an assumption and therefore not RAW.
col_impact wrote: [There needs to be a rule overriding the datasheet values in order for the outcome to be any different.
No, there does not need to be a rule overriding an assumption. There need to be a rule stating that the model is returned to the table with full wounds. Merely saying "returned to the table" does not fulfill that requirement, as it does not sstate the number of wounds it comes back with, nor does it refer you back to the datasheet for the number of wounds it originally had before it died.
Oh, that's actually pretty darn funny. I'm saying there are no rules at all to state how many wounds a model comes back with, and you reply that I have no rules to substantiate my argument. Helllloooo, McFly!!!! I really have to applaud you for efforts above and beyond this time. You don't really have a grasp on what you're arguing against, do you? What kind of rules would you expect me to cite to show that there are no rules to cite for what we're talking about?
You are able to quote the datasheet in question. You have, however, no rule that states that you bring back the model which has been damaged at the value that it has on datasheet. Your argument is totally unsubstantiated because you can not provide a rules quote that states the level of wounds he comes back with, or that when you set him back up on the board that you use the full wounds on the datasheet. Please provide a quotation from Reanimation that mentions the datasheet when bringing the model back so that we know we are to reference the full wounds on the datasheet. When we bring a wounded model back onto the board by disembarking, we do not bring him back at full wounds. Where is the rules citiing for bringing the model back at any wound level other than what he went off the board at? Stupid RAW? Yes. The only RAW? Yes. Is looking at the wounds on the datasheet and bringing him back at that level an ssumption to get around stupid RAW? For a third time, yes.
I am able to quote 'return the model' and the datasheet.
You have to be able to quote something linking "return the model" with the value of number of wounds on the datasheet. "Return the model" does not say "return the model with full wounds". "Return the model" does not say "return the model to the table, refer to the model's datasheet for the wounds it comes back with" Without something like that, you have a disconnect between "return the model" and the datasheet where it's only an assumption that it comes back with all the wounds on the datasheet. Since it's an assumption, it is not RAW. You have not substantiated your argument, and therefore no rules citation is needed to counter it. Since my argument is that you don't have a proper rules citation to prove that it's RAW, so by definition I would not need a rule to disprove your argument; like in all RAW situations you need to provide the stubstantiation to your argument to prove that bringing it back with full wounds is RAW in the first place. The three words "return the model" are not proof as to what level of wounds it comes back with. Provide a rules quotation that provides the proof of your assertion.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
orknado wrote: The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?
Okay, my argument is that there are no rules as to the number of wounds that the model comes back with. How exactly am I supposed to provide a rule for an argument stating there are no rules?
Col Impact has not proven himself with rules. He has cited "return the model", but "return the model" does not tell you how many wounds you return the model with. He does not have a rules argument specifically showing you return it with the wounds listed on the datasheet. He has not provided a valid rules argument showing what level of wounds it comes back with at all? There is no rule specifying that it returns with a different number of wounds than it left the board with - 0 wounds. This would mean that it comes back with 0 wounds. That's silly on the face of it, but it's the only thing that's been covered by the rules. This counters your argument of "the datasheet is a rule, correct?" Ir's a series of rule and data - statistics to use. The listing for the number of wounds it has is not a rule, it's a data point. You still do not have a rule saying that when you return to the board you return in that condition that's listed on the datasheet, merely a rule saying you return to the board. The damage that the model took was because of rules also, and you need a rule specifying how that level of damage is modified when it comes back to the board, otherwise there is no rules support to, by RAW, return it at any level of wounds other than what it left the board with. Coming back with anything other than 0 wounds has no rule to support it. If you know of a rule to support a specific level please feel free to post it.
People have been using disembarking models as an example in this discussion, but I have a much better one....
...Mawlocs.
They even use the same "return to the battlefield" language as RPs (which is not found verbatim in the transport rules).
Are my Mawlocs immortal? Please tell me yes.
Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
It's a situation where you are told to "return the model". That's similar language. What he is pointing out is that without a specific statement in RP that you return at full wounds or that you refer back to the datasheet for the condition the model returns as, you are treating "return the model" as "return the model in the pristine condition listed on the datasheet", which means that since you are using that assumption for RP, that any place that "return the model" is used means that you refer back to the datasheet for the condition the model is in when you return it. His is a perfectly revelevant argument. You have to prove how there is something in the RP rules that validates it being able to be returned at full wounds where it wouldn't apply to the Mawloc despite the same language being used.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, orknado, compare the rule quotation you provided for Scarabs with the rule Charistoph aupplied for Reanimation Protocols. The Scarb rule states "reinforcements" where RP does not state that. You wouldn't get to treat the RP returning someone as a Reinforcement as it is not stated in the rule as it is for Scarabs.
orknado wrote:Zero wounds is never logically an option. A model cannot be returned to play ever with zero wounds since at zero wounds it is defined as 'removed from play'. So the 'zero wounds' needs to not to be the case in order for the model to actually return to play. So now we have debunked completely the 'zero wounds' argument that you keep bringing up as if it is not completely absurd already to suggest it.
I never said it was a logical option, just the direction that the written word provides us. And apparently a model can be returned to play with zero Wounds because that is the exact direction we are given. Yes, that zero Wound model will probably be removed right away again and that will have some interesting interactions with the Battleshock Phase. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it how I would play it? No. Is it how it is written? Yeup.
You are trying to logically process How You Would Play It (HYWPI), but you are calling it the Rules As Written (RAW). Please review Tenet #4 of the Tenets of YMDC. When addressing this rule in this thread, I have only been concerned with the actual written rule. You have failed twice to actually demonstrate in the rule under discussion where it states anything regarding the number of Wounds that are restored to the model. If you want to change your position to HYWPI, I have no problem with that, I don't care. But to call it RAW is the same as peeing on my leg and calling it rain.
orknado wrote:When a model embarks on a transport it is simply removed from the battlefield and set to the side (p.181) so the language of Transports has nothing to do with the case at hand. For Reanimation Protocols we are returning a model that has been removed from play, not one that has simply been removed from the battlefield and set aside. And when we return it to play we know that 'zero wounds' is an impossibility.
You are speculating, assuming, and trying to extrapolate the relation in the situation. The terminology apparently matches. If it doesn't actually match, please quote it for proper comparison.
orknado wrote:The Reanimation Protocol says to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. The model cannot be returned to play with zero wounds so that is a logical impossibility. We are bound by the datasheet rule to apply the characteristics to the model that are found on the datasheet. No rule has permission to modify the values on the datasheet. So the model is returned with the characteristics on the datasheet. The wound characteristic reads "3". Until you or anyone can point to a rule that has permission to override the "3" value in the datasheet, then that is the value that the Destroyer model has per the rules. You haven't yet been able to show any rule that has permission to change the wound characteristic so it is proved to be "3" in the case of the Destroyer.
You missed the points of the question, and I went over this with Vipoid. Yes, the rule says to return the model. Yes, the datasheet defines the model when it is originally deployed. But different rules change that Wounds value during the game, which is why the model has been removed in the first place. Reanimation Protocols only says "to return the model". It provides no instruction to counter the Wounds that have been lost during the game. It provides no instruction to refer to the datasheet and apply the original number of Wounds back to the model. I can no more return Wounds to a model through Reanimation Protocols than I can not remove the Wounds when it has been successfully Wounded. I can no more return Wounds to a model through Reanimation Protocols than I can return Wounds to a model by Disembarking the model from a Transport. The instruction set that would state this is simply not there. Why are you have such a difficult time with this concept?
People can make comparisons if they use the same language. That was the point of referencing the Mawloc and Transports, or did you miss that?
And yes, you cannot change the Wounds characteristic without a rule telling you to do so. I talked about this with Vipoid, but you seemed to have ignored it or missed it. Now, as I asked him, Where in the quote of Reanimation Protocols does it specifically tell you to change the Wounds Characteristic of the returning model?
Until you can show that the Mawloc or the Transports 'remove from play' then you cannot make a valid comparison, or did you miss that? The wound characteristic cannot be zero. A 'zero wound' model is removed from play. So in order for the model to be returned to play then it must not be 'zero wounds'. When we return the model to play, we use the datasheet to know what characteristics that the model has. I am bound by the datasheet to apply the characteristics on the datasheet to the model. The datasheet has 3 wounds on it. No rule has permission to change that 3 wound value so that is what the Destroyer returns to play with. I have rules backing up my argument. You have no rules backing up your argument.
It is a valid comparison because of the language being used. If they are not using the same language to return and setup the model on the table, please provide proper quotes of the other two rules so that you can properly demonstrate this. Without a proper rules reference stating otherwise, your adherence to "remove from play" having taken the model off the board is completely immaterial to the discussion at hand, save for HYWPI.
I do have a rule backing up the argument that there are no rules to provide the model the original number of Wounds, it's called Reanimation Protocols, and I quoted it earlier. I threw down the gauntlet to you to demonstrate where it states it in this rule or provide a general rule that states when a model is restored to the table after being removed from play, it's Wounds are completely restored. You have not even addressed this in any form. You have failed to properly present a case by properly addressing the challenges. You keep referring to other things which RP has not called in to play, nor have demonstrated an adequate link from the general rules to the actions that RP tells you to do.
orknado wrote:I have already pointed out that not only is 'zero wounds' an absurd suggestion, the Reanimation Protocol rule which tells us to return the model means that 'zero wounds' is not logically possible since 'zero wounds' is what defines a model as 'removed from play'. So with the very act of returning the model to play then the 'zero wound' state has been logically excluded as a possibility.
You have pointed it out, but have yet to provide any rules which state we do otherwise. You are operating on assumptions, which is not a logical process. It is an ethos or pathos process you have used to derive at this conclusion. Do not confuse ethics or feelings for logic. If I punched this process in to a computer exactly as it is detailed in Reanimation Protocols, it would logically restore the model to the field with 0 Wounds, and then, just as logically, would again remove the model from play to attempt to the same process the next player turn. Logic doesn't mean a process isn't stupid, it is operating under the standards and directions that are provided. If you are trying to prevent something stupid from happening, you either need to change the process or ignore it in favor of ethics or emotion.
orknado wrote:I have made no claim with regards to 'full wounds'. I have merely asserted that there is no rule giving permission to modify the characteristic on the datasheet when the model is returned to play. There is indeed no rule that modifies the wound characteristic. Therefore the Destroyer returns to play with the wound characteristic on the datasheet. That value accidentally happens to correspond with 'full wounds' but my argument makes no claim that there is some rule saying 'full wounds. Rather there is nothing overriding the datasheet characteristic value so I have no choice but to adhere to what the datasheet tells me to do. I am just following the rules as they have been clearly laid out.
Do not be disingenuous. By stating that the model is returned to the table with the number of Wounds on its datasheet, you are making a claim for "full Wounds". Understand the phrase for what it is.
You then make a hypocritical statement with, "There is indeed no rule that modifies the wound characteristic. Therefore the Destroyer returns to play with the wound characteristic on the datasheet." The model had already had its Wounds modified to zero, that was why it was removed from play in the first place. In order to return the model to play and keep it on the table, you have to reverse the process which caused its Wounds to be modified. This requires another modification to restore the lost Wounds. This is the logic of the situation. Unfortunately, the process of RP, does not provide that last step of modifying the Wounds so that it has them on the table.
If we were talking about a new model being added to the unit, we would indeed be using the original number of Wounds on its datasheet, but we are not. We are returning the model (who had lost all of its Wounds at one point) back in to its unit. Where is the instruction to modify the Wounds characteristic when putting it back on the table?
orknado wrote:So now that I have shown that 'zero wounds' is logically impossible and that there is no rule giving permission to modify the wound characteristic on the datasheet, then we are left with the model having the exact value for the wound characteristic when it returns to play. I have supported my argument fully with rules quotes. I suggest you start doing the same, Charistof. You can no longer make the absurd suggestion that the model is returned to play with 'zero wounds'. I have thoroughly debunked that suggestion. So please make suggestions that are not absurd and that are supported by actual rules. That is the point of YMDC, right? People (you included) need to make valid (non-absurd) arguments that are supported by the rules.
Actually, no, you have debunked nothing because you have provided no actual rules to support your theory. Your statements are hypocritical and based on assumptions, and not on the written word of the instructions. If you want to declare your process HYWPI (a valid statement in You Make Da Call), that's fine, more power to you. But please quit trying to say the rule actually directs you to do it.
orknado wrote:Zero wounds is never logically an option. A model cannot be returned to play ever with zero wounds since at zero wounds it is defined as 'removed from play'. So the 'zero wounds' needs to not to be the case in order for the model to actually return to play. So now we have debunked completely the 'zero wounds' argument that you keep bringing up as if it is not completely absurd already to suggest it.
I never said it was a logical option, just the direction that the written word provides us. And apparently a model can be returned to play with zero Wounds because that is the exact direction we are given. Yes, that zero Wound model will probably be removed right away again and that will have some interesting interactions with the Battleshock Phase. Is it stupid? Yes. Is it how I would play it? No. Is it how it is written? Yeup.
You are trying to logically process How You Would Play It (HYWPI), but you are calling it the Rules As Written (RAW). Please review Tenet #4 of the Tenets of YMDC. When addressing this rule in this thread, I have only been concerned with the actual written rule. You have failed twice to actually demonstrate in the rule under discussion where it states anything regarding the number of Wounds that are restored to the model. If you want to change your position to HYWPI, I have no problem with that, I don't care. But to call it RAW is the same as peeing on my leg and calling it rain.
If you insist on putting a 'zero wound' model into play then you are putting model into play that is invulnerable to further harm. Only a model that is 'reduced to zero' is 'removed from play (p. 181) so if the Destroyer model's starting value is zero upon return the battlefield then it is immune to being slain and 'removed from play' thereafter and even more problematically will be a model in a unit that will always have any damage done to the unit allocated to it effectively making the unit invulnerable. So if you want to proceed down a line of argumentation that makes Necron's ridiculously over-powered then by all means continue to do so. Invulnerable Necron units is exactly how the absurd 'zero wound' argument resolves itself logically. So no a 'zero wound' model would not be removed right away again as you wrongly claim since only a model that is 'reduced to zero' can be 'removed from play'. A 'zero wound' model would be invulnerable and break the game to the point where Necron's are ridiculously OP. This absurd resolution would mean that players at the outset of the game would not allow 'zero wound' models to return to play, lest it leads to OP shenanigans. Players tend to disallow absurdities that make the game radically unplayable which is what 'zero wounds' would do. So are you going to finally drop 'zero wounds' as a possibility? Or do you want to play against my Invulni-crons until I beat that possibility out of you? No matter which way you cook it, rules interpretations that break the game need to be dismissed as absurd and implausible and so we dismiss the idea of returning 'zero wound' models into play.
This leads us to another problem in what 'removed from play' means when a model dies. The rules don't actually provide instructions to remove the model from the battlefield or to remove the model from consideration as an entity for game play but it must or else it leads to broken game play. If a model is not removed from the battlefield and treated as a non-entity as far as game play is concerned then models that are 'removed from play' will continue to 'play' in the game.They will continue to move and shoot and cast psychic powers and fight in close combat all the while forcing wounds to be allocated to them, making their host units invulnerable to further harm. So again, this leads us to broken shenanigans where 'removed from play' must mean 'remove the model from the battlefield and consideration as an entity for rules of the game'. Players won't play according to absurd rule interpretations so a logical rule that discards absurd interpretations is implied by 2 people coming together and playing a functioning version of the game. So removed from play has to mean 'remove from the battlefied' and 'remove from consideration for game play'.
So 'removed from play' must mean 'remove from the battlefield' and 'remove from consideration as an entity for game play' which is what the semantics of 'play' carries with it. A model that is not 'in play' does not have status in the game so it has no datasheet associated with it and so no way to keep track of wounds. When Reanimation Protocols returns a model to play then it is changing the model from one that has no 'play' status in the game (no datasheet) to one that now has 'play' status in the game (and an associated datasheet). Removing a model from play shrugs off any artifacts of 'play' from that model since that model has no 'rules of play' associated with it (datasheet, etc.). If players don't treat the models as non-entities for game play and track wounds on entities that are not in play then you will return a model that has no wounds. If you return the model with 'zero wounds' then you are making an invulnerable model (as already discussed), so players of a functioning game simply don't do that. We are left then with returning the model as per the datasheet which says 3 wounds on it. There is no rule that has permission to modify that wound characteristic from the given value of 3 on the datasheet so that is what the Destroyer model returns to play with.
So basically you are left with 2 options at the outset of a game. Either reanimated Crons are invulnerable 'zero wound' aberrations or they are reanimated per the number of wounds on their datasheet. I know which game players will play. Which game are you playing?
orknado wrote:When a model embarks on a transport it is simply removed from the battlefield and set to the side (p.181) so the language of Transports has nothing to do with the case at hand. For Reanimation Protocols we are returning a model that has been removed from play, not one that has simply been removed from the battlefield and set aside. And when we return it to play we know that 'zero wounds' is an impossibility.
You are speculating, assuming, and trying to extrapolate the relation in the situation. The terminology apparently matches. If it doesn't actually match, please quote it for proper comparison.
I have referenced the rules with page numbers. You can read up on Transports on page 183. Transports do not 'remove from play' so embarking/disembarking do not involve returning a model to play only returning a model to the battlefield. The terminology does not match and we cannot make comparisons.
orknado wrote:The Reanimation Protocol says to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. The model cannot be returned to play with zero wounds so that is a logical impossibility. We are bound by the datasheet rule to apply the characteristics to the model that are found on the datasheet. No rule has permission to modify the values on the datasheet. So the model is returned with the characteristics on the datasheet. The wound characteristic reads "3". Until you or anyone can point to a rule that has permission to override the "3" value in the datasheet, then that is the value that the Destroyer model has per the rules. You haven't yet been able to show any rule that has permission to change the wound characteristic so it is proved to be "3" in the case of the Destroyer.
You missed the points of the question, and I went over this with Vipoid. Yes, the rule says to return the model. Yes, the datasheet defines the model when it is originally deployed. But different rules change that Wounds value during the game, which is why the model has been removed in the first place. Reanimation Protocols only says "to return the model". It provides no instruction to counter the Wounds that have been lost during the game. It provides no instruction to refer to the datasheet and apply the original number of Wounds back to the model. I can no more return Wounds to a model through Reanimation Protocols than I can not remove the Wounds when it has been successfully Wounded. I can no more return Wounds to a model through Reanimation Protocols than I can return Wounds to a model by Disembarking the model from a Transport. The instruction set that would state this is simply not there. Why are you have such a difficult time with this concept?
Go ahead and return a 'zero wound' Destroyer model to play. It is invulnerable and makes the Destroyer unit invulnerable. Let me know when you have exhausted yourself of this line of argumentation that leads to absurd game play so we can discuss non-absurd lines of interpretation. Also, let me know when you have accepted that 'removed from play' means 'remove from battlefield' and 'remove from consideration as an entity in the game' or else have fun with slain models that can move, shoot, fight, are invulnerable and make their units invulnerable. I have already moved past those absurdities. Let me know when you have reached my level of enlightenment.
orknado wrote:I have already pointed out that not only is 'zero wounds' an absurd suggestion, the Reanimation Protocol rule which tells us to return the model means that 'zero wounds' is not logically possible since 'zero wounds' is what defines a model as 'removed from play'. So with the very act of returning the model to play then the 'zero wound' state has been logically excluded as a possibility.
You have pointed it out, but have yet to provide any rules which state we do otherwise. You are operating on assumptions, which is not a logical process. It is an ethos or pathos process you have used to derive at this conclusion. Do not confuse ethics or feelings for logic. If I punched this process in to a computer exactly as it is detailed in Reanimation Protocols, it would logically restore the model to the field with 0 Wounds, and then, just as logically, would again remove the model from play to attempt to the same process the next player turn. Logic doesn't mean a process isn't stupid, it is operating under the standards and directions that are provided. If you are trying to prevent something stupid from happening, you either need to change the process or ignore it in favor of ethics or emotion.
No. A 'zero wound' model is invulnerable and makes the unit invulnerable. Only a model that is 'reduced to zero' is 'removed from play' so a 'zero wound' model cannot be slain. So have fun with your broken games. Let me know when you have discarded your absurd line of argumentation and are ready to proceed discussing non-broken game play.
Orknado you wont win against Charistoph. He will continue to argue in circles even when proven wrong. The RAW is they come back with wounds on their profile but this will go on for pages and then be locked.
I've meandered over this thread. I see a lot of passion but not a lot of practical logic. I think it's plainly obvious they should be returned with 1 wound - because coming back to life after you've been destroyed is already OP as feth. Now you want models to return at full strength? After being dealt 3 wounds? Guess how many wounds my centurions come back with when they die - 0. This is a clear oversight in the RP rules writing. In every other instance of returning to the game a wound number is specified - kinda silly to assume this rule is complete. Though this is GW we are talking about - the same company that charges a dire avenger 7 points for a +1 range shuriken cat.
Xenomancers wrote: I've meandered over this thread. I see a lot of passion but not a lot of practical logic. I think it's plainly obvious they should be returned with 1 wound - because coming back to life after you've been destroyed is already OP as feth. Now you want models to return at full strength? After being dealt 3 wounds? Guess how many wounds my centurions come back with when they die - 0. This is a clear oversight in the RP rules writing. In every other instance of returning to the game a wound number is specified - kinda silly to assume this rule is complete. Though this is GW we are talking about - the same company that charges a dire avenger 7 points for a +1 range shuriken cat.
Do you have some rule that says bring back with 1 wound? In this forum we have to substantiate what we argue with rules quotes. Necrons are not 'OP as feth' when they reanimate models to 'full wounds'. People are playing their battle reports according to this understanding already and they are not dominating at all. In fact they are distinctly mid-tier with re-animation. Nids and Guard have the distinction of being 'OP as feth' right now. Play a few games before you make claims that Necrons are OP.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Orknado you wont win against Charistoph. He will continue to argue in circles even when proven wrong. The RAW is they come back with wounds on their profile but this will go on for pages and then be locked.
I agree. But now I have shown his absurd line of argumentation leads to invulnerable reanimated models. Either he discards his line of reasoning or he plays absurdly silly games of 8th edition. So I think it's safe to say his argument is thoroughly discredited and unsalvageable at this point.
orknado wrote:If you insist on putting a 'zero wound' model into play then you are putting model into play that is invulnerable to further harm. Only a model that is 'reduced to zero' is 'removed from play (p. 181) so if the Destroyer model's starting value is zero upon return the battlefield then it is immune to being slain and 'removed from play' thereafter and even more problematically will be a model in a unit that will always have any damage done to the unit allocated to it effectively making the unit invulnerable. So if you want to proceed down a line of argumentation that makes Necron's ridiculously over-powered then by all means continue to do so. Invulnerable Necron units is exactly how the absurd 'zero wound' argument resolves itself logically. So no a 'zero wound' model would not be removed right away again as you wrongly claim since only a model that is 'reduced to zero' can be 'removed from play'. A 'zero wound' model would be invulnerable and break the game to the point where Necron's are ridiculously OP. This absurd resolution would mean that players at the outset of the game would not allow 'zero wound' models to return to play, lest it leads to OP shenanigans. Players tend to disallow absurdities that make the game radically unplayable which is what 'zero wounds' would do. So are you going to finally drop 'zero wounds' as a possibility? Or do you want to play against my Invulni-crons until I beat that possibility out of you? No matter which way you cook it, rules interpretations that break the game need to be dismissed as absurd and implausible and so we dismiss the idea of returning 'zero wound' models into play.
Still using an ethical and emotional argument to overcome the logical process. You are completely ignoring the rule in question in order to use ethics or emotion to justify your position. You are presenting what it SHOULD be, not what it IS. I am only considering it as it currently is.
Yes, it would be immediately removed because it's Wounds are just as zero as when it left. It has been reduced to zero, so it is again, removed from play. It's not starting the game at Zero Wounds, but returning to the game with the Zero Wounds has been reduced to before. You are considering this returned model as a new model, not as a model that has been interacting and been interacted with previously. This is part of the flaw of your argument.
Take a step back from your ethics and your emotions. Read the text like a computer and then process it step by step as a computer. What do you find? The rule itself does not provide for this model which has had its Wounds reduced to zero to be modified again back to any other number but zero, be it 1, D3, or 20. In order for these returned models to have any Wounds once returned without changing this rule, it must be specifically stated elsewhere. If it is stated elsewhere, no one else has provided this information, and you keep ignoring the requests for them. Instead, you try to brow beat others with how you think it should be.
orknado wrote:This leads us to another problem in what 'removed from play' means when a model dies. The rules don't actually provide instructions to remove the model from the battlefield or to remove the model from consideration as an entity for game play but it must or else it leads to broken game play. If a model is not removed from the battlefield and treated as a non-entity as far as game play is concerned then models that are 'removed from play' will continue to 'play' in the game.They will continue to move and shoot and cast psychic powers and fight in close combat all the while forcing wounds to be allocated to them, making their host units invulnerable to further harm. So again, this leads us to broken shenanigans where 'removed from play' must mean 'remove the model from the battlefield and consideration as an entity for rules of the game'. Players won't play according to absurd rule interpretations so a logical rule that discards absurd interpretations is implied by 2 people coming together and playing a functioning version of the game. So removed from play has to mean 'remove from the battlefied' and 'remove from consideration for game play'.
This provides absolutely nothing to support your argument because we are dealing with what happens while RP is being triggered, not what triggered it. Not to mention, not providing any actual rules to support your claims of how we should treat a model hitting the table by Disembark any differently than by RP.
orknado wrote:So 'removed from play' must mean 'remove from the battlefield' and 'remove from consideration as an entity for game play' which is what the semantics of 'play' carries with it. A model that is not 'in play' does not have status in the game so it has no datasheet associated with it and so no way to keep track of wounds. When Reanimation Protocols returns a model to play then it is changing the model from one that has no 'play' status in the game (no datasheet) to one that now has 'play' status in the game (and an associated datasheet). Removing a model from play shrugs off any artifacts of 'play' from that model since that model has no 'rules of play' associated with it (datasheet, etc.). If players don't treat the models as non-entities for game play and track wounds on entities that are not in play then you will return a model that has no wounds. If you return the model with 'zero wounds' then you are making an invulnerable model (as already discussed), so players of a functioning game simply don't do that. We are left then with returning the model as per the datasheet which says 3 wounds on it. There is no rule that has permission to modify that wound characteristic from the given value of 3 on the datasheet so that is what the Destroyer model returns to play with.
You are making too many assumptions without providing any actual rule directions to support your claim. Again, per YMDC Tenet #4, this is HYWPI, not RAW. Know the difference.
orknado wrote:When a model embarks on a transport it is simply removed from the battlefield and set to the side (p.181) so the language of Transports has nothing to do with the case at hand. For Reanimation Protocols we are returning a model that has been removed from play, not one that has simply been removed from the battlefield and set aside. And when we return it to play we know that 'zero wounds' is an impossibility.
You are speculating, assuming, and trying to extrapolate the relation in the situation. The terminology apparently matches. If it doesn't actually match, please quote it for proper comparison.
I have referenced the rules with page numbers. You can read up on Transports on page 183. Transports do not 'remove from play' so embarking/disembarking do not involve returning a model to play only returning a model to the battlefield. The terminology does not match and we cannot make comparisons.
No, you miss the point. The Transport rules aren't the issue here, it is why we should treat the RP rule any differently than Transport Rules. This latter part you have not properly supported with actual rules. The "zero wounds impossibility" is actually quite possible, just mechanically broken. That's kind of the point that DoctorTom and I are actually making here and almost everyone else arguing against us seems to be completely ignoring.
orknado wrote:Go ahead and return a 'zero wound' Destroyer model to play. It is invulnerable and makes the Destroyer unit invulnerable. Let me know when you have exhausted yourself of this line of argumentation that leads to absurd game play so we can discuss non-absurd lines of interpretation. Also, let me know when you have accepted that 'removed from play' means 'remove from battlefield' and 'remove from consideration as an entity in the game' or else have fun with slain models that can move, shoot, fight, are invulnerable and make their units invulnerable. I have already moved past those absurdities. Let me know when you have reached my level of enlightenment.
Ah, still making an ethical and logical argument against a logical one. I'm sorry, but no. Your ethics will trump logic in HYWPI, but not in RAW. I will not stoop to your level of enlightenment which requires me to call an apple a pear. I'm simply recognizing what it is, not what I want it to be. Let me know when you are ready to consider that, and please do the exercise I asked you to do in one of my first responses to you.
orknado wrote:No. A 'zero wound' model is invulnerable and makes the unit invulnerable. Only a model that is 'reduced to zero' is 'removed from play' so a 'zero wound' model cannot be slain. So have fun with your broken games. Let me know when you have discarded your absurd line of argumentation and are ready to proceed discussing non-broken game play.
Is it absurd when your auto mechanic comes in and tells you that your valve floated and welded in to the piston? Do you yell at that mechanic that tells you that the reason your car is having trouble is because an original manufacturer's part is a lemon? This is what you are doing here. You are complaining to me about how it should work, and I'm simply telling you that it will not work as it is currently configured.
Fortunately, a TT game engine is far easier to fix and patch with a willing opponent than a car engine with a floated valve. YMDC's tenets are also set up to recognize this. Tenet #4 is specifically set up so that when you don't like how a rule is written, or if there is no proper written direction, you can simply state that is How You Would Play It (HYWPI). If you want to mark your statements as HYWPI, fine, I honestly do not care, except maybe advise you that some people may have other considerations.
Just do not tell me RAW says that Reanimation Protocols says anything regarding the Wounds of the returned model or that I should treat it as if it was being deployed for the first time without another rule specifically stating otherwise. Furthermore, do not use statements which contradict themselves, such as "we don't have permission to modify the stats" and then, "we return the model to the table with the Wounds on its datasheet" without providing some actual instructions to do so. If you want an example of how it should read, look up Trazyn's rule. It does specify how many Wounds we modify the returned Trazyn with. Reanimation Protocols says nothing on the matter, however.
Fragile wrote:Orknado you wont win against Charistoph. He will continue to argue in circles even when proven wrong. The RAW is they come back with wounds on their profile but this will go on for pages and then be locked.
Well, I have been convinced before on some arguments, and admitted when I was wrong. Nothing provided up to this point has been proof conclusive that models will come back with any Wounds at all. It's stupid, moronic, and classic GW. It is not how I would play it, but it is how it is written.
Xenomancers wrote: I've meandered over this thread. I see a lot of passion but not a lot of practical logic. I think it's plainly obvious they should be returned with 1 wound - because coming back to life after you've been destroyed is already OP as feth. Now you want models to return at full strength? After being dealt 3 wounds? Guess how many wounds my centurions come back with when they die - 0. This is a clear oversight in the RP rules writing. In every other instance of returning to the game a wound number is specified - kinda silly to assume this rule is complete. Though this is GW we are talking about - the same company that charges a dire avenger 7 points for a +1 range shuriken cat.
