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.
2017/06/24 01:01:57
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
I just wanted to point out that in reality, if they aren't coming back with full wounds, why do we assume they come back with wounds at all? Why are people putting a number to it in the first place.
You can't say they do not come back with full wounds, but they come back with 1 instead.
If we are assuming they don't come back with full wounds, it's clearly a model that is being returned to the board with zero wounds, and either it immediately dies, because it has zero wounds, or it becomes a model that breaks the game, because there isn't an indicator saying how many wounds it comes back with.
My personal opinion; you all are wasting your time arguing for and against this rule, talk to your TO while we wait for an FAQ.
HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
2017/06/24 01:14:08
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/24 02:38:11
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Someone at GW decided it was needed in that case. That is all that can be looked at for.
2017/06/24 02:41:59
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Someone at GW decided it was needed in that case. That is all that can be looked at for.
So it was needed there, but not in the 'Reanimation Protocols' rule? I think this thread proves it was needed here as well.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/24 02:42:22
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/24 04:22:35
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Per the Datasheet rule, slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have a profile.
Where does the datasheet rule specifically say slain models do not have permission to have a profile? Keep in mind these are models which had permission to have a profile at the start of the game.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
Only models that are IN units have permission to have profiles.
We do know that the profile does get affixed to the model, however. Otherwise, a model could never take damage because that is the profile on the datasheet, and the damage a model takes would not modify a datasheet for a unit. If the model doesn't get affixed to the model, you suddenly have invulnerable models, not unlike the situation you claimed would happen if a model was returned with 0 wounds. We know that the models aren't invulnerable, so they must have their own profiles in order to be able to keep track of where the wound levels on each model are. So, given that we know the model has a profile, and that the profile can differ from the profile on the datasheet (as the wounds change), you have to see where it states it no longer has that profile. Your claiming permission is revoked is an assumption that the model's profile is no longer applicable to the model, yet there is no explicit statement as such.
There is no rule that affixes the profile to the model.
This is the rule . . . "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
The datasheet lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the mdoels in that unit. When the model is slain and no longer in the unit the datasheet will no longer list its characteristics. This is literally what the rules are saying. The rules support my argument and prove that your critiques are invalid.
Trying to present something as probably RAI when it's presented by the company producing the game, suggesting this is how thay play the game (which is what RAI is), is in direct violation of the rules of this forum? That's just taking an obstinate position because you don't want to accept that for other people in the forum they might like to know what the RULES as intended are,which is a valid consideration in a case like this where the RAW isn't clear (well isn't clear to anybody besides you and col impact).. Posturing that something submitted potential evidence of RAI isn't RAW when it was never claimed as RAW is just exhibiting a stubbornness and myopia that discredits any of your other statements as being worthy of consideration.
The Twitch video simply has no status as a rules source. In the FLG video they play it as reanimated with full wounds. The FLG guys (Reecius and Frankie) were official playtesters and directly contributed to the design of 8th edition. Are their Twitch videos rules sources? No, not one bit. There needs to be official endorsement by GW for it to be a rules source. Until you or anyone can show me an official statement indicating such, then a Twitch Video has no status in this discussion.
Since there are no actual letters describing anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile in Reanimation Protocols, saying that the RAW says anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile is disingenuous at best, or lying and trolling at worst.
Incorrect. We have rules in the book that tell us how to resolve the situation.
The Reanimation Protocols rule that tells you to take reanimated slain models that are FROM the unit and 'return [them] to this unit' indicates that slain models are without a doubt not IN the unit. That's a written rule. We further have a written rule that only models that are IN units have a datasheet or a profile. Therefore, when a model is slain it no longer has permission to have the profile that lists its wound characteristic. When a slain model is reanimated and 'returned to this unit', it will at that point in time have a profile attributed to it which will have the number of wounds on its datasheet. For a Destroyer model that number of wounds will be 3.
For one who claims to have been through college and has been a professor, there is difficulty in one to follow standards laid out by another organization. We aren't in his classroom or his university, so he has no authority on anything he says other than what he can demonstrate.
This is the third ad hominem attack you have made against me based on my educational and employment experience. I am not sure why my educational experience has you feeling so insecure about yourself that you are resorting to personal attacks.
Ad hominem attacks are not allowed on this forum. Instead of expending resources making personal attacks, why don't you expend resources on formulating a valid argument against my rules supported argument? So far, every argument you have presented has broken all the Core Rules.
Anyone interested in a comparison between my argument and Charistoph's argument can read the spoiler below.
