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.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

No. Casualties is the loss of 25% of the models in the unit. So every time the rules tell you to RFPaaC, you must remove 25% or more of the models in the unit.

I don't understand what you are talking about.

You're asserting that that rule defines casualties. If that's the case then every RFPaaC would force that morale check.

Read the Morale paragraph before that passage. It gives you the "common reasons" for a morale check. So one reason is having casualties. And the amount of casualties is defined as 25% losses. So casualties=losses.

I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

Again the reasoning is that the space wolves FAQ specifically designates The Last Laugh as the ALLOWANCE for necrons or st.celestine to be able to come back into play.

Had this not been in the FAQ I would've been inclined to agree that you CAN use ever-living/reanimation to recover from JotWW or The Last Laugh.

So the question is why would they make a clear DISTINCTION between them, a VERY specific distinction about what ability from the codex space wolves allows necrons or st.celestine to come back into play, if every other ability allows it anyway? Why would they not include JotWW in this, considering the FAQ covered it extensively!

So let's look at the wording on BOTH of these and see where they differentiate

1. The Last Laugh = "Should Lukas ever be removed from play....all models in base contact with him are also removed from play as casualties..."

2. Jaws of the World Wolf - "If a model fails this test, it is removed from play"

My opinion is that there is a difference between removed from play as a casualty and removed from play, the same way that there's a difference between a leadership check and a morale check.

Removed from play is to Removed from play as a casualty
as
Leadership check is to Morale check

Meaning removed from play is the bigger branch. The fact that Lukas ability itself activates not when he's removed from play as a casualty, but when he's removed from play period, signals that it is a stronger effect specially when within his same rule it then uses 'removed from play as a casualty' for whatever was in base contact with him at the time.

Both terms are used within 1 rule this is important to note.

The FAQ was created to note that necrons and st.celestine are allowed to return from THIS ability in particular setting a precedent that they can come back from 'removed from play as a casualty', but they can't return from being turned into another model after being removed from play, as in the case of a Chaos Spawn.

However notice that if RFP and RaaC are identical, then if Lukas were to be turned into a Chaos Spawn his ability would NOT be activated according to this logic. Because you are basically saying that Chaos Spawn bypasses these rules.

So RFP and RaaC must mean different things, if we consider that RFP is the higher of the two then everything makes perfect sense. Turning Lukas into a Chaos Spawn triggers his effect as normal.

Any case that's my opinion in all this.

I consider removed from play to be akin to doing something so horrible to the target that it is gone period. Every effect that states REMOVED FROM PLAY is described as being on some next level gak. A sort of ultimate attack.

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

My opinion is that there is a difference between removed from play as a casualty and removed from play, the same way that there's a difference between a leadership check and a morale check.

Removed from play is to Removed from play as a casualty
as
Leadership check is to Morale check

Meaning removed from play is the bigger branch. The fact that Lukas ability itself activates not when he's removed from play as a casualty, but when he's removed from play period, signals that it is a stronger effect specially when within his same rule it then uses 'removed from play as a casualty' for whatever was in base contact with him at the time.

Both terms are used within 1 rule this is important to note.

There is no rule, no faq or even a hint of a rule of what you are saying is true. As rigeld2 has admitted the only argument the "against" side has is different words. That's it. And mind that the absence of a FAQ doesn't mean anything at all.

The "pro" side has a BRB rule that equates all losses to casualties and a FAQ of a different army that creates a precedent. Personally I believe the author of these 2 codices that have RFP effects was just lazy or forgot to edit them. And yes it happens. The Necron codex has a half working wargear that the author forgot to edit.

#1 yes

#2 no

Source: Necrons are OP

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

First of all D-Lords are jump infantry and can't be hit by Jaws anyway.

bagtagger wrote:

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

First of all D-Lords are jump infantry and can't be hit by Jaws anyway.

No such thing as Jump Infantry in 6th IIRC

There is, there are jump monsterous creatures, jump infantry. Jump is now a type that gets added on to the original unit type

bagtagger wrote:

 Akaiyou wrote:
I agree with rigeld2 in general and think he has made good points and counter points to what some of you are saying.

Still i think the strongest argument is what I noted in the initial post.

Mind you I've been a necron player for years now, and just recently started and played my first game as a space wolves player. Which is the topic of discussion since I zapped my friend's destroyer lord with JotWW and from my own point of view there's no coming back from that.

