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...Removed from play, and removed from play as a casualty are not defined in the BRB or anywhere?


Just figured this out...Can anyone cite where in the BRB or a GW FAQ that its differentiated between?
Thanks

Simple English shows they're different.

Remove from play as a Casualty is a subset of remove from play.
Similar to:
Ordering a pizza from Dominoes is a subset of ordering a pizza.

If you get one from dominoes, you've ordered a pizza - but not all pizzas are from dominoes.
If you remove from play as a casualty, you've been removed from play, but not all remove from play are as casualties.

The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

Your right there isnt any definition in the BRB on the diffrence, this is why EV/RP is such a hot topic right now,
as Rigeld2 states there is a diffrence in the dictionary, with luck 6th will fix this issue, doubt it but here is to hoping!!

BTW Papa Johns is better than Dominoes!

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

True. Although to presume that it is exclusive to her is kind of awkward without wording changes - but I do not wish to get into that dispute here. I concur - it's for St. Celestine only.

The question is about Celestine, but the answer creates a precedent under which "removed from play" is equivalent to "removed from play as a casualty".

FAQs frequently contain questions whose answers are applicable to other similar situations and related rules. Like how the Blood Angels FAQ on the Chalice functionally clarifies the timing on the benefits a Tervigon grants to nearby Termagants.

Does that answer really do that?
Under both you are removed from play, is it not just a simple sentence covering both as both rules remove from play.

I do not have a copy of the sisters codex, much as it is, what is the wording of the saint's rule that allows her to come back from the dead?

"Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty..."
The FAQ changed it (without actually rewording it) to include RFP as well.

Ok cool thanks!

Oh - and I agree. 6th will likely change the rules so that all remove from plays are equal.

Its just not that way right now.

rigeld2 wrote:
If you get one from dominoes, you've ordered a pizza - but not all pizzas are from dominoes.
If you remove from play as a casualty, you've been removed from play, but not all remove from play are as casualties.

It's fine to state your preference, but can you provide any reason or proof this is true?

Here's the setup: GW is not consistent. They will use RPF, and the later call it RFPaaC and they will do the opposite. You will find RPFaac and then RFP to describe the same action.

In a very few rules remove from play is used without the "as a casualty". There is no pattern to this. In the beginning of 5th edition there were few enough examples to have some uncertainty. You could take the few examples and claim there was an unwritten convention GW was using. Now we have example after example in the latest FAQs and Codexes where both are used and there is no consistent difference. You can not establish a rule by convention. Following RAW is not an easter egg hunt.

In the BRB all we have is Instant Death which uses both RFPaaC and RFP.

Show me where "Removed From Play" is defined in any rule.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Because FAQs can change rules, they are rules.

NecronLord3 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:The Sisters of Battle FAQ says they're the same in the final question.

For St. Celestine only.

Are you saying that FAQs do not change rules?

Because FAQs can change rules, they are rules.

I see what you did there.
And the FAQ does change the rules. For St. Celestine. There's nothing in the answer that would imply that they're the same game wide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Show me where "Removed From Play" is defined in any rule.

It's not and I will never, and have never, said that it is.
So either it means nothing, or we go to other ways to define it.
The simplest meaning is that it is a superset of RFPaaC - plain english shows they are not the same, barring a rulebook definition.

rigeld2 wrote:And the FAQ does change the rules. For St. Celestine. There's nothing in the answer that would imply that they're the same game wide.

By this same rationale, do you think we have no guidance for when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives Termagants?

Here's another one:

Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g.
Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule
even after being removed from play by The Last
Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule
works just fine.

Last Laugh uses RFPaaC to describe the removal of enemies, yet earlier in the rule it uses RFP to describe how Lucas is removed. Here is another case where the rule and the FAQ use them both with no careful separation between the terms.

A simple explanation is that this is done to add flavor to the rule. It would be too boring to write RFP...RFP...RFP and too long to write RFPaaC...RFPaaC...RFPaaC. This would lack the fluffiness that GW likes in it's writing.

Note: I went through every FAQ searching for the word "removed" to see all instances of both. You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Basimpo wrote:So...Removed from play, and removed from play as a casualty are not defined in the BRB or anywhere?


Just figured this out...Can anyone cite where in the BRB or a GW FAQ that its differentiated between?
Thanks

Removed from Play as a Casualty is a defined process on page 24.

I can't find anywhere in the rule book where the term "Removed from play" is used.

Anyone?

Magpie wrote:I can't find anywhere in the rule book where the term "Removed from play" is used.

Anyone?

