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.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:I think it's a reasonable assumption.

It is. It is more reasonable to assume "all counters" means "all counters" than to assume they forgot a word just the times that it would matter for this.

Very much like Warptime.

Oh my Gosh, let's not bring up that Warptime travesty.

I actually think it's more of a stretch to think that something in the RP rules are referring to something that hasn't been talked about yet.

copper.talos wrote:You are told only to remove the counters from the unit.

So long as I do not squint so hard when reading, I am only removing counters from that unit. No other unit added counters that unit needs to have removed from them.

Monster Rain wrote:

Or destroyed is cranberries, or something.

More good signature material here

-Yad

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm not trying to be snippy, here. I genuinely don't understand the argument you're making. Specific types of counters don't HAVE to 'enter the context'. You have an instruction, on paper, black and white; "remove all counters". If there is a counter, associated with the unit, which you have not removed after Falling Back, you have not fulfilled that instruction.

You remove all counters from the unit, not from the table.

Monster Rain wrote:Oh my Gosh, let's not bring up that Warptime travesty.

I actually think it's more of a stretch to think that something in the RP rules are referring to something that hasn't been talked about yet.

I have to [mention WarpTime], I was the guy saying "all" meant "all" that time too.

Sweeping Advance does that-mentioning rules that do not exist yet.

It is not odd in the game.

copper.talos wrote:You are told only to remove the counters from the unit. The only counters placed on the unit are the RP counters. The placement of EL counters is independent of the unit.

That's what I called Argument 2, then; EL counters are not associated with the unit.

All I can say to that is, please prove it. You aren't told to remove all counters placed with the unit; you are told to remove all counters from the unit. I suppose we could now have an argument about what 'from' means in this context, though I'd really rather not; I interpret that sentence to mean "remove all counters associated with this unit".

Assuming you concur with this interpretation, what you need to do in order to exempt EL counters from that is demonstrate that they are not associated with the unit, despite the fact that they're associated with a model that is part of the unit. If you have a different interpretation, then of course you'll reach a different conclusion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:I'm not trying to be snippy, here. I genuinely don't understand the argument you're making. Specific types of counters don't HAVE to 'enter the context'. You have an instruction, on paper, black and white; "remove all counters". If there is a counter, associated with the unit, which you have not removed after Falling Back, you have not fulfilled that instruction.

You remove all counters from the unit, not from the table.

See above.

BeRzErKeR wrote:
Your answer seems to be "remove all of one specific type of counter which are associated with the unit, ignoring other types of counter", and while I don't want to seem rude, I'm just not seeing any rules backing for that. I don't believe that fulfills the rules. You were told to remove all counters, and you haven't.

In the same section under Reanimation Protocols it also says "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit (passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Clearly it is not talking about EL counters. Only RP counters or EL would be entirely meaningless. EL counters have not been mentioned in the book yet.

You actually have so much completely wrong its like you're reading a different rulebook. I'm not even talking about whether or not you agree that you can roll for EL when the unit has been swept.

Please read the necron codex.

Allow me to quote some tents for you Nemesor (with some emphasis in case you missed it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:2. a dictionary quote and common English usage (oops)

Lorek wrote:6. Dictionary definitions of words are not always a reliable source of information for rules debates, as words in the general English language have broader meanings than those in the rules. This is further compounded by the fact that certain English words have different meanings or connotations in Great Britain (where the rules were written) and in the United States. Unless a poster is using a word incorrectly in a very obvious manner, leave dictionary definitions out.

So that debunks that argument.

Nemesor Dave wrote:5. A LETTER FROM GW SAYING THEY'RE THE SAME.

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

I'm assuming you meant an e-mail from the FAQ team. If it was in fact a letter then it fails to meet the requirements for official source.

Nemesor Dave wrote:I would guess you didn't read the rules

I can probably say the same thing as you. And I will be the first to admit I tried to use a real world example comparing wiped out and destruction to apples and fruit. Shame on me.

BeRzErKeR wrote:All I can say to that is, please prove it.

Does the FAQ not prove it sufficiently?

I genuinely think it does.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

In the same section under Reanimation Protocols it also says "Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit (passed or failed) remove all your counters from the unit."

