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.

If I use JotWW on, let's say an immortal, does he get his RAP save, or is he killed outright?

It's been asked before and despite of the large number of posts, there was no conclusion. No need to repeat all that again...

There is a conclusion - JotWW removes from play. RP works when the model is removed as a casualty. Therefore RP does not work when a model is removed with JotWW.

No books on me right now but if I'm not mistaken JOTWW removes models from play and does not cause wounds. I would be inclined to say that necrons would not get RAP. Again no books on me right now to double check wording.

rigeld and pdawg have it. Remove from play = no RP.

copper.talos wrote:It's been asked before and despite of the large number of posts, there was no conclusion. No need to repeat all that again...

What, apart from Removed from Play /= Removed as a Casualty?

No RP when you get hit with Jaws

pdawg517 wrote:No books on me right now but if I'm not mistaken JOTWW removes models from play and does not cause wounds.

Wounds don't matter to Resurrection Protocols.

That being said, RP still won't apply to Jaws.

So you want to repeat all those pages again? Start over with why do units that lose more than 25% of their models, roll for morale checks, if they are not casualties? That nowhere in the BRB is mentioned what "remove from play" is, and only casualties are mentioned?

Those are just on the top of my mind. There isn't any consensus on this. We wait the FAQ.

copper.talos wrote:So you want to repeat all those pages again? Start over with why do units that lose more than 25% of their models, roll for morale checks, if they are not casualties? That nowhere in the BRB is mentioned what "remove from play" is, and only casualties are mentioned?

Those are just on the top of my mind. There isn't any consensus on this. We wait the FAQ.

There is a consensus. You just happen to the minorty and cannot accept it.

IIRC, this is one of the few things BR, DR and Nos all agree on (which is very, very odd...)...

Of course I am in the minority. How could it be different comparing the player base of the SW and the Necrons. I wonder what would it be like if it was the opposite though...

Considering that I think the Gloom Prism should stop JAWS despite the RAW and the FAQ wording of JAWS saying differently, my choice of army has zero bearing on what the RAW dictates.

Neither Deathreaper or Nos play SW either from what I can remember.

The really sad part is that there is written proof how, "remove from play" and "remove from play as a casualty" are distinctly different with the FAQ to Lukas' Last Laugh and it is YOUR army bias that refuses to accept it.

Considering that I don't back up that the Time Arrow can make Land Raiders and their content go *pouf*, although I would really love that to be true, I wouldn't call me biased.

The fact is that there are objections that can't be answered convincingly.

Playing a certain army does not affect the way the rules are read.

copper.talos wrote:Of course I am in the minority. How could it be different comparing the player base of the SW and the Necrons. I wonder what would it be like if it was the opposite though...

I've been a Necron player for almost 9 years and think JotWW is one of the most broken, poorly written rules in the game. Still, I don't think there's any argument here. It is very clear that removed from play differs from removed as a casualty, and unfortunately RP only applies to casualties.

With as much hate as JAWS gets, I rarely see even see it being used. Hell, I don't even use it unless I am taking a second rune priest which only happens at 2500pts and above.

It is tough against a couple of armies, but in general it is way down on the totem when compared to the others in terms of all comer lists.

copper.talos wrote:Of course I am in the minority. How could it be different comparing the player base of the SW and the Necrons. I wonder what would it be like if it was the opposite though...

Automatically assuming that those that disagree with you are doing so for an advantage is insulting. Please don't do it.

I don't - and probably won't ever - play space wolves. I play against them. I'm more likely to pick up Necrons than SW.

Copper - apparently you cant read the word "loses" without automatically replaceing it with "removed as a casualty", can you

I dont play SW, so the insinuation that I am altering the way I read the rules because i do is not only insulting but laughable. Its SUCH a poor argument it heads you towards "ignore as irrelevant" status

You are in the minority because you are wrong, and are unwilling to accept it.

Well yes since it is under the title "Casualties"

-Corporal, how many casualties did your unit suffer?
-Sir we lost 6 good men out there.
-Dammit soldier, when I ask a question I want an answer. I want to know your casualties.
-...

Too bad this is the World of Warhammer 40k where there is a difference between someone getting shot in the face and a giant psychic chasm of doom opening up beneath your feet and swallowing you alive.

Brother Ramses wrote:Too bad this is the World of Warhammer 40k where there is a difference between someone getting shot in the face and a giant psychic chasm of doom opening up beneath your feet and swallowing you alive.

Well, it's like that in real life.

People have survived headshots, but I can't name a man who survived being crushed to death by the world.

The point being that in toy soldier game world, verbiage is used to describe each as being something different. Supported not only in the rules but also with Lukas' Last Laugh FAQ.

Either way it would be nice to have an FAQ so that this doesn't keep coming up.

Now,mainly because I want to cause problems lol jk, I think they should get the RP. Ihate necs and play as wolves. They may be removed from play but when has that stopped them and their ridiculous technology from phasing back to stable ground? Lol anywhere where wounds is the qualifier like fnp should not get the bonus but I believe the crons should regardless of the verbiage in the rule book. Also I thought I saw a faq stating that they would come back but I can't.seem to find it......anyways those are my.two cents

You're free to house rule however you want. That doesn't change that RAW RP doesn't come back from JotWW.

Copper - so, the title entirely defines the only time it can be applicable? I assume you never take armour saves during the assault phase, say from an exploding tank, as they are covered in the Shooting section.

Wrong, unsuprisingly. Does "lost" cover - destroyed, removed from play, removed as a casualty? Yes. Done

the two terms are different, and have been since Kelly produced that damn book. After a number of years of this being relevant, the only FAQ we have BACKS UP that remove from play /= remove as a casualty.

So you are wrong in rules, and wrong as regards the only FAQ we have.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Copper - so, the title entirely defines the only time it can be applicable? I assume you never take armour saves during the assault phase, say from an exploding tank, as they are covered in the Shooting section.

What nonsense. I really wonder if you have ever read the BRB. Pg 39 under Taking Saves "Otherwise the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for shooting".

Not nonsense, your claim is the heading defines the rules. Well the shooting section is "shooting" ,so even with that rule under your version of how rules work you still couldnt take armour saves in the assault section.

Oh, and yes, I have read the BRB. More times than you, I would bet (hint, check posting history next time)

It's a section called TAKING SAVING THROWS that says "Otherwise the procedure for taking saves is the same as the one described for shooting". What part of it you don't understand? Maybe I can help with my rusty, underused english...

Edit: Numbers of posts, especially if they are of a quality like the one above, mean nothing. Seriously...

Sigh, all I can say is "whoosh"

You apparently dont understand your own argument, which is still wrong.

For the benefit of the OP: no, RfP is not the same as Removed as a Casualty. Period

Posting HISTORY, not total. Sheesh.