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.

It does seem they're trying to phase that out however as most of the newer codices seem to use "remove from play as a casualty" for everything.

Actually Kev it allowed as the model is not kept alive by any sneaky rules as per the BRB. a tekn is placed to represent the fallen model, and if the necessary roll is made, then the model replaces the token. It has been ruled that since the model was removed as a casualty, he is in compliance, and the codex allows the model to be returned to play.

 WarlordRob117 wrote:
Actually Kev it allowed as the model is not kept alive by any sneaky rules as per the BRB. a tekn is placed to represent the fallen model, and if the necessary roll is made, then the model replaces the token. It has been ruled that since the model was removed as a casualty, he is in compliance, and the codex allows the model to be returned to play.

Where has it been ruled it's removed as a casualty? The rule book simply says "removed". If they meant removed as a casualty they would have said so. It doesn't even say "removed from play" which would/should be shorthand for RFPaaC.

So easily my argument was cast aside. First blood is a fine example - it may be poorly worded but that's a debate for elsewhee. It says RaaC. There is no way around that - arguably a vehicle can be a casualty but you cannot pick and choose when you apply RFP as RaaC and when you apply it as RaaC. You either always do it or never. Things on a table must have rules or else you get stuck. My example on page 1 is a good example - is a model a counter and vice versa? Then it becomes invincible scoring. If it isn't a unit? Well then you have something totally impassible - it isn't terrain so you cannot move over them. If you house rule you can then you still get an issue with several other interactions such as tank shocking. It's a silly attempt to justify something not written and which goes against common sense.

As for the intent arguments, they're even worse. The tesseract labyrinth is an example of this. Powerful enough to enslave gods but not quite as good as making a hole in the floor? Come on. Combined with the fact RFP is only in Phil Kelly codices and you are shouting at the sea. Necrons are powerful but this argument has no basis in reality.

Eyjio wrote:
arguably a vehicle can be a casualty

No, really - that's not arguable. They can't.

Things on a table must have rules or else you get stuck.

Um... no? I put my pen on the table. There's no rules for this.

My example on page 1 is a good example - is a model a counter and vice versa? Then it becomes invincible scoring. If it isn't a unit? Well then you have something totally impassible - it isn't terrain so you cannot move over them. If you house rule you can then you still get an issue with several other interactions such as tank shocking. It's a silly attempt to justify something not written and which goes against common sense.

No - counters are counters. There's no rules for interaction so you ... don't interact.

As for the intent arguments, they're even worse. The tesseract labyrinth is an example of this. Powerful enough to enslave gods but not quite as good as making a hole in the floor? Come on. Combined with the fact RFP is only in Phil Kelly codices and you are shouting at the sea. Necrons are powerful but this argument has no basis in reality.

That's fluff - have fun with that.

Eyjio wrote:
So easily my argument was cast aside. First blood is a fine example - it may be poorly worded but that's a debate for elsewhee. It says RaaC. There is no way around that - arguably a vehicle can be a casualty but you cannot pick and choose when you apply RFP as RaaC and when you apply it as RaaC. You either always do it or never. Things on a table must have rules or else you get stuck. My example on page 1 is a good example - is a model a counter and vice versa? Then it becomes invincible scoring. If it isn't a unit? Well then you have something totally impassible - it isn't terrain so you cannot move over them. If you house rule you can then you still get an issue with several other interactions such as tank shocking. It's a silly attempt to justify something not written and which goes against common sense.

As for the intent arguments, they're even worse. The tesseract labyrinth is an example of this. Powerful enough to enslave gods but not quite as good as making a hole in the floor? Come on. Combined with the fact RFP is only in Phil Kelly codices and you are shouting at the sea. Necrons are powerful but this argument has no basis in reality.

Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Eyjio wrote:
So easily my argument was cast aside. First blood is a fine example - it may be poorly worded but that's a debate for elsewhee. It says RaaC. There is no way around that - arguably a vehicle can be a casualty

As already stated, but I'd like to add that the "It will not die" special rule adds a slightly clearer distinction between casualty and destroyed as well. Honestly, reading that special rule made me start to re-think vehicles granting first blood at all. But it doesn't matter to me anymore, honestly.

rigeld2 wrote:No, really - that's not arguable. They can't

Okay, they don't grant first blood then. Seems reasonable. They don't bleed after all. Doesn't help you as that's RAW. That's also for a different thread - the point stands. Either you treat them equally or not. You cannot pick and choose.

Um... no? I put my pen on the table. There's no rules for this.

You ignore the pen which is different to it having no rules. It would impede play were you forced to incorporate it in the same way. This is a dodge because you can see how it's a ridiculous scenario. Why do you suppose the writers intended RFP and RaaC to be different? All it does is creates oddities. I mean using the definition of casualty it makes no sense and they aren't clearly distinguished in any scenario, be it the BRB or FAQ so there must be SOME logical reason?

That's fluff - have fun with that.

Of course it is, that was why I said the INTENT arguments were absurd. You know, in the same way yours is as the rules don't distinguish and it makes nothing but problems when you do.

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

Kevin949 wrote:As already stated, but I'd like to add that the "It will not die" special rule adds a slightly clearer distinction between casualty and destroyed as well. Honestly, reading that special rule made me start to re-think vehicles granting first blood at all. But it doesn't matter to me anymore, honestly.

Interesting. Never noticed that before. It's clearly done for vehicles too. Maybe first blood is significantly harder to get vs mech than I thought. Nevermind, it doesn't change anything.

I know this has come across as aggressive and I'm sorry for that. It just frustrates me that people try to weasel massive holes in the rules then blame GW for.not being completely precise and FAQing literally every exception even with clear precidents set.

Eyjio wrote:

You ignore the pen which is different to it having no rules. It would impede play were you forced to incorporate it in the same way. This is a dodge because you can see how it's a ridiculous scenario. Why do you suppose the writers intended RFP and RaaC to be different? All it does is creates oddities. I mean using the definition of casualty it makes no sense and they aren't clearly distinguished in any scenario, be it the BRB or FAQ so there must be SOME logical reason?

It's not a ridiculous scenario. You have no rules requiring interaction with those counters. You have no rules requiring interaction with the pen. Trying to say the counters are special doesn't make sense.

It's not my job to divine why the writers wanted to make them different. Perhaps to have a way of removing things so that they could not come back from WBB/RP/EL?

They are clearly distinguished - the fact that the phrases are different is all the difference required.

Of course it is, that was why I said the INTENT arguments were absurd. You know, in the same way yours is as the rules don't distinguish and it makes nothing but problems when you do.

You're creating problems where there are none.

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

You're right, it does say the first unit removed as a casualty. I was away from my book when I posted and was unsure if it said RaaC or RFPaaC so I used the generic "removed". As it is Units are never removed as a casualty except in the two listed situations. Every other time it is models that are removed.

Urgh, it's like talking to a wall.

You don't get first blood. This is a problem.

You get phantom counters. This is absurd.

They have never said the phrases are different and regularly use one in place of the other.

Can you literally not see how ridiculous this is? It's like drawing a line between "killing" a unit and "destroying" a unit. No practical difference and English equates the two, yet hyper literally, they are not the same phrase so cannot be the same rules wise. It's foolish and creates absurdities but it's still playable. At this point I don't even know if you're trolling. You cannot get around either the counters or first blood. The only way it functions is if they are the same. That alone should be enough and the fact it isn't is ringing alarm bells.

"They have never said the phrases are different and regularly use one in place of the other. "

yes they have (because the words are different) and I assume you have some actual rules quotes for the latter claim? Given they actually dont use the two terms interchangeably

Happyjew wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

You're right, it does say the first unit removed as a casualty. I was away from my book when I posted and was unsure if it said RaaC or RFPaaC so I used the generic "removed". As it is Units are never removed as a casualty except in the two listed situations. Every other time it is models that are removed.