Do you have some rule that says bring back with 1 wound? In this forum we have to substantiate what we argue with rules quotes. Necrons are not 'OP as feth' when they reanimate models to 'full wounds'. People are playing their battle reports according to this understanding already and they are not dominating at all. In fact they are distinctly mid-tier with re-animation. Nids and Guard have the distinction of being 'OP as feth' right now. Play a few games before you make claims that Necrons are OP.
He has as much support for 1 Wound as your argument for treating it as a new model, i.e. none.
Fragile wrote: Orknado you wont win against Charistoph. He will continue to argue in circles even when proven wrong. The RAW is they come back with wounds on their profile but this will go on for pages and then be locked.
I agree. But now I have shown his absurd line of argumentation leads to invulnerable reanimated models. Either he discards his line of reasoning or he plays absurdly silly games of 8th edition. So I think it's safe to say his argument is thoroughly discredited and unsalvageable at this point.
Check again. Next time, bring the actual tools to a discussion. Listen to what the other person is stating and try to actually address them with rules to support it instead of your own personal head canon.
Xenomancers wrote: I've meandered over this thread. I see a lot of passion but not a lot of practical logic. I think it's plainly obvious they should be returned with 1 wound - because coming back to life after you've been destroyed is already OP as feth. Now you want models to return at full strength? After being dealt 3 wounds? Guess how many wounds my centurions come back with when they die - 0. This is a clear oversight in the RP rules writing. In every other instance of returning to the game a wound number is specified - kinda silly to assume this rule is complete. Though this is GW we are talking about - the same company that charges a dire avenger 7 points for a +1 range shuriken cat.
Do you have some rule that says bring back with 1 wound? In this forum we have to substantiate what we argue with rules quotes
Which is why we want you to produce a rule to substantiate your claim that they are returned with full wounds. You still haven't provided a rules quotation that links their being returned to being returned with full wounds, let alone a rule that returns them with full wounds that would not allow a Mawloc to come back with full wounds whenever it is returned to the table. (See my earlier post where I responded to you in regeards to your argumentss against citing the Mawloc and why you were incorrect with the assertion). Honestly, Charistoph is correct in that since there is no rule stating the model is returned to the board with a number of wounds any different than what he left the board with, so by RAW he'd have 0 wounds. That's silly and nobody would ever play it that way., but given the lack of any statement indicating that they come back with any other level of wounds, Xenomancers' claim has just as much (or in this case, little) RAW support as your claim does.
orknado wrote: [. Necrons are not 'OP as feth' when they reanimate models to 'full wounds'. People are playing their battle reports according to this understanding already and they are not dominating at all. In fact they are distinctly mid-tier with re-animation. Nids and Guard have the distinction of being 'OP as feth' right now. Play a few games before you make claims that Necrons are OP.
Which is all well and good. As several of us have said, that's fine if you want to play it that way as there is a logic that can be argued for that being what they intended. You have to realize, however, that you are arguing HIWPI or RAI with that last series of statements, not RAW. You have to be able to show the statement that definitively states they come back with full wounds to be RAW, or they should FAQ it so that it will be like how the people are playing.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Orknado you wont win against Charistoph. He will continue to argue in circles even when proven wrong. The RAW is they come back with wounds on their profile but this will go on for pages and then be locked.
I agree. But now I have shown his absurd line of argumentation leads to invulnerable reanimated models. Either he discards his line of reasoning or he plays absurdly silly games of 8th edition. So I think it's safe to say his argument is thoroughly discredited and unsalvageable at this point.
Yes, you have shown how it is absurd. You have not shown how it is not RAW. Saying it's silly does not invalidate the point that it's what the rules say. You can have absurd RAW that people won't play by - back in 4th edition, by RAW Terminators didn't have Terminator armor, but everyone played it that they did. So, this wouldn't be the first time there was "silly RAW".
orknado wrote:If you insist on putting a 'zero wound' model into play then you are putting model into play that is invulnerable to further harm. Only a model that is 'reduced to zero' is 'removed from play (p. 181) so if the Destroyer model's starting value is zero upon return the battlefield then it is immune to being slain and 'removed from play' thereafter and even more problematically will be a model in a unit that will always have any damage done to the unit allocated to it effectively making the unit invulnerable. So if you want to proceed down a line of argumentation that makes Necron's ridiculously over-powered then by all means continue to do so. Invulnerable Necron units is exactly how the absurd 'zero wound' argument resolves itself logically. So no a 'zero wound' model would not be removed right away again as you wrongly claim since only a model that is 'reduced to zero' can be 'removed from play'. A 'zero wound' model would be invulnerable and break the game to the point where Necron's are ridiculously OP. This absurd resolution would mean that players at the outset of the game would not allow 'zero wound' models to return to play, lest it leads to OP shenanigans. Players tend to disallow absurdities that make the game radically unplayable which is what 'zero wounds' would do. So are you going to finally drop 'zero wounds' as a possibility? Or do you want to play against my Invulni-crons until I beat that possibility out of you? No matter which way you cook it, rules interpretations that break the game need to be dismissed as absurd and implausible and so we dismiss the idea of returning 'zero wound' models into play.
Still using an ethical and emotional argument to overcome the logical process. You are completely ignoring the rule in question in order to use ethics or emotion to justify your position. You are presenting what it SHOULD be, not what it IS. I am only considering it as it currently is.
Yes, it would be immediately removed because it's Wounds are just as zero as when it left. It has been reduced to zero, so it is again, removed from play. It's not starting the game at Zero Wounds, but returning to the game with the Zero Wounds has been reduced to before. You are considering this returned model as a new model, not as a model that has been interacting and been interacted with previously. This is part of the flaw of your argument.
Take a step back from your ethics and your emotions. Read the text like a computer and then process it step by step as a computer. What do you find? The rule itself does not provide for this model which has had its Wounds reduced to zero to be modified again back to any other number but zero, be it 1, D3, or 20. In order for these returned models to have any Wounds once returned without changing this rule, it must be specifically stated elsewhere. If it is stated elsewhere, no one else has provided this information, and you keep ignoring the requests for them. Instead, you try to brow beat others with how you think it should be.
Not correct Charistof. If you return a model to play that has zero wounds then it needs to have its wounds reduced to zero in order to be slain again which becomes an impossibility. The 'remove from play' rule is conditional to damage being inflicted in the Resolve Attacks sequence so if you follow the instructions like a computer the conditional for 'reduced to zero' will never be met and you are putting an invulnerable Destroyer model into play that can never be reduced to zero wounds and that will makes its unit invulnerable. So your argument leads to OP Necrons.
You have 2 choices. Reanimate invulnerable Necrons or Necrons at the number of wounds on their datasheet. Let me know your pick.
orknado wrote:This leads us to another problem in what 'removed from play' means when a model dies. The rules don't actually provide instructions to remove the model from the battlefield or to remove the model from consideration as an entity for game play but it must or else it leads to broken game play. If a model is not removed from the battlefield and treated as a non-entity as far as game play is concerned then models that are 'removed from play' will continue to 'play' in the game.They will continue to move and shoot and cast psychic powers and fight in close combat all the while forcing wounds to be allocated to them, making their host units invulnerable to further harm. So again, this leads us to broken shenanigans where 'removed from play' must mean 'remove the model from the battlefield and consideration as an entity for rules of the game'. Players won't play according to absurd rule interpretations so a logical rule that discards absurd interpretations is implied by 2 people coming together and playing a functioning version of the game. So removed from play has to mean 'remove from the battlefied' and 'remove from consideration for game play'.
This provides absolutely nothing to support your argument because we are dealing with what happens while RP is being triggered, not what triggered it. Not to mention, not providing any actual rules to support your claims of how we should treat a model hitting the table by Disembark any differently than by RP.
orknado wrote:So 'removed from play' must mean 'remove from the battlefield' and 'remove from consideration as an entity for game play' which is what the semantics of 'play' carries with it. A model that is not 'in play' does not have status in the game so it has no datasheet associated with it and so no way to keep track of wounds. When Reanimation Protocols returns a model to play then it is changing the model from one that has no 'play' status in the game (no datasheet) to one that now has 'play' status in the game (and an associated datasheet). Removing a model from play shrugs off any artifacts of 'play' from that model since that model has no 'rules of play' associated with it (datasheet, etc.). If players don't treat the models as non-entities for game play and track wounds on entities that are not in play then you will return a model that has no wounds. If you return the model with 'zero wounds' then you are making an invulnerable model (as already discussed), so players of a functioning game simply don't do that. We are left then with returning the model as per the datasheet which says 3 wounds on it. There is no rule that has permission to modify that wound characteristic from the given value of 3 on the datasheet so that is what the Destroyer model returns to play with.
You are making too many assumptions without providing any actual rule directions to support your claim. Again, per YMDC Tenet #4, this is HYWPI, not RAW. Know the difference.
Incorrect. I am pointing out that if you don't treat model that are 'removed from play' as non-entities when it comes to the rules of play then the game becomes absolutely busted. So we have to accept that models that are removed from play are non-entities when it comes to 'play'. Otherwise they can shoot, move, assault, cast psychic powers, and are invulnerable and make their unit invulnerable. Since players won't play busted game rules, the busted lines of argumentation are discarded. Feel free to play 'removed from play' models as still in play, but no one will play with you. No one wants to play against slain models that are not actually 'removed from play'. So we must accept that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities when it comes to the rules of play, which includes being defined by a datasheet and tracking wounds.
No, you miss the point. The Transport rules aren't the issue here, it is why we should treat the RP rule any differently than Transport Rules. This latter part you have not properly supported with actual rules. The "zero wounds impossibility" is actually quite possible, just mechanically broken. That's kind of the point that DoctorTom and I are actually making here and almost everyone else arguing against us seems to be completely ignoring.
Reanimation involves models being 'removed from play' and 'returning to play'. You can only make comparisons with rules that are similarly worded.
Xenomancers wrote: I've meandered over this thread. I see a lot of passion but not a lot of practical logic. I think it's plainly obvious they should be returned with 1 wound - because coming back to life after you've been destroyed is already OP as feth. Now you want models to return at full strength? After being dealt 3 wounds? Guess how many wounds my centurions come back with when they die - 0. This is a clear oversight in the RP rules writing. In every other instance of returning to the game a wound number is specified - kinda silly to assume this rule is complete. Though this is GW we are talking about - the same company that charges a dire avenger 7 points for a +1 range shuriken cat.
Do you have some rule that says bring back with 1 wound? In this forum we have to substantiate what we argue with rules quotes. Necrons are not 'OP as feth' when they reanimate models to 'full wounds'. People are playing their battle reports according to this understanding already and they are not dominating at all. In fact they are distinctly mid-tier with re-animation. Nids and Guard have the distinction of being 'OP as feth' right now. Play a few games before you make claims that Necrons are OP.
He has as much support for 1 Wound as your argument for treating it as a new model, i.e. none.
Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
Xenomancers wrote: I've meandered over this thread. I see a lot of passion but not a lot of practical logic. I think it's plainly obvious they should be returned with 1 wound - because coming back to life after you've been destroyed is already OP as feth. Now you want models to return at full strength? After being dealt 3 wounds? Guess how many wounds my centurions come back with when they die - 0. This is a clear oversight in the RP rules writing. In every other instance of returning to the game a wound number is specified - kinda silly to assume this rule is complete. Though this is GW we are talking about - the same company that charges a dire avenger 7 points for a +1 range shuriken cat.
Do you have some rule that says bring back with 1 wound? In this forum we have to substantiate what we argue with rules quotes
Which is why we want you to produce a rule to substantiate your claim that they are returned with full wounds. You still haven't provided a rules quotation that links their being returned to being returned with full wounds, let alone a rule that returns them with full wounds that would not allow a Mawloc to come back with full wounds whenever it is returned to the table. (See my earlier post where I responded to you in regeards to your argumentss against citing the Mawloc and why you were incorrect with the assertion). Honestly, Charistoph is correct in that since there is no rule stating the model is returned to the board with a number of wounds any different than what he left the board with, so by RAW he'd have 0 wounds. That's silly and nobody would ever play it that way., but given the lack of any statement indicating that they come back with any other level of wounds, Xenomancers' claim has just as much (or in this case, little) RAW support as your claim does.
Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
Incorrect. Your choices are to make the Destroyer come back at 0 wounds, or make a reasonable assumption that they don't mean that, and play it that it comes back at some other level. Whichever non-zero level you play it at does not have a rules backing to make it RAW. You have not cited a rules quote to show that it comes back at full wounds - how they play it in turorials and videos may be RAI, but that's not having the rules quote in the book that you haven't provided. I certainly don't have a problem with you playing that it comes back at full health, and I'm reasonably certain Charistoph doesn't have a problem with it either. Our problem is when you claim that it is RAW when there is no statement backing up such an assertion. Understanding when RAW is silly is fundamental to sknowing when to not use RAW for a situation, but that does not mean that you can dress your assumption up in a business suit and claim that since it's better dressed than the FAW that's wearing a clown suit, the assumption is actually RAW.
Orknado wrote:
Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
No, that is a false statment. Your choice is to go by RAW or to not go by RAW. RAW there is no statement saying the number of wounds it comes back with, so there is no RAW to say that the level of wounds it left the board with - 0 is changed. Therefore, 3 wounds is notRAW. It might be HIPWA, and may be RAI, but is not RAW. You have a fundamental misunderstanding between RAW, RAI and How I Would Play It (or Game As Played). Just because the one RAW option is stupid does not make it any less RAW. Just because your choice may make sense does not make it RAW if there's no rules statement to say that it's RAW. So far you have not provided the rules statement to say that it is. You have to actually provide the rules in order to say it's a "RAW read". Go ahead and provide the rules statement and prove us wrong, or admit that what you're saying is actually a HIPWA argument and not a RAW argument.
Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
Incorrect. Your choices are to make the Destroyer come back at 0 wounds, or make a reasonable assumption that they don't mean that, and play it that it comes back at some other level. Whichever non-zero level you play it at does not have a rules backing to make it RAW. You have not cited a rules quote to show that it comes back at full wounds - how they play it in tutorials and videos may be RAI, but that's not having the rules quote in the book that you haven't provided. I certainly don't have a problem with you playing that it comes back at full health, and I'm reasonably certain Charistoph doesn't have a problem with it either. Our problem is when you claim that it is RAW when there is no statement backing up such an assertion. Understanding when RAW is silly is fundamental to knowing when to not use RAW for a situation, but that does not mean that you can dress your assumption up in a business suit and claim that since it's better dressed than the RAW that's wearing a clown suit, the assumption is actually RAW.
Incorrect. There are two RAW interpretations. If you reanimate a model that has 'zero wounds' then it becomes invulnerable per the rules. Similarly, if you don't consider slain models as 'removed from play' (ie as non-entities in game play) then they will stick around as invulnerable models as well and make their units invulnerable. So unless you want to play an absurdly dumb game where models that are slain are still in play, then we must accept the alternate RAW interpretation that a model that is removed from play actually becomes a non-entity in game play. IF we accept that alternate RAW interpretation then that leads us to a way out of invulnerable reanimated Necron models. The only RAW way a model can be returned to play with Reanimation Protocols at some number other than zero wounds (which would make it invulnerable) would be if the wound tracking is lost when the model is 'removed from play' as a consequence of them being non-entities for purposes of game play when they are 'removed from play'. That's the only way a non 'zero wound' reanimated Necron model can be justified by the RAW.
So players must accept either invulnerable reanimated Necron models or accept that they are reanimated per the wounds on their datasheet. There are no other conceivable RAW reads, Players have a choice between an absurd RAW and a functional, balanced RAW. I know which one they will pick. I am fine playing against you if you insist that my Necron models come back as invulnerable 'zero wound' monstrosities. So take your pick.
You still have not provided a rules quotation that proves the model comes back at full wounds. Arguing that coming back at 0 wounds is silly does not constitute a RAW argument for a level other than 0 wounds, it merely means that you should not consider RAW if 0 wounds is the only option.
Provide a rules quotation that states you come back with the wounds on the datasheet. Otherwise, it is not RAW; it is merely HIPWA. Both you and col impact seem to have a fundamental inability to comprehend this. Neither of you have been able to provide the rules quotation that proves it comes back at full wounds. Please do so, or quit referring to the option of coming back at full wounds as RAW. As I said, people won't mind if you play it that way, just don't claim it's RAW when it isn't.
Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
Incorrect. Your choices are to make the Destroyer come back at 0 wounds, or make a reasonable assumption that they don't mean that, and play it that it comes back at some other level. Whichever non-zero level you play it at does not have a rules backing to make it RAW. You have not cited a rules quote to show that it comes back at full wounds - how they play it in tutorials and videos may be RAI, but that's not having the rules quote in the book that you haven't provided. I certainly don't have a problem with you playing that it comes back at full health, and I'm reasonably certain Charistoph doesn't have a problem with it either. Our problem is when you claim that it is RAW when there is no statement backing up such an assertion. Understanding when RAW is silly is fundamental to knowing when to not use RAW for a situation, but that does not mean that you can dress your assumption up in a business suit and claim that since it's better dressed than the RAW that's wearing a clown suit, the assumption is actually RAW.
Incorrect. There are two RAW interpretations. If you reanimate a model that has 'zero wounds' then it becomes invulnerable per the rules. Similarly, if you don't consider slain models as 'removed from play' (ie as non-entities in game play) then they will stick around as invulnerable models as well and make their units invulnerable. So unless you want to play an absurdly dumb game where models that are slain are still in play, then we must accept the alternate RAW interpretation that a model that is removed from play actually becomes a non-entity in game play. IF we accept that alternate RAW interpretation then that leads us to a way out of invulnerable reanimated Necron models. The only RAW way a model can be returned to play with Reanimation Protocols at some number other than zero wounds (which would make it invulnerable) would be if the wound tracking is lost when the model is 'removed from play' as a consequence of them being non-entities for purposes of game play when they are 'removed from play'. That's the only way a non 'zero wound' reanimated Necron model can be justified by the RAW.
So players must accept either invulnerable reanimated Necron models or accept that they are reanimated per the wounds on their datasheet. There are no other conceivable RAW reads, Players have a choice between an absurd RAW and a functional, balanced RAW. I know which one they will pick. I am fine playing against you if you insist that my Necron models come back as invulnerable 'zero wound' monstrosities. So take your pick.
Nicely stated.
Thanks for contributing to the thread.
I agree that per RAW we are stuck with invulnerable reanimated Necron models unless we accept that 'removed from play' means exactly that.
The only way to justify a reanimated Necron model that is not invulnerable is if we follow the rule interpretation that the wounds are lost when the model is 'removed from play' since tracking wounds on a datasheet are only a feature of models that are in play.
So players are forced to accept the fair RAW interpretation if they want to avoid invulnerable reanimated Necron models.
This is all just another way of using something I call reductio ad absurdum where you throw out absurd lines of argumentation as implausible.
Obviously in the context of a game, absurd lines of play are impractical.
No one is going to want play a game where reanimated Necron models are invulnerable so imho reductio ad absurdum should become an officially recognized tenet in YMDC. It already is a tenet of YMDC indirectly, since reductio ad absurdum is a building block for logical arguments, and implementing logic is key to YMDC arguments.
doctortom wrote: You still have not provided a rules quotation that proves the model comes back at full wounds. Arguing that coming back at 0 wounds is silly does not constitute a RAW argument for a level other than 0 wounds, it merely means that you should not consider RAW if 0 wounds is the only option.
Provide a rules quotation that states you come back with the wounds on the datasheet. Otherwise, it is not RAW; it is merely HIPWA. Both you and col impact seem to have a fundamental inability to comprehend this. Neither of you have been able to provide the rules quotation that proves it comes back at full wounds. Please do so, or quit referring to the option of coming back at full wounds as RAW. As I said, people won't mind if you play it that way, just don't claim it's RAW when it isn't.
The only way that the rules will justify some 'non-zero' amount is if you consider 'removed from play' as making the model a non-entity in game terms and therewith removing the tracking of wounds.
There is no way to justify a '1 wound' reanimated Necron model with any rule at all.
So this places players in the spot as either having the Necron animated models be reanimated invulnerable monsters or be reanimated with the number of wounds on their datasheet.
No other interpretations can be justified by the rules.
Orknado's argument is RAW as long as you dismiss absurd lines of argumentation (logic is acceptable for YMDC).
vipoid wrote: Is there a rule that states models deploy on the tabletop with full wounds?
Nope. But there is no rule overriding the datasheet either.
orknado wrote: Not correct Charistof. If you return a model to play that has zero wounds then it needs to have its wounds reduced to zero in order to be slain again which becomes an impossibility. The 'remove from play' rule is conditional to damage being inflicted in the Resolve Attacks sequence so if you follow the instructions like a computer the conditional for 'reduced to zero' will never be met and you are putting an invulnerable Destroyer model into play that can never be reduced to zero wounds and that will makes its unit invulnerable. So your argument leads to OP Necrons.
What says that they have to be reduced again? The requirement is to be reduced to zero Wounds. They have been, correct? That was the whole point they were removed in the first place. Nothing in Reanimation Protocols says that they remain in play after they are returned, after all. That is going by the actual rules you have presented. This is the logic of the process. You are applying an emotional response to this and using hyperbole to appeal on an emotional level.
Where is the actual rule that states that a returned model at zero model can no more be Wounded or Removed From Play? You yourself have given the rule that when a model's Wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play. This has happened for the returned model. That is the logical progression of the process provided. It doesn't make any ethical sense, because it is quite stupid to do this.
orknado wrote: You have 2 choices. Reanimate invulnerable Necrons or Necrons at the number of wounds on their datasheet. Let me know your pick.
No, I actually have several choices in play.
1) Zero Wounds: I have not been instructed to modify their Wounds to beyond 0. Since they have already been reduced to Zero Wounds, they are removed from play again. This does play havoc with the unit for the last phase of the turn, as well, causing a unit to self-destruct. This is stupid, but RAW.
2) Extreme benefit: They return with full Wounds as if they were deploying the first time. This is the best option for the player, and has the ease of not having to keep track of which are barely holding on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.
3) Minimum benefit: They return with 1 Wound. This has the best initial benefit of balance (without considering Power or Points) and the second best option for the opponent. This has historical relevance (as previous versions of RP, WBB, and Ever-Living only returned with 1 Wound), but is a pain to keep track of which ones are barely hanging on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.
Those are the options. None are perfect, and are only great depending on which side of the table you are on from the Necrons.
orknado wrote: Incorrect. I am pointing out that if you don't treat model that are 'removed from play' as non-entities when it comes to the rules of play then the game becomes absolutely busted. So we have to accept that models that are removed from play are non-entities when it comes to 'play'. Otherwise they can shoot, move, assault, cast psychic powers, and are invulnerable and make their unit invulnerable. Since players won't play busted game rules, the busted lines of argumentation are discarded. Feel free to play 'removed from play' models as still in play, but no one will play with you. No one wants to play against slain models that are not actually 'removed from play'. So we must accept that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities when it comes to the rules of play, which includes being defined by a datasheet and tracking wounds.
You have yet to present the rule that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities to support your case. This is how you want them to be treated, but that is not a factual account and actually ignores many other possible mission rules. Using phrases like "we must accept" without actually quoting a rule indicates your being presumptive.
Historically speaking, these models are still entities when it comes certain rules, such as Kill Points and Slay the Warlord. That they are removed from interacting with the Phases of the Turn is true, they are removed from this aspect of play. Indeed, unless a Transport is Open-Topped or has Fire Points, most Embarked models are just as much entities interacting with the Phases as a slain model. The version of Reanimation Protocols we are discussing still has us consider models with this rule who have been removed from play as entities with the potential to be put back in to play, otherwise the rule means nothing.
No, you miss the point. The Transport rules aren't the issue here, it is why we should treat the RP rule any differently than Transport Rules. This latter part you have not properly supported with actual rules. The "zero wounds impossibility" is actually quite possible, just mechanically broken. That's kind of the point that DoctorTom and I are actually making here and almost everyone else arguing against us seems to be completely ignoring.
Reanimation involves models being 'removed from play' and 'returning to play'. You can only make comparisons with rules that are similarly worded.
See, you miss the point. We are talking about what the rule tells us to do, not the trigger of it. Do you understand the difference between the trigger and the instructions of a rule?
orknado wrote: Your choices are that the Destroyer comes back invulnerable and making the unit invulnerable or at 3 wounds. That's how it works out according to the RAW. Take your pick of those two RAW reads.
The problem is that the RAW is not about choices, but the directions which have been given. HYWPI is where you talk about choices in interacting with the rule.
NOTHING actually written here states any model is returned with any more Wounds then it left with. If you can provide the actual rule that states this, please do. Otherwise, please refer to this as HYWPI.
NOTHING actually written here allows us to ignore what happened to the model prior to it being removed from play the last time. We do not get to ignore the fact that it lost all of its Wounds already. If you can provide the actual rule that states we get to ignore it, please provide it. Otherwise, please refer to this as HYWPI.
Therefore, there is as much support for a model coming back with 1 Wound as it does with 2, 3, D3, or 20. None in the rules. Every interpretation which provides a Wound to the returned model is 100% a House Rule until GW provides an errata.
I note that you didn't bother answering the challenges which we have asked of you. Why is that? Do you already know that this rule is mechanically broken and are just trying to push people to accept your House Rule as RAW? For what purpose? If you want to make a case of HYWPI, then there is no need to be addressing me on this any further. I might make some recommendations, but what you do in your group is your groups business.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
vipoid wrote: Is there a rule that states models deploy on the tabletop with full wounds?
A pertinent question if a proper link between deployment and reanimation protocols was presented.
orknado wrote: Not correct Charistof. If you return a model to play that has zero wounds then it needs to have its wounds reduced to zero in order to be slain again which becomes an impossibility. The 'remove from play' rule is conditional to damage being inflicted in the Resolve Attacks sequence so if you follow the instructions like a computer the conditional for 'reduced to zero' will never be met and you are putting an invulnerable Destroyer model into play that can never be reduced to zero wounds and that will makes its unit invulnerable. So your argument leads to OP Necrons.
What says that they have to be reduced again? The requirement is to be reduced to zero Wounds. They have been, correct? That was the whole point they were removed in the first place. Nothing in Reanimation Protocols says that they remain in play after they are returned, after all. That is going by the actual rules you have presented. This is the logic of the process. You are applying an emotional response to this and using hyperbole to appeal on an emotional level.
Where is the actual rule that states that a returned model at zero model can no more be Wounded or Removed From Play? You yourself have given the rule that when a model's Wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play. This has happened for the returned model. That is the logical progression of the process provided. It doesn't make any ethical sense, because it is quite stupid to do this.
I noticed that you did not comment on the the fact that the rules have a conditional for a model to be removed from play. There must be an attack that inflicts damage and reduces the model to zero wound in order for a model to be 'removed from play'. These rules are in the Resolve Attack sequence which you only have permission to use when you are resolving an attack. If you reanimate a model with zero wounds then you have made them invulnerable since no attack can reduce them to zero since they are already at zero .I am suspicious that you are not reading the rules at all. Is this true? There is no excuse for ignorance of the rules. You cannot contribute to this thread unless you have a knowledge of the rules. Instead of lamely trying to ascribe 'emotionality' to my posts, I suggest you consult the actual rules.
Either a Necron model is reanimated as a zero wound invulnerable aberration or it is reanimated per the number of wounds on its datasheet. Take your pick. That's the way the rules read in this case.
orknado wrote: You have 2 choices. Reanimate invulnerable Necrons or Necrons at the number of wounds on their datasheet. Let me know your pick.
No, I actually have several choices in play.
1) Zero Wounds: I have not been instructed to modify their Wounds to beyond 0. Since they have already been reduced to Zero Wounds, they are removed from play again. This does play havoc with the unit for the last phase of the turn, as well, causing a unit to self-destruct. This is stupid, but RAW.
2) Extreme benefit: They return with full Wounds as if they were deploying the first time. This is the best option for the player, and has the ease of not having to keep track of which are barely holding on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.
3) Minimum benefit: They return with 1 Wound. This has the best initial benefit of balance (without considering Power or Points) and the second best option for the opponent. This has historical relevance (as previous versions of RP, WBB, and Ever-Living only returned with 1 Wound), but is a pain to keep track of which ones are barely hanging on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.
Those are the options. None are perfect, and are only great depending on which side of the table you are on from the Necrons.
What does 'benefit' have to do with anything? As you note, solutions 2 and 3 have no basis in any rule so we throw those out as totally unsubstantiated. Also your number 1 solution goes against the rules. A 'zero wound' reanimated model is not removed from play automatically. Instead a 'zero wound' model that has been returned to play is invulnerable to being 'removed from play' again since no attack can reduce it to zero wounds.
Either the Necron model is reanimated as an invulnerable zero wound aberration or it has the number of wounds on its datasheet. No rule exists that justifies giving 1 wound to a reanimated Necron model. The only way in the rules to avoid making a zero wound monstrosity is to treat 'removed from play' as removed from play (ie the model is a non-entity in the game) such that the wounds are not tracked on a 'removed from play model' that has no datasheet representation.
People play 'removed from play' models as 'non-entities in the game' already since the alternative is a completely broken game. No rule instructs them to remove a slain model from the battlefield but they do so anyway. And no rule instructs them to remove that model for consideration from wound allocation, shooting, moving, coherency checks, assaults, etc. but they do so anyway based strictly on the phrase itself 'removed from play'. So since people are treating models that are 'removed from play' as 'non game entities' when they play 40k, the 'removed from play' rule justifies the expunging of the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Tracking wounds is a component of 'play' after all.
So per RAW you have two options. Either a Necron model reanimates as an invulnerable zero wound aberration or the model reanimates with the number of wounds that are on its datasheet. Take your pick.
orknado wrote: Incorrect. I am pointing out that if you don't treat model that are 'removed from play' as non-entities when it comes to the rules of play then the game becomes absolutely busted. So we have to accept that models that are removed from play are non-entities when it comes to 'play'. Otherwise they can shoot, move, assault, cast psychic powers, and are invulnerable and make their unit invulnerable. Since players won't play busted game rules, the busted lines of argumentation are discarded. Feel free to play 'removed from play' models as still in play, but no one will play with you. No one wants to play against slain models that are not actually 'removed from play'. So we must accept that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities when it comes to the rules of play, which includes being defined by a datasheet and tracking wounds.