First of all D-Lords are jump infantry and can't be hit by Jaws anyway.

Untrue.

Pg 47. Jurnp units are equipped with jump packs, wings, teleport devices or other means of rnoving quickly ovet short distances. Unlike most other unit type categories, '|ump' is not a classification in and of itself. Instead, you'll find it occurs before another category - comrnonly Infantry, sometimes Monsfrous Creatures and perhaps, rarely, other things. Jump units therefore share two sets of rules, the Jump unit rules, and those of their base type. Jump Infantrywould, for example, follow the rules for Jump units and Infantry.

bagtagger wrote:
There is, there are jump monsterous creatures, jump infantry. Jump is now a type that gets added on to the original unit type

Those are 5th ed classifications.

copper.talos wrote:
There is no rule, no faq or even a hint of a rule of what you are saying is true. As rigeld2 has admitted the only argument the "against" side has is different words. That's it. And mind that the absence of a FAQ doesn't mean anything at all.

You say that like different words having different meanings isn't enough of a difference. I'm curious as to why you say that.
And a lack of an FAQ could be an implication - Last Laugh was clarified even though it RFPaaC. Jaws wasn't touched.

The "pro" side has a BRB rule that equates all losses to casualties and a FAQ of a different army that creates a precedent. Personally I believe the author of these 2 codices that have RFP effects was just lazy or forgot to edit them. And yes it happens. The Necron codex has a half working wargear that the author forgot to edit.

That BRB rule doesn't do what you think it does. And that FAQ doesn't set a precedent.

Which wargear is that again?

It's the spyder fabricator claw. It gives a CCW which does nothing.

rigeld2 wrote:

That BRB rule doesn't do what you think it does. And that FAQ doesn't set a precedent.

While these may not be 100% on target (otherwise we wouldn't have this conversation time and time again) these are the only cases which you could look into for guidance on how to handle the issue. And both cases are on the RFP=RFPaaC side. The against side hasn't even this. And I can think of 1-2 rules that have different names/use different words but have the same effect. Even smoke launchers or searchlights was written differently from codex to codex. So different words doesn't necessarily mean a different effect.

copper.talos wrote:
It's the spyder fabricator claw. It gives a CCW which does nothing.

So you're assuming it's broken? And that the author "forgot" to edit it?
And it does more than just provide a CCW. Or am I misreading page 46 of the Necron codex?

rigeld2 wrote:
And I can think of 1-2 rules that have different names/use different words but have the same effect. Even smoke launchers or searchlights was differently from codex to codex and yet it was the same effect.

And those rules are defined. RFP isn't defined (as a casualty or not) that I know of. Since the rules don't define it we have to use normal English definitions. By any normal English definition Phrase A has a different meaning than Phrase B.

Did I say it was broken? Can't you make a proper argument without twisting words? I said it it is a half working wargear. And it is exactly that. It has 2 effects with only one working, and that's because it wasn't edited. Even Yakface told so in an older thread. He was in the test team for an earlier version of the Necron codex and the extra CCW was useful. But then the codex changed and the extra CCW doesn't have any use at all. But it's there. So yes an author may forget to edit a few things, it happens.

And as you said RFP is never defined. And yet all other rules are defined. Why? Rules require definition or they stop being rules. Divining the intent of a phrase to make a new rule just because it uses different words isn't enough.

In the end only 2 cases exist that touch the matter in BRB and FAQs, and both say that RFP=RFPaaC.

copper.talos wrote:
Did I say it was broken? Can't you make a proper argument without twisting words? I said it it is a half working wargear. And it is exactly that. It has 2 effects with only one working, and that's because it wasn't edited. Even Yakface told so in an older thread. He was in the test team for an earlier version of the Necron codex and the extra CCW was useful. But then the codex changed and the extra CCW doesn't have any use at all. But it's there. So yes an author may forget to edit a few things, it happens.

I wasn't trying to twist words - you're asserting that it was forgotten and that it's half working - not working correctly == broken.
It has 2 effects, one of which is meaningless. I'm not sure what's wrong with that. Perhaps after Yakface helped with the testing they decided to change the function of the wargear.
In other words, this assertion that the author forgot is unfounded in my opinion.

And as you said RFP is never defined. And yet all other rules are defined.

