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.

 Actinium wrote:
Even taking historical precedents into account you still have the new canoptek spyder scarab hive rule which returns swarms to a unit up to starting strength with no mention of 1 wound or full wounds, the same as RP, and spyders have never created anything but full wound scarab bases.
They have never once forgotten to mention the 1 wound stipulation in the 15 years they have had the rule across 5 editions, and continue to use it for other models with resurrection rules like apothecaries. They omitted it now with clear purpose.

False, as has been shown in this thread numerous times.

The status quo of this thread still hasn't changed.

Charistoph still has yet to present a valid argument. His current argument breaks all the Core Rules and is dismissed as absurd.

Orknado still has a valid argument with Rules As Written support.

Doctortom has still failed to provide any rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument (meaning he has been unable to counter Orknado's rule supported claim that slain models are not in units so they don't have datasheet or a wound characteristic)

Ghaz is still in confusion about what counts as a rules source.


So that means that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.

skoffs wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 skoffs wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Has anyone actually tried them both ways in several games? How many multi-Wound units did you run, and which one did they feel best priced at?

Destroyers are already too expensive to take much as is. Have RP only bring them back with a single wound and they'll be shelved en mass.

That doesn't actually answer the question. Have you actually played them with both concepts?

A) that was not an attempt to answer, that was me just making a comment about what would happen if you give an average unit a handicap.

Of what you perceive to be a handicap. Play time would better determine balance vs handicap.

skoffs wrote:B) no, I have not, nor do I know anyone else who has. That one video is the only instance I am aware of someone playing them that way.

Well, hopefully someone's willing.

Actinium wrote:Even taking historical precedents into account you still have the new canoptek spyder scarab hive rule which returns swarms to a unit up to starting strength with no mention of 1 wound or full wounds, the same as RP, and spyders have never created anything but full wound scarab bases.
They have never once forgotten to mention the 1 wound stipulation in the 15 years they have had the rule across 5 editions, and continue to use it for other models with resurrection rules like apothecaries. They omitted it now with clear purpose.

I don't think anyone has properly quoted that rule, just referenced it. Would you be willing to provide it?

Just leave it for the FAQ and decide with your opponents. Neither of you is going to convince the other and everything is just repeating at this point.

col_impact wrote:
The status quo of this thread still hasn't changed.

Charistoph still has yet to present a valid argument. His current argument breaks all the Core Rules and is dismissed as absurd.

Orknado still has a valid argument with Rules As Written support.

Doctortom has still failed to provide any rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument (meaning he has been unable to counter Orknado's rule supported claim that slain models are not in units so they don't have datasheet or a wound characteristic)

Ghaz is still in confusion about what counts as a rules source.


So that means that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.

And Orknado and Col impact have ignored that they are making assumptions in order to try to justify saying that RAW they come back with full woujnds. You need to stup the cut and paste of your summary, col - saying "I have still failed to provide any rules support for my critique" is a misleading statement when my argument is that there is not rules support for the other argument. This means you are being obtuse (provide rules support for a stand saying there isn't rules support for something), and/or you are deliberately misreprenting my position. You have already had a history of that in this thread alone, when you were setting up strawman arguments claiming that I was saying the model comes back with 1 wound when I never said that. I merely said there is not rules support to establish by RAW any set of wounds (and I have shown the flaws in your argument - you just choose to not accept it), and therefore needs a FAQ. If people want to house rule it comes back with full wounds, that's okay. It appears we have dueling videos from designers showing either 1 wound or full wounds, so that means RAI is also muddled. It's obvious we need a FAQ, and it's just as obvious to anyone besides you and Orknado that it isn't "clearly settled", as your side has claimed. I would suggest that you stop spreading misleading statements and falsehoods.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
Just leave it for the FAQ and decide with your opponents. Neither of you is going to convince the other and everything is just repeating at this point.

I agree that you need to agree with opponents beforehand and leave it for the FAQ.. We see this often with col impact (and, apparently, his clone twin also), so this isn't going to go anywhere with them. Discussion with others here may be more fruitful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 luke1705 wrote:
Ghaz, I agree with you. It needs a FAQ.

Impact, highlighting the words "IN" and "FROM" are never going to form a basis for rules. I love what GW has done with this iteration of 40k. I love that the rules have been streamlined. And I love the general new direction the company is taking.

None of those are ever going to make me think that two juxtaposed words are going to prove a FAQ-able issue one way or the other. GW is not nearly, nor will they ever be, that nuanced in their rules writing

Good points. Thanks for coming in on the discussion. I also like overall what they've done with the direction of 40k here overall. Of course, there's still some teething pains like with this rule that need to be worked out. I also supsect you're right (in your later post) that they might have meant for the model to come back at full wounds, but since they didn't state it in the rule they've left a cloudy area that needs to be addressed.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The status quo of this thread still hasn't changed.

Charistoph still has yet to present a valid argument. His current argument breaks all the Core Rules and is dismissed as absurd.

Orknado still has a valid argument with Rules As Written support.

Doctortom has still failed to provide any rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument (meaning he has been unable to counter Orknado's rule supported claim that slain models are not in units so they don't have datasheet or a wound characteristic)

Ghaz is still in confusion about what counts as a rules source.


So that means that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.

And Orknado and Col impact have ignored that they are making assumptions in order to try to justify saying that RAW they come back with full woujnds. You need to stup the cut and paste of your summary, col - saying "I have still failed to provide any rules support for my critique" is a misleading statement when my argument is that there is not rules support for the other argument. This means you are being obtuse (provide rules support for a stand saying there isn't rules support for something), and/or you are deliberately misreprenting my position. You have already had a history of that in this thread alone, when you were setting up strawman arguments claiming that I was saying the model comes back with 1 wound when I never said that. I merely said there is not rules support to establish by RAW any set of wounds (and I have shown the flaws in your argument - you just choose to not accept it), and therefore needs a FAQ. If people want to house rule it comes back with full wounds, that's okay. It appears we have dueling videos from designers showing either 1 wound or full wounds, so that means RAI is also muddled. It's obvious we need a FAQ, and it's just as obvious to anyone besides you and Orknado that it isn't "clearly settled", as your side has claimed. I would suggest that you stop spreading misleading statements and falsehoods.

That is hilarious that he would present such a list.

The col is obviously projecting or lying. He is confused as to what is a rules source, so he accuses Ghaz of it. He can't find rules to support his or Orknado's assertions, so he accuses DoctorTom and myself of saying we can't provide rules to support our statement of "no rules". When we ask for actual written rules to support a thesis, that is apparently "not provid{ing} any rules support for {our} critiques".

To bring it up once or twice is a possible indication of a lack of knowledge, but to repeat it ad nauseum either indicates a willful ignorance of what the other writes or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader (aka lying). He has been shown to prefer the moniker of liar before, for other readers out there.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The status quo of this thread still hasn't changed.

Charistoph still has yet to present a valid argument. His current argument breaks all the Core Rules and is dismissed as absurd.

Orknado still has a valid argument with Rules As Written support.

Doctortom has still failed to provide any rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument (meaning he has been unable to counter Orknado's rule supported claim that slain models are not in units so they don't have datasheet or a wound characteristic)

Ghaz is still in confusion about what counts as a rules source.


