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.

rigeld2 wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:GW never made an official ruling deciding if there was a difference between RFP and RFPaaC - you, and others may have assumed that was the reason behind various FAQs, but now that has proven to be incorrect.

I was citing an official ruling that there was a difference.

You cited a ruling. The "why" of the ruling - your assumption that it was something to do with RFP vs RFPaac, do you agree it is not official? I don't believe there was anything official that said "why" or named RFP as the reason.

Granted, so if you take WBB as a precedent and assume it indicates a difference then you must take Celestine as a precedent too and here was have an inconsistency. Without any official ruling Celestine breaks the convention that you might use to assume one is a subset of the other.

In the BRB - we have 1 way to remove models - as a casualty.
If you take WBB as describing a convention then you must take Celestines FAQ as breaking that convention.

Looking at this fresh with all current FAQ's I don't believe you would come to the same conclusions you have come to.

Nemesor Dave wrote:Granted, so if you take WBB as a precedent and assume it indicates a difference then you must take Celestine as a precedent too and here was have an inconsistency. Without any official ruling Celestine breaks the convention that you might use to assume one is a subset of the other.

I'm not saying the WBB/JotWW ruling sets a precedent - it reinforces the fact that plain english shows the phrases are different.
The Celestine ruling is narrowly scoped - I don't see how it could apply outside Celestine.

Looking at this fresh with all current FAQ's I don't believe you would come to the same conclusions you have come to.

I believe you're wrong - plain english indicates a difference.

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not saying the WBB/JotWW ruling sets a precedent - it reinforces the fact that plain english shows the phrases are different.
The Celestine ruling is narrowly scoped - I don't see how it could apply outside Celestine.

Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

I see more and more people stating that there was a faq that claimed wbb didn't work against jotww. This is 100% wrong and shows how hopelessly these people try to argue in favour of jotww: using imaginery faqs against obsolete rules. The facts are that nowhere removed from play is defined at all and is used as an expression by just one codex writer.The only ruling in existance regarding remove from play effects is that of St Celestine.

elrabin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:I'm not saying the WBB/JotWW ruling sets a precedent - it reinforces the fact that plain english shows the phrases are different.
The Celestine ruling is narrowly scoped - I don't see how it could apply outside Celestine.

Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

No. Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are the same? No.
Plain English dictates they are different.

Common language works differently from formal. If one usually orders pizza from Dominoes, then when one asks one's mate to "order the pizza", one means to order it from Dominoes and will be undertandable disappointed when theorder would be made from another pizza vendor.
In common language phrases are often truncated from their exact counterparts without changing their meaning in context (between the sme group of speakers, for example). And so, they serve not as generalisations, but as shorthands.

What language is rulebook written in? Formal or informal/common?

copper.talos wrote:I see more and more people stating that there was a faq that claimed wbb didn't work against jotww. This is 100% wrong and shows how hopelessly these people try to argue in favour of jotww: using imaginery faqs against obsolete rules. The facts are that nowhere removed from play is defined at all and is used as an expression by just one codex writer.The only ruling in existance regarding remove from play effects is that of St Celestine.

1) I'm not arguing for or against any power specifically. I'm arguing that there is a difference.
2) I'm absolutely certain there was something in the old FAQ about JotWW and WBB - I can see the words on my screen in a pdf. I'm trying to find an archived version now.
3) RFPaaC isn't defined at all either - except by taking wounds enough to remove the model. JotWW (and other RFP abilities) do not cause wounds, and therefore cannot remove as a casualty.

That still means that remove from play is undefined with just 1 ruling in existance, that of Celestine. Both INAT and ETC have ruled in favour of RP and simar abilities. Normally all these would have been enough except some people don't want to lose their kill-necron-hq-for-free card...

copper.talos wrote:That still means that remove from play is undefined with just 1 ruling in existance, that of Celestine. Both INAT and ETC have ruled in favour of RP and simar abilities.

It's undefined and Celestine's ruling doesn't apply game wide and also doesn't equate the two.
It doesn't need a definition - plain english is enough to differentiate and explain what the rule does.
And you're going to have to cite where the INAT FAQ "ruled in favour of RP" - I'm not seeing it.
The only thing I can see that would imply that would be the "casualties" thing posted earlier, which I addressed.

Normally all these would have been enough except some people don't want to lose their kill-necron-hq-for-free card...

Are you trying to troll me? Please apologize. I play Tyranids, and only Tyranids. It seems like you're the one injecting bias into the argument. If you disagree, please cite where you think I've been biased.

I have always read it as rigeld2 states.
The fact that there are additional clarifying words in a phrase indicates that something additional needs to be clarified.

Being additional precludes being the same.

