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.

"...keep a count of all models killed by followers of Nurgle anywhere on the table."

Basimpo wrote:Q: When do models with an ability that can bring them
back after they loose their last Wound count towards
The Tally of Pestilence? (p52)
A: Only once they are finally removed from the game,
after failing to come back.

Can someone quote the chaos demons rule for this one for us please?

It says removed from the game. As in, it doesn't matter how or what removed them. The fact that they are no longer able to be used in the game is the only thing that matters.

Also, it's thread like this that make me want to punch people, especially those who like being Rules Lawyers, in the brain. Also, you all seem to be missing PAGE 24.
------------------------------------------------------
REMOVE CASUALTIES------pg. 24
For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed. Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simply going through covering terrain! Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Removed From Play- Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed.

Removed from play as a casualty- This term is used "from play" is never used in the BRB. However, "removed as a casualty" is used 6 times. Page 20 dictates how this works with model that have only 1 wound.
--------------------------------------
TAKE SAVING THROWS
If all the models in a unit are the same, and have a single Wound each, such as a squad of Eldar Rangers or Necron Warriors, then this is a very simple process. You roll all the saves for the unit in one go (as described below), and a model of your choice is removed as a casualty for each failure.
--------------------------------------

Page 26 goes further, explaining how this works with multi-wound models, and also how Instant Death works.
--------------------------------------------MULTI-WOUND MODELS
When such a multiple-wound model suffers an unsaved wound, it loses one Wound from its profile. Once the model has lost all of its Wounds, it is removed as a casualty (so a model with 3 Wounds would only be killed after it had been wounded three times). Keep track of how many wounds such models have suffered on a piece of scrap paper, or by placing a dice or marker next to them.

INSTANT DEATH
Even though a creature might have multiple Wounds, there are plenty of weapons in the 41st Millennium that are powerful enough to kill it instantly. If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty. It can be imagined that the creature is vapourised, burned to a pile of ash, blasted limb from limb or otherwise mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion.
--------------------------------------------

What happens when a model is removed as a casualty? If part of an Assault, their removal counts towards resolving the combat. If in the Shooting Phase, their death counts towards the 25% Casualties threshold to take a morale test/check.

What happens if a model is simply removed from play? It doesnot count towards resolving a combat in the Assault phase as it is not a casualty and no wounds were caused.

How does this affect gameplay? It in fact makes the Necrons more powerful and weakens other armies, mostly Dark Eldar, yet still maintains balance . Both Tesseract Labyrinths and Transdimensional Beamers say "remove as a casualty with no saves allowed." This means that when models are removed from play, they are casualties, and so count towards the 25% casualties morale test in the shooting phase (for the Beamer) and towards the combat resolution in the Assault Phase (Labyrinth). However, the Dark Eldar Crucible of Malediction and Hexrifle (and Jaws of the World Wolf) do not cause casualties. The models are simply removed from play. These removals do not count towards anything.

Necron Reanimation Protocols/Ever-Living (and Justicar Thawn's entry) also mention that these abilities are only used when removed from play as a casualty. This increases the power of abilities/weapons that simply remove models from play. Interestingly, if you read the description for each weapon/ability, no wounds are caused. Crucible of Malediction? Psyker falls over with the mother of all migranes, disabled. Hexrifle? Turn to glass. Jaws of the World Wolf? Fall down huge pit. Boon of Mutation? You mutate into a Chaos Spawn. Also note that they all require a Characteristic Test of some kind. Jaws? Initiative. Crucible? Leadership. Hexrifle? Wounds. Boon? Toughness. These weapons don't kill you (well, Jaws of the World Wolf does, and I am fairly certain that being turned to glass is fatal), they literally make you unable to fight anymore. Whether it's the Boon of Mutation forcefully transforming you into a Chaos Spawn, or a Hexrifle turning you into glass, you can't fight anymore.