So that means that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.

And Orknado and Col impact have ignored that they are making assumptions in order to try to justify saying that RAW they come back with full woujnds. You need to stup the cut and paste of your summary, col - saying "I have still failed to provide any rules support for my critique" is a misleading statement when my argument is that there is not rules support for the other argument. This means you are being obtuse (provide rules support for a stand saying there isn't rules support for something), and/or you are deliberately misreprenting my position. You have already had a history of that in this thread alone, when you were setting up strawman arguments claiming that I was saying the model comes back with 1 wound when I never said that. I merely said there is not rules support to establish by RAW any set of wounds (and I have shown the flaws in your argument - you just choose to not accept it), and therefore needs a FAQ. If people want to house rule it comes back with full wounds, that's okay. It appears we have dueling videos from designers showing either 1 wound or full wounds, so that means RAI is also muddled. It's obvious we need a FAQ, and it's just as obvious to anyone besides you and Orknado that it isn't "clearly settled", as your side has claimed. I would suggest that you stop spreading misleading statements and falsehoods.

You didn't read what I wrote.

Orknado presented RAW support for his argument.

The Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule indicate that slain models are not in units and that slain models lose their profile.

You attempted to counter his rules support by saying that profiles were permanently affixed to the model but it was pointed out that there is no rule to support your claim that profiles are permanently affixed.

Therefore you have failed to provide rules support for for your critiques and Orknado's rule-supported argument remains unchallenged.

Orknado is the only one with a valid rule-supported argument in this thread.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

That is hilarious that he would present such a list.

The col is obviously projecting or lying. He is confused as to what is a rules source, so he accuses Ghaz of it. He can't find rules to support his or Orknado's assertions, so he accuses DoctorTom and myself of saying we can't provide rules to support our statement of "no rules". When we ask for actual written rules to support a thesis, that is apparently "not provid{ing} any rules support for {our} critiques".

To bring it up once or twice is a possible indication of a lack of knowledge, but to repeat it ad nauseum either indicates a willful ignorance of what the other writes or a deliberate attempt to mislead the reader (aka lying). He has been shown to prefer the moniker of liar before, for other readers out there.

I am not confused about what is a rules source. Orknado is able to justify his argument with the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule both of which are rules in official GW publications.



Orknado has been able to show rules support for his argument and no one has been able to counter his rules support.

Ghaz has tried to offer up GW Twitch videos as rules but that is in violation of the rules of YMDC and any definition of what a rule. Until he can show official recognition by GW that Twitch videos are considered rule sources Ghaz or anyone making that claim has no argument to speak of.

You aren't going to fool anyone in this thread with your accusations of lying or projecting.

The one who is projecting here is you.

Instead of making ad hominem personal attacks, I suggest you focus on producing a valid counter argument to Orknado's rule supported argument which remains unchallenged.

col_impact wrote:
I am not confused about what is a rules source. Orknado is able to justify his argument with the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule both of which are rules in official GW publications.

But orknado has yet to provide actual written rules to support:

col_impact wrote:
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

... the models are out of the unit. We have asked for written rules that specifically state this, but he has refused to provide written words from the rulebook to support this. All we have is logical supposition which relies on "returned" being from "outside" the unit. The only instructions the model had followed before Reanimation Protocols works has been given to the model before this is to be "removed from play". As written, the model is out of play, not out of unit.

col_impact wrote:
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.

... there is no "only" in the quoted statement. Even if they were, proof of #1 would still be required in order to make this supposition of any relevance.

col_impact wrote:
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).

... this is a repeat of #1, with no rule actually providing evidence that the model was not in the unit when Reanimation Protocols is called in to play.

col_impact wrote:
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).

... no rules quote has stated this. This is all supposition based on an interpretation without anything further to back it up.

col_impact wrote:
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).

... the datasheet rule does not state this whatsoever. If this was the case, the model could never be slain.

col_impact wrote:
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

... neither of the quoted rules specifically or implicitly states that the model is out of the unit when taking other rules in to account. These actions would be defined elsewhere if they existed.

col_impact wrote:
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).

Faulty premises based on suppositions without any actual written words to support it.

He has been challenged on this ever since he brought it up and never once presented a rule that stated that a model removed from play is removed from the unit. He has used statements such as, "logically conclude", rather than, "it is written here".

col_impact wrote:
Orknado has been able to show rules support for his argument and no one has been able to counter his rules support.

So, no, he has not provided any written rule to support his argument is RAW. If that's HHWPI, I honestly do not care. But there is nothing actually written in the books to support this statement.

col_impact wrote:
Ghaz has tried to offer up GW Twitch videos as rules but that is in violation of the rules of YMDC and any definition of what a rule. Until he can show official recognition by GW that Twitch videos are considered rule sources Ghaz or anyone making that claim has no argument to speak of.

No, it isn't. He presented it as a way of How They Played It, not as rules. He repeated this several times. Stating something as HYWPI (or in this case How They Would Play It), is not against the Tenets. Reread Tenet #4.

col_impact wrote:
You aren't going to fool anyone in this thread with your accusations of lying or projecting.

When someone tells you one thing, and you accuse them of saying another, after being repeatedly corrected, you are either projecting or lying.

There has been a couple times during the IC debates when I told you to quit misstating my position or be called a liar, and you kept doing it, thus demonstrating that you preferred to be known as a liar. I made the same warning to orknado twice in this thread as well. Any application of such a title was of your own choice. If it was because you didn't listen, it was still of your own choice.

col_impact wrote:
Instead of making ad hominem personal attacks, I suggest you focus on producing a valid counter argument to Orknado's rule supported argument which remains unchallenged.

I have, but you either choose to not listen or deliberately seek to lie about others' statements, such as now. Reanimation Protocols never stated "Wounds", and nothing in the general rules provides any evidence of what orknado has talked about.

Feel free to try and quote the RP rule, highlighting the terms "Wound", "out", or "datasheet" which is needed to support orknado's position. Feel free to try and quote orknado's quote of the datasheet rule and highlight where it states "out" or "only".

Without any of those terms, any statements of RAW supporting orknado's position are either a grievous mistake on what RAW means or a deliberate attempt to deceive, aka lying. I wonder if you have bothered to read YMDC's definition of RAW and HYWPI that I quoted.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am not confused about what is a rules source. Orknado is able to justify his argument with the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule both of which are rules in official GW publications.

But orknado has yet to provide actual written rules to support:

Incorrect. He has provided rules support and you even mention it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

... the models are out of the unit. We have asked for written rules that specifically state this, but he has refused to provide written words from the rulebook to support this. All we have is logical supposition which relies on "returned" being from "outside" the unit. The only instructions the model had followed before Reanimation Protocols works has been given to the model before this is to be "removed from play". As written, the model is out of play, not out of unit.

If a model is not out of the unit then it cannot be "returned to this unit". Reanimation Protocols does not say 'returned to play', it says 'returned to this unit' meaning that it was out of the unit. You cannot argue against this. The Reanimation Protocols rule indicates without a doubt that slain models are not in the unit.

