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.

liturgies of blood wrote: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?

Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

The very word means:
1) Removed from play as knocked unconcious
2) Removed from play as too injured to carry on fighting
3) Removed from play as incapacitated in some way
4) Removed from play as no longer fit to participate in the battle
5) Removed from play as killed
6) Removed from play as vapourized
7) Removed from play as burned to a pile of ash
8) Removed from play as blasted limb from limb
9) Removed from play as mortally slain in a suitably graphic fashion

In the case of JotWW
10) Removed from play as falling down a hole.

Though it doesn't use "as a casualty" in the same sentence, the fluff regarding "how" the model is being removed is still there in the rule. "As a casualty" is how the model dies. We dont care, it's fluff. We only care that the model is "removed from play".

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?

So you dont even know what rule youre arguing? Brilliant. 2 Codexes, Jaws and Crucible of Malediction.

Nemesor Dave wrote: Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

So we agree there are times when a model is taken from the board where it is not taken off the board as a causaulty?

I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

Where is that coming from, there is no sentence that contains the words "a casualty is" I checked (no really I did). Casualties are not defined, there is an implication that they are what you get when you loose your last unsaved wound but that is not a great leg to stand on.

I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, we remove models in different ways as we agreed. Models are taken off the board in the brb for two reasons, 1) as a casualty for loosing wounds, being instant killed, cc wounds and 2) being destroyed. As it stands there are ways a model can be removed from play but not be classified as a casualty. Now since it is not clear that RFP is a real thing or not YMMV on how a TO wants to read those paragraphs.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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?

So you dont even know what rule youre arguing? Brilliant. 2 Codexes, Jaws and Crucible of Malediction.

When i said main codex, I actually meant main rulebook. Thanks for not catching that like everyone else did.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

liturgies of blood wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote: Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

So we agree there are times when a model is taken from the board where it is not taken off the board as a causaulty?

I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

Where is that coming from, there is no sentence that contains the words "a casualty is" I checked (no really I did). Casualties are not defined, there is an implication that they are what you get when you loose your last unsaved wound but that is not a great leg to stand on.

I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, we remove models in different ways as we agreed. Models are taken off the board in the brb for two reasons, 1) as a casualty for loosing wounds, being instant killed, cc wounds and 2) being destroyed. As it stands there are ways a model can be removed from play but not be classified as a casualty. Now since it is not clear that RFP is a real thing or not YMMV on how a TO wants to read those paragraphs.

Destroyed is defined as being wrecked and left on the table, or, exploding.

Really? So after a sweeping advance the unit is wecked and left on the table?

3rd paragraph page 40.
Falling back and Trapped page 45
Assaulting while falling back page 46
Cannot exit wrecked transpot page 67

All those mention destroying units.

Nvm

liturgies of blood wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote: Perhaps using a less debated rule for your example would be better. Like models trapped while falling back - the unit is destroyed. I would agree these are not "casualties".

So we agree there are times when a model is taken from the board where it is not taken off the board as a causaulty?

Yes true.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
I'm not using the fluff paragraph, I'm using the definition of Casualty as given in the rulebook. "A casualty is..." It tells you what the very word casualty means when used in the rules.

Where is that coming from, there is no sentence that contains the words "a casualty is" I checked (no really I did). Casualties are not defined, there is an implication that they are what you get when you loose your last unsaved wound but that is not a great leg to stand on.

I am not sure what you mean in the last paragraph, we remove models in different ways as we agreed. Models are taken off the board in the brb for two reasons, 1) as a casualty for loosing wounds, being instant killed, cc wounds and 2) being destroyed. As it stands there are ways a model can be removed from play but not be classified as a casualty. Now since it is not clear that RFP is a real thing or not YMMV on how a TO wants to read those paragraphs.

My quote should read "Casualties are..." On page 24. It tells you what a casualty is defined as. The rest of the post still stands.

I would agree with your assessment, the BRB has two groups of removed models:
1) casualties
2) destroyed

Since in the codexes the rules for casualties have "removed and "removed as a casualty". It is reasonable to draw a comparison to "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty" and put them in category 1.

