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.

RP:"If a model with RP rule is removed as a casualty..."

MI:"Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty,..."

Do you see any resemblance? And MI didn't get errata. It got a FAQ. MI wording didn't change at all. You should already know the difference between an errata and a faq...

And you still continue to think that faq about Lucas -which is an ability that always removed models as a casualty so actually there wasn't ever any doubt- and WBB which is obsolete, is more relevant? Talking about double standards...

copper, here is the diffrence:
St C = Imperium
RP = Xenos
We ALL know how much GW love their Imperium compared to Xenos. When it comes down to it between two similar abilities, xenos loses...

I'll concede to that

copper.talos wrote:RP:"If a model with RP rule is removed as a casualty..."

MI:"Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty,..."

Do you see any resemblance? And MI didn't get errata. It got a FAQ. MI wording didn't change at all. You should already know the difference between an errata and a faq...

Indeed - I point out that it should've been an errata, because it changes a rule.

Note that the FAQ pertains specifically to MI. It doesn't mention *anything* that can be used to infer that it's a game-wide change/clarification.

And you still continue to think that faq about Lucas -which is an ability that always removed models as a casualty so actually there wasn't ever any doubt- and WBB which is obsolete, is more relevant? Talking about double standards...

... you seemed to think there was doubt when you used the Lucas FAQ to infer that JotWW allowed WBB.

Sorry junior it just doesn't go that way. C: Black Templar had to have a separate errata entry due to the one for BT stating Storm Shields confer a 4+ INV save rather than a 3+. An entry for one CODEX FAQ does not automatically carry over to every other DEX unless specifically mentioned.

Boss GreenNutz wrote:Sorry junior it just doesn't go that way. C: Black Templar had to have a separate errata entry due to the one for BT stating Storm Shields confer a 4+ INV save rather than a 3+. An entry for one CODEX FAQ does not automatically carry over to every other DEX unless specifically mentioned.

Sure, kiddo, but that example isn't the same, as its piece of wargear, and GW had been moving to make sure everything was referenced in its own codex.

Here we're talking about the interpretation of game mechanics. Totally different ball of wax. And using other FAQs to establish precedent as to how a rule 'might' be interpreted is a time honored tradition. It makes zero sense to say 'this remove from play' is different than 'this remove from play' because it comes from a different codex. Might GW rule that way? Maybe.

Fortunately the people I play with are more reasonable than most, and for tournaments, I'll get clarification on how it is going to be ruled before attending. Simple.

Cruentus wrote:And using other FAQs to establish precedent as to how a rule 'might' be interpreted is a time honored tradition. It makes zero sense to say 'this remove from play' is different than 'this remove from play' because it comes from a different codex.

... Yes, using FAQs as precedent makes sense when the rule is actually vague. Remove from play != Remove from play as a casualty except where the FAQ says it does - IE St. C.

Cruentus wrote: Here we're talking about the interpretation of game mechanics. Totally different ball of wax. And using other FAQs to establish precedent as to how a rule 'might' be interpreted is a time honored tradition. It makes zero sense to say 'this remove from play' is different than 'this remove from play' because it comes from a different codex. Might GW rule that way? Maybe.

Fortunately the people I play with are more reasonable than most, and for tournaments, I'll get clarification on how it is going to be ruled before attending. Simple.

Yup you are correct, they "might" rule that way. Then again they "might" not.

You are also correct in the most reasonable people, the ones I know anyway, will take the least advantageous way to rule a dispute in their DEX, at least I do anyway, just in case it doesn't end up going the way they hope. I didn't use Deffrollas for almost a year until GW stated they worked on BWs. When they did rule it that way, my Orks got a little better. Had it been ruled DeffRollas don't work not a single person would have been able to say I won due to misinterpreting a rule. See the difference?

Happyjew wrote:copper, here is the diffrence:
St C = Imperium
RP = Xenos
We ALL know how much GW love their Imperium compared to Xenos. When it comes down to it between two similar abilities, xenos loses...

While it honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Necron FAQ goes the other way on this (because GW is all about consistency);
for me this is precedent enough to say that RP works against JotWW.

EDIT: Poorly written :(

copper.talos wrote:By "applies directly" I meant it applies without need for further interpretation.

I don't think there is a hint of a doubt any more that Necrons get their RP against all such effects.

Actually, there is no doubt at all. Until an FAQ comes out for them, they do not get it. GW has ruled on opposite sides of the same exact question for different armies. So we can only take these on a case by case basis. I'd love it if they had a consistency in their answers. But since they don't, it's hard to say that this bleeds over onto 'Crons.

And two questions.............. That's all they tought were worth answering?