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.

Bloodfever wrote: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.

Actually replacing St. Celestine with an angry squig removes St. Celestine from play.

Just like if you were to replace Optimus Prime with Sentinel Prime. is Optimus Prime still there? No Sentinel Prime is, as Optimus Prime has been replaced and is no longer in that location.

Since replace also means remove to you people the ork player must get a kill point when an IC is turned into a squig

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: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.

So you're removing the model from play, but not removing the model from play.

That's what you're going to go with?

DeathReaper wrote:Actually replacing St. Celestine with an angry squig removes St. Celestine from play.

Completely disregarding EVERYTHING mentioned, churning out the same old claims without anything to back it up.

DeathReaper wrote:Just like if you were to replace Optimus Prime with Sentinel Prime. is Optimus Prime still there? No Sentinel Prime is, as Optimus Prime has been replaced and is no longer in that location.

This is just ridiculous, how can 2 beings, obviously their own entities, being obviously shown as that, together, at the same time, have ANY bearing in the eplaination?

I digress, StC and the curse squig are the same entity, just in different forms....just as when melted, ice can become water, the same 'object' for lack of a better word, just with different properties.

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: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.

So you're removing the model from play, but not removing the model from play.

That's what you're going to go with?

In a way yes.

I am removing the model from play by physically doing so.

I am not removing the model from play using any rules which apply to 40k. Which is what your trying to do. You are inferring and assuming RFP is in zwc.

Bloodfever wrote:I digress, StC and the curse squig are the same entity, just in different forms....

Fluff wise, that's correct.
Rules wise, there's no basis for that statement.

They have different profiles.
They're named differently.
They're different entities.

rigeld2 wrote:

Bloodfever wrote:I digress, StC and the curse squig are the same entity, just in different forms....

Fluff wise, that's correct.
Rules wise, there's no basis for that statement.

They have different profiles.
They're named differently.
They're different entities.

If I decided to have a sex change and change my name to Lisa, I am now a girl named Lisa with different genital profiles BUT still the same person, thanks.

Gargantuan wrote:Since replace also means remove to you people the ork player must get a kill point when an IC is turned into a squig

If the battle ends and St. Celestine is not on the table, she is worth a Kill Point, Yes.

How is that different from any other unit?

I just want to be clear Rigeld and DR. Your position is:

1) Zogwart Removes Models from Play, even though that is never mentioned in his rule. Basically Replace ==Remove?
2) Zogwart's Curse is now an attack, even though it is never called that anywhere in the rules?

Really guys for trying to argue strict RAW, you are straying pretty far on this one.
Next you will claim Replace is RFP but not RFPaaC because obviously that is entirely clear here.

Additionally, If the squig was not intended to represent the model it replaces why mention it has no wargear or special abilities?

Celestines special rules and stats are modified as lined out in Zogwort's Curse, just as the profile of, for example, a Grey Knight is changed when Hammerhand is cast. Celestine the UNIT is never removed from the table, but the MODEL is replaced by a squig. It's still the same unit and Celestine the Unit, which is what the rules govern, is thus never removed from play. The rules do not care about what model represents what unit, other than to prevent modelling for advantage, so whether you remove Celestine's model or not is irrelevant, the entity it represents is still there.

DeathReaper wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:Since replace also means remove to you people the ork player must get a kill point when an IC is turned into a squig

If the battle ends and St. Celestine is not on the table, she is worth a Kill Point, Yes.

How is that different from any other unit?

But I don't have to kill the squig to get a kill point since the IC is replaced/removed and therefore dead.

Gargantuan wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:Since replace also means remove to you people the ork player must get a kill point when an IC is turned into a squig

If the battle ends and St. Celestine is not on the table, she is worth a Kill Point, Yes.

How is that different from any other unit?

But I don't have to kill the squig to get a kill point since the IC is replaced/removed and therefore dead.

Unfortunately, no. You do not track Kill Points during the game, they are counted afterwards. This is a common misconception though and really only affects certain models/armies. (St.C/Necrons)

Basically you dont get KP's for each downing just if they are down at the end.

Icemyn wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:Since replace also means remove to you people the ork player must get a kill point when an IC is turned into a squig

If the battle ends and St. Celestine is not on the table, she is worth a Kill Point, Yes.

How is that different from any other unit?

