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.

Trazyn is a replacement effect. Essentialy you replace one model for Trazyn.

@happyjew noone in his right mind, let alone TOs, would think Eldar psykers can't cast any ability when embarked. It's just a botched faq and everybody knows it.

copper.talos wrote:
Trazyn is a replacement effect. Essentialy you replace one model for Trazyn.

That and there is an FAQ for necrons and replacement.

Is that a refusal to answer the question Liturgies? Are models removed by Jaws casualties? Do they give up victory points?

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:
Because IMHO a single question is not enough to set a precedent. If you had multiple questions backing your position then I would say you have a precedent. A single question could just as easily be the exception to the rule as it is a precedent.

True but there is nothing else that gives us information in either direction. So how would you play? That removed as casualty = removed from play or that removed as casualty =/= removed from play (and all the issues that causes re VPs)

One reading follows the only precedent and causes no other problems the other reading goes against the only precedent and causes all sorts of other issues in the rules...

There's no issues regarding VP's on this subject.

Slay the warlord - If the warlord has been slain.

First blood - In the extended rules for this one it simply says "if the unit destroyed was..."

If you look at the conditions per mission, from what I see they all just say "destroyed".

Yep, that faq tells us what to do when a replacement happens. Nothing to do with removed from play/casualties issue.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Is that a refusal to answer the question Liturgies? Are models removed by Jaws casualties? Do they give up victory points?

No that is me giving you the answer without quoting you the CLEAR wording of the rules. Call it a reading exercise.

VP's are easy, was the model on the board at the end of the game? No so it gets VPs.

copper.talos wrote:
Trazyn is a replacement effect. Essentialy you replace one model for Trazyn.

@happyjew noone in his right mind, let alone TOs, would think Eldar psykers can't cast any ability when embarked. It's just a botched faq and everybody knows it.

Yes, I understand that, but yakface wanted an instance where RFPaaC was ruled to not allow a rule that triggers on RFPaaC. I provided said item. Also, sweeping advance is another situation that RFPaaC but disallows rules triggering on RFPaaC.

Regarding trazyn, there was obviously enough contention on the point to warrant an FAQ insert about it. Also, I've yet to really see "replacement effect" explained anywhere. Yes, I know what you're talking about, but that's not a functional rule set in the game.

I guess a good way to figure it out would be to apply eternal Warrior to a characteristics tests. The eternal warrior rules states,

BRB pg. 35 wrote:A model with this special rule is immune to the effects of Instant Death.

And here's Instant Death:

BRB pg. 16 wrote:If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced to 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty.

And Finally Jaws of the World Wolf:

Codex Space Wolves wrote:As a psychic shooting attack, the Rune Priest may trace a straight line along the board, starting from the Rune Priest and ending 24″ away. This line may pass through terrain. Monstrous creatures, beasts, cavalry, bikes and infantry models that are touched by this line must take an Initiative test (see Characteristic Tests in the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook). If the model fails the test, it is removed from play. Monstrous creatures may subtract one from their dice roll due to their tremendous size and strength, though remember that the roll of a 6 is always a failure

So now to my suggestion, would Eternal Warrior protect your necrons from the initative test from JOTWW if every model had eternal warrioir? If the answer is no, then no re-animation protocals. If yes, then roll for re-animation.

I believe he wants an instance where RFP victims are treated differently from RFPaaC victims. That's what I get from his post.

Replacement effects are a whole different issue, that got a faq to end any misunderstandings.

@ace101 you got things wrong. EW warrior protects you from just instant death, not any ability that removes models as a casualty. So wargear/abilities such as Time Arrow of the Ctan and a Tessaract Labyrinth can work against Eternal Warriors.

Does Anval Thawn of the GKs have anything in his rules or FAQ to help this arguement? ATM we just let the bigger baby have his way so we can have the game moving again.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Is that a refusal to answer the question Liturgies? Are models removed by Jaws casualties? Do they give up victory points?

No that is me giving you the answer without quoting you the CLEAR wording of the rules.