Interesting Note: Heroic Sacrifice, a GK HQ special ability, specifically mentions remove from play. As both the Necron and Grey Knight codices were written by Matt Ward, it would seem that Ward thinks ahead when ensuring his Grey Knights do as much damage as possible before fully dying. Against his own codices, at any rate.

McNinja wrote:What happens if a model is simply removed from play? It doesnot count towards resolving a combat or the 25% casualties morale test/check, as it is not a casualty.

Well actually, if you read P.44 it says "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back..."

So anytime 25% or more of a units models are lost during a single phase, that will trigger a Morale check.

So models simply removed from play will actually trigger the 25% casualties Morale check.

DeathReaper wrote:

McNinja wrote:What happens if a model is simply removed from play? It doesnot count towards resolving a combat or the 25% casualties morale test/check, as it is not a casualty.

Well actually, if you read P.44 it says "A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back..."

So anytime 25% or more of a units models are lost during a single phase, that will trigger a Morale check.

So models simply removed from play will actually trigger the 25% casualties Morale check.

True. I shall edit my post.

Rigeld2 - It causes losses (ie for morale purposes). Casualties, by definition, are caused when a model loses all of its wounds, yes?

No - instant death can happen when a model still has wounds left.

Rigeld2 - Saying just "removed" is the same thing as RFP. Removed from what? Unless you answer "play" the rule is useless.

Removed from the table.

Rigeld2, you have described WHAT you believe. Please describe using CURRENT FAQs and rules to describe the steps you take to come to your conclusion. Please explain the WHY. I am interested in seeing your fresh perspective based only on current FAQs.

This thread is based on a false assumption that there are only two phrases used to describe how a model is removed from the table.

In the BRB anytime it mentions removing a model, it refers to it as a "casualty" in some way. Why would you believe the below are not casualties?

1) removed (R?)
2) removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
3) taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
4) removed as a casualty (RaaC)
5) remove casualties
6) remove whole models as casualties
7) removed from play
8) revmoed from play as a casualty

By language they are all different but the BRB does define "casualty".

BRB p. 24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

I believe "casualty" is a descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset.

Using the BRB's definition of casualty, you may replace "casualty" with "dead or unconcious or incapacitated in some other way".
JotWW - you fall down a hole and are removed from play as "dead or unconscious or too far down a hole to climb back up, in any case no longer fit to particpate in the battle." Is this wrong?

Nemesor Dave wrote:Rigeld2 - It causes losses (ie for morale purposes). Casualties, by definition, are caused when a model loses all of its wounds, yes?

No - instant death can happen when a model still has wounds left.

Rigeld2 - Saying just "removed" is the same thing as RFP. Removed from what? Unless you answer "play" the rule is useless.

Removed from the table.

Rigeld2, you have described WHAT you believe. Please describe using CURRENT FAQs and rules to describe the steps you take to come to your conclusion. Please explain the WHY. I am interested in seeing your fresh perspective based only on current FAQs.

This thread is based on a false assumption that there are only two phrases used to describe how a model is removed from the table.

In the BRB anytime it mentions removing a model, it refers to it as a "casualty" in some way. Why would you believe the below are not casualties?

1) removed (R?)
2) removed from the table as a casualty (RFtTaaC)
3) taken off as a casualty (ToaaC)
4) removed as a casualty (RaaC)
5) remove casualties
6) remove whole models as casualties
7) removed from play
8) revmoed from play as a casualty

By language they are all different but the BRB does define "casualty".

BRB p. 24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

I believe "casualty" is a descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset.

Using the BRB's definition of casualty, you may replace "casualty" with "dead or unconcious or incapacitated in some other way".
JotWW - you fall down a hole and are removed from play as "dead or unconscious or too far down a hole to climb back up, in any case no longer fit to particpate in the battle." Is this wrong?

See my post above.

McNinja wrote:See my post above.

You lost me at:

Removed From Play - Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed..