INAT says that jotww and all other remove from play abilities create casualties (no ifs no buts). So RP applies as normal. And forgive if I don't take statements such ad 'I play only Tau' at face value since anyone can say anything on the net. Especially here where non existant faqs are used as arguments...

copper.talos wrote:INAT says that jotww and all other remove from play abilities create casualties (no ifs no buts). So RP applies as normal.

The models removed count as casualties. This is clarification for the morale section.
That does not mean that the model was removed from play as a casualty.

And forgive if I don't take statements such ad 'I play only Tau' at face value since anyone can say anything on the net. Especially here where non existant faqs are used as arguments...

... Seriously? You're just going to assume I'm lying to protect my huggalicious JotWW? ... So you are trolling me?
I've never said anything about playing Space Wolves. The most I've done is talked about starting Blood Angels because I've come into some marine models.
I dislike that you're questioning my integrity with absolutely no basis.

As I said jotww creates casualties - no ifs no buts. If you want to make it a more narrow ruling talk to the INAT council...

Just one quick thing, counts as =/= is.
It also doesn't say if they are removed as a casualty or not.

SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do.

I read that as counting towards your 25% casualties for shooting.

copper.talos wrote:As I said jotww creates casualties - no ifs no buts. If you want to make it a more narrow ruling talk to the INAT council...

That's not what the INAT ruling says. Here, I'll paste it for you.

SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

Does it say they are removed from play as a casualty? Does it say that RFPaaC and RFP are the same?
I'm still waiting for the apology, or some citation that there's a reason to think I'd lie about what armies I play.
Before you bring up the WBB FAQ, I'll concede that it doesn't exist - until I find it.

rigeld2 wrote:

elrabin wrote:Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

No.
Plain English dictates they are different.

As written in the codex/BRB, I agree. RaaC and RFP should be different. However, the SoB FAQ makes them the same for the purposes of Miraculous Intervention on Saint Celestine. As the abilities are written, there's no reason why her ability should be treated any differently than Reanimation Protocols, etc. GW did not give Miraculous Intervention errata so that it worked when Celestine is RFG. Instead, GW provided clarification on the rules. This is why there is uncertainty here. Miraculous Intervention works only when Celestine is RaaC -- but GW says it also works when she is RFP. So why should it be any different for Reanimation Protocols or EL?

If the SoB FAQ did not address this issue, I would totally agree with you. However, its inclusion seems to indicate (at least to me) that RaaC and RFP are effectively the same.

Given the fuzziness though, I think this subject is really up to personal/group/TO interpretation.

rigeld2 wrote:Does it say they are removed from play as a casualty? Does it say that RFPaaC and RFP are the same?

No and No. However, I referenced this ruling to support my interpretation of the FAQ entry. This ruling is not based on RAW either. Besides, if you are limiting the scope to Morale checks, then it still doesn't address whether or not you can use Reanimation Protocols or Ever Living after being RFP.

copper.talos wrote:And forgive if I don't take statements such ad 'I play only Tau' at face value since anyone can say anything on the net.

There's no need to bring any of this into the discussion. Bias is a non-factor when arguments rely on factual information.

elrabin wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

elrabin wrote:Are there any current "official" sources that dictate that RaaC and RFP are different?

No.
Plain English dictates they are different.

As written in the codex/BRB, I agree. RaaC and RFP should be different. However, the SoB FAQ makes them the same for the purposes of Miraculous Intervention on Saint Celestine. As the abilities are written, there's no reason why her ability should be treated any differently than Reanimation Protocols, etc. GW did not give Miraculous Intervention errata so that it worked when Celestine is RFG. Instead, GW provided clarification on the rules. This is why there is uncertainty here. Miraculous Intervention works only when Celestine is RaaC -- but GW says it also works when she is RFP. So why should it be any different for Reanimation Protocols or EL?

Your statement seems to imply that you don't think FAQs can change rules... Is that correct?
FAQs can change how rules operate without changing the text of a rule. For one example that is very similar to this one, look at the Tyranid FAQ.
Venomthropes have Spore Cloud. This ability makes an enemy unit roll a dangerous terrain test when charging a unit within 6" of the Venomthrope.
According to the BRB, simply taking the test is enough to drop your initiative to 1.
The Tyranid FAQ changed that rule, so now enemy units are not penalized for charging - they simply take the dangerous terrain test and keep coming.

The SoB FAQ changed the rules surrounding MI so that it always gets to roll - an errata would have been more appropriate, but an FAQ is sufficient.
It's different for RP and EL because they have no similar FAQ stating that they can come back from RFP.

rigeld2 wrote:Does it say they are removed from play as a casualty? Does it say that RFPaaC and RFP are the same?

No and No. However, I referenced this ruling to support my interpretation of the FAQ entry. This ruling is not based on RAW either. Besides, if you are limiting the scope to Morale checks, then it still doesn't address whether or not you can use Reanimation Protocols or Ever Living after being RFP.