Can you help me out here - where is RFPaaC defined?

Why? Rules require definition or they stop being rules. Divining the intent of a phrase to make a new rule just because it uses different words isn't enough.

So every word/phrase in the rulebook that is used as rules has a rules definition?

In the end only 2 cases exist that touch the matter in BRB and FAQs, and both say that RFP=RFPaaC.

For the former, that's not true - and for the latter it's very specifically only for one model. Please stop asserting that it's relevant.

I said half working. Should I repeat it again? It has two effects, only one works.And as yakface told in the older version of the codex both effects worked. In the final version only one works. The extra CCW even got a FAQ to make it 100% sure it won't do anything. It's just a mistake that noone remembered to edit. It happens. Most books have similar mistakes.

And RFPaaC as a term is not defined. Casualties on the other hand are described as the losses of a unit, which, guess what, it's what the english language says so too. Is there anything in any codex, BRB or FAQ that defines RFP? NO. Since only casualties are described in BRB and even in plain English casualties are all kinds of losses in a battle, is there even a hint of how RFP models should not be as casualties? NO.

PS The SoB may involve the St Celestine but it is the only ruling in existance in the RFP vs RFPaaC issue. And the ruling is RFP=RFPaaC. FAQs from other armies do create a precedent for other armies. You have said it your self in other threads too. You just forget it when this issue comes up.

copper.talos wrote:
I said half working. Should I repeat it again? It has two effects, only one works.And as yakface told in the older version of the codex both effects worked. In the final version only one works. The extra CCW even got a FAQ to make it 100% sure it won't do anything. It's just a mistake that noone remembered to edit. It happens. Most books have similar mistakes.

That's not true - it being a CCW works fine. It just doesn't have a purpose. I don't know why you're asserting it's a mistake.

And RFPaaC as a term is not defined. Casualties on the other hand are described as the losses of a unit, which, guess what, it's what the english language says so too. Is there anything in any codex, BRB or FAQ that defines RFP? NO. Since only casualties are described in BRB and even in plain English casualties are all kinds of losses in a battle, is there even a hint of how RFP models should not be as casualties? NO.

Oh, so the statement you made that " And yet all other rules are defined." wasn't true? I just want to clarify that.
Casualties are defined as losing 25% of the models in a unit according to you. So if I force 1 model to be removed as a casualty am I forcing you to remove 25% of the unit?
You can't take that as an absolute definition and use part of the rule to define it. It's all or nothing.

And I'm curious - when I attempt to use plain English to define the difference, you say I can't because the rules are defined. When you say the rules aren't defined so use plain English, somehow it's okay?

PS The SoB may involve the St Celestine but it is the only ruling in existance in the RFP vs RFPaaC issue. And the ruling is RFP=RFPaaC. FAQs from other armies do create a precedent for other armies. You have said it your self in other threads too. You just forget it when this issue comes up.

No - I don't forget. If the FAQ is worded loosely you can use it for precedent.
The St. C. FAQ isn't worded loosely at all - it's very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer.

If it was "Do rules that say to remove a model from play trigger rules that work when a model is removed from play as a casualty - for example, Miraculous Intervention on St. Celestine? Yes." I'd absolutely agree that it would set a precedent.

A question to Rigeld2:

If a model is Removed From Play, does the unit count it towards casualties for that phase?

As a real world question, since we're talking about the English language, if a newspaper or television station were to report these two headlines, are they really different?

A: Man was shot with gun, died as a casualty of his wounds.

B: Man shot with gun, dead.

Both intimate, in our game terms and the English language, that the man was "removed from play", one author just elaborated further, figureatively expressing that he was a casualty. People who die in wartime are all casualties of something, even if it is instant death from a mortar, rocket attack or a large bomb. Because casualty is a term by which the military expresses the losses that we have taken. I view the argument here to be more of a rules lawyering debate where the poorly thought out wording of a writer is being dissected down to what things mean in the english language. Unfortunately, such is the standard fare we receive from GW.

Salacious Greed wrote:
A question to Rigeld2:

If a model is Removed From Play, does the unit count it towards casualties for that phase?

Since the "Casualties" section does not specify RFP or RFPaaC, it would count both - the unit suffered losses.
I've already said why you cannot use the Casualties section of the Morale rules to define the C in RFPaaC.