Ok. And?

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Clearly it is not talking about EL counters. Only RP counters or EL would be entirely meaningless. EL counters have not been mentioned in the book yet.

Point one: Uh, no. You roll for EL in exactly the same way as you roll for RP, remember? Which can be perfectly legitimately read to indicate that you roll at the same time. There's no problem here. You make all the rolls (RP and EL both); then you remove all the counters. Done.

Point two: The fact that EL counters haven't been mentioned yet honestly doesn't matter. It doesn't change the meaning of the words on the page in the slightest. This is YMDC: we're not discussing intent and we're not discussing what a rule should mean, we're discussing the words on the page.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
You actually have so much completely wrong its like you're reading a different rulebook. I'm not even talking about whether or not you agree that you can roll for EL when the unit has been swept.

Please read the necron codex.

This isn't actually an argument, or indeed a refutation of anything.

When you can make an argument, with quotes, which supports your interpretation of the rules, I'll be happy to listen to it. Saying "Go read the codex again", however, is not one, and no matter how many times you repeat it, it won't affect either what I do or what the rules say in the slightest.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Monster Rain wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:All I can say to that is, please prove it.

Does the FAQ not prove it sufficiently?

I genuinely think it does.

Didn't we talk about that a couple pages ago? We were actually having a much more civil discussion then, it seemed. Ah. . . back in the good old days. . .

Anyway, I think I've answered this point a few times now, and I have yet to receive a refutation.

EDIT: Removed unnecessary antagonism.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

copper.talos wrote:You are told only to remove the counters from the unit. The only counters placed on the unit are the RP counters. The placement of EL counters is independent of the unit.

That's what I called Argument 2, then; EL counters are not associated with the unit.

All I can say to that is, please prove it. You aren't told to remove all counters placed with the unit; you are told to remove all counters from the unit. I suppose we could now have an argument about what 'from' means in this context, though I'd really rather not; I interpret that sentence to mean "remove all counters associated with this unit".

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check and risk falling back thereby losing those counters before I have a chance to roll for them at the end of the phase. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My head hurts.

Yad wrote:

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check or risk falling back and losing those counters. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

kirsanth wrote:

Monster Rain wrote:Oh my Gosh, let's not bring up that Warptime travesty.

I actually think it's more of a stretch to think that something in the RP rules are referring to something that hasn't been talked about yet.

I have to [mention WarpTime], I was the guy saying "all" meant "all" that time too.

Sweeping Advance does that-mentioning rules that do not exist yet.

It is not odd in the game.

If you're looking in the Reanimation Protocols section and you want indicators for whether "all counters" is all RP counters or both RP and EL counters, look for mention that the paragraph subject is Reanimation Protocols.
"If a model with Reanimation Protocols is removed..."
"...place counters..."
"...remove all counters..."

Next paragraph:
"...roll a d6 for each Reanimation Protocols counter..."
"...that has not itself returned from Reanimation Protocols..."
"...Reanimation Protocols cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed....remove all your counters
"..for the purposes of Reanimation Protocols..."
"..is not sufficient to allow a Reanimation Protocols roll so remove any remaining counters."
"Once all Reanimation Protocols rolls have been made for a unit (passed or failed) remove all your counters."

Almost ever other sentence specifies RP and EL only say to roll is done the same as RP - self repair on a 5 or 6. "Any counters" is used specifically in regards to EL counters. There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Nemesor Dave wrote:
Almost ever other sentence specifies RP and EL only say to roll is done the same as RP - self repair on a 5 or 6. "Any counters" is used specifically in regards to EL counters. There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

I've been chewing on this for a while, but I couldn't but it any better than this.

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check or risk falling back and losing those counters. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

I would agree with this. i still think you're wrong regarding the removal of counters due to a completed fall back move though

-Yad

kirsanth wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

QFT.

They don't need to specify EL counters; they already said "all counters". "All counters" is logically equivalent to "every counter of [list of every type of counter possible in the game]". That's what it means. The fact that it appears in a paragraph dealing with a specific type of counter doesn't change that in any way.

