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.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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.

So these are all different? Removed, removed from the table, removed as a casualty, removed from play, removed from play as a casualty.

"Removed From Play as a Casualty" is not specifically defined either. Therefore you would not be allowed to make saving throws for that one either unless you equate all of them.

Basimpo wrote: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

Please define, using only the rulebook, the words "the", "a", "line", "simultaneous".
There's more, but I'll wait until you come back with page numbers on those.

ND - what have saving throws got to do with it? You take saving through against wounds, specifically wounding-hits. (or vehicle equivalent of penetrating / glancing hits)

Yes, they are all different, because the language is different. You cannot point to a definition that equates them (no, you cannot - you THINK you can, but you ignore logic* and english each time you do so) so you use standard English - and Removed from Play IS different to Removed from Play as a Casualty, in that RfP is the superset (more general, includes) of RfPaaC

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.

Please explain to me (an English person that has used English all his life) ,what the difference is, in the red highlighted phrases .

Because to me to be considered a casualty, is the same and being a casualty ,or are you going to say counted as a casualty is different to being a casualty?

Its to clear up that they still count as Casualties for triggering morale checks. Not that that clarification was needed anyway, because the actual RULE for the 25% morale check talks about models lost from the unit, and Jaws certainly causes that to happen

Unit1126PLL wrote:

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.

I too would love an answer from Nos/Rigeld2 (We know you are the same person!! ) regarding this issue. You both have argued that Royal Court Members once attached are a part of the unit for all purposes via the Wolf Guard FAQ.

If you cannot apply St. Celestines FAQ for Removed from Play what allows you to apply the Wolf Guard FAQ to Royal Courts?

We've said it is the only way the Royal Court can work. Same as Vendettas flat out'ing, or any vehicle being hit in CC first turn before they move, which uses the BA FAQ on baal preds and scout - because otherwise there is a gap int eh rules.

Whereas Removed from Play works perfectly well without needing to equate the two terms. There is no gap in the rules - the playing surface is "in play", if you are removed from it you know exactly what to do.

Icemyn wrote:I too would love an answer from Nos/Rigeld2 (We know you are the same person!! ) regarding this issue. You both have argued that Royal Court Members once attached are a part of the unit for all purposes via the Wolf Guard FAQ.

If you cannot apply St. Celestines FAQ for Removed from Play what allows you to apply the Wolf Guard FAQ to Royal Courts?

Royal Court members, once attached, leave questions about Troop/HQ status, among other things. The Wolf Guard FAQ is the closest we can get, so while not absolute black and white RAW, it's close enough.
edit: and I'd normally say that the Royal Court rules vis a vis Wolf Guard are not RAW but rather a very obvious RAI.

Removed from play doesn't really leave any questions. The English definition is sufficient. Looking to other FAQs is easter egging at that point, in my opinion.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I too would love an answer from Nos/Rigeld2 (We know you are the same person!! ) regarding this issue. You both have argued that Royal Court Members once attached are a part of the unit for all purposes via the Wolf Guard FAQ.

If you cannot apply St. Celestines FAQ for Removed from Play what allows you to apply the Wolf Guard FAQ to Royal Courts?

Royal Court members, once attached, leave questions about Troop/HQ status, among other things. The Wolf Guard FAQ is the closest we can get, so while not absolute black and white RAW, it's close enough.
edit: and I'd normally say that the Royal Court rules vis a vis Wolf Guard are not RAW but rather a very obvious RAI.

Removed from play doesn't really leave any questions. The English definition is sufficient. Looking to other FAQs is easter egging at that point, in my opinion.

Actually it clearly does leave some questions, or we wouldn't be having this thread / discussion / debate / argument.

And the St. Celestine FAQ is the closest thing we've got.

EDIT:

I think it's a bit disingenuous to say "The FAQ is not applicable because there is no question" when the thread title is literally the exact question you claimed does not exist.

Agree with Unit.