We also know this because all of the Core Rules break if slain models are in units. YMDC has a tenet that your premise must BREAK NO RULE. Your premise that slain models are in units breaks all the rules and must make up 5 or 6 house rules to repair the damage to the game caused by your premise. Your argument is disingenuous, absurd, against the rules of the forum, logically implausible, and invalid. Try again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.

... there is no "only" in the quoted statement. Even if they were, proof of #1 would still be required in order to make this supposition of any relevance.

Nope. Due to the logic of permission in a permissive dataset, only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles. There is no general rule granting datasheets to all models. Again, you have no argument of merit here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).

... this is a repeat of #1, with no rule actually providing evidence that the model was not in the unit when Reanimation Protocols is called in to play.

Incorrect. Reanimation Protocols is a rule and it indicates that slain models are not IN units. They are FROM units and when they are reanimated they are 'returned to this unit' which is only possible if they were not IN the unit. Again, your argument has no merit here.

quick question, sorry if I missed it in an earlier post while skimming.

So according to the wording of the rules a reanimation protocol is used on models that have been slain.

When models that are removed from a unit due to a failed leadership test are said to have fleed and removed.

My buddy and I cannot figure out what it means when it says no where about them being slain from that failed leadership test, they fleed but were not slain. Thus, no reanimation protocol is allowed?

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).

... no rules quote has stated this. This is all supposition based on an interpretation without anything further to back it up.

Incorrect. The rules have proved that slain models are not in units. And only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. Again, your argument has no merit here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).

... the datasheet rule does not state this whatsoever. If this was the case, the model could never be slain.

You are confused here.

"Wounds (W): Wounds show how much damage a model can sustain before it succumbs to its injuries."

The wound characteristic is decremented when a wound is suffered. That's the only method the rules allow for keeping track of wounds. If the wound characteristic stays static then it makes models invulnerable. But orknado is saying that the wound characteristic indicates how many wounds are left on the model, which is by definition. Again, you have no argument of merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

... neither of the quoted rules specifically or implicitly states that the model is out of the unit when taking other rules in to account. These actions would be defined elsewhere if they existed.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocols rule indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units and that when reanimated they are 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that they were not IN the unit.

Further, we know that slain models are not in units because that premise breaks all the rules and such a premise is in violation of the rules of the forum (Break No Rule), is logically implausible, and wholly invalid. If slain models are in units then you must fabricate 5 or 6 house rules in order to even play the game. Once again, your argument has no merit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
[

col_impact wrote:
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).

Faulty premises based on suppositions without any actual written words to support it.

He has been challenged on this ever since he brought it up and never once presented a rule that stated that a model removed from play is removed from the unit. He has used statements such as, "logically conclude", rather than, "it is written here".

The Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule are both written rules and they both fully justify his argument. Once again, your argument has no merit here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Orknado has been able to show rules support for his argument and no one has been able to counter his rules support.

So, no, he has not provided any written rule to support his argument is RAW. If that's HHWPI, I honestly do not care. But there is nothing actually written in the books to support this statement.

The Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule are both written rules and they completely justify his argument. Once again, your argument has no merit here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Ghaz has tried to offer up GW Twitch videos as rules but that is in violation of the rules of YMDC and any definition of what a rule. Until he can show official recognition by GW that Twitch videos are considered rule sources Ghaz or anyone making that claim has no argument to speak of.

No, it isn't. He presented it as a way of How They Played It, not as rules. He repeated this several times. Stating something as HYWPI (or in this case How They Would Play It), is not against the Tenets. Reread Tenet #4.

Then it's about as relevant as using a Horoscope to decide the debate. He is welcome to post his House Rules in the Proposed Rules section of DakkaDakka. At any rate, the Twitch Videos are not rules and have zero status in a YMDC discussion. So we are in agreement then that his comments were entirely off-topic and non-relevant to the discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You aren't going to fool anyone in this thread with your accusations of lying or projecting.

When someone tells you one thing, and you accuse them of saying another, after being repeatedly corrected, you are either projecting or lying.

There has been a couple times during the IC debates when I told you to quit misstating my position or be called a liar, and you kept doing it, thus demonstrating that you preferred to be known as a liar. I made the same warning to orknado twice in this thread as well. Any application of such a title was of your own choice. If it was because you didn't listen, it was still of your own choice.

Your memory is faulty here. You were banned from DakkaDakka 2 or 3 times for falsely accusing me of lying. You were unable to provide proof of me lying back then and you are unable to provide proof of me lying now. This should not be a surprise because it's ridiculous to accuse people of lying on DakkaDakka and yet you have some insecure need to do just that. Making accusations of lying are ad hominem attacks and in direct violation of the rules of this forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Instead of making ad hominem personal attacks, I suggest you focus on producing a valid counter argument to Orknado's rule supported argument which remains unchallenged.

I have, but you either choose to not listen or deliberately seek to lie about others' statements, such as now. Reanimation Protocols never stated "Wounds", and nothing in the general rules provides any evidence of what orknado has talked about.

Feel free to try and quote the RP rule, highlighting the terms "Wound", "out", or "datasheet" which is needed to support orknado's position. Feel free to try and quote orknado's quote of the datasheet rule and highlight where it states "out" or "only".

Without any of those terms, any statements of RAW supporting orknado's position are either a grievous mistake on what RAW means or a deliberate attempt to deceive, aka lying. I wonder if you have bothered to read YMDC's definition of RAW and HYWPI that I quoted.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet are both written rules and they both indicate without a doubt that slain models are not IN units and that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Therefore, a Destroyer model is reanimated with 3 wounds.

Ghen1899 wrote:
quick question, sorry if I missed it in an earlier post while skimming.

So according to the wording of the rules a reanimation protocol is used on models that have been slain.

When models that are removed from a unit due to a failed leadership test are said to have fleed and removed.

My buddy and I cannot figure out what it means when it says no where about them being slain from that failed leadership test, they fleed but were not slain. Thus, no reanimation protocol is allowed?

If going by RAW, then yes, there is a difference that exists.

I see the col still hasn't learned how to do a proper response to a thread, but has to go snippet by snippet.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
I am not confused about what is a rules source. Orknado is able to justify his argument with the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule both of which are rules in official GW publications.

But orknado has yet to provide actual written rules to support:

Incorrect. He has provided rules support and you even mention it.

He has not because neither you nor he have yet to provide it. Let me demonstrate.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

... the models are out of the unit. We have asked for written rules that specifically state this, but he has refused to provide written words from the rulebook to support this. All we have is logical supposition which relies on "returned" being from "outside" the unit. The only instructions the model had followed before Reanimation Protocols works has been given to the model before this is to be "removed from play". As written, the model is out of play, not out of unit.

If a model is not out of the unit then it cannot be "returned to this unit". Reanimation Protocols does not say 'returned to play', it says 'returned to this unit' meaning that it was out of the unit. You cannot argue against this. The Reanimation Protocols rule indicates without a doubt that slain models are not in the unit.

