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.

pretre wrote:

ToBeWilly wrote:I am not familiar with St. Celestine's rules at all,

Let me stop you right there. You might want to read up on StC first. Her rules allow her to come back from any effect that is RfPaaC and RfP with a FAQ on the subject. Basically, if she leaves the table for any reason, she gets back up. I see where you're coming from on the SA specific thing, but her rule is pretty specific that she always gets to roll to come back.

I'm confused. St. Celestine's rules specifically says she can roll to come back after she has been removed from a Sweeping Advance, which is what Sweeping Advance requires, without specifically saying it?

pretre wrote:Let me stop you right there. You might want to read up on StC first. Her rules allow her to come back from any effect that is RfPaaC and RfP with a FAQ on the subject. Basically, if she leaves the table for any reason, she gets back up. I see where you're coming from on the SA specific thing, but her rule is pretty specific that she always gets to roll to come back.

Just a rules lawyer interjection - while your logic as far as it goes is valid, it's built on the foundation of a clear and specific differentiation between RFP and RFPaaC that exists mostly in the minds of some people on this site.

To others, the FAQ on StC's MI instead illustrated that the phrases RFP and RFPaaC were less specific and more casual wording, NOT to be taken as a basis for further reasoning.

(Because this silly thread hasn't gone on long enough!)

No, her rule does not.

Neither does the SA rule say 'only rules that specifically mention SA work', it says 'unless otherwise specified'.

Celestine's rule 'otherwise specifies' that she gets to come back from any rule that RFP or RFPAAC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Randall Turner wrote:Just a rules lawyer interjection - while your logic as far as it goes is valid, it's built on the foundation of a clear and specific differentiation between RFP and RFPaaC that exists mostly in the minds of some people on this site.

Actually, my interpretation is the broad one that says: The FAQ proves that GW is really lose with this kind of thing and meant for StC to come back from anythiing and RfP, RFPaaC, Destroyed and ReplaceFromPlay (Lol) are all really the same thing when it comes to Celestine.

To others, the FAQ on StC's MI instead illustrated that the phrases RFP and RFPaaC were less specific and more casual wording, NOT to be taken as a basis for further reasoning.

Basic agreement.

(Because this silly thread hasn't gone on long enough!)

Sigh. I know.

Physically taking your model does not trigger Mi. To say she is removed from play by doing so is just funny now. And where is RFP described its not but that is a different 10 page thread. But only 2-3 abilities/wargear/special rules mention RFP. Zwc is not one of them. Replacing a model is physically taking the model off the table and putting another one in its place. (your brought this pretre all your fault lol. )

Right, Replacing a model is removing one model from play and putting another one into play.

You are creating a distinction that doesn't exist, THE_GODLYNESS.

Either way, I'm unsubscribing from this one.

Miraculous Intervention. Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty, place a counter to mark the spot where she 'died.' WD p103.
If she has been turned into a Squid, did she 'DIE?'
No, then she is just an 'angry Squid.'

And yes I play both Orks and SoB's.

Ray Age, you're neglecting the 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.

No, I'm just pointing out the part that you place a counter to mark the spot where she 'DIED.'
So where would that be?
I know the FAQ says she can, but all of the rquirements for MI should still be met...like her dying.

Ray Age wrote:No, I'm just pointing out the part that you place a counter to mark the spot where she 'DIED.'
So where would that be?
I know the FAQ says she can, but all of the rquirements for MI should still be met...like her dying.

Well, extrapolating from the FAQ, it would be whereever she was 'removed from play'.

As long as we're staring at RaW, does anyone have an argument that prevents her from getting to roll to come back for each time she died?

Happyjew wrote: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.

Is Zogwart's curse an "attack"?

It certainly doesn't fit the standard for a psychic shooting attack.

No, it's not an "attack: It is a Psychic Power, but not a PSA.

It's not an attack, because no wounds are caused.
It has range and needs LOS, but no Str, and no saves allowed.
Hmmm...