All means all. It doesn't mean 'all of one specific type'. It doesn't mean 'all, except for this type'. It means all. If it meant something else, it would BE something else. "All RP counters" would work to mean what you're claiming is meant, but that isn't what's said.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

Hmm, tricky. The rules for RP specifically says that the RP counters are placed next to the unit. The EL rules say that the EL counter is placed where the EL model was removed. The underlying assumption you're making (I think) is that these counters are added to the respective units. This assumption is somewhat supported in the RP rules when is says that counters are removed 'from it'.

At best I would agree that there is an association between the counters and unit, but that the counters are not actually added to the unit. If they are added to the unit would you be in danger of screwing up any rules that depend on unit size? Meaning that until you resolve those counters, could you be fouling up any other rules that would normally trigger off of a change to the unit's size composition? What about shooting?

If I have a 10 man warrior squad that takes 3 shooting casualties, 3 RP counters are placed. I need to make a break check or risk falling back and losing those counters. But if the counters have actually been added to the unit, have I really decreased its size, or did I just trade three models for three different 'models'?

-Yad

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

From the necron codex: "Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken."

Its a reminder marker. To remind you. Its not a placeholder model, or a new model, or part of the unit, in association, or any of this stuff you're saying.

A suitable marker to remind you.

Edit: removed unnecessary emphasis

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

I would agree with this. i still think you're wrong regarding the removal of counters due to a completed fall back move though

-Yad

Meh, fair enough. . . still don't know what your reasoning there is, though. Since I have laid out my logic, what part of it do you disagree with?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

From the necron codex: "Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken."

Its a reminder marker. To remind you. Its not a placeholder model, or a new model, or part of the unit, in association, or any of this stuff you're saying.

A suitable marker to remind you.

Read. The. RP. Rules. Then. Comment.

Read. What. I'm. Actually. Saying. Rather. Than. Making. Assumptions. Then. Respond.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

kirsanth wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

QFT.

They don't need to specify EL counters; they already said "all counters". "All counters" is logically equivalent to "every counter of [list of every type of counter possible in the game]". That's what it means. The fact that it appears in a paragraph dealing with a specific type of counter doesn't change that in any way.

All means all. It doesn't mean 'all of one specific type'. It doesn't mean 'all, except for this type'. It means all. If it meant something else, it would BE something else. "All RP counters" would work to mean what you're claiming is meant, but that isn't what's said.

Context. It may be impossible to argue this point without allowing for context.

Edit: phrased this a bit nicer

Nemesor Dave wrote:Read. The. RP. Rules. Then. Comment.

It's funny because he said essentially the exact same thing you did.

Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I did not go anywhere near that.

I went to snark, at worst.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Yad wrote:

BeRzErKeR wrote:

That is indeed what I'm asserting; I don't think it's an assumption, given that both the FAQ and the Ever-living rules seem to support it.

I don't think adding them to the unit causes problems, simply because counters aren't models; they don't have any 'in-game' existence, they're just a visual reminder of something else. Counters don't move or shoot, aren't legal targets, etc., etc; they don't do any of the things models do. So no, you haven't traded models for 'models', and the size of the unit has gone down; it's now 7 models + 3 counters instead of 10 models, and only models count for in-game purposes like Leadership checks, assault distance, etc.

As regards the difference between 'added to' and 'an association between', then, it doesn't seem to matter which words you use because they both mean the same thing.

I would agree with this. i still think you're wrong regarding the removal of counters due to a completed fall back move though

-Yad

Meh, fair enough. . . still don't know what your reasoning there is, though. Since I have laid out my logic, what part of it do you disagree with?

This is why.

To quote, "If a model with the Reanimation Protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance that it will self-repair and return to play at the end of the phase. Whenever a unit takes one or more casualties, place counters (NOTE: this does not say RP counters*) or other suitable markers next to the unit to remind you how many casualties were taken. If the unit makes a fall back move, remove any counters from it - any damaged Necrons are left behind and self-destruct rather than risk capture by the enemy."

In the Ever-living rules, "If a model with this special rule is remived as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play. At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter."

In my opinion it seems that, given the context under which the Reanimation Protocols are read, they are referring to RP counters, both in their placement and removal.

*added by me.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kirsanth wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:There is never a mention that you would "remove EL counters as you would RP" or any such statement.

