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.
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. I am not saying that the models that are removed from the table are no longer subject to the rules of the game. I am saying that models that are not in play are not subject to the rules of models in play.
Provide a quote first before just asserting you are correct.
I don't have to. The alternative you are offering is wholly untenable and leads to an unplayable game and so can be ignored as insubstantial. Unless you want to argue that GW is intentionally producing an unplayable game we can obviously safely take the only tenable path.
Units that are not in play are not subject to the rules of units that are in play unless those rules specifically address units that are not in play.
If that were not the case . . .
Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 07:24:05
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
And yet, your position would still be otherwise. After all, you're talking about the consequences of permitting rules beyond their scope affecting models, which would include this. Nothing about that rule states this applies constantly. And if the IC with this rule dies, they are no longer part of the detachment as they are removed from play.
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Failure on both counts.
The reminder is not about applying it at the end of the game. The reminder is how to consider ICs that have been killed are separate, individual units. Context is important. This reminder would be unnecessary if the IC never leaves their unit after being removed from play. Instead of it being just a reminder, it would be a specific rule to include ICs as separate units when tallying it up.
But it IS a reminder, reminding you that they are individual units when destroyed and not considered part of the unit they died with.
And still no quote from the rulebook to support your position. Failure on three counts on your part.
col_impact wrote: Incorrect. I am not saying that the models that are removed from the table are no longer subject to the rules of the game. I am saying that models that are not in play are not subject to the rules of models in play.
Provide a quote first before just asserting you are correct.
I don't have to. The alternative you are offering is wholly untenable and leads to an unplayable game and so can be ignored as insubstantial. Unless you want to argue that GW is intentionally producing an unplayable game we can obviously safely take the only tenable path.
It is wholly tenable when I you cannot provide permission or requirement to ignore rules just because the model was removed from play. Your strawmen arguments are pointless and your inability to quote properly is irritating.
You need a quote to say a model's rules are ignored when they are removed from play. You do not have permission to dismiss them otherwise.
col_impact wrote: Units that are not in play are not subject to the rules of units that are in play unless those rules specifically address units that are not in play.
We are not talking about a unit being affected by a unit's rule not in play, we're talking about the model's rule which applies to it.
col_impact wrote: Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
No, but they do specify Line of Sight and Range. Can you properly identify both for units off the table in all these situations?
col_impact wrote: Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Arriving From Reserves handles that part. It presents a specific set of circumstances in order to move on from Reserves. In addition, how can you define where that unit is actually starting from without permission to do so without using the Arriving From Reserves rules?
Context matters, and sometimes you have to look beyond just a few little words in part of a sentence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/01/31 07:30:02
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
And yet, your position would still be otherwise. After all, you're talking about the consequences of permitting rules beyond their scope affecting models, which would include this. Nothing about that rule states this applies constantly. And if the IC with this rule dies, they are no longer part of the detachment as they are removed from play.
Incorrect. Your case is simply not relevant at all to the argument at hand. Bikes are made into troops when the unit is chosen as part of the Detachment. That happens at Army Composition and cannot be undone.
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Failure on both counts.
The reminder is not about applying it at the end of the game. The reminder is how to consider ICs that have been killed are separate, individual units. Context is important. This reminder would be unnecessary if the IC never leaves their unit after being removed from play. Instead of it being just a reminder, it would be a specific rule to include ICs as separate units when tallying it up.
But it IS a reminder, reminding you that they are individual units when destroyed and not considered part of the unit they died with.
It only happens at the end of the game and the rule specifically addresses the removed from play zone. You are failing to provide examples that dispute my argument. Try again?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 07:31:10
Charistoph wrote: Do Space Marine Bikes return to Fast Attack Roles when the Captain dies (a pertinent question for a certain mission)?
Nope. The rule checks only during army composition.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
And yet, your position would still be otherwise. After all, you're talking about the consequences of permitting rules beyond their scope affecting models, which would include this. Nothing about that rule states this applies constantly. And if the IC with this rule dies, they are no longer part of the detachment as they are removed from play.
Incorrect. Your case is simply not relevant at all to the argument at hand. Bikes are made into troops when the unit is chosen as part of the Detachment. That happens at Army Composition and cannot be undone.
And back to partial quote posting, can't keep your thoughts straight in a post?
Where does it state that it cannot be undone? Quotes to support your assertion are needed.
Charistoph wrote: For example, the REMINDER in the Purge the Alien Objective rules
Nope. Applies at the end of the game.
Spoiler:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Failure on both counts.
The reminder is not about applying it at the end of the game. The reminder is how to consider ICs that have been killed are separate, individual units. Context is important. This reminder would be unnecessary if the IC never leaves their unit after being removed from play. Instead of it being just a reminder, it would be a specific rule to include ICs as separate units when tallying it up.
But it IS a reminder, reminding you that they are individual units when destroyed and not considered part of the unit they died with.
It only happens at the end of the game and the rule specifically addresses the removed from play zone. You are failing to provide examples that dispute my argument. Try again?
The TALLY happens at the end of the game. The REMINDER does not. It is reminding you of conditions that prevail during the game that are then accounted for when the tally comes due. The event happened during the game time, not the end of the game. The IC is removed from the unit and counted on their own during the game time. This rule REMINDS you of this at the end.
And still zero quotes to support your actual position.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 07:35:58
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote: Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
No, but they do specify Line of Sight and Range. Can you properly identify both for units off the table in all these situations?
col_impact wrote: Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Arriving From Reserves handles that part. It presents a specific set of circumstances in order to move on from Reserves. In addition, how can you define where that unit is actually starting from without permission to do so without using the Arriving From Reserves rules?
Context matters, and sometimes you have to look beyond just a few little words in part of a sentence.
Nothing prevents you from measuring off the battlefield or finding line of sight off the battlefield. If my unit can see your unit that is in Reserves and my measuring tape calculate it as in range, my unit can shoot at it - unless we consider that it is indeed "not in play" and not subject to the rules of shooting.
Similarly, I can put my units in reserve just outside of the extents battlefield and if they are subject to the movement rules they can freely move onto the battlefield. No rule restricts their permission - unless they are considered 'not in play' and unable to do actions that would require being 'in play'.
I can even place my units in Reserve just off the table adjacent to my opponent's Deployment Zone and then freely move them onto the table on turn one. That is of course unless we consider them actually 'not in play' and not able to use the Movement Phase rules that require a unit to be 'in play'.
And wonderfully, any of my units that are removed from play as casualties and set aside on the table could still participate in shooting. Yes, the dead can shoot! Their wounds being reduced to zero only keeps them in a spot off the battlefield but so long as they can draw line of sight and are in range of units on the battlefield, they can shoot at them. That is of course unless we consider them actually "removed from play" and not subject to the regular rules of play (e.g. Movement, Shooting, Psychic, Assault, etc.).
So again, you are failing to offer a tenable alternative. We can safely discard your read of the rules which breaks the game at its foundations.
The logical consequences of your argument are just plain silly. Try again?
And back to partial quote posting, can't keep your thoughts straight in a post?
Where does it state that it cannot be undone? Quotes to support your assertion are needed.
The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
The TALLY happens at the end of the game. The REMINDER does not. It is reminding you of conditions that prevail during the game that are then accounted for when the tally comes due. The event happened during the game time, not the end of the game. The IC is removed from the unit and counted on their own during the game time. This rule REMINDS you of this at the end.
Per the rule, it all happens at the end of the game. And the reminder is simply a reminder that the IC is an individual unit - which is true at all times in the game whether attached or detached. When the IC attaches to a unit he attaches as an individual unit that counts as part of the host unit for all rules purposes. You lack any rule which specifically addresses the removed from play zone and which makes the IC detach while the IC is part of the scarab unit in the "removed from play" zone and part of the unit for all rules purposes.
The IC is removed from play as part of the scarab unit and remains as such until the scarab unit re-enters play or until the end of the game where he is individuated for the purpose of tallying up kill points.
And still zero quotes to support your actual position.
No need. You haven't offered a viable counter argument. Your argument that leads to a radically broken game can be safely discarded. If models that are 'not in play' are not actually 'not in play', the game breaks.
This message was edited 18 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 09:03:47
col_impact wrote: Units on the Battlefield could shoot units that are in reserves - Shooting Phase and line of sight rules do not specify units in play.
No, but they do specify Line of Sight and Range. Can you properly identify both for units off the table in all these situations?
col_impact wrote: Units in Reserve could freely walk onto the battlefield on turn 1 (even right on to the Opponent's deployment zone) - Movement Phase ad measurement rules do not specify units in play.
Arriving From Reserves handles that part. It presents a specific set of circumstances in order to move on from Reserves. In addition, how can you define where that unit is actually starting from without permission to do so without using the Arriving From Reserves rules?
Context matters, and sometimes you have to look beyond just a few little words in part of a sentence.
Nothing prevents you from measuring off the battlefield or finding line of sight off the battlefield. If my unit can see your unit that is in Reserves and my measuring tape calculate it as in range, my unit can shoot at it - unless we consider that it is indeed "not in play" and not subject to the rules of shooting.
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
And back to partial quote posting, can't keep your thoughts straight in a post?
Where does it state that it cannot be undone? Quotes to support your assertion are needed.
The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
Not really. The Role would just revert. This wouldn't change anything more for than the Detachment than Unit losses would.
And it is hard to follow the logic and grammer of an unquoted rule. So, again, quote, please.
