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: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.

I dont mean the phone number, I mean emailing them so they put it in the official FAQ.

I know you did, I have emailed the rules team already, I just think ringing the guys on customer support is a waste of time.

The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Never underestimate the ability of a TO to be an idiot. I know I've been an idiot once or twice.

liturgies of blood wrote:I know you did, I have emailed the rules team already, I just think ringing the guys on customer support is a waste of time.

This isn't hard to do. I got a response on an earlier issue (Imotekh using LotS from reserve) from a guy whose picture is in the BRB, I could get a response on this if I tried. Problem is that if you do, you can't publicize it. Correspondence privacy and all that, if they ask that you don't, you can't.

@Lordhat - I'm pretty sure a TO will just go this route, ie, ask. Not likely they'll wade thru this crap.

Edit: well, they'll probably just take the INAT ruling and go with it.

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

The independent part is what limits their ability to dictate what is and is not 40K. GW are the only ones that get to say what is and isn't.

liturgies of blood wrote:The independent part is what limits their ability to dictate what is and is not 40K. GW are the only ones that get to say what is and isn't.

He was refereeing to tournament organizers, and since there are no more tournaments organized by GW, your comment is pointless.

NecronLord3 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

Your lack of etiquette leaves much to be desired. INAT isn't not the ultimate arbitrar of 40k, a TO has the right to make hte decisions on what is what in their tournament. While ramses may not have been the most polite in his response he is right that a TO may tell you to jog on. Just cos a big tournament makes a ruling doesn't make it canonical with the ruleset, yes many people use the INATFaq, many don't. GW are the only ones that say what rules are but the fringes are that TO's remit.

To use an example, most people in scientific organisations though eugenics, specifically the sterilisation of hte poor, was cool in the 1890's-1920's. Large groups of people can be wrong.

So once again we are all at a point where we all disagree with each, and disagree that we should be disagreeing, and we are all wrong, except for ourselves. I think the lines have been drawn, trenches dug, fortifications built, and both sides are just shooting at each other, short of the walls.

Can someone lock this thread now? Its getting circular. In about 10 posts (or less) were going to have someone mention how english should make it obvious the other side is wrong. Then someone will quote RP which obviously shows that it works under being destroyed, then someone will parse that, then someone will quote the rulebook, then someone will quote the faqs, and then someone will quote INAT and THEN someone will tell that person to eat a log.

liturgies of blood wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

Your lack of etiquette leaves much to be desired. INAT isn't not the ultimate arbitrar of 40k, a TO has the right to make hte decisions on what is what in their tournament. While ramses may not have been the most polite in his response he is right that a TO may tell you to jog on. Just cos a big tournament makes a ruling doesn't make it canonical with the ruleset, yes many people use the INATFaq, many don't. GW are the only ones that say what rules are but the fringes are that TO's remit.

To use an example, most people in scientific organisations though eugenics, specifically the sterilisation of hte poor, was cool in the 1890's-1920's. Large groups of people can be wrong.

And the small vocal minority on Dakka don't dictate the rules either. In fact bringing up discussions from Dakka are more likely to get you laughed out of a tournament than suggesting the use of the INAT FAQ. GW was even using the INAT FAQ, for 'ard boyz, shocking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:So once again we are all at a point where we all disagree with each, and disagree that we should be disagreeing, and we are all wrong, except for ourselves. I think the lines have been drawn, trenches dug, fortifications built, and both sides are just shooting at each other, short of the walls.

Can someone lock this thread now? Its getting circular. In about 10 posts (or less) were going to have someone mention how english should make it obvious the other side is wrong. Then someone will quote RP which obviously shows that it works under being destroyed, then someone will parse that, then someone will quote the rulebook, then someone will quote the faqs, and then someone will quote INAT and THEN someone will tell that person to eat a log.

Yeah, Nos hasn't posted on this page yet so you are right on track.

Challenging the TO cos you are a bad sport is the fastest way to get kicked out.
As I said back on page 3, this is how I read the brb and codices but the TO gets the final word.

Again personal remarks are neither big or clever.

