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.

The precedent for FAQ from one code applying to another codex is primarily when the FAQ clarifies a general rule, not a codex specific rule.

In this instance, Miraculous Intervention is referencing a codex specific rule in regard to JotWW. Until EL gets the same ruling in the form of a FAQ, EL does not protect from being removed from play.

INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

copper.talos wrote:INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

INAT has tules that models affected by JotWW count as casualties for the purposes of morale.
INAT did not change the wording to "removed from play as a casualty".
INAT has not conflated the two things.

GW will likely never FAQ it.
Decide amongst your group how to handle JotWW as far as morale casualties goes, but RAW it's pretty clear that RFP != RFPaaC.

This is the full INAT ruling
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].
Ref: DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.01
Do you read any mention of morale? No? Then it's a generic ruling. If you want to add words like "morale" to that ruling, then contact the INAT council.

Furthermore the next ruling is this:
SW.37H.05 – Q: If Jaws of the World Wolf is used
alongside other shooting from the Rune Priest’s unit,
when exactly are the casualties from ‘JotWW’
removed?
A: Casualty removal for ‘JotWW’ attacks are done at the same
time as with any other shooting attacks made by the firing
unit. When allocating wounds for a complex unit to take saves,
models that have failed their characteristic test can still have
wounds allocated to them as normal (as a failed characteristic
test is not a wound) [clarification].

Another instance where INAT considers models affected by jotww as casualties.

Brother Ramses wrote:The precedent for FAQ from one code applying to another codex is primarily when the FAQ clarifies a general rule, not a codex specific rule.

In this instance, Miraculous Intervention is referencing a codex specific rule in regard to JotWW. Until EL gets the same ruling in the form of a FAQ, EL does not protect from being removed from play.

Are you deliberately ignoring the wording of the Necron Codex. Maybe you don't have a copy?

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

Nemesor Dave wrote:You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

I'm not.
Ever-Living only allows you to place a counter if you were removed from play as a casualty.
All other references to "removed from play" must be referencing that instance.

Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:The precedent for FAQ from one code applying to another codex is primarily when the FAQ clarifies a general rule, not a codex specific rule.

In this instance, Miraculous Intervention is referencing a codex specific rule in regard to JotWW. Until EL gets the same ruling in the form of a FAQ, EL does not protect from being removed from play.

Are you deliberately ignoring the wording of the Necron Codex. Maybe you don't have a copy?

You can't just ignore the FACT that the Ever-Living rules say they work regarding a model that was "removed from play."

Yea, I already addressed your nit picking of the rules that allows you to try and pigeonhole your assumption. As both Rig and Happy have pointed out, being removed from play for EL is dependent on being removed as a casualty. You cannot get around that rule, not matter how much you try. The COMPLETE rule, not your paraphrase, destroys your own argument.

Yep, it was addressed clearly already, yet ND repeated it as if the argument still had any merit.

I'm shocked.

You place a token if you are rmeoved as a casualty. If you havent been removed as a casualty you dont place a token.

Happyjew wrote:Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

The key to this rule is time vs. location

WHEN a model is removed as a casualty ... place a token WHERE it was removed from play

Thus, EL only works WHEN the model is a casualty. The token is placed WHERE you remove the model from the table

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

The key to this rule is time vs. location

WHEN a model is removed as a casualty ... place a token WHERE it was removed from play

Thus, EL only works WHEN the model is a casualty. The token is placed WHERE you remove the model from the table

Hmmm, this guy knows a thing or two about something.

Did the guy get kicked out of the shop, that's all I read the last 2 pages to find out!!!

Happyjew wrote:Context, context, context.
"When a model with Everliving is removed as a casualty do not place an RP token." (I think that's what it say, I'm going off of memory so I might be slightly off). "Instead place an EL token down where the model was removed from play." You cannot have an "Instead" if you were not removed as a casualty.

There is another logical explanation: "Removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" are the same thing.

You can have an "instead" if they both mean the same thing. This is what I am saying this means. The Necron codex uses the two phrases interchangeably and only you guys keep claiming they have separate meanings.

In the BRB there is only one description of removing casualties - they are removed. All the rest is fluff.

"as a casualty" is fluff. The BRB has more fluff to describe what casualty means - "not necessarily dead".

Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

Faqs answer specific questions.
Can Celestine get up if she is hit with remove from play effects? Faq: Yes
Can a model with everliving get up if it is hit with remove from play effects? Faq:???
The question is the same but the everliving model has no faq. So you look to any similar faqs for guidance. The only one ever is that of celestine. Everliving and miraculous intervention both have essentially the same wording up to the crucial part of placing the counter. To keep it short both models place the counter when they get removed as a casualty, so it is elligible to use it as a precedent. A similar case like manticore where you use the eldar exarch tempest launcher faq,

Lehnsherr wrote:Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

Ouch!

