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.

I agree with Copper Talos on this one. Many FAQ rulings are applicable to other codices. The one about when you measure for the Sang Priest's benefit is very important for Tyranids with Tervigons, for another example.

Whether "removed from play" is functionally the same thing as "removed as a casualty" is somewhat ambigious, but St. Celestine's rule does equate them. And I'm not aware of any other current ruling to the contrary.

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no basis for allowing RP/EL to work through RFP abilities. And by your argument, you're not just allowing EL - you're also allowing RP - since the counter placement method is the same.

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play." RFP? Check, pass go, collect $200.

Removed from play - necrons haz it.

Well lets see...

Necron Codex wrote:If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty...

According to RP, you must be removed as a casualty, so if somehting just removes you from play, no RP token.

If a model with this special rule [Ever-living] is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit

Again, in order to place an EL token, you must be removed as a casualty.

It's been established that "Remove From Play" =/= "Remove From Play As A Casualty". The ONLY reason St. Celestine is given permission to come back when removed from play, is because the FAQ allows it. And (personally I think) GW is heavily biased.

Happyjew wrote:Well lets see...

Necron Codex wrote:If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty...

According to RP, you must be removed as a casualty, so if somehting just removes you from play, no RP token.

If a model with this special rule [Ever-living] is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit

Again, in order to place an EL token, you must be removed as a casualty.

It's been established that "Remove From Play" =/= "Remove From Play As A Casualty". The ONLY reason St. Celestine is given permission to come back when removed from play, is because the FAQ allows it. And (personally I think) GW is heavily biased.

You selectively quoted the parts the rule that don't say "removed from play" while ignoring the part that actually uses those exact words. "removed from play". Not a very honest way to argue RAW.

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

Ever-Living does include the phrase "removed from play".

You mean the one line that says "Instead place a token down where the model was removed from play"? Only one problem, the "Instead" refers to placing an RP token. You still do not have permission to for EL to work with a RFP ability.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
You have no basis for allowing RP/EL to work through RFP abilities. And by your argument, you're not just allowing EL - you're also allowing RP - since the counter placement method is the same.

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play." RFP? Check, pass go, collect $200.

Removed from play - necrons haz it.

To place the token you have to have been Removed From Play as a Casualty. The model was removed from play (the latter part of the rule) as a casualty.

Context matters. Selectively picking words and pretending they're relevant is disengenious.

And the St. Celestine ruling now equates the two things.

Mannahnin wrote:And the St. Celestine ruling now equates the two things.

For St. Celestine and Miraculous Intervention.

There's no reason in the question or answer to attempt to extend the definition beyond that scope.

This isn't the US Supreme Court; GW didn't say "this ruling doesn't create a precedent."

Are you arging that we have no guidance as to when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives to nearby Termagants?

Mannahnin wrote:This isn't the US Supreme Court; GW didn't say "this ruling doesn't create a precedent."

Are you arging that we have no guidance as to when to measure for the benefits a Tervigon gives to nearby Termagants?

Actually I'd argue that it didn't need an FAQ - that's the only method that makes sense.

Many players opine that it makes sense for the Termagants and for BA to get Furious Assault if they're in range at the time they launch the assault.

Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense, and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same. Play the rules as written until a specific faq comes out.

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you.

That is fluff, and not rules.

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense,

A) That's fluff.
B) I'm not sure; how does alien robot supertechnology work? Do you have a more in-depth understanding of how it works, or how miracles work?

JonST wrote:...and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same.

You sure can, and in fact that's often the best and smartest thing to do. Like using the Eldar Tempest Launcher ruling to help you understand how to use a Manticore. And using the Blood Chalice ruling to help you understand how to use the Tervigon.

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense, and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same. Play the rules as written until a specific faq comes out.

Probably in a similar way they escape a stasis bomb (which was FAQ'd that RP/EL works against Lukas' Last Laugh).

Space Wolves FAQ wrote: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.

Mannahnin wrote:

JonST wrote:Just throwing this out there but how do you get back up from being sucked into a gaping chasm in the earth that then closes up on you. StC has a miracle bring her back which makes sense,

A) That's fluff.
B) I'm not sure; how does alien robot supertechnology work? Do you have a more in-depth understanding of how it works, or how miracles work?

JonST wrote:...and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same.

You sure can, and in fact that's often the best and smartest thing to do. Like using the Eldar Tempest Launcher ruling to help you understand how to use a Manticore. And using the Blood Chalice ruling to help you understand how to use the Tervigon.

I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of? For example all space marines are adeptus astartes, however because they have different gene-seeds they have different abilities/gear/powers which means different rules for models that otherwise are the same, and these rules are based purely on fluff. Now the reason brought a fluff reference up is that when you said the smartest thing is to say that similar things work the same are you saying that because space wolves and CSM are similar that space wolves shouldn't be able to put terminators in a drop pod? Or that all space marines should have counterattack because some do. No the fluff is what seperates them.

Of course I don't have any inkling how the terminator-like robots work. However I can read a codex and as I understood it from what I read, the Necron Lord has EL and StC has something called Miraculous Intervention which gives her EL with the ability to get beck up from either RFP or RFPaC. Now if you say the two are the same I can understand the argument because it is a reasonable one but then let me pose this question:

RP can take a piece of wargear called a Chooser of the Slain. Njal Stormcaller has Nightwing which as the codex states is a Chooser of the Slain. It goes on to say that in the assault phase a single model in base contact with Njall takes a certain number of hits from Nightwing. Nowhere does it say that other CotS can not do this, or that only Nightwing can do this. So do all my RP's CotS get to add some hits in the assault phase?

I would lean towards no, while both are CotS Nightwing is a special more powerful variant. Just like how Miraculous Intervetion is a special more powerful variant of EL. Its just something to think about when saying that Miraculous Intervention works the same as EL.

