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.

ok, so in my understanding this is the same thing, however in another thread is was pointed out that this may not be the case.

So can anyone point me to a rule, or something that states this.

I though it worked like this

lose a wound, remove model as a casualty, model is now removed from play.

take a I test if failed, remove model from play.

the second does not allow for saves of any kind, this seems to be the only diference i can see.

cheers lads

No, they are not the same thing.

Remove as a casualty is specific wording, whcih some abilities such as RP trigger off of. Removed as a casualty AND removed from play can BOTH ignore saves - for example Warp Rift removes as a casualty on a failed I test

do you have a page ref please as i cannot find this in the rulebook, all i can seem to find is that they seem to switch between the 2 wordings for a lot of diferent things, but cannot find anything specifically says they are diferent (and on the same token, the same)

You dont need a page reference, you just need to read. The two phrase are different, that is all that is needed to define them as different.

If you have an ability that triggers on Removed as a Casualty, you CANNOT use it if you are Removed From Play - because the two phrases are not the same.

so its not actually a rule then?

The important thing to remember is that the removed as casualty can still allow you to utilize abilities that would trigger upon death. If you are removed from play then you are simply gone...vanished...no more!

I tried to find a page reference since you asked, but haven't found anything. I believe it's just as Nos said, simply read and break it down for purpose of play.

to me its a matter of if then statements.

if you had an ablity that was

if x unit was removed from the game as a casualty this turn then y happens

I would say that only units that have been specifically removed from the game as casualties could be affected by that ability.

When and doubt I normally trust Nos, but I'm not a 100% on this one. Can anyone provide specific examples of these occurrences and how and why they would differ?

CageUF wrote:When and doubt I normally trust Nos, but I'm not a 100% on this one. Can anyone provide specific examples of these occurrences and how and why they would differ?

BRB, p20: "Before he removes any models as causalties, the owning player can test to see if his troops avoid damage..."

(same page): "...a model of your choice is removed as a casualty for each [failed save]."

Note: I included the above section from "Taking Saving Throws" under Shooting Phase, as it is the first place in the BRB where inflicting damage is discussed. It is also explained under "Removing Casualties" on p24, though that section just reiterates what the earlier part discusses (and introduces terms like "unsaved wound" etc for regular sources of damage).

Codex Necrons, p29: "If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty..."

Codex Grey Knights, p29 under Warp Rift: "For every test that is failed, one model is removed as a casualty..."

Codex Space Wolves, p37 under Jaws of the World Wolf: "If the model fails the test, it is removed from play."

Here we see a distinct difference in wording. JotWW does not say "as a casualty." Hence we infer that Reanimation Protocols does not function against JotWW, since removal as a casualty is a specific condition that other rules (such as Warp Rift) abide by. That's just one example. It's very much like how the old Daemonhunters Force Weapons bypassed the Eternal Warrior rule, since Eternal Warrior only granted immunity to Instant Death, while the Daemonhunter Force Weapons simply removed models, regardless of the number of wounds they had (which is essentially what Instant Death does, but the weapons did not actually inflict Instant Death, just the same effects).

removed from play and removed as a casualty are two very different things.

I have to play devils advocate as i am the one who generally has to deal with our clubs rule disputes, so i am normally overly thick and pedantic, in terms of clarification as if i can think of some stupid argument to abuse the rules (or not), it usually stops a future dispute, as a house ruling has already been made.

so i do appreciate the help, but i will need some sort of evidence that removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty, as both result in the model leaving the board, however if there is no evidence, then for future references at our club, it will have to be a roll off

thanks again lads

Formosa wrote: i will need some sort of evidence that removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty

It would be just as impossible for you to prove they are the same, and since you are positing such I daresay the burden of proof should be yours.

You are asking if two different phrases mean are the same thing.
The answer is "no, because they are two different phrases."
If you want to prove otherwise, feel free to find text stating it.

i have looked as i stated, but i cant find any evidence either way, the reason im asking is we have a few SW and necron players at my club, and im looking for as much evidence as i can to make a ruleing on things like the tesseract lab and Jaws, what i believe on the subject is of no concern, as its supposed to be a unbiased ruleing.