Of course, I understand. Im not going to my LGS and saying Whoa, Bros, Look at this As Passed Down Through Holy Dakka (APDTHD) and Thats how it should be

or even

Holy Dakka Space Wolves Player! You are wrong!

I started this thread expecting like two clear cut answers to a question i couldnt find an answer to through skimming my books and faqs.
I leave this thread with there being models on the board (in play) models in reserve, and casualties. No third, fourth, or fifth dimension to models, left there specifically to combat models that can come back. I feel that RAW doesnt leave wiggle room, and RAI on adverse effects removing models from play makes them casualties.

NecronLord3 wrote:Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

Funny that you think that but have yet to cite something that says that.

rigeld2 wrote:

NecronLord3 wrote:Funny that the biggest Independent tournament in the U.S.(arguably the world), uses the INAT FAQ and it agrees with them.

Funny that you think that but have yet to cite something that says that.

rigeld2, standard reply #1.

Try page 6 of this thread.

Wait, I thought that FAQs were used for precedent all of the time?

Such as that weird period when Ragnar's Furious Charge was granted by Counter-Attack, and so guard players with Straken were able to Furious Charge when they Counter-Attacked.

Or when the SM codex FAQ said Techmarines could repair from inside Vehicles, other marine players started doing it too.

Isn't this just precedent?

Lordhat wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The best part about this whole crap thread is that a TO is going to look at the argument that Nemesor, Basimpo, and other of the same camp as they try to make the point of remove from play as a casualty and remove from play and shake their head and probably even laugh them out of a tournament.

The semantic hoop jumping required to come to their conclusion is so full of fail why the conclusive evidence of the mechanics being different is so clear they will be deemed TFG by the TO and players alike.

Good luck completely failing at explaining how they are synonymous.

Never underestimate the ability of a TO to be an idiot. I know I've been an idiot once or twice.

Again - I'm agreeeing with BR. That alone tells you that the pro- "not being able to understand what a restriction is" side have issues. Me and BR rarely agree....

Also - it is irrelevant what INAT think. Entirely. They have a history of changing the rules from the literal meaning to something else, and have done something similar here.

Oh, Basimpo - in context Removed from Play is less specific than Removed from Play as a Casualty. Because the latter has more specific wording "as a casualty". Codex DE and Codex SW both give form and define the rule Removed from Play, by not giving an internal 40k definition. Again, not every word has an internal 40k meaning, and ditto phrases. Where you dont have one, you fall back on English phrase construction - and Removed from Play and Removed from Play as a Casualty are definitively different, as one is a subset of the other. Again, you can calim this is not the case, but given it is trivial to show your opinion can be ignored

ND - so only the BRB gets to define rules now? Wrong.

Just a thing, a big group of people who are wrong are still just as wrong as a small group of people who are wrong and neither of them hold more weight than a single person who is right.

Not suggesting that you are right or wrong either way but just that might does not make right.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, I thought that FAQs were used for precedent all of the time?

Such as that weird period when Ragnar's Furious Charge was granted by Counter-Attack, and so guard players with Straken were able to Furious Charge when they Counter-Attacked.

Or when the SM codex FAQ said Techmarines could repair from inside Vehicles, other marine players started doing it too.

Isn't this just precedent?

It depends on the wording in the FAQ answer to see if it applies. FAQs can apply cross-codex, but do not always.

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, I thought that FAQs were used for precedent all of the time?

Such as that weird period when Ragnar's Furious Charge was granted by Counter-Attack, and so guard players with Straken were able to Furious Charge when they Counter-Attacked.

Or when the SM codex FAQ said Techmarines could repair from inside Vehicles, other marine players started doing it too.

Isn't this just precedent?

It depends on the wording in the FAQ answer to see if it applies. FAQs can apply cross-codex, but do not always.

So what's wrong with the St. Celestine answer, then?

It's worded as "Can [unit from codex A] use [special rule that's worded identically to rule from Codex B] against attacks that remove models from play?"

And the clear answer is "Yes."

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, I thought that FAQs were used for precedent all of the time?

