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.

BarBoBot wrote:Most believed that the res orb couldn't be used if the model equipped was dead from failing saves that same phase, but it does

What did these people think the purpose of the Resurrection Orb saying "The bearer of the resurrection orb... [passes] Reanimation Protocols rolls on a 4+" was then?

There's no reason for the orb to mention the bearer of it if the orb can't be used when the bearer is dead...

The guy with the Orb gets his 4+ but while he's down only he can benifit from the Orb is my interpertation.

Given that they arn't ICs(except for Overlords) if he's down the rest of the unit probably is too. So its a moot point.

Just curious cause I have heard odd interpretations of that rule before and it just seems so cut and dry to me

I believe that in the previous necron codex the model with the orb had to be alive for anyone else to benefit from it, but it was not just the unit the orb was in, there was an area of effect.

The orb has now been FAQ'd to work for the model and his unit even if the model with the orb is dead and attempting its own RP or EL roll.

Grey Templar wrote:The guy with the Orb gets his 4+ but while he's down only he can benifit from the Orb is my interpertation.

This is incorrect. The FAQ states the bearer, and his unit, may benefit from the orb even if the bearer has been removed.

ToBeWilly wrote:This is incorrect. The FAQ states the bearer, and his unit, may benefit from the orb even if the bearer has been removed during the same shooting phase.

Edited for clarity.

When you check RP after the phase in which the orb bearer died, he and the unit benefits from it. If the orb bearer does not return in that RP check, no more Orb benefits for either.

Arguably not needed, but just to be sure

BarBoBot wrote:I believe that in the previous necron codex the model with the orb had to be alive for anyone else to benefit from it, but it was not just the unit the orb was in, there was an area of effect.

The orb has now been FAQ'd to work for the model and his unit even if the model with the orb is dead and attempting its own RP or EL roll.

Nope, any models downed before the bearer went down benefited from it, but any downed after were out of luck. This was back when you didnt roll WBB every phase as you do fo are RP, meaning you could conceivably lose models to shooting that the res orb could resurrect later on.

so if i attach a cryptek and lord to a squad of warriors, and all the warriors die, an ark can target that lord /cryptek and replenish the warriors?

if thats the case, the ark just got a TON better for me....and suddenly warriors also got a bit better

DarthSpader wrote:so if i attach a cryptek and lord to a squad of warriors, and all the warriors die, an ark can target that lord /cryptek and replenish the warriors?

if thats the case, the ark just got a TON better for me....and suddenly warriors also got a bit better

Yes, exactly.

Ok, so... is the consensus then that tank shock splatter = really dead?
Also, it was his overlord with res-orb if it matters at all.

It boils down to if your group plays RFP=RFPaaC (see St. Celestine FAQ for clarity) or not. If you play that it does, then he would get to come back via EL. Otherwise, he would not.

Yeah. Despite the flurry of posts agreeing that he's not allowed to use EL, it's not at all clear that's the case. And the St. Celestine FAQ weakens the case for RFP and RFPaaC being separate things. So the OP's opponent who was insisting he got his roll is very possibly correct. This whole thing is also wrapped up in the whole Sweeping Advance/EL question, they're essentially the same issue. At this point I wouldn't suggest getting emotionally involved until after we see what 6th Ed. changes in this area.

Actually, that's pretty much the case for all rules questions at this point - it's a coin flip that any single rules question is going to be impacted by the new rules, and I'd guess more like 90% that any rules question will at least be tangentially affected by the new rules. So, <shrug>

St Celestine has nothing to do with this. The FAQ specifically allows her to come back from "Remove from Play", which implies that normally you cannot.

The Tank Shock rules are quite clear that there is no way to stay alive.

Assume that Happyjew and I've read all the rules and all the threads on this, Grey. There is no clearly defined distinction between "Removed from Play" and "Removed from Play as a Casualty". The two phrases are not defined, and there is no clear indication that GW doesn't use them interterchangeably. You're asserting that St. Celestine's FAQ indicates an exception to this non-existent distinction. I'm asserting that there is no clear distinction, and that the FAQ reinforces the fact that a model "Removed from Play" can, indeed, return via EL or St. Celestine's similar rule.

The Tank Shock rules are quite clear that there is no way to stay alive. Unfortunately for your argument, EL doesn't deal with "staying alive" - it deals with coming back after being killed.

We don't need to get into another RFP vs RFPaaC thread 11 days before the new edition.

IMO that necron lord has been ground to dust by ur tank, so i dont see how reanimation protocools can fix that

rigeld2 wrote:We don't need to get into another RFP vs RFPaaC thread 11 days before the new edition.