Wouldn't destroyed be casualties anyway? By the rule "No longer fit to participate in the battle"

I see where you are coming from with the removed from play and removed as a casualty comparison. I am not sure of the intended goal so I will apply how i read RAW for now.

I am not sure that paragraph on page 24 is very good reasoning. It reads like fluff to me.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
OMG I just found it.
pg 15 "Remove casualties. The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved."

Is that a definition of casualties?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Yes i just easter egged.

remove casualties is page 24?

Just above the fluff that explains what casualties actually are?

edit: it's on Pg 15 too sorry

Magpie wrote:Wouldn't destroyed be casualties anyway? By the rule "No longer fit to participate in the battle"

Unfortunately the recent Necron FAQ's using the term "wiped out" could be applied here to mean also units that are destroyed. RAW this would mean you could place EL tokens when a unit is destroyed from being trapped while falling back for instance. This is not how I would play it though.

Yes it is on page 24 but my question is does what is written on page 15 count as a definition, I think it might. As such it would call into question the use of the paragraph at the bottom of page 24 as anything more then fluff.

Sorry my bad, edited the posts to show page 15, as that is where my quote is from. Specifically in the shooting order box.

So by my reading of that, the most basic part of the entire rules for shooting, which is where our rules for casualties comes from, I think casualties are the remit of effects that cause wounds.

liturgies of blood wrote:Yes it is on page 24 but my question is does what is written on page 15 count as a definition, I think it might. As such it would call into question the use of the paragraph at the bottom of page 24 as anything more then fluff.

Sorry my bad, edited the posts to show page 15, as that is where my quote is from. Specifically in the shooting order box.

So by my reading of that, the most basic part of the entire rules for shooting, which is where our rules for casualties comes from, I think casualties are the remit of effects that cause wounds.

P. 15 is not a definition for casualties, but it does explain the rules on how to "Remove Casualties". There is no section on "Remove From Play (as simply removed from play)".

The p.24 tells you what the rulebook means by "casualties". If the rulebook uses fluff to define a word, is not that word itself fluff?

God I got through 10 pages of that last thread to find it locked so I'm going to skip pages 2-7 here to post about the SA vs EL debate/debacle.

Last paragraph of the RP rules states, "RP rolls cannot be attempted if the unit is destroyed." And SA destroys units. Now I can get behind a character being destroyed in this fashion if swept, since in this case the character is being swept.

However if the character dies before the unit it was with gets swept, it still gets to use EL as in that same last paragraph of the RP rules it says, "Note that characters do not count as part of the unit for the purpose of RP". So in this instance the character would not be part of the unit destroyed by a SA. Since it was removed as a casualty it would roll for EL at the end of phase as normal. This assumes that EL is a subset of RP with specific exemptions from the line, "...just as you would for a RP counter."

As for RFP vs RFPaaC. They've both been used in an alternating fashion in FAQs and codexes that you could infer their interchangability. Though Rigfield's explanation by uses of subsets would clear most of that up. However I'd like to point out the absurdity from the fluff standpoint that RP can't be used from being trapped underground or if suffering from "glass plague", but popping back in from a pocket dimension? No problem (unless by way of the dark eldar)! Curse GW for not holding every author to identical phrasing amongst different rulebooks. (Seriously hire new editors or development team leaders. I mean if WotC can do it so can GW, though I guess it helps that they don't need to change the rulebook entirely every few years.)

I certainly HOPE page 15 isn't the definition of casualties.

Remove casualties.
The target unit suffers casualties for any wounds that have not been saved.

The way I read that is any wounds that have not been saved causes a casualty that has to be removed. Which kinda sux for 3 wound models that have suffered 1

Tarrasq wrote:God I got through 10 pages of that last thread to find it locked so I'm going to skip pages 2-7 here to post about the SA vs EL debate/debacle.

This thread isn't really a continuation of that thread. You should read this thread before tread jacking it for that other topic.

Magpie wrote:I certainly HOPE page 15 isn't the definition of casualties. The way I read that is any wounds that have not been saved causes a casualty that has to be removed. Which kinda sux for 3 wound models that have suffered 1

Don't worry, the rules then go on to talk about multi wound models later so you're good. As you know the rules deal with the majority first, 1W models in units with all the same weapon and build on complexity from there.