Spoiler:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main promise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. The datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
Whacked wrote: HWIPI, which is most likely the intended method, is you receive your full wounds back; otherwise it would be indicated on the rule.
Then why did they feel it necessary to specify that Saint Celestine's 'Healing Tears' rule allows a slain Geminae Superia to be set up "... with all her wounds restored..."? Its because there is no 'default' number of wounds a model will have when its returned to play.
Someone at GW decided it was needed in that case. That is all that can be looked at for.
So it was needed there, but not in the 'Reanimation Protocols' rule? I think this thread proves it was needed here as well.
This has been a one-sided debate by every rational measure. The rules clearly support reanimating a Destroyer model with 3 wounds as I have shown.
If anything, this thread proves that there will always be a 'tobacco' litigator who obstinately argues that tobacco doesn't cause any health problems or that global warming is a hoax.
This message was edited 11 times. Last update was at 2017/06/24 04:50:46
2017/06/24 06:22:43
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
What I want to know is,
Where did the number "1" come from in the first place?
It doesn't say the number 1 anywhere in any relevant rules or information as far as I can see.
2017/06/24 06:26:07
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
skoffs wrote: What I want to know is,
Where did the number "1" come from in the first place?
It doesn't say the number 1 anywhere in any relevant rules or information as far as I can see.
That camp is asserting that the last wound a model left the field with was 1, so it is "returned" with their last wound. At least that's what I've gathered. That falls apart, though, when a single, multi-wound model is reduced to 0 wounds by 1 shot with 3 damage, since damage is removed immediately and not in steps.
It is important to note that the 1-wound interpretation has to make up caveats for the rules, whereas returning it with full wounds makes up nothing, only uses the information provided by the game. The simplest answer (that requires the least amount of deliberation and house-ruling) is that the model returns as it does on its datasheet, simply because we have no other option without making up arbitrary numbers.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/24 06:29:57
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
2017/06/24 07:11:36
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
skoffs wrote:What I want to know is,
Where did the number "1" come from in the first place?
It doesn't say the number 1 anywhere in any relevant rules or information as far as I can see.
Two reasons I am aware of:
1) Historical precedence. Every previous version of the rule which returned models to the unit specified 1 Wound, even for those with multiple Wounds.
2) It is the minimum number of Wounds that allows no question of keeping the model on the table. This is a version which is often promoted by those who fear how powerful Reanimation Protocols can be with allowing the full number of Wounds.
And as I have repeatedly stated in this thread, there is as much relevant rules and information for returning with 1 Wound as there is for Full Wounds, and all of it is dependent on the views of the person promoting them.
puma713 wrote:That camp is asserting that the last wound a model left the field with was 1, so it is "returned" with their last wound. At least that's what I've gathered. That falls apart, though, when a single, multi-wound model is reduced to 0 wounds by 1 shot with 3 damage, since damage is removed immediately and not in steps.
Actually, I have only seen one person seriously suggest that in this thread. Have your locals been presenting it in this manner?
puma713 wrote:It is important to note that the 1-wound interpretation has to make up caveats for the rules, whereas returning it with full wounds makes up nothing, only uses the information provided by the game. The simplest answer (that requires the least amount of deliberation and house-ruling) is that the model returns as it does on its datasheet, simply because we have no other option without making up arbitrary numbers.
Then you haven't been reading all the caveats that orknado has been adding to the rules to define what happens to a model that is removed from play.
It is the easiest to keep track of, that I will grant, since you are treating it the same as deploying a new model.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/24 07:12:04
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/06/24 07:36:41
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
puma713 wrote:It is important to note that the 1-wound interpretation has to make up caveats for the rules, whereas returning it with full wounds makes up nothing, only uses the information provided by the game. The simplest answer (that requires the least amount of deliberation and house-ruling) is that the model returns as it does on its datasheet, simply because we have no other option without making up arbitrary numbers.
Then you haven't been reading all the caveats that orknado has been adding to the rules to define what happens to a model that is removed from play.
Hold on there, Charistoph. My argument makes ZERO CLAIMS about what happens to a model that is removed from play. There are no rules associated with removed from play so we cannot make heads or tails one way or another about what 'removed from play' means.
My argument's premise is that slain models are NOT IN units. We know this because the Reanimation Protocols tells us this. We also know that if the inverse were true, and slain models are IN units, then nearly all of the Core Rules break and you need to make up 4 or 5 arbitrary house rules in order to repair the game. By virtue of the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the YMDC tenet to Break No Rule we throw out the premise that slain models are IN units as completely absurd. The game breaks if you have to maintain coherency or allocate wounds to slain models that are in units.
