Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So it used to be Instant Death. Eternal Warrior made one immune to it.

Now it's "Remove from table." What will the name of the ability be that makes you immune to that, and which army will get it first?

I'd say Necrons or Daemons should get that one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And for the name, let's go "Permanence."

I'm not sure you can be immune to it...
Even if you had a rule i don't know how it would be phrased.
They should lower the amount of EW and change some of the 'remove from table' to ID instead.

Where is this coming from? The Grey Knight codex? It would be helpful if you could give the tiniest intro as to what you're talking about, so everyone can join in on the conversation!

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:Where is this coming from? The Grey Knight codex? It would be helpful if you could give the tiniest intro as to what you're talking about, so everyone can join in on the conversation!

He is saying that there is a lot of 'removed from table' things floating about. He thinks there should be a rule to fight it a la ID and it's friend EW.

purplefood wrote:

Hans Chung-Otterson wrote:Where is this coming from? The Grey Knight codex? It would be helpful if you could give the tiniest intro as to what you're talking about, so everyone can join in on the conversation!

He is saying that there is a lot of 'removed from table' things floating about. He thinks there should be a rule to fight it a la ID and it's friend EW.

Exactly

Urm why exactly? Anyway I've heard little of how many examples there of "removed from table" so, point them out perhaps? Only one I know of is the 6,6 combo on a SAG and that should not be countered in any sort whatsoever

Juvieus Kaine wrote:Urm why exactly? Anyway I've heard little of how many examples there of "removed from table" so, point them out perhaps? Only one I know of is the 6,6 combo on a SAG and that should not be countered in any sort whatsoever

JotWW and Lukas the Trickster's Last Laugh.
Personally i think they are fine.
People go on and on about JotWW but most things that would be targeted by it have decent enough I to live.

I think rules such as these are getting to be a little too... dare I say... Magic: The Gathering.

Ezekial (Dark Angel), Zogwart (Squig) and Daemons (Boon of Mutation) can also Remove from Table. Also, Dark Eldar's ShatterShard. These abilities are becoming more common. Who knows if Grey Knights or Necrons will also have these type of abilities. But that's what--7-8 Remove from Table moves, just off the top of our heads? Eventually, there will be a defense against these moves, especially as they become more common, so there will be a want for a defense against it. Hence, this thread.

I don't think removed from table has gotten so big that it needs a specific defense...the only weapons that can do it are usually fairly unreliable, and have a specific set of circumstances needed to properly go off.

I'd say that we don't need anything yet...besides, removed from table MEANS removed from table. How would you word the rules against that?

...Beside, who doesn't laugh their heads off when Marneus Calgar gets zapped and turned into a squig?

ChrisWWII wrote:I don't think removed from table has gotten so big that it needs a specific defense...the only weapons that can do it are usually fairly unreliable, and have a specific set of circumstances needed to properly go off.

I'd say that we don't need anything yet...besides, removed from table MEANS removed from table. How would you word the rules against that?

...Beside, who doesn't laugh their heads off when Marneus Calgar gets zapped and turned into a squig?

Model does not get removed from table? That would mean it is invincible...
Model is immune to remove from table? Same problem.
Etc etc.

It's the same thing with Yugioh. Ever since Removed from Game type mechanic was introduced the "Graveyard" turned more into a "holding place for cards you may use later, but will clutter your hand". RFG just made things that were suppose to be dead more "dead", and the same thing's happening to 40k: Chunky Salsa rule just isnt enough, they have to completely teleport you out of existance.

How about:
"This model is immune to any attacks or abilities that say 'remove from table'"

Thats sounds pretty comprehensive yet not invincible.

So that means remove from table attacks have zero effect on them, which is not how it should be. 'If hit by a weapon that has the effect 'remove from table' do not remove the model from table. Instead roll d3 wounds.'

In all honesty, that's something I'd rather see to balance out alot of EW. Weapons that can cause more than one wound to a single model...I mean, if a Trygon gets a battlecannon to the face, I would think it'd hurt more than a wound from a lasgun.....

OP, just please don't play fantasy, you will NOT like the magic phase.

What is the spell? Purple sun? Basically jaws with a template.

Removed from play/table is nothing new and has always been involved in stuff like TCGs where you have a card that says "discard X into graveyard" and a different one that says "Remove X from play."

I will say though, knowing that jaws of the world wolf is common. I have a hard time taking tyranid MCs to the table because for some of them, if I don't roll a 2 or below, they are gone.

Jaws has changed the way I play my nids and when I play my SWs, I always take it to tournaments since it disassembles some armies. Zapping tervigons and ork custom force field dudes saves me a lot of trouble.