You have yet to present the rule that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities to support your case. This is how you want them to be treated, but that is not a factual account and actually ignores many other possible mission rules. Using phrases like "we must accept" without actually quoting a rule indicates your being presumptive.
Historically speaking, these models are still entities when it comes certain rules, such as Kill Points and Slay the Warlord. That they are removed from interacting with the Phases of the Turn is true, they are removed from this aspect of play. Indeed, unless a Transport is Open-Topped or has Fire Points, most Embarked models are just as much entities interacting with the Phases as a slain model. The version of Reanimation Protocols we are discussing still has us consider models with this rule who have been removed from play as entities with the potential to be put back in to play, otherwise the rule means nothing.
No rule is telling you to exclude models that are 'removed from play' from interacting with the Phases of the Turn. If you are doing this you have already made a decision to not play according to the absurd RAW interpretation that 'removed from play' models stay on the battlefield and continue to participate in the regular rules of the game (e.g. the Phases of the Turn). So everyone plays 40k according to the RAI that 'removed from play' means that the models that are removed from play are non-entities in terms of game play. I bet 100% of 40k people play this way and very few are actually aware that they have no justification to treat the models as removed from game play except by the straight semantic meaning of 'removed from play'. So everyone plays by an intuitive guess as to what exactly 'removed from play' means without their being any definition in the rule book. But the fact that people have already taken the steps to play 'removed from play' according to their intuition leads to a rule justified way out of the 'zero wound' nonsense. Keep in mind that this is just accepting the way people already play.
You, yourself, Charistof apply an understanding of 'removed from play' in your game which is entirely guesswork on your part. You likely consider a 'removed from play' model as exempt from movement, shooting, assault, psychic phase, wound allocation, coherency, etc. However for some arbitrary reason with no justification at all you have decided that wound tallies remain on a model 'removed from play' even though wound tallies are entirely the domain of models that are in play. You have arbitrarily decided that some things are part of play and others not. So wound tallies on models that are 'removed from play' is entirely your opinion. I think any and all aspects of 'play' are not in effect for models that are removed from play. Unless a rule is required to be in effect (Kill Points, etc.) for models that are 'removed from play', the rule is not considered to be in effect for models that are 'removed from play'. My reasoning is overall more consistent than yours which makes an arbitrary distinction with no clear justification for doing so.
So when people play against Necrons they have the choice of facing invulnerable zero wound reanimated aberration or they can choose to apply 'removed from play' to models such that models that are 'removed from play' have their wound tallies cleared since they are 'non game entities' and wound tallies is a component of game play. They are free to take their pick. They can choose to play against invulnerable reanimated 'zero wound' monstrosities or against models that are reanimated with the number of wounds on their datasheet.
Models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. If they were still part of their unit then all sorts of absurd things would happen. They would have wounds allocated to them and would force the unit to stay in coherency with the model that has been 'removed from play'. A model that is 'removed from play' and no longer part of a unit has no datasheet associated with it and therewith no characteristic profile. Wounds cannot be maintained on a model with no profile.
Therefore, when a Necron model is reanimated, the model returns to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
orknado wrote: Models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. If they were still part of their unit then all sorts of absurd things would happen. They would have wounds allocated to them and would force the unit to stay in coherency with the model that has been 'removed from play'. A model that is 'removed from play' and no longer part of a unit has no datasheet associated with it and therewith no characteristic profile. Wounds cannot be maintained on a model with no profile.
Therefore, when a Necron model is reanimated, the model returns to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
Orknado,
I think you nailed it.
A model that is removed from play is either part of the unit or not.
If it is part of the unit then all the rules of the game break. Coherency, movement, shooting, wound allocation, morale, wound allocation, etc.
So long as people are not playing a broken game then models that are 'removed from play' are not part of the unit.
As you say, models that are not part of units don't have profiles since profiles come from datasheets that you need to be part of unit to have.
Models that don't have profiles can't track wounds.
A 'removed from play' model that is 'returned to play' comes back with the amount of wounds on the profile on the datasheet that it now has when it returns to the unit.
orknado wrote: Not correct Charistof. If you return a model to play that has zero wounds then it needs to have its wounds reduced to zero in order to be slain again which becomes an impossibility. The 'remove from play' rule is conditional to damage being inflicted in the Resolve Attacks sequence so if you follow the instructions like a computer the conditional for 'reduced to zero' will never be met and you are putting an invulnerable Destroyer model into play that can never be reduced to zero wounds and that will makes its unit invulnerable. So your argument leads to OP Necrons.
What says that they have to be reduced again? The requirement is to be reduced to zero Wounds. They have been, correct? That was the whole point they were removed in the first place. Nothing in Reanimation Protocols says that they remain in play after they are returned, after all. That is going by the actual rules you have presented. This is the logic of the process. You are applying an emotional response to this and using hyperbole to appeal on an emotional level.
Where is the actual rule that states that a returned model at zero model can no more be Wounded or Removed From Play? You yourself have given the rule that when a model's Wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play. This has happened for the returned model. That is the logical progression of the process provided. It doesn't make any ethical sense, because it is quite stupid to do this.
I noticed that you did not comment on the the fact that the rules have a conditional for a model to be removed from play. There must be an attack that inflicts damage and reduces the model to zero wound in order for a model to be 'removed from play'. These rules are in the Resolve Attack sequence which you only have permission to use when you are resolving an attack. If you reanimate a model with zero wounds then you have made them invulnerable since no attack can reduce them to zero since they are already at zero .I am suspicious that you are not reading the rules at all. Is this true? There is no excuse for ignorance of the rules. You cannot contribute to this thread unless you have a knowledge of the rules. Instead of lamely trying to ascribe 'emotionality' to my posts, I suggest you consult the actual rules.
Either a Necron model is reanimated as a zero wound invulnerable aberration or it is reanimated per the number of wounds on its datasheet. Take your pick. That's the way the rules read in this case.
I notice that you didn't bother noticing that I was going by the rules that YOU presented, not ones not presented on this forum. Properly support your statements with quotes if you do not want them to be misinterpreted.
And no, Attacks are not the only way to remove a model's Wounds, they are just the most common.
And yes, I do not always have the rules in front of me, as they have been only properly available for review at the game store. They have not been officially released until today, making any leaks of questionable content. I have actually stated this to you. I am in the middle of setting up a move of myself and my family, so procurement of the rulebook is of secondary concern. If you are going to be angry at anyone about ignorance, then please be angry at yourself for not actually providing a proper quote to support your assertions and choosing to remain ignorant as to my actual statements.
And no, if I am going to go by RAW, the number of Wounds on the datasheet cannot be provided to the returning model without another rule providing it. This part isn't a choice, but what is. Choice is only involved with HYWPI.
orknado wrote:What does 'benefit' have to do with anything? As you note, solutions 2 and 3 have no basis in any rule so we throw those out as totally unsubstantiated. Also your number 1 solution goes against the rules. A 'zero wound' reanimated model is not removed from play automatically. Instead a 'zero wound' model that has been returned to play is invulnerable to being 'removed from play' again since no attack can reduce it to zero wounds.
Rules quote is needed for the last sentence, please.
orknado wrote:Either the Necron model is reanimated as an invulnerable zero wound aberration or it has the number of wounds on its datasheet. No rule exists that justifies giving 1 wound to a reanimated Necron model. The only way in the rules to avoid making a zero wound monstrosity is to treat 'removed from play' as removed from play (ie the model is a non-entity in the game) such that the wounds are not tracked on a 'removed from play model' that has no datasheet representation.
There is as much support for 1 Wound as for its original number of Wounds. RAW is not about choice.
orknado wrote:People play 'removed from play' models as 'non-entities in the game' already since the alternative is a completely broken game. No rule instructs them to remove a slain model from the battlefield but they do so anyway. And no rule instructs them to remove that model for consideration from wound allocation, shooting, moving, coherency checks, assaults, etc. but they do so anyway based strictly on the phrase itself 'removed from play'. So since people are treating models that are 'removed from play' as 'non game entities' when they play 40k, the 'removed from play' rule justifies the expunging of the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Tracking wounds is a component of 'play' after all.
So, no rules, but you want us to treat this non-rule as a RAW rule. Gotcha. Please note, that this is a violation of YMDC Tenet #1a and Tenet #4.
"Return to the unit" does not necessarily mean a physical relocation, but could just as easily mean a return of the model as an operable entity on the battlefield.
orknado wrote: Incorrect. I am pointing out that if you don't treat model that are 'removed from play' as non-entities when it comes to the rules of play then the game becomes absolutely busted. So we have to accept that models that are removed from play are non-entities when it comes to 'play'. Otherwise they can shoot, move, assault, cast psychic powers, and are invulnerable and make their unit invulnerable. Since players won't play busted game rules, the busted lines of argumentation are discarded. Feel free to play 'removed from play' models as still in play, but no one will play with you. No one wants to play against slain models that are not actually 'removed from play'. So we must accept that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities when it comes to the rules of play, which includes being defined by a datasheet and tracking wounds.
You have yet to present the rule that models that are 'removed from play' are non-entities to support your case. This is how you want them to be treated, but that is not a factual account and actually ignores many other possible mission rules. Using phrases like "we must accept" without actually quoting a rule indicates your being presumptive.
Historically speaking, these models are still entities when it comes certain rules, such as Kill Points and Slay the Warlord. That they are removed from interacting with the Phases of the Turn is true, they are removed from this aspect of play. Indeed, unless a Transport is Open-Topped or has Fire Points, most Embarked models are just as much entities interacting with the Phases as a slain model. The version of Reanimation Protocols we are discussing still has us consider models with this rule who have been removed from play as entities with the potential to be put back in to play, otherwise the rule means nothing.
No rule is telling you to exclude models that are 'removed from play' from interacting with the Phases of the Turn. If you are doing this you have already made a decision to not play according to the absurd RAW interpretation that 'removed from play' models stay on the battlefield and continue to participate in the regular rules of the game (e.g. the Phases of the Turn). So everyone plays 40k according to the RAI that 'removed from play' means that the models that are removed from play are non-entities in terms of game play. I bet 100% of 40k people play this way and very few are actually aware that they have no justification to treat the models as removed from game play except by the straight semantic meaning of 'removed from play'. So everyone plays by an intuitive guess as to what exactly 'removed from play' means without their being any definition in the rule book. But the fact that people have already taken the steps to play 'removed from play' according to their intuition leads to a rule justified way out of the 'zero wound' nonsense. Keep in mind that this is just accepting the way people already play.
So, you ignore everything I actually said, awesome. You are the one who are talking about a 'non-entity' status, so it is YOUR responsibility to support it. All I was telling you is that there are numerous other interactions in which a model that has been removed from play may be engaged in by the rules of the game. By labeling it as a 'non-entity' without a rulebook definition, you are stating it no longer exists for the rules of the game. This is counter to how removed from play is actually used. Aside from the ignored col_impact, you are the only one I have seen make this 'non-entity' assertion.
Again, this "zero Wound" concept is not nonsense, but a literal interpretation of the instructions so far. Your only counter to this has been assumptions without any further representation from the rules.
orknado wrote:You, yourself, Charistof apply an understanding of 'removed from play' in your game which is entirely guesswork on your part. You likely consider a 'removed from play' model as exempt from movement, shooting, assault, psychic phase, wound allocation, coherency, etc. However for some arbitrary reason with no justification at all you have decided that wound tallies remain on a model 'removed from play' even though wound tallies are entirely the domain of models that are in play. You have arbitrarily decided that some things are part of play and others not. So wound tallies on models that are 'removed from play' is entirely your opinion. I think any and all aspects of 'play' are not in effect for models that are removed from play. Unless a rule is required to be in effect (Kill Points, etc.) for models that are 'removed from play', the rule is not considered to be in effect for models that are 'removed from play'. My reasoning is overall more consistent than yours which makes an arbitrary distinction with no clear justification for doing so.
Last warning, please spell my name right, don't use it at all, or be reported as a troll. You know how to copy and paste, as demonstrated by your responses. You have been warned previously. Once can be construed as a mistake, but continued practice indicates a deliberate action.
As to your comment, yes, I do consider the Wound tallies to be in play after the model has been removed from play. I have no reason to consider otherwise. You certainly have not provided one single rule that tells me otherwise. I have not seen a single rule, ever, that indicates that a model's Wounds reset to origin once it has been removed from play in any edition or any HTWPI till now. So, to consider that the returning model's Wounds are still at zero is simply following the rules that have been provided, and to consider the returning model's Wounds are reset is HYWPI.
vipoid wrote: Is there a rule that states models deploy on the tabletop with full wounds?
A pertinent question if a proper link between deployment and reanimation protocols was presented.
I was actually referring to deployment at the start of the game. Is there any rule that states models deploy with their full wounds?
Again, what makes this relevant in a discussion regarding reanimation protocols?
If there is a link between deployment and reanimation protocols, than it is pertinent question, so what is the relevance?
orknado wrote:Models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. If they were still part of their unit then all sorts of absurd things would happen. They would have wounds allocated to them and would force the unit to stay in coherency with the model that has been 'removed from play'. A model that is 'removed from play' and no longer part of a unit has no datasheet associated with it and therewith no characteristic profile. Wounds cannot be maintained on a model with no profile.
Therefore, when a Necron model is reanimated, the model returns to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
I will need a proper quote that supports the concept that models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. This is extremely pertinent because if models that are removed from play are no longer part of their unit, then reanimation protocols cannot return the model. Reanimation Protocols activates "for each slain model in this unit". Pretty useless to have a rule that requires it to be part of the unit, but is no longer part of the unit, after all. Your logic on this is impossible to process mechanically.
I will need a proper quote that supports the concept that models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. This is extremely pertinent because if models that are removed from play are no longer part of their unit, then reanimation protocols cannot return the model. Reanimation Protocols activates "for each slain model in this unit". Pretty useless to have a rule that requires it to be part of the unit, but is no longer part of the unit, after all. Your logic on this is impossible to process mechanically.
You quoted the rule wrong!
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocals activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
You quoted the rule wrong. The Reanimation Protocol rule reads "for each slain model FROM this unit" so your entire argument is debunked. So models that are slain are no longer part of the unit. They originated as part of the unit but are no longer part of the unit. They are FROM the unit, and they RETURN to the unit when reanimation protocols activates.
The quote proves that slain models are no longer part of the unit. Slain models that are not part of the unit do not have a datasheet/profile associated with them so any wound decrements are lost when the model is 'removed from play'. ("Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit")
You also haven't addressed the problem that a reanimated 'zero wound' model will be invulnerable to further damage since attacks need to 'reduce the wounds to zero' in order to be 'removed from play' (Resolve Attack sequence, pg. 5 of Battle Primer which is available for free on GW website). This is a broken and absurd thing that happens when we follow your line of argumentation.
But that is a completely moot point. The argument has been won. The Reanimation Protocol rule proves with its wording that slain models are no longer in the unit so they don't have a profle. When a Necron model is reanimated and 'returned to play' it will be "returned to this unit" and at that point then receives a profile from the unit datasheet with the number of Wounds that it has on it.
Looks like I just completely proved my argument right and yours wrong.
After watching some games during opening day yesterday involving Necrons, I now believe they return with full wounds, because the player has to use reinforcement points if they want to bring the model back. That's a hell of a consequence, but also explains why Trazyn returns with D3 wounds in order to avoid paying for him again.
That's how the Necron player saw it. It was like summoning new Daemons. It definitely helps explain why they come back shiny and new (in the case of this argument, with full wounds). I was originally of the opinion that all Necrons got the stand back up rule, due to how it worked in previous editions, but thought full wounds seemed too powerful. If you have to pay for the model again, it certainly isn't too powerful, but I guess can still help during a battle.
I will need a proper quote that supports the concept that models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. This is extremely pertinent because if models that are removed from play are no longer part of their unit, then reanimation protocols cannot return the model. Reanimation Protocols activates "for each slain model in this unit". Pretty useless to have a rule that requires it to be part of the unit, but is no longer part of the unit, after all. Your logic on this is impossible to process mechanically.
You quoted the rule wrong!
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocals activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
You quoted the rule wrong. The Reanimation Protocol rule reads "for each slain model FROM this unit" so your entire argument is debunked. So models that are slain are no longer part of the unit. They originated as part of the unit but are no longer part of the unit. They are FROM the unit, and they RETURN to the unit when reanimation protocols activates.
The quote proves that slain models are no longer part of the unit. Slain models that are not part of the unit do not have a datasheet/profile associated with them so any wound decrements are lost when the model is 'removed from play'. ("Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit")
You also haven't addressed the problem that a reanimated 'zero wound' model will be invulnerable to further damage since attacks need to 'reduce the wounds to zero' in order to be 'removed from play' (Resolve Attack sequence, pg. 5 of Battle Primer which is available for free on GW website). This is a broken and absurd thing that happens when we follow your line of argumentation.
But that is a completely moot point. The argument has been won. The Reanimation Protocol rule proves with its wording that slain models are no longer in the unit so they don't have a profle. When a Necron model is reanimated and 'returned to play' it will be "returned to this unit" and at that point then receives a profile from the unit datasheet with the number of Wounds that it has on it.
Looks like I just completely proved my argument right and yours wrong.
I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.
You still have yet to provide a single quote from outside this rule to support a full restoration or any other declaration you have made. Even this last statement you are going on full assumptions. You still have to provide a quote that all previous actions against a model are nullified when it is 'removed from play'. Your argument may have some sway for HYWPI, but RAW presented so far is quite clear: The model returns to its unit, and no Wounds are provided for it.
In a RAW situation, I don't have to address the result of the rules, that is HYWPI, why have you not grasped this concept after so many repetitions? Please read up on YMDC Tenet#4.
I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.
The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.
You still have yet to provide a single quote from outside this rule to support a full restoration or any other declaration you have made. Even this last statement you are going on full assumptions. You still have to provide a quote that all previous actions against a model are nullified when it is 'removed from play'. Your argument may have some sway for HYWPI, but RAW presented so far is quite clear: The model returns to its unit, and no Wounds are provided for it.
In a RAW situation, I don't have to address the result of the rules, that is HYWPI, why have you not grasped this concept after so many repetitions? Please read up on YMDC Tenet#4.
I guess you missed the rule I already quoted.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
Only a model that is 'in a unit' has a datasheet and with the datasheet a profile. Models that aren't in units don't have profiles. When models are slain they are removed from being in the unit and therewith lose the profile with zero wounds on it, since slain models no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile. When the slain model is reanimated and returned to being in the unit then the model once again will have a profile as defined by the datasheet. That profile will have the amount of wounds defined by the datasheet on it. There aren't any rules for tracking wounds directly on models outside of the profile. The profile is the only place to store the value of the wound characteristic. So when the profile is dropped when the model is slain then the zero value for the wound characteristic is lost. Therefore, a reanimated Destroyer model will have 3 wounds.
The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.
I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.
The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.
Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.
But no, the "exactly what you posted" was about the situation regarding how when a model reaches zero Wounds, the model is removed from play. The quotations were not around an attack, but around the rest. Have fun with your delusions.
You still have yet to provide a single quote from outside this rule to support a full restoration or any other declaration you have made. Even this last statement you are going on full assumptions. You still have to provide a quote that all previous actions against a model are nullified when it is 'removed from play'. Your argument may have some sway for HYWPI, but RAW presented so far is quite clear: The model returns to its unit, and no Wounds are provided for it.
In a RAW situation, I don't have to address the result of the rules, that is HYWPI, why have you not grasped this concept after so many repetitions? Please read up on YMDC Tenet#4.
I guess you missed the rule I already quoted.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
Um, no, see, that still says nothing about "removed from play". I have asked several times for one thing, but you keep giving me other things. You need more than this to make this statement pertinent.
orknado wrote: Only a model that is 'in a unit' has a datasheet and with the datasheet a profile. Models that aren't in units don't have profiles. When models are slain they are removed from being in the unit and therewith lose the profile with zero wounds on it, since slain models no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile. When the slain model is reanimated and returned to being in the unit then the model once again will have a profile as defined by the datasheet. That profile will have the amount of wounds defined by the datasheet on it. There aren't any rules for tracking wounds directly on models outside of the profile. The profile is the only place to store the value of the wound characteristic. So when the profile is dropped when the model is slain then the zero value for the wound characteristic is lost. Therefore, a reanimated Destroyer model will have 3 wounds.
Quotes are needed to support this hypothesis. You have yet to provide them, and I have asked for them quite a few times now. All you have given me is how YOU play the game because you have yet to provide one single viable quote to support these considerations of "removed from play" you keep spouting.
Here's the list of what you need to support your statement as RAW, quotes from the Battle Primer will be sufficient:
Where does "removed from play" mean "removed from the unit"?
If it is "removed from the unit", how can Reanimation Protocols bring it back in? Or another way, If a slain model no longer has permission to have a datasheet or profile, how can Reanimation Protocols address it at all when that model no longer has this rule?
Where does it state "I no longer track Wounds directly on models outside of the profile"? Just because I don't have permission to track something, doesn't mean I clear its slate without instruction. I need a rule which tells me to do this, where is it?
Heck, can you provide me anything on the actual definition of "removed from play" in the general rules that specifically tells you to do anything?
Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.
The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.
Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.
It's real easy to post a link to the materials that you were referencing so we can see whether the material was the source of the misquote or you were the source of the misquote. Since the leaked materials are all scanned photos your story that the leaked materials you looked at had the misquote is quite frankly unbelievable. What I find odd is your inability to take responsibility for a simple mistake.
I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.
The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.
Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.
It's real easy to post a link to the materials that you were referencing so we can see whether the material was the source of the misquote or you were the source of the misquote. Since the leaked materials are all scanned photos your story that the leaked materials you looked at had the misquote is quite frankly unbelievable. What I find odd is your inability to take responsibility for a simple mistake.
Charistof, I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Quotes are needed to support this hypothesis. You have yet to provide them, and I have asked for them quite a few times now. All you have given me is how YOU play the game because you have yet to provide one single viable quote to support these considerations of "removed from play" you keep spouting.
Here's the list of what you need to support your statement as RAW, quotes from the Battle Primer will be sufficient:
Where does "removed from play" mean "removed from the unit"?
If it is "removed from the unit", how can Reanimation Protocols bring it back in? Or another way, If a slain model no longer has permission to have a datasheet or profile, how can Reanimation Protocols address it at all when that model no longer has this rule?
Where does it state "I no longer track Wounds directly on models outside of the profile"? Just because I don't have permission to track something, doesn't mean I clear its slate without instruction. I need a rule which tells me to do this, where is it?
Heck, can you provide me anything on the actual definition of "removed from play" in the general rules that specifically tells you to do anything?
Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
You are misguided in your understanding of the current state of affairs. I have provided rules quotations backing up everything I say. You are the one coming up short with regards to rules quotations. My argument is entirely RAW.
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
So there you have it. My argument is entirely justified by the Rules As they are Written (RAW) in the Core Rules and the Necron index. I have proven that slain models are not IN the unit and so do not have a profile or a wound characteristic.
The burden of proof is on you here, not me. My argument is solid and fully supported by the rules. You have to counter with rules support and show how a slain model that has no profile or wound characteristic is somehow retaining the 'zero wound' tally that you claim it does. You won't be able to do so since I have proven with rules support that a slain model has no profile or wound characteristic. So you will have to concede that the Necron Destroyer is reanimated with 3 wounds.
SideshowLucifer wrote: The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.
SideshowLucifer wrote: The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.
What online videos?
If the videos are officially endorsed examples of 8th edition play then they have value for the thread. If they are not officially endorsed then the videos don't matter at all to this thread as they only show the opinions of the players in the video.
doctortom wrote: You still have not provided a rules quotation that proves the model comes back at full wounds. Arguing that coming back at 0 wounds is silly does not constitute a RAW argument for a level other than 0 wounds, it merely means that you should not consider RAW if 0 wounds is the only option.
Provide a rules quotation that states you come back with the wounds on the datasheet. Otherwise, it is not RAW; it is merely HIPWA. Both you and col impact seem to have a fundamental inability to comprehend this. Neither of you have been able to provide the rules quotation that proves it comes back at full wounds. Please do so, or quit referring to the option of coming back at full wounds as RAW. As I said, people won't mind if you play it that way, just don't claim it's RAW when it isn't.
The only way that the rules will justify some 'non-zero' amount is if you consider 'removed from play' as making the model a non-entity in game terms and therewith removing the tracking of wounds.
There is no way to justify a '1 wound' reanimated Necron model with any rule at all.
So this places players in the spot as either having the Necron animated models be reanimated invulnerable monsters or be reanimated with the number of wounds on their datasheet.
No other interpretations can be justified by the rules.
Orknado's argument is RAW as long as you dismiss absurd lines of argumentation (logic is acceptable for YMDC).
vipoid wrote: Is there a rule that states models deploy on the tabletop with full wounds?
Nope. But there is no rule overriding the datasheet either.
Thank you for the final admission that there isn't a rule stating models deploy with full wounds. As has been pointed out, it is irrelevant that there isn't a rule overriding the datasheet, because in a permissive rules set you need to have a rule giving you permission to use the datasheet as is first, and as you state there isn't one. When the model was last on the board it was not at the same wound state as the datasheet, and there needs to be a rule to state at what wound level it comes back. Unlike scarabe it doesn't say it comes back as a reinforcement, which at least has the implication that it shows up with full wounds. There is nothing said about the wound level, as you agree. That means that using the wound level from the datasheet is purely an assumption on your part. It may be a reasonable assumption, but is an assumption nonetheless, and is therefore not RAW. This seems to be the part that you and Orknado have a problem with. Having told us your method is RAW then admitting that there is no rule saying the model comes back with the rule level you propose seems highly contradictory, to say the least.
orknado wrote: Not correct Charistof. If you return a model to play that has zero wounds then it needs to have its wounds reduced to zero in order to be slain again which becomes an impossibility. The 'remove from play' rule is conditional to damage being inflicted in the Resolve Attacks sequence so if you follow the instructions like a computer the conditional for 'reduced to zero' will never be met and you are putting an invulnerable Destroyer model into play that can never be reduced to zero wounds and that will makes its unit invulnerable. So your argument leads to OP Necrons.
What says that they have to be reduced again? The requirement is to be reduced to zero Wounds. They have been, correct? That was the whole point they were removed in the first place. Nothing in Reanimation Protocols says that they remain in play after they are returned, after all. That is going by the actual rules you have presented. This is the logic of the process. You are applying an emotional response to this and using hyperbole to appeal on an emotional level.
Where is the actual rule that states that a returned model at zero model can no more be Wounded or Removed From Play? You yourself have given the rule that when a model's Wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play. This has happened for the returned model. That is the logical progression of the process provided. It doesn't make any ethical sense, because it is quite stupid to do this.
I noticed that you did not comment on the the fact that the rules have a conditional for a model to be removed from play. There must be an attack that inflicts damage and reduces the model to zero wound in order for a model to be 'removed from play'. These rules are in the Resolve Attack sequence which you only have permission to use when you are resolving an attack. If you reanimate a model with zero wounds then you have made them invulnerable since no attack can reduce them to zero since they are already at zero .I am suspicious that you are not reading the rules at all. Is this true? There is no excuse for ignorance of the rules. You cannot contribute to this thread unless you have a knowledge of the rules. Instead of lamely trying to ascribe 'emotionality' to my posts, I suggest you consult the actual rules.
For someone who says "You cannot contriubte to this thread unless you have a knowledge of the rules", you seem to not have knowledge of what the actual rules say. First, what rule says they are invulnerable? It could as easily be that they are then sent back off the board because they have zero wounds. Both options are stupid, but sometimes RAW is stupid. The rules say to return the model to the board. The model last had zero wounds. There is no rule stating to change the number of wounds when he is returned to the board. You must provide the rule that says he comes back with something other than zero wounds. Granted, people won't play it as him coming back with zero wounds, but that just means that they are ignoring stupid RAW.
orknado wrote: Either a Necron model is reanimated as a zero wound invulnerable aberration or it is reanimated per the number of wounds on its datasheet. Take your pick. That's the way the rules read in this case.
Actually, he comes back with either zero wounds or with some non-zero level of wounds. You are making assumptions that his is an invulnerable abberation at zero wounds without a rule to back that up - you actually are trying to use some kind of emotional argument here, at least it is not built on any rules that you can quote. Please quote the rule that states he comes back with full wounds, as you assert. For that matter, quote a rule that states he comes back at any wound level other than the wound level he had when he left the board.
orknado wrote: You have 2 choices. Reanimate invulnerable Necrons or Necrons at the number of wounds on their datasheet. Let me know your pick.
No, I actually have several choices in play.
1) Zero Wounds: I have not been instructed to modify their Wounds to beyond 0. Since they have already been reduced to Zero Wounds, they are removed from play again. This does play havoc with the unit for the last phase of the turn, as well, causing a unit to self-destruct. This is stupid, but RAW.
2) Extreme benefit: They return with full Wounds as if they were deploying the first time. This is the best option for the player, and has the ease of not having to keep track of which are barely holding on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.
3) Minimum benefit: They return with 1 Wound. This has the best initial benefit of balance (without considering Power or Points) and the second best option for the opponent. This has historical relevance (as previous versions of RP, WBB, and Ever-Living only returned with 1 Wound), but is a pain to keep track of which ones are barely hanging on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.
Those are the options. None are perfect, and are only great depending on which side of the table you are on from the Necrons.
What does 'benefit' have to do with anything? As you note, solutions 2 and 3 have no basis in any rule so we throw those out as totally unsubstantiated. Also your number 1 solution goes against the rules. A 'zero wound' reanimated model is not removed from play automatically. Instead a 'zero wound' model that has been returned to play is invulnerable to being 'removed from play' again since no attack can reduce it to zero wounds.
At least you admit by saying solution 2 has no basis in rules. That means that coming back with full wounds is not RAW. You are technically wrong on the number one solution. Models reduced to zero wounds are removed from play, so it would be removed from play again. Or, at the very least, would go if it ever took damage again because it would be reduced, and numbers less than 0 for wounds would be treated as 0. But, as Charistoph and I have said, this is stupid RAW. This would not be what they meant.
But, as you readily admit, the one RAW option is stupid. The other options have no rules to indicate which to use, which means that you are not using RAW to bring a model back with RP with any non-zero number of wounds. We don't have a problem with people playing to bring them back with full wounds, just don't call it RAW, especially when you admit there's no rule to say he's brought back that way.
orknado wrote: Either the Necron model is reanimated as an invulnerable zero wound aberration or it has the number of wounds on its datasheet. No rule exists that justifies giving 1 wound to a reanimated Necron model. The only way in the rules to avoid making a zero wound monstrosity is to treat 'removed from play' as removed from play (ie the model is a non-entity in the game) such that the wounds are not tracked on a 'removed from play model' that has no datasheet representation.
