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.

orknado wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I'm just here to pour some fuel on the fire:


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

 Altruizine wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I'm just here to pour some fuel on the fire:


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.

Thanks for joining in to the discussion, orknado.

And welcome to YMDC.

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

orknado wrote:

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:

 doctortom wrote:
[

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.

col_impact wrote:
No assumptions are made.

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:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

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.

col_impact wrote:
[Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:

 Altruizine wrote:
I'm just here to pour some fuel on the fire:


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?

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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?

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

Deleted (see post above)

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:

 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.

orknado wrote:

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.

orknado wrote:

 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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 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.

 doctortom wrote:

orknado wrote:

 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.

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.

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 not RAW. 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.

 doctortom wrote:

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.

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.

Is there a rule that states models deploy on the tabletop with full wounds?

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

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.

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.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

 Charistoph wrote:

 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?

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

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:

 Charistoph wrote:

 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.