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.

My point is just because they use the term 'Death' in the name of the rule doesn't mean that it removes the model as a casualty. Your logic in that regards is flawed.

rigeld2 wrote:Yeah, that's never been thought of. You're bringing a newperspective to an argument that's persisted as long as We'll Be Back and it's ilk have been around.

You don't have to be removed from play as a casualty to be a casualty for morale purposes. Nice try though!

funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...


and to explain that which has been dictated so many times before looking at the respective codex writers Matt and Phil... Matt likes to write removed as a casualty... Phil likes to write removed from play... perhaps we should stop looking at what we want to look at and realize the intent behind these writers... or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

Ascalam wrote:not staying dead = staying alive

Tankshock kills you dead, no save, do not pass go, do not collect a furry weeble....

If you don't want to get dead, don't DOG.

ever living is for the lord and if you are going by the "no save = no get up" means any weapon that has ap3 or lower would not ley them rise but yet it does

WarLordRob117 wrote:or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

From the Tenets at the top of the forum:

2. The only official sources of information are the current rulebooks and the Games Workshop FAQs. Emails from Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com are technically official, but they are easily spoofed and should not be relied on.

The same goes for calling them. Call them with the same yes/no question three different times and you'll get three different answers.

WarlordRob117 wrote:funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...

Are we reading the same rules?

BRB 44 wrote: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

A model that is RFP is lost. A model that is RFPaaC is lost. That does not mean RFP==RFPaaC.

perhaps we should stop looking at what we want to look at and realize the intent behind these writers... or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

Or perhaps you should realize you're in YMDC and that discussing intent is something not normally done, and calling GW for an answer twice will get you 3 different answers to the same question.

Here is a nice post from yakface explaining why removed from play = removed as a casualty

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/449495/4281381.page

Explaining why he thinks*.
His word isn't RAW.

And he makes a poor assumption in there with respect to the morale test - as I posted above, the rule says "A unit losing..." not "A unit suffering 25% casualties..."

rigeld2 wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...

Are we reading the same rules?

BRB 44 wrote: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

A model that is RFP is lost. A model that is RFPaaC is lost. That does not mean RFP==RFPaaC.

perhaps we should stop looking at what we want to look at and realize the intent behind these writers... or better yet, call GW... they'll tell ya on the spot!

Or perhaps you should realize you're in YMDC and that discussing intent is something not normally done, and calling GW for an answer twice will get you 3 different answers to the same question.

1) Apparently we are, so then that would mean that the Lord does get his ever-living save. thank you for proving my point

2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping

3) doesnt really matter what the norm is does it? fact of the matter is that there is something called implication that relies on common sense to get the job, and it drives me nuts when I have to resort to calling a company in order for them to disolve situations like this, because some where along the lines, this was discussed on a tournament floor. I have no problem admitting Im wrong, provided the men up stairs (GW) tell me I am.

Editing this slightly to make it easier to reply to.

WarlordRob117 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:funny cause thats not what it seems like when looking at the rules for taking a morale check at the end of a shooting phase...

Are we reading the same rules?

1) Apparently we are, so then that would mean that the Lord does get his ever-living save. thank you for proving my point

What? What did I prove where?

BRB 44 wrote: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

A model that is RFP is lost. A model that is RFPaaC is lost. That does not mean RFP==RFPaaC.

2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping

WarlordRob117 wrote:

1) Apparently we are, so then that would mean that the Lord does get his ever-living save. thank you for proving my point

No point has been proven on either side.

2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping

Nah, that would be "A clever way of staying alive", which is against the rules.

3) doesnt really matter what the norm is does it? fact of the matter is that there is something called implication that relies on common sense to get the job, and it drives me nuts when I have to resort to calling a company in order for them to disolve situations like this, because some where along the lines, this was discussed on a tournament floor. I have no problem admitting Im wrong, provided the men up stairs (GW) tell me I am.

Common sense isn't that common, and GW has the least of it. I'll let you in on a little secret: GW doesn't give their rulesboys (the people you call on the phone) any extra training; they're same people you call when you have a problem with your product. They don't know any more about the rules than the average poster here on Dakka. In most cases they know orders of magnitude less about the rules than your average poster on Dakka. They aren't games developers, they don't have access to the games developers, most of them haven't ever SEEN one of the games developers, much less met one.

TLDR: Calling the customer service line for an answer is far less reliable than reading the 12 page debate on the subject here on Dakka.