But, you just said there's no rule indicating that the model comes back with full wounds. That means that, from a RAW standpoint, 1 wound is as valid as full wounds. If neither 1 nor full are indicated by RAW, then you're into RAI and HIWPI, and that is something you discuss with your opponent before a game until there's a FAQ that provides an actual answer. You and your opponent could as easily agree that it comes back with 1 wound as with full wounds. But, either way, you are making a house rule. You are not going by a rule in the game that you can quote.
orknado wrote: People play 'removed from play' models as 'non-entities in the game' already since the alternative is a completely broken game. No rule instructs them to remove a slain model from the battlefield but they do so anyway. And no rule instructs them to remove that model for consideration from wound allocation, shooting, moving, coherency checks, assaults, etc. but they do so anyway based strictly on the phrase itself 'removed from play'. So since people are treating models that are 'removed from play' as 'non game entities' when they play 40k, the 'removed from play' rule justifies the expunging of the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Tracking wounds is a component of 'play' after all.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
Only a model that is 'in a unit' has a datasheet and with the datasheet a profile. Models that aren't in units don't have profiles. When models are slain they are removed from being in the unit and therewith lose the profile with zero wounds on it, since slain models no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile. When the slain model is reanimated and returned to being in the unit then the model once again will have a profile as defined by the datasheet. That profile will have the amount of wounds defined by the datasheet on it. There aren't any rules for tracking wounds directly on models outside of the profile. The profile is the only place to store the value of the wound characteristic. So when the profile is dropped when the model is slain then the zero value for the wound characteristic is lost. Therefore, a reanimated Destroyer model will have 3 wounds.
Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SideshowLucifer wrote: The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.
Yes, agreed that it's FAQ worthy. The fact that the online videos are saying one wound shows that there isn't RAW support for full wounds any more than there is for one wound, and the online videos suggest that one wound has more of a chance of what they intended.
The videos are from Frontline Gaming and GW's Livestream, but as I said, I see nothing in the rules that says which way is correct either way.
Overall, a lot of the rules can be figured out by reading the rules, but there are a few that just leave too many interpretations as valid choices, which means we need an FAQ to know what the intent was, much less RAW.
I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.
The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.
Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.
It's real easy to post a link to the materials that you were referencing so we can see whether the material was the source of the misquote or you were the source of the misquote. Since the leaked materials are all scanned photos your story that the leaked materials you looked at had the misquote is quite frankly unbelievable. What I find odd is your inability to take responsibility for a simple mistake.
Charistof
And reported for trolling. You were warned.
orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.
Quotes are needed to support this hypothesis. You have yet to provide them, and I have asked for them quite a few times now. All you have given me is how YOU play the game because you have yet to provide one single viable quote to support these considerations of "removed from play" you keep spouting.
Here's the list of what you need to support your statement as RAW, quotes from the Battle Primer will be sufficient:
Where does "removed from play" mean "removed from the unit"?
If it is "removed from the unit", how can Reanimation Protocols bring it back in? Or another way, If a slain model no longer has permission to have a datasheet or profile, how can Reanimation Protocols address it at all when that model no longer has this rule?
Where does it state "I no longer track Wounds directly on models outside of the profile"? Just because I don't have permission to track something, doesn't mean I clear its slate without instruction. I need a rule which tells me to do this, where is it?
Heck, can you provide me anything on the actual definition of "removed from play" in the general rules that specifically tells you to do anything?
Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
You are misguided in your understanding of the current state of affairs. I have provided rules quotations backing up everything I say. You are the one coming up short with regards to rules quotations. My argument is entirely RAW.
You have provided one quote for "removed from play", and that was only about that it occurred when a model's Wounds went to zero. You have quoted nothing on what that means and what happens to the model from there. You have only gone on assumptions and extrapolations regarding what you THINK happens when a model is removed from play. Again, do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.
orknado wrote:2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
That will be pertinent if we can establish models that are 'removed from play' are no longer in the unit. Where is the quote on that?
orknado wrote:3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
No general rule quote provided for this one. As such, it is operating on HYWPI.
orknado wrote:4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
No, your datasheet rule quote is insufficient evidence as to what happens to a model that has been removed from play.
orknado wrote:5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
Going by this, a model cannot be removed from play, because we keep using that same Wound profile throughout the game. And you want to accuse me of generating rules to make models immortal?
orknado wrote:6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
These rules do not define what happens to a slain model. A quote regarding that is required.
orknado wrote:7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Extrapolation based on unproven theories, but no actual statement is provided that we consider the model's original profile when returning the model to the unit. That's the whole reason this thread was started. No Instruction and no permission means we have a broken mechanic.
orknado wrote:So there you have it. My argument is entirely justified by the Rules As they are Written (RAW) in the Core Rules and the Necron index. I have proven that slain models are not IN the unit and so do not have a profile or a wound characteristic.
The burden of proof is on you here, not me. My argument is solid and fully supported by the rules. You have to counter with rules support and show how a slain model that has no profile or wound characteristic is somehow retaining the 'zero wound' tally that you claim it does. You won't be able to do so since I have proven with rules support that a slain model has no profile or wound characteristic. So you will have to concede that the Necron Destroyer is reanimated with 3 wounds.
No, not really. If one tried to present that as paper for peer-review, it would be laughed out of the paper and the person presenting it would have their certification questioned.
You are trying to get us from A to Q, but excluding D-M. The portion that is missing, as I have stated numerous times now and pointed out to each of your steps above, is where you do you get your definition of what 'removed from play' actually does. Without that, you have absolutely nothing holding your case together. Everything you have stated regarding 'removed from play' you have extrapolated from other rules, which state nothing on defining the subject, and only one is a general rule.
Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.
Do you have a rules quote that states that a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit? The rule in the Core Rules is stated thusly: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit". I have no choice but to obey that rule.
orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.
Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.
orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.
The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). The rule is not worded to grant that as an exceptional status only to models from units from Reanimation Protocols. However, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that this only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.
So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Rules quotation for your assertion, please. We've asked you for the rules quotations multiple times and you have not provided it. Where does it say it no longer has a permission to have a profile as opposed to still having a profile that has is wound characteristics reduced to zero? Supposition is not RAW. It may be HIWPI, but it's not RAW. Do not confuse the two as you are doing.
Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.
Do you have a rules quote that states that a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit? The rule in the Core Rules is stated thusly: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit". I have no choice but to obey that rule.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit." The reference to models is in relation to the UNIT's datasheet, and makes no reference to a model being brought back at full wounds when it is returned to play. In fact, there is no reference to changing the number of wounds it has from when it left play. You need to provide the quotation to say that the datasheet doesn't apply then suddenly applies again, and that the wounds are mystically generated. The burden of proof is upon you - I have only taken the position that there is not a rule specifically stating that the model is returned at full wounds (Something you have previously agreed to in a statement, and something that seems to be true if you go by the videos of gameplay with Necrons).
orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.
Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.
Does it really matter? Even with you providing the rule, you have not been able to produce the key piece - any rules statement specifically stating that a model comes back into play with full wounds. Your trying to focus on this is only a distraction from you not producing any evidence of a statement to back up your claim that your position is RAW.
orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.
The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). The rule is not worded to grant that as an exceptional status only to models from units from Reanimation Protocols.
So what? "returned to the unit" is not the same as "returned to the unit with full wounds". You have yet to provide concrete evidence of the latter. A quote that every unit has a datasheet is not that proof - it does not show that when a model is returned to the table that it is returned with full wounds. This is all supposition on your part. Supposition is not a rules statement. HIPWI is not RAW. Don't confuse one with the other.
orknado wrote: However, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that this only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
How about a little rules quotation to go with that snark? If it's per the Rules as Written, QUOTE THE RULE. Don't waste everyone's time claiming it's RAW but not bothering to quote the rule when asked. You haven't provided a rules quote that directly links coming back to coming back with full wounds.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.
You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.
doctortom wrote: Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.
Do you have a rules quote that states that a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit? The rule in the Core Rules is stated thusly: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit". I have no choice but to obey that rule.
This is getting to be a "well it doesn't say I can't" level of argument here. Where do you have permission to separate the slain model from the unit? When a model has been slain, it already has been associated with that datasheet, where does it specifically state this separation occurs?
orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.
Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.
Again, that is your choice to believe it. It is not the case, as I did close the window I referenced, slept and had a life between responses. Depending on which statements you're talking about, I may have even been on a different computer since I was at in-laws and used my wife's computer for a couple responses this past weekend.
I did not state that the leak wasn't a scanned photo, that is pure assumption on your part, and that seems to be how you approach things in life. Also, I have col_impact on ignore for several reasons, but the chief of which is because I wanted to stop being put on probation for calling him a liar, which he asked me to as much as you asked me to accuse you of trolling. It seems you just don't want to address my points that you have avoided since I started questioning where you got them from, and so go on the ad hominem.
You have not once provided once line of rules that actually stated what you believe regarding slain models and remove from play. You have tried to use back door logic to prove, it but that does not properly qualify for RAW. It's fine for HYWPI, and both DoctorTom and I have stated we would even be willing to play against an opponent who wanted to try the returning models at full Wounds, but we do not agree with the path you have taken to get there, nor can accept that this is how Reanimation Protocols is actually written.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Rules quotation for your assertion, please. We've asked you for the rules quotations multiple times and you have not provided it. Where does it say it no longer has a permission to have a profile as opposed to still having a profile that has is wound characteristics reduced to zero? Supposition is not RAW. It may be HIWPI, but it's not RAW. Do not confuse the two as you are doing.
I have quoted the rules several times.
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."
2) Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile.
Therefore when a model is slain, it loses its profile. The profile is the only place where the value of the Wound characteristic is maintained. Therefore when a model is slain it loses the value of the Wound characteristic.
My argument is proven 100% by the Rules As Written.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
It is FROM the unit, but you have nothing stating the datasheet no longer applies to it (albeit it having 0 wounds instead of what is stated). Please provide the rules quotation to back up your assertion here that it no longer has permission to have a profile. From what I see, that is an assumption on your part, and a more vaild assumption is that the profile still applies to the model except for having 0 wounds. If you can't provide a rules quotation to prove your assertion, then you have no rules at al backing up your statement. And, let us remember that you agreed there is no rule stating that the model comes back at full wounds. You are acting like there is, however. You don't get to have it both ways. Provide the rules statement that says it comes back with full wounds or admit that the one thing that you need to prove the RAW for your position does not exist.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.
You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.
I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.
I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
It is FROM the unit, but you have nothing stating the datasheet no longer applies to it (albeit it having 0 wounds instead of what is stated). Please provide the rules quotation to back up your assertion here that it no longer has permission to have a profile. From what I see, that is an assumption on your part, and a more vaild assumption is that the profile still applies to the model except for having 0 wounds. If you can't provide a rules quotation to prove your assertion, then you have no rules at al backing up your statement. And, let us remember that you agreed there is no rule stating that the model comes back at full wounds. You are acting like there is, however. You don't get to have it both ways. Provide the rules statement that says it comes back with full wounds or admit that the one thing that you need to prove the RAW for your position does not exist.
Only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." I have no choice but to drop the profile (and with that the value for the Wound characteristic) for a model once it is slain and no longer IN that unit. You have no rules support to counter my rules support. My argument is 100% supported by the Rules As Written.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Rules quotation for your assertion, please. We've asked you for the rules quotations multiple times and you have not provided it. Where does it say it no longer has a permission to have a profile as opposed to still having a profile that has is wound characteristics reduced to zero? Supposition is not RAW. It may be HIWPI, but it's not RAW. Do not confuse the two as you are doing.
I have quoted the rules several times.
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."
2) Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile.
Therefore when a model is slain, it loses its profile. The profile is the only place where the value of the Wound characteristic is maintained. Therefore when a model is slain it loses the value of the Wound characteristic.
My argument is proven 100% by the Rules As Written.
Does Reanimatiion Protocols STATE that it comes back with full wounds? No.
The model WAS in a unit, and had a profile provided by the datasheet. Do you have a rule stating that when the model is slain or destroyed the profile no longer applies? No. Can a model that has a profile in a game lose that profile?This is an assumption on your part. This is not a rules statement you are basing things on. With this supposition, this is not RAW.
As a bonus, since you want to make sure we play by RAW, a point brought up earlier in the thread by another:
If you want to get technical, what happens when a model reaches 0 wounds? From the Inflict Damage entry. "If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." Reanimation Protocols states you get to roll for each model that has been slain. It does not state that you get to roll for models that are destroyed. So, does that mean if the Necron's opponent specifies that all the models reduced to 0 wounds are destroyed, that the Necron player does not get to use Reanimation Protocols? By Silly RAW, yes. So, there are several things with Reanimation Protocols that make the power not work right if trying to play it by straight RAW. Playing it HIWPI will let you use the power. It does not make HIPWI into RAW, however, as you are trying to contort your assumptions into.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.
You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.
I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.
I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."
No, you have not. Provide the rules quotation saying a model that had a profile no longer gets to have that profile if removed. The datasheet applied at the beginning, you have to provide a rules quotation that shows it no longer applies. You haven't.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
orknado wrote: Only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." I have no choice but to drop the profile (and with that the value for the Wound characteristic) for a model once it is slain and no longer IN that unit. /quote]
Proof, please, by rules quotation, one that specifically points out that a model that had a profile at the start of the game does not still have that profile (as modified by game factors such as taking wounds, etc) until the end of the game.
orknado wrote: You have no rules support to counter my rules support. My argument is 100% supported by the Rules As Written.
You haven't provided a proper rule to back up your assumptions, as I outlined, so you have not proven that your claims are supported by RAW, col impact.
Does Reanimatiion Protocols STATE that it comes back with full wounds? No.
I have never made the claim that Reanimation Protocols actually literally states that it comes back with full wounds. Full wounds is merely a consequence of following the Rules As Written exactly, as I have already laid out.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
doctortom wrote: The model WAS in a unit, and had a profile provided by the datasheet. Do you have a rule stating that when the model is slain or destroyed the profile no longer applies? No. Can a model that has a profile in a game lose that profile?This is an assumption on your part. This is not a rules statement you are basing things on. With this supposition, this is not RAW.
I have shown several times the rule that states quite clearly that only models that are IN units have datasheets associated with them. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." If you don't respect this rule then you are in violation of the Rules As Written.
doctortom wrote: As a bonus, since you want to make sure we play by RAW, a point brought up earlier in the thread by another:
If you want to get technical, what happens when a model reaches 0 wounds? From the Inflict Damage entry. "If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." Reanimation Protocols states you get to roll for each model that has been slain. It does not state that you get to roll for models that are destroyed. So, does that mean if the Necron's opponent specifies that all the models reduced to 0 wounds are destroyed, that the Necron player does not get to use Reanimation Protocols? By Silly RAW, yes. So, there are several things with Reanimation Protocols that make the power not work right if trying to play it by straight RAW. Playing it HIWPI will let you use the power. It does not make HIPWI into RAW, however, as you are trying to contort your assumptions into.
There is no rule that enables the opponent to choose destroyed over slain or for any choice to be made between one or the other. So a model that is reduced to zero wounds is simultaneously one or the other state, like Shroedinger's cat.
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.
You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.
I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.
I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."
No, you have not. Provide the rules quotation saying a model that had a profile no longer gets to have that profile if removed. The datasheet applied at the beginning, you have to provide a rules quotation that shows it no longer applies. You haven't.
I have provided the rules quotation repeatedly. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." Only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. Once a model is no longer IN the unit, it loses the datasheet and any profile associated with that datasheet.
orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.
The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). The rule is not worded to grant that as an exceptional status only to models from units from Reanimation Protocols. However, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that this only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
No actual concession has been made, you are assuming again.
It also seems you have missed the point of the statement. "Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit?" It should not be a difficult question to answer if you have actual rules to support it. Where is the rule?
Reanimation Protocols do not define what we do when models are slain or removed from play. It defines what we do AFTER the models have been slain or removed from play. You are missing the middle step here.
orknado wrote: I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.
No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit.
orknado wrote: So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
No, that just demonstrates you were not paying attention to what I wrote. Here it is reworded:
"Reanimation Protocols does not get to define what happens to all slain models, as not every model HAS Reanimation Protocols. This needs to be defined as part of a general rule."
No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.
The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.
Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.
You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.
I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.
I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."
You seem as hard of hearing as an ignored col we know. Let me repeat:
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit. Reanimation Protocols does not state the model is in the unit, true, but we have to demonstrate it is OUT of the unit, first.
This goes back to the concept of resetting Wounds. These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.
If you can provide any actual written instructions for what we are supposed to do between #2 and #3, then you will be providing RAW. Anything else is pure assumption and HYWPI. Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
orknado wrote: I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.
No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit any more.
If slain models are IN the unit then you must maintain coherency with them and allocate wounds to them and allow them to move, shoot, etc. Do you choose to play this way? Unless you actually play that way, then you have decided at the outset of the game that slain models are not IN the unit.
Also, the Reanimation Protocols rule makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM units (and will be returned to the unit when RP is activated) and therefore that slain models are not IN units. If you play that slain models are IN units, not only are you playing a completely broken game, you are also violating the Reanimation Protocol rule which is in effect.
orknado wrote: So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
No, that just demonstrates you were not paying attention to what I wrote. Here it is reworded:
"Reanimation Protocols does not get to define what happens to all slain models, as not every model HAS Reanimation Protocols. This needs to be defined as part of a general rule."
Can you understand that statement?
The thread is talking about models that DO have Reanimation Protocols. So even if we accept your absurd stipulating that only models with Reanimation Protocols are not IN units when they are slain then you have conceded the argument that Destroyers are reanimated with 3 wounds. Can you understand that statement?
orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.
Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.
Again, that is your choice to believe it. It is not the case, as I did close the window I referenced, slept and had a life between responses. Depending on which statements you're talking about, I may have even been on a different computer since I was at in-laws and used my wife's computer for a couple responses this past weekend.
I did not state that the leak wasn't a scanned photo, that is pure assumption on your part, and that seems to be how you approach things in life. Also, I have col_impact on ignore for several reasons, but the chief of which is because I wanted to stop being put on probation for calling him a liar, which he asked me to as much as you asked me to accuse you of trolling. It seems you just don't want to address my points that you have avoided since I started questioning where you got them from, and so go on the ad hominem.
All of the leaks were scanned photos and so could not have misquoted the rule. You made the claim that the leaks were the source of the misquote rather than a personal mistake on your part, which is an entirely unbelievable claim. You seem to have a fluid relationship with the truth. Since we are defined in YMDC by the principles we uphold then it's important to take note of a slip-up in a poster's principles. I am merely taking note that your story is unbelievable and you have the capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
You seem as hard of hearing as an ignored col we know. Let me repeat:
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit. Reanimation Protocols does not state the model is in the unit, true, but we have to demonstrate it is OUT of the unit, first.
This goes back to the concept of resetting Wounds. These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.
If you can provide any actual written instructions for what we are supposed to do between #2 and #3, then you will be providing RAW. Anything else is pure assumption and HYWPI. Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
I have already proved my argument. It follows directly from the Rules As Written.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
orknado wrote: I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.
No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit any more.
If slain models are IN the unit then you must maintain coherency with them and allocate wounds to them and allow them to move, shoot, etc.
Why? Where is the rule or instruction that states this? Since you are stating something other than a rule, I am attributing this to assumption.
orknado wrote: Also, the Reanimation Protocols rule makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM units (and will be returned to the unit when RP is activated) and therefore that slain models are not IN units. If you play that slain models are IN units, not only are you playing a completely broken game, you are also violating the Reanimation Protocol rule which is in effect.
Going by implication and assumptions here as you are not providing any actual quoted statement that says models removed from play are 'out of the unit' in the first place. You are assuming that slain models are out of the unit.
Remember, my brother in Texas is not out of my family, nor is my brother who has been dead these 40 years.
orknado wrote: So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.
No, that just demonstrates you were not paying attention to what I wrote. Here it is reworded:
"Reanimation Protocols does not get to define what happens to all slain models, as not every model HAS Reanimation Protocols. This needs to be defined as part of a general rule."
Can you understand that statement?
The thread is talking about models that DO have Reanimation Protocols. So even if we accept your absurd stipulating that only models with Reanimation Protocols are not IN units when they are slain then you have conceded the argument that Destroyers are reanimated with 3 wounds. Can you understand that statement?
Oh, I understand what's going on. You are trying to use your assumptions on how the game works to make an ethical and emotional case for why the models should be returned with full Wounds. You have yet to answer the questions we have asked in regards to where are the actual rules which define what happens to models which have been slain and removed from play. You have said this is how it goes but have yet to provide one single piece of written evidence that doesn't relying on assumptions on how you think the game works for them to be accurate.
Reanimation Protocols does not define what happens to models between the time they have been removed from play and when they are returned, nor is it the only rule which does a similar thing. Since it literally states nothing on this subject, and other rules will be doing the same thing, it must be defined elsewhere. Where is this elsewhere?
orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.
Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.
Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.
Again, that is your choice to believe it. It is not the case, as I did close the window I referenced, slept and had a life between responses. Depending on which statements you're talking about, I may have even been on a different computer since I was at in-laws and used my wife's computer for a couple responses this past weekend.
I did not state that the leak wasn't a scanned photo, that is pure assumption on your part, and that seems to be how you approach things in life. Also, I have col_impact on ignore for several reasons, but the chief of which is because I wanted to stop being put on probation for calling him a liar, which he asked me to as much as you asked me to accuse you of trolling. It seems you just don't want to address my points that you have avoided since I started questioning where you got them from, and so go on the ad hominem.
All of the leaks were scanned photos and so could not have misquoted the rule. You made the claim that the leaks were the source of the misquote rather than a personal mistake on your part, which is an entirely unbelievable claim. You seem to have a fluid relationship with the truth. Since we are defined in YMDC by the principles we uphold then it's important to take note of a slip-up in a poster's principles. I am merely taking note that your story is unbelievable and you have the capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
You have accused me of deliberately misquoting. I quoted what I read. If that doesn't match what you read, then either what you are quoting or what I am quoting was wrong. I said I'm not sure I could find the exact picture again. Live with it. There is no reason to try and make this more than what it is, especially when you have such a large glaring hole in your own case.
You seem as hard of hearing as an ignored col we know. Let me repeat:
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit. Reanimation Protocols does not state the model is in the unit, true, but we have to demonstrate it is OUT of the unit, first.
This goes back to the concept of resetting Wounds. These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.
If you can provide any actual written instructions for what we are supposed to do between #2 and #3, then you will be providing RAW. Anything else is pure assumption and HYWPI. Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
I have already proved my argument. It follows directly from the Rules As Written.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
This is step #3, any quote needed will require being before we call Reanimation Protocols in to play because it does not state anything on this matter. Can you properly respond to the request?
orknado wrote: 1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit?
Where does Reanimated Protocols state "not in the unit"? Where does any rule between Step #2 and Step #3 say that a model that is removed from play is "not in the unit"? The funny part is that this has been asked several times and you keep ignoring the question.
orknado wrote: Exactly which statement do you take issue with?
The same ones which you repeatedly refuse to properly support. I gave my answers last time and you did not answer my questions. Can you answer the questions above with a proper rules quote?
orknado wrote: I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.
No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit any more.
If slain models are IN the unit then you must maintain coherency with them and allocate wounds to them and allow them to move, shoot, etc.
Why? Where is the rule or instruction that states this? Since you are stating something other than a rule, I am attributing this to assumption.
Here are a few of the rules you must follow if you consider slain models to be IN the unit.
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
As you can see, if you treat slain models as IN the unit then the game play breaks. Unless you are playing the game this way, you are in tacit acceptance that slain models are not IN the unit. Before we proceed any further, can you clarify whether you play the game this way or not?
orknado wrote: Also, the Reanimation Protocols rule makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM units (and will be returned to the unit when RP is activated) and therefore that slain models are not IN units. If you play that slain models are IN units, not only are you playing a completely broken game, you are also violating the Reanimation Protocol rule which is in effect.
Going by implication and assumptions here as you are not providing any actual quoted statement that says models removed from play are 'out of the unit' in the first place. You are assuming that slain models are out of the unit.
Remember, my brother in Texas is not out of my family, nor is my brother who has been dead these 40 years.
I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
You have accused me of deliberately misquoting. I quoted what I read. If that doesn't match what you read, then either what you are quoting or what I am quoting was wrong. I said I'm not sure I could find the exact picture again. Live with it. There is no reason to try and make this more than what it is, especially when you have such a large glaring hole in your own case.
You keep burying yourself with more unbelievable statements. Scanned photos of the leaked rules can not possibly show a misquote since they are photos of the rules. I am taking note that you have the capacity to make unbelievable statements and an inability to accept responsibility for minor memory errors. Scanned photos of the rules cannot be the source of the misquote. You were the source of the misquote. Live with it.
orknado wrote: 1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit?
Where does Reanimated Protocols state "not in the unit"? Where does any rule between Step #2 and Step #3 say that a model that is removed from play is "not in the unit"? The funny part is that this has been asked several times and you keep ignoring the question.
The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
orknado wrote: Exactly which statement do you take issue with?
The same ones which you repeatedly refuse to properly support. I gave my answers last time and you did not answer my questions. Can you answer the questions above with a proper rules quote?
I asked you to present any issues with my argument. I don't see any issues listed in this post and I am not sure what you mean by 'questions above'.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
If you have issues then post with a listing of them. Otherwise I take it that you accept my argument and we are in agreement that a Destroyer reanimates with 3 wounds.
orknado wrote: If slain models are IN the unit then you must maintain coherency with them and allocate wounds to them and allow them to move, shoot, etc.
Why? Where is the rule or instruction that states this? Since you are stating something other than a rule, I am attributing this to assumption.
Here are a few of the rules you must follow if you consider slain models to be IN the unit.
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
I see nothing of this being "in the unit". This is about how to be "in unit coherency" which requires "within" a distance. Not the same thing. I also do not seen any instructions for being "out of the unit".
orknado wrote: "Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
Ah good, but where does it state that models removed from play are not in the unit?
orknado wrote: "Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
Umm, nothing here about defining this being 'in the unit".
orknado wrote: "In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
Okay, that's what models in the unit can do, but that doesn't define what is in the unit, much what how a model gets out of the unit.
orknado wrote: "After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
Okay, that's what models in the unit can do, but that doesn't define what is in the unit, much what how a model gets out of the unit.
orknado wrote: "If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Okay, that's what models in the unit can do, but that doesn't define what is in the unit, much what how a model gets out of the unit.
orknado wrote: As you can see, if you treat slain models as IN the unit then the game play breaks. Unless you are playing the game this way, you are in tacit acceptance that slain models are not IN the unit. Before we proceed any further, can you clarify whether you play the game this way or not?
Okay, you seem to be under some very very serious delusions here and that demonstrates why you do not understand anything that DoctorTom and I have been saying.
RAW and HYWPI are not the same thing. In order for something to be RAW, there must be rules that are written and directly quoted. What you have directly quoted requires supposition in order for it to be relevant to the discussion at hand. That is not RAW.
I do not have to play something a certain way to declare it RAW. In fact, neither DoctorTom nor I have ever stated that we would play this by the RAW we have stated. We have repeatedly stated the exact opposite on several occasions.
There is nothing in the Battle Primer regarding 'removed from play' which presents the exact scenario in which you have described. There is nothing in the Battle Primer which instructs us to separate a model from the unit when we remove it from play.
How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.
orknado wrote: I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
That's not the problem and you have been ignoring the point of the statements. What tells you to make the model "out of the unit" in the first place?
A model can indeed be returned to a unit it is still in. My brother is still in my family, even while he is in Texas. He returned to this last week for Father's Day. He left again today to go back to Texas. He will be returning to his home. A unit is an organizational entity, not a box like a house. If a gang member leaves a gang, he may be attacked, but if a gang member is in prison, he is not out of the gang.
Context provides the definitions we are looking at, and I am looking for the instructions which tell me the model is "out of the unit" in order for anything else you have said to make any sense.
orknado wrote: You keep burying yourself with more unbelievable statements. Scanned photos of the leaked rules can not possibly show a misquote since they are photos of the rules. I am taking note that you have the capacity to make unbelievable statements and an inability to accept responsibility for minor memory errors. Scanned photos of the rules cannot be the source of the misquote. You were the source of the misquote.
Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.
So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.
orknado wrote: The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Reanimation Protocols also doesn't say the model is not in the unit, either. You are using a, "but it doesn't say I can't" excuse on this one. And you still need to provide where it actually started being "out of the unit" for this to happen in the first place.
A slain model which has been removed from play can be returned to play. A gang member in prison can be returned to the gang, while never having been out of the gang.
orknado wrote: Exactly which statement do you take issue with?
The same ones which you repeatedly refuse to properly support. I gave my answers last time and you did not answer my questions. Can you answer the questions above with a proper rules quote?
I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.
Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.
How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.
Unless the slain models are treated as not IN the unit then all of those rules I listed are directing you specifically to do otherwise. You are logically compelled to treat slain models as not IN the unit since slain models IN the unit are being specifically adressed (as models in the unit) and empowered to do things that would break the game. Unless you can provide a definition of 'removed from play' you have no choice in this matter, unless you intend to play a broken game.
At any rate, you have tacitly accepted that slain models are not IN units.
orknado wrote: I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
That's not the problem and you have been ignoring the point of the statements. What tells you to make the model "out of the unit" in the first place?
A model can indeed be returned to a unit it is still in. My brother is still in my family, even while he is in Texas. He returned to this last week for Father's Day. He left again today to go back to Texas. He will be returning to his home. A unit is an organizational entity, not a box like a house. If a gang member leaves a gang, he may be attacked, but if a gang member is in prison, he is not out of the gang.
Nope. A slain model that is still IN the unit cannot be RETURNED to the unit.
Your real world examples are in violation of the Tenets of YMDC. Try again.
How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.
Unless the slain models are treated as not IN the unit then all of those rules I listed are directing you specifically to do otherwise. You are logically compelled to treat slain models as not IN the unit since slain models IN the unit are being specifically adressed (as models in the unit) and empowered to do things that would break the game. Unless you can provide a definition of 'removed from play' you have no choice in this matter, unless you intend to play a broken game.
You seemed to have ignored the context of 'in' when used in context with an organization. Physical position means nothing in regards to it. Being in a 'penalty box' means nothing to it. The models are IN the unit, even when not in coherency or in play. Without any instructions to do so, I cannot get the model OUT of the unit.
Is a hockey player that is in the penalty box out of the team? Is a Football player that has been ejected automatically out of the team?
By your statements you think that this is the case.
orknado wrote: At any rate, you have tacitly accepted that slain models are not IN units.