There's alot of "could haves" but these start to step on Fantasy's toes. Realistically AP should reduce the enemy's armour save rather than ignore it or not. Being hit by an autocannon will have drastically different effects than being burned by a lasgun, even if your wearing power armor.

I think all armies should be able to ignore the 'remove from table' bit, but only if the player nails their models down. That seems fair enough to me.

Really though, I don't see a problem with it; RFT only comes up so often in any given game, a specific defense for it seems a little much considering how everything that does remove stuff from play entirely is not the most reliable.

Huh. Noticed I pretty much quoted ChrisWWII there.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:There's alot of "could haves" but these start to step on Fantasy's toes. Realistically AP should reduce the enemy's armour save rather than ignore it or not. Being hit by an autocannon will have drastically different effects than being burned by a lasgun, even if your wearing power armor.

It used to in 2nd ed. AP was put in in 3rd when they started making 40K its own system, and not just Fantasy without ranks.

I really wish we had the fantasy rules for reducing armor saves...I fail to comprehend how Marines get the same 3+ save against a lasgun as they do against a Manticore rocket.

There are alot of changes to the system that can be made to make it more "realistic". However it's gonna make it so much more like "Fantasy IN SPACE" again, not to mention slow down the game. I'd prefer to keep my Fridge Logic rather than spend more time playing a single game of 40k.

I might be slow, but I don't really see a problem here...

Vargtass wrote:I might be slow, but I don't really see a problem here...

There technically isn't a problem. The OP is guessing that we will see more and more Remove From Game things although we might not.
This topic is pretty premature and the counter-mechanic isn't really needed.

purplefood wrote:

Juvieus Kaine wrote:Urm why exactly? Anyway I've heard little of how many examples there of "removed from table" so, point them out perhaps? Only one I know of is the 6,6 combo on a SAG and that should not be countered in any sort whatsoever

JotWW and Lukas the Trickster's Last Laugh.
Personally i think they are fine.
People go on and on about JotWW but most things that would be targeted by it have decent enough I to live.

Carnifex... think of the fexes!!! Those poor unyuu fexes...

He only wanted to be loved...

It doesn't say remove from the table, it says "remove from play."

And there already is a defense against it. The Necron Rez Orb - which says, "Instead of removing the model from play, lay it on its side.....etc).

Dashofpepper wrote:It doesn't say remove from the table, it says "remove from play."

And there already is a defense against it. The Necron Rez Orb - which says, "Instead of removing the model from play, lay it on its side.....etc).

That must be the older one then, the reprint doesn't use such words.

MechaEmperor7000 wrote:It's the same thing with Yugioh. Ever since Removed from Game type mechanic was introduced the "Graveyard" turned more into a "holding place for cards you may use later, but will clutter your hand". RFG just made things that were suppose to be dead more "dead", and the same thing's happening to 40k: Chunky Salsa rule just isnt enough, they have to completely teleport you out of existance.

YU-GI-OH got so out of control for a while with the remove from play and return from different dimension with the envoys haha.

I bet its crazier now.

oni wrote:I think rules such as these are getting to be a little too... dare I say... Magic: The Gathering.

The Inquisition would like to have a word with you..

The really strange thing about this is that GW even had a name for it right back at the start of 3rd Ed, but never thought to codify it.

You simply need two forms of 'death' outside of the regular method for casualty removal:

1. Instant Death - Caused when hit by a weapon that has a Strength Value twice the Target's Toughness.
2. Outright Death - A rule given to weapons that can kill you regardless of who or what you are (eg. a model suffering an unsaved wound from a D-Cannon suffers Outright Death).

Both of these things would be defined game terms and Universal Special Rules. No exceptions would be added.

Then you can have 'Instant Death Immunity' as another USR, so Eternal Warrior would say something like "Eternal Warrior grants the Instant Death Immunity Universal Special Rule." Then you could have numerous Instant Death Immunities, and a few very rare Outright Death Immunities (and I mean rare).

And GW had this! In 3rd Ed Force Weapons caused had the rules that the target was 'killed outright'. Right there, between 3rd and 4th, they could have taken that concept and made it into a game term. But they dropped the ball, and now we have the general rules for causing wounds, the exception to those rules with Instant Death, the Eternal Warrior exception to that exception, and now the remove from table exception to the exception to the exception.

Well done.

If you're going to have Eternal Warrior to represent "fate" for characters like Yarrick and Thraka, I don't see why it shouldn't protect from "remove from play" effects just as well as it does "instant death" effects.