But I don't have to kill the squig to get a kill point since the IC is replaced/removed and therefore dead.

Unfortunately, no. You do not track Kill Points during the game, they are counted afterwards. This is a common misconception though and really only affects certain models/armies. (St.C/Necrons)

I know, but according to Deathreaper being replaced means removed, that means that I can turn someone into a squig and even if the squig survives I still get a kill point since the IC has been replaced.

Is it an attack? Do you get a Invul save against it. Or does it just happen?

Sorry I never have had it used against me or seen it happen. How does it even happen?

Leadership role? Toughness?

Anyways you only get the KP for Celestine is if she is laying down at the end of the game or you have run her off the field.

If you kill the squig off why wouldn't MI kick in? I think she would just come back were the squig died on a 4+.

Gargantuan wrote:

Icemyn wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:

Gargantuan wrote:Since replace also means remove to you people the ork player must get a kill point when an IC is turned into a squig

If the battle ends and St. Celestine is not on the table, she is worth a Kill Point, Yes.

How is that different from any other unit?

But I don't have to kill the squig to get a kill point since the IC is replaced/removed and therefore dead.

Unfortunately, no. You do not track Kill Points during the game, they are counted afterwards. This is a common misconception though and really only affects certain models/armies. (St.C/Necrons)

I know, but according to Deathreaper being replaced means removed, that means that I can turn someone into a squig and even if the squig survives I still get a kill point since the IC has been replaced.

Again no. Being removed has no bearing on KP's. If St.C is alive at the end you will get no KP's regardless of the number of times she was RFP killed, downed, w.e.
What you are arguing would be wrong no matter which side you take.
Either the squig is worth the KP and St.C only if she stays down. (Rig/DR)
The squig is St. C and if alive would only be one KP together.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Spidey0804 wrote:Is it an attack? Do you get a Invul save against it. Or does it just happen?

Sorry I never have had it used against me or seen it happen. How does it even happen?

Leadership role? Toughness?

Anyways you only get the KP for Celestine is if she is laying down at the end of the game or you have run her off the field.

If you kill the squig off why wouldn't MI kick in? I think she would just come back were the squig died on a 4+.

The squig has no abilities so no MI. It is not an attack, you simply dice off and if you roll higher than St.C she is now a squig.

Spidey0804 wrote:Is it an attack? Do you get a Invul save against it. Or does it just happen?

Sorry I never have had it used against me or seen it happen. How does it even happen?

Leadership role? Toughness?

Anyways you only get the KP for Celestine is if she is laying down at the end of the game or you have run her off the field.

If you kill the squig off why wouldn't MI kick in? I think she would just come back were the squig died on a 4+.

It's a leadership duel, if Zogwort rolls higher the enemy becomes a squig and looses all gear and special rules. Since she looses her miracle rule she won't come back if she dies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:
Again no. Being removed has no bearing on KP's. If St.C is alive at the end you will get no KP's regardless of the number of times she was RFP killed, downed, w.e.
What you are arguing would be wrong no matter which side you take.
Either the squig is worth the KP and St.C only if she stays down. (Rig/DR)
The squig is St. C and if alive would only be one KP together.

The argument people use is that since the model is replaced she isn't on the board anymore and therefore removed from play. If that's true then if Zog curses a regular Space Marine captain then he is technically also removed from play therefore he's dead and Zog get's a killpoint even if the squig is still alive.

Icemyn wrote:I just want to be clear Rigeld and DR. Your position is:

1) Zogwart Removes Models from Play, even though that is never mentioned in his rule. Basically Replace ==Remove?
2) Zogwart's Curse is now an attack, even though it is never called that anywhere in the rules?

Really guys for trying to argue strict RAW, you are straying pretty far on this one.
Next you will claim Replace is RFP but not RFPaaC because obviously that is entirely clear here.

Additionally, If the squig was not intended to represent the model it replaces why mention it has no wargear or special abilities?

1) Yes. Replacing a model is removing another model from play. If you replace your bolt pistol with a plasma pistol you simply exchange the equipment. The bolt pistol has been removed from the model.

2) It is an offensive ability that targets and affects an enemy model. Considering it an 'attack' for the purposes of MI is not a stretch at all.

3) Because every model has a wargear/ability listing? Saying it doesn't have wargear/abilities is describing how the model behaves.