No, I have not. You are misstating what I have said, a second time. Continue to do this, and you will be called a liar and reported.
orknado wrote: I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
That's not the problem and you have been ignoring the point of the statements. What tells you to make the model "out of the unit" in the first place?
A model can indeed be returned to a unit it is still in. My brother is still in my family, even while he is in Texas. He returned to this last week for Father's Day. He left again today to go back to Texas. He will be returning to his home. A unit is an organizational entity, not a box like a house. If a gang member leaves a gang, he may be attacked, but if a gang member is in prison, he is not out of the gang.
Nope. A slain model that is still IN the unit cannot be RETURNED to the unit.
Prove it with words from the Index or the Battle Primer and outside of the Reanimation Protocols. Reanimation Protocols does not state it does not affect slain models in the unit, after all.
orknado wrote: Your real world examples are in violation of the Tenets of YMDC. Try again.
They were used to provide context to the use of the word. Do you know how "in" means something different between an organization and an object?
It has been more than you have done by repeating the same thing over and over again while simultaneously ignoring the questions.
Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.
So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.
Digging yourself deeper into your hole of unbelievable statements. So now your claim is that you were fell victim to some gag edition that someone made up. Sorry, but a Google search confirms no such gag edition exists. I guess your capacity for trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true knows no end.
How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.
Unless the slain models are treated as not IN the unit then all of those rules I listed are directing you specifically to do otherwise. You are logically compelled to treat slain models as not IN the unit since slain models IN the unit are being specifically adressed (as models in the unit) and empowered to do things that would break the game. Unless you can provide a definition of 'removed from play' you have no choice in this matter, unless you intend to play a broken game.
You seemed to have ignored the context of 'in' when used in context with an organization. Physical position means nothing in regards to it. Being in a 'penalty box' means nothing to it. The models are IN the unit, even when not in coherency or in play. Without any instructions to do so, I cannot get the model OUT of the unit.
Is a hockey player that is in the penalty box out of the team? Is a Football player that has been ejected automatically out of the team?
By your statements you think that this is the case.
orknado wrote: At any rate, you have tacitly accepted that slain models are not IN units.
No, I have not. You are misstating what I have said, a second time. Continue to do this, and you will be called a liar and reported.
I have not. If slain models are IN the unit then you must adhere to these rules.
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
As you can see, if you treat slain models as IN the unit then the game breaks.
I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.
Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.
I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?
Prove it with words from the Index or the Battle Primer and outside of the Reanimation Protocols. Reanimation Protocols does not state it does not affect slain models in the unit, after all.
I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.
So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.
Digging yourself deeper into your hole of unbelievable statements. So now your claim is that you were fell victim to some gag edition that someone made up.
Or you did.
orknado wrote: Sorry, but a Google search confirms no such gag edition exists. I guess your capacity for trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true knows no end.
Really? You may want to actually do some proper research. It's amazing what one can find.
Yeah, you have ignored the context I was using it in, and which I believe the games uses it in.
Howabout this one?
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.
Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?
I am still waiting on where it actually says that a model that has been removed from play is out of the unit.
Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.
So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.
Digging yourself deeper into your hole of unbelievable statements. So now your claim is that you were fell victim to some gag edition that someone made up.
Or you did.
orknado wrote: Sorry, but a Google search confirms no such gag edition exists. I guess your capacity for trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true knows no end.
Really? You may want to actually do some proper research. It's amazing what one can find.
Sorry I meant that a Google search confirms that no such "gag edition" exists for 8th edition. I was not doubting that a "pancake edition" exists.
Now that we have confirmed that you know how to use Google then you should have no problem finding the 8th edition gag ruleset that misled you into misquoting the rules. I tried and was unable to find such a gag edition for 8th edition. Therefore, your story is unbelievable and we have confirmed that you have the capacity to continually try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.
Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?
Can you re-phrase your questions? You aren't making any sense here.
I am still waiting on where it actually says that a model that has been removed from play is out of the unit.
The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Further I am logically compelled by the fact that I will be playing a non-broken game with other players that slain models are not IN the unit. There really is no way to treat slain models as IN the unit without breaking the game.
All of these rules break.
Spoiler:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.
Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.
I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.
Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?
You mean like here or here? Should I quote the pertinent parts for you?
When you haven't answered the questions that come up, you expect me to agree that your HYWPI is RAW? Why?
orknado wrote: I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Actually, you haven't. You've made assumptions based on your reading of the Reanimation Protocols which requires actions which Reanimation Protocols does not state that you do. Since RP doesn't actually tell you to do things before you return the model, a rule that puts them in position for RP to do it is required.
Remember the Steps 1-3? It should be 4.
These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) ...
4) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.
#3 is actually whatever "removed from play" does. No instructions are present as far as I can find. You say there is something that happens here, but you have yet to provide any actual written words of these rules and instructions.
I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.
Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.
I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.
Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?
You mean like here or here? Should I quote the pertinent parts for you?
Yup. Quote the pertinent parts. I am not a mind-reader.
orknado wrote: I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Actually, you haven't. You've made assumptions based on your reading of the Reanimation Protocols which requires actions which Reanimation Protocols does not state that you do. Since RP doesn't actually tell you to do things before you return the model, a rule that puts them in position for RP to do it is required.
Remember the Steps 1-3? It should be 4.
These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) ...
4) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.
#3 is actually whatever "removed from play" does. No instructions are present as far as I can find. You say there is something that happens here, but you have yet to provide any actual written words of these rules and instructions.
I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule as you can see in the enclosed quote. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
You have failed to show how slain models can be IN a unit without breaking the game. All of these rules break if slain models are still IN the unit.
Spoiler:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
orknado wrote: Sorry I meant that a Google search confirms that no such "gag edition" exists for 8th edition. I was not doubting that a "pancake edition" exists.
Now that we have confirmed that you know how to use Google then you should have no problem finding the 8th edition gag ruleset that misled you into misquoting the rules. I tried and was unable to find such a gag edition for 8th edition. Therefore, your story is unbelievable and we have confirmed that you have the capacity to continually try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
It acutally demonstrates you have more trust in Google than is warranted. Just because it hasn't been reported sufficiently on the first page, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.
Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?
Can you re-phrase your questions? You aren't making any sense here.
I am still waiting on where it actually says that a model that has been removed from play is out of the unit.
The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.
orknado wrote: Further I am logically compelled by the fact that I will be playing a non-broken game with other players that slain models are not IN the unit. There really is no way to treat slain models as IN the unit without breaking the game.
All of these rules break.
Have you bothered to even notice that neither DoctorTom nor I have said that models returning with 0 Wounds is a working mechanic? If you can, please link and quote it. Your "logically compelled" statement indicates more that you are approaching this not from a RAW pov, but from an ethical or emotional pov. We have both repeatedly stated the equivalent of RAW doesn't always means "works".
Do you understand this concept between RAW and HYWPI?
orknado wrote: Sorry I meant that a Google search confirms that no such "gag edition" exists for 8th edition. I was not doubting that a "pancake edition" exists.
Now that we have confirmed that you know how to use Google then you should have no problem finding the 8th edition gag ruleset that misled you into misquoting the rules. I tried and was unable to find such a gag edition for 8th edition. Therefore, your story is unbelievable and we have confirmed that you have the capacity to continually try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
It acutally demonstrates you have more trust in Google than is warranted. Just because it hasn't been reported sufficiently on the first page, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Still digging yourself in deeper into unbelievable tale weaving. Your story is unbelievable. You found this 8th gag edition but now cannot find it?? Unbelievable. And your capacity to try to pass off unbelievable claims as true knows no bounds that I see. Is your last name Trump by any chance?
Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.
Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?
Can you re-phrase your questions? You aren't making any sense here.
The contextual use of 'in'.
Sorry. Maybe I should have clarified that your questions are grammatically unsound and read as gibberish. Fix their grammar problems please so that I can understand them.
I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.
Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.
I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.
Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?
You mean like here or here? Should I quote the pertinent parts for you?
Yup. Quote the pertinent parts. I am not a mind-reader.
You don't have to be a mind-reader, you just have to read it and look for where you were quoted. It really isn't that hard.
orknado wrote:You are misguided in your understanding of the current state of affairs. I have provided rules quotations backing up everything I say. You are the one coming up short with regards to rules quotations. My argument is entirely RAW.
You have provided one quote for "removed from play", and that was only about that it occurred when a model's Wounds went to zero. You have quoted nothing on what that means and what happens to the model from there. You have only gone on assumptions and extrapolations regarding what you THINK happens when a model is removed from play. Again, do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.
orknado wrote:2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
That will be pertinent if we can establish models that are 'removed from play' are no longer in the unit. Where is the quote on that?
orknado wrote:3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
No general rule quote provided for this one. As such, it is operating on HYWPI.
orknado wrote:4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
No, your datasheet rule quote is insufficient evidence as to what happens to a model that has been removed from play.
orknado wrote:5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
Going by this, a model cannot be removed from play, because we keep using that same Wound profile throughout the game. And you want to accuse me of generating rules to make models immortal?
orknado wrote:6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
These rules do not define what happens to a slain model. A quote regarding that is required.
orknado wrote:7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Extrapolation based on unproven theories, but no actual statement is provided that we consider the model's original profile when returning the model to the unit. That's the whole reason this thread was started. No Instruction and no permission means we have a broken mechanic.
orknado wrote:So there you have it. My argument is entirely justified by the Rules As they are Written (RAW) in the Core Rules and the Necron index. I have proven that slain models are not IN the unit and so do not have a profile or a wound characteristic.
The burden of proof is on you here, not me. My argument is solid and fully supported by the rules. You have to counter with rules support and show how a slain model that has no profile or wound characteristic is somehow retaining the 'zero wound' tally that you claim it does. You won't be able to do so since I have proven with rules support that a slain model has no profile or wound characteristic. So you will have to concede that the Necron Destroyer is reanimated with 3 wounds.
No, not really. If one tried to present that as paper for peer-review, it would be laughed out of the paper and the person presenting it would have their certification questioned.
You are trying to get us from A to Q, but excluding D-M. The portion that is missing, as I have stated numerous times now and pointed out to each of your steps above, is where you do you get your definition of what 'removed from play' actually does. Without that, you have absolutely nothing holding your case together. Everything you have stated regarding 'removed from play' you have extrapolated from other rules, which state nothing on defining the subject, and only one is a general rule.
Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?
orknado wrote: 1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit?
Where does Reanimated Protocols state "not in the unit"? Where does any rule between Step #2 and Step #3 say that a model that is
orknado wrote: I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Actually, you haven't. You've made assumptions based on your reading of the Reanimation Protocols which requires actions which Reanimation Protocols does not state that you do. Since RP doesn't actually tell you to do things before you return the model, a rule that puts them in position for RP to do it is required.
Remember the Steps 1-3? It should be 4.
These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) ...
4) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.
#3 is actually whatever "removed from play" does. No instructions are present as far as I can find. You say there is something that happens here, but you have yet to provide any actual written words of these rules and instructions.
I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule as you can see in the enclosed quote. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
Not the point, which means you are not listening. RP does nothing to prove models are not in the unit because it doesn't say slain models are not in the unit. There are many ways to return without being out, after all.
orknado wrote: You have failed to show how slain models can be IN a unit without breaking the game. All of these rules break if slain models are still IN the unit.
RAW does not care if a rule is broken, HYWPI does. Do you understand the difference?
The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.
The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.
orknado wrote: Still digging yourself in deeper into unbelievable tale weaving. Your story is unbelievable. You found this 8th gag edition but now cannot find it?? Unbelievable. And your capacity to try to pass off unbelievable claims as true knows no bounds that I see. Is your last name Trump by any chance?
Not my fault you are too trusting of what is out there, but not willing to believe what other people say here.
I'm not the one who is trying to palm of nothing as something, after all. I'm trying to say that hole is a hole, while you are saying its full of snake oil.
orknado wrote: Sorry. Maybe I should have clarified that your questions are grammatically unsound and read as gibberish. Fix their grammar problems please so that I can understand them.
Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?
The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.
The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.
Have you bothered to even notice that neither DoctorTom nor I have said that models returning with 0 Wounds is a working mechanic? If you can, please link and quote it. Your "logically compelled" statement indicates more that you are approaching this not from a RAW pov, but from an ethical or emotional pov. We have both repeatedly stated the equivalent of RAW doesn't always means "works".
Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.
orknado wrote: Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.
You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.
orknado wrote: Still digging yourself in deeper into unbelievable tale weaving. Your story is unbelievable. You found this 8th gag edition but now cannot find it?? Unbelievable. And your capacity to try to pass off unbelievable claims as true knows no bounds that I see. Is your last name Trump by any chance?
Not my fault you are too trusting of what is out there, but not willing to believe what other people say here.
I'm not the one who is trying to palm of nothing as something, after all. I'm trying to say that hole is a hole, while you are saying its full of snake oil.
You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.
You have been caught repeatedly trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true. I am not sure about YMDC's policy is on repeatedly 'telling tall tales' so I am just making note of your seeming capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.
No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.
The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.
So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.
Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.
Nope. If the internal logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit then my argument is still 100% Rules As Written.
orknado wrote: Sorry. Maybe I should have clarified that your questions are grammatically unsound and read as gibberish. Fix their grammar problems please so that I can understand them.
Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?
Now your question makes no sense with regards to the argument. I have never claimed that being IN a unit requires a unit to be 'in a box'. I have always maintained that being IN a unit is a matter of logical set membership.
orknado wrote: Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.
You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.
You must have a very limited understanding of logic then.
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." [Thanks col_impact for the heads up on this!]
Logical forms of argumentation are allowed per the Tenets of YMDC.
Per the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the Tenets of YMDC we can rule out that slain models are IN units because treating slain models as IN units leads to absurd game play that no one will play.
You can't counter arguments people make with implausible or absurd lines of argumentation. We simply throw those out.
Punisher wrote: Why isn't this topic locked? Discussion has bee so derailed and it's going nowhere.
Yup. For quite some time, I have proven that the Destroyer reanimates with 3 wounds.
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
orknado wrote: You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.
No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?
orknado wrote: You have been caught repeatedly trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true. I am not sure about YMDC's policy is on repeatedly 'telling tall tales' so I am just making note of your seeming capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.
Just unbelievable by you, but then, you are so stuck on believing your theory is written in stone by the Emperor's Finger that you are unwilling to look up and just recognize and acknowledge that the engine of your car's engine is blown when someone tells you.
If you think that GW makes perfect rules, then you are the one being completely unbelievable.
orknado wrote: The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.
So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.
Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.
Nope. If the internal logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit then my argument is still 100% Rules As Written.
Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?
Charistoph wrote: Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?
Now your question makes no sense with regards to the argument. I have never claimed that being IN a unit requires a unit to be 'in a box'. I have always maintained that being IN a unit is a matter of logical set membership.
Yet, you are treating it as if it requires that box in everything that addresses models in the unit.
Models in a unit can be in play or out of play. Nothing tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit when it is removed from play. At most, one could assume it is removed from the unit's ability to play the model with its actions.
Since nothing actually tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit, any theory you have on this is pure HYWPI, not RAW. Rules As Written (RAW) requires written rules. HYWPI can rely on assumptions or just pure decisions to play it a certain way no matter what the rules state.
orknado wrote: Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.
You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.
You must have a very limited understanding of logic then.
I've programmed computers in at least 5 different languages. You want to talk to me about logic. Here's the situation. Computers will process something exactly as it is written, no matter how broken it is. They will even follow instructions you are not aware of, because they involve coding provided by someone else and doesn't work friendly with the instructions you have written. Computers do not look for a way to get it to work, they just do as ordered. Unless its instructions tell it to go through a routine to try and fix it, it will continue to process broken code until it reaches the end of the code or it is stopped. It processes it according to the logic process it is given.
You are not following the logic of the process, which is RAW, but you are looking to resolve the situation to make it work, which is not actually requested by the rule itself. The request to solve the issue is provided by you through an effort of ethics and/or emotion. This is why your argument is not a logical one, but an ethical or emotional one. You want to get it to work, so you seek logical solutions. Your logic in fixing it sucks because it relies on too much data and instructions not present, which is why I won't play it like you.
orknado wrote: "In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." [Thanks col_impact for the heads up on this!]
Unfortunately, GW rules are rarely as clean cut and dry as we would like. They are often broken as written and won't work. Often, all that is needed is a change of a word here, or addition of a couple there to make them not broken.
RAW, this rule be more broke than an Ozarks hill-billy with no teeth. It is absurd to take it as it is specifically written. Both DoctorTom and I have stated this repeatedly, which you have just as repeatedly ignored.
Yes, the process of defining it as a Zero Wounds return is absurd. Yes, I would like to be something else. Yes, I will be playing it as something else. But saying it is written as something is not is equally absurd, and I would like you to quit peeing on my leg with it.
orknado wrote: Logical forms of argumentation are allowed per the Tenets of YMDC.
Per the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the Tenets of YMDC we can rule out that slain models are IN units because treating slain models as IN units leads to absurd game play that no one will play.
I have provided a method for them to be in units, but not in play that is equally logical and not taking as many hoops to run through. It doesn't follow the literal process, which is RAW, but it is closer to following the instruction set instead of the circus you keep presenting, and applies to all units, not just the ones we see with Reanimation Protocols.
orknado wrote: You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.
No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?
So now you admit that there is no gag 8th edition. So the leaked materials you read were scanned photos of the actual rules. You maintain that you quoted infallibly what you read. And yet you misquoted the rule. So now you are presenting once again an unbelievable account. Either the leaked materials were wrong or you were wrong. Since we know that there was no gag 8th edition then you misquoted the rule and you seem to have a personality flaw where you can't admit the most minor of memory mistakes and will go to absurd lengths to maintain a self-delusion of infallibility. If I were you, I would have admitted the simple mistake. The absence of the gag 8th edition highlights your self-delusions.
orknado wrote: The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.
So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.
Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.
Nope. If the internal logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit then my argument is still 100% Rules As Written.
Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?
You don't understand. The wording of Reanimation Protocal (as it is written) compels me to treat slain models as FROM the unit, not IN the unit. I am not trying to fix the rule. I am merely adhering to it. If I don't adhere to the rule then I am violating the rules. I am simply following the logic of what Reanimation Protocols tells me to do. Reanimation Protocols works on slain models FROM the unit, not IN the unit and it also 'returns the models to this unit' meaning that the slain models were not IN the unit. I have no choice but to consider slain models as not IN the unit. That is what is meant by compelled. The meaning of Reanimation Protocols forces how I treat slain models.
Charistoph wrote: Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?
Now your question makes no sense with regards to the argument. I have never claimed that being IN a unit requires a unit to be 'in a box'. I have always maintained that being IN a unit is a matter of logical set membership.
Yet, you are treating it as if it requires that box in everything that addresses models in the unit.
Models in a unit can be in play or out of play. Nothing tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit when it is removed from play. At most, one could assume it is removed from the unit's ability to play the model with its actions.
Since nothing actually tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit, any theory you have on this is pure HYWPI, not RAW. Rules As Written (RAW) requires written rules. HYWPI can rely on assumptions or just pure decisions to play it a certain way no matter what the rules state.
Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocol rule tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that reanimation 'returns the model to this unit' meaning that the slain model is not IN the unit. So there is direct rules support for slain models being not IN the unit.
Further, the game breaks if slain models are IN the unit. All of these rules break:
Spoiler:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
So your insistence that slain models are IN the unit can be dismissed as absurd based on formal logical argumentation (reductio ad absurdum). Logical argumentation is allowed by YMDC and my logic here is sound.
orknado wrote: Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.
You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.
You must have a very limited understanding of logic then.
I've programmed computers in at least 5 different languages. You want to talk to me about logic. Here's the situation. Computers will process something exactly as it is written, no matter how broken it is. They will even follow instructions you are not aware of, because they involve coding provided by someone else and doesn't work friendly with the instructions you have written. Computers do not look for a way to get it to work, they just do as ordered. Unless its instructions tell it to go through a routine to try and fix it, it will continue to process broken code until it reaches the end of the code or it is stopped. It processes it according to the logic process it is given.
You are not following the logic of the process, which is RAW, but you are looking to resolve the situation to make it work, which is not actually requested by the rule itself. The request to solve the issue is provided by you through an effort of ethics and/or emotion. This is why your argument is not a logical one, but an ethical or emotional one. You want to get it to work, so you seek logical solutions. Your logic in fixing it sucks because it relies on too much data and instructions not present, which is why I won't play it like you.
I have programmed computers in many different languages as well. I have also studied logic at the university level. What computers do is not logic, they simply mindlessly follow code. Computers, unless we are talking about Artificial Intelligence, are wholly unable to think logically.
If you use logic to rule out absurd lines of argumentation you are not implementing ethics or emotion at all. You are simply ruling out lines of argumentation that lead to absurd games that no one will play. Unless you are an advocate for absurd game play then it's pointless to give absurd lines of reasoning any merit or to use them to counter rules supported arguments that are plausible. Reductio ad absurdum, now that is logic! I suggest you look up what logic means, because you have an incorrect understanding of the term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.
orknado wrote: "In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." [Thanks col_impact for the heads up on this!]
Unfortunately, GW rules are rarely as clean cut and dry as we would like. They are often broken as written and won't work. Often, all that is needed is a change of a word here, or addition of a couple there to make them not broken.
RAW, this rule be more broke than an Ozarks hill-billy with no teeth. It is absurd to take it as it is specifically written. Both DoctorTom and I have stated this repeatedly, which you have just as repeatedly ignored.
Yes, the process of defining it as a Zero Wounds return is absurd. Yes, I would like to be something else. Yes, I will be playing it as something else. But saying it is written as something is not is equally absurd, and I would like you to quit peeing on my leg with it.
Nope. The Reanimation Protocols rule by its wording indicates that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. Therefore we have a rule that tells us that slain models are not IN the unit. We of course know this already by reductio ad absurdum, but we have Rules As Written saying the same thing all on its own. This leads to a completely rules supported answer to how many wounds a Destroyer reanimates with. The answer is 3.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
orknado wrote: Logical forms of argumentation are allowed per the Tenets of YMDC.
Per the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the Tenets of YMDC we can rule out that slain models are IN units because treating slain models as IN units leads to absurd game play that no one will play.
I have provided a method for them to be in units, but not in play that is equally logical and not taking as many hoops to run through. It doesn't follow the literal process, which is RAW, but it is closer to following the instruction set instead of the circus you keep presenting, and applies to all units, not just the ones we see with Reanimation Protocols.
Your argument is an entirely ad hoc and arbitrary one that goes against the written rule of the Reanimation Protocols rule. Your argument still leads to slain models demanding coherency checks, wounds to be allocated to them, and participation in movement, psychic phase, shooting, and assaults. Your argument leads to absurd game play and can be logically dismissed as implausible .
The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM units, not IN units. So we have Rules As Written justification for considering slain models as not IN units. On top of that, we know slain models are not IN units by virtue of the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If slain models are IN units then the game breaks. Therefore slain models are not IN units.
My argument is fully supported by the Rules As Written. It is supported directly by the logical argumentation of reductio ad absurdum, which is allowable by YMDC. My argument trumps yours.
orknado wrote: You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.
No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?
So now you admit that there is no gag 8th edition. So the leaked materials you read were scanned photos of the actual rules. You maintain that you quoted infallibly what you read. And yet you misquoted the rule. So now you are presenting once again an unbelievable account. Either the leaked materials were wrong or you were wrong. Since we know that there was no gag 8th edition then you misquoted the rule and you seem to have a personality flaw where you can't admit the most minor of memory mistakes and will go to absurd lengths to maintain a self-delusion of infallibility. If I were you, I would have admitted the simple mistake. The absence of the gag 8th edition highlights your self-delusions.
Do not lie about what I said. Do you understand what it means to be aware of something? I am not admitting someone didn't make a gag edition of that page, I am simply not aware of one if they did. I just know the possibility exists because it has happened before. Do you seriously even bother trying to understand what another person types or do you just like to troll?
I am assuming what I quoted were the scanned pages of the rules, it certainly looked like one. It's not my fault it didn't match what you quoted, and I don't really care that you don't believe it. You are being way to intense over something that should have been waived off long ago. Your own quoted version doesn't support your theory, so it's not even worth harping on.
Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?
You don't understand. The wording of Reanimation Protocal (as it is written) compels me to treat slain models as FROM the unit, not IN the unit. I am not trying to fix the rule. I am merely adhering to it. If I don't adhere to the rule then I am violating the rules. I am simply following the logic of what Reanimation Protocols tells me to do. Reanimation Protocols works on slain models FROM the unit, not IN the unit and it also 'returns the models to this unit' meaning that the slain models were not IN the unit. I have no choice but to consider slain models as not IN the unit. That is what is meant by compelled. The meaning of Reanimation Protocols forces how I treat slain models.
You still are not listening. RP does not make a distinction between "from" and "in". This distinction does not matter for RAW because it is not written. You still have yet to provide the rule that slain models are out of the unit in the way that allows you to make this distinction for return. You make assumptions based on how you want the game to run, but nothing specifically tells you to do so. The only "out" that a model is ever written in the rules is closer to "out of play", not "out of unit".
Models in a unit can be in play or out of play. Nothing tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit when it is removed from play. At most, one could assume it is removed from the unit's ability to play the model with its actions.
Since nothing actually tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit, any theory you have on this is pure HYWPI, not RAW. Rules As Written (RAW) requires written rules. HYWPI can rely on assumptions or just pure decisions to play it a certain way no matter what the rules state.
Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocol rule tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that reanimation 'returns the model to this unit' meaning that the slain model is not IN the unit. So there is direct rules support for slain models being not IN the unit.
And nothing in ANY rule tells us that the model is OUT of the unit in the first place! You are applying a double standard here by following one concept, but refusing to look earlier in how that happened in the first place. You are also applying a "well it doesn't tell me not to" in regards to the model being out of the unit.
orknado wrote: Further, the game breaks if slain models are IN the unit. All of these rules break:
Dude, I just told you above how this is can be treated without breaking those rules. And all are HPWPI, not RAW. RAW doesn't care if the mechanics are broken. HYWPI does.
orknado wrote: I have programmed computers in many different languages as well. I have also studied logic at the university level. What computers do is not logic, they simply mindlessly follow code. If you use logic to rule out absurd lines of argumentation you are not implementing ethics or emotion at all. You are simply ruling out lines of argumentation that lead to absurd games that no one will play. Unless you are an advocate for absurd game play then it's pointless to give absurd lines of reasoning any merit or to use them to counter rules supported arguments that are plausible. Reductio ad absurdum, now that is logic! I suggest you look up what logic means, because you have an incorrect understanding of the term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.
Which is RAW more like, a computer program as a set of instructions or a problem you are trying to fix? See, there are several types of logic. One is a logic of processes, where you go through it step by step. This is the logic of a computer. Then there is a logic that is regarding problem-solving which reductio ad absurdum is a part of. You are considering the latter, when DoctorTom and I are talking about the former. The former is RAW, the latter is HYWPI.
If you truly have programmed computers, how many of your programs will make assumptions about how many Wounds you restore without actually having any procedure to either restore those Wounds or reset the Wounds to original?
You can use logic to find a solution to something, but logic itself does not care if something is broken because logic is not about caring. When you go to fix something without being directed to fix it, it is not logic that dictates that action, but either ethics or emotion.
When you process the instructions of Reanimation Protocols, what tells you the model is out of the unit? That it states it returns? How did it get out in the first place? Where is it returning from? You have not addressed this with your logic, which is what I have been asking for almost since you brought up this absurd direction.
And if you studied logic at the university level, then your professors should be coming back to slap you upside the head for using Wikipedia as a resource. Did you ever pass any of those classes you studied?
orknado wrote: Your argument is an entirely ad hoc and arbitrary one that goes against the written rule of the Reanimation Protocols rule.
Actually it isn't so ad hoc. It is taking it from the steps we go by to initiate Reanimation Protocols in the first place. You know those pesky general rules which talk about remove from play which you don't actually seem to want to address at all?
orknado wrote: The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM units, not IN units. So we have Rules As Written justification for considering slain models as not IN units.
No, we don't. Just because RP doesn't say they are in units doesn't mean they are out. That is a cop out that would get any paper with that concept thrown out with a D- if you were lucky. We actually need instructions for the model to be 'out' to consider them 'out', not an unwritten assumption based on something else.
In addition, nothing you have presented would be taken seriously as a logical argument in a proper setting when it comes to presenting the model just as if it was brand-spanking new. Because you are not following the instructions. You are adding instructions. We are not told to consider the datasheet and apply the Wounds we see there. We are not told to ignore everything that happened to model before we return it to the unit. We are simply told to return the model to the unit.
Do you know what would happen if you did this in a computer program? I gave you the results earlier. The model comes back with the same Wounds it left with. Models with Zero Wounds would then removed from play again as a check is made on every model, only to attempt again next turn. If properly tested, this would have been noticed and patched before beta testers ever got their hands on it.
orknado wrote: On top of that, we know slain models are not IN units by virtue of the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If salin models are IN units then the game breaks. Therefore slain models are not IN units.
Or, you know, they just aren't "in play". Because they were "removed from play" not "removed from unit". Your "logic" fails to consider other instructions and directions throughout the rest of the game (or the lack of them). We don't consider RP in a greenhouse all by itself. It is in a valley that interacts with other rules and directions. Those other rules and directions are where we go to make many of these determinations.
When a model is slain, it is "removed from play". When a player's turn starts, on a 5+, a model with RP can be returned (to play with) the unit. That's as close to a translation I can get with the actual written word I have been given.
This doesn't rely on jumping through hoops to work with the mechanics as they are written. Unfortunately, the mechanics as they are written are plain broke in regards to Reanimation Protocols because we have no instructions whatsoever in regards to its Wounds.
orknado wrote: My argument is fully supported by the Rules As Written. It is supported directly by the logical argumentation of reductio ad absurdum, which is allowable by YMDC. My argument trumps yours.
Your argument is supported by "it doesn't say this", and "it would break the game if I considered that". That is not RAW. To be RAW, it has to be WRITTEN. If you cannot actually quote where it specifically states any of your theories, it is HYWPI. Do you understand this concept? At this point, I do not think you do.
orknado wrote: You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.
No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?
So now you admit that there is no gag 8th edition. So the leaked materials you read were scanned photos of the actual rules. You maintain that you quoted infallibly what you read. And yet you misquoted the rule. So now you are presenting once again an unbelievable account. Either the leaked materials were wrong or you were wrong. Since we know that there was no gag 8th edition then you misquoted the rule and you seem to have a personality flaw where you can't admit the most minor of memory mistakes and will go to absurd lengths to maintain a self-delusion of infallibility. If I were you, I would have admitted the simple mistake. The absence of the gag 8th edition highlights your self-delusions.