I must admit my previous posts are not precisely accurate. I should have said there is Removed and Removed as a Casualty. However, even this is not perfectly accurate: From the BRB these phrases are used.

removed (R?)
removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
removed as a casualty (RaaC)
remove casualties
remove whole models as casualties

I couldn't find RFP or RFPaaC at all. Anyone else?

Mannahnin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And the FAQ does change the rules. For St. Celestine. There's nothing in the answer that would imply that they're the same game wide.

By this same rationale, do you think we have no guidance for when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives Termagants?

I don't think the guidance is needed - the way the chalice was ruled is the only way it makes sense to me.

Plus, the situations aren't really comparable. RFP and RFPaaC (I love that my iPhone will autocorrect those now) are different based on plain English. The chalice and Tervigon rules have leeway that could be confusing.
If Celestine's answer was more than "Yes." I'd say there's a basis for precedent.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Last Laugh uses RFPaaC to describe the removal of enemies, yet earlier in the rule it uses RFP to describe how Lucas is removed. Here is another case where the rule and the FAQ use them both with no careful separation between the terms.

The FAQ says RFP which is referring to the RFPaaC that last laugh does. Remember, it's a superset. It's referring to the pizza you already got from dominoes, based on the rule the question is about.

This would lack the fluffiness that GW likes in it's writing.

Because it would be impossible to have one sentence in any FAQ or the BRB saying that all "remove from play" statements refer to RFPaaC.

You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

Go look at the old Space Wolves FAQ before necrons. WBB was denied permission to come back from JotWW, unless I've been smoking crack. The consistency is there as Lon as you remember the relationship between RFP and RFPaaC.

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Demonstrably false. The fact that they've been considered two different things for the past ... how long? Proves that there is more than one conclusion.

ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

Sisters do not fall to Chaos

Nemesor Dave wrote:From the BRB these phrases are used.

removed (R?)
removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
removed as a casualty (RaaC)
remove casualties
remove whole models as casualties

I couldn't find RFP or RFPaaC at all. Anyone else?

"Play" as a game term is only used in the flavor description for Deep Strike (BRB 95). It's never actually defined, and it's not used as part of the core rules. Only army books (and their FAQs) use the term "play," which makes this issue difficult to handle.

Saint Celestine's Miraculous Intervention works when she is "removed as a casualty." (This is the same triggering statement as WBB). If she can use her ability when she is "removed from play" by an attack (such as JotWW), then it would follow that removing models from play (from an "attack") is the same as removing them as casualties.

INAT appears to use this same conclusion:

DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01 – Q: Are models
removed from play by a Crucible of Malediction,
Hexrifle and/or a Shattershard considered to be
removed as casualties?
A: In all cases, yes [clarification].

SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

elrabin wrote:
INAT appears to use this same conclusion:

DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01 – Q: Are models
removed from play by a Crucible of Malediction,
Hexrifle and/or a Shattershard considered to be
removed as casualties?
A: In all cases, yes [clarification].

SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

I don't think those mean what you say they mean - By the book, units that took 25% casualties due to these abilities would not have to roll.
FAQs and INAT say they count as casualties, which means you take morale checks.

I don't read those INAT FAQs as changing the wording from RFP to RFPaaC, nor do I see any INAT question that says they are the same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

Go look at the old Space Wolves FAQ before necrons. WBB was denied permission to come back from JotWW, unless I've been smoking crack. The consistency is there as Lon as you remember the relationship between RFP and RFPaaC.

GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect. The fact is you don't know why various FAQ rulings are made. They were never considered two different things in the past except maybe by assumption.

rigeld2 wrote:

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Demonstrably false. The fact that they've been considered two different things for the past ... how long? Proves that there is more than one conclusion.

Again - you have 0 proof. And now you have a mountain of evidence is breaking the 'convention theory'.

Simple English shows they're different.

No, there is such a thing as synonymous terms and phrases. This argument is incorrect.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

DPBellathrom wrote:ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

The FAQ says she does not come back. Personally I believe this is because they still consider her on the table, but changed. Still, it is an inconsistency without an official explanation.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

You'll find there is no consistency that would be required for these terms to be separate.

Go look at the old Space Wolves FAQ before necrons. WBB was denied permission to come back from JotWW, unless I've been smoking crack. The consistency is there as Lon as you remember the relationship between RFP and RFPaaC.

GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect. The fact is you don't know why various FAQ rulings are made. They were never considered two different things in the past except maybe by yours and others assumption.

WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.
That reinforces the fact that the phrases are different.

rigeld2 wrote:

The only conclusion is that RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Demonstrably false. The fact that they've been considered two different things for the past ... how long? Proves that there is more than one conclusion.

Again - you have 0 proof. And now you have a mountain of evidence is breaking the 'convention theory'.

No, there's absolutely zero evidence. You're making more assumptions to say they're the same than I have to make to say they're different.