Such as that weird period when Ragnar's Furious Charge was granted by Counter-Attack, and so guard players with Straken were able to Furious Charge when they Counter-Attacked.

Or when the SM codex FAQ said Techmarines could repair from inside Vehicles, other marine players started doing it too.

Isn't this just precedent?

It depends on the wording in the FAQ answer to see if it applies. FAQs can apply cross-codex, but do not always.

So what's wrong with the St. Celestine answer, then?

It's worded as "Can [unit from codex A] use [special rule that's worded identically to rule from Codex B] against attacks that remove models from play?"

And the clear answer is "Yes."

It would be a broad FAQ if the wording only talked about the general rules for removing from play however the question is specifically asked not only for St Celestine, but also Miraculous Intervention. That narrows the scope of how the FAQ is applied to only St Celestine and Miraculous Intervention.

As for the INAT nonsense, people that are championing it as proof really need to reread the two FAQ that they keep posting. The DE one is completely specific in the wording that said weapons that remove models from play are to be considered removed as casualties. Note that the SW INAT FAQ regarding JotWW specifically does not do the same. The SW one only tells you models removed from play count as casualties, not they are considered to removed from play as casualties.

If anything, the continued insistence of using these INAT FAQ only reinforces that even thos writers see that there is a clear distinction between removed from play and removed from play as a casualty.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Unit1126PLL wrote:Wait, I thought that FAQs were used for precedent all of the time?

Such as that weird period when Ragnar's Furious Charge was granted by Counter-Attack, and so guard players with Straken were able to Furious Charge when they Counter-Attacked.

Or when the SM codex FAQ said Techmarines could repair from inside Vehicles, other marine players started doing it too.

Isn't this just precedent?

It depends on the wording in the FAQ answer to see if it applies. FAQs can apply cross-codex, but do not always.

So what's wrong with the St. Celestine answer, then?

It's worded as "Can [unit from codex A] use [special rule that's worded identically to rule from Codex B] against attacks that remove models from play?"

And the clear answer is "Yes."

It would be a broad FAQ if the wording only talked about the general rules for removing from play however the question is specifically asked not only for St Celestine, but also Miraculous Intervention. That narrows the scope of how the FAQ is applied to only St Celestine and Miraculous Intervention.

As for the INAT nonsense, people that are championing it as proof really need to reread the two FAQ that they keep posting. The DE one is completely specific in the wording that said weapons that remove models from play are to be considered removed as casualties. Note that the SW INAT FAQ regarding JotWW specifically does not do the same. The SW one only tells you models removed from play count as casualties, not they are considered to removed from play as casualties.

If anything, the continued insistence of using these INAT FAQ only reinforces that even thos writers see that there is a clear distinction between removed from play and removed from play as a casualty.

The Space Wolf FAQ only mentioned Ragnar, yet Straken benefited.

And the Space Wolf FAQ answer about Wolf Guard (they "become part of the unit for all intents and purposes") specifically mentioned Wolf Guard and Pack Leader, yet it was applied to the Necron Royal Courts due to precedence. Without mentioning anything broader than Wolf Guard and Pack Leader.

Nos - Codexes define rules, however RFP is not defined anywhere in RAW and neither is RFPaaC. There is only the section in the BRB "Removing Casualties".

Someone could say the BRB doesn't apply to "Removed From Play as a Casualty" because the BRB only talks about "Removed as a Casualty".

If the rules meant to categorize the way models are removed then these categories should be described somewhere. These 'categories' would not have a subset relationship that you would have to use Pizza to define. For clarity these categories would not be used interchangeably.

You would have:
Removed as a casualty.
Removed as something else.

The "as a" is meaningless because there is no other "Removed as a". They are all just removed.

This entire discussion is a result of something not planned by the designers - not some hidden rule that there are categories for model removal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:If anything, the continued insistence of using these INAT FAQ only reinforces that even thos writers see that there is a clear distinction between removed from play and removed from play as a casualty.

Using both RFP and RFPaaC in the same sentence in rules all throughout codexes is anything but clear. In fact it's the opposite of clear. There is not a single sentence telling the player what this difference is anywhere. This a complete lack of distinction.

