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.

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you quote the bit that says the Deep Strike rule is able to function when the model is not in play? I'm curious to see what your thinking is.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve.

During Deployment, your army is in play. This and the Reserve rules allow you to put a unit out of play (into Reserves).

When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.

Additional permission to keep units out of play.

At the start of your second turn, you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve – these are known as Reserve Rolls. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn.

Permission - rather, command - to allow them an attempt to arrive, and that you don't have a choice to keep them out of play.

Rigeld2,
I will make an apology and an explanation, for I only now got a chance to read that section of the book for myself and realize I had misread something you posted as the actual Rule from the mainbook itself. Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be. The line where where you stated If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty is the one that led to this confusion and still highlights an issue with this concept.

While I am reassured that my key-sniper is going to be able to remove Special Rule and War-gear properly, thanks to access to being able to specifically remove a Model from play itself, what about every other situation which lacks that terminology?
Reducing these characteristics to 0 is not the only way to be removed as a Casualty, many Rules straight out state to 'remove as a casualty' with no mention from play itself.
Vehicles also lack these characteristics, or anything related to being removed from play when they are 'destroyed... and a few Vehicle related Special Rules such as It Will Not Die specifically mention they can not trigger on models removed in such a way. This is still a massive question for me, all you have done is prove the one most common situation and a few minor ones are accounted for. That alone just raises even more questions in and of itself, such as why they felt the need to add Remove from Play to some Rules but not others... and then address a few other Rules as 'this special Rule can not be used on a Model removed as a Casualty.'

Before you come back and point to the 'also considered' clause again, I have a simple yes or no question:
Do you consider Squares to be Rhombus?

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Rigeld2,
We also have a Restriction stating that Models can not use Start of the Turn abilities on the turn they come in from reserves, it has always bothered me cause only Special Rules which modify how we handle Reserves trigger at that time, so what do you say about it?
A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve.
- Moving on from Reseves

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
I will make an apology and an explanation, for I only now got a chance to read that section of the book for myself and realize I had misread something you posted as the actual Rule from the mainbook itself. Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be. The line where where you stated If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty is the one that led to this confusion and still highlights an issue with this concept.

While I am reassured that my key-sniper is going to be able to remove Special Rule and War-gear properly, thanks to access to being able to specifically remove a Model from play itself, what about every other situation which lacks that terminology?
Reducing these characteristics to 0 is not the only way to be removed as a Casualty, many Rules straight out state to 'remove as a casualty' with no mention from play itself.

A = B
A = C
B = C

Do we agree there?

Being reduced to 0 wounds = removed from play as a casualty (from characteristics section)
Removing the last wound = removed as a casualty (from the shooting section)

removed from play as a casualty = removed as a casualty

Vehicles also lack these characteristics, or anything related to being removed from play when they are 'destroyed... and a few Vehicle related Special Rules such as It Will Not Die specifically mention they can not trigger on models removed in such a way. This is still a massive question for me, all you have done is prove the one most common situation and a few minor ones are accounted for. That alone just raises even more questions in and of itself, such as why they felt the need to add Remove from Play to some Rules but not others... and then address a few other Rules as 'this special Rule can not be used on a Model removed as a Casualty.'

Haven't cared to look at Vehicles yet TBH.

Before you come back and point to the 'also considered' clause again, I have a simple yes or no question:
Do you consider Squares to be Rhombus?

Yes. A Square is a Rhombus with right angles. Relevance?

Rigeld2,
We also have a Restriction stating that Models can not use Start of the Turn abilities on the turn they come in from reserves, it has always bothered me cause only Special Rules which modify how we handle Reserves trigger at that time, so what do you say about it?
A unit cannot charge, or use any abilities or special rules that must be used at the start of the turn, in the turn it arrives from Reserve.
- Moving on from Reseves

That is actually a good rule to have - without it, one could make the argument that, since Reserves arrive at the start of turn, you could "stack triggers" and arrive and then trigger the SoT rule.
With this rule in place you can't do that, definitively.

rigeld2 wrote:

A = B
A = C
B = C

Do we agree there?