Basically looks like an argument of convience. When the FAQ is convient it is used, when not it is challeneged.

Lehnsherr wrote:Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

I agree with your point and its one I was thinking about how to state it best. There are a few different ways the FAQ's are used in various threads.

1. Straightforward Answer: Simple straightforward answer to a question. You usually must agree unless there is some ambiguity in the question or answer.
If A is true then B? Yes/No.

2. Parallel: Like the Celestine FAQ:
Celestine and Necrons come back from out of play. The wording in both rules is similar. Celestine is FAQed to come back from JAWS therefore without a FAQ we may consider a possible parallel and decide based on that. I would agree with your point here - this is an argument not based on RAW. It is using a similar FAQ Q/A and applying it to the question at hand. Most threads that come to the conclusion "the rules don't specify" dont end there, but devolve into "how should we play this?" And this at least tells us GW would probably rule the same in the future if they do FAQ this and adds something to discussion.

3. Implied: Like the Imotekh thread:
The FAQ implies something that is not part of the question it is answering. It unfortunately says "must Imotekh roll". This has lead to some arguments that require a leap in logic based on suggested game play. If Imotekh is rolling, its his roll. If its his roll, he must be in play to roll. If its his roll, and his unit is pinned, he cannot roll. All this contradicts the original understanding everyone agreed to based on the RAW in the codex. This isn't based on RAW but on a FAQs false assumption about the nature of some loosely related rule.

#3 is too far from a precise answer about related rules to base any real argument on yet some still try. They should at leas be honest and admit their arguments are not based on RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Ouch!

Basically looks like an argument of convience. When the FAQ is convient it is used, when not it is challeneged.

I had stopped bringing up Celestine. I agree, the parallel between the rules for Celestine and FAQ and the EL rule (though no FAQ) are not the strongest argument.

My last comment on this is about how "removed from play" is treated as synonymously with "removed as a casualty" in the Necron Codex. This is based purely on RAW.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Lehnsherr wrote:Dave... I am curious as to a couple of statements you made in this thread and another....

A FAQ is only valid for the question it answers
The FAQ which answers a specific question

In the Imotekh and Night Fighting thread you made these statements. Effectively, you are arguing there that the FAQ is not RAW and FAQ's can only be applied to specific questions.

Earlier in this thread you posted

The Celestine FAQ shows that just isn't true and the EL rule says "removed from play" so they both work

You are using the FAQ on Celestine, and applying it to EL. If the FAQ applies only to specific questions, then it only answers the question about Celestine. By drawing a conclusion from the FAQ you have now basically admitted that the FAQ changed the way removed from play worked, and as such is now RAW.

Perhaps I am misunderstanding the way you referenced the Celestine FAQ and how it applies to EL, but I do not think I have. There seems to be a disconnect here between the argument you made in the Imotekh thread, and now in this thread.

I agree with your point and its one I was thinking about how to state it best. There are a few different ways the FAQ's are used in various threads.

1. Straightforward Answer: Simple straightforward answer to a question. You usually must agree unless there is some ambiguity in the question or answer.
If A is true then B? Yes/No.

2. Parallel: Like the Celestine FAQ:
Celestine and Necrons come back from out of play. The wording in both rules is similar. Celestine is FAQed to come back from JAWS therefore without a FAQ we may consider a possible parallel and decide based on that. I would agree with your point here - this is an argument not based on RAW. It is using a similar FAQ Q/A and applying it to the question at hand. Most threads that come to the conclusion "the rules don't specify" dont end there, but devolve into "how should we play this?" And this at least tells us GW would probably rule the same in the future if they do FAQ this and adds something to discussion.

3. Implied: Like the Imotekh thread:
The FAQ implies something that is not part of the question it is answering. It unfortunately says "must Imotekh roll". This has lead to some arguments that require a leap in logic based on suggested game play. If Imotekh is rolling, its his roll. If its his roll, he must be in play to roll. If its his roll, and his unit is pinned, he cannot roll. All this contradicts the original understanding everyone agreed to based on the RAW in the codex. This isn't based on RAW but on a FAQs false assumption about the nature of some loosely related rule.

#3 is too far from a precise answer about related rules to base any real argument on yet some still try. They should at leas be honest and admit their arguments are not based on RAW.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Ouch!

Basically looks like an argument of convience. When the FAQ is convient it is used, when not it is challeneged.