]
The TALLY happens at the end of the game. The REMINDER does not. It is reminding you of conditions that prevail during the game that are then accounted for when the tally comes due. The event happened during the game time, not the end of the game. The IC is removed from the unit and counted on their own during the game time. This rule REMINDS you of this at the end.
Per the rule, it all happens at the end of the game. And the reminder is simply a reminder that the IC is an individual unit - which is true at all times in the game whether attached or detached. When the IC attaches to a unit he attaches as an individual unit that counts as part of the host unit for all rules purposes. You lack any rule which specifically addresses the removed from play zone and which makes the IC detach while the IC is part of the scarab unit in the "removed from play" zone and part of the unit for all rules purposes.
The IC is removed from play as part of the scarab unit and remains as such until the scarab unit re-enters play or until the end of the game where he is individuated for the purpose of tallying up kill points.
So, according to this interpretation, I can shoot out the IC from the middle of a group since if is its own unit at ALL times. That is something you cannot support with a quote, so not a rule of the game. They are removed from the unit (eventually) when one or both are killed. It is not immediate, but it does happen during the game, not after. No rule states they separate at the end of the game.
And still zero quotes to support your actual position.
No need. You haven't offered a viable counter argument. Your argument that leads to a radically broken game can be safely discarded. If models that are 'not in play' are not actually 'not in play', the game breaks.
I have provided a counter argument from quoted rules. The assertions you have stated in this quoted post have not been supported by the language, much less the context, of any rule quoted so far.
If you think a quote is not needed than you ignoring a Tenet of this forum. If you cannot quote the rules, than you have no rules. If you have no rules, it is HYWPI, nothing else.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
There is no requirement that the measurement for shooting or movement be constrained by the battlefield. You can place your units in Reserve freely anywhere that is not on the battlefield. As long as place your units close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield where they have line of sight and range to units on the battlefield, they can shoot at those units. As long as they are close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield to where the unit can simply finish a move on the battlefield, they can move on to the battlefield. No rules are broken or ignored to do so - only their designation as 'removed from play'. The only thing that would prevent them from moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. is if by being 'removed from play' they are not subject to the rules for units that are 'in play'.
'Removed from play' is indeed 'removed from play'. If you do not treat units that are 'not in play' as 'not in play' the game breaks.
The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
Not really. The Role would just revert. This wouldn't change anything more for than the Detachment than Unit losses would.
And it is hard to follow the logic and grammer of an unquoted rule. So, again, quote, please.
You are failing to adhere to the logic and grammar of the rule itself. The rule itself suffices as the quote.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
Indisputably, the choosing is the trigger for the application of the rule. You choose at army composition. You have to show how the unit during the game is re-chosen as part of the Detachment. So point to the rules which allow you to re-choose army composition during an actual game.
So, according to this interpretation, I can shoot out the IC from the middle of a group since if is its own unit at ALL times. That is something you cannot support with a quote, so not a rule of the game.
You could shoot out the IC from the middle of a group IF you could find a way to circumvent this rule.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
But to my knowledge there is no such rule.
The IC is always an individual unit. When he attaches to another unit he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rules purposes but he does not actually become part of the unit. 'Counts as part of ' does not wholly equal 'become part of'. He retains his ALE which permanently has him as an individual unit (and when he attaches he is a unit within a unit - a Mixed unit). That individual unit status is always there, just buried under a 'counts as' rule which restricts access to his individual unit status. His individual unit status enables him to move out of coherency to detach from the host unit and move like a model of his unit type.
The burden is on you to show a rule that drops the IC's ALE. The ALE is always there - it is just that access to that individual unit status is restricted by the 'counts as' clause while the IC is attached to a unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Charistoph wrote: I have provided a counter argument from quoted rules. The assertions you have stated in this quoted post have not been supported by the language, much less the context, of any rule quoted so far.
If you think a quote is not needed than you ignoring a Tenet of this forum. If you cannot quote the rules, than you have no rules. If you have no rules, it is HYWPI, nothing else.
As indicated above you have failed to provide a counter argument.
I have freely quoted from the rules in support of my argument.
Spoiler:
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side.
Spoiler:
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
You have failed to provide a tenable counter argument. You have failed to articulate an argument that treats 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2016/01/31 19:52:58
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
There is no requirement that the measurement for shooting or movement be constrained by the battlefield. You can place your units in Reserve freely anywhere that is not on the battlefield. As long as place your units close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield where they have line of sight and range to units on the battlefield, they can shoot at those units. As long as they are close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield to where the unit can simply finish a move on the battlefield, they can move on to the battlefield. No rules are broken or ignored to do so - only their designation as 'removed from play'. The only thing that would prevent them from moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. is if by being 'removed from play' they are not subject to the rules for units that are 'in play'.
'Removed from play' is indeed 'removed from play'. If you do not treat units that are 'not in play' as 'not in play' the game breaks.
Incorrect. They are measured from the model. This is a standard rule for both shooting and movement. Models not on the battlefield do not have a point of reference to be measuring from, or at least, we do not have permission to do that for something in Reserves. So that answers your unbelievable statement about no requirement.
col_impact wrote: The rule would require you to revisit the choosing of the unit as part the detachment. You cannot until your next game of course. Why is the logic and grammar of the rule so hard for you?
Not really. The Role would just revert. This wouldn't change anything more for than the Detachment than Unit losses would.
And it is hard to follow the logic and grammer of an unquoted rule. So, again, quote, please.
You are failing to adhere to the logic and grammar of the rule itself. The rule itself suffices as the quote.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
Indisputably, the choosing is the trigger for the application of the rule. You choose at army composition. You have to show how the unit during the game is re-chosen as part of the Detachment. So point to the rules which allow you to re-choose army composition during an actual game.
If the IC dies, he is no longer in the detachment any more than if he was in a unit. Or are we ignoring how IC rules operate? And remember your position, "a model cannot be affected by another model's rule if they are not in play". The IC has been removed from play, so cannot be affecting other models with its rules, and that rule is not a detachment rule, but singular to those ICs which have it.
Not that it really matters since what we are discussing a model's own rules, not another's.
So, according to this interpretation, I can shoot out the IC from the middle of a group since if is its own unit at ALL times. That is something you cannot support with a quote, so not a rule of the game.
You could shoot out the IC from the middle of a group IF you could find a way to circumvent this rule.
Spoiler:
While an Independent Character is part of a unit, he counts as part of the unit for all rules purposes, though he still follows the rules for characters.
But to my knowledge there is no such rule.
That was rather my point that you were ignoring.
col_impact wrote: The IC is always an individual unit. When he attaches to another unit he 'counts as' part of the unit for all rules purposes but he does not actually become part of the unit. 'Counts as part of ' does not wholly equal 'become part of'. He retains his ALE which permanently has him as an individual unit (and when he attaches he is a unit within a unit - a Mixed unit). That individual unit status is always there, just buried under a 'counts as' rule which restricts access to his individual unit status. His individual unit status enables him to move out of coherency to detach from the host unit and move like a model of his unit type.
The burden is on you to show a rule that drops the IC's ALE. The ALE is always there - it is just that access to that individual unit status is restricted by the 'counts as' clause while the IC is attached to a unit.
I never stated that he drops his ALE, I do not know why you are assuming this at all. I was trying to remind you of how the IC rules work.
When joined to the unit he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. These means that any action made by, referencing, or upon the unit in question includes the IC. Objective rules are part of ALL the rules for their purposes.
So either the IC leaves the unit (eventually) when it is killed, and so is allowed to be referenced as an individual unit when measuring Kill Point Objectives (like the REMINDER tells us), OR the IC cannot leave the unit when he is destroyed with the unit and so is never allowed to be an individual unit.
Since the Kill Point Objective specifically points the former as being the case to such a degree as to provide a reminder, I'm going to continue with the perspective that we follow what the IC rules state that it leaves the unit when the unit is killed around it or removed from coherency with the unit, instead of some arbitrary rule about model rules not being in play that you will not (and no doubt, can not) quote.
Charistoph wrote: I have provided a counter argument from quoted rules. The assertions you have stated in this quoted post have not been supported by the language, much less the context, of any rule quoted so far.
If you think a quote is not needed than you ignoring a Tenet of this forum. If you cannot quote the rules, than you have no rules. If you have no rules, it is HYWPI, nothing else.
As indicated above you have failed to provide a counter argument.
I have freely quoted from the rules in support of my argument.
Spoiler:
If at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
Spoiler:
Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side.
Spoiler:
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
You have failed to provide a tenable counter argument. You have failed to articulate an argument that treats 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
What we disagree on is the extent "removed from play" involves. But then, you always do have a problem following my logic path, so that is not new.
You believe that all the rules a model carries are ignored when the model is "removed from play". You have quoted NOTHING on this point, even after repeated requests. The fact that such a rule does not exist may be the reason why. The arguments you presented above are just about what causes a model to be considered removed from play, which is someone else's argument that I never touched.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
col_impact wrote: Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
Again, you still need to quote on that one. Remember what the conditions for an IC to leave a unit are. While none speak of being removed from play, they do not EXCLUDE them, either. You do not have permission to ignore this portion of the rule, just because the model was removed.
And if it is separated from the unit at the end of the game when the kill is done, it will be at the appropriate time of when it happened.
Unless you can point out how an IC that is removed from play is still in coherency? Or if the IC is killed off with his joined unit did not indeed experience "all other models in that unit are killed"
col_impact wrote: If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Still no quote on this...
