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.

Not to mention he is using the same analogy in 2 different conclusions. To say a DT would not count as a separate unit and in the same sentence saying that combat sqauding results in 2 separate units is contradictory. To further it along if a DT is part of the unit it is purchased for you would break the coherency rule by deploying it on one side of the table and the squad on another even though that is allowed by the rules.

Friendly reminder: if you can't participate in conversations in YMDC without reaching for insulting labels like "troll," I can remove your ability to participate in them at all.

No, but trying to pass off your house rules as the actual rules and reasserting it after someone explains how you are wrong kindof does.

yakface wrote:
Only models get removed as casualties by the RAW, units do not.

So by the 'RAW', First Blood is meaningless and never occurs.

Nah, you just have to kill an IC, who is both a model and unit.

-Matt

Not while attached to a unit, then they are a normal member of that unit

Maybe with this, we can make a baby step in moving towards the day where removed, removed from play, removed from play as a casualty, destroyed, etc. can all mean the same thing in game terms and we can get rid of this stupid self-imposed layer of complexity all together.

Maelstrom808 wrote:Maybe with this, we can make a baby step in moving towards the day where removed, removed from play, removed from play as a casualty, destroyed, etc. can all mean the same thing in game terms and we can get rid of this stupid self-imposed layer of complexity all together.

Actually the idea that effects that remove models from play somehow means that those models are NOT being removed as casualties as well, is a completely player-driven concept as far as I know.

People have read the rulebook where it explains how models ARE removed as casualties and then taken the improper logical leap to assume that this means by the rules this is the ONLY way that models are ever casualties, when that position is actually a logical fallacy.

While it is true that we know for sure that models removed via the typical casualty removal rules are without a shadow of a doubt considered casualties (because the rules explicitly say as much), for vehicles that are destroyed or models that just get removed from play we just don't know...they are as likely to be considered casualties as they are not to be considered casualties.

Because GW never says = a casualty is when a model loses all its wounds and is removed from play. They actually say the opposite, they say that when a model loses its last wound it is removed as a casualty. So they never actually define 'casualty' as a game term, despite what some people mistakenly believe.

So when a rule says that a model simply gets removed from play, while we cannot know for certain that this model is a casualty (because the rules don't explicitly say) we also can't know for certain that it isn't a casualty (because precisely what a casualty is in the game is not actually defined).

I could be mistaken here, but I don't think GW has ever explicitly ruled that an effect that removes a model from play is somehow not a casualty and should ignore abilities that apply when a model gets removed as a casualty. And in fact I know one ruling in particular (Saint Celestine) where they ruled that her effect (which triggers when she's removed as a casualty) does in fact apply even when she's affected by something that simply removes her from play.

So IMHO, its always been pretty clear: There is no distinction between something that simply removes a model from play and something that just removes a model as a casualty. In both cases, the model is a casualty.

yakface wrote:So IMHO, its always been pretty clear: There is no distinction between something that simply removes a model from play and something that just removes a model as a casualty. In both cases, the model is a casualty.

So, just because I'm curious, you were voting for Necrons to make WBB rolls after failing the JotWW check?
Feel free to PM a reply if you want to.

rigeld2 wrote:

yakface wrote:So IMHO, its always been pretty clear: There is no distinction between something that simply removes a model from play and something that just removes a model as a casualty. In both cases, the model is a casualty.

So, just because I'm curious, you were voting for Necrons to make WBB rolls after failing the JotWW check?
Feel free to PM a reply if you want to.

Yes, personally I believe that models that are removed from play from such attacks are casualties and therefore are still entitled to things like WBB.

I understand why people have made the distinction and believe that it is 'RAW' to play otherwise, but I firmly believe that the basis for this is false (that the rules clearly dictate this).

yakface wrote:I understand why people have made the distinction and believe that it is 'RAW' to play otherwise, but I firmly believe that the basis for this is false (that the rules clearly dictate this).

Fair enough - thanks.

"...Because GW never says = a casualty is when a model loses all its wounds and is removed from play. They actually say the opposite, they say that when a model loses its last wound it is removed as a casualty. So they never actually define 'casualty' as a game term, despite what some people mistakenly believe..."

Then what is the rule actually telling us when it states a model is removed as a casualty when its strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to zero ?

SkyD wrote:So 1st turn, your transport blows, your unit lives. No First Blood, the entire unit wasn't eliminated. 1st turn a non-transport tank blows, First Blood is awarded. Until the unit and their dedicated transport separate, they are one unit.

But where are you getting the idea that they're one unit? They've always been two units. The "common sense" interpretation would be that they're two units- a squad of guys and their vehicle are two different entities, and from the perspective of the rules they've always been two units. In every edition. They have had certain exceptions for which they're treated like one unit, like how many units they count as for Reserves. But those have always been exceptins.

People are getting the idea from the Preparing Reserves rule, which does state while counting for the 50% tally to count a Dedicated Transport and its occupants as one unit.

As far as vehicles granting first blood, Ill have to pour over the rules to see if theres a correlation or not. But for now... sleep. -_-zzz

toxic_wisdom wrote:

"...Because GW never says = a casualty is when a model loses all its wounds and is removed from play. They actually say the opposite, they say that when a model loses its last wound it is removed as a casualty. So they never actually define 'casualty' as a game term, despite what some people mistakenly believe..."

Then what is the rule actually telling us when it states a model is removed as a casualty when its strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to zero ?

Page 15 for the casualties section. Page 3, top right hand side for the second half.

toxic_wisdom wrote:

"...Because GW never says = a casualty is when a model loses all its wounds and is removed from play. They actually say the opposite, they say that when a model loses its last wound it is removed as a casualty. So they never actually define 'casualty' as a game term, despite what some people mistakenly believe..."

Then what is the rule actually telling us when it states a model is removed as a casualty when its strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to zero ?

That is the rule saying that a model which has its S,T or W reduced to zero is removed as a casualty. That rule does not say that a casualty is only a model that has its S,T or W reduced to 0.

That's the logical fallacy. Its the difference between saying (not that this is a example accurate to actual cats) that 'all cats have whiskers, fur and a tail' as opposed to saying 'all animals that have whiskers, fur and a tail are cats'.

That statement in the rules tells us without a shadow of a doubt that models who have their S,T or W reduced to zero are casualties. What it doesn't say is that ONLY models in this condition are ever considered to be casualties.

yakface wrote:

toxic_wisdom wrote:

"...Because GW never says = a casualty is when a model loses all its wounds and is removed from play. They actually say the opposite, they say that when a model loses its last wound it is removed as a casualty. So they never actually define 'casualty' as a game term, despite what some people mistakenly believe..."

Then what is the rule actually telling us when it states a model is removed as a casualty when its strength, toughness, or wounds are reduced to zero ?

That is the rule saying that a model which has its S,T or W reduced to zero is removed as a casualty. That rule does not say that a casualty is only a model that has its S,T or W reduced to 0.

That's the logical fallacy. Its the difference between saying (not that this is a example accurate to actual cats) that 'all cats have whiskers, fur and a tail' as opposed to saying 'all animals that have whiskers, fur and a tail are cats'.

That statement in the rules tells us without a shadow of a doubt that models who have their S,T or W reduced to zero are casualties. What it doesn't say is that ONLY models in this condition are ever considered to be casualties.

Indeed, a second good example is "All squares are rectangles." This does not mean that "All rectangles are squares."

If the first unit removed from play is my Valkyrie that flys off, it doesn't award a point. I think that is what the rule is referencing. I don't think they meant to say only troops bleed so no point for killing vehicle. I think they just meant it's got to be dead, not something that left on it's own and might return.

-Matt