Do not lie about what I said. Do you understand what it means to be aware of something? I am not admitting someone didn't make a gag edition of that page, I am simply not aware of one if they did. I just know the possibility exists because it has happened before. Do you seriously even bother trying to understand what another person types or do you just like to troll?
I am assuming what I quoted were the scanned pages of the rules, it certainly looked like one. It's not my fault it didn't match what you quoted, and I don't really care that you don't believe it. You are being way to intense over something that should have been waived off long ago. Your own quoted version doesn't support your theory, so it's not even worth harping on.
If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.
Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?
You don't understand. The wording of Reanimation Protocal (as it is written) compels me to treat slain models as FROM the unit, not IN the unit. I am not trying to fix the rule. I am merely adhering to it. If I don't adhere to the rule then I am violating the rules. I am simply following the logic of what Reanimation Protocols tells me to do. Reanimation Protocols works on slain models FROM the unit, not IN the unit and it also 'returns the models to this unit' meaning that the slain models were not IN the unit. I have no choice but to consider slain models as not IN the unit. That is what is meant by compelled. The meaning of Reanimation Protocols forces how I treat slain models.
You still are not listening. RP does not make a distinction between "from" and "in". This distinction does not matter for RAW because it is not written. You still have yet to provide the rule that slain models are out of the unit in the way that allows you to make this distinction for return. You make assumptions based on how you want the game to run, but nothing specifically tells you to do so. The only "out" that a model is ever written in the rules is closer to "out of play", not "out of unit".
I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.
Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocol rule tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that reanimation 'returns the model to this unit' meaning that the slain model is not IN the unit. So there is direct rules support for slain models being not IN the unit.
And nothing in ANY rule tells us that the model is OUT of the unit in the first place! You are applying a double standard here by following one concept, but refusing to look earlier in how that happened in the first place. You are also applying a "well it doesn't tell me not to" in regards to the model being out of the unit.
Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocols rule itself tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that when reanimation does its thing slain models are 'returned to this unit' where previously they were not IN the unit.
orknado wrote: Further, the game breaks if slain models are IN the unit. All of these rules break:
Dude, I just told you above how this is can be treated without breaking those rules. And all are HPWPI, not RAW. RAW doesn't care if the mechanics are broken. HYWPI does.
The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM unit, not IN units. If you don't treat slain models as not IN the unit then you are not adhering to the Rules As Written for the Reanimation Protocols rule. You cannot be 'returned to this unit' if you are already IN the unit.
So RAW proves that slain models are not IN units. The logical argument of reductio ad absurdum merely reinforces what we know already from the RAW.
orknado wrote: I have programmed computers in many different languages as well. I have also studied logic at the university level. What computers do is not logic, they simply mindlessly follow code. If you use logic to rule out absurd lines of argumentation you are not implementing ethics or emotion at all. You are simply ruling out lines of argumentation that lead to absurd games that no one will play. Unless you are an advocate for absurd game play then it's pointless to give absurd lines of reasoning any merit or to use them to counter rules supported arguments that are plausible. Reductio ad absurdum, now that is logic! I suggest you look up what logic means, because you have an incorrect understanding of the term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.
Which is RAW more like, a computer program as a set of instructions or a problem you are trying to fix? See, there are several types of logic. One is a logic of processes, where you go through it step by step. This is the logic of a computer. Then there is a logic that is regarding problem-solving which reductio ad absurdum is a part of. You are considering the latter, when DoctorTom and I are talking about the former. The former is RAW, the latter is HYWPI.
If you truly have programmed computers, how many of your programs will make assumptions about how many Wounds you restore without actually having any procedure to either restore those Wounds or reset the Wounds to original?
You can use logic to find a solution to something, but logic itself does not care if something is broken because logic is not about caring. When you go to fix something without being directed to fix it, it is not logic that dictates that action, but either ethics or emotion.
When you process the instructions of Reanimation Protocols, what tells you the model is out of the unit? That it states it returns? How did it get out in the first place? Where is it returning from? You have not addressed this with your logic, which is what I have been asking for almost since you brought up this absurd direction.
And if you studied logic at the university level, then your professors should be coming back to slap you upside the head for using Wikipedia as a resource. Did you ever pass any of those classes you studied?
Computers have no logic. They mindlessly follow instructions which are actually just bits. Logic requires intelligence and thinking, so unless we are talking about Artificial Intelligence, you are misusing the term logic. The logic in a program would be in the human understandable pseudo-code that a programmer writes documenting his work which may succeed or fail on a compile depending on if there are any syntax errors.
Not only did I pass my undergraduate years with high honors I went on to teach at the university level. So as a professor myself I will slap you upside the head for stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that your use of the term 'logic' is incorrect. The Wikipedia proves it as an unbiased 3rd party. Do you want me to provide further proof of your shortcomings here?
orknado wrote: Your argument is an entirely ad hoc and arbitrary one that goes against the written rule of the Reanimation Protocols rule.
Actually it isn't so ad hoc. It is taking it from the steps we go by to initiate Reanimation Protocols in the first place. You know those pesky general rules which talk about remove from play which you don't actually seem to want to address at all?
'Removed from play' has no rules associated with it. There is no definition of 'play' nor any instruction to remove the model from the battlefield or to actually do anything except designate it 'removed from play'.
What we know about 'removed from play' comes strictly from the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that slain models are reanimated to be 'returned to this unit' meaning that slain models are not IN the unit.
Further, we know that 'removed from play' logically must mean not IN the unit since all the Core rules break if we treat slain models as IN the unit. In computer terms that would be a compiler error. The 40k ruleset does not compile unless you set slain models to not IN the unit. GW gave us a buggy ruleset that breaks if you try to compile it with slain models defined as IN the unit.
orknado wrote: The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM units, not IN units. So we have Rules As Written justification for considering slain models as not IN units.
No, we don't. Just because RP doesn't say they are in units doesn't mean they are out. That is a cop out that would get any paper with that concept thrown out with a D- if you were lucky. We actually need instructions for the model to be 'out' to consider them 'out', not an unwritten assumption based on something else.
In addition, nothing you have presented would be taken seriously as a logical argument in a proper setting when it comes to presenting the model just as if it was brand-spanking new. Because you are not following the instructions. You are adding instructions. We are not told to consider the datasheet and apply the Wounds we see there. We are not told to ignore everything that happened to model before we return it to the unit. We are simply told to return the model to the unit.
Do you know what would happen if you did this in a computer program? I gave you the results earlier. The model comes back with the same Wounds it left with. Models with Zero Wounds would then removed from play again as a check is made on every model, only to attempt again next turn. If properly tested, this would have been noticed and patched before beta testers ever got their hands on it.
Since I am in the position of evaluating the papers students write then I assure you that my argument merits an A.
To express this in computer terms, if you compile with slain models set to IN units then it refuses to compile. The game breaks and produces bizarre buggy behavior where units drift off to the side of the battlefield to stay in coherency with slain models, and units are invulnerable to further harm because all wounds are being allocated to the slain models, among other bugs like reanimating models at zero wounds (that would be invulnerable per explicit instructions the Resolve Attack sequence)
However if you compile the 40k ruleset with slain models set to not IN units then the game performs without bugs and models are reanimated with the amount of wounds on their datasheet. All that it takes for the game to work without a hitch is the setting of that one variable that is otherwise an undefined variable.
And we know that that variable needs to be set that way. The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that the variable is set that way. That's why my argument is Rules As Written.
So once again, in computer terms, if you set slain models to IN then you get a hopelessly buggy program. If you set slain models to not IN then the program works as designed and performs marvelously. So which setting for the slain models is correct? This is another way of expressing what 'reductio ad absurdum' means.
Now you can go in and write mountains of ad hoc spaghetti code adding additional instructions to define and differentitate between 'removed from play' and 'in unit' to eventually get the program to compile and work with the variable of slain models set to IN. That would still leave you with models reanimating at zero wounds so you need to still write an ad hoc line of spaghetti code to arbitrarily set the wound count to 1 or 3.
Alternatively you compile the program with slain models set to not IN and the program runs perfectly fine and to spec. All the rules work as designed and Reanimation Protocols returns a valid result. No mountains of spaghetti code required.
Which of those procedures involves good programming sense on behalf of the programmer? Obviously the latter, so as a programmer why are you insisting on the former?
orknado wrote: On top of that, we know slain models are not IN units by virtue of the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If salin models are IN units then the game breaks. Therefore slain models are not IN units.
Or, you know, they just aren't "in play". Because they were "removed from play" not "removed from unit". Your "logic" fails to consider other instructions and directions throughout the rest of the game (or the lack of them). We don't consider RP in a greenhouse all by itself. It is in a valley that interacts with other rules and directions. Those other rules and directions are where we go to make many of these determinations.
When a model is slain, it is "removed from play". When a player's turn starts, on a 5+, a model with RP can be returned (to play with) the unit. That's as close to a translation I can get with the actual written word I have been given.
This doesn't rely on jumping through hoops to work with the mechanics as they are written. Unfortunately, the mechanics as they are written are plain broke in regards to Reanimation Protocols because we have no instructions whatsoever in regards to its Wounds.
I have already stated that there are absolutely no rules defining what 'removed from play' entails. So you have no firm basis of what that means exactly.
You have the tunnel vision of a programmer who has already invested days of writing spaghetti code trying to wrestle out all of the bugs out of the program and can only get the program to compile by murdering the elegance of the computer code you were given with mountains of spaghetti code garbage.
Your boss doesn't like your end result since the developers ahead of you were able to present a game that demoed fine and he doesn't understand why you needed to go to extraordinary measures to get the game to be bug free. He wants a new set of eyes on the code.
Your boss hands it off to me. I throw away all your work to the side and start fresh and within a minute I test setting the slain model variable to not IN unit and voila the program works without a hitch and according to spec. The developers did not hand off a program with two dozen random issues. The developers handed off a program with one issue. I was able to spot the issue so quickly because the pseudo code for the Reanimation Protocols mentioned in its comments that the local slain model variable is set to not IN and I noticed that the global variable simply needed to be similarly set.
I feel sorry for you as you simmer red-faced in the corner. Tunnel-vision happens to everyone. You have gotten so invested in your ad hoc and arbitrary argument with mountains of specific exceptions that you have lost sight of the sheer elegance and utter simplicity of mine.
But, on second thought, tunnel-vision is your fatal flaw. Just as you can not admit to a simple mistake with regards to a misquote, your inability to admit error sends you again and again down the perilous rabbit hole of tunnel-vision spaghetti coding where instead of finding the one bug you patch up the two dozen red herring bugs that are there because you missed the one actual bug. You miss the one bug because you never stop to re-think your initial approach and to try to keep things simple (K.I.S.S = Keep It Simple Stupid!)
Your boss lets you go. It was only a matter of time. Good programming requires an open mind and one that can admit mistakes..
The mechanics of Reanimation Protocols are not plain broke as you claim. You are just unable to admit that your initial stab at a solution to the problem could be wrong or that anyone else could have a better solution than you.
When slain models are considered as not IN the unit, everything works perfectly. The Reanimation Protocol rules are not broke. You just missed the solution and are too stubborn to admit you missed it.
orknado wrote: If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.
Do not equate the presidential election rallies to what is happening here, especially when the news crowds arrived hours before any significant groups showed up to take pictures and either didn't take pictures during the actual event or refused to present them.
I stated what I stated. I am not sure I can bring up the exact image I quoted. That's a fact. If you don't like it, that is your problem.
orknado wrote: I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.
If you are not going to listen to me, then quit responding to me. As it is, you are demonstrating the same foibles that col_impact has shown save one. You have copy and pasted your responses even after they have been rejected. You have refused to actually address the questions requested. You make up your own rules and call them RAW. So, if you are not going to listen to me, I will just put you on ignore, and both of us can be happier.
Punisher wrote: Why isn't this topic locked? Discussion has bee so derailed and it's going nowhere.
Yup. For quite some time, I have proven that the Destroyer reanimates with 3 wounds.
No, he hasn't, but he's not willing to admit it. I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)
orknado wrote: Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
Okay, we have nothing indicating the level of wounds it comes back with in Reanimation Protocols itself. Returned to the unit is not the same as returned to the unit with full wounds. So, you have to come up with another quote which we'll deal with.
orknado wrote: 1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit" /quote]
Yes. This is true. And the model has the characteristics, wargear and abilities listed when it starts the game. During the game things change, such as the wound level dropping when it takes damage. When it reaches 0, it is removed. The model still had a profile when it's removed; you have not provided any quotation to back up your assumption that nothing from the datasheet applies to the model any more when it is removed, and that it resets to factory condition when it is brough back to the table. You have no rules quotation showing that it comes back with any wound level that differs from the wound level it had when it left the game. Is it stupid to bring it back at 0? Yes, so that isn't intended. However, it is the only indication we have from the rules, since there is not something else in the rules to indicate that this level changes. Your quote here does not apply to returning a model without a rules statement specifically saying that it applies to a returning model. Without that statement or any other rules statement that changes the wound level of the model, then you are forced by RAW to go with the last RAW statements you have - the ones that let it be reduced to 0 wounds. There's no problem if you want to play it another way, but that is HIWPI, not RAW. You (and col impact)seem to have a huge problem differentiating between HIWPA and RAW, since the both of you keep making assumptions not backed up by a rule to get to your conclusion, yet want to claim it is RAW. Assumptions to skip over areas without rules does not make for RAW. Provide the rules quotation for the model losing its status as outlined by the datasheet when it is removed from play, and again when it is reinstated getting to come back to factory fresh condition. A general quotation like you have here, which governs the units and models at the point you start the game, does not work for what you are claiming.
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contai
Assumption on your part. The model had a profile at the start of the game, provided by the datasheet for the unit the model was in. You must give a quotation to support your statement that it loses this profile during the game. Just saying it no longer has permission isn't something backed by a rule. It had permission, there needs to be a specific quotation for the permission to be revoked. Merely being reduced to 0 wounds is not an inherent permission to revoke it. Without this, your subsequent steps don't matter.
doctortom wrote: I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)
And here I thought I was the only person thinking that...
orknado wrote: If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.
Do not equate the presidential election rallies to what is happening here, especially when the news crowds arrived hours before any significant groups showed up to take pictures and either didn't take pictures during the actual event or refused to present them.
I stated what I stated. I am not sure I can bring up the exact image I quoted. That's a fact. If you don't like it, that is your problem.
How wonderfully ironic that you believe in the stories concocted by the Liar in Chief of the United States! You can't bring up an image showing the misquote because it doesn't exist. You misquoted the rule and need to blame something that doesn't exist instead of taking responsibility for your mistake.
orknado wrote: I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.
If you are not going to listen to me, then quit responding to me. As it is, you are demonstrating the same foibles that col_impact has shown save one. You have copy and pasted your responses even after they have been rejected. You have refused to actually address the questions requested. You make up your own rules and call them RAW. So, if you are not going to listen to me, I will just put you on ignore, and both of us can be happier.
I am obviously hearing what you are saying since I have been responding to your posts but you have to reject my argument based on logic or rules quotes and not simply your word. I do not take simply your word as an authority on the matter. That is what I mean by 'I don't have to listen to you'. So I will consider supported arguments that you have to put forward but I will not seriously consider your unsupported claims. Your word alone factors nothing into this rules debate without support. You can't just say my argument is rejected. You have to prove it has no merit.
doctortom wrote: I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)
And here I thought I was the only person thinking that...
What about me do you find to be a 'clone of col_impact'? I am not seeing it.
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main promise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. The datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
What is a rule?
This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
Game Rulebooks.
Army Books/Codexes
Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").
What isn't a rule?
Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
Random comments about the game from a Games Designer heard at a convention (for example). Remember, random comments made by games designers, whether made on a forum, at a game convention, or sent in an email are not "official" because other players who weren't present to see or hear the comments have no way of verifying that such a thing was ever actually said. But more importantly, if the designers really wanted their comments to be official they have the capacity to make it so by updating the official online FAQs.
doctortom wrote: I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)
And here I thought I was the only person thinking that...
You weren't. But until I have proof positive, I will assume that are separate. Considering that someone has repeatedly lied about what others have said, I don't put it that far from the course. And that same one has used Wikipedia, which anyone can edit, as a source when Wikipedia is rejected as a proper source by every college course that requires writing essays and reports I have taken since it existed. Though, he does have the proper arrogance of a professor in that he rejects any other reality but his own. Sadly, this is not his classroom, and he must deal with other people's perceptions on reality.
orknado wrote: If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.
Do not equate the presidential election rallies to what is happening here, especially when the news crowds arrived hours before any significant groups showed up to take pictures and either didn't take pictures during the actual event or refused to present them.
I stated what I stated. I am not sure I can bring up the exact image I quoted. That's a fact. If you don't like it, that is your problem.
How wonderfully ironic that you believe in the stories concocted by the Liar in Chief of the United States! You can't bring up an image showing the misquote because it doesn't exist. You misquoted the rule and need to blame something that doesn't exist instead of taking responsibility for your mistake.
I suggest leaving the politics out of it as it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
orknado wrote: I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.
If you are not going to listen to me, then quit responding to me. As it is, you are demonstrating the same foibles that col_impact has shown save one. You have copy and pasted your responses even after they have been rejected. You have refused to actually address the questions requested. You make up your own rules and call them RAW. So, if you are not going to listen to me, I will just put you on ignore, and both of us can be happier.
I am obviously hearing what you are saying since I have been responding to your posts but you have to reject my argument based on logic or rules quotes and not simply your word.
How about when we point out that you have a lack of rules quotes backing up your statements, or a rules quote for something else coupled with a big assumption to try to make it apply in a different way? I see you haven't responded to my last post where I showed a flaw in your argument. You have an assumption that a model that has a profile at the start of the game can lose its profile before the end of the game without a specific rules quotation to back up that assertion. It is more an assumption on your part by trying to twist one quotation that is meant for units and models starting the game and, with your assumption, suddenly have it apply to a model returning to the board that has had that profile modified by in-game effects.
doctortom wrote: I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)
And here I thought I was the only person thinking that...
You weren't. But until I have proof positive, I will assume that are separate. Considering that someone has repeatedly lied about what others have said, I don't put it that far from the course. And that same one has used Wikipedia, which anyone can edit, as a source when Wikipedia is rejected as a proper source by every college course that requires writing essays and reports I have taken since it existed. Though, he does have the proper arrogance of a professor in that he rejects any other reality but his own. Sadly, this is not his classroom, and he must deal with other people's perceptions on reality.
When have I lied about what others have said? It is possible that I have misunderstood what others were saying, but saying that I am lying is a bold accusation.
Are you going to get back to the argument? My last two posts have torn your argument to shreds. I have shown that your argument breaks rules and then makes up rules to fix the rules it breaks. My argument simply works. It breaks no rules. It doesn't have to make up any rules. And it is justified by the RAW of Reanimation Protocols and YMDC's tenet of Break No Rule (another way of saying reductio ad absurdum)
How about when we point out that you have a lack of rules quotes backing up your statements, or a rules quote for something else coupled with a big assumption to try to make it apply in a different way? I see you haven't responded to my last post where I showed a flaw in your argument. You have an assumption that a model that has a profile at the start of the game can lose its profile before the end of the game without a specific rules quotation to back up that assertion. It is more an assumption on your part by trying to twist one quotation that is meant for units and models starting the game and, with your assumption, suddenly have it apply to a model returning to the board that has had that profile modified by in-game effects.
Only models that are in units have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". Once the model is not in the unit the datasheet does not list the characteristics, wargear, or abilities of that model anymore. I see no permission for models to have datasheets list their characteristics unless they are in units.
Also, doctortom, I am curious about which premise you think is the correct one?
1) slain models are not in units
2) slain models are in units
If you consider 2 the correct premise how do you fix all the rules you break without having to make up a bunch of rules? A premise can't be valid if it breaks a whole bunch of other rules and you have to make up out the blue a bunch of ad hoc rules to fix the rules you break.
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit.
This literally is the funniest thing I have read.
Should be fun shooting weapons from all the dead models in your games since removed from play apparently means something different in your game.
Yup. In Charistoph's argument, slain models are in the unit. That premise breaks nearly all of the Core Rules, Then he proceeds to make up several rules out of the blue to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is completely invalid.
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
lol. At least you have a sense of humor; a rare thing in YMDC.
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit.
This literally is the funniest thing I have read.
Should be fun shooting weapons from all the dead models in your games since removed from play apparently means something different in your game.
It is pretty funny that we do not have actual instructions to take a model that has been removed from play off the table. It would make it rather cinematic, though.
In more seriousness, a unit is an organizational entity, not a box. One can still be in an organization while not being any where near it or participating with it.
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit.
This literally is the funniest thing I have read.
Should be fun shooting weapons from all the dead models in your games since removed from play apparently means something different in your game.
It is pretty funny that we do not have actual instructions to take a model that has been removed from play off the table. It would make it rather cinematic, though.
In more seriousness, a unit is an organizational entity, not a box. One can still be in an organization while not being any where near it or participating with it.
There are no rules that keep a slain model from being considered a participant in a unit if it is considered "in the unit".
So if slain models are in units (which is your premise) then nearly all of the Core Rules break. Wounds must be allocated to those slain models and you must maintain coherency with those slain models. Further, slain models will participate in the shooting phase as Fragile noted.
For example . . .
Spoiler:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
There are no exceptions in those rules that say 'do not count slain models in the unit' so your premise (that slain models are in units) would include slain models for those rules and the resulting game play would be broken beyond repair.
If your premise breaks the Core Rules to the point where you have to make up 4-5 rules out of thin air to fix the broken rules that your premise broke then your premise is wrong and your argument is invalid. See YMDC Tenet "Break No Rule". That tenet mandates that you throw out premises that break one rule. Your premise breaks nearly all of the Core Rules.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
Oh no, if that's the case then RP isn't that strong for multiwound units.
Destroyers suddenly looking less appealing :(
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
Oh no, if that's the case then RP isn't that strong for multiwound units.
Destroyers suddenly looking less appealing :(
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
As has always been the problem with GW, they don't really differentiate, the Design Studio seems to encompass everything from model creation and fluff writing to the rules that we use to play their games.
As someone else mentioned, if/until there's an FAQ or other official clarification, how the design studio plays isn't really "official." It's probably best to mention your interpretation to an opponent prior to setting up, to avoid any potential unpleasantness during a game.
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Yeah, that's the historical aspect that I have mentioned several times.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
Yeah, it is best to wait for the FAQ before writing how you want to play it in stone. I remember a game report during 5th Edition on White Dwarf where a Tau player had a Pathfinder move and fire its Heavy-Type Markerlight. For those unfamiliar with that edition, Heavy Weapons could not be fired by a model that moved, unless it had Relentless or Slow and Purposeful. Now, it's possible that they were testing out a new version of Tau or some of the 6e rules, but that was never actually stated in the report.
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
Your statement isn't correct at all. I've shown where you have assumptions in your argument so that it is not RAW, and you have not chosen to address those, instead focusing on Charistoph's arguments instead. To be fair, though, I think I'll choose your statement here over Charistoph's statement as the funniest thing I've read (at least in this thread). Let's see if you come back with any arguments against what I did before or if you, like col impact, just ignore what I said and continue to assert that you have proven your argument despite things that have been demonstrated that disprove it. Or we might find out that you're just ignoring whatever I'm putting as as something you just don't want to have to deal with.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
Oh no, if that's the case then RP isn't that strong for multiwound units.
Destroyers suddenly looking less appealing :(
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
As has always been the problem with GW, they don't really differentiate, the Design Studio seems to encompass everything from model creation and fluff writing to the rules that we use to play their games.
As someone else mentioned, if/until there's an FAQ or other official clarification, how the design studio plays isn't really "official." It's probably best to mention your interpretation to an opponent prior to setting up, to avoid any potential unpleasantness during a game.
That is what Charistoph and I have been arguing - that since there isn't any RAW to say how many wounds you come back with, you should discuss with your opponent before a game how to play it until there's a FAQ or official clarification. Some people might be assuming you come back with 3 wounds, some who have watched the video might assume you come back with one wound. The argument here is that somebody wants to insist that it's RAW without having pertinent rules quotes. (I don't have a problem with it being played that way, just that someone wants to say it is RAW).
This thread is exactly why I play 40k with my wife and one other friend, the amount of absurd logic is ridiculous for a game that's is supposed to be a good time. People saying that embarkments in a transport should heal the units...... I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out. If it goes to one wound ill eat my hat. Play the game and stop trying to bend everything to what you believe. I'm positive GW didn't put full wounds on the RP rule because they assumed any person with any kind of intelligence would interpret it correctly.
XvReaperXv wrote: I did not watch that stream, but I was told by a few that many rules were done incorrectly in some of the games, is this true?
Even if true, you don't have any way of knowing whether this specific incident was done incorrectly or not, since you don't have a rule in the book saying it comes back at full wounds. That's why we're saying it needs a FAQ - no rules support for any interpretation but a video saying you get one wound.
I'm all for a FAQ, but using disembarking and mawlocs saying everyone gets healed according to our interpretation of RP is insane and borderline childish.
XvReaperXv wrote: I'm all for a FAQ, but using disembarking and mawlocs saying everyone gets healed according to our interpretation of RP is insane and borderline childish.
No one is arguing that happens, but that is a side effect of the arguments put forth by Col and orknado and is exactly why Charistoph and doctortom says their arguments can't be correct.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
Your statement isn't correct at all. I've shown where you have assumptions in your argument so that it is not RAW, and you have not chosen to address those, instead focusing on Charistoph's arguments instead. To be fair, though, I think I'll choose your statement here over Charistoph's statement as the funniest thing I've read (at least in this thread). Let's see if you come back with any arguments against what I did before or if you, like col impact, just ignore what I said and continue to assert that you have proven your argument despite things that have been demonstrated that disprove it. Or we might find out that you're just ignoring whatever I'm putting as as something you just don't want to have to deal with.
I did address your critique with rules support. You are the one failing to address my rules supported dismissal of your critique.
Only models that are in units have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". Once the model is not in the unit the datasheet does not list the characteristics, wargear, or abilities of that model anymore. I see no permission for models to have profiles that list their characteristics unless they are in units.
Also, doctortom, I am curious about which premise you think is the correct one?
1) slain models are not in units
2) slain models are in units
If you consider 2 the correct premise how do you fix all the rules you break without having to make up a bunch of rules? A premise can't be valid if it breaks a whole bunch of other rules and you have to make up out the blue a bunch of ad hoc rules to fix the rules you break.
XvReaperXv wrote: I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out.
Why? Why shouldn't we use the example given on GW's Twitch feed and go for one wound instead?
Because Twitch is not a rule source.
You have violated a tenet of this forum by Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
YMDC wrote:What is a rule?
This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
Game Rulebooks.
Army Books/Codexes
Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").
YMDC wrote:What isn't a rule?
Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
Random comments about the game from a Games Designer heard at a convention (for example). Remember, random comments made by games designers, whether made on a forum, at a game convention, or sent in an email are not "official" because other players who weren't present to see or hear the comments have no way of verifying that such a thing was ever actually said. But more importantly, if the designers really wanted their comments to be official they have the capacity to make it so by updating the official online FAQs.
XvReaperXv wrote: I'm all for a FAQ, but using disembarking and mawlocs saying everyone gets healed according to our interpretation of RP is insane and borderline childish.
No one is arguing that happens, but that is a side effect of the arguments put forth by Col and orknado and is exactly why Charistoph and doctortom says their arguments can't be correct.
My argument has nothing to do with transports of Mawlocs. Vipoid was the one discussing Transports, not me. Slain models are not in units so they don't have profiles when they are 'removed from play' and so when they are reanimated their profile will then have the number of wounds on the datasheet. See the spoiler below for a summary of my argument.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Also, you might find it helpful to see a comparison between my argument and Charistoph's argument which I already posted.
Spoiler:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main promise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. The datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
In the spoiler above I show how Charistoph's argument is invalid. So far, I am the only one presenting a valid argument in this thread so far. Everything I argue proceeds from my main premise that slain models are not in units. My main premise has RAW and logical support. The alternative premise that slain models are in units breaks the game to to the point where you need to make up several rules to fix all the rules that premise breaks. Since the alternative premise breaks the game, the premise is not valid (the Break No Rule rule of this forum, aka reductio ad absurdum).
I would love it if people who disagree with my argument could present valid counter arguments. So how about it? For those of you who disagree with my argument, what is your valid alternative?
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
Your statement isn't correct at all. I've shown where you have assumptions in your argument so that it is not RAW, and you have not chosen to address those, instead focusing on Charistoph's arguments instead. To be fair, though, I think I'll choose your statement here over Charistoph's statement as the funniest thing I've read (at least in this thread). Let's see if you come back with any arguments against what I did before or if you, like col impact, just ignore what I said and continue to assert that you have proven your argument despite things that have been demonstrated that disprove it. Or we might find out that you're just ignoring whatever I'm putting as as something you just don't want to have to deal with.
I did address your critique with rules support. You are the one failing to address my rules supported dismissal of your critique.
Only models that are in units have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". Once the model is not in the unit the datasheet does not list the characteristics, wargear, or abilities of that model anymore. I see no permission for models to have profiles that list their characteristics unless they are in units.
Also, doctortom, I am curious about which premise you think is the correct one?
1) slain models are not in units
2) slain models are in units
If you consider 2 the correct premise how do you fix all the rules you break without having to make up a bunch of rules? A premise can't be valid if it breaks a whole bunch of other rules and you have to make up out the blue a bunch of ad hoc rules to fix the rules you break.
No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
XvReaperXv wrote: I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out.
Why? Why shouldn't we use the example given on GW's Twitch feed and go for one wound instead?
Because Twitch is not a rule source.
You have violated a tenet of this forum by Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
I have shown a rule that shows that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. I have no permission to attribute a profile to slain models. My argument is proved. This is a permissive dataset. Slain models that are not in units do not have profiles unless YOU can show they have permission to have that profile. This is not an assumption on my part. That is just how permission works. A slain model does not have permission to have a profile so it has none. So far you have been completely unable to show this thread any permission for slain models to have profiles. That is why your critique has no rules support and no merit. I have pointed this out repeatedly already and you are ignoring your critique's lack of rules support or merit. Let me know when you are prepared to provide a critique that has merit.