DoW

If you use zwc on any other ic you would not get a kp till the squig is dead. But what rigld and death reaper are clearly saying replaced ==RFP. So if you used zwc v a space marine captain according to them you get a kp and then another for the squig model. (at the end of game of course).

Gargantuan wrote:

Spidey0804 wrote:Is it an attack? Do you get a Invul save against it. Or does it just happen?

Sorry I never have had it used against me or seen it happen. How does it even happen?

Leadership role? Toughness?

Anyways you only get the KP for Celestine is if she is laying down at the end of the game or you have run her off the field.

If you kill the squig off why wouldn't MI kick in? I think she would just come back were the squig died on a 4+.

It's a leadership duel, if Zogwort rolls higher the enemy becomes a squig and looses all gear and special rules. Since she looses her miracle rule she won't come back if she dies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Icemyn wrote:
Again no. Being removed has no bearing on KP's. If St.C is alive at the end you will get no KP's regardless of the number of times she was RFP killed, downed, w.e.
What you are arguing would be wrong no matter which side you take.
Either the squig is worth the KP and St.C only if she stays down. (Rig/DR)
The squig is St. C and if alive would only be one KP together.

The argument people use is that since the model is replaced she isn't on the board anymore and therefore removed from play. If that's true then if Zog curses a regular Space Marine captain then he is technically also removed from play therefore he's dead and Zog get's a killpoint even if the squig is still alive.

First, Its not based on Leadership each player simply rolls a die the ork player only has to roll higher.
Second, What you are saying is true only if you believe what Rig/DR do. That you would get a kp for killing the IC and then again for killing the Squig. What DR was saying is along those lines of yes you would be able to get 2 kp's only if St. C stayed down, what you were saying was implying you could farm KP's off of St.C which is not possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

DogOfWar wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I just want to be clear Rigeld and DR. Your position is:

1) Zogwart Removes Models from Play, even though that is never mentioned in his rule. Basically Replace ==Remove?
2) Zogwart's Curse is now an attack, even though it is never called that anywhere in the rules?

Really guys for trying to argue strict RAW, you are straying pretty far on this one.
Next you will claim Replace is RFP but not RFPaaC because obviously that is entirely clear here.

Additionally, If the squig was not intended to represent the model it replaces why mention it has no wargear or special abilities?

1) Yes. Replacing a model is removing another model from play. If you replace your bolt pistol with a plasma pistol you simply exchange the equipment. The bolt pistol has been removed from the model.

2) It is an offensive ability that targets and affects an enemy model. Considering it an 'attack' for the purposes of MI is not a stretch at all.

3) Because every model has a wargear/ability listing? Saying it doesn't have wargear/abilities is describing how the model behaves.

DoW

1) No RAW basis at all. Replace has two clear meanings in english:
a)To take the place of. (Transform which if you notice is used in Zogworts rule)
b)To put something new in the place of.(which is what you are trying to argue)
The fact that you are arguing that by physically removing St.C triggers MI is absurd. So when she falls back off the table she is removed right? Trigger MI.
2) Deffinately no RAW basis at all.
3) If you didnt list Wargear or abilities then it would still have none, regardless of that line. Therefore it is erroneous with your reading.

Ok, hypothetically, I am using Zogwort in my Ork army, my opposition is sob with St.C, they don't have the model. I let them borrow and an ork nob to proxy as St.C, just an AobR one, nothing special. I use ZWC on St.C, they roll 4, I roll 6, she gets transformed. Now, As I have to provide the squig model and the AobR nob is actually my own model, without picking it up from the table I smash it with a hammer, mangling it up pretty good. We now have a squig model that transformed from a proxy St.C to a proxy squig and St.C didn't get removed from the table....she's NOT coming back.

Icemyn wrote:
1) No RAW basis at all. Replace has two clear meanings in english:
a)To take the place of. (Transform which if you notice is used in Zogworts rule)
b)To put something new in the place of.(which is what you are trying to argue)
The fact that you are arguing that by physically removing St.C triggers MI is absurd. So when she falls back off the table she is removed right? Trigger MI.
2) Deffinately no RAW basis at all.
3) If you didnt list Wargear or abilities then it would still have none, regardless of that line. Therefore it is erroneous with your reading.