Pg 15 doesn't tell you how to remove casualties, it just says "Remove casualties." as a heading and tells you what generates casualties.
I think that makes it clear that an effect that doesn't cause a wound is not a casualty as unsaved wounds are required. That is also consistant with the other methods to take a model off the board in the brb which are mostly under the heading of "destroyed" in a list I put up there already.

If that is the case then the wording of Jaws doesn't matter at all so long as it doesn't wound it isn't a casualty problem. Though st. celestine comes back from everything.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Tarrasq wrote:God I got through 10 pages of that last thread to find it locked so I'm going to skip pages 2-7 here to post about the SA vs EL debate/debacle.

This thread isn't really a continuation of that thread. You should read this thread before tread jacking it for that other topic.

100% with you there. I am only using Jaws as it is the rule that I know from the list of oddities that remove from play without causing wounds.
Actually Tarrasq I am not sure what you are actually bringing to this deabte? I don't mean to sound rude but what does any of that have to do with rfp vis rfpaac?

Since the English language is being used to say removed from play and removed from play as a casualty are different ,lets use a real life instance.

In a real battle involving real people ,when the people have been wounded ,killed, blown up lost down a hole ,eaten by animals ,squashed and so forth they have been removed from the battle they are then counted as casualties but they have still been removed from the battle ,

If i was to say that A squad is out of the fight ,it would mean they have been removed form the battle/war i don't need to say as casualties , because it is a fact anything removed form the battle due to enemy action is a casualty(even captured you are classed as a casualty of war) , even civilians can be casualties of war with no wounds what so ever ,say the have lost there home and so forth ,they are now casualties of war .

So by that simple fact if a model is removed from the table because it was SA'd ,failed a save ,was sent to the warp ,fell down a hole ,or any other such thing the commander would count that model as a casualty of war .

If we use English to argue this point you would have to ask why would a model being killed or lost from the material plane,dropped down a hole and so forth by anything, be it a gun, psychic power or magic blob, why would it not following the English language, be a casualty of the battle ?

if you are saying no ,then anything removed from play ,can not under the English language be classed as killed ,destroyed or anything else, they must then still exit somewhere alive and well, AKA MIA(although MIA can still be classed as a casualty ,so that means they are not available to be counted and KP'S

Remember this is based on using the definition of the English language not me saying you are wrong or right ,just that using the language to fit what you like and not using it when it dose not suit is wrong

Snakel, I get what you are saying but I think you are using a more formal version of english. In the same way that when I am in a chemistry lab percipiation and evolve have very specific meanings. (Form a solid out of a solution and give off)

The rules are definitely more informal then a military setting but not as informal as me in a pub. The work office of GW is probably a bit formal but not gak and tie formal.

liturgies of blood wrote: but not as informal as me in a pub.

Eureka ! Let's all get pissed THEN read the rule book. All will become clear.

That's how they write them.

Magpie wrote:

liturgies of blood wrote: but not as informal as me in a pub.

Eureka ! Let's all get pissed THEN read the rule book. All will become clear.

Please continue this thread in the evening at your Local Friendly Pub, after consuming more than you should of your preferred alcoholic beverage. Not only will the rules make sense, but everyone will have a good time. For those who are under the legal drinking age of your country, too bad. For those who cannot drink due to health reasons, I am very sorry.

Please note, I do not condone binge drinking, and this whole post is meant to be taken as a joke.

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?

Basimpo wrote:
When i said main codex, I actually meant main rulebook. Thanks for not catching that like everyone else did.

Sorry, what? Now youre just making more gak up. You asked WHAT CODEX "removed from play" is given in, and context - given you had just talked about the necron codex - didnt mean the main rulebook. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, it doesnt wash.

I'm ordering Pizza. I'm ordering pizza from dominoes . Anyone noticed that those two sentences arent the same? The latter is a more specific version of the former.

Exactly like removed from play and removed from play as a casualty. The latter is more specific than the former.