By the BRB definition these are still "casualties" as defined on p.24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

You insist on ignoring the very RAW of the BRB that defines what being removed from play as a casualty constitutes and instead are trying to play a semantic game with,

"I believe "casualty" is a descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset."

Which then even shuts down your own argument of trying to classify what JotWW and other non-wound producing mechanics that remove from play as a, "descriptive term used to give flavor to an otherwise dry ruleset.".


We can do without the digs and personal comments thanks.
Reds8n

Brother Ramses wrote:
There is no other conclusion then you are a cheater and a horrible rules lawyer. Not horrible as in you are a skilled rules lawyer actually able to find a loophole in the rules, but that you are a clueless and incapable easter egg hunter.

Do I smell like elderberries?

Nemesor Dave wrote:

McNinja wrote:See my post above.

You lost me at:

Removed From Play - Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed..

By the BRB definition these are still "casualties" as defined on p.24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

it doesn't matter. No wounds were caused, which is the only thing that matters. A model can only become a casualty after all wounds have been lost. Remove from play does not cause wounds. Remove from play as a casualty treats the target as if they lost all wounds. In the case of the Tesseract Labyrinth, this would mean that if in an assault both sides, but an overlord had used a tesseact labyrinth on Draigo, who then failed the test, the Necrons would win the assault by four wounds

McNinja wrote:it doesn't matter. No wounds were caused, which is the only thing that matters. A model can only become a casualty after all wounds have been lost.

What rule tells you this?

A model with 6 wounds, that suffers Instant Death has taken only 1 wound. It is removed and still has 5 wounds left.

I support Nemesor Dave. Please, from the BRB, or the FAQs, define what happens to a model that is removed from play.
Strange that GW went and defined casualties, but kept what happens to a model that is removed from play secret.
Strange that in all of GW faqs, removed from play is not listed, nor clarified.
Strange that Removed from play is not answered. Is it not a frequently asked question? Earlier, i challenged everyone to contact GW today in some way and ask them that question. I understand the tenets, my point isnt to prove it through the so-called unreliable GW support line, its to get a bunch of people to ask a question- frequently, and to post their replies. Even if you fake the answer it would still provide some sort of view of what GW says, today.

Once again, I understand GW support is not a reliable source. If you are going to post and contradict me on its reliability, please, reread what i just wrote above.

All the evidence and proofs point further and further that RFP and RFPaaC are one and the same.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I think a timeline should be created to show when RFP came into existence. It is not listed in the BRB, right? SO what was the first FAQ or codex to list it? When was this codex written? Before, or after the 5th edition rules? If before, what does the 4th edition rules say about RFP and RFPaaC?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
How many writers have been involved in the making of the current codexes, 5th edition rulebook, and GW faqs? What are the chances that those many people did not use exactly the same "language/style" (not english etc, but their own styles) throughout every single writing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To go through and say OH! In this codex for THIS piece of wargear they actually mean THIS specifically, and THATS now a rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Im no english major, but to repetitively use a word, or phrase repeatedly in a single paragraph is bad form, and dreary reading. EL is a good example of that. One sentence they use removed from play as a casualty, and the VERY next sentence they use just removed from play. Why? Because if every sentence contained the same words, repeatedly, then you would repeatedly get bored of the repetition being repeated, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Making rules, it MAKES SENSE to be repetitive and dreary, and honestly, if GW were, this argument would probably not exist. Also, the game would probably never have taken off due to the boredom it caused just perusing the rules. But in a lightly fluffed and salted rulebook, they use different means of describing casualties. No where in the BRB is destroyed defined except as what occurs to a vehicle! And its the primary way they describe units taking casualties throughout the rest of the BRB!

Basimpo- you have yet to list ANY evidencevthat they are the same. Absolutely none

Both codexes are 5th edition codexes

nosferatu1001 wrote:Basimpo- you have yet to list ANY evidencevthat they are the same. Absolutely none

Both codexes are 5th edition codexes

Perhaps you can explain (without using outdated materials) how you come to the conclusion they are different?

