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: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.

YMDC proves that GW are unable to say what is the rule and what isn't.

They've been at it for 25 years without achieving clarity.

Basimpo wrote: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?

Thats not what we are saying at all. We are saying that RFP is not inherently defined (similar to the word 'scenic' or 'Warriors') as such we fall back onto the English language. "as a casualty" is a modifier to Remove from Play.

It's almost like someone arguing that "coherency" and "coherency distance" are the exact same thing.

So...youre saying...That using a shooting attack on a unit, and removing models from that unit as a result of that shooting...does not make them casualties?

Basimpo wrote:So...youre saying...That using a shooting attack on a unit, and removing models from that unit as a result of that shooting...does not make them casualties?

So, you are saying shooting attacks are not a specific type of attacks?

JotWW is a shooting attack, is what im saying.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
psychic shooting attack.

Not if no wounds are causes and you are not told to remove them as casualties.

Ok, then. What sort of attack is it? Also, the 25% casualties morale check says losses. It doesn't say anything about counting how many casualties.

Also the GW FAQ calls it a psychic shooting attack.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf require line of sight?
Does it ignore terrain that blocks line of sight (i.e.,
impassable terrain)? (p37)
A. As a psychic shooting attack, Jaws of the World Wolf
requires line of sight. The Rune Priest must have line of
sight to the first model that the power affects – in
effect he is treated as the target model; the power just
happens to hit everybody else on its way through!

It is a psychic shooting attack, it just doesn't cause wounds.

The 25% moral check is worded as such because I think as you go by game phase, if you loose 25% to dangerous terrain tests then time for a check since they are not casualties and just "destroyed".

ND - its not a theory, it is fact. AS in, the construction of the language makes it so. Only a complete failure at understanding quite basic sentence construction would result in not nuderstanding that adding a restriction to something inherently makes it a more specific instance.

The mind boggles that you can, supposeedly honestly, argue differently

Oh, and I proved how they arent actually equated, you just ignored it, again. Every time you're proven wrong, its a new excuse, or you just ignore it. Every time. Consistency at least.

Basimpo - there is a rule, same rule you use for "scenic" - its called English. You can keep on repeating that every word must be defined, but you're just plain wrong. Or, for once, you could answer Rigelds question before continuing to post. Would be a start


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Unit1126PLL wrote:
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.

So you didnt read my response to the quesiton in full then? Try again, I gave an answer to these exact two situations.

Let us take then something similar, following the "rules" for remove from play. Unit A fires 10 shots at unit B. 5 shots hit, 2 shots wound, 1 shot is unsaved. One model from Unit B is removed as a casualty. Following the "rules" for RFP, the 5 shots that did NOT hit cause 5 models from unit B to be "removed from play" because they did not wound, nor cause saves.

Ridiculous.

Nos, Show me where GW mentions a dictionary as a necessary tool to play the game. Ill save you time, they dont.

Nos, Show me where GW mentions a dictionary as a necessary tool to play the game. Ill save you time, they dont.

I'm not sure if you are just being purposefully obtuse with that statement, but its obvious that in order to play the game you need a working understanding of the language your rulebook is written in, or a way to interpret said rulebook.

There are many english words in the BRB that are not defined within the pages of the book. You do not look these up each time you read the rules, because you already know what they mean, and can apply them within the context of the sentences they appear in. I may or may not agree with Nos' interpretation of this particular discussion, but the point about falling back on english when the BRB fails to define a word has to be true, as there is no other way to play the game.

Icemyn wrote: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.

I'm not actually arguing anything - I don't think the Venomthrope FAQ applies outside te Venomthrope, just like MI's FAQ doesn't.

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.

Yes, any time a question is asked about MI you can use that answer.

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.

Correct. Neither is RAW but is very likely RAI. Enough so that it's not worth arguing.

I'm not convinced MI's FAQ is at that level, but even if it is, it's not RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote: 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.

Pot, kettle. You haven't shown one place they are equated unless you misread rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Still don't have a response to this, just more blubbering about English definitions not mattering.

I agree with Lehnsherr. Context is necessary. Let us proceed with context clues from JotWW and see if it falls into a RFP or a RFPaaC category.
Context clue: Psychic shooting attack
question: Do shooting attacks cause casualties?
Answer: Yes
Context clue: Fluff mentions that enemies get sent to their deaths through use of this ability
question: Does death mean killed, dead, casualty?
answer: Yes.
Question: In the same codex, is removed from play used?
Answer: Yes, in Lukas the Trickster's last laugh ability.
question: How is Removed from play in Lukas the Tricksters last laugh ability used?
Answer: Should Lukas ever be removed from play.
Context clue: (Supporting RFP) Lukas' ability only triggers if he is the victim of JotWW.
Question: Is this correct?
Answer: Yes, according to RFP. Removing him as a casualty is not enough. He must be sent to the twilight zone to trigger his ability.
Answer: No, according to RFPaac. Models are either casualties, or in reserve. This would make no sense if he had to trigger this ability through dying at the hands of his own army.
Context clue: All models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties.
Question: Does this mean that the previously mentioned trigger to his ability, Removed from play, means removed from play as a casualty in actuality?
Answer: Yes.
Context clue: GW 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.