Please read the Tenets of YMDC, Icemyn. Specifically #6:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Thanks!

DoW

DogOfWar wrote:

Icemyn wrote:
1) No RAW basis at all. Replace has two clear meanings in english:
a)To take the place of. (Transform which if you notice is used in Zogworts rule)
b)To put something new in the place of.(which is what you are trying to argue)
The fact that you are arguing that by physically removing St.C triggers MI is absurd. So when she falls back off the table she is removed right? Trigger MI.
2) Deffinately no RAW basis at all.
3) If you didnt list Wargear or abilities then it would still have none, regardless of that line. Therefore it is erroneous with your reading.

Please read the Tenets of YMDC, Icemyn. Specifically #6:

6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

Thanks!

DoW

So it is my opinion that you are using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner.
I even went ahead and put emphasis on your quote.
So to conclude: your opinions have no basis in the rules and rather than try to find some,
you incorrectly quote the tenets?
That is cute, also
Thanks!

Bloodfever wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Bloodfever wrote:I digress, StC and the curse squig are the same entity, just in different forms....

Fluff wise, that's correct.
Rules wise, there's no basis for that statement.

They have different profiles.
They're named differently.
They're different entities.

If I decided to have a sex change and change my name to Lisa, I am now a girl named Lisa with different genital profiles BUT still the same person, thanks.

That's not even close to a valid comparison.

Using the rules, the squig is not St. C.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Celestine the UNIT is never removed from the table, but the MODEL is replaced by a squig.

What basis in the rules do you have for that statement? If you can point it out, it'd end this entire discussion.

Icemyn wrote:1) Zogwart Removes Models from Play, even though that is never mentioned in his rule. Basically Replace ==Remove?

Well yes - by definition. You can't replace one model without removing it first.

Icemyn wrote:2) Zogwart's Curse is now an attack, even though it is never called that anywhere in the rules?

Irrelevant.

Icemyn wrote:3) If you didnt list Wargear or abilities then it would still have none, regardless of that line. Therefore it is erroneous with your reading.

False. It clarifies that the resultant squig doesn't inherit anything from the IC that transformed.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:If you use zwc on any other ic you would not get a kp till the squig is dead. But what rigld and death reaper are clearly saying replaced ==RFP. So if you used zwc v a space marine captain according to them you get a kp and then another for the squig model. (at the end of game of course).

We're saying that a component of replaced is removing from play - because it is, by definition.
Since St. C has a special rule that triggers on RFP, it gets triggered.
Now - and this is the part that is obviously eluding you - the squig comes on the table. The squig is the IC's unit. You didn't destroy the unit (the requirement for a KP) because it's still around.
So no, you don't get double kill points for other ICs. Because other ICs don't come back.

THE_GODLYNESS wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

THE_GODLYNESS wrote: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.

So you're removing the model from play, but not removing the model from play.

That's what you're going to go with?

In a way yes.

I am removing the model from play by physically doing so.

I am not removing the model from play using any rules which apply to 40k. Which is what your trying to do. You are inferring and assuming RFP is in zwc.

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:2) Zogwart's Curse is now an attack, even though it is never called that anywhere in the rules?

Irrelevant.

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.

If its not an attack she doesn't come back RAW. I don't think that it is irrelevant.

Icemyn wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:2) Zogwart's Curse is now an attack, even though it is never called that anywhere in the rules?

Irrelevant.

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.

If its not an attack she doesn't come back RAW. I don't think that it is irrelevant.

Does the BRB define attacks? Or do we go with the English language/common sense definition?

Honest question - don't have a BRB handy.

Thank you for at least reading the Tenets of YMDC, Iceman! Although you may want to read them again a little more slowly since you seem to think I quoted Tenet #6 incorrectly.

Please tell me exactly how I quoted the Tenet #6 incorrectly since, as I'm sure you are aware, I copy/pasted the relevent rule for you directly from the Tenets page. If you feel the Tenet should change, feel free to contact a Mod and I'm sure they'll be happy to help you!

With regards to your claim that I was I "using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner"? I draw your attention to the following quote:

Iceman wrote:Replace has two clear meanings in english:
a)To take the place of. (Transform which if you notice is used in Zogworts rule)
b)To put something new in the place of.(which is what you are trying to argue)

As you can see, by your own logic, you have violated Tenet #6. Please try not to do this. I know it can be difficult at times but it can really help the discussion not get bogged down in unnecessary semantics.