Oh, and destroyed ONLY means wrecked or exploded Basimpo? Erm, nope. Destroyed is the general term, explodes or wrecked are the more specific....

I'm ordering pizza. I'm ordering from Dominos.

This analogy works if the only pizza place in town is Dominos. Just like the only rule defined in the BRB is removing models as casualties.

Nemesor Dave wrote:I'm ordering pizza. I'm ordering from Dominos.

This analogy works if the only pizza place in town is Dominos. Just like the only rule defined in the BRB is removing models as casualties.

And destroyed, I'll have a double decedance with perpperoni and extra cheese.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

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?

Basimpo wrote:
When i said main codex, I actually meant main rulebook. Thanks for not catching that like everyone else did.

Sorry, what? Now youre just making more gak up. You asked WHAT CODEX "removed from play" is given in, and context - given you had just talked about the necron codex - didnt mean the main rulebook. Stop trying to pretend you meant something else, it doesnt wash.

I'm ordering Pizza. I'm ordering pizza from dominoes . Anyone noticed that those two sentences arent the same? The latter is a more specific version of the former.

Exactly like removed from play and removed from play as a casualty. The latter is more specific than the former.

Oh, and destroyed ONLY means wrecked or exploded Basimpo? Erm, nope. Destroyed is the general term, explodes or wrecked are the more specific....

No, i said TRUE, everliving does NOT show up in the main codex [RULEBOOK-clarification]

I also asked WHERE in WHICH codex is RFP given FORM and DEFINITION, like, EVERLIVING is given form and definition in the necron codex. As in, to further clarify, WHERE is the rule RFP given definition, because it is not previously mentioned in any other rule book.

Also, taking the fact the RFPaaC is SPECIFIC, then, DESTROYED is SPECIFIC. The only place in the main rulebook that defines what destroyed is, is in the vehicle section. It says specifically
destroyed - wrecked
destroyed - explodes

What does destroyed mean, as per the BRB, if I am incorrect, following your logic? (And trust me, Im incorrect)

Basimpo wrote:
Also, taking the fact the RFPaaC is SPECIFIC, then, DESTROYED is SPECIFIC. The only place in the main rulebook that defines what destroyed is, is in the vehicle section. It says specifically
destroyed - wrecked
destroyed - explodes

What does destroyed mean, as per the BRB, if I am incorrect, following your logic? (And trust me, Im incorrect)

3rd paragraph page 40.
Falling back and Trapped page 45
Assaulting while falling back page 46
Cannot exit wrecked transpot page 67

Destroyed units are removed immediately. That is what the brb says. It doesn't define what it means it gives examples of what units count as destroyed and what to do with them.
Destoryed is specific, it it both 1) a damage chart outcome and 2) a means by which units are removed.

I suggest every one reading this thread email GW asking them this question. Maybe it will make the faq faster if a lot of people ask it.

liturgies of blood wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
Also, taking the fact the RFPaaC is SPECIFIC, then, DESTROYED is SPECIFIC. The only place in the main rulebook that defines what destroyed is, is in the vehicle section. It says specifically
destroyed - wrecked
destroyed - explodes

What does destroyed mean, as per the BRB, if I am incorrect, following your logic? (And trust me, Im incorrect)

3rd paragraph page 40.
Falling back and Trapped page 45
Assaulting while falling back page 46
Cannot exit wrecked transpot page 67

Destroyed units are removed immediately. That is what the brb says. It doesn't define what it means it gives examples of what units count as destroyed and what to do with them.
Destoryed is specific, it it both 1) a damage chart outcome and 2) a means by which units are removed.

So...a unit that is destroyed and removed is not a casualty though? Hmmm sounds logical! Right? Right? Nope.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

haroon wrote:I suggest every one reading this thread email GW asking them this question. Maybe it will make the faq faster if a lot of people ask it.

Ive already said this twice, i doubt anyone paid attention, except to tell me that the people in customer support are [supposedly] incompetent.

Customer support is for the parent who's kid has eaten the paint or is licking the metal models, so they can tell them it's fine without any legal crap.

Basimpo you can ignore destroyed all you want but the models are removed without mention of casualties and rules that allow casualties to come back do not apply to them.