I can go on and on. Contextually speaking, holistically, RFP would cause casualties.
Please list all of the abilities that cause Solely RFP "happenings"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

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.

Still don't have a response to this, just more blubbering about English definitions not mattering.

nosferatu1001 wrote: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

The INAT FAQ doesn't actually say that. Perhaps someone from INAT could clarify that.


Simple question:
So you agree that models killed by JotWW count as Casualties for triggering morale checks?

If removed from play does not cause casualties why are models removed from play counted as causalities at the end of the game ?

Did they somehow disappear for the exact time of the battle to appear dead or destroyed (meaning casualty )when the casualties were being counted ?

Removed from play = Casualty ,removed from play as a casualty = casualty , not in play anymore=casualty ,Destroyed (per models with wounds )=casualties, what part of English is not being understood ?

If they are not causalities, what the hell are they ?

Basimpo wrote:Let us take then something similar, following the "rules" for remove from play. Unit A fires 10 shots at unit B. 5 shots hit, 2 shots wound, 1 shot is unsaved. One model from Unit B is removed as a casualty. Following the "rules" for RFP, the 5 shots that did NOT hit cause 5 models from unit B to be "removed from play" because they did not wound, nor cause saves.

Ridiculous.

Yes, your stupid strawman argument is indeed ridiculous. Shock. Logical fallacy number I've-lost-count

Basimpo wrote:Nos, Show me where GW mentions a dictionary as a necessary tool to play the game. Ill save you time, they dont.

Yep, you are now just trolling as that is simply another strawman. I never said you needed a dictionary (maybe you do?) at any point, just that if the game does not provide an in game definition of a word / phrase, you fall back on how it works in English. This is not a tricky concept.

GW mistakenly assumes you have a basic understanding of English before playing their game, and one of these is that adding a restriction to something has an effect on the thing.

Please, answer Rigelds question. Or quit. Either will do.

I never said you needed a dictionary (maybe you do?)

I'd say if you don't understand english (or again the language your BRB is written in) then you absolutely need a dictionary.

Ive found through learning arabic, that i dont need the definition of a word to understand the meaning behind something. I dont even need to know the whole sentence to understand what is being said. I can pick up meaning by reading the context

This is true if you have a basic understanding of the language you are trying to interpret. Your original argument however, did not say that. If we take it to its most extreme, and I give my BRB (english) to someone who has never even seen the language before, they will NOT be able to infer context as they simply do not know ANY of the words in ANY sentence.

That is what Rigeld is attempting to point out to you, that when you extend your argument to its logical (albeit absurd) conclusion, you end up with a logical fallacy. I do not have my 40k book on hand, but I do have my fantasy. Take the first sentence...

"The game of Warhammer makes you the general of an army of Citadel miniatures."

If I do not fall back on english, then I need to know where to find definitions for The, game, of, makes, you, an

You HAVE to accept that a working understanding of language BEYOND the rulebook is absolutely necessary in order to play the game.

You know what really sucks? When you try to have a constructive argument and some people who are arguing the "same side" as you claim the most absurd things. It really destroys the credibility of any future argument brought up supporting that side.

@Rigeld2: If we are willing to apply wolf guard to Royal Courts and call it close enough RAI.
I don't see what keeps MI FAQ from applying to EL as close enough RAI.

@Nosferatu: I didn't see where you answered both of those situations as you mentioned. Though I did read your whole post.

Basimpo wrote:Question: In the same codex, is removed from play used?
Answer: Yes, in Lukas the Trickster's last laugh ability.
question: How is Removed from play in Lukas the Tricksters last laugh ability used?
Answer: Should Lukas ever be removed from play.
Context clue: (Supporting RFP) Lukas' ability only triggers if he is the victim of JotWW.
Question: Is this correct?
Answer: Yes, according to RFP. Removing him as a casualty is not enough. He must be sent to the twilight zone to trigger his ability.
Answer: No, according to RFPaac. Models are either casualties, or in reserve. This would make no sense if he had to trigger this ability through dying at the hands of his own army.
Context clue: All models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties.
Question: Does this mean that the previously mentioned trigger to his ability, Removed from play, means removed from play as a casualty in actuality?
Answer: Yes.

So your argument is that since Lukas only needs to be removed from play for his special ability to activate, then RFP must mean the same thing as RFPaaC?

Icemyn - there is a hole in the rules for RC if you dont use the WG FAQ

There is no hole in the rules, absolutely none whatsoever, when it comes to Remove from Play, so there is no need to even attempt to use the MI FAQ.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Icemyn - there is a hole in the rules for RC if you dont use the WG FAQ

There is no hole in the rules, absolutely none whatsoever, when it comes to Remove from Play, so there is no need to even attempt to use the MI FAQ.