Negative.

Being shot = being killed
Being stabbed = being killed
being shot =/= being stabbed

Your explanation only works for numbers and not for words/ideas.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

A = B
A = C
B = C

Do we agree there?

Negative.

Being shot = being killed
Being stabbed = being killed
being shot =/= being stabbed

Your explanation only works for numbers and not for words/ideas.

But for the purpose of "were you killed" they are the same.
It can work for words/ideas in context. If you have the same thing referred to in two different ways, those two different ways are equivalent.

I disagree with Removed from play as a casualty = removed as a casualty, as one clearly has additional instructions that the other lacks.

As for why many Rules can get away simply stating 'as a Casualty' while others can not?
That Rule you posted, the one that I over-looked originally, does not cease to be in effect!

The situations you put forth here all reduce a Models Wounds as part of the process, and in doing so trigger a Rule which does contain the 'Removed from Play' terminology. It is the Special Rules, Psychic Powers, Vehicles and other things which specifically do not modify characteristics that are at question now. You have successfully shown that the majority of the situations are accounted for, you did well in that regard, but that does not prove that every situation has been accounted for. The existence of many which simply remove the Model from the table some how, with no explanation to how to handle these Models, is still a bit of a core problem for me and one Game Workshop can easily fix by creating 'zones' off the table and telling us to use those.

I'll drop the games about the square and simply tell you what conclusion I was trying to lead you to, as you sort of see it already:
You are intelligent enough to demand additional evidence that a square is a square, if someone starts throwing around the words 'also considered' and 'Rhombuses.'
So why do you so quickly accept that Play and Casualty are the same thing simply because 'also considered' was used by the Author?

As for the secondary question concerning Reserves, nice side step but a simple answer please:
In what period of the turn do Models use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their war-gear/datasheet?

Kriswall,
Doesn't even work well for numbers!
X+Y = Y

JinxDragon wrote:
I disagree with Removed from play as a casualty = removed as a casualty, as one clearly has additional instructions that the other lacks.

What happens when a model is reduced to zero wounds?

I'll drop the games about the square and simply tell you what conclusion I was trying to lead you to, as you sort of see it already:
You are intelligent enough to demand additional evidence that a square is a square, if someone starts throwing around the word 'considered' and 'Rhombuses,' so why do you so quickly accept that Play and Casualty are the same thing simply because 'considered' was used by the Author?

Because the rules literally say, and I'll quote them again so that you might see it this time:

f the model is reduced to 0 Wounds, remove it as a casualty.

If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.

So we know, for a fact, that if a model is reduced to zero wounds it is removed from play as a casualty. We also know that this is referred to as being removed as a casualty. There's no grey area - this isn't a Venn diagram with a partial overlap where "Well, if you are reduced to zero from shooting X happens, but if it's from assault wounds it's Y". Being reduced to zero wounds removes you from play as a casualty.
From that, we know that being removed as a casualty is the same as being removed from play as a casualty - we know this because the Characteristics section says remove from play, and the Shooting section says remove as... while referring to the same status of being at zero wounds.

For RaaC and RFPaaC to potentially mean different things the Shooting phase rule would have to not exist.

As for the secondary question concerning Reserves, nice side step but a simple answer please:
In what period of the turn do Models use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their war-gear/datasheet?

Deployment and then, as I showed, the Reserve rules. It wasn't a side step but a simple answer to a question that presumes there is no answer.
Please stop being condescending.

Kriswall,
Doesn't even work well for numbers!
X+Y = Y

It's almost like I was using logical operators instead of mathematical ones. You're aware of those I'm sure.

We have already concluded that reducing certain characteristics to 0 trigger as specific Remove from Play clause.
I am asking about those things which do not reduce a characteristic to 0 and lack the Remove from Play clause!