Easy mistake. However, you're still wrong - p15 3rd paragraph says "If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty". That covers shooting. Assault has similar wording on p25. So there are many ways to be a casualty.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
"They have never said the phrases are different and regularly use one in place of the other. "

yes they have (because the words are different) and I assume you have some actual rules quotes for the latter claim? Given they actually dont use the two terms interchangeably

The last laugh FAQ switches. Everliving switches. That's 2 from the top of my head. Sweeping advance also changed from 5th despite RP explicitly denying it I note. It is also totally functionally unchanged. On top of that, functionally equivalent weapons which require a characteristic test or death are all RaaC in Wardexes and all RFP in Kellydexes. Your move.

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:

Eyjio wrote:

Happyjew wrote:Actually First Blood is the first unit removed and the only way a unit is removed as a casualty is SA and Falling back off the table.

Wrong on both counts. First blood on p122 clearly says RaaC. If you assume the reasonable, that RaaC, RFP and destroyed are used interchangebly in all GW documents then it all still works perfectly.

You're right, it does say the first unit removed as a casualty. I was away from my book when I posted and was unsure if it said RaaC or RFPaaC so I used the generic "removed". As it is Units are never removed as a casualty except in the two listed situations. Every other time it is models that are removed.

Easy mistake. However, you're still wrong - p15 3rd paragraph says "If the model is reduced to 0 wounds, remove it as a casualty". That covers shooting. Assault has similar wording on p25. So there are many ways to be a casualty.

Good job, you have found how models are RaaC. Now other than the two scenarios I mentioned (SA and Falling Back) please show me how a unit is RaaC (which is what First Blood requires).


Automatically Appended Next Post:
By the way I realised another reason why EL cannot be used after being swept. The models are not removed as casualties, the unit is. Since in order for RP to work the model has to be removed as a casualty.

Edit: Said RP not EL, oops.

...still p15. The sentence immediately after says "Continue allocating unsaved Wounds to the closest model until there are no more Wounds left or the whole unit has been removed as casualties."

Pretty clear. All models RaaC=unit RaaC. Of course this also breaks if the last model is RFP and RFP is different but frankly one problem is enough. There is just no way out.

Ey - no, you have found where modes are removed as casualties. The rule for FB requires the unit to be removed as a casualty.

Last Laugh does NOT say removed from play and removed from play as a casualty are the same. Your move.

Everliving only covers RfPaaC. Your move.

try some quotes, that would help

Get your own quotes, I'm typing from a phone. Everliving says where the model was RFP in the first or second paragraph. Not RaaC, not RFPaaC though that occurs later, it says RFP. The last laugh uses RaaC but the FAQ uses RFP. They are valid examples.

As for the ridiculous assertion that units=/=all models in a unit, I covered that above on p15. This is exactly what I was moaning about earlier - you can't admit you're wrong so are trying to force open imaginary loopholes.

Eyjio wrote:
Get your own quotes, I'm typing from a phone. Everliving says where the model was RFP in the first or second paragraph. Not RaaC, not RFPaaC though that occurs later, it says RFP. The last laugh uses RaaC but the FAQ uses RFP. They are valid examples.

As for the ridiculous assertion that units=/=all models in a unit, I covered that above on p15. This is exactly what I was moaning about earlier - you can't admit you're wrong so are trying to force open imaginary loopholes.

RP (and EL) the very first sentence "If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty..." EL then says to place a counter where the model was removed from play, that is correct, however, that is a reference to the first sentence which specifically says "as a casualty". This is the same as the FAQ regarding Last Laugh. It uses removed from play in reference to RFPaaC (similar to how I used "removed" earlier referring to RaaC).

I never claimed otherwise. I was asked to show where they had been switched and so I did. If it said RFP first I suspect this debate wouldn't exist.

They aren't "switched".
Te context of the latter reference means that "as a casualty" must be inferred.