We also know this because all of the Core Rules break if slain models are in units. YMDC has a tenet that your premise must BREAK NO RULE. Your premise that slain models are in units breaks all the rules and must make up 5 or 6 house rules to repair the damage to the game caused by your premise. Your argument is disingenuous, absurd, against the rules of the forum, logically implausible, and invalid. Try again.

But where is the actual rules quote that states the model is out of the unit? You are relying on a supposition that the model is returning to the unit from out of the unit rather than returning to the play of the unit. This isn't about HIWPI, this is about RAW, so keep my HIWPI (which I actually have not stated regarding the Wounds) out of your judgements.

What is the number for the YMDC tenet that a premise must break no rule, even if it is a RAW interpretation?

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.

... there is no "only" in the quoted statement. Even if they were, proof of #1 would still be required in order to make this supposition of any relevance.

Nope. Due to the logic of permission in a permissive dataset, only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles. There is no general rule granting datasheets to all models. Again, you have no argument of merit here.

No written statement means no RAW. Without the "only" in the quoted statement, it is only orknado's guess at what was intended. The model is linked to the datasheet's profile with the list building. Where is the written rule statement that the model's link to the datasheet is disconnected?

Prevailing on logic to fill the holes is not RAW. RAW is "playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).

... this is a repeat of #1, with no rule actually providing evidence that the model was not in the unit when Reanimation Protocols is called in to play.

Incorrect. Reanimation Protocols is a rule and it indicates that slain models are not IN units. They are FROM units and when they are reanimated they are 'returned to this unit' which is only possible if they were not IN the unit. Again, your argument has no merit here.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

If a model is not out of the unit then it cannot be "returned to this unit". Reanimation Protocols does not say 'returned to play', it says 'returned to this unit' meaning that it was out of the unit. You cannot argue against this. The Reanimation Protocols rule indicates without a doubt that slain models are not in the unit.

We also know this because all of the Core Rules break if slain models are in units. YMDC has a tenet that your premise must BREAK NO RULE. Your premise that slain models are in units breaks all the rules and must make up 5 or 6 house rules to repair the damage to the game caused by your premise. Your argument is disingenuous, absurd, against the rules of the forum, logically implausible, and invalid. Try again.

But where is the actual rules quote that states the model is out of the unit? You are relying on a supposition that the model is returning to the unit from out of the unit rather than returning to the play of the unit. This isn't about HIWPI, this is about RAW, so keep my HIWPI (which I actually have not stated regarding the Wounds) out of your judgements.

What is the number for the YMDC tenet that a premise must break no rule, even if it is a RAW interpretation?

No supposition. We refer directly to the written word of the Reanimation Protocols rule. A slain models cannot be 'returned to this unit' if it is already in the unit. The RAW of the Reanimation Protocols rule directly supports that slain models are not IN units.

Break No Rule is a component of Tenet #1 (back up your statements) as linked in the How to Have An Intelligent Rules Debate (https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate). You can't support a premise that breaks all the Core Rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Nope. Due to the logic of permission in a permissive dataset, only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles. There is no general rule granting datasheets to all models. Again, you have no argument of merit here.

No written statement means no RAW. Without the "only" in the quoted statement, it is only orknado's guess at what was intended. The model is linked to the datasheet's profile with the list building. Where is the written rule statement that the model's link to the datasheet is disconnected?

Prevailing on logic to fill the holes is not RAW. RAW is "playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations."

Nope. Per the strict letter of the rules, only models that are in units have datasheets and profiles. That is literally what the rule says. There is no rule granting general permission for models not in units to have datasheets. Sorry but that is what the rules say.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).

... this is a repeat of #1, with no rule actually providing evidence that the model was not in the unit when Reanimation Protocols is called in to play.

Incorrect. Reanimation Protocols is a rule and it indicates that slain models are not IN units. They are FROM units and when they are reanimated they are 'returned to this unit' which is only possible if they were not IN the unit. Again, your argument has no merit here.

Reanimation Protocols has no written statement that slain models are "not in units" or "outside of the unit". Without a written statement, this is not RAW. One does not have to be "out" to be returning, one can be "away", just like if something was "removed".

Now, orknado never addressed this, will you? Where does Reanimation Protocols state that the model is returning from?

Nope. Reanimation Protocols indicates that slain models that are reanimated are 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that they were not in the unit while they were slain. There is no other way to construe it. The rule says 'returned to this unit' and not 'returned to play'. Since it says the former and not the latter we know that slain models are not in units.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).

... no rules quote has stated this. This is all supposition based on an interpretation without anything further to back it up.

Incorrect. The rules have proved that slain models are not in units. And only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. Again, your argument has no merit here.

The statement on datasheets provides no written statement on what happens when a model is removed from play. No written statement has been provided which states a model that has been removed from play has been removed from the unit.

Are you seeing the trend?

We know based on the letter of the Datasheet rule that models that are not in units do not have datasheets. The trend I am seeing is your inability to read plainly stated rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).

... the datasheet rule does not state this whatsoever. If this was the case, the model could never be slain.

You are confused here.

"Wounds (W): Wounds show how much damage a model can sustain before it succumbs to its injuries."

The wound characteristic is decremented when a wound is suffered. That's the only method the rules allow for keeping track of wounds. If the wound characteristic stays static then it makes models invulnerable. But orknado is saying that the wound characteristic indicates how many wounds are left on the model, which is by definition. Again, you have no argument of merit.

No, I'm not. It's called reducto ad absurdum. It's taking the concept to its logical, absurd extent. The Wounds characteristic on the profile never actually changes. By assuming it is back at the profile point because "the wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model" (your statement), and the fact that it never literally changes, it would lead models which cannot be slain.

In addition, the quote provided by you and orknado on this in the spoiler has no written statement on this whatsoever. That makes it an assumption.

In order for it to be RAW, the mechanics which deprive the model of Wounds must be performed in reverse in order for the Wounds to be restored. Where is this process actually written in Reanimation Protocols or any general rule?

"the wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model" This is not my statement. That's the definition in the book. By definition the wound characteristic MUST change when a wound is suffered to accurately reflect how many wounds are left on the model. It would be helpful if you kept track of rules statements. When I quote something it is a rules statement.

When a model is slain it is no longer in a unit and so will lose its profile and the value for its wound characteristic. This is literally what the RAW of the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule tell us.

Also I am a bit confused. In another thread you agree with the argument I am making and disprove the argument you are making in this thread.



So I guess you prove yourself wrong. How about that!

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

... neither of the quoted rules specifically or implicitly states that the model is out of the unit when taking other rules in to account. These actions would be defined elsewhere if they existed.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocols rule indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units and that when reanimated they are 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that they were not IN the unit.

Reanimation Protocols has no written statement that the models are "not IN units". You have stated such yourself. As such, any assumption that the model is "not IN the unit" is a pure fabrication not based on RAW.

The Reanimation Protocols rule asserts the logical inverse of IN which is one of a binary condition (IN/OUT). The rule indicates that slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they had to already have been not IN the unit. Simple logic derived directly from the Rules As Written is still Rules As Written. There is literally no other conclusion that you can have except that slain models are not IN units.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Further, we know that slain models are not in units because that premise breaks all the rules and such a premise is in violation of the rules of the forum (Break No Rule), is logically implausible, and wholly invalid. If slain models are in units then you must fabricate 5 or 6 house rules in order to even play the game. Once again, your argument has no merit.