The two have you have previously argued that RAW(or at least stated it as a rules fact) Royal Courts function as Wolf Guard using only the FAQ as basis.
Yet when shown the St. Celestine FAQ it is somehow not good enough and rules for specific codexes can't be applied broadly.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you allow FAQ's to be applied broadly where applicable or you don't.
The strangest thing is that when given the choice of applying actual GW rules or using what you have decided is plain obvious English, you choose your own interpretation.

If it was plain obvious English that the two were indeed separate this wouldn't be 9 pages deep.

Icemyn wrote:Agree with Unit.

The two have you have previously argued that RAW(or at least stated it as a rules fact) Royal Courts function as Wolf Guard using only the FAQ as basis.

If I've said RAW about that, then I apologize - it's simply not. It's pretty obvious RAI though, and it would be hard to argue against it.

Yet when shown the St. Celestine FAQ it is somehow not good enough and rules for specific codexes can't be applied broadly.

Because they can't. Or does the Venomthrope FAQ mean Sanctuary, et. al. don't reduce your initiative? After all, there is no actual terrain.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you allow FAQ's to be applied broadly where applicable or you don't.

The Wolf Guard FAQ being applied is RAI - the two units function nearly identically.
MI and RP/EL are not even close to identical, except for the triggering action.

The strangest thing is that when given the choice of applying actual GW rules or using what you have decided is plain obvious English, you choose your own interpretation.

Because there's *nothing* in the MI FAQ that even implies it's supposed to apply game-wide. If there was, I'd accept it.

If it was plain obvious English that the two were indeed separate this wouldn't be 9 pages deep.

You haven't been in YMDC long, have you? Have you looked at the boarding plank debate? Or seen many of the other long threads?
Heck, the most recent Sweeping Advance thread is pretty epic
How long was the thread about the Chrono re-rolling scatter?

The Celestine FAQ is not the only thing equating Necrons and Celestines abilities regarding RFP.

From the latest SW FAQ:
Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g.
Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule
even after being removed from play by The Last
Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule
works just fine.

From the latest SOB FAQ:
Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention
special rule against attacks that remove models from
play? (White Dwarf, August 2011, Page 103)
A: Yes.

A direct comparison can be made and the FAQs already equate other "return to play" rules.

Besides Space Wolves , is there any other codex where RFP is used on its own?

rigeld2 wrote:
Because they can't. Or does the Venomthrope FAQ mean Sanctuary, et. al. don't reduce your initiative? After all, there is no actual terrain.

I would just like to mention that I'm not sure you get dropped to initiative 1 for running through dangerous terrain, just difficult.

I.E. if you don't roll 2d6 and pick the highest for assault distance, you don't get dropped to I1. It's just that it's usually impossible to be in dangerous terrain WITHOUT being in difficult terrain - the Venomthrope manages it though.

The rest of your post is valid, though - I just figured I'd mention that it seems silly to me that the St. Celestine FAQ isn't applied here but other FAQs are applied elsewhere "just because it seems that there is no question."

The implication is that those who agree with you are stupid for DARING to disagree.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:Agree with Unit.

The two have you have previously argued that RAW(or at least stated it as a rules fact) Royal Courts function as Wolf Guard using only the FAQ as basis.

If I've said RAW about that, then I apologize - it's simply not. It's pretty obvious RAI though, and it would be hard to argue against it.

Yet when shown the St. Celestine FAQ it is somehow not good enough and rules for specific codexes can't be applied broadly.

Because they can't. Or does the Venomthrope FAQ mean Sanctuary, et. al. don't reduce your initiative? After all, there is no actual terrain.

You cannot have it both ways. Either you allow FAQ's to be applied broadly where applicable or you don't.

The Wolf Guard FAQ being applied is RAI - the two units function nearly identically.
MI and RP/EL are not even close to identical, except for the triggering action.

The strangest thing is that when given the choice of applying actual GW rules or using what you have decided is plain obvious English, you choose your own interpretation.

Because there's *nothing* in the MI FAQ that even implies it's supposed to apply game-wide. If there was, I'd accept it.

If it was plain obvious English that the two were indeed separate this wouldn't be 9 pages deep.