As a real world question, since we're talking about the English language, if a newspaper or television station were to report these two headlines, are they really different?

I'mma let you finish, but...

This isn't the real world. This is sentences in a rule book. Context matters.

A: Man was shot with gun, died as a casualty of his wounds.

B: Man shot with gun, dead.

They can mean different things. Man was shot with gun in his big toe - he was then run over by a bus. Losing his toe hurt a lot but he would have lived if it wasn't for the damn bus. Asserting that they must mean the same thing is simply not correct.

rigeld2 wrote:

And I'm curious - when I attempt to use plain English to define the difference, you say I can't because the rules are defined. When you say the rules aren't defined so use plain English, somehow it's okay?

BRB describes casualties as the losses of a unit. So models that "die" are removed from play as casualties. If you advocate that RFP victims are not casualties, that means they are an exception, then you must base it on an existing rule that describes the exception ie do models that die from RFP trigger a morale check? There is absolutely nothing. You tried using just the English language to point that RFP models are not casualties, but as I said even in plain english they would be considered casualties.

rigeld2 wrote:

No - I don't forget. If the FAQ is worded loosely you can use it for precedent. The St. C. FAQ isn't worded loosely at all - it's very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer.

The Baal Predator-smoke launcher is also very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer. And yet all other vehicles can use it too. The St Celestine-RFP is the same case.

Salacious Greed wrote:
A question to Rigeld2:

If a model is Removed From Play, does the unit count it towards casualties for that phase?

As a real world question, since we're talking about the English language, if a newspaper or television station were to report these two headlines, are they really different?

A: Man was shot with gun, died as a casualty of his wounds.

B: Man shot with gun, dead.

Both intimate, in our game terms and the English language, that the man was "removed from play", one author just elaborated further, figureatively expressing that he was a casualty. People who die in wartime are all casualties of something, even if it is instant death from a mortar, rocket attack or a large bomb. Because casualty is a term by which the military expresses the losses that we have taken. I view the argument here to be more of a rules lawyering debate where the poorly thought out wording of a writer is being dissected down to what things mean in the english language. Unfortunately, such is the standard fare we receive from GW.

I'll do you a better one because we all know there's no such thing as B..it would typically read 'man shot AND killed with gun" in real world news.

A: Man shot and mortally wounded, dies on way to hospital.

B: Man shot and killed.

However the debate is not in A or B, the debate here is on C

C: Man struck by lightning and disappears, presumed dead.

The fact is REMOVED FROM PLAY does not = KILLED. It is simply removed. Most (if not all) of the removed from play effects aren't your run of the mill kills, they sent enemies packing to another dimension, obliterate them in some spectacular way or just do something else really nasty from where they shouldn't be able to just rebuild themselves from.

If it doesn't state that it is a casualty then we would be wrong to assume that it is.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And I'm curious - when I attempt to use plain English to define the difference, you say I can't because the rules are defined. When you say the rules aren't defined so use plain English, somehow it's okay?

BRB describes casualties as the losses of a unit.

False. It defines one of the ways to cause a Morale test. You're trying to take a specific definition and apply it generally.
And you've failed to address the fact that trying to use that as a definition would mean that "RFPaaC" means you "RFPaa 25% loss to your unit".

that means they are an exception, then you must base it on an existing rule that describes the exception ie do models that die from RFP trigger a morale check? There is absolutely nothing. You tried using just the English language to point that RFP models are not casualties, but as I said even in plain english they would be considered casualties.

For the purposes of morale yes - because that rule cites losses, not simply casualties.
In plain English the two phrases are different. They cannot be considered to mean the same thing.

rigeld2 wrote:

No - I don't forget. If the FAQ is worded loosely you can use it for precedent. The St. C. FAQ isn't worded loosely at all - it's very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer.

The Baal Predator-smoke launcher is also very explicitly limited to a single model with an absolute answer. And yet all other vehicles can use it too. The St Celestine-RFP is the same case.

And for the Baal Predator applying elsewhere I admitted that it was not RAW that it applied. I said that it demonstrated probable intent.
You've refused to consider that your making an argument for intent, so I haven't been addressing that. If you'd like to discuss intent we can.

All losses are casualties. Are victims of jotWW considered losses? Yes.
If the victims-models are 25% of the unit will they trigger a casualties morale check? Yes.