The materials use:
removed
removed from play
removed as a casualty
removed from play as a casualty
removed from the table as a casualty

The BRB explains a casualty is a model no longer fit to participate in the battle. Surely wouldn't any method of removing a model also fit this description?

Nos, i feel that you are just trying to fan the fires...
But, heres a shot

Answer this question.
If a model is removed from play, can it still assault, shoot, and move during its turn as normal?
If your answer is NO, then, the model falls under the rules and definition given on page 24 of the BRB. This is the Warhammer 40k 5th edition rulebook, which is the basis of playing 5th edition warhammer 40k.

If your answer is YES, then we can expect FAQs/amendments/errata to come out on the RFP wargear/rules because they are horrendously broken and allow models to do what the controlling player wants to do with them.

How much clearer can this be made?

And what do you mean, both codexes are 5th edition codexes? Starting with the BRB, and moving on to the codexes, dark angels, blood angels, tyranids, sisters of battle, tau empire, necrons, space wolves, space marines, black templars, chaos space marines, chaos demons, grey knights, eldar, dark eldar, imperial guard and ork...did i miss any? How many of THOSE are written by different authors?

RFP[aaC -Implied]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
The only other way i know how to describe a model that is NOT a casualty AND is off the board, is IN reserves. So, does this actually mean RFP[and put into reserves?] If that is so, why does Celestine get to use her MI against a RFP, if all a RFP is is putting the model into reserves.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just ran through the grey knights 5th edition codex. Only one place in the entire codex mentioned remove from play WITHOUT as a casualty, and that was describing a piece of equipment and only used removed from play after self-destructs, or flees the battlefield. What happens to a unit that flees the battlefield? It is destroyed. This is a piece of equipment, so no proof of RFP there.

ALSO
The very first page of the codex under a huuuge bold print of INTRODUCTION it says the 40k rulebook contains what you need to know to fight battles in the 41st millienium setting. The codex itself says it details the army of the grey knights.

In neither the BRB or the grey knights codex is RFP defined as a separate entity, superset, or anything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Furthermore, BEFORE you try to contradict me, or tell me im wrong, tell US what HAPPENS to a model that is RFP'D? NO one has yet to say what happens to the model when it is removed from play!

It's removed... From play.
Just like if it was as a casualty, but it isnt.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

McNinja wrote:See my post above.

You lost me at:

Removed From Play - Look at every weapon that simply removes a model from play. None of them cause wounds. None. At all. JotWW, Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle, Boon of Mutation. None of these cause wounds. None. That's the point. They aren't removed as casualties. They lost no wounds. They are simply removed..

By the BRB definition these are still "casualties" as defined on p.24 "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle."

Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

I don't see any rules in your quote. I see fluff.

rigeld2 wrote:

nemesor dave wrote:
Are they:
1) may not be necessarily dead? Yes
2) may be merely knocked unconscious? Yes
3) too injured to carry on fighting? Yes
4) incapacitated in some other way? Yes
5) no longer fit to participate in the battle? Yes.

They are casualties.

I don't see any rules in your quote. I see fluff.

I agree completely. "Casualty" is defined as fluff. "Removed" is the only word that matters.

RFP = removed.
RFPaaC = removed.
removed from the table as a casualty = removed

The fluff in either case makes no difference.

No, casualty is defined as losing all your wounds. The sentence you quoted is fluff, but earlier in the paragraph you'll see the actual definition of casualty and how to become one.
So RFPaaC is being removed because you lost all your wounds.

Does JotWW cause wounds?

rigeld2 wrote:No, casualty is defined as losing all your wounds. The sentence you quoted is fluff, but earlier in the paragraph you'll see the actual definition of casualty and how to become one.
So RFPaaC is being removed because you lost all your wounds.

Does JotWW cause wounds?