I can see that, the lack of guidance making it necessary to look elsewhere to find something similar enough to fill the hole in the rules.
And I agree with you that RFP and RFPaaC are obviously two distinct things.

Can your argument be summed up as:
1) Using MI FAQ for EL in the same way that we use the wolf guard FAQ for RC's is functional RAI.
2) RFP is different than RFPaaC and they have different functions RAW.

As such until GW FAQ's EL to work we will take choice 2) RAW over choice 1) RAI?

The whole argument "the phrase have different meaning because the words are different" is easily countered. Logically it would only work if there were only two phrases used. There aren't just two phrases, there are over 6.

1) Removed from play
2) Removed
3) Removed from the table
4) Removed from play as a casualty
5) Removed as a casualty
6) Removed from the table as a casualty

If you give RFP and RFPaaC distinct meanings, then you logically must give all of these distinct meanings. Ruleset failure on a massive scale. Then there's the whole problem that RFP and RFPaaC are used the same rules which leaves you trying to prove one is a subset of the other. Either one is a subset of the other and they are not 'distinct' or they are a completely separate phrases in English and they wouldn't be used synonymously. Pick your poison. You lose either way.

This is also a bit dishonest to claim no way are RFP models casualties. Everyone in this thread already treats models killed by JotWW as Casualties. That's right, for morale check purposes (among other things) you must consider models killed by JotWW and Hex Rifles as Casualties. You don't get to pick and choose when a model is a casualty and when it's not.

If you need a FAQ precedent, the Celestine FAQ treats RFP models as casualties.

Lets stop pretending there is an argument left, and go eat some pizza.

Can we put off the dakka pizza party until after sundown tomorrow? It's still Passover, so no gooey goodness until then.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Icemyn - there is a hole in the rules for RC if you dont use the WG FAQ

There is no hole in the rules, absolutely none whatsoever, when it comes to Remove from Play, so there is no need to even attempt to use the MI FAQ.

Except there is no ruling for what remove from play count as, or if its different then any other form of casualty generation.

The only ruling on it is in a faq answer to St.Celestine, however her ruling is specific for MI but sets a semi precedence much like other faqs have which have previously been mentioned in this thread.

Arguing english meaning denoting difference does not work. GW is notorious for saying that something can have a different name but the same words in it, (I.e. Jetbikes and Bikes) and by english they are different, but for example in GW world jetbikes are a subset of bike for rulings on things that affect or are affected by bike rulings. IE JoTWW affects jetbikes because they are a subset of bike in the SW faq. Due to how GW uses 'subsets' its possible they intend for RFPaaC to be a subset of RFP so the two could mean the same thing for some things and different for others. Sadly in GW you cannot fall back on english as denoting difference and that difference being different all the time or in any specific instance.

previous to the SoB faq this was less contentious but the added precedence for MI has implications that special rules allow for you to attempt to survive RFP. Similar to how other faqs have had implications on how to deal with other things that are not clear cut.

We do not know what the holy game devs intended RAI for how RFP or RFPaaC to work, we do not know if they are truly different or the same. Yes from a strict english textbook definition one has more words than the other, but to GW that may not mean anything.

and as mentioned previously in this thread, there is no ruling on what RFP or RFPaaC means, there is no raw for it. Yes it has an english meaning, but to say there is no hole in the rules is kind of misleading as there are no rules for there to be holes in.

Icemyn wrote:Can your argument be summed up as:
1) Using MI FAQ for EL in the same way that we use the wolf guard FAQ for RC's is functional RAI.
2) RFP is different than RFPaaC and they have different functions RAW.

As such until GW FAQ's EL to work we will take choice 2) RAW over choice 1) RAI?

That's a fair summation of my point.

If "RFP" abilities remove models from play without allowing saves, and without wounding, what other abilities remove models without saves, and without wounding?
Last laugh
Tesseract labyrinth

What else?

Deep Strike mishaps
Sweeping Advance
Destroyed - Exploded

Happyjew wrote:Deep Strike mishaps
Sweeping Advance
Destroyed - Exploded

Those aren't "abilities".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

blaktoof wrote:...to say there is no hole in the rules is kind of misleading as there are no rules for there to be holes in.

Instant classic.

Basimpo wrote:If "RFP" abilities remove models from play without allowing saves, and without wounding, what other abilities remove models without saves, and without wounding?
Last laugh
Tesseract labyrinth

What else?

Last Laugh is not a RFP ability. It removes models without saves, and without wounding, but the wording calls them Casualties. There is no consistency between wounding vs non-wounding and RFP vs RFPaaC. If there was, you could claim an unwritten convention is being used by the writers. But since they are all mixed up, you cannot.