You keep claiming that they are synonymous, even though one contains additional instructions then the other, so there must be a specific Rules which states that Models Removed as a Casualty are also considered to have been Removed from Play. We know there is a Rule for the reverse, one that would not need to ever exist if your original premise that they are synonymous was supported by a far better worded Rule simply stating 'are the same.' I might simply be over-looking it still, so quote for me the exact line which states that Models removed as a Casualty also trigger Removed from Play conditions.

Side stepped the secondary question again, even if you claim not to... answer the simple question:
Using the Phrases and sub-Phrases laid out in your Rulebook, during what period does a Model use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their Datasheet?
There is no "reserve phrase" that I remember, quote the Rule if there is and I am simply overlooking it.

JinxDragon wrote:
We have already concluded that reducing certain characteristics to 0 trigger as specific Remove from Play clause.
I am asking about those things which do not reduce a characteristic to 0 and lack the Remove from Play clause!

You keep claiming that they are synonymous, even though one contains additional instructions then the other, so there must be a specific Rules which states that Models Removed as a Casualty are also considered to have been Removed from Play. We know there is a Rule for the reverse, one that would not need to ever exist if your original premise that they are synonymous was supported by a far better worded Rule simply stating 'are the same.' I might simply be over-looking it still, so quote for me the exact line which states that Models removed as a Casualty also trigger Removed from Play conditions.

We know that Removed as a Casualty is the "main" (most common) phrase used. Agreed?
We know that being reduced to 0 wounds removes you from play as a casualty, and also removes you as a casualty. Agreed?

Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed.

We also know that being run over by a tank Removes from play as a casualty.

The problem is that no matter what, there are redundant rules in play here. Either it's redundant to clarify that RFP == RaaC, or it's redundant to say RFPaaC.

By the way, for Vehicles we have this:

Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead.

Key word here is "otherwise" - meaning that all of those methods would remove a model from play, but those are not the only methods.

Side stepped the secondary question again, even if you claim not to... answer the simple question:
Using the Phrases and sub-Phrases laid out in your Rulebook, during what period does a Model use the Deep Strike Special Rule found on their Datasheet?
There is no "reserve phrase" that I remember, quote the Rule if there is and I am simply overlooking it.

So there's no direction to bring units into play?
There's no permission to put them in a special area out of play?

I know for a fact there is, and I've quoted it. The rule is used during Deployment to be put in "Deep Strike Reserve" a special, out of play, area.
Then, when directed that the unit arrives by the Reserve rules you use the rule again (remember, they're in play now because they've arrived from Reserves) to resolve the Deep Strike.
I've answered this twice now. As clear as day. Side stepping nothing.

Agreed,
There is specific instructions which tell us to Remove from Play as a Casualty in three very specific situations
There are also instructions which tell us to Remove something from Play
There are also instructions which simply tell us to Remove as a Casualty

No one is denying the existence of these clauses, we are arguing if they are synonymous with each other or three completely different set of instructions. I still am finding it hard to understand why you read three completely different worded instructions as a single Clause. Okay, I can understand instruction 2, because there is a secondary Clause telling us to also consider them to be Removed as a Casualty whenever we read those wordings but that is a secondary clause that triggers only in that one situation. The only real Rule as Written evidence put forth that they are synonymous requires me to re-structure the sentence, switching the subjects around, to come to the same conclusion. It also doesn't explain why we would even have such a Clause, if you where already correct and the three where synonymous.

To Clarify:
Do you believe the Unit Arriving by Deep-strike is using the Deep Strike Rule found on it's Datasheet in order to do so?
Actually, you know what... don't answer.
It is a side point and I will address it one day in it's own thread.

JinxDragon wrote:
Agreed,
There is specific instructions which tell us to Remove from Play as a Casualty in three very specific situations
There are also instructions which tell us to Remove something from Play
There are also instructions which simply tell us to Remove as a Casualty

No one is denying the existence of these clauses, we are arguing if they are synonymous with each other or three completely different set of instructions. I still am finding it hard to understand why you read three completely different worded instructions as a single Clause. Okay, I can understand instruction 2, because there is a secondary Clause telling us to also consider them to be Removed as a Casualty whenever we read those wordings but that is a secondary clause that triggers only in that one situation. The only real Rule as Written evidence put forth that they are synonymous requires me to re-structure the sentence, switching the subjects around, to come to the same conclusion. It also doesn't explain why we would even have such a Clause, if you where already correct and the three where synonymous.

