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.

Basimpo wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

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

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

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

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

Casualty IS defined, on page 24 of the BRB.


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


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

That's not a definition of casualty. It specifies that units which have lost all their wounds are casualties. This does not define that casualties are units that have lost all their wounds. That would be a syllogism.

It is true, as has been stated that neither the Lukas nor Celestine FAQs explicitly prove that RFP == RFPaaC (and I'll extend this to any way in which a model is removed, whatever you want to call it), and this is true. You can't argue it.

However, that's the funny thing about circumstantial evidence, it still convicts people because it is assumed that if it quacks, walks, smells, and tastes like a duck, it's a duck.

In other words, stating that those FAQs are completely irrelevant simply because they don't 100% prove a point is being willfully ignorant that they certainly do present a precedent. A precedent is exactly that, not a proof or a rule but a good indication of what similar interpretations should be made.

This is entirely the point of what this argument has become. Neither side is wrong.

However, in my opinion, to continue with the course of each and every way in which a model dies is a separate "thing" even though there is no reference anywhere which defines them nor attempts to draw such a distinction, it certainly seems like to accept it requires some willful ignorance of precedent and an acceptance of rules absurdity, such as the proposition I made above concerning models receiving their RP rolls if the last one is removed by JotWW.

Any statement based on an assumed fact that RFP != RFPaaC (which again, in my opinion requires willful ignorance of precedent and acceptance of rules absurdity) is irrelevant to the overall argument which is clearly about if the two statement are synonymous not about any result of one or the other being true.

Lukas has nothing to do with this. At all.

I'm on my phone and I'll post more later from the hotel.

Well, I've found another person on these forums who can't read. Welcome to my ignore list.

Why are we still having this argument? It changes only a few things in the game, namely RP and E-L and calculating assault results. Big deal. You still have to take 25% casualties check in the shooting phase if hit with JotWW, a hexrifle, or the crucible of malediction, so the only reason any of this should be going on is because people don't know how to read.

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

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

I'll add one to this. If we assume RFP and RFPaaC as not the same thing, check Last Laugh.

"Should Lukas ever be removed from play, both players roll a dice - if the Space Wolves player rolls equal to or higher than his opponent, all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but Lucas' last hows of laughter to keep them company for eternity."

So this rule only works if Lucas has been killed by something that doesn't cause wounds (like JotWW) but otherwise does nothing? And then models in base contact with him are removed as casualtes (which Rigeld2 would say means they take wounds)?

Is this rule really meant to be that complicated?

Edit: oh look, I found a rule that removes a model without causing wounds that uses RFPaaC. How does this fit with the convention of RFP < RFPaaC?

ngilstrap wrote:However, that's the funny thing about circumstantial evidence, it still convicts people because it is assumed that if it quacks, walks, smells, and tastes like a duck, it's a duck.

Thankfully I live in a country where circumstantial evidence isn't enough to convict and as far as I am aware so are you but YMMV with that.

You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth there, neither side is wrong but I am right is the jist of what you are saying. Arse to that.
The tennent of RAW is that if it reads differently then it is. Precedent doesn't prove beyond a doubt, the precedence you are quoting is a castle on sand and I don't agree that it is aplicable across the board. Inference is not proof. Please feel free to watch the video in my signature.

BTW that is an absurdity that will never come up

Nemesor Dave wrote:

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

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

I'll add one to this. If we assume RFP and RFPaaC as not the same thing, check Last Laugh.

"Should Lukas ever be removed from play, both players roll a dice - if the Space Wolves player rolls equal to or higher than his opponent, all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but Lucas' last hows of laughter to keep them company for eternity."

So this rule only works if Lucas has been killed by something that doesn't cause wounds (like JotWW) but otherwise does nothing? And then models in base contact with him are removed as casualtes (which Rigeld2 would say means they take wounds)?

Is this rule really meant to be that complicated?

Removed from play means in any fashion, RFPaaC is a specific situation. Subset and superset, once again. RFP is not exclusive of RFPaaC, it's inclusive of it.

As above. And actually, I addressed Last Laugh in this thread earlier (that or in the most recent EL?SA thread, but fairly certain this thread). As I pointed out, it does not matter how Lukas is removed, however, models in base contact are RFPaaC.

The funny thing about subsets and supersets is that in order to develop the superset-subset relationship both must be clearly defined. Is this the case? Absolutely not.
And I am still waiting those that said that there was a faq against using wbb after jotww to admit thst it existed only in their imagination

Lordhat wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

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

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

I'll add one to this. If we assume RFP and RFPaaC as not the same thing, check Last Laugh.

"Should Lukas ever be removed from play, both players roll a dice - if the Space Wolves player rolls equal to or higher than his opponent, all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties, locked in a temporal prison with nothing but Lucas' last hows of laughter to keep them company for eternity."