I had stopped bringing up Celestine. I agree, the parallel between the rules for Celestine and FAQ and the EL rule (though no FAQ) are not the strongest argument.

My last comment on this is about how "removed from play" is treated as synonymously with "removed as a casualty" in the Necron Codex. This is based purely on RAW.

And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty. It has been brought up several times and yet you continue to gloss over it without a single acknowledgement because it destroys your argument.

At not time whatsoever can an EL counter be placed unless the model was first removed as a casualty. You cannot argue around that facet of the rule and because of that you cannot even begin to tackle the fact that EL works against JotWW.

BR, check out my last post in the NIghtfighting/Imotekh off the board thread.

Brother Ramses wrote:

And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty. It has been brought up several times and yet you continue to gloss over it without a single acknowledgement because it destroys your argument.

At not time whatsoever can an EL counter be placed unless the model was first removed as a casualty. You cannot argue around that facet of the rule and because of that you cannot even begin to tackle the fact that EL works against JotWW.

Your logic is circular:

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty

This statement depends on the presumption that they are not synonymous. Do you see the paradox in your statement? There is no dependency if the phrases are synonymous. You must assume they are not synonymous for there to be a dependency.

It's simple really:

This part is rules:
BRB p. 24 Remove Casualties: "...model is immediately removed from the table..."
This part is fluff:
"... as a casualty..."
As is this part also fluff:
"Casualties are not necessarily dead."

The only part of any rule that is not fluff from the Codex, BRB or anywhere is the part that says "remove", "remove from play" or "remove from the table".

So you're arguing that Remove from play as a casualty is the same thing - game wide - as Remove from play?

rigeld2 wrote:So you're arguing that Remove from play as a casualty is the same thing - game wide - as Remove from play?

There are two parts to my argument.

The Necron codex uses Removed From Play and Removed as a Casualty synonymously. For the sake of EL they are the same.

The rest of my argument could be construed as game wide, they are the same thing. Based on the quotes I presented this is true. Perhaps someone else can prove this false.

Your first statement is incorrect. If they are not the same, references to remove from play after a requirement of being removed from play as a casualty can only refer to the original removal - as a casualty.

I'll construct an argument to the latter statement later today.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Brother Ramses wrote:

And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty. It has been brought up several times and yet you continue to gloss over it without a single acknowledgement because it destroys your argument.

At not time whatsoever can an EL counter be placed unless the model was first removed as a casualty. You cannot argue around that facet of the rule and because of that you cannot even begin to tackle the fact that EL works against JotWW.

Your logic is circular:

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty

This statement depends on the presumption that they are not synonymous. Do you see the paradox in your statement? There is no dependency if the phrases are synonymous. You must assume they are not synonymous for there to be a dependency.

It's simple really:

This part is rules:
BRB p. 24 Remove Casualties: "...model is immediately removed from the table..."
This part is fluff:
"... as a casualty..."
As is this part also fluff:
"Casualties are not necessarily dead."

The only part of any rule that is not fluff from the Codex, BRB or anywhere is the part that says "remove", "remove from play" or "remove from the table".

Again, willful ignorance.

Let me ask you this ND, how do you place an EL counter if the model is not first removed as a casualty?

And way to cite a rule that has absolutely nothing to do with JotWW and again in typical Nemesor Dave fashion, nitpicking the rule to fit your argument. BRB page 24, Remove Casualties;

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So at what point is a wound taken, a save failed, and a model removed as a casualty from the use of JotWW? You are trying to backdoor EL in by reversing the actions of the rule to sync up remove as a casualty with remove from play. We know that being removed as a casualty involves unsaved wounds, which JotWW does not cause wounds. However, you fail at addressing that without first being removed as a casualty (meaning being removed due to unsaved wounds) must happen before an EL counter can be placed where the model was removed from play.

By all means, try and rectify how the model with EL has unsaved wounds from JotWW to be removed as a casualty and have an EL counter placed.

rigeld2 wrote:

Lunchmonkey wrote:They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

No.

RP/EL trigger when removed from play as a casualty. Jaws, et. al. remove from play.

When totaling losses for Morale purposes, you count models removed by Jaws, et. al. for that purpose.

If you get a chance to read this, take note of Last Laugh from P. 52 the SW codex where the two are used synonymously but going the other directly:
"Should Lukas ever be removed from play..." "...models in base contact are also removed from play as casualties."

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Brother Ramses wrote:

Again, willful ignorance.

Let me ask you this ND, how do you place an EL counter if the model is not first removed as a casualty?