VP's are easy, was the model on the board at the end of the game? No so it gets VPs.

That's not how the rules work though. VPs require you to be destroyed. You're saying the models are not casualties and therefore are not destroyed simply removed from the game. Thus they do not give up victory points if not casualties.

You're still avoiding the question though. As for the Jaws rules answering the question that is what we're debating it says says removed from play. Do you read all models that are removed from play are
destroyed (and are therefore casualties through the magic of English). Or do believe that they are not destroyed and are not casualties?

They are slain or destroyed or whatever RFP is.

The rule doesn't say RFPaaC, they have had so very many opportunities to change that but hey don't let that fact get in the way of what is written down.

Maybe they don't think it's worth changing. Do you see a FAQ for all the vehicles that can scout and have smoke launchers?

copper.talos wrote:
Maybe they don't think there is worth changing. Do you see a FAQ for all the vehicles that can scout and have smoke launchers?

Well they do have one :p

Q:Can a Baal Predator use smoke launchers during its Scout
move? (p36)
A: No.

@Fling it now.
There are no rules for VP's in the BRB anymore, the brb uses VP's to define the points you get from winning objectives. Not since 4th ed iirc. How VP's are calculated is defined by your TO, usually by what's not on the board.

Yep, and they got plenty of opportunities since 5th to make faqs for everything else but they didn't. This doesn't change the fact that this faq creates a precedent for all other vehicles.

Same with the Celestine faq and all other models that can return to play after they get removed as a casualty.

I'm not sure that it is a fact that it is a precedent, it is an opinion, one I can understand but not one I agree with.
As I said the saint allows her out of being a squig, necrons have to eat squiggy death. That is why your precedent is no longer relevant in my opinion as precedents change.

Actually liturgies VPs are very much part of this edition. Units can give up VPs for being destroyed in numerous circumstances. I think you should check your rulebook for how the EW missions work now.

Destroyed means they are casualties so you've just conceded your argument by admitting Jaws destroys the models. Thank you for conceding the point.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Actually liturgies VPs are very much part of this edition. Units can give up VPs for being destroyed in numerous circumstances. I think you should check your rulebook for how the EW missions work now.

Destroyed means they are casualties so you've just conceded your argument by admitting Jaws destroys the models. Thank you for conceding the point.

Sorry I was under the assumption you meant VPs like in tournaments, like in 3rd and 4th ed rulebooks. THat thing where you total up the points left of your army at the end to see who killed more.
And to anwer this, what is slain? Cos any definition of that should probably include removed from play. I do think that a jaws'ed warlord is slain and that if half of a unit is jaws'ed and the rest are killed by normal shooting and assault then that unit would count for first blood.

Where is the faq about StCelestine and squigs?

PS any definition of casualties means all losses in a battle, no matter how those losses occurred.

Well everyone says she gets to come back from that, there was a 15 page thread on it here that concluded she could. I cannot find her rules but as everyone says her rules let her come back from anything that must hold true?

Now having said that I do see that you posted that you think the necron codex gives precedent for her to be replaced.

But no FAQ though. So there is an official faq about how you treat a model after is being removed as a casualty and you disagree to use it as a precedent because there was a 15 page argument on Dakka about St Celestine and squigs...

Oh well, I've heard worse arguments in YDMC, but still it's not convincing at all...

copper.talos wrote:


PS any definition of casualties means all losses in a battle, no matter how those losses occurred.

Off topic: What about POW's and deserters, are they casualties? Does MIA mean much more than a casualty we cannot give a good answer for?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
But no FAQ though. So there is an official faq about how you treat a model after is being removed as a casualty and you disagree to use it as a precedent because there was a 15 page argument on Dakka about St Celestine and squigs...

Oh well, I've heard worse arguments in YDMC, but still it's not convincing at all...