This is incorrect. p. 26 BRB "If a model suffers an unsaved wound from an attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty." Care to try again?

...no. Because page 24 defines a casualty. It was posted I. This thread.

Just because other things also remove as casualty the definition doesn't change. Specific > general ya know.

rigeld2 wrote:...no. Because page 24 defines a casualty. It was posted I. This thread.

Just because other things also remove as casualty the definition doesn't change. Specific > general ya know.

You're trying to define a convention. Like this - hey I noticed all rules using RFP don't cause wounds, therefore RFP means dying without taking a wound.

Yet the BRB never says anything about there being a difference. It describes how to remove models and uses "casualty" for every way a model is removed.

You can even draw a logical conclusion using the BRB vs codexes.

From the BRB:
1) Rules use both "removed" and "removed as a casualty" in the same sections describing how to remove models. These are clearly equal - right?

From the Codexes:
2) In the codexes you have "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty". Like in algebra, lets remove the elements from both sides that are the same - the "from play" since they are both "from play". This leaves us with "removed" and "removed as a casualty" - both used to describe the same thing in the BRB - Removing Casualties.


"Removed from play as a casualty" is not in the BRB. The closest thing we have is "removed as a casualty". "removed from play" is also not in the BRB. The closest we have is "removed". In the BRB the two are the same, therefore you must conclude in the codexes they are the same.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Like in algebra, lets remove the elements from both sides that are the same - the "from play" since they are both "from play". This leaves us with "removed" and "removed as a casualty" - both used to describe the same thing in the BRB - Removing Casualties.

If you removed the "like terms" you would have "as a casualty" and nothing else, you are only removing some of the like terms (from play) and leaving one like term (Removed) in place.

Can I try this line and bear with me.
Removed from play is taken off the board.
Destroyed, for a unit or non vehicle model, as per a
-deepstrike or outflanking mishap,
-not being able to get out of a destroyed vehicle,
-being sweeping advanced(they need to rename this, SA was so very different in 3rd ed.),
takes the model off the board and the rulebook says that any model not on the board at the end of the game is dead and gives up a killpoint(someone quoted something to this effect yesterday).

When it comes to wounds and removed as a casualty, these are cases where the rules have covered in the brb, the brb also deals with instant death so I see that as being clear.
Do these weapons and powers like JOTWW have a strength value, are the poisoned, or do they say in their NON-FLUFF sections that they inflict wounds?
I don't think the answer is yes to any of that so this is not a question of casualties and wounds. So any analysis of casualties relating to how the power behaves when it comes to wounds is moot.
Also the faq says it doesn't cause wounds.

Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow cover saves? (p37)
A. No – you could take a cover save if the power caused wounds, but as it does not cause wounds, no cover saves are allowed.

The next issue is do these powers counting towards the 25% losses moral check? It is understandable in a RAI method that seeing your buddies fall into the earth or be taking into a realm of death as per cube 2: hypercube (if you are a necron player) but also as pg44 says "loosing 25% of the models" and doesn't give any restrictions on how that could happen other then not during assaults.

The codices brought in these rules and as such are more specific then the brb, I think they stand on their own(plus their faq as it applies directly to them) and should be read as such. Yes JOTWW is powerful at 24", yes it can mess your day up as a Necron player but it can do the same for anyone with low I models.
The rules for ever living seem to me to be poorly worded but the 1st paragraph's "where it was removed from play" doesn't mean that the model was "removed from play" IMHO it just designates where the counter should be placed. The rest of the rule talks about as a casualty, so I would leave it to a TO to decide but personally I'd rule that it was only for cases of loosing wounds or things covered in the BRB.

Just wanted to add this to the discussion. (I added this last time it came up but was to late to the party for a response if you are keeping track):

On pg. 29 of the Necron Codex, left column 4th paragraph:

"Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all of your counters."

Reading this statement, it is telling me fairly clearly that I cannot attempt RP rolls if my unit is destroyed, destroyed then being defined as the last model has been "removed as a casualty", then instructed to remove all counters.

