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.

This isn't actually a question but an answer to how remove from play effects combine with return to play effects.

Saint Celestine Miracuous Intervention:
"Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty, place a counter to mark the spot where she 'died'..."

FAQ 12/12/11

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

This of course apply directly to the "reanimation protocols & jotww" issue that created such a heated discussion. And to consider that I have even been "attacked" in this forum by a couple of people (that believed firmly of the opposite outcome) just for suggesting that it needed to be FAQed...

While I don't directly disagree with you, it is kind of silly to say that a ruling from the SOB FAQ "apply directly" to any codex other than SOB.

I could show you dozens of threads where people use other FAQs to establish precedent for a ruling for a particular codex.
'Applies directly' might not be the right workding to use, but the intent of his post is clear.

And it is exactly the use of "apply directly" that I address, isn't it?

So rather than address the precedent that the SOB ruling makes, you're going to pick on his use of the words 'applied directly'? It just seems like you're being snarky.

On topic, I will be interested to see what larger implications this might have, particularly for armies that have remove from play weapons (I'm thinking DE and huskblades, wraithguard, etc.). Will it make necrons tha much tougher?

Technically this does not alter anything - only St C is allowed to use it against RfP abilities.

GW changing the rules arbitrarily? Nah....

By "applies directly" I meant it applies without need for further interpretation.

I don't think there is a hint of a doubt any more that Necrons get their RP against all such effects.

Neither Huskblade nor Wraithguard remove from play, they just cause instant death, which has nothing to do with what is being discussed here, so not sure what that's all about. On topic, the ruling on Celestine only makes it POSSIBLE that Necrons will be ruled the same way. There is certainly still 'hint of a doubt' as Removed from Play has ALWAYS been different from Removed as a Casualty. They COULD rule it the same way in the Necron FAQ, but they could just as easily not. They are not always consistent, stuff gets ruled differently in different FAQs sometimes.

To add a fluff justification, Celestine is being brought back by a miracle, Necrons are brought back by mechanical repairs. A miracle can raise Celestine out of a gaping chasm (JotWW), mechanical repairs would not do the same. Before you jump at the whole 'fluff isn't rules' argument, consider that GW uses fluff to justify their FAQ rulings. Take for example the BRB ruling on stealth, they explained that it works because the character with stealth shows his buddies good places to hide.

Since there is no reason why one "remove as a casualty" ability can trigger on such effects, and the other cannot, it will be on the safe side to play RP according to the Miraculous Intervention faq, until of course a Necron faq comes that says other wise. And considering it is the upcoming FAQ, that is extremely unlikely...

It isn't 'extremely unlikely' though. You just think that it is. Like I said, they might rule it either way. You are just assuming that they will because it makes sense to you. They have a history of being inconsistent in their rulings, and two FAQs coming out close to eachother does not change this fact. Also, there is a reason, it makes sense fluffwise, which as I said GW has used as justification for FAQ rulings in the past.

There aren't many things in the game that remove from play in the first place. Just agree with your opponents beforehand, play it however you like, and wait for the FAQ. Don't assume anything.

Well as I said, until the Necron faq comes out, play it on the safe side...

"Playing it on the safe side" would be following the current rules, and only changing them where expressly told to - so St C gets it, noone else does, as only St C has permission to use it.

The rules are problematic, that's why a FAQ was needed for the miraculous intervention. Since the RP issue with JotWW is EXACTLY the same as that of miraculous intervention, there is no excuse for not following that faq.

copper.talos wrote:The rules are problematic, that's why a FAQ was needed for the miraculous intervention. Since the RP issue with JotWW is EXACTLY the same as that of miraculous intervention, there is no excuse for not following that faq.

So we should apply the Tyranid FAQ concept of "no psychic defense can penetrate a vehicle" game wide? Sorry, you can't hood me, I'm inside a Rhino.

That'd be fun.

The rules are NOT problematic, as has been proven a number of times. There is a clear and unambiguous distinction between "RfP" and "Remove as a Casualty"

Currently ONLY St C can use her ability against RfP. Thats it. You have NO permission to use it anywhere else.

I guess this makes me a SW player again, yes Copper?

@rigeld2
I would say have fun trying to convince an informed necron player on the table, that they don't get RP against JotWW...


@nosferatu
no, it does prove though that selective reading I told you before...


This not an errata that changes the wording. It is an answer to the exact same question ine would make for the RP. I would suggest you man up and accept your error. The more you keep pushing that reasoning, the more humiliating it will be when the necron faq comes up...

1) I'm not a SW player, so I wouldnt be the one convincing them
2) I AM an informed necron player, and it doesnt work against JotWW UNTIL and UNLESS GW change the rules so that it does.

So, you're still wrong...

copper.talos wrote:@rigeld2
I would say have fun trying to convince an informed necron player on the table, that they don't get RP against JotWW...

It's trivially easy.

Remove from play as a casualty does not mean the same thing as Remove from play. St. C has a specific allowance to conflate the two - no other ability does (currently).
So you're okay with hoods not working while in/against a power used from a transport? Just checking.

This not an errata that changes the wording. It is an answer to the exact same question ine would make for the RP. I would suggest you man up and accept your error. The more you keep pushing that reasoning, the more humiliating it will be when the necron faq comes up...

It is an answer to a question about an ability that is not RP.

Can ICs join a unit in a transport pod? If you base game wide rules off of a single FAQ, the answer would be no - Tyranids cannot.