You haven't been in YMDC long, have you? Have you looked at the boarding plank debate? Or seen many of the other long threads?
Heck, the most recent Sweeping Advance thread is pretty epic
How long was the thread about the Chrono re-rolling scatter?

1) Agree that RAI is pretty obivous
2)If sanctuary only caused a dangerous terrain test then yes it would be applicable. But sanctuary causes difficult terrain as well.
3) The Triggering action is all that is being argued.
4) Nothing in any FAQ indicates that the ruling should apply game wide yet there are several instances showing that they are anyway.
5)This I agree with you entirely, point conceeded.

@Unit: Dangerous Terrain reduces initiative as well. PG 36 BRB. Tyranids got hosed on this FAQ.

ND - you do realise that this does not mean RfP and RfPaaC are the same, yes? This is the all bananas are fruit but not all fruit are bananas thing you just dont seem to get

If you are removed from play as a casualty, you have ALSO been removed from play - because one is subordinate to the other.

You cannot however say that if you have been removed from play you have 100% been removed as a casualty - because Jaws does NOT remove you as a casualty. The first FAQ quote you posted IS correct - LL is RfPaaC, thus it is also a form of Remove from Play - a more specific kind of Remove from Play, but is still A remove from play.

A being sufficient to show B does NOT mean that you can definitively show that B is equivalent to A. This FAQ does NOT say that RfPaaC is the same as RfP, it says something we already know - that RfPaaC is a form of RfP.

Icemyn - people can disagree about something that cant be disagreed upon, it just means the disagreement actually has no validity. You can disagree that the words "as a casualty" are not a restriction on the clause "remove from play", but that is not a valid argument. Arguing about something from no valid basis does not mean the argument has any merit, just that you "the generic you* has decided to argue it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Unit -then reread the rulebook on cover, because it is explicit that taking either test is sufficient to drop you to I1

Removed from Play as a phrase works 100% without needing you to find another rule to equate it to some other different phrase.

Icemyn wrote:@Unit: Dangerous Terrain reduces initiative as well. PG 36 BRB. Tyranids got hosed on this FAQ.

Welp, shows what I know. They really did get hosed.

And Nos, the specific reason at least for my disagreement is that the GWFAQ for SoB says you're wrong - they're identical. Given that, we cannot simply fall back on principles of logic. GW has defied logic with that FAQ answer, and in doing so have stated two things to be equivalent that are not logically equivalent.

Unfortunately, GW, and not logic, write the rules.

No, it says that *for MI* and *for St Celestine specifically* they are equivalent.

That is not enough to say they are equivalent for everybody, the same way the venomthrope FAQ is not sufficient to say that sanctuary et al are also hosed.

@ Nos: Don't worry I got what you meant. And if it weren't for St. Celestines FAQ or the "leaked" 6th rules equating the two I would be entirely on your side. (I do know that the leaked rules are as far from cannon as we are likely to get)
In plain english I think it is obvious that "as a casualty" has intrinsic meaning whereas Nemesor does not.

Edit - Also Sanctuary functions entirely different than spore cloud. But if a rule created only dangerous terrain test I would find the Venomthrope FAQ 100% applicable to it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:No, it says that *for MI* and *for St Celestine specifically* they are equivalent.

That is not enough to say they are equivalent for everybody, the same way the venomthrope FAQ is not sufficient to say that sanctuary et al are also hosed.

In that case, how do you treat Royal Courts, since the Space Wolf FAQ is *for Pack Leader* and *for Wolf Guard specifically*? They're not applicable to Royal Courts by the same standard.

Nor is the Blood Angels FAQ about smoking on scout-moves, because it's specific *for Blood Angels Baal Predators* and not just any old scouting tank.

Unit1126PLL wrote:Actually it clearly does leave some questions, or we wouldn't be having this thread / discussion / debate / argument.

I really have nothing constructive to add, but I really thought this was. . . cute.

Icemyn wrote:2)If sanctuary only caused a dangerous terrain test then yes it would be applicable. But sanctuary causes difficult terrain as well.