Then you are confused at what argument and DoctorTom are presenting. We are not presenting a HWWPI in which we care to not break the rule, we are stating that the rule come to us broken. You are telling that there are actual written statements which do specifically state this things, and then never quote a rule and use phrases such as "logically deduce". The "Break No Rule" is not actually a YMDC Tenet. Learn to properly reference.

As it is, I don't have to break any rules to come to the base conclusion that a model can be in the unit while not in play. "In play" offers many different concepts which can logically be deduced without resorting to adherence to statements which are not written in the rules whatsoever.

Nope. Only if you adhere to your premise that slain models are IN units do the rules come to you broken. If slain models are not IN units then everything works out fine. Orknado provided a helpful comparison between yours and his arugment.



Your premise breaks all the Core Rules and is therefore logically implausible and invalid.

On top of that, your premise is disproved by the written word of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are not IN units.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
[

col_impact wrote:
7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).

Faulty premises based on suppositions without any actual written words to support it.

He has been challenged on this ever since he brought it up and never once presented a rule that stated that a model removed from play is removed from the unit. He has used statements such as, "logically conclude", rather than, "it is written here".

The Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule are both written rules and they both fully justify his argument. Once again, your argument has no merit here.

Review every answer to your quotes and note how many times "no written statement" comes up. Without actually providing any written rules statement to back up an interpretation, it violates the YMDC's definition of RAW. By trying to push such assumptions, no matter how "logically derived", you are in violation of Tenet #4.

Nope. The written word of the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule directly support our argument, as we have repeatedly shown. Per the direct wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule we can come to no other conclusion than that slain models are not IN units.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Ghaz has tried to offer up GW Twitch videos as rules but that is in violation of the rules of YMDC and any definition of what a rule. Until he can show official recognition by GW that Twitch videos are considered rule sources Ghaz or anyone making that claim has no argument to speak of.

No, it isn't. He presented it as a way of How They Played It, not as rules. He repeated this several times. Stating something as HYWPI (or in this case How They Would Play It), is not against the Tenets. Reread Tenet #4.

Then it's about as relevant as using a Horoscope to decide the debate. He is welcome to post his House Rules in the Proposed Rules section of DakkaDakka. At any rate, the Twitch Videos are not rules and have zero status in a YMDC discussion. So we are in agreement then that his comments were entirely off-topic and non-relevant to the discussion.

That's funny considering how hard you fought to treat FAQs as official errata. And FYI, so long as mentioning it as HYWPI, it is not in violation of Tenet #4.

FAQs are officially recognized rules sources. By no stretch of the imagination are FAQs house rules.

Providing something as a house rule is meaningless to a debate about what the rules say. Tenet #4 just tells you to mark your statements HYWPI so we can set them aside as inconsequential to a rules debate.

Any person's house rule is just as valid as anyone elses, so there is absolutely no point debating house rules.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You aren't going to fool anyone in this thread with your accusations of lying or projecting.

When someone tells you one thing, and you accuse them of saying another, after being repeatedly corrected, you are either projecting or lying.

There has been a couple times during the IC debates when I told you to quit misstating my position or be called a liar, and you kept doing it, thus demonstrating that you preferred to be known as a liar. I made the same warning to orknado twice in this thread as well. Any application of such a title was of your own choice. If it was because you didn't listen, it was still of your own choice.

Your memory is faulty here. You were banned from DakkaDakka 2 or 3 times for falsely accusing me of lying. You were unable to provide proof of me lying back then and you are unable to provide proof of me lying now. This should not be a surprise because it's ridiculous to accuse people of lying on DakkaDakka and yet you have some insecure need to do just that. Making accusations of lying are ad hominem attacks and in direct violation of the rules of this forum.

I was never actually banned. I was put on probation AFTER calling you a liar without warning. I was not put on probation during those events I just described. I am well aware of each time I was put on probation. And I would say that someone who deliberately and consistently misrepresents another person after being just as deliberately and consistently corrected, is nothing but a liar. In fact, you'd find that a pretty consistent standard around the world. And its not like you weren't warned many times.

Those posts where I warned you happened some time ago, so tracking them down is a challenge as both of us were both quite post-heavy in them.

Pardon me. Not banned, you were put on PROBATION 3 times for calling me a liar. Apparently you have not learned your lesson. You are still making a personal attack and calling me a liar. It is ridiculous to call someone a liar in a rules debate. If someone misrepresents something you simply correct them. Calling them a liar is a personal attack plain and simple and you seem to have a problem with personally attacking others. Resorting to personal attacks is a sure sign that someone has lost the argument and only has recourse to personal attacks.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Instead of making ad hominem personal attacks, I suggest you focus on producing a valid counter argument to Orknado's rule supported argument which remains unchallenged.

I have, but you either choose to not listen or deliberately seek to lie about others' statements, such as now. Reanimation Protocols never stated "Wounds", and nothing in the general rules provides any evidence of what orknado has talked about.

Feel free to try and quote the RP rule, highlighting the terms "Wound", "out", or "datasheet" which is needed to support orknado's position. Feel free to try and quote orknado's quote of the datasheet rule and highlight where it states "out" or "only".

Without any of those terms, any statements of RAW supporting orknado's position are either a grievous mistake on what RAW means or a deliberate attempt to deceive, aka lying. I wonder if you have bothered to read YMDC's definition of RAW and HYWPI that I quoted.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet are both written rules and they both indicate without a doubt that slain models are not IN units and that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Therefore, a Destroyer model is reanimated with 3 wounds.

And you failed in the exercise to demonstrate RAW based on orknado's premise (and he hasn't done this, either). Since you have not done it, you either are lazy, tacitly admitting my point and just kicking against the pricks, or you are deliberately lying. That is hardly having an intelligent debate.

Remember, without an actual written statement specifically stating the instructions to do something, there is no "strict letter" to work with, so there is no way that orknado's premise is 100% ironclad RAW.

I have provided RAW support repeatedly. You are just too entrenched in your failed argument to accept it. As I have already presented above, the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule directly support that slain models are not IN units and that slain models lose their profiles. Therefore, Destroyer models reanimate with 3 wounds.

I suggest you stop with all your ridiculous personal attacks (calling me a liar or casting aspersions on orknado's education and employment as a professor) and focus instead on providing a valid argument. All the arguments you have presented break all the Core Rules and are therefore absurd and invalid.

double post

No more comments about others "lying" or their character in this thread! To be honest, I have no idea about the rules discussion here, but I know you can discuss it politely.

No more personal attacks. Discuss the rules, NOT the other poster! You can also agree to disagree, or if all else fails use the Ignore feature, by you cannot attack other posters on this site.

Any questions, PM me. Thanks

Guys - there is no default number of wounds models return with after being brought back into the game. Typically there is a dice roll to determine or it is 1 wound. There is no code to be broken here - the rule is simply incomplete and requires a rules clarification/rewrite.