In fact, if we dig deeper into the assumptions behind your critique we can see that you are the one making assumptions. There is no rule that permanently affixes profiles to models. No rule indicates that profiles are sticky or permanent. This is entirely an assumption on your part. The only thing we have to go on in the rule is the permission for models in units to have a profile. Once a model is no longer in a unit it loses permission to have a profile, so it no longer has a profile.
doctortom wrote: You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
Only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit and so no longer has permission to have that profile. Until you can show permission for models that are not in units to have a profile, my argument is proved and your critique remains disproved. This is a permissive data set so the burden of proof is on you here since your critique is invalidly claiming permission that it does not have (attribute a profile to models not in units).
doctortom wrote: It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
I am not just disagreeing with it since it contradicts my position. I would be fine with it as a rules source if it indeed were officially endorsed by GW as a rules source. Can you provide evidence that it is to be treated as an official rules source? If you cannot, then it's just two players playing the game according to their understanding of the rules which may or may not be correct. I pointed to the standards that YMDC has on this matter and it is clear that the Twitch video does not meet that standard. So your statement here is in direct violation of the rules of YMDC.
doctortom wrote: No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
To be fair, I did bring this up (I may have been referencing your statement in some manner), and he just as equally ignored it. It was part of the whole concept of the model being out of the unit. His insistence on choosing not to listen to others and using an assumption as the written word is rather detrimental to having any reasonable discussion.
Just because a datasheet has a profile for every model in the unit, by no means excludes the model when they leave it.
doctortom wrote: You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
Indeed, Ghaz was even pointing it out as using as a standard of HYWPI. I didn't see him post it as Rules As Written. That's not a violation of YMDC Tenet #4 at all.
He needs to understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI in order to properly understand where we've been coming from. Apparently, he does not feel the need to listen to what others say because he is a professor, and they know everything.
doctortom wrote: No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
To be fair, I did bring this up (I may have been referencing your statement in some manner), and he just as equally ignored it. It was part of the whole concept of the model being out of the unit. His insistence on choosing not to listen to others and using an assumption as the written word is rather detrimental to having any reasonable discussion.
Just because a datasheet has a profile for every model in the unit, by no means excludes the model when they leave it.
I already proved his critique invalid in my post above. You did not address my post, so I am guessing you did not read it. Here it is again for you.
I have shown a rule that shows that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. I have no permission to attribute a profile to slain models. My argument is proved. This is a permissive dataset. Slain models that are not in units do not have profiles unless YOU can show they have permission to have that profile. This is not an assumption on my part. That is just how permission works. A slain model does not have permission to have a profile so it has none. So far you have been completely unable to show this thread any permission for slain models to have profiles. That is why your critique has no rules support and no merit. I have pointed this out repeatedly already and you are ignoring your critique's lack of rules support or merit. Let me know when you are prepared to provide a critique that has merit.
In fact, if we dig deeper into the assumptions behind your critique we can see that you are the one making assumptions. There is no rule that permanently affixes profiles to models. No rule indicates that profiles are sticky or permanent. This is entirely an assumption on your part. The only thing we have to go on in the rule is the permission for models in units to have a profile. Once a model is no longer in a unit it loses permission to have a profile, so it no longer has a profile.
doctortom wrote: You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
Indeed, Ghaz was even pointing it out as using as a standard of HYWPI. I didn't see him post it as Rules As Written. That's not a violation of YMDC Tenet #4 at all.
He needs to understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI in order to properly understand where we've been coming from. Apparently, he does not feel the need to listen to what others say because he is a professor, and they know everything.
First, Ghaz did not present his statement as 'a standard of HYWPI'. Discussions of HYWPI are not relevant to the thread. I was assuming he was posting something relevant to the debate. So if you want to mark his comment as HYWPI then you have essentially marked his comment as non-relevant.
Second, there are no standards for HYWPI. A horoscope can be used for a basis for HYWPI or a flip of a coin. Discussions of HYWPI are not relevant to this debate.
So far, I am the only one presenting a valid argument in this thread so far. In the spoiler below I show how the differences between Charistoph's argument and my argument.
Spoiler:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main promise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. The datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
Everything I argue proceeds from my main premise that slain models are not in units. My main premise has RAW and logical support. The alternative premise that slain models are in units breaks the game to to the point where you need to make up several rules to fix all the rules that premise breaks. Since the alternative premise breaks the game, the premise is not valid (the Break No Rule rule of this forum, aka reductio ad absurdum).
I would love it if people who disagree with my argument could present valid counter arguments. So how about it? For those of you who disagree with my argument, what is your valid alternative?
Charistoph failed to produce a valid argument. The argument he presented (that slain models are in units) breaks all the Core Rules and he is forced to make up at least 5 rules to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is ridiculous.
Orknado has a valid argument with RAW support. His argument is that slain models are not in units. His argument leads logically and with rules support to slain models not having profiles and losing the wound characteristic. This means that Necron models reanimate with full wounds.
Doctortom failed to provide rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument. He failed to produce a rule that attributes profiles to models which are not in units. He also failed to produce a rule that permanently affixes profiles to models.
Since Doctortom failed to support his critiques with rules, Orknado's argument that slain models lose their profiles (and therewith their wound characteristic) remains uncontested. When a model is slain, the model is no longer in the unit, so it loses permission to have a profile. That is how permission works.
So Orknado wins this thread so far. Necrons reanimate with full wounds.
Charistoph failed to produce a valid argument. The argument he presented (that slain models are in units) breaks all the Core Rules and he is forced to make up at least 5 rules to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is ridiculous.
Orknado has a valid argument with RAW support. His argument is that slain models are not in units. His argument leads logically and with rules support to slain models not having profiles and losing the wound characteristic. This means that Necron models reanimate with full wounds.
Doctortom failed to provide rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument. He failed to produce a rule that attributes profiles to models which are not in units. He also failed to produce a rule that permanently affixes profiles to models.
Since Doctortom failed to support his critiques with rules, Orknado's argument that slain models lose their profiles (and therewith their wound characteristic) remains uncontested. When a model is slain, the model is no longer in the unit, so it loses permission to have a profile. That is how permission works.
So Orknado wins this thread so far. Necrons reanimate with full wounds.
More accurate summary:
The rules are unclear. FAQ required.
Seriously people, it's OK to admit the rules don't say one way or another. If nothing else, having to resort to pages and pages of convoluted logic to "prove" your point is ridiculous when a much simpler answer has presented itself. Granted, that particular answer isn't very satisfying but that's where we are right now. I'm sure we'll be seeing army-specific FAQs in the near future where this will be covered.
Side note: once a discussion gets past a couple of pages with no change in the nature of the argument for any of the parties involved it ceases to be of any use to anyone.
Charistoph failed to produce a valid argument. The argument he presented (that slain models are in units) breaks all the Core Rules and he is forced to make up at least 5 rules to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is ridiculous.
Orknado has a valid argument with RAW support. His argument is that slain models are not in units. His argument leads logically and with rules support to slain models not having profiles and losing the wound characteristic. This means that Necron models reanimate with full wounds.
Doctortom failed to provide rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument. He failed to produce a rule that attributes profiles to models which are not in units. He also failed to produce a rule that permanently affixes profiles to models.
Since Doctortom failed to support his critiques with rules, Orknado's argument that slain models lose their profiles (and therewith their wound characteristic) remains uncontested. When a model is slain, the model is no longer in the unit, so it loses permission to have a profile. That is how permission works.
So Orknado wins this thread so far. Necrons reanimate with full wounds.
That sounds about right for your level of intellect and language understanding. The only thing that has been 'won' is that neither you nor orknado understand RAW.
We have instructions to remove models from play, but not models from unit. Therefore, any models that are in the unit at the beginning of the game are still in the unit at the end of the game. This is possible because a unit is an organizational entity not a box. It's a different version of 'in' than being in a box. We are not told to bring the model back into the unit, just return it to the unit. Where has the model been and where is it returning from? It is been out of play, not out of the unit. This isn't making up rules, it is using the rules that we have in the language that has been presented. The fact that this may cause broken mechanics is immaterial when presenting a RAW argument.
DoctorTom and I have simply pointed out the lack of instructions presented by the Written Rules. We have rules to return the models to the unit, but no instructions to do anything more than that to the model itself. We have no instructions to return any Wounds back to the model nor instructions to ignore what happened to the model before it was slain. Those are the written rules. Anything else is supposition and assumption.
Orknado (and you) have failed to provide any written statements on what to do with models between "remove from play" and "return to the unit", but continue to insert things "intended" in there based on assumptions and call it RAW. When either of you can properly quote what happens there, with it supporting your theory, you can then call it "won".
Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
Things are just too unclear without enough details given currently to make a blanket statement on which way is right. Much like the Scything Talons question though, it is best to play the version of the rule least beneficial to you until there is a clarification released.
We have instructions to remove models from play, but not models from unit. Therefore, any models that are in the unit at the beginning of the game are still in the unit at the end of the game. This is possible because a unit is an organizational entity not a box. It's a different version of 'in' than being in a box. We are not told to bring the model back into the unit, just return it to the unit. Where has the model been and where is it returning from? It is been out of play, not out of the unit. This isn't making up rules, it is using the rules that we have in the language that has been presented. The fact that this may cause broken mechanics is immaterial when presenting a RAW argument.
The Core Rules always refer to 'in' as an organizational entity. If a slain model is 'in' a unit then nearly all the Core Rules break and you are required to make up several rules in order to fix the game. Further, claiming that slain models are in units violates the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates the slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that slain models that are reanimated are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they were not already IN the unit. Not only does your argument break the game beyond repair, your argument forces you to make up several rules in order to fix the game your premise broke, and your premise violates the Rules As Written for the Reanimation Protocols rule. Your argument is not only dismissed because it violates the Rules As Written it is also dismissed logically by virtue of the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum which is a tenet of YMDC (as expressed in its Break No Rule tenet).
Charistoph wrote: DoctorTom and I have simply pointed out the lack of instructions presented by the Written Rules. We have rules to return the models to the unit, but no instructions to do anything more than that to the model itself. We have no instructions to return any Wounds back to the model nor instructions to ignore what happened to the model before it was slain. Those are the written rules. Anything else is supposition and assumption.
The Reanimation Protocols rule that tells you to take reanimated slain models that are FROM the unit and 'return [them] to this unit' indicates that slain models are without a doubt not IN the unit. That's a written rule. We further have a written rule that only models that are IN units have a datasheet or a profile. Therefore, when a model is slain it no longer has permission to have the profile that lists its wound characteristic. When a slain model is reanimated and 'returned to this unit', it will at that point in time have a profile attributed to it which will have the number of wounds on its datasheet. For a Destroyer model that number of wounds will be 3.
Charistoph wrote: Orknado (and you) have failed to provide any written statements on what to do with models between "remove from play" and "return to the unit", but continue to insert things "intended" in there based on assumptions and call it RAW. When either of you can properly quote what happens there, with it supporting your theory, you can then call it "won".
Incorrect. My argument is firmly supported by the Rules As Written and my argument does not break the game beyond repair like yours does. See my argument in the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Everything I advance about my argument is firmly supported by the Rules As Written. Further, my argument Breaks No Rules and is therefore valid logically and per the tenets of YMDC. Your argument breaks nearly all the Core Rules and has no Rules As Written support and is deemed invalid by the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum (aka the Break No Rules tenet for YMDC).
I have presented a valid argument with Rules As Written justification for consideration. Let me know when you are prepared to present a valid argument for consideration. Until you or someone else does so, my valid argument remains unchallenged.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
Things are just too unclear without enough details given currently to make a blanket statement on which way is right. Much like the Scything Talons question though, it is best to play the version of the rule least beneficial to you until there is a clarification released.
Yeah, when trying to figure out HYWPI, it always good to make a benefit analysis to offer up when bringing it up with opponents or TOs. Some people are actually willing to fight against armies that receive the most powerful benefit of an interpretation, but most won't be.
I see Orknado quoted me in the review box below. But since he won't listen to me, I don't feel the need to actually read what he says. Communication is a two-way street. It's one of those things one should have learned in a college communication class.
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
Things are just too unclear without enough details given currently to make a blanket statement on which way is right. Much like the Scything Talons question though, it is best to play the version of the rule least beneficial to you until there is a clarification released.
Yeah, when trying to figure out HYWPI, it always good to make a benefit analysis to offer up when bringing it up with opponents or TOs. Some people are actually willing to fight against armies that receive the most powerful benefit of an interpretation, but most won't be.
I see Orknado quoted me in the review box below. But since he won't listen to me, I don't feel the need to actually read what he says. Communication is a two-way street. It's one of those things one should have learned in a college communication class.
I have listened to and responded to your post. I can only accept your view if it is presenting a valid argument and is firmly supported by the Rules As Written. Your argument is neither. I will gladly accept your argument when you are able to present one that is valid. It is your responsibility to present a valid argument. Your argument does not become valid simply by your presenting it. I cannot accept an argument based on your word alone.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0. And, again, I don't think a model can lose multiple wounds instantly, I believe they have to be resolved individually. Otherwise, the rules state models are slain at 0 wounds, and wounds are not restricted like other characteristics to a minimum number. One could argue that taking 6 wounds from a single shot could reduce the model to a negative wounds number and, since it is only slain at 0 wounds, immortality.
None of this is in the Reanimation Protocols rules, I'm just applying interpretations of that rule to other areas of the game to glean intent.
I know this thread is 9 pages deep now and maybe this has been covered, but the above is not correct. You can suffer 3 damage from 1 shot and be removed instantly. You allocate and roll saves one at a time, but if you fail your save, and suffer 3 damage, there is no step-by-step of removing one damage at a time. You simply suffer 3 damage, losing 3 wounds. You go from 3 to 0 immediately. This is also pretty clear under 5. Inflict Damage under the Shooting rules. Last sentence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound
And I disagree with this. The only reason is my experience with Age of Sigmar. In Age of Sigmar, the Death army's multi-wound models are returned at full wounds. Makes me suspect that Necrons will follow that same game design.
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0. And, again, I don't think a model can lose multiple wounds instantly, I believe they have to be resolved individually. Otherwise, the rules state models are slain at 0 wounds, and wounds are not restricted like other characteristics to a minimum number. One could argue that taking 6 wounds from a single shot could reduce the model to a negative wounds number and, since it is only slain at 0 wounds, immortality.
None of this is in the Reanimation Protocols rules, I'm just applying interpretations of that rule to other areas of the game to glean intent.
I know this thread is 9 pages deep now and maybe this has been covered, but the above is not correct. You can suffer 3 damage from 1 shot and be removed instantly. You allocate and roll saves one at a time, but if you fail your save, and suffer 3 damage, there is no step-by-step of removing one damage at a time. You simply suffer 3 damage, losing 3 wounds. You go from 3 to 0 immediately. This is also pretty clear under 5. Inflict Damage under the Shooting rules. Last sentence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
And I disagree with this. The only reason is my experience with Age of Sigmar. In Age of Sigmar, the Death army's multi-wound models are returned at full wounds. Makes me suspect that Necrons will follow that same game design.
There is no way to sort out which House Rule is better. Luckily, we do not have to. There are rules that clearly indicate how to resolve the matter. So we simply follow those Rules As they are Written instead of resorting to House Rules.
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I agree with the 'full wounds' camp. Not because of the exhaustive explanation you laid out above, but because it makes the most sense. The rules does not explicitly say for the model to come back with 1 wound, which is more specific than returning with its datasheet characteristic. If no specific rule exists, then you must go with the general rule.
puma713 wrote: Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I agree with the 'full wounds' camp. Not because of the exhaustive explanation you laid out above, but because it makes the most sense. The rules does not explicitly say for the model to come back with 1 wound, which is more specific than returning with its datasheet characteristic. If no specific rule exists, then you must go with the general rule.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with. As I've stated before, if this was a "new" model being added to the unit, there wouldn't be any question as to how many Wounds would be on the model. But we are dealing with a case of "old model returning" with the baggage of a modified profile with it.
Fluff-wise could go either way, too. The model was either repaired the minimum to get back on the field, or it wasn't allowed to come back until it was back in full fighting trim. Historically, it's been 1 Wound, but apparently Sigmar has it with full Wounds.
Still, I'd be willing to play against either until an FAQ comes out, if I wasn't busy trying to sell a house, semi-remotely buy a new house, set up moving between the two, and had an army that wasn't much more than a glorified kill team list (7th's last General FAQ left a sour taste in my mouth, and I haven't been able to sell these chainsword Crusaders in years).
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
puma713 wrote: Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I agree with the 'full wounds' camp. Not because of the exhaustive explanation you laid out above, but because it makes the most sense. The rules does not explicitly say for the model to come back with 1 wound, which is more specific than returning with its datasheet characteristic. If no specific rule exists, then you must go with the general rule.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with. As I've stated before, if this was a "new" model being added to the unit, there wouldn't be any question as to how many Wounds would be on the model. But we are dealing with a case of "old model returning" with the baggage of a modified profile with it.
Fluff-wise could go either way, too. The model was either repaired the minimum to get back on the field, or it wasn't allowed to come back until it was back in full fighting trim. Historically, it's been 1 Wound, but apparently Sigmar has it with full Wounds.
Still, I'd be willing to play against either until an FAQ comes out, if I wasn't busy trying to sell a house, semi-remotely buy a new house, set up moving between the two, and had an army that wasn't much more than a glorified kill team list (7th's last General FAQ left a sour taste in my mouth, and I haven't been able to sell these chainsword Crusaders in years).
Slain models are not in units . Only models that are in units have profiles. Therefore a slain model that is reanimated will at that point in time receive a profile with the amount of wounds indicated on it per the datasheet. In the case of a Destroyer that number will be 3 wounds.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
Your argument was my original argument. I changed my argument when I noticed that the Reanimation Protocols rule indicates that slain models are not in units and that the Datasheet rule only applies to models in units. Therefore, the Rules As Written provides an answer for the thread.
Your argument is helpful though in that it shows that the argument for 1 wound is hopeless by all stretches of the imagination.
No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
I have shown a rule that shows that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. I have no permission to attribute a profile to slain models. My argument is proved.
First, proven, not proved. Second, you haven't proven it. You have a rule that grants models in units a profile. The model gains the profile at the beginning of the game. You are making an assumption that the permission is revoked when the model is reduced to zero wounds. The rules do not state this, however. You are making an assumption that the model no longer has the profile that it was granted at the beginning of the game. It has a profile to start with, and it is returned to the game without a statement saying it loses its profile at one time and gets a brand new profile when it comes back.
I also have to say, going to the datasheet section to try to dig out the quote to claim that RP gives you full wounds is a convulted thing to try to prove it's RAW. As I point out here, there isn't proof that the model loses its profile when it's reduced to zero wounds. This makes your argument dubious and certainly something to be contested as a RAW argument. There is no statement explicitly stating that a model regains full wounds when it is returned to the board. You have a model that had a profile getting a different profile when it comes back (as, when it left, the profile it had showed it at zero wounds). The datasheet rule doesn't say it restores the model to this profile or automatically gives this complete profile to a returning model. You have assumptions built in which show that you are trying to make an interpretation to make something to fit when it doesn't cover all the points you are arguing - you just assume that some of those points not covered can be ignored.
There is no way to sort out which House Rule is better. Luckily, we do not have to. There are rules that clearly indicate how to resolve the matter.
Given that your argument is in dispute as well as the differing sides on what number of wounds it should come back with (3 vs 1 vs RAW saying 0 but that's silly vs there being no statement so house rule it - the last two can sometimes be combined), along with a GW endorsed video showing gameplay with the number of wounds the model came back with not matching up with what you claim, despite them playing by the same rules you claim are clear, it is obvious to most people that it is absolutely not clear at all, and you should stop trying to claim that it is clear.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
Nothing I said could logically reinforce your statement. You also clipped out the rest of the paragraph which provided more context to that sentence.
The datasheet does not come in to full play, because the profile has already been modified, which is why the model was slain in the first place. Without specific directions from the returning rule detailing another modification restoring any Wounds or original profile, and without any general rule of what happens when a slain model is returned to the unit, all we are left with is a null value. That you could use such logic to find a HYWPI solution, I do not deny, but it does not mean that a statement logically says something it does not say.
In a programming language, a model is more like an class with several different values stored in it. One of the variables would be Wounds, and another would be In_Play.
So, we have an instructions that state:
* If SaveRoll < Sv, then Wounds = Wounds - Dmg.
* If Wounds <= 0, Then In_Play = False.
Then we reach another instruction set that states:
* If RPRoll >= 5, Then Returned = True.
No instruction given so far, either general or specific, is providing another Modification to the Wounds value of the model returned to the unit by Reanimation Protocols, neither to origin or any other stated value. And this is why DoctorTom and I are both stating that any number beyond zero is pure HYWPI. I honestly don't know why people get so uptight about recognizing that a rule is broken (speaking of an ignored individual).
Heck, we don't even have a proper instruction of what to do with a model, either physically, statistically, or organizationally, when it IS removed from play, much less how that interacts with returning the model. It's like a computer procedure that someone properly set up the values with, but forgot the type the lines of code for it to actually DO anything.
No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
I have shown a rule that shows that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. I have no permission to attribute a profile to slain models. My argument is proved.
doctortom wrote: Second, you haven't proven it. You have a rule that grants models in units a profile. The model gains the profile at the beginning of the game. You are making an assumption that the permission is revoked when the model is reduced to zero wounds. The rules do not state this, however. You are making an assumption that the model no longer has the profile that it was granted at the beginning of the game. It has a profile to start with, and it is returned to the game without a statement saying it loses its profile at one time and gets a brand new profile when it comes back.
I also have to say, going to the datasheet section to try to dig out the quote to claim that RP gives you full wounds is a convulted thing to try to prove it's RAW. As I point out here, there isn't proof that the model loses its profile when it's reduced to zero wounds. This makes your argument dubious and certainly something to be contested as a RAW argument. There is no statement explicitly stating that a model regains full wounds when it is returned to the board. You have a model that had a profile getting a different profile when it comes back (as, when it left, the profile it had showed it at zero wounds). The datasheet rule doesn't say it restores the model to this profile or automatically gives this complete profile to a returning model. You have assumptions built in which show that you are trying to make an interpretation to make something to fit when it doesn't cover all the points you are arguing - you just assume that some of those points not covered can be ignored.
Your critique isn't meeting the burden of proof. There is a huge assumption in your critique that profiles are permanent things. This is a permissive dataset so when permission is removed for something that something is lost. In this case once the permission is lost to have a profile, the profile is lost. That is precisely how the rules work.
Slain models are not in units per the rules. Models that are not in units do not have profiles per the rules. When a model is slain it loses its permission to have a profile. You have been unable to show that a profile once assigned is permanently affixed to the model.
Since you were unable to find a rule that permanently affixes the profile to the model, then the profile (along with the wound characteristic) is lost when a model is slain and removed from the unit. The slain model will then be reanimated according to the number of wounds on the datasheet.
Given that your argument is in dispute as well as the differing sides on what number of wounds it should come back with (3 vs 1 vs RAW saying 0 but that's silly vs there being no statement so house rule it - the last two can sometimes be combined), along with a GW endorsed video showing gameplay with the number of wounds the model came back with not matching up with what you claim, despite them playing by the same rules you claim are clear, it is obvious to most people that it is absolutely not clear at all, and you should stop trying to claim that it is clear.
I asked you to present evidence that the GW twitch video is officially endorsed as a rules source. You haven't yet. So why are you cluttering up this thread with arguments that have zero merit?
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
Nothing I said could logically reinforce your statement. You also clipped out the rest of the paragraph which provided more context to that sentence.
The datasheet does not come in to full play, because the profile has already been modified, which is why the model was slain in the first place. Without specific directions from the returning rule detailing another modification restoring any Wounds or original profile, and without any general rule of what happens when a slain model is returned to the unit, all we are left with is a null value. That you could use such logic to find a HYWPI solution, I do not deny, but it does not mean that a statement logically says something it does not say.
In a programming language, a model is more like an class with several different values stored in it. One of the variables would be Wounds, and another would be In_Play.
So, we have an instructions that state:
* If SaveRoll < Sv, then Wounds = Wounds - Dmg.
* If Wounds <= 0, Then In_Play = False.
Then we reach another instruction set that states:
* If RPRoll >= 5, Then Returned = True.
No instruction given so far, either general or specific, is providing another Modification to the Wounds value of the model returned to the unit by Reanimation Protocols, neither to origin or any other stated value. And this is why DoctorTom and I are both stating that any number beyond zero is pure HYWPI. I honestly don't know why people get so uptight about recognizing that a rule is broken (speaking of an ignored individual).
Heck, we don't even have a proper instruction of what to do with a model, either physically, statistically, or organizationally, when it IS removed from play, much less how that interacts with returning the model. It's like a computer procedure that someone properly set up the values with, but forgot the type the lines of code for it to actually DO anything.
Since you like computer metaphors, try this one.
To express this in computer terms, if you compile with slain models set to IN units then it refuses to compile. The game breaks and produces bizarre buggy behavior where units drift off to the side of the battlefield to stay in coherency with slain models, and units are invulnerable to further harm because all wounds are being allocated to the slain models, among other bugs like reanimating models at zero wounds (that would be invulnerable per explicit instructions the Resolve Attack sequence)
However if you compile the 40k ruleset with slain models set to not IN units then the game performs without bugs and models are reanimated with the amount of wounds on their datasheet. All that it takes for the game to work without a hitch is the setting of that one variable that is otherwise an undefined variable.
And we know that that variable needs to be set that way. The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that the variable is set that way. That's why my argument is Rules As Written.
So once again, in computer terms, if you set slain models to IN then you get a hopelessly buggy program. If you set slain models to not IN then the program works as designed and performs marvelously. So which setting for the slain models is correct? This is another way of expressing what 'reductio ad absurdum' means.
Now you can go in and write mountains of ad hoc spaghetti code adding additional instructions to define and differentitate between 'removed from play' and 'in unit' to eventually get the program to compile and work with the variable of slain models set to IN. That would still leave you with models reanimating at zero wounds so you need to still write an ad hoc line of spaghetti code to arbitrarily set the wound count to 1 or 3.
Alternatively you compile the program with slain models set to not IN and the program runs perfectly fine and to spec. All the rules work as designed and Reanimation Protocols returns a valid result. No mountains of spaghetti code required.
Which of those procedures involves good programming sense on behalf of the programmer? Obviously the latter, so as a programmer why are you insisting on the former?
The rules aren't broken. Only your argument that slain models are somehow in units is broken.
Slain models are not in units. If you argue that slain models are in units then nearly all of the Core Rules break and you must make up 5 rules out of your imagination in order to fix all the rules that you break. So your argument has no validity and you cannot use your argument to counter an argument that has validity.
We know for certain that slain models are not in units. The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us so. Per the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule, we know for certain that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they were not already IN the unit.
Since slain models are NOT IN units then they lose their profile (and their wound characteristic) when they are slain. When they are reanimated and 'returned to this unit' then they will once again have a profile and the number of wounds on that profile. If they are Destroyers then they will be reanimated with 3 wounds.
doctortom wrote: Second, you haven't proven it. You have a rule that grants models in units a profile. The model gains the profile at the beginning of the game. You are making an assumption that the permission is revoked when the model is reduced to zero wounds. The rules do not state this, however. You are making an assumption that the model no longer has the profile that it was granted at the beginning of the game. It has a profile to start with, and it is returned to the game without a statement saying it loses its profile at one time and gets a brand new profile when it comes back.
I also have to say, going to the datasheet section to try to dig out the quote to claim that RP gives you full wounds is a convulted thing to try to prove it's RAW. As I point out here, there isn't proof that the model loses its profile when it's reduced to zero wounds. This makes your argument dubious and certainly something to be contested as a RAW argument. There is no statement explicitly stating that a model regains full wounds when it is returned to the board. You have a model that had a profile getting a different profile when it comes back (as, when it left, the profile it had showed it at zero wounds). The datasheet rule doesn't say it restores the model to this profile or automatically gives this complete profile to a returning model. You have assumptions built in which show that you are trying to make an interpretation to make something to fit when it doesn't cover all the points you are arguing - you just assume that some of those points not covered can be ignored.
Your critique isn't meeting the burden of proof. There is a huge assumption in your critique that profiles are permanent things. This is a permissive dataset so when permission is removed for something that something is lost. In this case once the permission is lost to have a profile, the profile is lost. That is precisely how the rules work.
Slain models are not in units per the rules. Models that are not in units do not have profiles per the rules. When a model is slain it loses its permission to have a profile. You have been unable to show that a profile once assigned is permanently affixed to the model.
Since you were unable to find a rule that permanently affixes the profile to the model, then the profile (along with the wound characteristic) is lost when a model is slain and removed from the unit. The slain model will then be reanimated according to the number of wounds on the datasheet.
you miss the point. You are assuming the profile is a completely temporary thing that disappears. The models get the profile at the beginning of the game from the datasheet. You assume that the profile does not stay with the model once given by the datasheet. You do not have a rules quote to state that the profile no longer applies when it goes to 0 wounds, though - you assume that the profile is gone. I don't have to prove that the datasheet applies, I merely have to point out that there needs to be a specific statement that it no longer applies and, in addition, a statement saying that a model that returns to the unit uses the pristine profile (unlike when it left the board). The burden of proof is on you; the assumption that it loses permission is not stated in the rules - the model had a profile given to it, but there's no statement about it going away. Therefore you have an assumption that makes your argument not RAW.
Also, if it's supposed to be RAW, why would it need all those contortions when it would have much more easily been taken care of by saying that the model is returned with full wounds? Since it doesn't make the statement, it isn't RAW. I don't have a problem with you making an assumption that it gets full wounds and house ruling it that way, just don't call it RAW.
Charistoph still has a ridiculous argument that breaks all of the Core Rules and that is against the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rules).
Orknado still is the only one with a valid rule supported argument.
Doctortom still has no rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument.
Therefore, the thread has come to the conclusion that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.
col, it's amazing how you only show up to be Orknado's cheerleader since he showed up and started posting, and only show up right after he posts to cheerlead him. And, the both of you seem to miss the point that the two of you need the rules support. Saying I have no rules support for my argument is also ridiculous on the face of it. My critique is pointing out the lack of full support from the rules for Orknado's and your argument, which you need to have for RAW. My position is that we don't have RAW support for making a decision (in fact, the last indication for the model's wound level is when it's taken off the board at 0 wounds without a rules statement to support it being changed when it comes back, but have acknowledged that playing by RAW with that result doesn't work). So, you are crowing again that I have no rules support to say that there is no rules support to claim that by RAW the models come back at full wounds. Once again, since I asked you this before, please indicate what kind of rules support - given previous comments from you, presumably a rules quotation - would be expected to point out that there is not rules support? I hope you aren't seriously expecting a rules quotation that states "We have not put in any rules to determine the number of wounds the model comes back with." (That would also be RAW of a lack, not a lack of RAW )
Jesus, will you look at how long and convoluted this thread is?
After a cursory glance, it appears as if there are two possibilities:
Either they come back with zero wounds (which is obviously not how it is meant to be played), or they come back with full wounds.