Ray Age wrote:It's not an attack, because no wounds are caused.

Irrelevant. JotWW, Paroxysm...

Attacks do not always cause wounds.

It's neither a shooting attack nor a close combat attack though. The ones you mentioned are.

Zog's curse is a psychic power. However it is not a psychic shooting attack, doesn't cause wounds, etc. so it is not an attack per se.
Allowing St. C to stand back up after being squig-ified (I love that word), is broken in favor of the Orks, as they can leech KP off of her, giving the Ork's an unfair advantage.

Issues we seem to need to clarify:
Removing from play =/= Dying or removing as casualty.
Replace =/= Remove from play.

Zogwort's rule specifically states "he has the ability to transform a powerful enemy into a squig."

It states, verbatim, "the target model is replaced with an angry Squig under the control of your opponent... It has the profile below and no wargear or special rules, but is an IC that counts as infantry."

Zogwort's effect triggers before St C's. St C's ability, if it were even a valid response, is a response to an effect that has both already occurred and stripped her of any special abilities and wargear. This is where Zogwort's rule trumps it, for lack of a better term. Her ability cannot trigger because it no longer exists.

TheHarleqwin wrote:Replace =/= Remove from play.

Why?

The effect is the same, the model has been removed from play.

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

TheHarleqwin wrote:Replace =/= Remove from play.

Why?

The effect is the same, the model has been removed from play.

DoW

For the same reason the "remove from play" is not "remove from play as a casualty". It's a matter of wording. The way I have always played Zog, and the way everyone else who has played against me have understood the ruling, the character itself is still in play. It has been stripped of rules and wargear, but it's still effectively the same IC. The physical model has been swapped out. That's it. St C is still in play, has remained in play, and will remain in play until something happens to the squig because St C is the squig.

EDIT - And it's [erfectly fine and all that the same few people have repeated the same "I lifted my model off the table, I get to roll for MI" for the duration of the thread. I haven't read anything that makes a sound argument for it, however. If you can show me something that shows a precedence for St C's ability to take priority over having the ability stripped, I'm certainly open to the idea.

TheHarleqwin wrote:St C is still in play, has remained in play, and will remain in play until something happens to the squig because St C is the squig.

Is the squig named St. C?

rigeld2 wrote:

TheHarleqwin wrote:St C is still in play, has remained in play, and will remain in play until something happens to the squig because St C is the squig.

Is the squig named St. C?

Does that ultimately matter? Zogwort's Curse states it transforms the enemy into a squig. By that logic, yes, it is functionally that IC.

rigeld2 wrote:

TheHarleqwin wrote:St C is still in play, has remained in play, and will remain in play until something happens to the squig because St C is the squig.

Is the squig named St. C?

This is what clinches it for me

St. C is not in play anymore. Even if all the fluff in the world describes her as being 'transformed', the model named 'St. Celestine' has been taken off the table and removed from play.

Just because that's how you and your FLGS has always played it doesn't make it correct. In fact many situations where people have been playing a certain way have been categorically incorrect until someone highlights the issue. My FLGS had non-tank vehicles ramming things all over the place until we finally realize we couldn't do that.

Even if the verbiage is different, the effect is exactly the same. Unless St. C is still on the table, she has been removed from play, and her special rules kick into effect.

DoW

TheHarleqwin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TheHarleqwin wrote:St C is still in play, has remained in play, and will remain in play until something happens to the squig because St C is the squig.

Is the squig named St. C?

Does that ultimately matter? Zogwort's Curse states it transforms the enemy into a squig. By that logic, yes, it is functionally that IC.

Absolutely it does.

If St. C. isn't on the table, then St. C. hasn't lost any rules - the squig on the table has no rules, but there's no stripping of the rules from St. C.
Since St. C. isn't in play, she must have been removed from play.
St. C. still has the MI rule.
MI kicks in when she's removed from play.