Maybe you missed a sentence from my post?

The problem is that no matter what, there are redundant rules in play here. Either it's redundant to clarify that RFP == RaaC, or it's redundant to say RFPaaC.

To Clarify:
Do you believe the Unit Arriving by Deep-strike is using the Deep Strike Rule found on it's Datasheet in order to do so?
Actually, you know what... don't answer.
It is a side point and I will address it one day in it's own thread.

Yes, that's correct. During Deployment we use the rule on the Army List Entry to allow us to put it into Reserves. And then we use the Reserves rules to put the unit into play.
I'm confused as to why this isn't acceptable. At no time am I referring to a unit's rules while they are out of play.

In a Rulebook full of redundancy... agreed. The redundancy is poor editing, which I know very well myself, but unless it specifically changes a situation it really is just redundant and nothing more. The redundancy within that one set of instructions, either one it doesn't matter, does not change the fact they are two different set of instructions. I am just happy the one specific to reducing characteristics contains that Redundancy! Imagine how terrible it would be if we didn't have that slight slither, that at least allows you to prove the Authors clearly did not know what they where doing with this Terminology.

We can discuss deep strike, and every other Start of Turn Special Rule, later....
I shouldn't of opened two lines of debate at the same time, I'm trying to cut back at this place!

Also, in case you missed it, I found that vehicles are indisputably removed from play when anything "bad" happens. This is more evidence that RFP==RaaC because treating them differently for Infantry models but the same for Vehicles makes no sense.

Great, more situations being accounted for.
Can you post the name of the Rule, or a snippet, so I can verify?

Would also make the Clause within "It Will Not Die" completely redundant, still not taking redundancies as evidence but thought it interesting to mention.

JinxDragon wrote:Great, more situations being accounted for.
Can you post the name of the Rule, or a snippet, so I can verify?

Would also make the Clause within "It Will Not Die" completely redundant, still not taking redundancies as evidence but thought it interesting to mention.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
We have already concluded that reducing certain characteristics to 0 trigger as specific Remove from Play clause.
I am asking about those things which do not reduce a characteristic to 0 and lack the Remove from Play clause!

You keep claiming that they are synonymous, even though one contains additional instructions then the other, so there must be a specific Rules which states that Models Removed as a Casualty are also considered to have been Removed from Play. We know there is a Rule for the reverse, one that would not need to ever exist if your original premise that they are synonymous was supported by a far better worded Rule simply stating 'are the same.' I might simply be over-looking it still, so quote for me the exact line which states that Models removed as a Casualty also trigger Removed from Play conditions.

We know that Removed as a Casualty is the "main" (most common) phrase used. Agreed?
We know that being reduced to 0 wounds removes you from play as a casualty, and also removes you as a casualty. Agreed?

Any models that cannot manage this are crushed and removed from play as casualties with no saves allowed.

We also know that being run over by a tank Removes from play as a casualty.

The problem is that no matter what, there are redundant rules in play here. Either it's redundant to clarify that RFP == RaaC, or it's redundant to say RFPaaC.

By the way, for Vehicles we have this:

Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead.

Key word here is "otherwise" - meaning that all of those methods would remove a model from play, but those are not the only methods.
--snip--

It gives me the feelbads when you don't read all of my posts man. :p

Agreed, sorry for overlooking that part, but if only it proved your point

Invincible Behemoth is the name of the Rule, and it only informs us what to do in situations where Weapons with one of four specific Clauses hit's this Model.
It does not prove that Destroyed = Removed from Play, or that Wrecked = Removed From Play or that Explodes = Removed from play.

