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.

Happyjew wrote:Also, (since some people are saying that St Celestine sets a preference), would you allow me to strike at Initiative if I assault through Dangerous Terrain created by Writhing Worldscape, because, using the "Spore Cloud" as a precedent, my models would not have reduced Initiative.

Writhing Worldscape makes difficult terrain dangerous as well.
So you are assaulting through difficult terrain and your initiative is reduced.
I don't see a conflict. Nice try though.
A better comparison of WW would be Sanctuary.

As an aside the word you were looking for was Precedent not preference.

Basimpo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:I actually thought there was a rule, or FAQ that said necrons cant come back from removed from play.

There is. RP/EL trigger when the model is removed as a casualty. The BRB implies (not defines that I saw) that this happens when you run out of wounds.
RFP abilities don't cause wounds, and they don't remove from play as a casualty. Therefore they do not trigger RP/EL.

Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

It's not, as I asserted earlier.
So while it's not a guarantee that RFP abilities don't cause wounds, we'll take the example that always gets used - JotWW.
It does not cause wounds.
Therefore, by the implicit definition in the BRB of RFPaaC, you are not removed as a casualty.
JotWW forces the models to be removed from play.
We can use normal english to determine how to remove a model from play (and must, because the BRB doesn't define that, even for RFPaaC)

Basimpo wrote:

Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

Please cite where "the" is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ

Or, you realise that the game isnt completly internally defined, and that where it isnt you fall back on English. And Removed from Play is definitively different to RfPaaC, because the latter adds a specific condition "as a casualty". If you are not removed as a casualty you have not been removed from play as a casualty.

Copper is ignored for blatant trolling, again.

Page 55 BRB under the title morale and fallback moves. Last sentence. Sweeping advance that catches and destroys an artillery piece...

Basimpo wrote:Page 54 of the BRB. Trapped! If the unit cannot perform a full fall back move in any direction without doubling back it is destroyed.

No RFP, or RFPaaC here...

Yep! You have found yet another way to remove models. The other "remove" action is during Sweeping Advances. Whether or not EL and MI works here is still hotly debated, but RAW I would argue that they do not function here.

Basimpo wrote:Please cite where RFP is defined in the BRB or a GW FAQ.

RFP is not defined in the BRB because it's not language that is used in that rulebook. It is only used in a couple of codexes.

Icemyn wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Also, (since some people are saying that St Celestine sets a preference), would you allow me to strike at Initiative if I assault through Dangerous Terrain created by Writhing Worldscape, because, using the "Spore Cloud" as a precedent, my models would not have reduced Initiative.

Writhing Worldscape makes difficult terrain dangerous as well.
So you are assaulting through difficult terrain and your initiative is reduced.
I don't see a conflict. Nice try though.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/435190.page
I already thought about the "precedent" the Venomthrope FAQ would set.
The issue with that one is that other abilities create difficult/dangerous terrain, which you then roll for.
Spre Cloud forces a roll, but does not create terrain.

I feel its important to note that you haven't really added anything to the conversation Nos and just kind of showed up to flame bait Copper.

But yes your point about every term not being defined is true, pedantic, but true.

Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

Icemyn wrote:Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

Sure - I don't think that's a satisfying result to a rules discussion, however, because a TO or gaming group is free to decide to ignore/put in place any rules they want. All Tyranids have Eternal Warrior from Synapse again! There was much rejoicing!

I believe the necron codex uses the word destroyed in its definition of the rule RP...Its what happens to the model after it fails to come back, fails to be in coherency, or the unit the RP necron flees, leaving the downed necron to self destruct. I dont have it in front of me, so correct me if im wrong

Icemyn wrote:I feel its important to note that you haven't really added anything to the conversation Nos and just kind of showed up to flame bait Copper.

But yes your point about every term not being defined is true, pedantic, but true.

Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

No, wrong, I pointed out that as there is no formal definition of RfP, you fall back on actual English - same as any other phrase that hasnt got a 40k specific meaning. Using this there is a clear difference between RfP and RfPaaC - its the "as a casualty" part. There are many ways to be removed from play - destroyed, Jaw'ed, etc, but only some of them are as a casualty.

Any TO can decide anything they like anyway - have you seen INAT and ETC rulings before now? The Indy UK GT managed to conflate spotting distance and LOS, and so decided that Hive Guard dont need to roll for night fighting as they dont need LOS. Doesnt make them right, as per the rules, and doesnt mean you should *in a rules discussion* pay them any more attention.