Here is a sampling of the rules that are broken by Charistoph's premise that slain models are IN units.
Spoiler:
"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."
Here is my argument. I don't make up any rules or caveats. Every one of my statements is directly supported by a rule in the book as is indicated below in the spoiler.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
Here is a comparison between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
Spoiler:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.
The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.
My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.
Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.
That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.
There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.
I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.
Charistoph support's his main premise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. He makes up that the datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.
So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.
My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.
My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.
Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.
Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.
YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule
If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".
For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.
So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.
So basically Charistoph is attempting to project the weakness of his argument onto my argument as if the readers of the thread were fools. Read and compare both of our arguments on your own and come up with your own evaluation. His argument is the one that suffers from the 5 caveats he needs to make up because he breaks the Core Rules with his premise.
My argument breaks no rules and has no caveats. It really offers the simplest and most elegant and most rule supported answer to the question posed by the thread.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/24 07:53:43
2017/06/24 14:23:18
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
So the guys who were brought on by GW to test the game, who were more than likely told by the rule writers how the rules are supposed to work, who were no doubt observed playing the game by those same rule writers to make sure they were doing things correctly.
These same guys are saying "this is how the rule works"... and you think they're just "house ruling" it?
2017/06/24 23:36:12
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph has yet to present a valid argument. His current argument breaks all the Core Rules and is dismissed as absurd.
Orknado has a valid argument with Rules As Written support.
Doctortom has failed to provide any rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument (meaning he has been unable to counter Orknado's rule supported claim that slain models are not in units so they don't have datasheet or a wound characteristic)
So that means that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.
2017/06/24 23:42:36
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
So the guys who were brought on by GW to test the game, who were more than likely told by the rule writers how the rules are supposed to work, who were no doubt observed playing the game by those same rule writers to make sure they were doing things correctly.
These same guys are saying "this is how the rule works"... and you think they're just "house ruling" it?
luke1705 wrote: The OP is correct. Classic case of basic vs advanced rules. The play testers from Frontline Gaming actually mentioned this specific example and it works fine. The Swarmlord's special rule overrides the "no more moving in the movement phase" because they are not in fact moving in the movement phase - it's in the shooting phase. The rule even says that they may act normally in the shooting phase (IE no restrictions are placed on the unit after the movement phase is over).
Again, playtesters don't necessarily know how the rules will be answered when FAQ'd, and Reece and company certainly have gotten plenty of things wrong during their streams which they've then gone back and reversed themselves on.
It is just unfair that so many people are assuming that because they were playtesters, they are: A) infallible and B) know for a fact how GW will rule on tricky issues when the FAQs come out, neither of which is true.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/24 23:54:05
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Well, at least we know how one of the biggest tournament organizers are probably going to rule it, if people who are planning on attending an ITC event are wondering how to deal with it.
2017/06/25 02:07:37
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Two things baffle me about saying that returning with 1 wound is how it's supposed to be:
1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
2) "the playtesters aren't a perfect source of information" is, at best, a cop out. Sure, they don't get everything right. No one does. And I doubt that GW was looking over their shoulder while they played. But I'm just as certain that if they had a question for GW about something like this, they would have gotten an answer directly from the horse's mouth. So while not perfect, they are indeed an indication of how the game is meant to be played
2017/06/25 02:25:20
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Which playtesters are we talking about? The FLG Twitch video playtesters who were part of the design or the GW twitch video playtesters who were part of the design?
They came up with different HYWPI. FLG Twitch had full wounds and GW Twitch had 1 wound.
Neither of these are officially recognized rules sources so neither have any bearing on the discussion.
Besides, the debate has already been resolved. Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.
2017/06/25 02:30:56
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
luke1705 wrote: 1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
Its no more nonsense than those trying to say that the written rules support full wounds when they say no such thing. That's the problem. The rules don't say one way or the other.
luke1705 wrote: 2) "the playtesters aren't a perfect source of information" is, at best, a cop out. Sure, they don't get everything right. No one does. And I doubt that GW was looking over their shoulder while they played. But I'm just as certain that if they had a question for GW about something like this, they would have gotten an answer directly from the horse's mouth. So while not perfect, they are indeed an indication of how the game is meant to be played
Sorry, but it's not a 'cop out'. It's the truth. Considering GW has used FAQs to change clear and unambiguous rules in the past shows that whatever information GW gave the playtesters may no longer be valid. The only valid source of rulings is GW's FAQs, and that's only good as long as GW doesn't publish a later FAQ that contradicts it. It has happened before and most likely will happen again.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/25 02:37:25
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
luke1705 wrote: 1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
Its no more nonsense than those trying to say that the written rules support full wounds when they say no such thing. That's the problem. The rules don't say one way or the other.