Agreed and Agreed. The INAT ruling in question has no influence on RP or EL coming back from RFP abilities. In other words, it neither supports nor denies.

Does the rulebook define "play"?

I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

rigeld2 wrote:
Your statement seems to imply that you don't think FAQs can change rules... Is that correct?

No -- GW does change rules in their FAQs, but it's difficult to know when they are changing/adding rules and when they are simply answering a question. To me, that's what makes this a sticking point. Does the FAQ entry on MI simply answer what happens according to the current rules, or does it implicitly alter the rules of MI? If the former, this would imply that EL/RP can be used after a RFP effect. If the latter, then RFP and RaaC are different and only MI is special.

For me, I prefer to choose the interpretation that results in consistency. It doesn't make sense to me why Celestine should be able to get back up after being RFP'd but a Necron can't. The triggering conditions of EL and MI aren't any different, so allowing one but not the other just seems arbitrary to me.

elrabin wrote:For me, I prefer to choose the interpretation that results in consistency. It doesn't make sense to me why Celestine should be able to get back up after being RFP'd but a Necron can't. The triggering conditions of EL and MI aren't any different, so allowing one but not the other just seems arbitrary to me.

I can see that. I don't agree with it, but I can see it. GW does all kinds of arbitrary things (Venomthrope, as was mentioned, SitW before the most current FAQ) so arbitrarily making a special character more powerful while leaving an entire codex without the ability to get back up from RFP makes perfect sense to me.

angelshade00 wrote:I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

I just wanted to know if there was a BRB or GW FAQ that defined RFP and RFPaaC...There isnt, and thats good enough for me...Until i see otherwise no amount of plain english dictates whatever or theological discussions on the meaning behind the mysterious GW council of Nuln and how, who or where they order pizza will change it otherwise. Im sure that the original play testers of the new necrons fought Space wolves...I think Necrons and maybe celestine are probably the only models in the entire GW line of models that would benefit from RFP and RFPaaC being the same. Its a GW conspiracy...they are distracting us from discussing why their prices are so high or why they are secretly setting up their miniature model factories in florida.

No but really, thanks for taking the time to answer the question. I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.






Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh, and we should all email the gw answer place and ask if RFP and RFPaaC are the same or not...I know i know, the tenets say dont cite the emails because they can be easily spoofed. But if every one of us (thats what, 10-16 people?) email them, then C&P our answer here...Might give us an idea where they are headed with this thing.

Basimpo wrote:I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.

There is. RP/EL trigger when the model is removed as a casualty. The BRB implies (not defines that I saw) that this happens when you run out of wounds.
RFP abilities don't cause wounds, and they don't remove from play as a casualty. Therefore they do not trigger RP/EL.

Redacted!

Basimpo wrote:Which actually, brings me to the example listed on page 26 of the BRB for instant death (found it while looking for whether or not tw-handed weapons give you an additional attack...) If you take JUST the rule of instant death, you can arguably say that the model affected by instant death is just RFP. The example clarifies that its removed as a casualty.

ID is (usually) caused by an unsaved wound, so that lends to being RFPaaC.
Also, the rule says, "Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty."
There's no way to read that that isn't RFPaaC. You don't need the example to clarify that.

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.

There is. RP/EL trigger when the model is removed as a casualty. The BRB implies (not defines that I saw) that this happens when you run out of wounds.
RFP abilities don't cause wounds, and they don't remove from play as a casualty. Therefore they do not trigger RP/EL.

Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

I know this is a little late, but I've been away from Internet until recently. I noticed Lukas' Last Laugh referenced as to something that refers to RFPaaC but earlier refers to RFP. I would like to point out there is no conflict in terms. "If Lukas is removed from play (does not matter how it happens, be it smacked up in CC or hit by JotWW), both players do "X". If "Y" happens models are removed from play as a casualty (which means things like RP/EL would work). Again apologies on bringing this up so late, but I felt it needed to be clarified.

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:Which actually, brings me to the example listed on page 26 of the BRB for instant death (found it while looking for whether or not tw-handed weapons give you an additional attack...) If you take JUST the rule of instant death, you can arguably say that the model affected by instant death is just RFP. The example clarifies that its removed as a casualty.

ID is (usually) caused by an unsaved wound, so that lends to being RFPaaC.
Also, the rule says, "Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater, it is killed outright and removed as a casualty."
There's no way to read that that isn't RFPaaC. You don't need the example to clarify that.

Youre right! I read it again and did a facepalm.

Also, (since some people are saying that St Celestine sets a preference), would you allow me to strike at Initiative if I assault through Dangerous Terrain created by Writhing Worldscape, because, using the "Spore Cloud" as a precedent, my models would not have reduced Initiative.

Page 54 of the BRB. Trapped! If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back it is destroyed.

No RFP, or RFPaaC here...