Which makes perfect sense, since there are places that say to remove "all counters" and there are two counters that reference those rules.

I disagree. If you're familiar with how firewall rules work then I can explain it this way, if not, then don't bother reading this

On one side of the firewall I have the complete set of RP rules and on the other side I have the EL rules. There is no 'allow' 'any:any' in the firewall rule-base. Instead, there is a rule whose source is EL and destination is the rule concerning RP rolling. There is a second rule whose source is EL and destination is the RP rule concerning returning a model to a unit. There are no other rules that allow EL to connect to RP. Everything else is deny.

-Yad

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Context. There is this thing called context. If you don't believe in context then the entire rulebook falls apart. You can't function in your day and certainly no argument I could ever propose would change in the slightest any preconceived idea you may hold.

I certainly believe in using the context of a statement as an interpretive aid; in many cases it's invaluable. Unfortunately, when it comes to a conflict between what context may indicate and what the black-letter writing on the page states, context loses.

You are trying to apply an interpretive tool, used to help one determine which of multiple distinct and equally accurate meanings is appropriate in a given situation, to a rule which is perfectly, utterly clear, and does not require interpretation in the slightest. The word 'all' has one and only one meaning. It cannot mean anything else, and never does, regardless of what context it appears in. Claiming that by considering the context you can interpret 'all' to mean something that is not all-inclusive is, frankly, a lie. All means all; all the context in the word will never, and can never, change that. Period.

If you don't believe that a rule, or indeed ANYTHING, means "all x" when it says "all x", then you and I have very different views of the English language, and you're right; we will never agree.

I would agree with Yad, except in the cases where "all counters" and "any counters" are used.

Actually, the interesting part though, is that your quotes, Yad, just explained to me why the characters have both rules.

I doubt you meant that, but thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Yad wrote:There is no 'allow' 'any:any' in the firewall rule-base.

Doesn't the lack of a rule allow that, or am I thinking backwards again?

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I did not go anywhere near that.

I went to snark, at worst.

Yikes, I didn't mean that to sound so harsh. An yes on re-read I think BeRzErKeR and I are saying the same thing on this. The ironic thing about this is that at my gaming club I was for removing EL counters from swept units.

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I would agree.

It can be frustrating when people aren't seeing things your way, but if you find yourself actually getting angry about it maybe a break would be a good idea.

Monster Rain wrote:

kirsanth wrote:Now see, Nemesor Dave is writing hostile posts.

I would agree.

It can be frustrating when people aren't seeing things your way, but if you find yourself actually getting angry about it maybe a break would be a good idea.

So shall we agree to disagree, have a MOD lock the thread, and then in 3 or 4 days when someone asks a similar question get back into the fight?

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

Context. There is this thing called context. If you don't believe in context then the entire rulebook falls apart. You can't function in your day and certainly no argument I could ever propose would change in the slightest any preconceived idea you may hold.

You are trying to apply an interpretive tool, used to help one determine which of multiple distinct and equally accurate meanings is appropriate in a given situation, to a rule which is perfectly, utterly clear, and does not require interpretation in the slightest. The word 'all' has one and only one meaning. It cannot mean anything else, and never does, regardless of what context it appears in. Claiming that by considering the context you can interpret 'all' to mean something that is not all-inclusive is, frankly, a lie. All means all; all the context in the word will never, and can never, change that. Period.

Just to clarify, in the RP rules it's actually 'any' not 'all'. And I would actually agree with what you just said here. But I don't think it applies to the RP rules for two reasons.

1.) The first paragraph in the RP rules concerning the placement and removal (from a fall back move) both use counters. Not RP counters.

2.) 3rd paragraph RP rules, "Reanimation Protocols rolls cannot be attempted if the unit has been destroyed - once the last model has been removed as a casualty, remove all your counters." This runs counter to the EL rules which allow the EL counter to remain. This may be a case of specific over general, but I don't think so. I think that given the context the reference to counters in the RP rules is always to RP counters.

-Yad

The thing that you said that got me thinking, Yad, is that every character with EL has RP too.

Which is to say there are no characters that ONLY use EL rules - just the counters.

That is another reason for the (deliberate) ambiguity.