Basimpo wrote:I believe the necron codex uses the word destroyed in its definition of the rule RP...Its what happens to the model after it fails to come back, fails to be in coherency, or the unit the RP necron flees, leaving the downed necron to self destruct. I dont have it in front of me, so correct me if im wrong

It says you can't attempt your RP rolls if the unit is destroyed, and then it defines that in game terms: "once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This is why there is some debate with RFP effects, because if RFP is not RaaC, then if the whole unit is RFP'd then the unit still has RP counters. And if RFP counts as casualties (for Morale, etc), then RP still works at the end of the phase.

I think we should comb through all of our rule books (BRB, codex, FAQ) and post the different ways it mentions on how models "die" or are removed from play etc.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

elrabin wrote:

Basimpo wrote:I believe the necron codex uses the word destroyed in its definition of the rule RP...Its what happens to the model after it fails to come back, fails to be in coherency, or the unit the RP necron flees, leaving the downed necron to self destruct. I dont have it in front of me, so correct me if im wrong

It says you can't attempt your RP rolls if the unit is destroyed, and then it defines that in game terms: "once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This is why there is some debate with RFP effects, because if RFP is not RaaC, then if the whole unit is RFP'd then the unit still has RP counters. And if RFP counts as casualties (for Morale, etc), then RP still works at the end of the phase.

I believe at the very very beginning of the rule it mentions that the untis that are left from a fallback are destroyed


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:

Icemyn wrote:I feel its important to note that you haven't really added anything to the conversation Nos and just kind of showed up to flame bait Copper.

But yes your point about every term not being defined is true, pedantic, but true.

Basimbo's point is that if RFP isn't defined any difference between RFP and RFPaaC is only implied and as such a TO or gaming group is free to decide how to play them on their own.

No, wrong, I pointed out that as there is no formal definition of RfP, you fall back on actual English - same as any other phrase that hasnt got a 40k specific meaning. Using this there is a clear difference between RfP and RfPaaC - its the "as a casualty" part. There are many ways to be removed from play - destroyed, Jaw'ed, etc, but only some of them are as a casualty.

Ohhhh you are saying they are two similar things but different? Have different meanings/effects?

I am saying that one is a superset of the other. RfP is the superset of RfPaaC

What is a superset?

Basimpo wrote:What is a superset?

Chevrolet is a superset of Camaros.

All Camaros are Chevrolet, but not all Chevrolets are Camaros.
All Dominoes are pizza joints, but not all pizza joints are Dominoes.

https://www.google.com/search?gcx=c&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=define%3A+superset#hl=en&safe=off&q=superset&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&ei=IjKDT5bAIJPqtgeU8_WyBg&ved=0CCgQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=63fec3479e8fa865&biw=1591&bih=578

horrid link, but there you go.

So...for example...Cherries are a fruit, but not all fruit are cherries...
Does that make EL a superset of RP then?

Supersets= mathematical term.

Basimpo wrote:
I believe at the very very beginning of the rule it mentions that the untis that are left from a fallback are destroyed

It just instructs you to remove all counters from a unit that makes a fall back move -- the reference to self-destructing is fluff.

Red Corsair wrote:Supersets= mathematical term.

gotcha..
wait
wait
wait
GAME CHANGER
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

RFP and RFPaaC are the same!




Automatically Appended Next Post:
by kids i mean its what, for 10+ right? Not that im calling anyone kids, im just saying the language is supposed to be clear for people without higher education to understand and enjoy.

Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Basimpo wrote:
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

RFP and RFPaaC are the same!

If this works for you and your opponents, then that's great!

Unfortunately, this doesn't work for Dakka (and especially this forum). Call again tomorrow and you may get the opposite answer.

Kilkrazy wrote:Is "casualty" defined in the rules?

Implicitly, yes. When you lose all wounds you're removed as a casualty.

Like i said, i understand the tenets. But now, to me, no amount of easter egging (i think its called) to prove otherwise is going to mean anything. Go ahead and use mathmatical proofs to break down the language of the rulebook and rules to put it in your favor, but its clear that RFP is NOT defined.

The example destroyed i gave. If we took that definition as given by the BRB that means we would be leaving the destroyed models in place where they were. Or they would explode. Page 61 of the BRB.

We know thats ridiculous.

Basimpo - this isnt rules lawyering, or mathematical proof (it isnt - it is purely linguistic) - it is just using basic English.