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 00:17:15
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
You continue to try to divert from the issue at hand. Your losing the IC argument and trying to switch gears to another argument. You still have nothing that counteracts the IC rule.
Sure there is, at what point do you measure from? 0.1" from the edge? 24" from the edge? Without this, you cannot Move or Shoot.. These scenarios are only a problem if you ignore other rules.
There is no requirement that the measurement for shooting or movement be constrained by the battlefield. You can place your units in Reserve freely anywhere that is not on the battlefield. As long as place your units close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield where they have line of sight and range to units on the battlefield, they can shoot at those units. As long as they are close enough on the side of the table to the battlefield to where the unit can simply finish a move on the battlefield, they can move on to the battlefield. No rules are broken or ignored to do so - only their designation as 'removed from play'. The only thing that would prevent them from moving, shooting, assaulting, etc. is if by being 'removed from play' they are not subject to the rules for units that are 'in play'.
'Removed from play' is indeed 'removed from play'. If you do not treat units that are 'not in play' as 'not in play' the game breaks.
Incorrect. They are measured from the model. This is a standard rule for both shooting and movement. Models not on the battlefield do not have a point of reference to be measuring from, or at least, we do not have permission to do that for something in Reserves. So that answers your unbelievable statement about no requirement.
Again, context of ALL the rules matters.
You need to refresh yourself with the rules. If you are allowing units 'not in play' to be subject to the rules of units 'in play' (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) then you have a big problem. Units in Reserve are still units and they are placed somewhere that is simply not on the battlefield. Units that are removed from play as casualties are placed on the side of the table per the rules. If I can measure, draw line of sight, and/or be in range of units on the Battlefield then those units 'not in play' can interact with the Battlefield. The Reserve units can shoot and move onto the Battlefield and the 'removed from play' units can shoot onto the Battlefield.Measuring distances and moving units do not specify only units 'in play' and do not specify only 'on the battlefield' so those rules can freely affect units in Reserve and units in the 'removed from play' zone.
Unless there is some distinction drawn between units 'in play' and units 'not in play', the game breaks since stuff in Reserves and removed from the game interact with units 'in play'.
The regular rules for Movement, Shooting, Assault, etc. can only apply to units 'in play' and can not apply to units 'not in play'. Otherwise, the game breaks plain and simple.
So your line of reasoning which leads to a profoundly broken game is simply discarded. Try again?
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
You continue to try to divert from the issue at hand. Your losing the IC argument and trying to switch gears to another argument. You still have nothing that counteracts the IC rule.
Not diverting. Just making sure issue #1 isn't forgotten. Feel free to provide a counter-argument to my RAW argument for the unit of 12 scarabs.
If the IC dies, he is no longer in the detachment any more than if he was in a unit. Or are we ignoring how IC rules operate? And remember your position, "a model cannot be affected by another model's rule if they are not in play". The IC has been removed from play, so cannot be affecting other models with its rules, and that rule is not a detachment rule, but singular to those ICs which have it.
Not that it really matters since what we are discussing a model's own rules, not another's.
You need to read the rule. The rule gets triggered upon choosing the unit for a Detachment that has a Bike Captain. That choice is made in army composition. You do not revisit that choice in the game. So until your next army composition task the army list is set with Bikes as Troops per the rule.
Read the rule and adhere to the language and logic of the rule.
I never stated that he drops his ALE, I do not know why you are assuming this at all. I was trying to remind you of how the IC rules work.
When joined to the unit he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. These means that any action made by, referencing, or upon the unit in question includes the IC. Objective rules are part of ALL the rules for their purposes.
So either the IC leaves the unit (eventually) when it is killed, and so is allowed to be referenced as an individual unit when measuring Kill Point Objectives (like the REMINDER tells us), OR the IC cannot leave the unit when he is destroyed with the unit and so is never allowed to be an individual unit.
Since the Kill Point Objective specifically points the former as being the case to such a degree as to provide a reminder, I'm going to continue with the perspective that we follow what the IC rules state that it leaves the unit when the unit is killed around it or removed from coherency with the unit, instead of some arbitrary rule about model rules not being in play that you will not (and no doubt, can not) quote.
Whether or not an IC is attached or detached to a unit, the IC is still an individual unit that is merely subject to a rule that counts him as part of a unit. At no point does he become part of the unit nor does he lose his ALE which insures he is always an individual unit. The 'counts as' rule does not remove his individual unit status, it just restricts the IC and enforces that the rules treat him as if he were part of the unit (while technically not wholly part of the unit)
The Purge the Alien rule merely points out what is always the case anyway - that the IC is an individual unit. That rule has no problem being triggered whether the IC is considered attached or detached to a unit in the removed from play zone.
So your Purge the Alien rule can provide nothing in the way of guidance about whether the IC auto-detaches in the 'remove from play' zone.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Again, you still need to quote on that one. Remember what the conditions for an IC to leave a unit are. While none speak of being removed from play, they do not EXCLUDE them, either. You do not have permission to ignore this portion of the rule, just because the model was removed.
And if it is separated from the unit at the end of the game when the kill is done, it will be at the appropriate time of when it happened.
Unless you can point out how an IC that is removed from play is still in coherency? Or if the IC is killed off with his joined unit did not indeed experience "all other models in that unit are killed"
The IC is not in play and so not subject to the rules which involve units that are 'in play'. For a rule to affect the IC in the 'remove from play' zone the rule must specifically affect him in that zone. 'Removed from play' is 'removed from play' and a rule that would affect the 'remove from play' zone must specifically be empowered to do so.
Otherwise you have a situation where the rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) apply to units 'not in play' which leads to units in Reserves and units that are dead able to interact with the Battlefield. Any line of reasoning down this path can be safely discarded.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 01:30:03
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/01 01:07:10
col_impact wrote: If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Still no quote on this...
No quote needed. The alternative where the rules of units 'in play' freely apply to units 'not in play' leads to broken and thoroughly unplayable game. Any line of argumentation down this path can be safely discarded.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
RAW is clear. There is a pile of 12 scarab models for a scarab unit on the side of the table when the unit is designated 'completely destroyed' and the 'From the Sands, we rise' rule is triggered. No rule asserts "original" or "starting".
There is literally no justification for anything but 12 scarab models to re-enter play.
Your appeal to precedence is laughable and shows that you will stoop to sophistry rather than simply admit you cannot counter my RAW argument. Let's stick with sorting out RAW and if you are unhappy with RAW then feel free to house rule it to your heart's content. No one is forcing you to play by RAW. I am just showing you what is RAW on the issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Fragile wrote: Nothing you have said has countered the rule.
Spoiler:
If an Independent Character joins a unit, and all other models in that unit are killed, he again becomes a unit of one model at the start of the following phase.
The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 01:19:58
Charistoph wrote: Incorrect. They are measured from the model. This is a standard rule for both shooting and movement. Models not on the battlefield do not have a point of reference to be measuring from, or at least, we do not have permission to do that for something in Reserves. So that answers your unbelievable statement about no requirement.
Again, context of ALL the rules matters.
You need to refresh yourself with the rules. If you are allowing units 'not in play' to be subject to the rules of units 'in play' (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) then you have a big problem. Units in Reserve are still units and they are placed somewhere that is simply not on the battlefield. Units that are removed from play as casualties are placed on the side of the table per the rules. If I can measure, draw line of sight, and/or be in range of units on the Battlefield then those units 'not in play' can interact with the Battlefield. The Reserve units can shoot and move onto the Battlefield and the 'removed from play' units can shoot onto the Battlefield.Measuring distances and moving units do not specify only units 'in play' and do not specify only 'on the battlefield' so those rules can freely affect units in Reserve and units in the 'removed from play' zone.
Unless there is some distinction drawn between units 'in play' and units 'not in play', the game breaks since stuff in Reserves and removed from the game interact with units 'in play'.
The regular rules for Movement, Shooting, Assault, etc. can only apply to units 'in play' and can not apply to units 'not in play'. Otherwise, the game breaks plain and simple.
So your line of reasoning which leads to a profoundly broken game is simply discarded. Try again?
So am I incorrect that measuring for shooting and movement is made from the model? Am I incorrect that a unit in Reserves or removed from play is not provided any reference points to measure from? Am I incorrect that once a unit is in Reserves the only actions that are permitted for the unit are arranging for their Reserves Arrival and the first time any measurement for them is made is when they are Moving On From Reserves?
I'm sorry without any rules regarding "in play", your entire line of reasoning regarding this is pointless and also breaks the game.
Quote the rule that says a model's rules that is removed from play are no longer usable, or concede.
If the IC dies, he is no longer in the detachment any more than if he was in a unit. Or are we ignoring how IC rules operate? And remember your position, "a model cannot be affected by another model's rule if they are not in play". The IC has been removed from play, so cannot be affecting other models with its rules, and that rule is not a detachment rule, but singular to those ICs which have it.
Not that it really matters since what we are discussing a model's own rules, not another's.
You need to read the rule. The rule gets triggered upon choosing the unit for a Detachment that has a Bike Captain. That choice is made in army composition. You do not revisit that choice in the game. So until your next army composition task the army list is set with Bikes as Troops per the rule.
Read the rule and adhere to the language and logic of the rule.
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
I never stated that he drops his ALE, I do not know why you are assuming this at all. I was trying to remind you of how the IC rules work.
When joined to the unit he counts as part of the unit for ALL rules purposes. These means that any action made by, referencing, or upon the unit in question includes the IC. Objective rules are part of ALL the rules for their purposes.