So, here's the question.

IF I take the side of the "Removed from Play" (RFP) is not the same thing as "Remove from Play as a Casualty" (RFPaaC)

- Then by this wording, is it then true that if my last model is "removed from play" but not "as a casualty", say by JotWW, then my unit is not considered destroyed and I get my RP rolls? As per the above, I only remove counters when my unit is destroyed by the last model being removed "as a casualty".

Interesting, so I assume the rest of the squad has been taken out in that turn of shooting. So long as the last model was removed by JOTWW then you have found yourself a loophole. That is some RAW.
Destroyed isn't just last model out as a casualty though, there are other times when a squad gets destroyed.

So when I use jaws I need to use it first.

I like the fluff explaination of that one, they repaired due to the guy 100 feet below the earth still being alive, lol

It is indeed a loophole if we take the side of "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are not the same thing.

If we take the side of the "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" are synonymous, it's a proof by contradiction that they are synonymous.

rigeld2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

That is not a definition of casualty. For one thing, it doesn't define that figures removed for other causes are not casualties.

Given that "play" and "casualty" are not defined, it seems impossible to have an official definition of either phrase.

Kilkrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

That is not a definition of casualty. For one thing, it doesn't define that figures removed for other causes are not casualties.

Given that "play" and "casualty" are not defined, it seems impossible to have an official definition of either phrase.

Casualty IS defined, on page 24 of the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, there is a big bold title on page XII that is called OVERVIEW OF PLAY


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It seems to me that GW's massive oversight in not defining what happens to a model when it is "removed from play" but it is not a casualty, is not put into reserves, and is not replaced with another model on the board (Trayzyns, chaos demons) AND GW did not rectify this oversight in any FAQs is indicative that...RFP does not exist! It is not "assumed" we know what RFP means. It IS assumed we know what destroyed means-the models are now casualties. RFP is not a separate entity.

I'm certainly not impartial on this issue, but at this point in the face of the mounting evidence that RFP == RFPaaC...

1) Celestine FAQ
2) Lack of definition of RFP and RFPaaC in the rulebook from which a distinction could be drawn or is made
3) Constant use of the two terms in what, in a simple reading, looks synonymous (taking the RP rules for example)
4) The introduction of the complexity and absurdity if we state they aren't the same (see the situation I proposed above) and more
5) The myriad other ways of saying "remove" such as "remove from table" or the 8-10 or so that have already been posted...
6) The INAT FAQs which support (not prove of course) the verdict
7) The Lukas the Trickster FAQ
8) just the arguments posed in this thread...

To be asked to believe that they are different because the people who wrote the rulebook, whom we all know are not technical writers to begin with (which is no proof of course), wrote a myriad way of saying "this model is dead" (many of which have been pointed out but even in my example above "remove as casualty" is used and not even "remove from play as a casualty" adding even more absurdity)

... to be asked believe that the statement written was intended to show a difference simply because it was written down EVEN in the face of lack of any definition or mention of the phrases in question anywhere else in the rulebook to draw such a distinction...

.The point for me is that it is clear that both sides are "right" in this issue, but the available precedents and evidence seems to support one "right" over another. At this point it is clear that neither side will concede this issue, but I do believe after having read this again and again that there is a lot of willful ignorance going on and that the answer is pretty clear.

My opinion of course!

Celestine isn't proof of one or the other, it just expands the power of the saint so that a very weak character can actually be worth the points. It is explicit permission for her and her alone to come back.

Lukas the trickster doesn't remove from play, he removes from play as a casualty. Once you are removed from play as a casualty, you have been removed from play but with some added provisions.

The english language is a wonderful thing that has been enforced on most of the world but the method by which a model is removed can dictate and does dictate how other rules effect it.
You can't come back from being destroyed, so why can you come back from effects that "remove from play" without an explicit permission to do so.