But the point I'm making is that neither ability is actually terrain, which is why the Venomthrope FAQ denied the I1 penalty.

3) The Triggering action is all that is being argued.

Sure. But since the abilities are different, they can't really be compared. You're comparing apples and oranges when the only similarity is that they both have seeds.

4) Nothing in any FAQ indicates that the ruling should apply game wide yet there are several instances showing that they are anyway.

You haven't shown any. You've shown that misreading sentences can get you an implication, but nothing that has shown that they are used synonymously.

I would just like to point out to those arguing that due to the SoB FAQ regarding St. Celestine you can make the same assumption regarding EL/RP.

It all comes down to Xenos vs Imperium

Necrons are Xenos. SoB are Imperium. Hence the reason why MI works, but EL does not (same as why Sanctuary drops Init but Spore Cloud does not).

We all know how much GW loves the Imperium compared to Xenos. Hence the reason we need 5? variants of the same army with slightly different models and rules (I refer of course to the various SM Chapters)

GW loves profit, SM and their varients are the best selling.
GW knows nothing but it's goal of total market domination and a love for money.

1) And here you are arguing apples and oranges the Toxic Cloud is not Sanctuary. They are entirely two different effects. If you compartmentalize the FAQ that way I can see why you would think St. Celestine's FAQ would not apply.

2) Certainly St. Celestines rule is different than EL but only in how and when she is returned to play.
Her FAQ does not clear up those parts of her rule the only thing that the FAQ questioned was if her ability worked against effects that remove from play since her codex states RFPaaC. Since a specific question was asked and answered we can take that specific answer to apply at all times that specific question is asked.

3) Tervigon Range sets precedence for Blood Chalice. Wolf Guard set precedence for Royal Courts.
Neither of those are the exact same ability they just function in similar ways. Blood chalice grants FnP so its not completely the same as Tervigon's granting its biomorph upgrades.

I think that if GW intended to make the twilight zone, then they would have taken one step further and actually explained it out in full. For example, Remove suchandsuch from play. Models removed from play do not count as casualties.

Repeatedly saying Oh well its clear the authors wanted us to fall back on plain basic english when we had a difficulty is malarky. The first time I see RFP show up is in what, 2009? Can anyone else tell us about a RFP that shows up in a 5th edition codex before space wolves 2009 please? Please?

What happens to units that get shot at? Lets skip to the end part. They become casualties.

Also, Space wolves FAQ calls JotWW a psychic shooting attack...What happens to units that are shot at? They become casualties.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
2nd (3rd?) edition crucible of malediction kills psykers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
If you deny that 2nd (3rd) edition has any meaning whatsoever over the current edition, then the argument goes on. Theres your WBB versus RP/EL gone.
If you accept the the previous has meaning over the current then the crucible "kills" psykers.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yes, they are all different, because the language is different. You cannot point to a definition that equates them (no, you cannot - you THINK you can, but you ignore logic* and english each time you do so) so you use standard English - and Removed from Play IS different to Removed from Play as a Casualty, in that RfP is the superset (more general, includes) of RfPaaC

Stating your opinion to support your premiss does not make it a fact. The two are equated in the rules all over the place and you have yet to prove your "superset" theory.

2nd ed has nothing to do with the current game, 3rd ed was a massive redesign of the game. 3rd ed has nothing to do with the current game either, the codices of that edition were designed to work with the "living ruleset" of the day.

The only thing that matters is the current edition and how it workds. I have the rogue trader rulebook here with me if we want to go down that line of stupidity.

Here in america they write newspapers to be what, 3rd, 7th grade english right? What level was this rulebook written at?

Basimpo wrote:Here in america they write newspapers to be what, 3rd, 7th grade english right? What level was this rulebook written at?

We don't write things to a curve here in Europe, we just educate people to read and leave the rest to the individual.

What you RFP'ers are also saying, is that the LACK of something (Lack of a rule for RFP) constitutes that something.

For example.

Dude, Im thirsty. There is NOT a vending machine here. Can I borrow a dollar so i can put my dollar into that vending machine and get a drink?

Logical...Riiiiight?