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.

Nice, as you can see WBB worked fine with it, however RP does not.

RP works fine. I have given you the BRB section which shows losing models means casualties.

The WBB response was for Omerakk who said that since WBB didn't work on JOWW so RP shouldn't. Which of course is wrong, so even by that train of thought RP should work.

No, you showed where you committed a logical fallacy (if a implies b, b implies a is the fallacy you committed)

Logical fallacy? Let's look at the rules PG44:

Under CASUALTIES (that should be enough but oh well) "A unit losing 25% or more of its models must pass a Morale check at ..." and further "A unit that is locked in close combat does not have to take Morale ckecks for taking 25% casualties".

Using your logic, that losing models with removed from play effects don't count as casualties, then in close combat, when such weapons are used and you lose 25% of the models, you would have to take that Morale check! In the middle of close combat!!! Now that is a logical fallacy...

Sorrym youre now making up things.

You are equating "losing mdoels" with "casualties", which is a logical fallacy. I'd suggest you look it up

How can it be made up when those quotes are straight from the BRB? Check your BRB and come back again...

I have checked my BRB, you are making a consistent logicla fallacy and I have pointed out the fallacy you are making twice now. Take an elementary logic class and come back

According to your logic units hit by a nightspinner are not going to have their I reduced to 1 if they assault, as apparently the heading defines the rule. Thats just ONE of the mistakes in your argument

Since you have must have probably aced in the elementary logic class then tell me, do units that lose 25% of their models from remove from play effects, while they are in CC, have to take a morale check or not?

So you're still contending that losing == casualty?

Can you answer the question please? It must be easy for an elemntary logic expert, such as you...

Shucks, your sarcasm is wonderful.

You made the initial assertion, so if you can answer that we have a firm foundation for your next contention. Once youve been shown that casualty /== losing models, there may be some hope.

All I asked is a question and I would like an answer. Especially from the one that suggested I need an elementary logic class. Because if you can't answer it, then maybe you need to attend one.

Erm, you do need to prove your initial assertion before you can prove assertions based off that, you do get that, yes?

You havent proven your initial assertion. Until you do so, your speculative questions are a waste of time.

So, do you believe casualty == losing models? Yes or No, no more dissembling

i agree nos, but RP does not say "return to play" only Ever living does, hence the discusion, so normal rank and file dont seem to get to come back, but the Higher ups do... if this is the case, it may be intentional

Losing models = casualties as stated in the BRB pg 44. The contrary will lead to the paradox of having to take 25%-loss morale checks during cc, which is unacceptable...

i dont understand why this argument is still going on, i had thought we had found a consensus.

RP: No coming back from RFP
EL: Can come back from RFP

both of these are RAW interpritations.

or am I missing something?

copper.talos wrote:Losing models = casualties as stated in the BRB pg 44. The contrary will lead to the paradox of having to take 25%-loss morale checks during cc, which is unacceptable...

The BRB does NOT state this. Try again. You are commiting a logical fallacy if you attempt to mae them equivalent terms.

@formosa
The RP says that when a unit takes casualties you place a counter. Removing from play effects may have a different mechanism (ie no saves of any kind) but in the end the dead models are considered casualties. That is why the 25% loss Morale check under "Casualties" is triggered.

Some SW fanboys would like to circumvent that to their advantage by saying that in a section dedicated to casualties, the words "losing models" doesn't mean casualties. That presents a problem. The Morale check rule specifically mention that 25% casualties during CC doesn't trigger a Morale check. If lost models aren't considered casualties by default, then a 25% loss of models during CC with "remove from play" effect, will trigger a Morale check. Does that seem logical?

"That is why the 25% loss Morale check under "Casualties" is triggered. "

Stop making up rules. The unit has LOST 25% which is why the rule on LOSING MODELS is triggered.

Also, stop impugning others - by no means are peopel who actually understand the difference between Removed from Play and Removed as a Casualty "SW fanboys"

I think part of the conufion here and the reason for the post is that, the Everling Rule says, "When a model is removed as a casuality place a marker near the spot he was removed from play"

I've been seeing this argument come up a lot. Since the rule says "as a casuality" and "remove from play"

Personally, I think that any dispute when it comes to Space Wolves and thier Jaws of the World Wolf abilty should always side against the Space Wolves. JAWW is cheesy anyway

nosferatu1001 wrote:"That is why the 25% loss Morale check under "Casualties" is triggered. "

Stop making up rules. The unit has LOST 25% which is why the rule on LOSING MODELS is triggered.

Also, stop impugning others - by no means are peopel who actually understand the difference between Removed from Play and Removed as a Casualty "SW fanboys"

Its not the losing model rule. Its the rules pertaining to casualties, as its under the heading "casualties". Its the casualties rule.