Removed from play models are considered casualties. And don't forget that SoB FAQ.

I was going to make the statement that perhaps people on YMDC like reading into things but that would be a silly claim to make...

This reminds me of a similar discussion as to whether Necron Lords can get back up after failing to stop a tank that attempted a tank shock... which they do btw

 Akaiyou wrote:

The fact is REMOVED FROM PLAY does not = KILLED. It is simply removed. Most (if not all) of the removed from play effects aren't your run of the mill kills, they sent enemies packing to another dimension, obliterate them in some spectacular way or just do something else really nasty from where they shouldn't be able to just rebuild themselves from.

If it doesn't state that it is a casualty then we would be wrong to assume that it is.

Sorry, but if we're bringing fluffy-ness into this then we're going way off track. Though I don't know the page numbers or anything, I know in the past that GW has described in their books that "not all casualties are dead models, some are simply rendered combat ineffective." obviously I'm paraphrasing, but put into an example where models that run off the board, while not dead, are "removed from play as casualties" as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
I was going to make the statement that perhaps people on YMDC like reading into things but that would be a silly claim to make...

This reminds me of a similar discussion as to whether Necron Lords can get back up after failing to stop a tank that attempted a tank shock... which they do btw

?? No, they wouldn't, as the death or glory rule does specifically say "the model is removed, regardless of wounds, saves, or any other clever way of staying alive they can think of."

In context of THIS debate, note the rule says "Model is Removed" and does not say "From Play" or "As a casualty".

Though this could bring up a good debate on whether failed DoG grants first blood or not.

copper.talos wrote:
All losses are casualties for the purposes of morale. Are victims of jotWW considered losses in that context? Yes.

Fixed that for you. Ignoring context is a bad idea.

Removed from play models are considered casualties. And don't forget that SoB FAQ.

So you're arguing intent now?

rigeld2 wrote:

And for the Baal Predator applying elsewhere I admitted that it was not RAW that it applied. I said that it demonstrated probable intent.

This is a rules forum, we discuss questions about rules. Most of the times those questions do not have a 100% RAW answer so we should try to give an answer as fair as possible.
The question is can baal use the smoke launchers when doing a scout move. It's a valid question, it made it to the FAQ didn't it? We have an answer. Now it is only logical that the same valid question may come up in a game with another vehicle. But in this case there is no FAQ. One can either stop the game and stop playing against armies that don't have all the issues faqed or try to find a fair answer. So we use the Baal FAQ.

Same thing applies to the St Celestine FAQ. The same question may come up with Necrons. There is no 100% RAW answer, but to be fair one can use the SoB FAQ. If tomorrow the SoB FAQ changes to "No", then I would still say to use the St Celestine FAQ for Necrons.

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

And for the Baal Predator applying elsewhere I admitted that it was not RAW that it applied. I said that it demonstrated probable intent.

This is a rules forum, we discuss questions about rules. Most of the times those questions do not have a 100% RAW answer so we should try to give an answer as fair as possible.
The question is can baal use the smoke launchers when doing a scout move. It's a valid question, it made it to the FAQ didn't it? We have an answer. Now it is only logical that the same valid question may come up in a game with another vehicle. But in this case there is no FAQ. One can either stop the game and stop playing against armies that don't have all the issues faqed or try to find a fair answer. So we use the Baal FAQ.

Before the FAQ, it was absolutely RAW that the Baal Pred could use smoke launchers during the scout move. Saying that the game would stop without that FAQ is incorrect.

Same thing applies to the St Celestine FAQ. The same question may come up with Necrons. There is no 100% RAW answer, but to be fair one can use the SoB FAQ. If tomorrow the SoB FAQ changes to "No", then I would still say to use the St Celestine FAQ for Necrons.

Right, so you're arguing to demonstrate intent then. No problem - it's just a good idea to make that clear.

Yes - I can agree that based on the St. C FAQ and other indicators, the intent is probable that GW equates the terms.

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - I can agree that based on the St. C FAQ and other indicators, the intent is probable that GW equates the terms.

Nice to have an agreement. My fingers were getting tired from all this typing

copper.talos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Yes - I can agree that based on the St. C FAQ and other indicators, the intent is probable that GW equates the terms.

Nice to have an agreement. My fingers were getting tired from all this typing

Just remember the bolded section - without an FAQ/errata it's not RAW.