Well actually it was because the rules for zogwart or the old become a spawn chaos power said "removed". That was why everyone was up in arms that she could comeback.
I think precedent is used too frequently too justify a stance on here. Sometimes a squig is just a squig and sometimes it was your necron lord, it is very very hard to gauge what Faq's cross codices. I think that there are enough of a difference between necrons and celestine that you can justify treating them differently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Actually liturgies VPs are very much part of this edition. Units can give up VPs for being destroyed in numerous circumstances. I think you should check your rulebook for how the EW missions work now.

Destroyed means they are casualties so you've just conceded your argument by admitting Jaws destroys the models. Thank you for conceding the point.

So if destroyed = rfpaac how come they don't say that? You fall back off the board you are rpfaac but I cannot RP or EL. You get trapped while falling back you are destroyed, do you get RP or EL in that case.
Models not on the board at the end get destroyed then, like in ongoing reserves will they get RP or EL?

Are they casualties then and there or casualties at the end of the game? If so can I have a page number to justify that stance? Destroyed and casualties don't seem to be the same thing as GW uses them in the rules.

there's some very good points here.


But i still say that you can't get two seperate Faq's especially were one specifically mentions a specific special rule (R.P agianst L.L) and say that it is a presedence against another Faq that doesn't mention JOTWW,L.L or R.P, not only that but there is only this one case (that i can find) which means that
St C's rule could be the exception not the norm.

copper.talos wrote:
@happyjew noone in his right mind, let alone TOs, would think Eldar psykers can't cast any ability when embarked. It's just a botched faq and everybody knows it.

So some FAQs are rules and some are not?
Was the SitW FAQ a botched one? Before or after they reversed it?
Why is the St. C. FAQ not a "botched faq"?

Just to point out, the Sweeping Advance rules specify that models are removed as casualties and do not allow Reanimation Protocols.

So yes, it is possible for a Necron model to get removed as a casualty and not get Reanimation Protocols.

In the instance where someone wanted to claim that Removed from play did not award victory points I would kindly respond that SAG box cars, JOTWW, and Vortex grenades merely put the unit into ongoing reserves that they cannot return from.

To which if you don't return from ongoing reserves you get victory points for it as if it were destroyed. I know it doesnt directly say this, and it might be a smidge off topic, but I figure it might add some food for thought.

On Necrons and JOTWW, I would treat it as a 12 on a SAG. The only reasoning is that the style of the spell would make it to where it swallows things into the world. I would also view St. C's rules as specific to her because she is a named character.
The result is the same for the two, you get sucked off the board.

The only precedent set by St. Celestine is that a model must have a rule that specifically overrides removed from play. Miraculous intervention does just that. We see that in the case of Lukas and Last Laugh that MI and RP/EL go out of there way to specifically negate the removed from play from Last Laugh.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The only precedent set by St. Celestine is that a model must have a rule that specifically overrides removed from play. Miraculous intervention does just that. We see that in the case of Lukas and Last Laugh that MI and RP/EL go out of there way to specifically negate the removed from play from Last Laugh.

Last Laugh is a bad example as it RFPaaC (assuming a difference between RFPaaC and RFP).

 Happyjew wrote:
Well, if we are using a single question as precedent, then that means an embarked psyker cannot cast powers that do not require LOS, as set by the Eldar FAQ.

"Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No."

You are correct, if said psyker is an Eldar psyker using Farseer powers. It's quite specific there, no other codex that I'm aware of is an Eldar psyker which uses Farseer powers.

Iranna.

 Iranna wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Well, if we are using a single question as precedent, then that means an embarked psyker cannot cast powers that do not require LOS, as set by the Eldar FAQ.

"Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No."

You are correct, if said psyker is an Eldar psyker using Farseer powers. It's quite specific there, no other codex that I'm aware of is an Eldar psyker which uses Farseer powers.

Iranna.

Right, it sets a precedent that psychic powers that do not require LoS cannot be used by an embarked psyker.

Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention special rule
against attacks that remove models from play? (White Dwarf, August
2011, Page 103)
A: Yes.

And no other codex I'm aware of has the Miraculous Intervention special rule.