And what does that rule say? Does it say that if 25% of your models are removed as casualties you make a morale check?

Oh, it doesn't? Okay.

ZombieJoe wrote:the rule says "as a casuality" and "remove from play"

That is because casualties are removed from play. . .as casualties. Whereas vortex grenades and sweeping advances, for example, remove models from play. Full stop.

copper.talos wrote:Where in the SW faq does it say that necrons didn't get a WBB after JOWW? I don't see any mention of this.

In the SW of the last laugh it says:
"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.

So Necrons special ability is considered return to play, and it works after the model is removed from play. Nothing more to say about it.

Read the actual rules for The Last Laugh. The actual codex says "remove from play as a casualty"

Necrons can stand back up from being casualties, but they have always been prohibited from doing so when they were caught in a sweeping advance, which just removed them from the board. There is a difference between removing from play and removing as a casualty.

Formosa wrote:i dont understand why this argument is still going on, i had thought we had found a consensus.

RP: No coming back from RFP
EL: Can come back from RFP

both of these are RAW interpritations.

or am I missing something?

You're not missing anything; this is the correct way to play it. People just like arguing. Go look up one of the many Grey Knight debates that happened before the FAQ and you'll see some doozeys

Haroon - so, you agree that a unit hit by a nightspinner doesnt have it's I dropped by 1 when assaulting, becuase it isnt moving through cover?

Good to know. Or, you know, the actual rules are what matters. The heading doesnt define the main body of the rules. Oh wait, thats how the rules work, gee who'd have thought.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Haroon - so, you agree that a unit hit by a nightspinner doesnt have it's I dropped by 1 when assaulting, becuase it isnt moving through cover?

Your initiative is dropped if you have to make a DT roll. If the nightspinner causes that then the moving through cover/counts as moving through cover is irrelevent.
I agree with you, just want to point out issues when I see them.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Haroon - so, you agree that a unit hit by a nightspinner doesnt have it's I dropped by 1 when assaulting, becuase it isnt moving through cover?

Good to know. Or, you know, the actual rules are what matters. The heading doesnt define the main body of the rules. Oh wait, thats how the rules work, gee who'd have thought.

Your logical fallacy (strawman) and condescending tone have no place in a rules debate. Please use better manners.

nosferatu1001 wrote: The heading doesnt define the main body of the rules. Oh wait, thats how the rules work, gee who'd have thought.

However it seems we agree? That is the basic structure of a rule book, and that is how it works.

Rigeld - except the heading of that section is "moving in cover" (paraphrased) and, according to Haroon the heading defines the rule (regardless of the actual wording) meaning that no, apparently Night Spinners have no affect on assaulting as you are not moving in cover. Additionally you cannot take armour or cover or invulnerable saves outside of shooting (as they are all under the Shooting section of the rulebook) etc

Now obviously this is wrong, and was an attempt to show the fallacy the posters Haroon et al were making.

Haroon - no, try again. I pointed out your logical fallacy by using your argument (heading defines the rule) which is NOT a strawman. You stated that "Casualties" (the heading) means that the wording of what they actually defined can be ignored, yet that ISNT how the rulebook is actually structured.

You apparently dont know what a strawman is, i used *exactly* your argument and showed the absurd result it gives.

nosferatu1001 wrote: You stated that "Casualties" (the heading) means that the wording of what they actually defined can be ignored, yet that ISNT how the rulebook is actually structured.

You are just making stuff up now, I cant discuss this with you as your just knowingly lieing. I never stated that anything should be ignore lol... You have created yet another straw men out of a fictional statement.

haroon wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote: You stated that "Casualties" (the heading) means that the wording of what they actually defined can be ignored, yet that ISNT how the rulebook is actually structured.

You are just making stuff up now, I cant discuss this with you as your just knowingly lieing. I never stated that anything should be ignore lol... You have created yet another straw men out of a fictional statement.

His point is that if you accept that a heading defines the rules that follow it (anything under the Casualties heading defines all losses as casualties) then the following must be true:

There are no penalties for assaulting after being hit by a Nightspinner, nor assaulting through a Venomthrope's aura, as the penalties for assault have a heading "Assaulting through cover".
You cannot roll armor, cover, or invulnerable saves versus anything but shooting, since those are all defined under the Shooting section of the rulebook.


Removed as a casualty and removed from play are two completely different things. If your model is removed from play you may not use abilities that require you to be removed as a casualty.

Just like an ability that happens when you suffer your last wound - being Jaws'ed wouldn't allow that, and being Deffrolla'd, suffering from a failed DoG, or other effects that don't cause wounds wouldn't either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, nos isn't lying about anything. Continuing to suggest that is in pretty bad form.