Those have clearly defined sections however... well, Wrecked and Explode does.
Wrecked Models mention nothing about being Removed from Play, in fact it contains instructions to leave the Model in play with a 'treat it as scenery' clause attached!
Explodes contains instruction to remove the Model from the Battlefield, which means we have to throw yet another 'Removed as' to the list... that's 4 very similar instructions worded very differently.
Destroyed is undefined... the closest I found in quick review was: Once the nearest model in the squadron is destroyed (i.e. is Wrecked or Explodes!), the next hit is allocated against the new nearest model, and so on.
Wrecked OR Explodes, with both being two completely different set of instructions....

How can Destroyed=Wrecked=Explode=Removed from Play if it is impossible to obey both Explodes and Wrecked at the same time?

I didn't say they were all equivalent.
I said that they all ended up removed from play.

It does prove that by saying if X, RFP. If Y, RFP.

All of those are RFP actions.

Except there is nothing informing us that they are Removed from Play when they are removed from the battlefield.
Also... one of those four doesn't even remove the Model from the Battlefield!

JinxDragon wrote:
Except there is nothing informing us that they are Removed from Play when they are removed from the battlefield.
Also... one of those four doesn't even remove the Model from the Battlefield!

Aside from "... or otherwise removed from play"?

What exactly, to you, does that mean?

rigeld2 wrote:
I didn't say they were all equivalent.
I said that they all ended up removed from play.

It does prove that by saying if X, RFP. If Y, RFP.

All of those are RFP actions.

The rules tell us that being removed from play is also considered to be removed as a casualty.

The rules DON'T tell us that being removed as a casualty is also considered to be removed from play. They actually tell us that removed as a casualty means removed from the table and set aside. Embarking a vehicle also involves being removed from the table and set aside. I don't think anyone would argue that embarked units have been removed from play. You can still measure to and from them. You can still shoot with them (assuming fire points). Etc. Etc.

Since this is a permissive rule set, we need to be told that models that have been removed as a casualty are no longer considered in play. I have yet to find this anywhere in the rules.

A (Removed From Play)
B (Removed as a Casualty)

We are told that A leads to B.
We are not told that B leads to A.

DISCLAIMER: I don't think dead models should impact game play. I just can't find anything in the rules saying that models removed as casualties are no longer considered in play. I think GW made assumptions and never actually wrote this down.

The shot may contain clauses A or B or C, or D
If A, do Y instead of X
If B, do Y instead of X
If C, do Y instead of X
If D, do Y instead of X
Doesn't matter that we do the same thing within all four situations, nothing is informing us that A is B and C and therefore D.

Besides:
How does your interpenetration account for Wrecked, scenario B, informing us to leave the Model on the Battlefield if it is also Removed from Play?

JinxDragon wrote:
The shot may contain clauses A or B or C, or D

If A, do Y instead of X
If B, do Y instead of X
If C, do Y instead of X
If D, do Y instead of X

Doesn't matter that we do the same thing for all four situations, it is still four completely different situations being addressed.

So yes, you're ignoring the phrase "or is otherwise removed from play". Otherwise being the key word here.
I can't help you understand a phrase other than to say "By using plain English definitions, my statement is true."

Again:
How does your interpenetration account for Wrecked, scenario B, informing us to leave the Model on the Battlefield if it is also Removed from Play?

In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
The shot may contain clauses A or B or C, or D

If A, do Y instead of X
If B, do Y instead of X
If C, do Y instead of X
If D, do Y instead of X

Doesn't matter that we do the same thing for all four situations, it is still four completely different situations being addressed.

So yes, you're ignoring the phrase "or is otherwise removed from play". Otherwise being the key word here.
I can't help you understand a phrase other than to say "By using plain English definitions, my statement is true."

Again:
How does your interpenetration account for Wrecked, scenario B, informing us to leave the Model on the Battlefield if it is also Removed from Play?

In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.

Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."

So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?
Aside from the Tenets pointing out why dictionary debates are pointless, this very word has many definitions depending on how it is used.
This including being used in ways to define different states or situations, point 3 if you Google the word!