You know, if the people involved in getting this thread up to 11 pages spent half as much effort trying to get an answer from GW by "frequently asking questions", we might have an official response by now...

 skoffs wrote:
You know, if the people involved in getting this thread up to 11 pages spent half as much effort trying to get an answer from GW by "frequently asking questions", we might have an official response by now...

Get real - this is GW we are talking about. I listened to the FTN podcast with the games rules writer. The dude claims it took him 2 years to write the indexes (which are full of unclear rules and typos and glaring point discrepancies between power leveland actual power levels). It's pretty sad. Still better than 7th by a long shot though. My game group and I could have put together something better in a month I am sure.

Ghen1899 wrote:
quick question, sorry if I missed it in an earlier post while skimming.

So according to the wording of the rules a reanimation protocol is used on models that have been slain.

When models that are removed from a unit due to a failed leadership test are said to have fleed and removed.

My buddy and I cannot figure out what it means when it says no where about them being slain from that failed leadership test, they fleed but were not slain. Thus, no reanimation protocol is allowed?

There is no difference. They are slain and then will get a chance to RP.

Ghen1899 wrote:
quick question, sorry if I missed it in an earlier post while skimming.

So according to the wording of the rules a reanimation protocol is used on models that have been slain.

When models that are removed from a unit due to a failed leadership test are said to have fleed and removed.

My buddy and I cannot figure out what it means when it says no where about them being slain from that failed leadership test, they fleed but were not slain. Thus, no reanimation protocol is allowed?

As Charistoph said, that is correct. By RAW, Reanimation Protocols does not say it works on models that are said to have fleed and removed. For that matter, the inflict damage step states "If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." RP only mentions bringing a model back into play from one of those conditions (slain). It wouldn't come back from destroyed. And, another sentence in the section says"If a model loses several wounds from a single attack and is destroyed, any excess damage inflicted...", so multiple wounds can destroy a model. If you're going to get into really silly RAW, when you reduce a model to 0 wounds you can choose to have it either killed or destroyed, with RP never being able to be used. (there's the part of the very silly RAW where in order to use RP, they would have to prove that the model was slain and not destroyed). But, most people will overlook that silly RAW along with the silly RAW that the model comes back with 0 wounds since by RAW there is no statement specifying that it comes back any different than how it left (get with your group and agree how to play it - if different groups of developers of 40k played it differently in different videos, then it obviously isn't clear).

I imagine though that GW meant for every condition to be treated as slain when removed from play.

Has there been another GW video where they played Necrons with multi wound models?
So far there's only been the one that I'm aware of where multi wound models came back with only a single wound.

Somebody said there was a different one with other game developers playing where they played it with full wounds, but I haven't seen that one. If it is out there, then it only means that the situation is more muddled than we thought initially as to how GW intended it to be played.

There's was a GW game (not sure if it was this one, it's locked for subscribers only) where they apparently had multi wound models come back with only a single wound-
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/151318982

And there was a FLG (official playtesters/tournament organizers) game where multi wound models came back with full wounds-
https://www.twitch.tv/videos/153493944

There hasn't been anything from GW, but the FLG guys actually responded to a question about it and said that was the way it was supposed to be played (it's still not an official FAQ, but these guys run ITC, so if you're planning on entering any tournaments that use their format, that will most likely be how they'll rule it).

Has there seriously not been another GW video featuring Necrons with multi wound models? Could ask on the stream and maybe get an answer from them (though even if they did confirm one way or the other, there would STILL be people who refuse to acknowledge anything other than an officially published FAQ).

At this point it really doesnt matter. Both sides have stood their ground and neither will budge until a FAQ comes out from GW. Playtesters have no credibility as far a rules go.

Fragile wrote:
Playtesters have no credibility as far a rules go.

But these playtesters are also major tournament organizers. Not that that means everyone has to go by what they say, but like I said above, if someone is attending an event that uses the ITC format, be aware that they'll probably rule it in line with what they responded with: "full wounds".

col_impact wrote:
No supposition. We refer directly to the written word of the Reanimation Protocols rule. A slain models cannot be 'returned to this unit' if it is already in the unit. The RAW of the Reanimation Protocols rule directly supports that slain models are not IN units.

One can return from many places. In order to return from outside the unit, one must be outside in the unit. Where is the instruction to remove the model from the unit? This is something that neither you nor orknado have addressed.

col_impact wrote:
Break No Rule is a component of Tenet #1 (back up your statements) as linked in the How to Have An Intelligent Rules Debate (https://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/How_to_Have_an_Intelligent_Rules_Debate). You can't support a premise that breaks all the Core Rules.

1) It is referenced by Tenet #1, it is not listed as part of #1.

2) Here is the portion you are referencing:

Appendix B: What to Do When the Rules Don't Cover It?

At this point we are in uncharted territory, and there may in fact be no definitive answer. But since we are playing a game, we'll need an answer that provides us with enough functionality to actually play the game. So we must strive for a solution, but we must also realize that the solution we find does not have the weight of the rules behind it.

When the rules don't actually give us an answer, you can't create a deductive, rules based argument on how something should be played. In this case, strive to follow the ideal of "Break No Rule". Find a way of playing out the situation that doesn't actually break any rules. This may require doing something the rules don't specifically outline, but if the game will stop without taking some action, then this is probably the best course of action.

But what if this can't be done? What if you can't follow all the rules because they conflict on a point? In this case, you must simply strive to find a solution that makes the most sense and causes the least amount of disagreement. Thankfully, these cases are rare, and can usually be resolved either by mutual agreement, or by rolling a D6 and playing on.

We are only to consider the "Break No Rule" concept if the GW hasn't said how to do it. By saying the rule is broken by being incomplete, we are not violating this stricture, indeed, we start invoking it at this point.

Then there is the concept of Rules Ethics:

Appendix C: On Rules Ethics

When we discuss rules, it may not always be clear which argument has weight. If you have any question, or you have any doubt in a claim, there is a simple system to follow to ensure you get yourself into the least amount of trouble and make the least amount of people unhappy:

If there is equal weight, choosing the option that gives the action taker less advantage is the more ethical choice.

So if the rules may or may not allow you to take a specific action that has an impact on the game, don't take it. But it's important that this is only reserved for situations where there is a legitimate grey area. Simply because some people might not see or understand an argument doesn't make that argument false, so you must choose carefully when this applies. And remember, the onus is on the person taking the action. If you don't stop your opponent from taking advantage of a shaky rule, or at least discuss it, then you're just letting yourself be taken advantage of. But if he's got a good argument, be prepared to let him take the action.

Orknado asked why should we consider the benefits of the situation, and this is why. When we are not instructed on how to do something, we should consider how it may make the opponent feel. Some people consider a Reanimating model coming back with full wounds to be overpowered, while some consider it coming back with 1 Wound under-powered. The fact that it comes back at all is pretty powerful in and of itself. So, we do need to consider balanced options when we are discussing how we would play it.

col_impact wrote:
Nope. Per the strict letter of the rules, only models that are in units have datasheets and profiles. That is literally what the rule says. There is no rule granting general permission for models not in units to have datasheets. Sorry but that is what the rules say.