Simple English shows they're different.

No, there is such a thing as synonymous terms and phrases. This argument is incorrect.

Yes, there is such a thing as synonymous terms and phrases.
In this case, we have AB and A. Every time you do AB you are doing A, but there are times when A happens that B does not, so they are not the same action.

Or do you only order pizza from dominoes? This really seems like Easter egging to say they're the same. You're having to hunt for rules and interpret stuff incorrectly to make them the same - to say they're different you just use plain english.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

The FAQ says she does not come back. Personally I believe this is because they still consider her on the table, but changed. Still, it is an inconsistency without an official explanation.

Umm, no FAQ says that. Gift of Chaos removes a model as a casualty and replaces it with a spawn, so Celestine would definitely come back.

pretre wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

DPBellathrom wrote:ok, so what happens when celestine becomes a spawn via gift of chaos? She's removed from play so can she still come back?

The FAQ says she does not come back. Personally I believe this is because they still consider her on the table, but changed. Still, it is an inconsistency without an official explanation.

Umm, no FAQ says that. Gift of Chaos removes a model as a casualty and replaces it with a spawn, so Celestine would definitely come back.

Yes, my mistake. She does come back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:
WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.

Was it explained in the FAQ that the reason was because JotWW used the phrase RFP? Can you direct me to this FAQ?

rigeld2 wrote:
You're making more assumptions to say they're the same than I have to make to say they're different.

I only have to look in the BRB and find how you remove models. Would you say by reading the BRB that "remove" and "remove as a casualty" are different?

You keep describing how one is a subset of the other. I understand your description and analogy with pizza, but it's not proof. What RAW led you to this conclusion?

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't think those mean what you say they mean - By the book, units that took 25% casualties due to these abilities would not have to roll.
FAQs and INAT say they count as casualties, which means you take morale checks.

I don't read those INAT FAQs as changing the wording from RFP to RFPaaC, nor do I see any INAT question that says they are the same thing.

The "Casualty" morale check happens if you "lose" 25% of your models, there is no restriction that you only count casualties. As written, this would include any models that are simply removed.

Regardless, the SOB FAQ entry on Saint Celestine makes RFP equivalent to RaaC (for Saint Celestine). RAW, this doesn't make the same true for every ability, so I suppose this would be HYWPI.

rigeld2 wrote:WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.
That reinforces the fact that the phrases are different.

This is not a RAW argument. AFAIK, there's nothing stating that Reanimation Protocols don't work with JotWW. Just because this is how it worked in the old codex/FAQ doesn't mean it is the same way now. Since the "trigger condition" of RP and Miraculous Intervention are the same, and Miraculous Intervention works when Celestine is removed from play, it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that RP works in this situation as well. But again, this is not RAW either.

elrabin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
I don't think those mean what you say they mean - By the book, units that took 25% casualties due to these abilities would not have to roll.
FAQs and INAT say they count as casualties, which means you take morale checks.

I don't read those INAT FAQs as changing the wording from RFP to RFPaaC, nor do I see any INAT question that says they are the same thing.

The "Casualty" morale check happens if you "lose" 25% of your models, there is no restriction that you only count casualties. As written, this would include any models that are simply removed.

... but since it's under the Casualties heading, some people thought that only models removed as a casualty counted - which is why those FAQs exist.

Regardless, the SOB FAQ entry on Saint Celestine makes RFP equivalent to RaaC (for Saint Celestine). RAW, this doesn't make the same true for every ability, so I suppose this would be HYWPI.

And you're perfectly free to - I disagree that it should apply everywhere, so I wouldn't play it that way.

rigeld2 wrote:WBB allowed models to come back from RFPaaC. JotWW removed from play. WBB was not allowed against JotWW.
That reinforces the fact that the phrases are different.

This is not a RAW argument.

Correct. There is no RAW definition of either phrase. So we have to look elsewhere.
Plain english says they're different. Chasing other assumptions and trying to interpret phrases and attempting to discern intent is easter egging.

AFAIK, there's nothing stating that Reanimation Protocols don't work with JotWW.

Aside from one triggering on RFPaaC and the other causing RFP, there isn't.

Just because this is how it worked in the old codex/FAQ doesn't mean it is the same way now.

Look at the reason I brought it up.

Nemesor Dave wrote:GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect.

I was citing an official ruling that there was a difference.

Since the "trigger condition" of RP and Miraculous Intervention are the same, and Miraculous Intervention works when Celestine is removed from play, it wouldn't be unreasonable to infer that RP works in this situation as well. But again, this is not RAW either.

I would say that it is unreasonable because there's nothing even close to allowance in the MI FAQ or any phrases that come close to trying to establish a precedent.