We certainly do not. That was also my point - it's very likely that they've seen enough controversy over the RFP/RFPaaC issue that they'll choose to rewrite it more clearly. Likewise, I think tanks are a bit underpowered - our armor spam issues are more transport than heavy support, so it's also possible they'll modify the Tank Shock rules. Regardless, they're likely to rewrite *something* that'll make any effort expended now superfluous.

All I'm saying is that it is (was?) an ambiguous area, so if one gentleman at a FLGS is trying to play it one way and the question is whether he's a legal leg to stand on, currently the answer to that is clearly "yes, he does".

Except DoG never mentions RfPaaC - just "removed"

EL / RP do not work against "Removed", just "Removed as a Casualty". DoG also mention there is no way to survive failure - if the Lord / Overlord comes back he has certainly survived...

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except DoG never mentions RfPaaC - just "removed"

EL / RP do not work against "Removed", just "Removed as a Casualty". DoG also mention there is no way to survive failure - if the Lord / Overlord comes back he has certainly survived...

The horse is long dead, quit beating it.

jwolf wrote:The horse is long dead, quit beating it.

LOL, yeah, this is old hat, there's no "heat" anymore. Hey, nos, how's it going.

Y'know, you're lucky, the timing lays out so that this upcoming weekend is probably the most stable in terms of general rules understanding we'll see in awhile. Everyone either agrees on interpretation of codex and BRB stuffs, or at least understands the gray areas. In a month it'll be like - "no, I don't think you can do that... wait... oh, what the hell?"

Necrons and the new Flyers are the only things that have any real rules twists to them, and I think we're set for those calls. Part of me wishes we were 6 weeks later so that we could have 6th Edition and all the fun of screwing it up - there is something exciting about breaking new ground. But we're looking at a good turnout and a great venue (even if I don't get the shot girls from the hotel), so it's party time.

jwolf - Wish I was going. Have fun.

There are two issues here . First the "any clever ways of staying alive" refers to the lord dying in the first place , which is hard to argue that he is not dead. Second is can he then use a special rule to see if he gets back up. Im leaning towards he can since how is getting hit by a tank worse then a super laser that can blow up that same tank? The whole idea of Necrons,Yarick,Thrawn,bionics and anything else that comes back is coming back from"death"

Wouldn't work for Yarrick, he has to actually lose his last wound.

RAW (currently) the only one who can definitely come back with no argument whatsoever is St Celestine. Of course, she can also be squig-ified multiple times over because of this.

OK... lets simplify this since people are having difficulty understanding the chain of events, lets start from the beginning...

Vehicle tank shocked unit... unit passes leadership and makes a death or glory with the lord... the lord dies in the process... under these conditions he has followed the rules for death or glory and is declared dead, hence "Death" or glory... because he died, and you can look at the codex on this one, the model is removed from play, and is replaced with a counter to represent either the reanimation protocol or ever-living rule... the rules are still being followed... at the end of the phase, that lord will test for ever-living and if a 5 is rolled, he is returned to play...

its not that difficult... if he can be smashed by powerfist, shot with a lascannon/missile, melta'd even, he can get beck up from being run over... period.

I agree but I'm partisan - it's really best to clear this before starting a game. Let's wait a couple weeks.

Also, while I like the idea of a herd of little green gobblies bouncing around going, "me, me, I'm the real St. Celestine!" that one's also debatable.

WarlordRob117 wrote:OK... lets simplify this since people are having difficulty understanding the chain of events, lets start from the beginning...

Vehicle tank shocked unit... unit passes leadership and makes a death or glory with the lord... the lord dies in the process... under these conditions he has followed the rules for death or glory and is declared dead, hence "Death" or glory... because he died, and you can look at the codex on this one, the model is removed from play, and is replaced with a counter to represent either the reanimation protocol or ever-living rule... the rules are still being followed... at the end of the phase, that lord will test for ever-living and if a 5 is rolled, he is returned to play...

its not that difficult... if he can be smashed by powerfist, shot with a lascannon/missile, melta'd even, he can get beck up from being run over... period.

And that is where the issue lies (for about another week at least). Does RFP = RFPaaC? If they do, then Randall's position (and yours) is correct. If they do not, however, as rigeld, nos and I believe, then you would not be able to come back. Hence the reason, I claimed it depends on how your group plays.

[quote=WarlordRob117

Ghaz wrote:[quote=WarlordRob117

under these conditions he has followed the rules for death or glory and is declared dead, hence "Death" or glory..

Yeah, that's never been thought of. You're bringing a newperspective to an argument that's persisted as long as We'll Be Back and it's ilk have been around.

You don't have to be removed from play as a casualty to be a casualty for morale purposes. Nice try though!