Besides, how are you not seeing this flaw in your logic though:
Both are mentioned along side each other in the Rule you quote as 'evidence' that they all must be the same thing
Yet it is impossible to follow the instructions of both Explodes and Wrecked at the same time... highlighting how different they are!

JinxDragon wrote:
So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?

No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.

I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.

Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."

Sure, I worded my statement poorly.

It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?

No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.

I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.

Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."

Sure, I worded my statement poorly.

It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.

...but Wrecked demonstrably doesn't remove the model from play. It very explicitly requires the model be left in place. The model is clearly not removed from play.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?

No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.

I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.

Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."

Sure, I worded my statement poorly.

It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.

...but Wrecked demonstrably doesn't remove the model from play. It very explicitly requires the model be left in place. The model is clearly not removed from play.

OH NO! We have a conflict in the rules! Whatever shall we do!?!

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

In general, all of those things remove a model from play. Specific to Wrecked, the physical model stays but there's no conflict with the rest of removing a model from play, so we still do that. This is reinforced by the fact that we must treat it as scenery and not a unit.

Lets ignore that there is only a conflict in your interpretation and see if what you posted had merit:
Wrecked and Explode are both found in the same section of the book, and I will be lazy and not try to determine if that makes them both Advanced or Basic. Regardless, they will both fall under the same category as the Basic vs Advanced Rules is very much a problem in itself. Both of these Rules are either Advanced or Basic, so neither having permission to trump the other using the Rule you quoted. If we where to ask people which is more "specific," ignoring that the concept of 'more specific' is not defined in the Rules either, it would not be Wrecked.

Wrecked occurs whenever something is reduced to 0 Hull Points, so it occurs even if there is not a specific 'this wrecks the vehicle' clause in play.
Explode only occurs if something specifically mentions that that the Vehicle Explodes, such as the Damage Table.

Again:
Why would there even be a conflict at all if they where synonymous?

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
So your argument is that your dictionary describes the word 'otherwise' to mean they must all be synonymous with each other?

No, I've never said that Wreck == Explodes.
Stop with that red herring.

I've said that all of the listed things remove a vehicle from play. That doesn't make them synonymous.

Explodes, Wrecked, or otherwise removed from play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Incorrect. We are never told to remove the model from play. In fact, we are specifically told to leave it in place, but to treat it as something new. If you wreck my Rhino, the Rhino is still in play... we're just treating it as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Wrecked Vehicles section - "A vehicle that is reduced to 0 Hull Points is Wrecekd. A Wrecked vehicle is destroyed. If the vehicle was a Flyer in Zoom mode, it suffers a Crash and Burn! result (see the Vehicle Damage table). In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel Scenery model with the difficult terrain type."

Sure, I worded my statement poorly.

It's not relevant, however - the actual rules say the Wrecked means it's removed from play despite the fact that the physical model sticks around.

...but Wrecked demonstrably doesn't remove the model from play. It very explicitly requires the model be left in place. The model is clearly not removed from play.

OH NO! We have a conflict in the rules! Whatever shall we do!?!

Where advanced rules apply to a specific model, they always override any contradicting basic rules.

In general, all of those things remove a model from play. Specific to Wrecked, the physical model stays but there's no conflict with the rest of removing a model from play, so we still do that. This is reinforced by the fact that we must treat it as scenery and not a unit.

Can you provide the rule that says Wrecked models are removed from play? I can't find it. Without a written rule, there is no conflict. I don't accept that the 'otherwise' statement proves that Wrecked models are removed from play. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

JinxDragon wrote:
Why would there be a conflict at all if they where synonymous?

Stop saying they're synonymous. I've never said they were, you're on a literal straw man argument right now and I refuse to play that game.
I'm done with you. I used to think you were interested in honest debate but this thread proves otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide the rule that says Wrecked models are removed from play? I can't find it. Without a written rule, there is no conflict. I don't accept that the 'otherwise' statement proves that Wrecked models are removed from play. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

Well, if you don't accept actual rules I can't help you.
Please, what does "or otherwise" mean then? Enlighten me.