One should never make a post about humilitation that can be quoted so it does not change. Everyone has been mistaken on a rules interpretation at one time or another and a statement like this "I'm right you are wrong and will be humiliated publically" could potentially come back and bite you. No one knows how GW will rule on this if they decide to FAQ it. Removed from play and removed as a casualty are 2 different things.

copper.talos wrote:@rigeld2
I would say have fun trying to convince an informed necron player on the table, that they don't get RP against JotWW...


@nosferatu
no, it does prove though that selective reading I told you before...


This not an errata that changes the wording. It is an answer to the exact same question ine would make for the RP. I would suggest you man up and accept your error. The more you keep pushing that reasoning, the more humiliating it will be when the necron faq comes up...

This is a place to discuss rules. They get a faq that proves them wrong and they keep pushing that reasoning. So they invalidate the very reason for this whole section.

And yes we all make mistakes, but one should be man enough to admit them...

copper.talos wrote:This is a place to discuss rules. They get a faq that proves them wrong and they keep pushing that reasoning.

The FAQ proves one, single, ability, wrong. *Not* every single application of Removed as a Casualty. You are making the leap that since the FAQ makes an exception in one place, that it is a new rule going forward.

That is not the case.

Do you remember who was that guy that used as an argument a FAQ with an obsolete ability (WBB) and a irrelevant rule (Last Laugh) to argue that necrons don't get an RP?

And I really wonder what you guys will tell when the necron FAQ comes as and say that same thing?

Anyway for me case is closed. No tourney judge in his right mind will decide against RP and that's all I care about...

copper.talos wrote:Do you remember who was that guy that used as an argument a FAQ with an obsolete ability (WBB) and a irrelevant rule (Last Laugh) to argue that necrons don't get an RP?

Yes, because WBB is completely unlike RP - absolutely different. And *you* were the one who brought up Last Laugh first.

And I really wonder what you guys will tell when the necron FAQ comes as and say that same thing?

The same thing we've always said - an FAQ would change the ruling, but it would go against the current set of rules.

Anyway for me case is closed. No tourney judge in his right mind will decide against RP and that's all I care about...

I'd hope you're wrong. If I was a TO this wouldn't be enough to change the rules game wide.

Read that last thread that got locked.
Clue: It wasn't me...

copper.talos wrote: Anyway for me case is closed. No tourney judge in his right mind will decide against RP and that's all I care about...

Oddly enough you are mistaken. My bet is there are plenty of tourney judges that will rule the other way. Unless of course you have polled every tourney judge on the planet and can back that statement up.

Judges (like me) will state that no Necron player in his right mind would attempt to claim an ability that doesn't exist should be allowed.

copper.talos wrote:Read that last thread that got locked.
Clue: It wasn't me...

Sorry - you're right. It was BR.

But in the previous thread your post here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/60/411532.page#3601295

Says,

copper.talos wrote:Actually the SW faq characterized WBB as a "return to play" ability. So it totally worked on JOTWW. Guess what will happen in the FAQ then...

copper.talos wrote: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.

Hummm... that post was in a thread before the latest one that got locked. I wonder who brought Last Laugh up first?

Only St C has the specific permission to come back from remove from play effects with the new necron codex.. RP only activates on casualties, not RfP. Until the FAQ it, necrons removed from play will be gone without the ability to come back.

-cgmckenzie

Copper - yes, this is a place to discuss rules.

The actual rules are that RfP and RaC are different. St C has a specific rule that Lets HER conflate the two terms

No tourney judge in their right mind will let necron players conflate the two terms. Well, *I* wont be doing so for my tourney in May, UNLESS a Necron FAQ comes along and changes the rules.

So, you are still wrong. No, this is not me not "manning up", as you so hilariously choose to argue (so, how many logical fallacies are you going for today? thats 2 (1 repeated) in this thread alone), but me applying the rules of specific vs general

Generally, RfP and RaaC are different
Specifically, St C is allowed to treat them as the same

Result: Necron players do not get RP against JotWW, et al, because they are not St C.

@rigeld2
that was after omerakk first posted the faq. I used the characterization of WBB to show that that faq can be read differently and secondly to "guess" how RP & JotWW will interract,

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/416753.page

copper.talos wrote:@omerakk I only reffered to the FAQ that WBB is described as a "return to play" effect which counters "remove from play".

.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/30/414501.page

nosferatu1001 wrote:
There HAS been a FAQ - Lukas, which supports that RfP /= remove as a casualty. Or did you miss it the last few times it was pointed out to you?

So a FAQ about an irrelevant abilty and an obsolete ability is more valid for this argument that the FAQ about Miraculous Intervention and remove from play effects...

copper.talos wrote:So a FAQ about an irrelevant abilty and an obsolete ability is more valid for this argument that the FAQ about Miraculous Intervention and remove from play effects...

Which ability is irrelevant - Last Laugh? The wording - that you used in the discussion - is absolutely relevant. And WBB was worded essentially the same as RP, so while obselete, it's still contextually relevant.

Miraculous Intervention states that it activates when removed from play as a casualty. The FAQ states that it will always work. I disagree with the FAQ ruling - they should've errataed the ability - but that's nether here nor there.
What the FAQ does *not* say, is that all remove from play as a casualty abilities work on "removed from play".

edit: IOW, the FAQ does *nothing* for RFP vs RFPAAC - it *only* talks about MI. If it said that MI works because RFP is the same as RFPAAC you'd have a point, and I'd concede.