So either the IC leaves the unit (eventually) when it is killed, and so is allowed to be referenced as an individual unit when measuring Kill Point Objectives (like the REMINDER tells us), OR the IC cannot leave the unit when he is destroyed with the unit and so is never allowed to be an individual unit.
Since the Kill Point Objective specifically points the former as being the case to such a degree as to provide a reminder, I'm going to continue with the perspective that we follow what the IC rules state that it leaves the unit when the unit is killed around it or removed from coherency with the unit, instead of some arbitrary rule about model rules not being in play that you will not (and no doubt, can not) quote.
Whether or not an IC is attached or detached to a unit, the IC is still an individual unit that is merely subject to a rule that counts him as part of a unit. At no point does he become part of the unit nor does he lose his ALE which insures he is always an individual unit. The 'counts as' rule does not remove his individual unit status, it just restricts the IC and enforces that the rules treat him as if he were part of the unit (while technically not wholly part of the unit)
The Purge the Alien rule merely points out what is always the case anyway - that the IC is an individual unit. That rule has no problem being triggered whether the IC is considered attached or detached to a unit in the removed from play zone.
So your Purge the Alien rule can provide nothing in the way of guidance about whether the IC auto-detaches in the 'remove from play' zone.
Sorry, try again?
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Why? What rule states this? It's been asked for half a dozen times or more by now. Since you are not delivering, I will consider you conceding on this point and just kicking pricks to argue.
Again, you still need to quote on that one. Remember what the conditions for an IC to leave a unit are. While none speak of being removed from play, they do not EXCLUDE them, either. You do not have permission to ignore this portion of the rule, just because the model was removed.
And if it is separated from the unit at the end of the game when the kill is done, it will be at the appropriate time of when it happened.
Unless you can point out how an IC that is removed from play is still in coherency? Or if the IC is killed off with his joined unit did not indeed experience "all other models in that unit are killed"
The IC is not in play and so not subject to the rules which involve units that are 'in play'. For a rule to affect the IC in the 'remove from play' zone the rule must specifically affect him in that zone. 'Removed from play' is 'removed from play' and a rule that would affect the 'remove from play' zone must specifically be empowered to do so.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
col_impact wrote:Otherwise you have a situation where the rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc.) apply to units 'not in play' which leads to units in Reserves and units that are dead able to interact with the Battlefield. Any line of reasoning down this path can be safely discarded.
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
col_impact wrote: If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Still no quote on this...
No quote needed. The alternative where the rules of units 'in play' freely apply to units 'not in play' leads to broken and thoroughly unplayable game. Any line of argumentation down this path can be safely discarded.
Yes, quote needed. Your simple assertion is not evidence any more than "it doesn't say I can't". So I can safely start discarding your unsupported assertions from now on that continue down this path, by your own standards.
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
RAW is clear. There is a pile of 12 scarab models for a scarab unit on the side of the table when the unit is designated 'completely destroyed' and the 'From the Sands, we rise' rule is triggered. No rule asserts "original" or "starting".
Actually it is not clear. It does not address size at all, whether the original size, size of the unit when it dies, the size it was at the beginning of the turn, or the size it was at the beginning of the Phase it died.
If it was clear that it is based on what was dead, it would say that. If it was clear that it was how large the unit got, it would say that. If it was clear that it was based on how large the unit was when it would be wiped out, it would say that.
But all it says is that "it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn." That could easily mean how many models are dead to as much as how many are still left in play when it died, which would be none (and a stupid interpretation).
col_impact wrote:There is literally no justification for anything but 12 scarab models to re-enter play.
Also untrue if we go by the precedence for similar rules that allow a destroyed unit to be returned in to play.
For reference, the Tyranid Endless Swarm Formation from Leviathan II with the Endless Swarm rule:
Spoiler:
Each time a Hormagaunt or Termagant Brood from this Formation is completely destroyed, roll a D6: on a 4+ you can immediately place a new unit into Ongoing Reserve that is identical in terms of the original number of models, weapons and upgrades to the unit that was just destroyed. These new units count as being part of the original Formation, so roll a D6 as described above if they are subsequently destroyed. Victory points are awarded as normal for new units in this Formation that have been completely destroyed.
And from the Imperial Guard 5th Edition codex, Commander Chenkov's Send In the Next Wave:
Spoiler:
Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn. The new unit moves onto the board from the player's board edge. The unit arrives with as many models and exactly the same armaments as its full strength predecessor - it is treated as a new, identical unit that has just arrived from reserve.
col_impact wrote:Your appeal to precedence is laughable and shows that you will stoop to sophistry rather than simply admit you cannot counter my RAW argument. Let's stick with sorting out RAW and if you are unhappy with RAW then feel free to house rule it to your heart's content. No one is forcing you to play by RAW. I am just showing you what is RAW on the issue.
I make no appeal to precedence, but to use it since we have literally nothing else to go on. No RAW means we generate House Rules. Using other rules which DO have something else to go on to generate House Rules with is a practice I thought you might be familiar with. That is why I invoked precedence.
You should actually try and understand another person's argument before you attempt to address it. It makes things go a lot smoother.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
So am I incorrect that measuring for shooting and movement is made from the model? Am I incorrect that a unit in Reserves or removed from play is not provided any reference points to measure from? Am I incorrect that once a unit is in Reserves the only actions that are permitted for the unit are arranging for their Reserves Arrival and the first time any measurement for them is made is when they are Moving On From Reserves?
I'm sorry without any rules regarding "in play", your entire line of reasoning regarding this is pointless and also breaks the game.
Quote the rule that says a model's rules that is removed from play are no longer usable, or concede.
Measurements for shooting and movement are indeed made from the model. Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are comprised of models. The measurement rules do not require them to be on the battlefield and players are free to put units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties on the side of the table.
So you measure from the units on the side of the table to the units on the battlefield and start firing away. Shooting and line of sight do not specify units 'in play' so units in reserve and unit that are removed from play as casualties are free to join in, UNLESS they are being excluded from the action as 'not in play'.
If the units in reserve and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are not excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be free to move, shoot, assault, etc. and interact with the units on the battlefield.
If the units in reserves and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be in a sort of stasis waiting for permission to arrive from Reserves and then moving on from Reserve.
So how do we handle Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties? Are units in Reserve free to act as if they were 'in play' or are they 'not in play' until given permission to be 'in play'.
Obviously, units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are 'removed from play' and this means they only get to do things when they are brought 'in play' by rules that specifically address them and enable them.
Even though the rules of movement, shooting, assaulting, etc. do not specifically exclude units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties, the rules of movement, shooting, assaulting, etc. are not to applicable to units 'not in play'. To do otherwise and allow units 'not in play' the same rules as units 'in play' breaks the game and violates any contextual sense of 'removed from play'.
A model that is 'removed from the game' cannot interact with the 'game' until it re-enters 'play'. I am curious what definition of 'play' you are using if not 'game play' and what definition of "removed from the game" if not actually removing the model from the game, since this point I am making is by definition and exceedingly obvious and not one I would expect anyone to struggle with.
So a model with rules that is 'removed from the game' is rendered totally inert and cannot interact with 'game play' until it is permitted to re-enter 'play'.
Otherwise I can place my dead HQs with their +1 RP bubbles along the side of the table edge to give my units on the battlefield a nice boost from the grave.
Jeeze, Charistophe, some of the stuff you come up with. 'Removed from the game' means 'removed from the game'. You don't get to play with your dead HQ anymore. He is out of the game!
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
Once again the rule is granted upon army composition and only requires the IC be present when building the army. Your continued discussion of this case only shows that you cannot read or follow logic.
There is absolutely no further need to discuss this case because it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, your struggle to understand the logic of the rule is interesting.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Why? What rule states this? It's been asked for half a dozen times or more by now. Since you are not delivering, I will consider you conceding on this point and just kicking pricks to argue.
"Removed from play" is a quote that states it rather bluntly and directly and you keep trying to dance around that straightforward rule declaration and assert the opposite that the model is still "in play". When a model is "removed from play" you do not get to "play" anymore with that model, period, unless a rule specifically allows that model to re-enter "play".
If you do not distinguish between "not in play" and "in play" the game breaks. The dead can shoot from the side of the table. Reserve units can move freely onto the battlefield. Your troops on the battlefield can shoot units in Reserve. The Apocalypse!
"Removed from the game" and "not in play" means that model no longer gets to play. Again, you seem to indicate a problem with reading and logic.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
"Removed from the game" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
"Removed from the game" is a rule and you keep ignoring it.
My argument however respects what "removed from the game" means.
Until your argument treats a model that is "removed from the game" as indeed "removed from the game" it is wholly invalid and in direct violation of plainly stated rules in the BRB.
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
If units in Reserve and units removed from the game as casualties are free to act as if they are 'in play' the game most assuredly breaks. Movement, shooting, and assaulting could all be done by units 'not in play' on the side of the table UNLESS they are excluded from being able to do so since they are either 'not in play' or 'removed from the game'
It is truly amazing that you wholly ignore the straightforward "removed from the game" rule declaration and carry on in your argument as if it doesn't apply to you. Utter sophistry.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 07:00:47
col_impact wrote: And once again it's good to point out that the discussion continues to fixate on the IC issue.
So I guess you all have conceded that a unit of 12 scarabs will return to play as unit of 12 scarabs?
It seems pretty clear and unequivocal that RAW supports that.