I think we can both agree that you haven't read this discussion and jumped in on page 10. It's okay, I understand, you're probably quite busy. If you would like to read the rest of the thread I think it would be enlightening. All of your points have either A) already been made and B) shown that they are not sufficient to prove the point either way.

If you have any more trouble, Iceman, please feel free to ask any questions. I'm happy to help you.

Have an excellent day!

DoW

rigeld2 wrote:
We're saying that a component of replaced is removing from play - because it is, by definition.
Since St. C has a special rule that triggers on RFP, it gets triggered.
Now - and this is the part that is obviously eluding you - the squig comes on the table. The squig is the IC's unit. You didn't destroy the unit (the requirement for a KP) because it's still around.
So no, you don't get double kill points for other ICs. Because other ICs don't come back.

Now you are trying to argue both sides? That St.C is both RFP and represented by a squig?

A component of Replace is not RFP that is an inference based on a dictionary definition, when there are other just as valid interpretations. RAW replace is not defined and there is no link to RFP. ZWC works just fine without having RFP forced onto it. If you think that physically removing the model is enough to trigger rules then St.C gets up when she falls back off of the table.

Well they do define Attacks on page 6. There are Psychic Shooting Attacks mentioned on page 50 (which would imply that there are non-psychic shooting attacks). There is also attacking buildings on page 79.

So yes, the BRB does define attacks.

DogOfWar wrote:Thank you for at least reading the Tenets of YMDC, Iceman! Although you may want to read them again a little more slowly since you seem to think I quoted Tenet #6 incorrectly.

Please tell me exactly how I quoted the Tenet #6 incorrectly since, as I'm sure you are aware, I copy/pasted the relevent rule for you directly from the Tenets page. If you feel the Tenet should change, feel free to contact a Mod and I'm sure they'll be happy to help you!

With regards to your claim that I was I "using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner"? I draw your attention to the following quote:

Iceman wrote:Replace has two clear meanings in english:
a)To take the place of. (Transform which if you notice is used in Zogworts rule)
b)To put something new in the place of.(which is what you are trying to argue)

As you can see, by your own logic, you have violated Tenet #6. Please try not to do this. I know it can be difficult at times but it can really help the discussion not get bogged down in unnecessary semantics.

I think we can both agree that you haven't read this discussion and jumped in on page 10. It's okay, I understand, you're probably quite busy. If you would like to read the rest of the thread I think it would be enlightening. All of your points have either A) already been made and B) shown that they are not sufficient to prove the point either way.

If you have any more trouble, Iceman, please feel free to ask any questions. I'm happy to help you.

Have an excellent day!

DoW

Lol now you are resorting to Flame-baiting? You sir are a model of YMDC excellence.
You are claiming a word means something that it does not in this instance.
Therefore, I believe that you are "using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner".
It is alright if you don't agree, but you have not added anything constructive to this argument for the second time now and have resorted to personal attacks. (Misspelling my name? really?)
As such I think you yourself should take a look back at the Tenets it may do you some good.

If I believed that my points have been answered I wouldn't be posting. Why bother?
I have stated that there is no rules basis for equating Replace with RFP. None has been shown go back through the 10 pages and show anything but dictionary definitions or semantic arguments.
I have stated ZWC is not an attack and as a result does not trigger MI as per the FAQ, I even linked it for you.. Again ZWC has not been shown to be an attack.

Seriously though, I have yet to see you add anything constructive of your own to any thread not just this one. So if you would lay off the Personal attacks and focus on the rules that would be ideal.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Happyjew wrote:Well they do define Attacks on page 6. There are Psychic Shooting Attacks mentioned on page 50 (which would imply that there are non-psychic shooting attacks). There is also attacking buildings on page 79.

So yes, the BRB does define attacks.

I do agree that Attacks are defined in the BGB, which is in fact my point.
ZWC is not a psychic shooting attack.
From the 40k Rulebook FAQ:

Q: What psychic powers count as psychic shooting
attacks? (p50)
A: Any psychic power with a profile like that of a
ranged weapon (i.e. has a range, strength and AP
value) and any psychic power that specifically states
that it is a psychic shooting attack.