So this rule only works if Lucas has been killed by something that doesn't cause wounds (like JotWW) but otherwise does nothing? And then models in base contact with him are removed as casualtes (which Rigeld2 would say means they take wounds)?

Is this rule really meant to be that complicated?

Removed from play means in any fashion, RFPaaC is a specific situation. Subset and superset, once again. RFP is not exclusive of RFPaaC, it's inclusive of it.

Removed from play is not mentioned in the BRB, at least, not that ive read. Please cite, or quote where I missed removed from play in the Warhammer 40k 5th editiion rulebook.

Also, Id like to take this time and point out that if the credits are correct which are listed in the back of the book, then 10 people had a hand in writing the rulebook, with main rules being credited to one person.

10 people, some of which have gone on and made codexes, and yet, no mention of the Super set of RFP, as defined by Lordhat.

Some fundamental facets of English and logic are crying.

Basimpo wrote:
Removed from play is not mentioned in the BRB, at least, not that ive read. Please cite, or quote where I missed removed from play in the Warhammer 40k 5th editiion rulebook.

Please cite or quote where "Everliving" is mentioned in the Warhammer 40K 5th edition rulebook.

Just because X does not appear in the main rules, does not mean that "X" = "Y". It only means that "X" is not in the main rules.

Happyjew wrote:
Please cite or quote where "Everliving" is mentioned in the Warhammer 40K 5th edition rulebook.

Just because X does not appear in the main rules, does not mean that "X" = "Y". It only means that "X" is not in the main rules.

Wow, wow, wow. Are you saying that the codices supliment and augment the rules to allow for individal and seperate armies? To suggest such a thing would make one a fool and a communit!

copper.talos wrote:
And I am still waiting those that said that there was a faq against using wbb after jotww to admit thst it existed only in their imagination

Actually I already conceded that point - until I can find it. But you go with your crusade. Have fun.

kirsanth wrote:Some fundamental facets of English and logic are crying.

this.

If you cannot understand that the qualifier "as a casualty" has meaning, then you simply dont comprehend English well enough to take part in a debate about rues written in English.

Basimpo - can you stop with your requests for every single rule to be defined in the BRB? You do realise that there are a ton of rules NOT defined in the BRB, yet somehow they still work?

Happyjew wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
Removed from play is not mentioned in the BRB, at least, not that ive read. Please cite, or quote where I missed removed from play in the Warhammer 40k 5th editiion rulebook.

Please cite or quote where "Everliving" is mentioned in the Warhammer 40K 5th edition rulebook.

Just because X does not appear in the main rules, does not mean that "X" = "Y". It only means that "X" is not in the main rules.

You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

ngilstrap wrote:
1) Celestine FAQ

Very limited in scope to just Celestine

2) Lack of definition of RFP and RFPaaC in the rulebook from which a distinction could be drawn or is made

Lack of evidence is evidence?

3) Constant use of the two terms in what, in a simple reading, looks synonymous (taking the RP rules for example)

Except that's a misreading. In the RP rules (your example) the "removed from play" is a reference to the "removed from play as a casualty". It does not mean they're synonymous.

4) The introduction of the complexity and absurdity if we state they aren't the same (see the situation I proposed above) and more

Damn me for leaving my BRB at home when I travel.

5) The myriad other ways of saying "remove" such as "remove from table" or the 8-10 or so that have already been posted...

Remove from table I'd say is synonymous with Remove from play - as anything not on the table is not in play. Context is important, however.

6) The INAT FAQs which support (not prove of course) the verdict

Except they don't.

7) The Lukas the Trickster FAQ

Completely wrong. You need to explain this one.

8) just the arguments posed in this thread...

You mean points 1-7 in your list above? Yeah, no.

My opinion of course!

Saying someone is being willfully ignorant and then trying to save it by saying "That's just, like, my opinion, man." is pretty low. Have fun with that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

Space Wolves codex, under the JotWW rules.
Remove from play has a basic English meaning, so it's defined.

Basimpo wrote:You are right. Everliving does not show up in the main codex. But it is given form and definition in the necron codex. Can you cite where RFP is given form and definition, and in what codex?

Removed from play is an aspect of a rule while Everliving is a full rule. GW will never define aspects of rules unless they need to, ask for an faq or maybe ring them. Personally send an email to dictonary corner at countdown and see if they will help you out with the meaning of the phrase.

Aspect of a rule? Jeez, we are really pulling them out now arnt we? They probably didnt feel the need to define this "aspect" because it is already defined...on page 24 of the BRB.