That said, I have played games with EL used both ways and as its way too tiring to argue I usually dont bother or just role for it as all I really want is to play the game lol.

EDIT - I forgot to add that it makes perfect sense when something is broken, missing, or is not clear to go by a clarified similar rule like the BA scout smoke stuff, it just seems like EL reads pretty clearly with the RFPaC part.



@Mannahnin On a side note, if you like the Arthur series with Derfel you should check out the Uhthred series its very similar and by Bernard Cornwell, I read both and liked them equally the Uhthred ones are based more in history as opposed to the Arthur legend, though the main character is almost the same.

JonST wrote: I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of?

Yes , but if you played the game by the fluff, marines could move and fire their Bolters at full range, since the bullets will travel the same distance regardless of if the person firing the weapon was moving or not.

and other silliness.

So we Must stick with the actual rules.

DeathReaper wrote:

JonST wrote: I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of?

Yes , but if you played the game by the fluff, marines could move and fire their Bolters at full range, since the bullets will travel the same distance regardless of if the person firing the weapon was moving or not.

and other silliness.

So we Must stick with the actual rules.

I said that the rules are based off the fluff, not that anyone should play by the fluff. If I am not mistaken the idea behind the move and only 12 inches range on the bolter is based on the fluff that if you move you made the choice of not standing still and steadying yourself for a nice aimed long range shot. But lets ignore the whole fluff conversation thing cus thats way off this topic. What about the rest of what I said?

What is the actual wording of Miraclulous Intervention?

JonST wrote:

Mannahnin wrote:

JonST wrote:...and you cant just say because one thing is similar to another that they work the same.

You sure can, and in fact that's often the best and smartest thing to do. Like using the Eldar Tempest Launcher ruling to help you understand how to use a Manticore. And using the Blood Chalice ruling to help you understand how to use the Tervigon.

I realise thats fluff, but isn't fluff what these rules are based off of? For example all space marines are adeptus astartes, however because they have different gene-seeds they have different abilities/gear/powers which means different rules for models that otherwise are the same, and these rules are based purely on fluff. Now the reason brought a fluff reference up is that when you said the smartest thing is to say that similar things work the same are you saying that because space wolves and CSM are similar that space wolves shouldn't be able to put terminators in a drop pod? Or that all space marines should have counterattack because some do. No the fluff is what seperates them.

I agree that fluff is important, but not in the sense of being a useful tool for rules interpretation. The fluff is used by the codex writers, and can be used by us to envision the story part of the game. That being said, fluff is usually a poor tool for understanding how a rule works, because you can make the fluff work whatever way you want. I can come up with a story-based justification for anything.

JonST wrote:However I can read a codex and as I understood it from what I read, the Necron Lord has EL and StC has something called Miraculous Intervention which gives her EL with the ability to get beck up from either RFP or RFPaC. Now if you say the two are the same I can understand the argument because it is a reasonable one...

I don't think they're the same. And Miraculous Intervention doesn't give Everliving. They're different but similar rules. Both involve returning a dead model to play. Both use similar language. One has been specifically ruled to work against JotWW. The other has actually (in the Lukas ruling) also been ruled to work against another effect which Removes Models from Play.

JonST wrote:EDIT - I forgot to add that it makes perfect sense when something is broken, missing, or is not clear to go by a clarified similar rule like the BA scout smoke stuff, it just seems like EL reads pretty clearly with the RFPaC part.

For my money this seems like a case where two similar rules should both work in the same situation.

JonST wrote:@Mannahnin On a side note, if you like the Arthur series with Derfel you should check out the Uhthred series its very similar and by Bernard Cornwell, I read both and liked them equally the Uhthred ones are based more in history as opposed to the Arthur legend, though the main character is almost the same.

Yeah, I read the Saxon books first, and just finished the Warlord books recently. Cornwell's great.

It would be nice if GW just released a clear FAQ on this already, its only been a point argued for a long time now....

I actually think that EL should be able to come back from JOTWW, its really too powerful against Necrons otherwise, and even if they do its still an almost certain way to force them to take that test, or pick off a big chunck of a squad. I just don't think the rule reads that way.

For the record - doesn't Lukas' ability remove from play as a casualty?

Ok, so heres a wrench, according to the INAT:

SW.37h.04: Do models removed from play by JotWW count as casualties? A:Yes they do


Discuss.

Lunchmonkey wrote:Ok, so heres a wrench, according to the INAT:

SW.37h.04: Do models removed from play by JotWW count as casualties? A:Yes they do


Discuss.

Not answering the question you think it is.

It's clarifying that they count as casualties when it comes to checking morale at the end of the shooting phase - not that they were removed from play as a casualty.

It does reference DE:60E.05/DE:61C:01/DE:61G.01:
Are Models removed from play by a Crucible/Hexrifle/Shatterfield considered to be removed as casualties?

A: In all cases Yes

This leads ME (for what thats worth) to believe that I can indeed take my RP/EL save.

Lunchmonkey wrote:It does reference DE:60E.05/DE:61C:01/DE:61G.01:
Are Models removed from play by a Crucible/Hexrifle/Shatterfield considered to be removed as casualties?

A: In all cases Yes

This leads ME (for what thats worth) to believe that I can indeed take my RP/EL save.

Again, it's not answering what you think it is.
Unless you are removed from play as a casualty, by the rules you aren't counted towards the 25% requirement to test for morale.

Those questions are clarifying that you do.

They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

Lunchmonkey wrote:They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

No.

RP/EL trigger when removed from play as a casualty. Jaws, et. al. remove from play.

When totaling losses for Morale purposes, you count models removed by Jaws, et. al. for that purpose.