I can see nothing that would suggest multi wound models would come back with only a single wound, and will assume that interpretation was invented as a house rule.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
They use house rules on GW's Twitch channel? Also note, you're not going to find anything that says how many wounds they come back with. That's the problem.
skoffs wrote: Jesus, will you look at how long and convoluted this thread is?
After a cursory glance, it appears as if there are two possibilities:
Either they come back with zero wounds (which is obviously not how it is meant to be played), or they come back with full wounds.
I can see nothing that would suggest multi wound models would come back with only a single wound, and will assume that interpretation was invented as a house rule.
There is as much to suggest full Wounds as a single Wound. We honestly do not know. It's rather irritating that they made such a big mess up here.
A single Wound is all that is necessary for the model to be on the board, after all, and there is a lot of historical precedence to consider as well.
Someone pointed out that the Undead in Sigmar come back with full Wounds, so that could be an indication as well.
Given that your argument is in dispute as well as the differing sides on what number of wounds it should come back with (3 vs 1 vs RAW saying 0 but that's silly vs there being no statement so house rule it - the last two can sometimes be combined), along with a GW endorsed video showing gameplay with the number of wounds the model came back with not matching up with what you claim, despite them playing by the same rules you claim are clear, it is obvious to most people that it is absolutely not clear at all, and you should stop trying to claim that it is clear.
I asked you to present evidence that the GW twitch video is officially endorsed as a rules source. You haven't yet. So why are you cluttering up this thread with arguments that have zero merit?
GW posted it on their Twitch channel as an example of playing. This is for people to watch to see how the rules work - on GW's Twitch channel (which is their official channel). As I pointed out, that's official enough to at least suggest that it's RAI. Your claim that the argument has zero merit itself has zero merit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skoffs wrote: Jesus, will you look at how long and convoluted this thread is?
After a cursory glance, it appears as if there are two possibilities:
Either they come back with zero wounds (which is obviously not how it is meant to be played), or they come back with full wounds.
I can see nothing that would suggest multi wound models would come back with only a single wound, and will assume that interpretation was invented as a house rule.
You're right that there are two possibilities, but you're not right about the options. Either they come back with zero wounds, which is RAW since there's no statement that they come back with any other level, or they come back with some level of wounds that it not zero. RAW isn't really playable, so you don't play it by RAW. The video on GW's twitch channel is a suggestion for RAI, at least. Arguments exist for coming back with full wounds, but again it's a house rule like coming back with 1 wound would be. Talk with your opponents, agree beforehand and play it the way your group is happy with until a FAQ shows up to clear it up.
you miss the point. You are assuming the profile is a completely temporary thing that disappears. The models get the profile at the beginning of the game from the datasheet. You assume that the profile does not stay with the model once given by the datasheet. You do not have a rules quote to state that the profile no longer applies when it goes to 0 wounds, though - you assume that the profile is gone. I don't have to prove that the datasheet applies, I merely have to point out that there needs to be a specific statement that it no longer applies and, in addition, a statement saying that a model that returns to the unit uses the pristine profile (unlike when it left the board). The burden of proof is on you; the assumption that it loses permission is not stated in the rules - the model had a profile given to it, but there's no statement about it going away. Therefore you have an assumption that makes your argument not RAW.
Also, if it's supposed to be RAW, why would it need all those contortions when it would have much more easily been taken care of by saying that the model is returned with full wounds? Since it doesn't make the statement, it isn't RAW. I don't have a problem with you making an assumption that it gets full wounds and house ruling it that way, just don't call it RAW.
I am not the one making assumptions here. This is a permissive dataset. You don't have permission to do something unless you have permission. Slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have profiles. Profiles are not permanently affixed to models unless you have permission to permanently affix profiles to models.
Until you show permission, your critiques of my argument have no rules support and are completely invalid.
My argument follows strictly from the Rules As Written. Slain models do not have permission to have profiles. No rule states that profiles are permanently affixed. Therefore when a model is slain it loses its profile (and the associated Wound characterstic) and will be reanimated with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
I asked you to present evidence that the GW twitch video is officially endorsed as a rules source. You haven't yet. So why are you cluttering up this thread with arguments that have zero merit?
GW posted it on their Twitch channel as an example of playing. This is for people to watch to see how the rules work - on GW's Twitch channel (which is their official channel). As I pointed out, that's official enough to at least suggest that it's RAI. Your claim that the argument has zero merit itself has zero merit.
Incorrect. Until you can point to an official statement that the Twitch channel is an official rules source, the channel has no status whatsoever. It's just two dudes playing 40k 8th edition. Let me know when you can point to a GW statement that the Twitch channel is to be understood by everyone as how the game is meant to be played. Until then your suggestion is as laughably inappropriate as asking GW store employees for rulings.
There is as much to suggest full Wounds as a single Wound. We honestly do not know. It's rather irritating that they made such a big mess up here.
A single Wound is all that is necessary for the model to be on the board, after all, and there is a lot of historical precedence to consider as well.
Someone pointed out that the Undead in Sigmar come back with full Wounds, so that could be an indication as well.
Incorrect. There is direct rules support for full wounds. See the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
you miss the point. You are assuming the profile is a completely temporary thing that disappears. The models get the profile at the beginning of the game from the datasheet. You assume that the profile does not stay with the model once given by the datasheet. You do not have a rules quote to state that the profile no longer applies when it goes to 0 wounds, though - you assume that the profile is gone. I don't have to prove that the datasheet applies, I merely have to point out that there needs to be a specific statement that it no longer applies and, in addition, a statement saying that a model that returns to the unit uses the pristine profile (unlike when it left the board). The burden of proof is on you; the assumption that it loses permission is not stated in the rules - the model had a profile given to it, but there's no statement about it going away. Therefore you have an assumption that makes your argument not RAW.
Also, if it's supposed to be RAW, why would it need all those contortions when it would have much more easily been taken care of by saying that the model is returned with full wounds? Since it doesn't make the statement, it isn't RAW. I don't have a problem with you making an assumption that it gets full wounds and house ruling it that way, just don't call it RAW.
I am not the one making assumptions here. This is a permissive dataset. You don't have permission to do something unless you have permission. Slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have profiles. Profiles are not permanently affixed to models unless you have permission to permanently affix profiles to models.
Until you show permission, your critiques of my argument have no rules support and are completely invalid.
My argument follows strictly from the Rules As Written. Slain models do not have permission to have profiles. No rule states that profiles are permanently affixed. Therefore when a model is slain it loses its profile (and the associated Wound characterstic) and will be reanimated with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
The model had permission to have the profile from the datasheet at the start of the game. It continues through the game to have the profile that the datasheet gave it, as things happen to modify its profile. when it reaches zero wounds, there's nothing said about permission being revoked. Not that it needed permission, it already had permission and gained its profile at the beginning of the game. There's no indication at all that it loses the profile that it has when it goes to zero wounds during a game, as it is not mentioned in the rules. It should be obvious that the model has its own profile during the game, as the model loses wounds as it takes damage. You aren't constantly referring back to the datasheet for the wounds it has listed there when there's damage taken (unless you think the models are immortal with the wound level in the datasheet and always have that at all times since the rules say that the profile tells you the profile for all the models in the unit - including wounds). You haven't been able to prove that slain models have no permission to have profiles - they had permission and gained a profile before being reduced to 0 wounds, and there is no statement saying that permission is revoked. This is an assumption on your part, just as it's an assumption that a returning model consults the datasheet again to find its level of wounds. It may be what they intend, it may not be, but it's not stated.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
Kindly point to the statement on GW's Twitch channel that we are to consider that channel as an official rules source.
Come on people. The Twitch channel is obviously NOT a rules source. Making suggestions that it is is only hurting your argument.
The Twitch channel is for GW to be able to disseminate things like videos. A video GW puts up for gameplay is put up by them to denomstrate how the game is played. As an indication of how GW plays it, it is perfectly valid, which makes it a source for RAI. It miay not be a source for RAW, but it certainly is a source for RAI. (note that RAI stands for RULES As Intended, which means that something demonstrating RAI is in fact a rules source - a source for RAI although possibly not a source for RAW. Ghaz even indicated when mentioning it earlier that it shows what they intended. Quit treating it like we're saying it's a RAW source. Having an indication of RAI is good when the RAW that you have - having 0 wounds when you return - is silly, and can be used as a reasonable source to cite when coming up with a house rule as to what non-zero level of wounds you want the model to come back with.
The model had permission to have the profile from the datasheet at the start of the game. It continues through the game to have the profile that the datasheet gave it, as things happen to modify its profile. when it reaches zero wounds, there's nothing said about permission being revoked. Not that it needed permission, it already had permission and gained its profile at the beginning of the game. There's no indication at all that it loses the profile that it has when it goes to zero wounds during a game, as it is not mentioned in the rules. It should be obvious that the model has its own profile during the game, as the model loses wounds as it takes damage. You aren't constantly referring back to the datasheet for the wounds it has listed there when there's damage taken (unless you think the models are immortal with the wound level in the datasheet and always have that at all times since the rules say that the profile tells you the profile for all the models in the unit - including wounds). You haven't been able to prove that slain models have no permission to have profiles - they had permission and gained a profile before being reduced to 0 wounds, and there is no statement saying that permission is revoked. This is an assumption on your part, just as it's an assumption that a returning model consults the datasheet again to find its level of wounds. It may be what they intend, it may not be, but it's not stated.
Per the Datasheet rule, slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have a profile. There is also no rule that says profiles are permanently affixed to the model. This is a permissive dataset, so once a model loses permission to have a profile, it loses that profile. I am not making any assumptions at all. I am strictly following the logic of permission and the exact letter of the rules involved. You are the one making the giant assumption that profiles are permanently affixed to models. Until you can find that rule your argument is premised on a giant assumption. My argument wins out since it follows strictly from the rules as they are.
The Twitch channel is for GW to be able to disseminate things like videos. A video GW puts up for gameplay is put up by them to denomstrate how the game is played. As an indication of how GW plays it, it is perfectly valid, which makes it a source for RAI. It miay not be a source for RAW, but it certainly is a source for RAI. (note that RAI stands for RULES As Intended, which means that something demonstrating RAI is in fact a rules source - a source for RAI although possibly not a source for RAW. Ghaz even indicated when mentioning it earlier that it shows what they intended. Quit treating it like we're saying it's a RAW source. Having an indication of RAI is good when the RAW that you have - having 0 wounds when you return - is silly, and can be used as a reasonable source to cite when coming up with a house rule as to what non-zero level of wounds you want the model to come back with.
I asked you to provide an official statement from GW indicating that the Twitch channel is an official rules source. You failed to do so. We cannot take your statement here seriously. It is in direct violation of the rules of this forum. You are trying to present something as a rule which is not a rule.
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
A Few Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.
Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.
How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.
I would add "broken" to the situations which Rules As Written may result in. It certainly fits here.
Since there are no actual letters describing anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile in Reanimation Protocols, saying that the RAW says anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile is disingenuous at best, or lying and trolling at worst.
The model had permission to have the profile from the datasheet at the start of the game. It continues through the game to have the profile that the datasheet gave it, as things happen to modify its profile. when it reaches zero wounds, there's nothing said about permission being revoked. Not that it needed permission, it already had permission and gained its profile at the beginning of the game. There's no indication at all that it loses the profile that it has when it goes to zero wounds during a game, as it is not mentioned in the rules. It should be obvious that the model has its own profile during the game, as the model loses wounds as it takes damage. You aren't constantly referring back to the datasheet for the wounds it has listed there when there's damage taken (unless you think the models are immortal with the wound level in the datasheet and always have that at all times since the rules say that the profile tells you the profile for all the models in the unit - including wounds). You haven't been able to prove that slain models have no permission to have profiles - they had permission and gained a profile before being reduced to 0 wounds, and there is no statement saying that permission is revoked. This is an assumption on your part, just as it's an assumption that a returning model consults the datasheet again to find its level of wounds. It may be what they intend, it may not be, but it's not stated.
Per the Datasheet rule, slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have a profile.
Where does the datasheet rule specifically say slain models do not have permission to have a profile? Keep in mind these are models which had permission to have a profile at the start of the game.
orknado wrote: [ There is also no rule that says profiles are permanently affixed to the model.
We do know that the profile does get affixed to the model, however. Otherwise, a model could never take damage because that is the profile on the datasheet, and the damage a model takes would not modify a datasheet for a unit. If the model doesn't get affixed to the model, you suddenly have invulnerable models, not unlike the situation you claimed would happen if a model was returned with 0 wounds. We know that the models aren't invulnerable, so they must have their own profiles in order to be able to keep track of where the wound levels on each model are. So, given that we know the model has a profile, and that the profile can differ from the profile on the datasheet (as the wounds change), you have to see where it states it no longer has that profile. Your claiming permission is revoked is an assumption that the model's profile is no longer applicable to the model, yet there is no explicit statement as such.
The Twitch channel is for GW to be able to disseminate things like videos. A video GW puts up for gameplay is put up by them to denomstrate how the game is played. As an indication of how GW plays it, it is perfectly valid, which makes it a source for RAI. It miay not be a source for RAW, but it certainly is a source for RAI. (note that RAI stands for RULES As Intended, which means that something demonstrating RAI is in fact a rules source - a source for RAI although possibly not a source for RAW. Ghaz even indicated when mentioning it earlier that it shows what they intended. Quit treating it like we're saying it's a RAW source. Having an indication of RAI is good when the RAW that you have - having 0 wounds when you return - is silly, and can be used as a reasonable source to cite when coming up with a house rule as to what non-zero level of wounds you want the model to come back with.
I asked you to provide an official statement from GW indicating that the Twitch channel is an official rules source. You failed to do so. We cannot take your statement here seriously. It is in direct violation of the rules of this forum. You are trying to present something as a rule which is not a rule.
Trying to present something as probably RAI when it's presented by the company producing the game, suggesting this is how thay play the game (which is what RAI is), is in direct violation of the rules of this forum? That's just taking an obstinate position because you don't want to accept that for other people in the forum they might like to know what the RULES as intended are,which is a valid consideration in a case like this where the RAW isn't clear (well isn't clear to anybody besides you and col impact).. Posturing that something submitted potential evidence of RAI isn't RAW when it was never claimed as RAW is just exhibiting a stubbornness and myopia that discredits any of your other statements as being worthy of consideration.
agnosto wrote: So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.
I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.
Sorry if I missed it, but could someone point out the time at which the reanimate a model with only 1 wound in the video? Or when they mention it only having 1 wound because of RP?
doctortom wrote: Trying to present something as probably RAI when it's presented by the company producing the game, suggesting this is how thay play the game (which is what RAI is), is in direct violation of the rules of this forum? That's just taking an obstinate position because you don't want to accept that for other people in the forum they might like to know what the RULES as intended are,which is a valid consideration in a case like this where the RAW isn't clear (well isn't clear to anybody besides you and col impact).. Posturing that something submitted potential evidence of RAI isn't RAW when it was never claimed as RAW is just exhibiting a stubbornness and myopia that discredits any of your other statements as being worthy of consideration.
Yeah, that's why I linked and quoted RAW and HYWPI above. I even linked the Tenets for him before. He just kept bulling on ahead.
For one who claims to have been through college and has been a professor, there is difficulty in one to follow standards laid out by another organization. We aren't in his classroom or his university, so he has no authority on anything he says other than what he can demonstrate.
I just wanted to point out that in reality, if they aren't coming back with full wounds, why do we assume they come back with wounds at all? Why are people putting a number to it in the first place.
You can't say they do not come back with full wounds, but they come back with 1 instead.
If we are assuming they don't come back with full wounds, it's clearly a model that is being returned to the board with zero wounds, and either it immediately dies, because it has zero wounds, or it becomes a model that breaks the game, because there isn't an indicator saying how many wounds it comes back with.
My personal opinion; you all are wasting your time arguing for and against this rule, talk to your TO while we wait for an FAQ.
HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Someone at GW decided it was needed in that case. That is all that can be looked at for.
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Someone at GW decided it was needed in that case. That is all that can be looked at for.
So it was needed there, but not in the 'Reanimation Protocols' rule? I think this thread proves it was needed here as well.
Per the Datasheet rule, slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have a profile.
Where does the datasheet rule specifically say slain models do not have permission to have a profile? Keep in mind these are models which had permission to have a profile at the start of the game.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
Only models that are IN units have permission to have profiles.
We do know that the profile does get affixed to the model, however. Otherwise, a model could never take damage because that is the profile on the datasheet, and the damage a model takes would not modify a datasheet for a unit. If the model doesn't get affixed to the model, you suddenly have invulnerable models, not unlike the situation you claimed would happen if a model was returned with 0 wounds. We know that the models aren't invulnerable, so they must have their own profiles in order to be able to keep track of where the wound levels on each model are. So, given that we know the model has a profile, and that the profile can differ from the profile on the datasheet (as the wounds change), you have to see where it states it no longer has that profile. Your claiming permission is revoked is an assumption that the model's profile is no longer applicable to the model, yet there is no explicit statement as such.
There is no rule that affixes the profile to the model.
This is the rule . . . "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
The datasheet lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the mdoels in that unit. When the model is slain and no longer in the unit the datasheet will no longer list its characteristics. This is literally what the rules are saying. The rules support my argument and prove that your critiques are invalid.
Trying to present something as probably RAI when it's presented by the company producing the game, suggesting this is how thay play the game (which is what RAI is), is in direct violation of the rules of this forum? That's just taking an obstinate position because you don't want to accept that for other people in the forum they might like to know what the RULES as intended are,which is a valid consideration in a case like this where the RAW isn't clear (well isn't clear to anybody besides you and col impact).. Posturing that something submitted potential evidence of RAI isn't RAW when it was never claimed as RAW is just exhibiting a stubbornness and myopia that discredits any of your other statements as being worthy of consideration.
The Twitch video simply has no status as a rules source. In the FLG video they play it as reanimated with full wounds. The FLG guys (Reecius and Frankie) were official playtesters and directly contributed to the design of 8th edition. Are their Twitch videos rules sources? No, not one bit. There needs to be official endorsement by GW for it to be a rules source. Until you or anyone can show me an official statement indicating such, then a Twitch Video has no status in this discussion.
Since there are no actual letters describing anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile in Reanimation Protocols, saying that the RAW says anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile is disingenuous at best, or lying and trolling at worst.
Incorrect. We have rules in the book that tell us how to resolve the situation.
The Reanimation Protocols rule that tells you to take reanimated slain models that are FROM the unit and 'return [them] to this unit' indicates that slain models are without a doubt not IN the unit. That's a written rule. We further have a written rule that only models that are IN units have a datasheet or a profile. Therefore, when a model is slain it no longer has permission to have the profile that lists its wound characteristic. When a slain model is reanimated and 'returned to this unit', it will at that point in time have a profile attributed to it which will have the number of wounds on its datasheet. For a Destroyer model that number of wounds will be 3.
For one who claims to have been through college and has been a professor, there is difficulty in one to follow standards laid out by another organization. We aren't in his classroom or his university, so he has no authority on anything he says other than what he can demonstrate.
This is the third ad hominem attack you have made against me based on my educational and employment experience. I am not sure why my educational experience has you feeling so insecure about yourself that you are resorting to personal attacks.
Ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this forum. Instead of expending resources making personal attacks, why don't you expend resources on formulating a valid argument against my rules supported argument? So far, every argument you have presented has broken all the Core Rules.
Anyone interested in a comparison between my argument and Charistoph's argument can read the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main promise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. The datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Someone at GW decided it was needed in that case. That is all that can be looked at for.
So it was needed there, but not in the 'Reanimation Protocols' rule? I think this thread proves it was needed here as well.
This has been a one-sided debate by every rational measure. The rules clearly support reanimating a Destroyer model with 3 wounds as I have shown.
If anything, this thread proves that there will always be a 'tobacco' litigator who obstinately argues that tobacco doesn't cause any health problems or that global warming is a hoax.
What I want to know is,
Where did the number "1" come from in the first place?
It doesn't say the number 1 anywhere in any relevant rules or information as far as I can see.
skoffs wrote: What I want to know is,
Where did the number "1" come from in the first place?
It doesn't say the number 1 anywhere in any relevant rules or information as far as I can see.
That camp is asserting that the last wound a model left the field with was 1, so it is "returned" with their last wound. At least that's what I've gathered. That falls apart, though, when a single, multi-wound model is reduced to 0 wounds by 1 shot with 3 damage, since damage is removed immediately and not in steps.
It is important to note that the 1-wound interpretation has to make up caveats for the rules, whereas returning it with full wounds makes up nothing, only uses the information provided by the game. The simplest answer (that requires the least amount of deliberation and house-ruling) is that the model returns as it does on its datasheet, simply because we have no other option without making up arbitrary numbers.
skoffs wrote:What I want to know is,
Where did the number "1" come from in the first place?
It doesn't say the number 1 anywhere in any relevant rules or information as far as I can see.
Two reasons I am aware of:
1) Historical precedence. Every previous version of the rule which returned models to the unit specified 1 Wound, even for those with multiple Wounds.
2) It is the minimum number of Wounds that allows no question of keeping the model on the table. This is a version which is often promoted by those who fear how powerful Reanimation Protocols can be with allowing the full number of Wounds.
And as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, there is as much relevant rules and information for returning with 1 Wound as there is for Full Wounds, and all of it is dependent on the views of the person promoting them.
puma713 wrote:That camp is asserting that the last wound a model left the field with was 1, so it is "returned" with their last wound. At least that's what I've gathered. That falls apart, though, when a single, multi-wound model is reduced to 0 wounds by 1 shot with 3 damage, since damage is removed immediately and not in steps.
Actually, I have only seen one person seriously suggest that in this thread. Have your locals been presenting it in this manner?
puma713 wrote:It is important to note that the 1-wound interpretation has to make up caveats for the rules, whereas returning it with full wounds makes up nothing, only uses the information provided by the game. The simplest answer (that requires the least amount of deliberation and house-ruling) is that the model returns as it does on its datasheet, simply because we have no other option without making up arbitrary numbers.
Then you haven't been reading all the caveats that orknado has been adding to the rules to define what happens to a model that is removed from play.
It is the easiest to keep track of, that I will grant, since you are treating it the same as deploying a new model.
puma713 wrote:It is important to note that the 1-wound interpretation has to make up caveats for the rules, whereas returning it with full wounds makes up nothing, only uses the information provided by the game. The simplest answer (that requires the least amount of deliberation and house-ruling) is that the model returns as it does on its datasheet, simply because we have no other option without making up arbitrary numbers.
Then you haven't been reading all the caveats that orknado has been adding to the rules to define what happens to a model that is removed from play.
Hold on there, Charistoph. My argument makes ZERO CLAIMS about what happens to a model that is removed from play. There are no rules associated with removed from play so we cannot make heads or tails one way or another about what 'removed from play' means.
My argument's premise is that slain models are NOT IN units. We know this because the Reanimation Protocols tells us this. We also know that if the inverse were true, and slain models are IN units, then nearly all of the Core Rules break and you need to make up 4 or 5 arbitrary house rules in order to repair the game. By virtue of the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the YMDC tenet to Break No Rule we throw out the premise that slain models are IN units as completely absurd. The game breaks if you have to maintain coherency or allocate wounds to slain models that are in units.
Here is a sampling of the rules that are broken by Charistoph's premise that slain models are IN units.
Spoiler:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Here is my argument. I don't make up any rules or caveats. Every one of my statements is directly supported by a rule in the book as is indicated below in the spoiler.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Here is a comparison between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
Spoiler:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main premise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. He makes up that the datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
So basically Charistoph is attempting to project the weakness of his argument onto my argument as if the readers of the thread were fools. Read and compare both of our arguments on your own and come up with your own evaluation. His argument is the one that suffers from the 5 caveats he needs to make up because he breaks the Core Rules with his premise.
My argument breaks no rules and has no caveats. It really offers the simplest and most elegant and most rule supported answer to the question posed by the thread.
So the guys who were brought on by GW to test the game, who were more than likely told by the rule writers how the rules are supposed to work, who were no doubt observed playing the game by those same rule writers to make sure they were doing things correctly.
These same guys are saying "this is how the rule works"... and you think they're just "house ruling" it?
Charistoph has yet to present a valid argument. His current argument breaks all the Core Rules and is dismissed as absurd.
Orknado has a valid argument with Rules As Written support.
Doctortom has failed to provide any rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument (meaning he has been unable to counter Orknado's rule supported claim that slain models are not in units so they don't have datasheet or a wound characteristic)
So that means that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.
So the guys who were brought on by GW to test the game, who were more than likely told by the rule writers how the rules are supposed to work, who were no doubt observed playing the game by those same rule writers to make sure they were doing things correctly.
These same guys are saying "this is how the rule works"... and you think they're just "house ruling" it?
luke1705 wrote: The OP is correct. Classic case of basic vs advanced rules. The play testers from Frontline Gaming actually mentioned this specific example and it works fine. The Swarmlord's special rule overrides the "no more moving in the movement phase" because they are not in fact moving in the movement phase - it's in the shooting phase. The rule even says that they may act normally in the shooting phase (IE no restrictions are placed on the unit after the movement phase is over).
Again, playtesters don't necessarily know how the rules will be answered when FAQ'd, and Reece and company certainly have gotten plenty of things wrong during their streams which they've then gone back and reversed themselves on.
It is just unfair that so many people are assuming that because they were playtesters, they are: A) infallible and B) know for a fact how GW will rule on tricky issues when the FAQs come out, neither of which is true.
Well, at least we know how one of the biggest tournament organizers are probably going to rule it, if people who are planning on attending an ITC event are wondering how to deal with it.
Two things baffle me about saying that returning with 1 wound is how it's supposed to be:
1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
2) "the playtesters aren't a perfect source of information" is, at best, a cop out. Sure, they don't get everything right. No one does. And I doubt that GW was looking over their shoulder while they played. But I'm just as certain that if they had a question for GW about something like this, they would have gotten an answer directly from the horse's mouth. So while not perfect, they are indeed an indication of how the game is meant to be played
Which playtesters are we talking about? The FLG Twitch video playtesters who were part of the design or the GW twitch video playtesters who were part of the design?
They came up with different HYWPI. FLG Twitch had full wounds and GW Twitch had 1 wound.
Neither of these are officially recognized rules sources so neither have any bearing on the discussion.
Besides, the debate has already been resolved. Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.
luke1705 wrote: 1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
Its no more nonsense than those trying to say that the written rules support full wounds when they say no such thing. That's the problem. The rules don't say one way or the other.
luke1705 wrote: 2) "the playtesters aren't a perfect source of information" is, at best, a cop out. Sure, they don't get everything right. No one does. And I doubt that GW was looking over their shoulder while they played. But I'm just as certain that if they had a question for GW about something like this, they would have gotten an answer directly from the horse's mouth. So while not perfect, they are indeed an indication of how the game is meant to be played
Sorry, but it's not a 'cop out'. It's the truth. Considering GW has used FAQs to change clear and unambiguous rules in the past shows that whatever information GW gave the playtesters may no longer be valid. The only valid source of rulings is GW's FAQs, and that's only good as long as GW doesn't publish a later FAQ that contradicts it. It has happened before and most likely will happen again.
luke1705 wrote: 1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
Its no more nonsense than those trying to say that the written rules support full wounds when they say no such thing. That's the problem. The rules don't say one way or the other.
Incorrect. Orknado proved it with rules support.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Impact, highlighting the words "IN" and "FROM" are never going to form a basis for rules. I love what GW has done with this iteration of 40k. I love that the rules have been streamlined. And I love the general new direction the company is taking.
None of those are ever going to make me think that two juxtaposed words are going to prove a FAQ-able issue one way or the other. GW is not nearly, nor will they ever be, that nuanced in their rules writing
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: This is going to get the same head-shaking FAQ response that "can I name my regiment ULTRAMARINES for buffs?" did.
I actually disagree. Though I think the intent was coming back with full wounds, I can see the need for a FAQ. The keyword nonsense was people trying to technically game a system for an advantage. There's an actual rules quandary here
Impact, highlighting the words "IN" and "FROM" are never going to form a basis for rules.
Incorrect. Without a doubt, the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule indicates that slain models are not in units and the Datasheet rule indicates that slain models do not have permission to have profiles.
Therefore, a Destroyer model reanimates with 3 wounds.
So the guys who were brought on by GW to test the game, who were more than likely told by the rule writers how the rules are supposed to work, who were no doubt observed playing the game by those same rule writers to make sure they were doing things correctly.
These same guys are saying "this is how the rule works"... and you think they're just "house ruling" it?
It carries as much weight as any LGS' House Rules because tournament rulings are their house rules. The difference is that people like bringing tournament rules to their house as they want to prepare for those tournaments.
ITC is HTWPI, not RAW.
luke1705 wrote:1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
WBB was 3rd Edition. It was changed to Reanimation Protocols in 5th Edition. It was changed to a per phase system and ICs we're given there in version as well.
It is true that the entire system has changed, but we are not talking about how to work a rule a unit no longer has (in the case of Terminators). We have a rule that has been processed very similarly to this in the past with nothing specific regarding Wounds.
There is as much reason to use historical precedent as there is to treat the model as 'new' or having its slate wiped clean. The preference of the poster.
Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Charistoph wrote: Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.
Charistoph wrote: Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Have you actually played them with both concepts?
luke1705 wrote: Two things baffle me about saying that returning with 1 wound is how it's supposed to be:
1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
3rd edition, actually. We'll be Back was renamed Resurrection Protocols in 5th ed, because GW doesn't like fun terminator references.
While historically speaking WBB / RP did only return the model with one wound, you have to remember two things
1) In each case, it clearly specified the model returns with one wound, something that is not present in the 8th ed index
2) In each case, the rule worked differently overall. WBB was a 4+ roll you made at the beginning of your turn. 5 ed RP was a 5+ roll you made at the end of the phase. In both of these iterations failure of the roll permanently removed the model from play. 6-7th ed RP was a FNP save.
8th ed RP is a 5+ roll that you roll at the start of your turn, where failure does not remove the model. It is different to any other edition. Elements are the same, but its still a different rule overall.
Charistoph wrote: Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Have you actually played them with both concepts?
A) that was not an attempt to answer, that was me just making a comment about what would happen if you give an average unit a handicap. B) no, I have not, nor do I know anyone else who has. That one video is the only instance I am aware of someone playing them that way.
Even taking historical precedents into account you still have the new canoptek spyder scarab hive rule which returns swarms to a unit up to starting strength with no mention of 1 wound or full wounds, the same as RP, and spyders have never created anything but full wound scarab bases.
They have never once forgotten to mention the 1 wound stipulation in the 15 years they have had the rule across 5 editions, and continue to use it for other models with resurrection rules like apothecaries. They omitted it now with clear purpose.