Aspect, part, section, clause, term, iota, substituent, would you like some more synonyms? I know my grasp of english is not on par with some people but I think I can understand context and the use of words. Please PM me if you have any questions about the words I use in my replies, I would not like to have my arguements messed up by my poor explainations.

Page 24 doesn't talk about removed from play. And the paragraph you love "Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." That is fluff, in fact it is the fluff for those that wish to craft the stories about their armies, specific characters and how they progressed over the years in their games.

the INAT FAQ doesn't agree?

DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01 – Q: Are models removed from play by a Crucible of Malediction, Hexrifle and/or a Shattershard considered to be removed as casualties? A: In all cases, yes [clarification]. Ref: SW 37H.04

SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws of the World Wolf count as casualties? A: Yes they do [clarification]. Ref: DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01

liturgies of blood wrote:Aspect, part, section, clause, term, iota, substituent, would you like some more synonyms? I know my grasp of english is not on par with some people but I think I can understand context and the use of words. Please PM me if you have any questions about the words I use in my replies, I would not like to have my arguements messed up by my poor explainations.

Page 24 doesn't talk about removed from play. And the paragraph you love "Casualties are not necessarily dead – they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." That is fluff, in fact it is the fluff for those that wish to craft the stories about their armies, specific characters and how they progressed over the years in their games.

Then as a casualty is fluff, and that leaves removed from play. But, GW across the board uses as a casualty.

INAT isn't god, or in this case GW but count as casualties =/= removed as casualties. And if they say that Jotww does remove as a casualty then I politely disagree with them, as casualties are dealt with on page 24 as Basimpo tells us so well and include considerations of wounds while jotww has nothing to do with wounds as per the FAQ.

While it is a compramise used to run tournaments by and is clearly flagged as the ultimate arbitrater by some, their and similar groups calls are not always in line with what GW calls.

So liturgies, what happens to the models that are removed from play?

They are removed from play.

Look I believe a TO's word is final no matter the call, you go with it as that is the rule of tournament law(usually in bold and underlined in the rules pack). I reserve my right to express my opinion of how I read, specifically how I read the rules. INAT decided to conflate the two things for convinience and I can imagine that there are, at big tournaments, lots of fights over fringe rules so they need to make a call to expedite things.

I never said casualties were fluff I said that the paragraph you love on pg 24 is fluff, the 1st 2 paragraphs in that section are rather important but in a more general sense to the game.

liturgies of blood wrote:They are removed from play.

Look I believe a TO's word is final no matter the call, you go with it as that is the rule of tournament law(usually in bold and underlined in the rules pack). I reserve my right to express my opinion of how I read, specifically how I read the rules. INAT decided to conflate the two things for convinience and I can imagine that there are, at big tournaments, lots of fights over fringe rules so they need to make a call to expedite things.

I never said casualties were fluff I said that the paragraph you love on pg 24 is fluff, the 1st 2 paragraphs in that section are rather important but in a more general sense to the game.

I like how you phrased your response. +1.

Im at the point where im tired of arguing it.
Hopefully, 6th edition will come out and say either or.
Im taking from this that RFP does not exist, and that there are two states of "being" so to speak, actually, three states of "being" for models. If they are in play, they are on the board, if they are not in play, they are either in reserves, or, a casualty.

JotWW cause adverse effects on your opponents models, making them casualties, forcing them to remove them from play. Only 2 places to go, reserves, or the casualty pile.

The claim they are different relies on "removed" models falling into two categories:

A) Removed from play as a Casualty
These models are "casualties".

p. 24 tells you what a casualty is. "not necessarily dead...".

B) Removed from play as simply removed from play.
In fluff terms as defined in the BRB, what are these models? ... "casualties"

All removed models are casualties.

1) There is no consistent way RFP and RFPaaC is used. JotWW does not cause wounds, removes the model with RFP. Last laugh does not cause wounds and removes enemy models with RFPaaC.
2) Celestines FAQ says her RFPaaC ability works if she has been RFP by JotWW. FAQs for similar rules can be applied.
3) Casualty is defined as fluff.
4) GW rules support says they are the same

However, unfortunately there is no possible earthly explanation that would convince some people in this thread.

OK, I agree that RFP and RFPaac is not used as consistently as it should be to clearly define two seperate cases.

The whole pg24 things is a load of arse, if you are using the fluff paragraphs from the brb and codices to define rules then wait for the crap other people will pull.

Not all removed models are casualties, you can RP and EL from casualties, you can't RP and EL from SA, being destroyed as per examples that have been listed earlier. That falls right there. Also models can be removed and replaced with squigs, that is funny as hell and they aren't a casualty, they are a squig.

Where does GW rules support say that they are the same?

Removing and replacing a model is covered by the faqs. Covered in Necrons faq regarding Trazyns surrogate host ability (absolutely love that one), and a couple of others.