TheHarleqwin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

TheHarleqwin wrote:St C is still in play, has remained in play, and will remain in play until something happens to the squig because St C is the squig.

Is the squig named St. C?

Does that ultimately matter? Zogwort's Curse states it transforms the enemy into a squig. By that logic, yes, it is functionally that IC.

Gotta be realistic for a second. You aren't actually transforming the St C. model into an Angry Squig model when this effect takes place. There has to be a degree of abstraction. A human player is taking the St. C model and removing it from the table to be placed in a nice foam tray.

All the 'transformation' stuff is fluff. The rules state that you 'replace' the models. Which entails picking up one model and putting down another.

If a player removes the St. C model, and it's no longer on the table, then it has been removed from play.

DoW

From everything I have read in the thread it appears people for MI coming into play are just blatantly ignoring (or just trolling) the 1st section of the rule explaining the IC is 'transformed' meaning the (in-game) form of StC is altered into the form of a squig. As it is not physically possible to alter the form of the physical figure (unless we bring fire or a hammer into the equation) it HAS to be replaced with a relevant one to represent the transformation.
Also, it can be argued with the rest of the ZC description, the term 'model' is referring to the actual physical model, as the rule states "you must provide the squig model" so the 'transformed' term still applies.
Also, the reason, as already stated, that the statline says 'squig' because it would be ridiculous to make a statline for every IC in the 40k universe, plus the squig is referred to as 'it' as it's easier to class it rather than saying 'he/she/it'...as IC's are male, female and non-gender specific.

Long story short, the IC cursed remains on the table but the GW model is changed to represent the transformation.

Bloodfever wrote:Long story short, the IC cursed remains on the table but the GW model is changed to represent the transformation.

See that's where I disagree.

The 'transformation' aspect is fluff-based in nature and doesn't describe an actual rule in the game. The physical operation associated with the rule is the 'replacement' of the models. Unless it can be shown how the procedure for 'transformation' is described —without using known terms like 'replacement' or 'removed from play'— then we are safe to assume it is treated as removing the model and replacing it with a different model. As soon as the model is removed/replaced, then MI takes place.

DoW

Bloodfever wrote:From everything I have read in the thread it appears people for MI coming into play are just blatantly ignoring (or just trolling) the 1st section of the rule explaining the IC is 'transformed' meaning the (in-game) form of StC is altered into the form of a squig.

Yes, when discussing rules fluff is often ignored as it's irrelevant.

Also, the reason, as already stated, that the statline says 'squig' because it would be ridiculous to make a statline for every IC in the 40k universe, plus the squig is referred to as 'it' as it's easier to class it rather than saying 'he/she/it'...as IC's are male, female and non-gender specific.

"The squig model uses the same name as the IC with the rest of the statline as follows:"
Yeah, that's an absolutely ridiculous method.

No more than physically taking the model off the table and claiming it has been removed from play. When the its not mentioned nor inferred in zwc.

DogOfWar wrote:

Bloodfever wrote:Long story short, the IC cursed remains on the table but the GW model is changed to represent the transformation.

See that's where I disagree.

The 'transformation' aspect is fluff-based in nature and doesn't describe an actual rule in the game. The physical operation associated with the rule is the 'replacement' of the models. Unless it can be shown how the procedure for 'transformation' is described —without using known terms like 'replacement' or 'removed from play'— then we are safe to assume it is treated as removing the model and replacing it with a different model. As soon as the model is removed/replaced, then MI takes place.

DoW

The term 'transformation' is used in the rule description and it is NOT decribed as removing the IC, so I think it is more a case of you disproving the rule wording rather than me having to prove a lack of assumed 'removed' rule.

Remove and replaced are 2 very different things. 'Transform' as the curse does as described in the rules, express a change in model and statline, not IC. To create an analogy on the matter, you don't see, say the transformer Optimus Prime, being removed from existence and having a Truck spawned in his place when he transforms. His Physical structure is altered but he himself, remains the same being.