The unit of 12 is removed from play as part of a unit that is "completely destroyed" (ie wiped out) and the rule gives that unit permission to return to play and does not specify "starting" or "original".
I might have bothered to address it later, but your insistence on a non-existent rule is distracting. It has not been one I brought up or addressed, so it has nothing to do with conceding, just focusing on the primary concern.
But the simple fact is that it is not addressed, either way. It just says the unit returns, neither as it started, size at the beginning of the Phase it was removed, nor the size it grew to later in the case of the Scarabs.
In most other cases of similar rules, if we may use them as precedence, it was as the unit existed when deployment began. It is a good precedence to stick with and the most clear. Incidentally, this precedence would also address this concern about ICs being resurrected as well, as their return conditions consider the unit from a time before an IC can join it.
RAW is clear. There is a pile of 12 scarab models for a scarab unit on the side of the table when the unit is designated 'completely destroyed' and the 'From the Sands, we rise' rule is triggered. No rule asserts "original" or "starting".
Actually it is not clear. It does not address size at all, whether the original size, size of the unit when it dies, the size it was at the beginning of the turn, or the size it was at the beginning of the Phase it died.
If it was clear that it is based on what was dead, it would say that. If it was clear that it was how large the unit got, it would say that. If it was clear that it was based on how large the unit was when it would be wiped out, it would say that.
But all it says is that "it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn." That could easily mean how many models are dead to as much as how many are still left in play when it died, which would be none (and a stupid interpretation).
col_impact wrote:There is literally no justification for anything but 12 scarab models to re-enter play.
Also untrue if we go by the precedence for similar rules that allow a destroyed unit to be returned in to play.
For reference, the Tyranid Endless Swarm Formation from Leviathan II with the Endless Swarm rule:
Spoiler:
Each time a Hormagaunt or Termagant Brood from this Formation is completely destroyed, roll a D6: on a 4+ you can immediately place a new unit into Ongoing Reserve that is identical in terms of the original number of models, weapons and upgrades to the unit that was just destroyed. These new units count as being part of the original Formation, so roll a D6 as described above if they are subsequently destroyed. Victory points are awarded as normal for new units in this Formation that have been completely destroyed.
And from the Imperial Guard 5th Edition codex, Commander Chenkov's Send In the Next Wave:
Spoiler:
Any unit with this special rule that is removed from play may be brought back into play at the beginning of the controlling player's next turn. The new unit moves onto the board from the player's board edge. The unit arrives with as many models and exactly the same armaments as its full strength predecessor - it is treated as a new, identical unit that has just arrived from reserve.
col_impact wrote:Your appeal to precedence is laughable and shows that you will stoop to sophistry rather than simply admit you cannot counter my RAW argument. Let's stick with sorting out RAW and if you are unhappy with RAW then feel free to house rule it to your heart's content. No one is forcing you to play by RAW. I am just showing you what is RAW on the issue.
I make no appeal to precedence, but to use it since we have literally nothing else to go on. No RAW means we generate House Rules. Using other rules which DO have something else to go on to generate House Rules with is a practice I thought you might be familiar with. That is why I invoked precedence.
You should actually try and understand another person's argument before you attempt to address it. It makes things go a lot smoother.
RAW is exceedingly clear. The rule comes into effect only when the scarab unit is wiped out, not before. That means that there is a unit of 12 scarab models on the side of the table designated "completely destroyed" when the rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule and bring the scarab unit back into play from the side of the table you have not choice at all but to bring back the unit of 12 scarabs. No rule anywhere indicates "original" or "starting" and you are not allowed to add those words to the rule and consider it RAW. I understand that people like you are uncomfortable with rules interactions like this one, but refusing to recognize the plain logic in the RAW is just being intentionally obtuse.
To insist that we have no clear RAW directive on this issue is outright sophistry and trying to pass an utterly fallacious argument off as a true one.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/01 06:51:26
RAW is hardly "exceedingly clear" and when you have to work this hard to establish such an exceedingly clear 'RAW' reading, it comes off as you trying to twist the rules to your advantage.
Which is exactly what it looks like to me
No one - not even you - can possibly think the idea of this unit coming back bigger than it started is right. Otherwise, sign me up for 9 Spyders and watch the unit double in size to be returned again every turn after adding 9 each time... see how stupid that sounds?
Massaen wrote: RAW is hardly "exceedingly clear" and when you have to work this hard to establish such an exceedingly clear 'RAW' reading, it comes off as you trying to twist the rules to your advantage.
Which is exactly what it looks like to me
No one - not even you - can possibly think the idea of this unit coming back bigger than it started is right. Otherwise, sign me up for 9 Spyders and watch the unit double in size to be returned again every turn after adding 9 each time... see how stupid that sounds?
I am not saying that the rule writer intended this interaction. That is an entirely different discussion and not a RAW discussion. We can never know what the rule writer intended, but it is hard to fathom he or she being wholly unaware of the fact the spyders grow scarab unit sizes.
We are discussing RAW and if you accept the words as they are written it is quite clear what they ask you to do. It's only because we are uncomfortable with a possibly abusive rule interaction that we try to wiggle out of it and twist the rule into saying something it does not. But the rules as they are written are indeed exceedingly clear.
At any rate, I have already tested out the rule interaction and it is surprisingly not OP. The unit is easy to tarpit with infantry. The rule is also easy to deny by killing the overlord. Points invested in trying to take advantage of the rule (extra spyders or a castle around the Overlord) wind up points you have to recoup or you lose outright with a bunch of mediocre support units.
You really need to test the rule interaction before you deem it abusively OP. This combo doesn't even register on the OP scale. You are better off running a Decurion with Canoptek Harvest and a D. Cult per the vanilla Necron codex or just running a regular Scarab Farm off a CAD and some Harvests for the RP buff.
Until you play it out you only see the nifty buffs granted by the combo. But when you play it out you see the hidden costs. So based on performance we cannot tell one way or the other anything about writer's intention. It simply isn't any more or less OP than what the Necron codex already offers. The Stalker, warrior, and overlord tax and opportunity cost for not running better units like Wraiths are things that factor into games that are actually played.
It's just Demon summoning for the Necron codex, but not anywhere near as good as Demon summoning.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 07:57:27
Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special
rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that
is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can
take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If
a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this
manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its
Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created –
on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any
kind allowed.
col_impact wrote:Measurements for shooting and movement are indeed made from the model. Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are comprised of models. The measurement rules do not require them to be on the battlefield and players are free to put units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties on the side of the table.
Not what I asked. Try again.
col_impact wrote:So you measure from the units on the side of the table to the units on the battlefield and start firing away. Shooting and line of sight do not specify units 'in play' so units in reserve and unit that are removed from play as casualties are free to join in, UNLESS they are being excluded from the action as 'not in play'.
Quote the permission to use its off table position as a starting point or concede.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserve and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are not excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be free to move, shoot, assault, etc. and interact with the units on the battlefield.
Incorrect since units in Reserve or who have been removed from play do not have a proper measurement reference. "Over there" is not a proper measurement starting point.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserves and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be in a sort of stasis waiting for permission to arrive from Reserves and then moving on from Reserve.
And if their rules do not matter a whole host of other rules get broken, try again.
col_impact wrote:A model that is 'removed from the game' cannot interact with the 'game' until it re-enters 'play'. I am curious what definition of 'play' you are using if not 'game play' and what definition of "removed from the game" if not actually removing the model from the game, since this point I am making is by definition and exceedingly obvious and not one I would expect anyone to struggle with.
It is "removed from play", I believe. And you keep saying this, but you have no provided not rules reference for this. Especially when it has been noted that there are numerous exceptions to this.
col_impact wrote:Jeeze, Charistoph, some of the stuff you come up with. 'Removed from the game' means 'removed from the game'. You don't get to play with your dead HQ anymore. He is out of the game!
And yet, this whole discussion is about doing exactly that. You cannot even follow your own rules. You are operating under pre-conceived notions which you think are rules in the rulebook. This is fine for House Ruling. But at least I admit when I'm House Ruling.
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
Once again the rule is granted upon army composition and only requires the IC be present when building the army. Your continued discussion of this case only shows that you cannot read or follow logic.
There is absolutely no further need to discuss this case because it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, your struggle to understand the logic of the rule is interesting.
It's not my illogic that presented this as a possible case. You are the one who is saying that special rules for models removed from play no longer matter, not me. I am simply pointing out a consequence.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
True, but that doesn't mean his rules go away or are removed from play. In most cases, they require the model to be "in play", but the IC rule in question, does not. Indeed, being removed from play is sufficient to trigger at least one, eventually.
Incorrect. You require a rule that addresses the specific 'removed from play' zone. The rules of regular play do not affect the 'removed from play' zone.
Why? What rule states this? It's been asked for half a dozen times or more by now. Since you are not delivering, I will consider you conceding on this point and just kicking pricks to argue.
"Removed from play" is a quote that states it rather bluntly and directly and you keep trying to dance around that straightforward rule declaration and assert the opposite that the model is still "in play". When a model is "removed from play" you do not get to "play" anymore with that model, period, unless a rule specifically allows that model to re-enter "play".
But nothing you have provided supports this statement. You are assuming "Removed From Play" means all its rules stop and cannot be affected by others. Yet, if this was the case, the Scarabs and Warriors could not return since it is THEIR rule that allows this and that rule would be just as suspended as the IC's removal from the unit.
col_impact wrote:If you do not distinguish between "not in play" and "in play" the game breaks. The dead can shoot from the side of the table. Reserve units can move freely onto the battlefield. Your troops on the battlefield can shoot units in Reserve. The Apocalypse!