In order for it to be "only models that are in units have datasheets and profiles", the quoted statement would have to have "only" in it. It does not. A connection to the datasheet and profile is established when you build the army list. An instruction must be provided to do so. Where is the instruction to separate the model from its datasheet and profile when it is removed from play?

col_impact wrote:
Nope. Reanimation Protocols indicates that slain models that are reanimated are 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that they were not in the unit while they were slain. There is no other way to construe it. The rule says 'returned to this unit' and not 'returned to play'. Since it says the former and not the latter we know that slain models are not in units.

Yes, it does say "returned to this unit", but where was the model in the first place? Where is the instruction telling you that the model was out and separated from the unit?

There are indeed other ways to construe this if we consider all the rules provided so far. We are instructed to remove the model from play, and then to return it to the unit. Where was the model? Out of play. In a way, there is a closer analogy that can be made to a hockey player being in the penalty box, then being a dead soldier in a ditty bag. The player (model) is removed from the play of the game, when he returns to the team, he is still on the same team (unit) in the same position within that team (unit). While the model is removed from play, it is still in the unit (organizationally), but removed from interactions involved with Movement, Shooting, Charging, Fighting, etc. This is not breaking the rules of the game, but using the instructions we have so far, in the order they are given, to put them in proper perspective.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).

... the datasheet rule does not state this whatsoever. If this was the case, the model could never be slain.

You are confused here.

"Wounds (W): Wounds show how much damage a model can sustain before it succumbs to its injuries."

The wound characteristic is decremented when a wound is suffered. That's the only method the rules allow for keeping track of wounds. If the wound characteristic stays static then it makes models invulnerable. But orknado is saying that the wound characteristic indicates how many wounds are left on the model, which is by definition. Again, you have no argument of merit.

No, I'm not. It's called reducto ad absurdum. It's taking the concept to its logical, absurd extent. The Wounds characteristic on the profile never actually changes. By assuming it is back at the profile point because "the wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model" (your statement), and the fact that it never literally changes, it would lead models which cannot be slain.

In addition, the quote provided by you and orknado on this in the spoiler has no written statement on this whatsoever. That makes it an assumption.

In order for it to be RAW, the mechanics which deprive the model of Wounds must be performed in reverse in order for the Wounds to be restored. Where is this process actually written in Reanimation Protocols or any general rule?

"the wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model" This is not my statement. That's the definition in the book. By definition the wound characteristic MUST change when a wound is suffered to accurately reflect how many wounds are left on the model. It would be helpful if you kept track of rules statements. When I quote something it is a rules statement.

But you were attributing it to something else, the datasheet quote provided by orknado's list and you represented as your own which stated that models were in the unit, not the actual definition. The way you and orknado were presenting it was that it could never be modified. Well, it has been modified once to remove the model from play, where does it tell us to modify it back?

col_impact wrote:
Also I am a bit confused. In another thread you agree with the argument I am making and disprove the argument you are making in this thread.

Spoiler:

 Charistoph wrote:

In Shooting, we are told that, "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers." So we have an instruction to modify the Wounds characteristic for that model as listed on the profile. That is sufficiently direct of an instruction for me, at any rate.

So I guess you prove yourself wrong. How about that!

Not entirely. In order for the model to be restored in pristine condition, we must consider the datasheet profile to be completely inviolate and unchanging. However, we do have instructions to modify the profile, which is what I was pointing out. I then stated that in order for them to be restored, it must be done in reverse order, in other words, with an instruction specifically detailing the number of Wounds being restored.

But sure, taking things out of context makes it easy to knock down strawmen.

col_impact wrote:
The Reanimation Protocols rule asserts the logical inverse of IN which is one of a binary condition (IN/OUT). The rule indicates that slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they had to already have been not IN the unit. Simple logic derived directly from the Rules As Written is still Rules As Written. There is literally no other conclusion that you can have except that slain models are not IN units.

It asserts no such thing in and of itself. It would only be asserting this if we already had instructions for the model to be out, or if it said "return the model in to the unit". The rules do not operate in a vacuum, and we must be aware of previous instructions before making any assumptions on how to interpret the rules. This is a concept called "context". The only thing the model could be returning from is "out of play", since that is the only thing we have been literally instructed to do.

col_impact wrote:
Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.

The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.

My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.

Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.

That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.

There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.

Where should I start with the errors?

Col's main premise:
Models that are slain are removed from the unit.

Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are removed from play.

Which one do the Core Rules actually state, again?

col_impact wrote:
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.

I have never stated that there was a "removed from play" zone. That is your manufacturing. However, 'play' must be defined as we are instructed to remove the model from play. When you 'play' with a model, you are moving it, shooting with it (hopefully), Charging with it (maybe), and fighting with it (maybe). When it is removed from play, you are not moving it, shooting with it, Charging with it, or fighting with it, no matter how much you would like to complicate this concept.

col_impact wrote:
2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.

Because that is the instruction which we are given, not to remove the model from the unit.

As opposed to 'removed from play' meaning:
* remove the model from the unit.
* clear all previous actions on the model.
* disconnect the model from its datasheet and profile.
Did I miss anything?

col_impact wrote:
3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. He makes up that the datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.

I do not need to make an exception for the datasheet rule whatsoever. The models are still in the unit, even if we were to consider the unsupported claim that models removed from a unit lose their connection to the datasheet. The unit is an organizational feature, not a box. So, physical placement is not connected to such a concept.

col_impact wrote:
4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.

Actually, it's not me, as I have no Necron models. That's an assumption. Considering that it is RAW that the number of Wounds a model returns with is undefined, that is a perfectly viable statement to make depending on the agreement of the game masters as to what they feel is proper and fair.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That's funny considering how hard you fought to treat FAQs as official errata. And FYI, so long as mentioning it as HYWPI, it is not in violation of Tenet #4.

FAQs are officially recognized rules sources. By no stretch of the imagination are FAQs house rules.

But not errata. This was an official stream put on by the company. Just as a official.

col_impact wrote:
Providing something as a house rule is meaningless to a debate about what the rules say. Tenet #4 just tells you to mark your statements HYWPI so we can set them aside as inconsequential to a rules debate.

Which is what he was saying. Remember, HYWPI is find when the rules do not say what to do. It says that in the same place as it says to not break a rule.

col_impact wrote:
I have provided RAW support repeatedly. You are just too entrenched in your failed argument to accept it. As I have already presented above, the Reanimation Protocols rule and the Datasheet rule directly support that slain models are not IN units and that slain models lose their profiles.

In order to have RAW support, you must properly address these challenges:
* Quote the RP rule, highlighting the terms "Wound", "out", or "datasheet".
* Quote of the datasheet rule and highlight where it states "out" or "only".

So simple enough question then as it pertains to this.

If I have a 30 model unit of Orc Boys, and I lose 10 to shooting what is my leadership value for the subsequent moral test?

The mob rule allows me to substitute the Boyz Ld value (Of 6) for the number of models in the unit (In this case 30) or which ever is higher.

If we presume that models count as part of a unit even after they suffer fatal wounds (and are removed from the table/playing field) then the Ld value should be 30 even if one boy remains.

However, if we presume that once a model suffers a fatal wound they are removed from the unit (Thus no longer part of it, but having come from it), then having 20 boy left out of 30 nets us a Ld value of 20 (as those Boyz lost to shooting no longer count s being "in" the unit).