RfP and RfPaaC are not the same thing. GW customer support are atrocious and entirely unverifiable within this forum or anywhere else for that matter

Careful, nos, next thing you know someone may try to claim that "Coherency" and "Coherency Distance" are the same.

Or that every measurement in the game is between two units

Basimpo wrote:
GAME CHANGER
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

Please don't take this as a jab at you; it really isn't.

This post right here shows how short a time you've been playing 40K. Calling GW's customer service department for rule questions has been a joke for as long as they've had a customer service number you can call.

Many of the people that work the customer service line don't even play 40K and have never even read the BRB. None of them are part of the rules team or the development team. Asking them their opinion on a rules question is like asking a guy at the LGS; neither one is privy to the thoughts behind the writing of the rules and their answer carries no weight with any other GW store or tournament.

Sure, they are not the same thing in the english language. They are the same thing in the game. More and more that it is argued, the more i see that they are one and the same.

Sir, your stance that in game, they are separate RULES does not have a base of its own to stand on. Please cite (i believe this is the third time ive asked, and if you answer, itll be the 3rd time you have said you cannot) where RFP is given a definition, ruling, an anything whatsoever other than how its used in basic english. If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.
destroyed
loses its last wound
removed from play
as a casualty
killed
wiped out
blows up
smash the model into little pieces in front of your opponent

It doesnt matter, they are the same. they are ALL removed from play. Your stance IS rule lawyering. Please cite where in the GW FAQs, or the BRB where Basic English can be fallen back upon and used to determine how rules, that dont exist, work.

Also, define basic english. the wikipedia definition i found does NOT include removed, or casualty in its 860ish word core list of basic english words.
The tenets set down for you make da call say you shouldnt use dictionary definitions because of the differing english used in them.

You know what would be interesting? To get a translated codex and see what its EXACT translation is from the language to english. Im an arabic linguist, so i know that foreign language /= english 100%

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Saldiven wrote:

Basimpo wrote:
GAME CHANGER
I just called 18003944263 dialed 1 for customer service and asked if RFP and RFPaaC were the same and the gentleman said Yea, they are the same!

No more arguing, discussing, or using some analytical means of breaking down the language used in the rulebook designed for KIDS.

Please don't take this as a jab at you; it really isn't.

This post right here shows how short a time you've been playing 40K. Calling GW's customer service department for rule questions has been a joke for as long as they've had a customer service number you can call.

Many of the people that work the customer service line don't even play 40K and have never even read the BRB. None of them are part of the rules team or the development team. Asking them their opinion on a rules question is like asking a guy at the LGS; neither one is privy to the thoughts behind the writing of the rules and their answer carries no weight with any other GW store or tournament.

Gotcha. I played solidly for about 1-2 years, then stopped for 2 years and ive been playing steadily for 6 months. Im still learning, and thats why I asked these questions in the first place.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Which brings me to another point....jetpacking into difficult terrain turns it into dangerous....No more tau running away from me in the ruins...

Basimpo wrote:If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.

Use the BRB to define the following - remember, basing the definition solely on the english language is no stance whatsoever.

special (for reference, page 74 in bold)
Measuring (for reference, page 71)
the (used throughout the book)
circumstances (page 43, 2nd word under Morale Check Modifiers)

I'll have more when you're done defining these 4.

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.

...
To reverse that to where I started it, not all RFP effects are RFPaaC, but all RFP effects are potato.

This does not make sense.

And the pizza thing

Not all removed from play type deaths are described the same, but all ARE removed from plays


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.

Use the BRB to define the following - remember, basing the definition solely on the english language is no stance whatsoever.

special (for reference, page 74 in bold)
Measuring (for reference, page 71)
the (used throughout the book)
circumstances (page 43, 2nd word under Morale Check Modifiers)

I'll have more when you're done defining these 4.

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.

...
To reverse that to where I started it, not all RFP effects are RFPaaC, but all RFP effects are potato.

This does not make sense.

Thanks for proving my point!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Thats also why i challenged us to to contact gw, and see how in one day their views differ. I knew it wouldnt happen, but, it was worth a shake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
What i was saying is, you cant make basic english as your base argument to make believe a "rule" into existence. I suggest that right here, we compile all the RFP rules together and treat them like sweeping advance. In the other thread it was said that a rule has to SPECIFY that it works against sweeping advance, and the precedent was and they shall know no fear. If the RFPs all say that they are NOT casualty causers, and that only rules that specify that they work AGAINST RFPs can be used, also taking in consideration the precendents created by such things as SoB FAQ etc.