Im not gonna quote all that because Im sure we got enough peoples heads spinning as it is... proof that I am familiar with the tenets, having broken several and been set straight many times. My point with that is that if we are making a call, it should be an astute, well-educated call based on the intent of the rules... the intent of the rules is to provide a game, where things are fair whenever possible. Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a representative that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:
2) uh yes sir... yes it is... a casualty is any model removed from the table due a force enacted upon by another model or a special rule: ergo- a necron can come back no matter what you hit him with as long as you are within the confines of the rules... the unit passed its morale check... the lord was removed from play due to him being crushed by a tank... after the tank passes over him, he gets up, turns around and gives said tank a big, fat, middle finger all to the tune of chumbawumba's tub-thumping.
Nah, that would be "A clever way of staying alive", which is against the rules.

Nah... nah it isnt... the model died, exactly as the rules said... there is a "chance" he could come back... meaning he would still be withint the confines of the rules, because removed from play is removed as a casualty...

Just because I'm feeling ornery, I've fixed a bit of that for you and clarified other bits.

WarlordRob117 wrote: Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

Whom you did not speak to on the phone.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by minimum wage workers who may or may not even play the game, but get paid to answer the phones at GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a minimum wage worker who answers the phone that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.

That guy is no more an authority on how the rules work than I am.

WarlordRob117 wrote:Im not gonna quote all that because Im sure we got enough peoples heads spinning as it is... proof that I am familiar with the tenets, having broken several and been set straight many times. My point with that is that if we are making a call, it should be an astute, well-educated call based on the intent of the rules... the intent of the rules is to provide a game, where things are fair whenever possible. Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a representative that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.

Play by a house rule if you wish, you have the freedom to do just that.

Just remember that we can not possibly know the intent of the GW game designers, so we must stick to RAW where possible.

And keep in mind that the person with the rule should always take the least advantageous interpretation of a rule when there is a rules question and things are not clear, like in this case.

It is just good sportsmanship to do so.

As noted here:

How to Have an Intelligent Rules Debate, Appendix C: On Rules Ethics wrote: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.

taken from here: Click Here

Oh I can understand, relate, and dig that completely reaper... we decided by rolling a dice... on a 1,2, or 3 I and others that play necrons at the shop would be allowed to... 4,5, or 6 the opposite... the store owner rolled a 2... thats about as fair as it gets even though everyone at the store agreed he should be able to, we did it anyway to dispel anymore issues that could occur during a tournament... I stand corrected, everyone agreed except they two grey knights players... they were rule nazis...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lordhat wrote:Just because I'm feeling ornery, I've fixed a bit of that for you and clarified other bits.

WarlordRob117 wrote: Situations like this, where an exchange cannot be resolved through debate, moves to be proven by those who made the material.

Whom you did not speak to on the phone.

its not a magical definition pulled out of the arse of the eye of terror, it was an answer given to me by minimum wage workers who may or may not even play the game, but get paid to answer the phones at GW... you can say what you want about the definition, but I was told just now, over the phone with a minimum wage worker who answers the phone that a lord can get back up from a death or glory. Until a faq ia released otherwise, I will continue to play this way.

That guy is no more an authority on how the rules work than I am.

it must be fun for you belittling people huh? makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

WarlordRob117 wrote:

it must be fun for you belittling people huh? makes you feel all warm and fuzzy?

I wasn't belittling anybody. I was stating facts. Well ok, I made a supposition. GW may very well pay their customers service guys more than minimum wage. The fact remains that calling the customer service line for answers does not put you in touch with anybody even remotely connected to the rules team.

More so than discussing it here, in my opinion... for example, you are playing at a GW store, and the store owners hears this debate during a game and says 'Lordhat is correct this is the way its supposed to be..." or vice-versa... are we to then turn towards this person and call them a minimum wage worker who only answers phones? or do we be civilized human beings and accept it and move on... further more, I understand that calling a GW rep may not be credible on this forum due to the lack of proof but it works for me when I play my games, and that is sufficient....

WarlordRob117 wrote:More so than discussing it here, in my opinion... for example, you are playing at a GW store, and the store owners hears this debate during a game and says 'Lordhat is correct this is the way its supposed to be..." or vice-versa... are we to then turn towards this person and call them a minimum wage worker who only answers phones? or do we be civilized human beings and accept it and move on... further more, I understand that calling a GW rep may not be credible on this forum due to the lack of proof but it works for me when I play my games, and that is sufficient....

Fair enough. I'm not trying to stop you from playing, and hopefully it won't matter in another two weeks or so. The main purpose was to iterate that the CS line at GW isn't a font of rules knowledge; they have access to the same materials we do, and don't often look at those when asked a question. If they do look, it's not with the attention to detail we do here; their job is to get you an answer, any answer and get back to what GW actually pays them to do: resolve customer complaints about the actual product quality.

Unfortunately GW doesn't ascribe the same level of importance to having quality rules as they do to making sure every box has all it's pieces. This is why we get rules that say that no models can "Stay alive" instead of no models may "avoid being permanently removed as a casualty". Apparently if the former isn't clear anough for you and your opponent, you're playing wrong.