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
No supposition. We refer directly to the written word of the Reanimation Protocols rule. A slain models cannot be 'returned to this unit' if it is already in the unit. The RAW of the Reanimation Protocols rule directly supports that slain models are not IN units.

One can return from many places. In order to return from outside the unit, one must be outside in the unit. Where is the instruction to remove the model from the unit? This is something that neither you nor orknado have addressed.

We don't need to address this. The Reanimation Protocols rule asserts with its very wording that the slain models 'must be outside in the unit' as you note. We have no choice but to follow the RAW on this, and take the Reanimation Protocols rule at its word. If you don't take the Reanimation Protocols rule at its word then you are violating plainly stated RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Nope. Per the strict letter of the rules, only models that are in units have datasheets and profiles. That is literally what the rule says. There is no rule granting general permission for models not in units to have datasheets. Sorry but that is what the rules say.

In order for it to be "only models that are in units have datasheets and profiles", the quoted statement would have to have "only" in it. It does not. A connection to the datasheet and profile is established when you build the army list. An instruction must be provided to do so. Where is the instruction to separate the model from its datasheet and profile when it is removed from play?

Models only have permission to have datasheets/profiles while they are in units. You have to show a rule that permanently affixes a profile to a model in order to overcome the loss of the profile when the model no longer has permission to have the profile. Remember the rule says "each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". A model that is no longer in the unit, is no longer being 'listed' by the datasheet.

The burden of proof is on you here to provide a rule that affixes profiles to models such that the datasheet will list them when they are not in the unit.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:
[

col_impact wrote:
Nope. Reanimation Protocols indicates that slain models that are reanimated are 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that they were not in the unit while they were slain. There is no other way to construe it. The rule says 'returned to this unit' and not 'returned to play'. Since it says the former and not the latter we know that slain models are not in units.

Yes, it does say "returned to this unit", but where was the model in the first place? Where is the instruction telling you that the model was out and separated from the unit?

There are indeed other ways to construe this if we consider all the rules provided so far. We are instructed to remove the model from play, and then to return it to the unit. Where was the model? Out of play. In a way, there is a closer analogy that can be made to a hockey player being in the penalty box, then being a dead soldier in a ditty bag. The player (model) is removed from the play of the game, when he returns to the team, he is still on the same team (unit) in the same position within that team (unit). While the model is removed from play, it is still in the unit (organizationally), but removed from interactions involved with Movement, Shooting, Charging, Fighting, etc. This is not breaking the rules of the game, but using the instructions we have so far, in the order they are given, to put them in proper perspective.

Your own analogy proves my argument.

A player who is in the penalty box is still on the team so its not the same thing as what Reanimation Protocols rule is telling us.

The RP rule tells us that slain models are not in the unit. Unit is an organizational definition so slain models are not part of the unit organization.

While slain models are not part of the unit organization, datasheets will not list their characteristics as per the Datasheet rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:]"the wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model" This is not my statement. That's the definition in the book. By definition the wound characteristic MUST change when a wound is suffered to accurately reflect how many wounds are left on the model. It would be helpful if you kept track of rules statements. When I quote something it is a rules statement.

But you were attributing it to something else, the datasheet quote provided by orknado's list and you represented as your own which stated that models were in the unit, not the actual definition. The way you and orknado were presenting it was that it could never be modified. Well, it has been modified once to remove the model from play, where does it tell us to modify it back?

Yup. The profile is modified and when slain the slain model is no longer in the unit. When the slain model is not in the unit, the datasheet no longer lists the characteristics the model. That's the RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Also I am a bit confused. In another thread you agree with the argument I am making and disprove the argument you are making in this thread.

Spoiler:

 Charistoph wrote:

In Shooting, we are told that, "A model loses one wound for each point of damage it suffers." So we have an instruction to modify the Wounds characteristic for that model as listed on the profile. That is sufficiently direct of an instruction for me, at any rate.

So I guess you prove yourself wrong. How about that!

Not entirely. In order for the model to be restored in pristine condition, we must consider the datasheet profile to be completely inviolate and unchanging. However, we do have instructions to modify the profile, which is what I was pointing out. I then stated that in order for them to be restored, it must be done in reverse order, in other words, with an instruction specifically detailing the number of Wounds being restored.

But sure, taking things out of context makes it easy to knock down strawmen.

So the profile is modified. The model is reduced to zero wounds and the slain models is no longer in the unit. When the model is not in the unit, the datasheet will no longer list the Wound characteristic. When the slain model is reanimated and the model is 'returned to this unit' then at that point the datasheet will list the Wound characteristic, which will be 3 in the case of a Destroyer model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The Reanimation Protocols rule asserts the logical inverse of IN which is one of a binary condition (IN/OUT). The rule indicates that slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they had to already have been not IN the unit. Simple logic derived directly from the Rules As Written is still Rules As Written. There is literally no other conclusion that you can have except that slain models are not IN units.

It asserts no such thing in and of itself. It would only be asserting this if we already had instructions for the model to be out, or if it said "return the model in to the unit". The rules do not operate in a vacuum, and we must be aware of previous instructions before making any assumptions on how to interpret the rules. This is a concept called "context". The only thing the model could be returning from is "out of play", since that is the only thing we have been literally instructed to do.

Nope. The Reanimation Protocols rule indeed asserts in and of itself that slain models are not in units when it indicates that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit'. It is logically impossible to construe another way without breaking the semantic logic of what the rule is saying. The RP rule is a rule in the book and so we have to adhere to what it is telling us.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.

I have never stated that there was a "removed from play" zone. That is your manufacturing. However, 'play' must be defined as we are instructed to remove the model from play. When you 'play' with a model, you are moving it, shooting with it (hopefully), Charging with it (maybe), and fighting with it (maybe). When it is removed from play, you are not moving it, shooting with it, Charging with it, or fighting with it, no matter how much you would like to complicate this concept.

You are making up this definition of 'play'. There is no such definition in the rules. So once again it is an example of a house rule that you must invent in order to fix the rules that you radically break with your premise that 'slain models are in units'. This is one of the reasons why your premise is invalid.

 BLADERIKER wrote:
So simple enough question then as it pertains to this.

If I have a 30 model unit of Orc Boys, and I lose 10 to shooting what is my leadership value for the subsequent moral test?

The mob rule allows me to substitute the Boyz Ld value (Of 6) for the number of models in the unit (In this case 30) or which ever is higher.

If we presume that models count as part of a unit even after they suffer fatal wounds (and are removed from the table/playing field) then the Ld value should be 30 even if one boy remains.

However, if we presume that once a model suffers a fatal wound they are removed from the unit (Thus no longer part of it, but having come from it), then having 20 boy left out of 30 nets us a Ld value of 20 (as those Boyz lost to shooting no longer count s being "in" the unit).

The issue is where are we instructed to actually remove the model from the unit without relying on making up instructions?

Leadership rolls could be a case where it is relying on models in play as much as in the unit. We presumably cannot call on them for Leadership any more than we can call on them for Shooting or checking to see if they are Coherency.