All models removed from the game are removed from the game "as casualties". Casualty is a fluff term as explained in the BRB "not necessarily dead". Another statement you make that assumes the premise that the two phrases are not synonymous in order to prove they are not synonymous. I am wondering if you know what i mean by RFP and RFPaaC are synonymous.

Brother Ramses wrote:
And way to cite a rule that has absolutely nothing to do with JotWW and again in typical Nemesor Dave fashion, nitpicking the rule to fit your argument. BRB page 24, Remove Casualties;

"Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty."

So at what point is a wound taken, a save failed, and a model removed as a casualty from the use of JotWW? You are trying to backdoor EL in by reversing the actions of the rule to sync up remove as a casualty with remove from play. We know that being removed as a casualty involves unsaved wounds, which JotWW does not cause wounds. However, you fail at addressing that without first being removed as a casualty (meaning being removed due to unsaved wounds) must happen before an EL counter can be placed where the model was removed from play.

By all means, try and rectify how the model with EL has unsaved wounds from JotWW to be removed as a casualty and have an EL counter placed.

Your are assuming some agreed definition of RFPaaC as having taken wounds and RFP as not having taken wounds. Sorry to "nitpick" but please cite the page numbers where these are separately explained. I don't know of any distinction made in the rules.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Lunchmonkey wrote:They don't mention, for the purposes of morale checks anywhere near those rulings.

If they count "as casualties" for the purposes of morale checks, they should in turn also count "as casualties" for purposes of RP/EL. Not every other Tuesday, on the 5th month of biannual years.

No.

RP/EL trigger when removed from play as a casualty. Jaws, et. al. remove from play.

When totaling losses for Morale purposes, you count models removed by Jaws, et. al. for that purpose.

If you get a chance to read this, take note of Last Laugh from P. 52 the SW codex where the two are used synonymously but going the other directly:
"Should Lukas ever be removed from play..." "...models in base contact are also removed from play as casualties."

Some serious yoga stretching taking place here.

Keying in on "also" is trying to play a semantics game that you just as easily lose when "also" relates to said models being in base to base with Lukas "also" suffer a consequence of Last Laugh. However your modus operandi is to exclude what does not support your argument.

Note that Lukas is removed from play and models in base to base with him are removed as casualties. Why verbiage if the exact same? Lukas is removed from play (nothing can bring him back) whereas the models in base to base are removed as casualties (can be brought back).

This is difference is supported by the SW FAQ.

Brother Ramses wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

If you get a chance to read this, take note of Last Laugh from P. 52 the SW codex where the two are used synonymously but going the other directly:
"Should Lukas ever be removed from play..." "...models in base contact are also removed from play as casualties."

Some serious yoga stretching taking place here.

Keying in on "also" is trying to play a semantics game that you just as easily lose when "also" relates to said models being in base to base with Lukas "also" suffer a consequence of Last Laugh. However your modus operandi is to exclude what does not support your argument.

I looked for any way I could be misreading this and the way "also" is used. To paraphrase for clarity this rule:
1) Should Lukas be RFP
2) both players roll dice
3) if the SW player rolls higher or equal
4) "all models in base contact with Lukas are also RFPaaC"

There are two actions in this sentence - remove Lukas, and if conditions are met, "also" remove your models in B2B. The word "also" is equating what is done to Lukas and the models in B2B. RFP = RFPaaC. If there is any other way to read this I'd be happy to hear a reasonable alternative.

Brother Ramses wrote:
Note that Lukas is removed from play and models in base to base with him are removed as casualties. Why verbiage if the exact same? Lukas is removed from play (nothing can bring him back) whereas the models in base to base are removed as casualties (can be brought back).

This is difference is supported by the SW FAQ.

You never responded to this:

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Your logic is circular:

Brother Ramses wrote:
And yet you continue to dismiss/willfully ignore that it isn't synonymous because the EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play is 100% wholly dependent on the model being removed as a casualty

This statement depends on the presumption that they are not synonymous. Do you see the paradox in your statement? There is no dependency if the phrases are synonymous. You must assume they are not synonymous for there to be a dependency.

If I'm shot with a machine gun, you should also shoot the other guy.

Is everyone that shoots the other guy shooting a machine gun?

You're reading the sentence wrong.

rigeld2 wrote:If I'm shot with a machine gun, you should also shoot the other guy.

Is everyone that shoots the other guy shooting a machine gun?

You're reading the sentence wrong.

To use your phrase it would be more like this:

If I'm shot with that machine gun, you should also be shot with a black machine gun.

I do see how it could be read the way you're saying though. I hope you can see that reading it the way I presented is also reasonable.

And you're saying that all machine guns are black (using that sentence)?