Lordhat wrote:

WarlordRob117 wrote:More so than discussing it here, in my opinion... for example, you are playing at a GW store, and the store owners hears this debate during a game and says 'Lordhat is correct this is the way its supposed to be..." or vice-versa... are we to then turn towards this person and call them a minimum wage worker who only answers phones? or do we be civilized human beings and accept it and move on... further more, I understand that calling a GW rep may not be credible on this forum due to the lack of proof but it works for me when I play my games, and that is sufficient....

Fair enough. I'm not trying to stop you from playing, and hopefully it won't matter in another two weeks or so. The main purpose was to iterate that the CS line at GW isn't a font of rules knowledge; they have access to the same materials we do, and don't often look at those when asked a question. If they do look, it's not with the attention to detail we do here; their job is to get you an answer, any answer and get back to what GW actually pays them to do: resolve customer complaints about the actual product quality.

Unfortunately GW doesn't ascribe the same level of importance to having quality rules as they do to making sure every box has all it's pieces. This is why we get rules that say that no models can "Stay alive" instead of no models may "avoid being permanently removed as a casualty". Apparently if the former isn't clear anough for you and your opponent, you're playing wrong.

I humbly disagree

"any other clever way of staying alive that they can think of"

model is not staying alive... he died... then came back to life... staying alive means surviving the initial attack... he didnt survive... like getting hit with a lascannon... he didnt survive... ID by force weapon... didnt survive... he can still get back up

He also didnt get removed from play as a casualty, he was just removed.

The two arent the same.

PLay by a house rule for 10 days if you wish, just please follow the tenets of this forum - the CS guys are NOT a source of information for this forum. Ever.

Lordhat wrote: The main purpose was to iterate that the CS line at GW isn't a font of rules knowledge; they have access to the same materials we do, and don't often look at those when asked a question. If they do look, it's not with the attention to detail we do here; their job is to get you an answer, any answer and get back to what GW actually pays them to do: resolve customer complaints about the actual product quality.

Unfortunately GW doesn't ascribe the same level of importance to having quality rules as they do to making sure every box has all it's pieces. This is why we get rules that say that no models can "Stay alive" instead of no models may "avoid being permanently removed as a casualty". Apparently if the former isn't clear anough for you and your opponent, you're playing wrong.

And sadly this goes for any store that lives on selling models - while they might have a gaming table or several that's not what brings them the money, it's pure sales. The guys working there might play some of the games they sell, but nothing requires them to be actual experts on the games systems they sell. In fact I've had only bad experiences from letting rules disputes get as far as the stores - 100% incorrect rules interpretations so far.

This debate is identicle to three threads' worth of EL vs Sweeping Advance, except now its DoG vs EL. Been in 'em all, all of em got locked.

Has the celestine point been made yet? As far as I can tell, Ever Living works almost exactly the same way as her divine intervention. I agree that he dies, I also agree that he cannot stay alive in any clever way, however, 1 he dosent, he dies and then comes back. 2 I also remember that Codex > Rulebook. You can say "Necrons can never win ever" in the Rulebook but if the necs codex says "We always win no matter what" then necs win, no matter what. That is an extreme example but you get the idea. I would say if Celestine can get back up after she is squished so can a Cron with Ever Living. I assume that wsa the idea in this players mind as he DoG'd as I would've done the same thing. No risk and all that, you know.

No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

I will politely disagree without offering a chance to convince. I've had the Codex V Rulebook argument many times and changing my mind is not likely. With my input thrown in I am satisfied with my contributions to this thread.

Grey Templar wrote:No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

Neither rule interferes with, or contradicts, the other. Both work fine without breaking the game. DoG removes the model. EL drops a token. Vehicle completes Tank Shock move. Phase ends and EL token is rolled for.

-Yad

Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you still arguing about 5th ed rules?

Yad wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

Neither rule interferes with, or contradicts, the other. Both work fine without breaking the game. DoG removes the model. EL drops a token. Vehicle completes Tank Shock move. Phase ends and EL token is rolled for.

-Yad

and if EL is passed the model comes back, saving it from dying, which breaks the DoG rules.

Concur.

Grugknuckle wrote:Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you still arguing about 5th ed rules?

Well, for one thing, many scheduled tournaments have a policy of not switching to new rules immediately on release, on the basis that people (especially the judges) won't have had time to learn the new rules yet. It's a common convention that if a new book was released less than a month prior to an event, that they won't use that book yet. So we should expect 5th ed to keep being discussed at least for another month or so; all through July I think we'll want to make sure all threads are labeled with the edition in the subject line.