They ARE switched. In one part it says one, in the next the other. This is now ignoring the issues from before. They are switched from a grammatical stance. I didn't equate them and it's irrelevant to the real problem that you cannot make first blood work under your interpretation.

Eyjio wrote:
They ARE switched. In one part it says one, in the next the other. This is now ignoring the issues from before. They are switched from a grammatical stance. I didn't equate them and it's irrelevant to the real problem that you cannot make first blood work under your interpretation.

As you said, First Blood is for a different thread and already doesn't work RAW.

Context proves they are not switched. If you ignore context you're right - but that leads to other miserable failures and impossible rules.

No, I said it was for another thread to decide upon whether vehicles count. First blood itself is totally functional otherwise. Well, unless you don't treat RFP as RaaC, then it breaks.

And with that we've looped. I'm going to bed, let me know how you attempt to get first blood meanwhile, it'll be more interesting than this Stochastic Processes module...

Theres really no compromise, as of yet, whether Jotww or Last laugh still allows RP or EL. Rather than getting of topic can we stick with the matter at hand. This topic of discussion is quite interesting and I will like to see what Dakka compromises the result to be.

Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

In other words, you are saying that while Jaws does not currently allow RP or EL the RAI strongly points in the favour of the Necrons?

If this does end up being the case, when do you make the distinction in using RAI rather than RAW in a game?

I would only imagine that GW would only address this issue through the use of a FAQ.

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

The latter is true. The former is based on an abstraction which requires the assumption that being removed and being a casualty are separate. It's "RAW" only from a hyper literal view which, as I've said is the same as not equating destroyed and killed. So it is in fact an RAI argument as it assumes the intent of the author. The argument against simply points out where that breaks.

 sounddemon wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

In other words, you are saying that while Jaws does not currently allow RP or EL the RAI strongly points in the favour of the Necrons?

If this does end up being the case, when do you make the distinction in using RAI rather than RAW in a game?

I would only imagine that GW would only address this issue through the use of a FAQ.

When RAI is absolutely obvious, I go with it (for example, majority toughness/WS in a challenge).
When it's not absolutely obvious and my opponent disagrees with the RAW reading I'll roll off and not have any issue playing it either way.
I'm generally a pretty easy-going guy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
Last Laugh absolutely allows RP/EL.
RAW Jaws doesn't. There's a solid argument that GW intends RFP to equate to RFPaaC.

The latter is true. The former is based on an abstraction which requires the assumption that being removed and being a casualty are separate. It's "RAW" only from a hyper literal view which, as I've said is the same as not equating destroyed and killed. So it is in fact an RAI argument as it assumes the intent of the author. The argument against simply points out where that breaks.

It's not a RAI argument - it's the actual words on the page. I'm not reading intent into it.

And it doesn't break anything. You haven't proven that at all.

You don't think not getting first blood and having Reanimation Protocols counters in perpetuity isn't breaking? Then you dodge my point about your argument completely even though p29 clearly defines casualties as models being removed, which is undeniable also. You argue you're not going for intent but when issued with evidence they switch in some entries for reasons of fluency and to not repeat casualty, you still argue it must be different.

We're done here. You are wrong and will not see it. There is little point continuing this.

Eyjio wrote:
You don't think not getting first blood and having Reanimation Protocols counters in perpetuity isn't breaking?

First Blood is already broken, and I've addressed the counters - they break nothing.

Then you dodge my point about your argument completely even though p29 clearly defines casualties as models being removed, which is undeniable also.

Page 29 "defines" casualties as a 25% loss. If you want to use that definition, every time you're told to RFPaaC you must remove 25% of the unit.

You argue you're not going for intent but when issued with evidence they switch in some entries for reasons of fluency and to not repeat casualty, you still argue it must be different.

We're done here. You are wrong and will not see it. There is little point continuing this.

No, that's exactly my point. When you read each occurrence individually it looks like they use them interchangably. That's not how you read English however - you have to read the paragraph as a whole to understand this little thing called "context". It's pretty important to understanding what someone has written.