I am not having a problem distinguishing the difference. I am arguing that the limitations you believe in play on models not in play do not exist since we are given no such instructions to do so. Get your head in to the discussion already and actually pay attention to what the other person states instead of filtering it with your paradigm, would you?
col_impact wrote:"Removed from the game" and "not in play" means that model no longer gets to play. Again, you seem to indicate a problem with reading and logic.
And the definition for what that includes is where? It does not exist. So it is only in your head. I'll stick with what is Written for my RAW arguments. Have fun with your broken self-rules.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
"Removed from the game" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
"Removed from the game" is a rule and you keep ignoring it.
My argument however respects what "removed from the game" means.
Until your argument treats a model that is "removed from the game" as indeed "removed from the game" it is wholly invalid and in direct violation of plainly stated rules in the BRB.
Still no quote on this... The status of "removed from play" is never stated as having the restrictions you are placing on it. So, my asking for confirmation is in direct violation of plainly stated rules that I have not read in the BRB? (and yes, I have read the entire BRB, I just don't always remember every detail)
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
If units in Reserve and units removed from the game as casualties are free to act as if they are 'in play' the game most assuredly breaks. Movement, shooting, and assaulting could all be done by units 'not in play' on the side of the table UNLESS they are excluded from being able to do so since they are either 'not in play' or 'removed from the game'
It is truly amazing that you wholly ignore the straightforward "removed from the game" rule declaration and carry on in your argument as if it doesn't apply to you. Utter sophistry.
No sophistry. Sophistry would be insisting that unwritten parameters are Rules As Written. Note the distinction.
col_impact wrote:RAW is exceedingly clear.
No, "it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn." is not clear on the number of models that can return.
col_impact wrote:The rule comes into effect only when the scarab unit is wiped out, not before.
Not in dispute. But then, there are no models in the unit when it is wiped out. Hence the difficulty with it NOT BEING CLEAR.
col_impact wrote:That means that there is a unit of 12 scarab models on the side of the table designated "completely destroyed" when the rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule and bring the scarab unit back into play from the side of the table you have not choice at all but to bring back the unit of 12 scarabs. No rule anywhere indicates "original" or "starting" and you are not allowed to add those words to the rule and consider it RAW. I understand that people like you are uncomfortable with rules interactions like this one, but refusing to recognize the plain logic in the RAW is just being intentionally obtuse.
No rule states "existing" or which "existing" form you use, either. As I mentioned before, if a unit is wiped out, there is no models in the unit, so we bring back nothing since that is all they have when they are wiped out?
I never stated my position on this was RAW. My position is that there is no RAW on this. Pay attention. I stated that since other rules operating in this manner do use the "original" or "starting" number that it would be good precedence to work with a rule that has no RAW regarding it.
col_impact wrote:To insist that we have no clear RAW directive on this issue is outright sophistry and trying to pass an utterly fallacious argument off as a true one.
It is not outright sophistry. It is a fact that the RAW does not state what quantity to reference when the unit returns. It is sophistry to insist that something that is not written IS actually written. It is sophistry to state that a person's position is RAW when they have already stated that it ISN'T RAW.
col_impact wrote:
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created – on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
So, it does not increase the unit's size, it just adds Scarabs, if we take it literally. That it can be taken beyond its starting size is permission granted when adding the base. Nothing in either rule provides an explicit avenue for a Scarab unit of 12 bases to be returned. We can House Rule it to be so, but I doubt many people would accept it unless they could do the same.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote:Measurements for shooting and movement are indeed made from the model. Units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are comprised of models. The measurement rules do not require them to be on the battlefield and players are free to put units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties on the side of the table.
Not what I asked. Try again.
col_impact wrote:So you measure from the units on the side of the table to the units on the battlefield and start firing away. Shooting and line of sight do not specify units 'in play' so units in reserve and unit that are removed from play as casualties are free to join in, UNLESS they are being excluded from the action as 'not in play'.
Quote the permission to use its off table position as a starting point or concede.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserve and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are not excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be free to move, shoot, assault, etc. and interact with the units on the battlefield.
Incorrect since units in Reserve or who have been removed from play do not have a proper measurement reference. "Over there" is not a proper measurement starting point.
col_impact wrote:If the units in reserves and the units that have been removed play as a casualty are excluded from the rules of units 'in play' then they will be in a sort of stasis waiting for permission to arrive from Reserves and then moving on from Reserve.
And if their rules do not matter a whole host of other rules get broken, try again.
col_impact wrote:A model that is 'removed from the game' cannot interact with the 'game' until it re-enters 'play'. I am curious what definition of 'play' you are using if not 'game play' and what definition of "removed from the game" if not actually removing the model from the game, since this point I am making is by definition and exceedingly obvious and not one I would expect anyone to struggle with.
It is "removed from play", I believe. And you keep saying this, but you have no provided not rules reference for this. Especially when it has been noted that there are numerous exceptions to this.
col_impact wrote:Jeeze, Charistoph, some of the stuff you come up with. 'Removed from the game' means 'removed from the game'. You don't get to play with your dead HQ anymore. He is out of the game!
And yet, this whole discussion is about doing exactly that. You cannot even follow your own rules. You are operating under pre-conceived notions which you think are rules in the rulebook. This is fine for House Ruling. But at least I admit when I'm House Ruling.
The rules for Movement do not specify on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to their maximum movement distance.
The rules for Shooting do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in range, cannot shoot.
The rules for line of sight do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
For one model to have line of sight to another, you must be able to trace a straight, unblocked line from its body (the head, torso, arms or legs) to any part of the target’s body.
The rules for range do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
When checking range, simply measure from each firer to the nearest visible model in the target unit.
The rules for assault do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
Choose a unit in your army that is declaring a charge and nominate the enemy unit(s) it is attempting to charge. A unit can never declare a charge against a unit that it cannot reach, nor can it declare a charge against a unit that it cannot see . . .
The rules for psychic attacks do not specify units on the battlefield or units in play.
Spoiler:
Just like when shooting a weapon, a Psyker must be able to see the target unit (or target point) and cannot be locked in combat if he wishes to manifest a witchfire power.
The only thing keeping units that are not on the battlefield and not in play from interacting with units on the battlefield and in play (and breaking the game) is their designation as "not in play" or "removed from play" and the consequences of that designation.
A unit that is "removed from play" or "not in play" can not be played in any game sense except for rules that specifically address units "removed from play" or "removed from the game" or "not in play". Allowing those units to benefit from general rules is allowing those units "to play" which they are not allowed to do, since they have been "removed from play".
If your argument does not treat "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play" then your whole argument is not only invalid and directly contradicting a plainly stated rule in the BRB but you break the game. Units in Reserve can move and shoot onto the Battlefield and dead units on the side of the table can shoot and dead HQ can grant +1 Re-animation Protocol buffs to units on the battlefield that are close to the side of the table.
But by doing so, you do not adhere to your unquoted rule. The ICs rules can no longer affect other models since it is removed from play. Isn't that what you keep asserting? The rule does not state that this continues when the IC is not in play, after all.
So, choose which you will break, your made-up rule, or the IC's. I will choose to break a rule not in the rulebook and only in your head.
Once again the rule is granted upon army composition and only requires the IC be present when building the army. Your continued discussion of this case only shows that you cannot read or follow logic.
There is absolutely no further need to discuss this case because it is wholly irrelevant to the discussion at hand. However, your struggle to understand the logic of the rule is interesting.
It's not my illogic that presented this as a possible case. You are the one who is saying that special rules for models removed from play no longer matter, not me. I am simply pointing out a consequence.
It's your inability to read that presented this a possible case.
Simply read the rule.
Spoiler:
Mounted Assault: If a unit with this special rule is chosen as part of a Detachment that contains at least one independent character with the Space Marines Faction equipped with a Space Marine bike, the unit’s Battlefield Role changes to Troops.
The rule is triggered upon and only upon the choosing of the unit to be a part of the Detachment which happens only at army composition and at not other time. The rule is in no way dependent on the IC staying in play during the game. This case has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. A simple read of the rule confirms that. If for some reason you are still confused by the rule, point to the part of the rule which is the trigger for the rule (Hint: I have marked it in red for you)
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
Incorrect. My position is that the IC is "removed from play" as part of the unit and no play transpires for the IC while the IC is removed from play since the IC at that point is by definition "removed from play" and having play transpire for him would violate "removed from play". Your argument ignores the injunction to treat the IC as "removed from play".
On top of that there is also the fact that the IC is always an individual unit, whether attached or not. The Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact and scores based on that ALE fact. This is similar to how an IC is still an HQ whether attached or not attached to a unit. The IC never discards his ALE. In order for your argument to have a case you must show that the ALE is being discarded.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 19:22:32
col_impact wrote:If you do not distinguish between "not in play" and "in play" the game breaks. The dead can shoot from the side of the table. Reserve units can move freely onto the battlefield. Your troops on the battlefield can shoot units in Reserve. The Apocalypse!
I am not having a problem distinguishing the difference. I am arguing that the limitations you believe in play on models not in play do not exist since we are given no such instructions to do so. Get your head in to the discussion already and actually pay attention to what the other person states instead of filtering it with your paradigm, would you?
col_impact wrote:"Removed from the game" and "not in play" means that model no longer gets to play. Again, you seem to indicate a problem with reading and logic.