Formosa wrote:i have looked as i stated, but i cant find any evidence either way

You have not found evidence that two rules with different wordings are the same, nor that two rules with different wordings are different?

I think I am missing something.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
It is sort of like the difference between "Give them advice" and "Give them advice as their lawyer."

So if JOWW kills 2/3 of a units does it need to take a morale test or not?

Morale tests do not care about casualties.

Page 44:
"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back."

The heading is as misleading as the rules for taking wounds in the assault phase being listed in "The Shooting Phase" section.

Editing the wrong page number I wrote.

Really? Why is it under the "casualties" section in pg 44 then?

copper.talos wrote:Really? Why is it under the "casualties" section in pg 44 then?

kirsanth wrote:
Page 44:
"A unit losing 25% or more of its models during a single phase must pass a Morale check at the end of that phase, or else it will fall back."

The heading is as misleading as the rules for taking wounds in the assault phase being listed in "The Shooting Phase" section.

In the english codex it is in page 44 under the title "CASUALTIES". And then it says "A unit losing 25% or more of its models ...". That means that lost models are considered casualties.

Yes. Now read the rule. If you lose 25% or more of your models in a single phase.

Does that rule (note - not the heading) have the word casualty?

Yes since it is the section of "CASUALTIES". All the text under that title is there to tell you how to handle casualties and morale tests. Repeating the title would be redudant.

copper.talos wrote:In the english codex it is in page 44 under the title "CASUALTIES".

kirsanth wrote:The heading is as misleading as the rules for taking wounds in the assault phase being listed in "The Shooting Phase" section.

And? the actual RULE states "losing". If the rule said "casualty" then you may have a point - it doesnt so you dont.

Been here before - no matter how those models were removed they have been lost from the unit.

Formosa - you are making a claim that two differently worded rules are the same, so the default (null hypothesis) is that they are NOT the same. Unless you can find evidence pointing towards H1 (they are the same) then the null hypothesis has to stand.
They are different rules because they are differently worded. This has been true since the SW codex was released and still affected necrons then.

And it is considered a casualty so it causes a morale test. You can't just ignore the title of a section just because it is you want to.

copper.talos wrote:And it is considered a casualty so it causes a morale test. You can't just ignore the title of a section just because it is you want to.

Sorry it wasn't removed as a casualty, it was just removed ... There are exceptions to rules. This is one of them.

No, it's considered a loss of a model. Jaws is not a casualty.

If you read further it says "A unit that is locked in close combat does not have to take Morale checks for taking 25% casualties". Which means that losing models and casualties are considered the same.

I rest my case. Going to sleep now...

so as per the previous thread, Ever living would allow the return of a model "removed from play" but Reanimation protocalls would not (as it only mentions "removed as a casualty") this seems fair enough

BTW this is what led me to ask this question.
" If a model is removed as a casualty, do not add a RP counter to its unit. Instead place an
Ever Living counter the where the model was removed from play. at the end of the phase, roll for the counter, just as you would for RP counter."

It seems to immply they are the same thing here, hence the question, but as some have stated this may not be the case (this may change in the FAQ)

Formosa wrote:i have looked as i stated, but i cant find any evidence either way, the reason im asking is we have a few SW and necron players at my club, and im looking for as much evidence as i can to make a ruleing on things like the tesseract lab and Jaws, what i believe on the subject is of no concern, as its supposed to be a unbiased ruleing.

The best evidence you can give them is the actual Space Wolves FAQ. When Necrons were still using WBB, there were 2 abilities listed in the SW faq:

Jaws - Remove from play wording
Necrons didn't get wbb

The Last Laugh - Remove as casualty wording
Necrons were specifically called out and DID get wbb

Just follow that precedent with the current RP and ability wordings and you should be fine

Where in the SW faq does it say that necrons didn't get a WBB after JOWW? I don't see any mention of this.

In the SW of the last laugh it says:
"Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g. Necrons,
St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule even after
being removed from play by The Last Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule works
just fine.

So Necrons special ability is considered return to play, and it works after the model is removed from play. Nothing more to say about it.