Try describing how one is subset of the other clearly without using Pizza. Good luck convincing your opponents that the SW codex is the only one that has this super power.

Hm, seems like to solve this issue, they (GW) went out of their way in the GK and Necrons codex to insure removed from play as a casualty was specifically used. Also, nothing in the codex suggests that EL cannot come back from "Certain types of removed from play" over others. Furthermore, why wasnt grey knights given this ultimate otherly ability to simply remove models from play (but not make them reserves or casualties) if they are so over powered and over wrought etc etc? Take this in consideration. There was a six month gap between the release of the DE and the GK codex. the crucible of malediction and from what ive heard, has the hex rifle also, right? Now, the next army that has this Ultimate RFP is space wolves right? Published in october 2009, thats a gap of about 13 months. So, why didnt GK, Necrons, Blood Angels, and Tyranids jump aboard this RFP train?

Because Space Wolves have the best psykers.

Basimpo wrote:Hm, seems like to solve this issue, they (GW) went out of their way in the GK and Necrons codex to insure removed from play as a casualty was specifically used. Also, nothing in the codex suggests that EL cannot come back from "Certain types of removed from play" over others. Furthermore, why wasnt grey knights given this ultimate otherly ability to simply remove models from play (but not make them reserves or casualties) if they are so over powered and over wrought etc etc? Take this in consideration. There was a six month gap between the release of the DE and the GK codex. the crucible of malediction and from what ive heard, has the hex rifle also, right? Now, the next army that has this Ultimate RFP is space wolves right? Published in october 2009, thats a gap of about 13 months. So, why didnt GK, Necrons, Blood Angels, and Tyranids jump aboard this RFP train?

Because if you think of the two as one and the same, then there's no reason to distinguish. It's like the difference between me saying "I'm ordering a pizza" and "I'm ordering a pizza from Dominoes" if Dominoes is the only place within one lightyear. They're literally the same thing.

No! Its not dominoes! Its digiorno!
Yeah, the "rules" only cover casualties. It doesnt cover the twilight zone.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And this Oh fall back on english thing is just fishing for answer, IMHO

Nemesor Dave wrote:Nos - Codexes define rules, however RFP is not defined anywhere in RAW and neither is RFPaaC. There is only the section in the BRB "Removing Casualties".

OK, then "the" is also not defined in "RAW" either, because there is no rule written in the BRB defining "the"

Oh wait, that isnt right - when there isnt an internal definition for a word or phrase, you simply fall back on English. And in English the two terms are very different from one another. Again, Basimpo, you may disagree but given you have yet to find a 40k definition for any of the terms Rigeld required from you, I would suggest you realise that argument is gak.

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:Nos - Codexes define rules, however RFP is not defined anywhere in RAW and neither is RFPaaC. There is only the section in the BRB "Removing Casualties".

OK, then "the" is also not defined in "RAW" either, because there is no rule written in the BRB defining "the"

Oh wait, that isnt right - when there isnt an internal definition for a word or phrase, you simply fall back on English. And in English the two terms are very different from one another. Again, Basimpo, you may disagree but given you have yet to find a 40k definition for any of the terms Rigeld required from you, I would suggest you realise that argument is gak.

But you see, there is a section for "Removing Casualties" and the game does describe how to remove a model that is "killed". Casualties are defined. Removing from Play as Simply Removing From Play is not discussed separately therefore should not be treated differently.

In all the rules we have one method to remove killed models. We have not just two, but many ways this is described. Removed, removed from the table, removed as a casualty, removed from play, removed from play as a casualty.

I'm not unreasonably demanding definitions. I am saying if you claim two separate ways a model is killed that requires at least a rule describing the difference.

What about "destroyed"? That is a method for removing models as well. Removed from Play is as well defined as destroyed - in so far as it has a very explicit meaning and can be easily applied to 40k.

We HAVE a rule showing the difference - its caled the English language. It is unreasonable to decide, without a rule telling you otherwise, that two semantically different phrases are the same.

Remember, this is a ruleset that tells you waht you can do - and it does not tell you you CAN conflate the two terms, therefore you cannot.