And the definition for what that includes is where? It does not exist. So it is only in your head. I'll stick with what is Written for my RAW arguments. Have fun with your broken self-rules.
You have not demonstrated anything regarding the bounds of "in play" or "removed from play" in the rulebook and how a rule is limited by such. Your assertion is dross without support. Since you have yet to support it from the rulebook, it does not exist so is not something I have to consider in this argument.
Try and provide something from the rulebook to actually support your claims from now on.
"Removed from the game" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
"Removed from the game" is a rule and you keep ignoring it.
My argument however respects what "removed from the game" means.
Until your argument treats a model that is "removed from the game" as indeed "removed from the game" it is wholly invalid and in direct violation of plainly stated rules in the BRB.
Still no quote on this... The status of "removed from play" is never stated as having the restrictions you are placing on it. So, my asking for confirmation is in direct violation of plainly stated rules that I have not read in the BRB? (and yes, I have read the entire BRB, I just don't always remember every detail)
Incorrect as I already addressed. Just because you think it breaks it does not mean it actually breaks. After all, you need points of reference and permission to do certain things, none of which apply in your scenarios.
If units in Reserve and units removed from the game as casualties are free to act as if they are 'in play' the game most assuredly breaks. Movement, shooting, and assaulting could all be done by units 'not in play' on the side of the table UNLESS they are excluded from being able to do so since they are either 'not in play' or 'removed from the game'
It is truly amazing that you wholly ignore the straightforward "removed from the game" rule declaration and carry on in your argument as if it doesn't apply to you. Utter sophistry.
No sophistry. Sophistry would be insisting that unwritten parameters are Rules As Written. Note the distinction.
In plain English the BRB is telling you to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play".
Your response is that you don't have to act on that rule since the rules does not indicate what that means.
My response is that you take that unit and indeed "remove it from play" which means "play" will no longer transpire for that unit unless rules specifically remove the "remove from play" part.
By taking my response, the game is not broken. Units in Reserve are in stasis until allowed to enter. Units removed as casualties no longer have the ability to interact with the game. The rules require a distinction between "in play" and "removed from play" and I enforce that distinction.
By taking your response (that you don't actually have to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play"), the game breaks at a profound level.
Units in Reserve can move or assault freely onto the board provided they are placed on the side of the table proximate enough to do so.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also shoot units on the battlefield so long as they have line of sight and range.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also grant things like 12" bubble buffs provided the units on the battlefield are within range.
The rules require you to treat units that are casualties as "removed from play". You cannot do nothing and satisfy this rule. The rule requires a distinction to be made - making no distinction breaks the rule. You must define what "play" is and act on that definition, or you go against the rules.
My argument simply treats units that are "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/01 19:42:52
col_impact wrote: The only thing keeping units that are not on the battlefield and not in play from interacting with units on the battlefield and in play (and breaking the game) is their designation as "not in play" or "removed from play" and the consequences of that designation.
Except that designation of "not in play" does not apply to units in Reserves. Nor is "in play" used to define any deployed unit. Nor are any reference points allowed for units "not in play".
Try again.
col_impact wrote: A unit that is "removed from play" or "not in play" can not be played in any game sense except for rules that specifically address units "removed from play" or "removed from the game" or "not in play". Allowing those units to benefit from general rules is allowing those units "to play" which they are not allowed to do, since they have been "removed from play".
If your argument does not treat "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play" then your whole argument is not only invalid and directly contradicting a plainly stated rule in the BRB but you break the game. Units in Reserve can move and shoot onto the Battlefield and dead units on the side of the table can shoot and dead HQ can grant +1 Re-animation Protocol buffs to units on the battlefield that are close to the side of the table.
Except you have provided zero evidence of what "removed from play" entails for the game. I can treat "removed from play" as is perceived in a host of other game systems and rules and all would be as equally applicable as to what you have not quoted as a rule for this game.
Here's another thought for you. If a model's rules are no longer in play when it is removed from play, than the ICs rule about being able to be a unit that joins a unit is also removed, meaning that the IC still does not come back with the Warriors or Scarabs. You cannot have it both ways here any more than you can have it both ways for Kill Objectives.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
Incorrect. My position is that the IC is "removed from play" as part of the unit and no play transpires for the IC while the IC is removed from play since the IC at that point is by definition "removed from play" and having play transpire for him would violate "removed from play". Your argument ignores the injunction to treat the IC as "removed from play".
Again, no. It violates YOUR definition of "removed from play", and since you cannot quote anything in the rulebook which defines it as such, it makes it only a HYWPI House Rule.
So, again, the IC rules get removed from play and the IC has no permission to be joined to a unit before using YOUR rules. IC does not return with the unit.
col_impact wrote: On top of that there is also the fact that the IC is always an individual unit, whether attached or not. The Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact and scores based on that ALE fact. This is similar to how an IC is still an HQ whether attached or not attached to a unit. The IC never discards his ALE. In order for your argument to have a case you must show that the ALE is being discarded.
What do triggers have to do with it? I am talking about maintaining the rule which apparently is no longer in play. The detachment loses the rule since it lost the IC.
Did I ever state it discards his ALE? No. At best, I have only ever stated that it's ALE identity is sublimated by the unit it joins and counts as a member of FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. Kill Point Objectives make no active distinction, but only provide a reminder. A reminder of a fait accompli that the IC is separated from the unit before the game ends when it dies, with or without the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: In plain English the BRB is telling you to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play".
And in multiple of uses it has seen many definitions. One of which is returning to its original state.
col_impact wrote: Your response is that you don't have to act on that rule since the rules does not indicate what that means.
No, I am saying that I don't have to act on your preconceived definition. Note the difference.
col_impact wrote: My response is that you take that unit and indeed "remove it from play" which means "play" will no longer transpire for that unit unless rules specifically remove the "remove from play" part.
Without any support whatsoever from the rulebook. Only your preconceived notions.
col_impact wrote: By taking my response, the game is not broken. Units in Reserve are in stasis until allowed to enter. Units removed as casualties no longer have the ability to interact with the game. The rules require a distinction between "in play" and "removed from play" and I enforce that distinction.
By taking your response (that you don't actually have to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play"), the game breaks at a profound level.
Units in Reserve can move or assault freely onto the board provided they are placed on the side of the table proximate enough to do so.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also shoot units on the battlefield so long as they have line of sight and range.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also grant things like 12" bubble buffs provided the units on the battlefield are within range.
The rules require you to treat units that are casualties as "removed from play". You cannot do nothing and satisfy this rule. The rule requires a distinction to be made - making no distinction breaks the rule. You must define what "play" is and act on that definition, or you go against the rules.
My argument simply treats units that are "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play".
Only you cannot provide that as the rulebook's definition of "removed from play" nor that it is the standard English version of "removed from play", nor the standard gaming standard of "removed from play".
Have fun with that.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 19:54:52
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created – on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
So, it does not increase the unit's size, it just adds Scarabs, if we take it literally. That it can be taken beyond its starting size is permission granted when adding the base. Nothing in either rule provides an explicit avenue for a Scarab unit of 12 bases to be returned. We can House Rule it to be so, but I doubt many people would accept it unless they could do the same.
Incorrect. "Taking the unit beyond its starting size" is increasing the unit's size. If you still have a unit size of nine somehow, you have not taken the unit beyond it's starting size, and contradict what the rule told you to do. Simple logic.
This would appear to be another attempt by you at sophistry.
The RAW is exceedingly clear that the full unit of 12 scarabs will be returned. The unit size of the scarabs has been taken beyond its starting size and there are 12 models in the "removed from play" pile on the side of the table when the "From the Sands, We Rise" rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule you have no choice but to return the unit of 12 scarabs to play. There is literally no justification to return anything but the unit of 12.
That is just how the RAW pans out.
I have tested the rule interaction and can attest that it is not OP. However, should the rule interaction make you feel uncomfortable, then you are of course free to house rule it however which way you like.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/01 20:58:12
col_impact wrote: The only thing keeping units that are not on the battlefield and not in play from interacting with units on the battlefield and in play (and breaking the game) is their designation as "not in play" or "removed from play" and the consequences of that designation.
Except that designation of "not in play" does not apply to units in Reserves. Nor is "in play" used to define any deployed unit. Nor are any reference points allowed for units "not in play".
Try again.
col_impact wrote: A unit that is "removed from play" or "not in play" can not be played in any game sense except for rules that specifically address units "removed from play" or "removed from the game" or "not in play". Allowing those units to benefit from general rules is allowing those units "to play" which they are not allowed to do, since they have been "removed from play".
If your argument does not treat "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play" then your whole argument is not only invalid and directly contradicting a plainly stated rule in the BRB but you break the game. Units in Reserve can move and shoot onto the Battlefield and dead units on the side of the table can shoot and dead HQ can grant +1 Re-animation Protocol buffs to units on the battlefield that are close to the side of the table.
Except you have provided zero evidence of what "removed from play" entails for the game. I can treat "removed from play" as is perceived in a host of other game systems and rules and all would be as equally applicable as to what you have not quoted as a rule for this game.
Here's another thought for you. If a model's rules are no longer in play when it is removed from play, than the ICs rule about being able to be a unit that joins a unit is also removed, meaning that the IC still does not come back with the Warriors or Scarabs. You cannot have it both ways here any more than you can have it both ways for Kill Objectives.