Incorrect. Orknado proved it with rules support.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"
2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).
8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).
2017/06/25 03:59:11
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Impact, highlighting the words "IN" and "FROM" are never going to form a basis for rules. I love what GW has done with this iteration of 40k. I love that the rules have been streamlined. And I love the general new direction the company is taking.
None of those are ever going to make me think that two juxtaposed words are going to prove a FAQ-able issue one way or the other. GW is not nearly, nor will they ever be, that nuanced in their rules writing
2017/06/25 04:25:33
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
PoorGravitasHandling wrote: This is going to get the same head-shaking FAQ response that "can I name my regiment ULTRAMARINES for buffs?" did.
I actually disagree. Though I think the intent was coming back with full wounds, I can see the need for a FAQ. The keyword nonsense was people trying to technically game a system for an advantage. There's an actual rules quandary here
2017/06/25 05:13:06
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Impact, highlighting the words "IN" and "FROM" are never going to form a basis for rules.
Incorrect. Without a doubt, the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule indicates that slain models are not in units and the Datasheet rule indicates that slain models do not have permission to have profiles.
Therefore, a Destroyer model reanimates with 3 wounds.
2017/06/25 16:59:05
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
So the guys who were brought on by GW to test the game, who were more than likely told by the rule writers how the rules are supposed to work, who were no doubt observed playing the game by those same rule writers to make sure they were doing things correctly.
These same guys are saying "this is how the rule works"... and you think they're just "house ruling" it?
It carries as much weight as any LGS' House Rules because tournament rulings are their house rules. The difference is that people like bringing tournament rules to their house as they want to prepare for those tournaments.
ITC is HTWPI, not RAW.
luke1705 wrote:1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
WBB was 3rd Edition. It was changed to Reanimation Protocols in 5th Edition. It was changed to a per phase system and ICs we're given there in version as well.
It is true that the entire system has changed, but we are not talking about how to work a rule a unit no longer has (in the case of Terminators). We have a rule that has been processed very similarly to this in the past with nothing specific regarding Wounds.
There is as much reason to use historical precedent as there is to treat the model as 'new' or having its slate wiped clean. The preference of the poster.
Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/06/25 17:04:15
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph wrote: Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.
2017/06/25 17:26:53
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph wrote: Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Have you actually played them with both concepts?
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/06/25 17:32:31
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
luke1705 wrote: Two things baffle me about saying that returning with 1 wound is how it's supposed to be:
1) "historical precedent" is nonsense. So much about how the game works and how units work have changed in this edition. Historical precedent for We'll Be Back, furthermore, dates back to 5th edition IIRC, not even 6th or 7th. It'd be like me saying, "well in 2nd edition, this is how terminators made armor saves" as if that has any bearing on the game today.
3rd edition, actually. We'll be Back was renamed Resurrection Protocols in 5th ed, because GW doesn't like fun terminator references.
While historically speaking WBB / RP did only return the model with one wound, you have to remember two things
1) In each case, it clearly specified the model returns with one wound, something that is not present in the 8th ed index
2) In each case, the rule worked differently overall. WBB was a 4+ roll you made at the beginning of your turn. 5 ed RP was a 5+ roll you made at the end of the phase. In both of these iterations failure of the roll permanently removed the model from play. 6-7th ed RP was a FNP save.
8th ed RP is a 5+ roll that you roll at the start of your turn, where failure does not remove the model. It is different to any other edition. Elements are the same, but its still a different rule overall.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/25 17:37:33
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2017/06/25 17:34:47
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph wrote: Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?
Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.
That doesn't actually answer the question. Have you actually played them with both concepts?
A) that was not an attempt to answer, that was me just making a comment about what would happen if you give an average unit a handicap. B) no, I have not, nor do I know anyone else who has. That one video is the only instance I am aware of someone playing them that way.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/25 17:35:56
2017/06/25 17:51:38
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Even taking historical precedents into account you still have the new canoptek spyder scarab hive rule which returns swarms to a unit up to starting strength with no mention of 1 wound or full wounds, the same as RP, and spyders have never created anything but full wound scarab bases.
They have never once forgotten to mention the 1 wound stipulation in the 15 years they have had the rule across 5 editions, and continue to use it for other models with resurrection rules like apothecaries. They omitted it now with clear purpose.
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
~4100
~1660