Still not addressing the issue. The IC's rule regarding counting as part of the unit FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES would still apply at the end of the game since they are not allowed to leave the unit. If they can be counted as separate while joined to the unit when it is destroyed for Objective Points, they can be counted as separate in other areas, too, including ti coming back from the dead.
But again, maybe this logic path is too strait for you?
As stated already, the IC is an individual unit at all times and the Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact - that in whatever context the IC is always an individual unit. In the same way that a Captain on foot does not magically get a Jump pack when joined to a Jump unit, the Captain gets scored based on his ALE which is individual unit. The Purge the Alien rule directly references the ALE.
Yet your position is that the IC can come back as part of the unit because it counts as being part of the unit. You cannot have it both ways. The "Kill Point" rule never states anything about an ALE or anything similar, it just specifically mentions units, of which you think the IC cannot leave when dead.
Incorrect. My position is that the IC is "removed from play" as part of the unit and no play transpires for the IC while the IC is removed from play since the IC at that point is by definition "removed from play" and having play transpire for him would violate "removed from play". Your argument ignores the injunction to treat the IC as "removed from play".
Again, no. It violates YOUR definition of "removed from play", and since you cannot quote anything in the rulebook which defines it as such, it makes it only a HYWPI House Rule.
So, again, the IC rules get removed from play and the IC has no permission to be joined to a unit before using YOUR rules. IC does not return with the unit.
col_impact wrote: On top of that there is also the fact that the IC is always an individual unit, whether attached or not. The Purge the Alien reminder is merely a statement of that ALE fact and scores based on that ALE fact. This is similar to how an IC is still an HQ whether attached or not attached to a unit. The IC never discards his ALE. In order for your argument to have a case you must show that the ALE is being discarded.
What do triggers have to do with it? I am talking about maintaining the rule which apparently is no longer in play. The detachment loses the rule since it lost the IC.
Did I ever state it discards his ALE? No. At best, I have only ever stated that it's ALE identity is sublimated by the unit it joins and counts as a member of FOR ALL RULES PURPOSES. Kill Point Objectives make no active distinction, but only provide a reminder. A reminder of a fait accompli that the IC is separated from the unit before the game ends when it dies, with or without the unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
col_impact wrote: In plain English the BRB is telling you to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play".
And in multiple of uses it has seen many definitions. One of which is returning to its original state.
col_impact wrote: Your response is that you don't have to act on that rule since the rules does not indicate what that means.
No, I am saying that I don't have to act on your preconceived definition. Note the difference.
col_impact wrote: My response is that you take that unit and indeed "remove it from play" which means "play" will no longer transpire for that unit unless rules specifically remove the "remove from play" part.
Without any support whatsoever from the rulebook. Only your preconceived notions.
col_impact wrote: By taking my response, the game is not broken. Units in Reserve are in stasis until allowed to enter. Units removed as casualties no longer have the ability to interact with the game. The rules require a distinction between "in play" and "removed from play" and I enforce that distinction.
By taking your response (that you don't actually have to take a unit that is a casualty and "remove it from play"), the game breaks at a profound level.
Units in Reserve can move or assault freely onto the board provided they are placed on the side of the table proximate enough to do so.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also shoot units on the battlefield so long as they have line of sight and range.
Units in Reserve or removed from play as casualties can also grant things like 12" bubble buffs provided the units on the battlefield are within range.
The rules require you to treat units that are casualties as "removed from play". You cannot do nothing and satisfy this rule. The rule requires a distinction to be made - making no distinction breaks the rule. You must define what "play" is and act on that definition, or you go against the rules.
My argument simply treats units that are "removed from play" as indeed "removed from play".
Only you cannot provide that as the rulebook's definition of "removed from play" nor that it is the standard English version of "removed from play", nor the standard gaming standard of "removed from play".
Have fun with that.
The rules require you to have a distinction between units "in play" and "units not in play".
If you make no distinction and ignore the "removed from play" injunction, you have not only broken a clear rule but you have a broken game.
The rulebook provides a clear indication of what play is and we must enforce the distinction between "in play" and "not in play".
Spoiler:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
We also know that play is confined to the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
So game play has to do with the actions units are entitled to make during the four main phases (Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault) that are during the turns of the game and that are also on the Battlefield.
Units in Reserve that have not "entered play" do not take part in game play (the four main phases) until they enter play by entering the Battlefield.
Removal from the Battlefield takes you out of where the game is played and out of the game play of the four main phases.
Units removed as casualties and "removed from play" and set explicitly off the Battlefield do not take part in game play at all unless a rule somehow returns them to play or a rule specifically addresses their "removed from play" zone.
If you do not enforce a distinction between "in play" and "not in play" then units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are free to participate in Movement, Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This breaks the game.
So an IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 21:20:29
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
The IC is not participating in the four main phases, or the turn sequence, or in action on the battlefield per rules already cited. If he were participating in the next phase, he would be 'in play' and in violation of the injunction to be "removed from play". He is skipping the next phase and indeed all phases because he is "removed from play". A rule has to return him to play on the battlefield to return him to participating in the four main phases.
You need to provide a rule that specifically addresses the IC while "removed from play" in order to detach him while the IC is "removed from play".
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/01 23:29:15
col_impact wrote:The rules require you to have a distinction between units "in play" and "units not in play".
If you make no distinction and ignore the "removed from play" injunction, you have not only broken a clear rule but you have a broken game.
This is an assumption, only. you have no rules to support this. Even more so, not are you only making an assumption, you are making further assumptions based on that assumption. A deadly spiral.
Quote the rules that literally state this.
col_impact wrote:The rulebook provides a clear indication of what play is and we must enforce the distinction between "in play" and "not in play".
Oh, are you actually going to quote the rules finally after numerous requests? Finally!
col_impact wrote:
Spoiler:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
Hmm, nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that play is confined to the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
Still nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
So game play has to do with the actions units are entitled to make during the four main phases (Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault) that are during the turns of the game and that are also on the Battlefield.
And nothing about being "in play". 3 up, 3 fails. They are perfectly reasonable for assumptions to be made, but as actual rules for "being in play", they are failing.
col_impact wrote:Units in Reserve that have not "entered play" do not take part in game play (the four main phases) until they enter play by entering the Battlefield.
Removal from the Battlefield takes you out of where the game is played and out of the game play of the four main phases.
Units removed as casualties and "removed from play" and set explicitly off the Battlefield do not take part in game play at all unless a rule somehow returns them to play or a rule specifically addresses their "removed from play" zone.
If you do not enforce a distinction between "in play" and "not in play" then units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are free to participate in Movement, Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This breaks the game.
Still failing to actually address my argument or quoting anything about how not "being in play" actually limits all the rules of the unit.
col_impact wrote:So an IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
There is absolutely nothing that supports this aside from your own assumptions. Since this portion is key to your stance, you must quote the rules to support it. This is a tenet of YMDC.
In the end what you have is, "we ignore the IC leaving a unit rules because I say they do because that is how I treat 'removed from play'." That is perfectly fine for House Rules, especially when there are no actual rules defining the situation. But at least recognize when you are doing it.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
The IC is not participating in the four main phases, or the turn sequence, or in action on the battlefield per rules already cited. If he were participating in the next phase, he would be 'in play' and in violation of the injunction to be "removed from play". He is skipping the next phase and indeed all phases because he is "removed from play". A rule has to return him to play on the battlefield to return him to participating in the four main phases.
You need to provide a rule that specifically addresses the IC while "removed from play" in order to detach him while the IC is "removed from play".
Lack of participation does not mean that its rules are ignored, especially when those rules are not limited to a time phrase or status of "in play". The IC rules regarding the IC leaving the unit when the rest of the unit is destroyed is the trigger. This trigger does not have any requirement of the IC being in play or not, but reliant on the rest of the models NOT being in play.
With no rule stating such a requirement that the model in question being in play, I have no right to deny this trigger. With no rule stating that a model not in play is denied any trigger of its special rule, I cannot deny this trigger.
So, again, you are making assumptions on the rules and calling them RAW. And since you ask so many to do this, mark your posts HYWPI.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Also that battlefield quote doesn't say what you think it does. It just say you play the game using a battlefield, not that everything that happens in the game is solely confined to happening upon the battlefield itself.
Matt.Kingsley wrote: Also that battlefield quote doesn't say what you think it does. It just say you play the game using a battlefield, not that everything that happens in the game is solely confined to happening upon the battlefield itself.
Incorrect. It literally says you play the game over the Battlefield. That does not include the space under the Battlefield. Nor does it include the space on the side of the table outside the battlefield. If it did then under the battlefield and to the side of the battlefield would be legal areas of play.
Units on the Battlefield cannot shoot at units under the Battlefield nor can they shoot at units outside of the Battlefield, since the game is played over the Battlefield.
Units in Reserve "enter play" by moving on to the Battlefield.
Spoiler:
Not Enough Room
It’s not uncommon to find that you can’t fit all of the models in your army into your deployment zone. When this happens, any units that can’t fit into your deployment zone must be held back as Reserves, and will enter play later during the battle, hopefully when there is room for them to fit onto the battlefield.
Leaving the Battlefield and going into Ongoing Reserves involves leaving play because you are required to re-enter play.
Spoiler:
If a unit enters Reserve part way through the game, such as a Flyer leaving the battlefield, this is referred to as entering Ongoing Reserves. Units in Ongoing Reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves.
Without a doubt, "over the Battlefield" defines where 'play' happens. If you are not on the Battlefield you are not 'in play'.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 01:32:30
