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.

Actually, I speak English, you speak some weird version, but I digress.

In 40k, different words have different definitions. Casualty != Destroyed != Removed

Gwar! wrote:Actually, I speak English, you speak some weird version, but I digress.

In 40k, different words have different definitions. Casualty != Destroyed != Removed

Naw, don't think so. English is English. 40k does have new words to correspond to various fictional races and kultures. Also, look in your necron codex (which I am guessing you do not have). That "Any necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged".

*SNAP

jspyd3rx wrote: Also, look in your necron codex (which I am guessing you do not have). That "Any necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged".

*SNAP

I have the Necron codex. I looked in it. You quoted the rule correctly.
Now look in your rulebook at page 40 under sweeping advances. "The falling back unit is destroyed." Not 'suffers a number of wounds equal to the members of the unit', not 'are wounded and become casualties' nothing at all like that. They are destroyed. Further along in the rule, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately." Not later on, not after a WBB roll, not next turn or at the end of this turn, "immediately".
They are destroyed, removed, count as a KP all of this.
I don't understand how this can be misinterpreted by anyone at this point.

And now he is going to use WBB, a special rule, to try and rescue the unit. *Priceless*

time wizard wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote: Also, look in your necron codex (which I am guessing you do not have). That "Any necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged".

*SNAP

I have the Necron codex. I looked in it. You quoted the rule correctly.
Now look in your rulebook at page 40 under sweeping advances. "The falling back unit is destroyed." Not 'suffers a number of wounds equal to the members of the unit', not 'are wounded and become casualties' nothing at all like that. They are destroyed. Further along in the rule, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately." Not later on, not after a WBB roll, not next turn or at the end of this turn, "immediately".
They are destroyed, removed, count as a KP all of this.
I don't understand how this can be misinterpreted by anyone at this point.

Is the unit counted as a casualty?

jspyd3rx wrote:

time wizard wrote:

jspyd3rx wrote: Also, look in your necron codex (which I am guessing you do not have). That "Any necron model that is reduced to 0 Wounds, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, remains on the tabletop and is laid on its side to show that it's damaged".

*SNAP

I have the Necron codex. I looked in it. You quoted the rule correctly.
Now look in your rulebook at page 40 under sweeping advances. "The falling back unit is destroyed." Not 'suffers a number of wounds equal to the members of the unit', not 'are wounded and become casualties' nothing at all like that. They are destroyed. Further along in the rule, "The destroyed unit is removed immediately." Not later on, not after a WBB roll, not next turn or at the end of this turn, "immediately".
They are destroyed, removed, count as a KP all of this.
I don't understand how this can be misinterpreted by anyone at this point.

Is the unit counted as a casualty?

Irrelevant, "counted as" and "removed as" are two different terms.

jspyd3rx wrote:Is the unit counted as a casualty?

No, it is destroyed. This is different to being removed as casualties. It is THAT simple.

Just look at the order of actions in this thing.

1) Necrons get swept.
2) Necrons must get 'removed' from the game.
3) WBB kicks in to say they get put on their side
4) SA rules say "bugger off, no special rule saves you from getting taken off the board"
5) Necrons get taken off the board because the SA rules are still in effect until the unit is removed.
6) unit removed.
7) SA rules cease to take effect
8) Anything on it's side (nothing) gets a WBB roll.

SA is not satisfied until the unit is removed. So the part where it says to ignore special rules is in effect until the unit is off the board. Necrons don't get WBB if they're off the board.

Mod:

How much longer does this wresting have to go on?



Does everyone want to continue politely, or shall I lock the thread?

Kilkrazy wrote:Does everyone want to continue politely, or shall I lock the thread?

Please lock it before I somehow get banned again I try to be polite but I know others are not as pleasant.

Might just as well lock it, I don't believe it will ever get resolved here.
And I think everyone has been polite here so far!

time wizard wrote:Might just as well lock it, I don't believe it will ever get resolved here.
And I think everyone has been polite here so far!

I have no problems with anyone. I would rather not lock as I am awaiting a response from GW and will post here or just start another thread with response. I think we all have said our peace. I am done until i get that response.

jspyd3rx wrote:I have no problems with anyone. I would rather not lock as I am awaiting a response from GW and will post here or just start another thread with response. I think we all have said our peace. I am done until i get that response.

And like we have said, GW's response doesn't matter. And how do we know you won't just fabricate an answer when you get it?

If GW's answer does not matter, then why should yours?

And again, as the other poster said, the GW guys are not box packers. Rules answers come from headquarters, not the shipping department.

And no one feels the need to attack you and your knowledge of the rules because you mop goo off the floor of the men's club downtown.

General Hobbs wrote:And again, as the other poster said, the GW guys are not box packers. Rules answers come from headquarters, not the shipping department.

No, they do not come from Headquarters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:If GW's answer does not matter, then why should yours?

Because I actually have a Clue and know the rules.

Gwar! wrote:

General Hobbs wrote:And again, as the other poster said, the GW guys are not box packers. Rules answers come from headquarters, not the shipping department.

No, they do not come from Headquarters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

General Hobbs wrote:If GW's answer does not matter, then why should yours?

Because I actually have a Clue and know the rules.

GWAR, ease up man. Really uncalled for. We all need are critics. I think we need this debate. The rest of that is unnecessary.

Lol shows how much you know. Askyourquestion@games-workshop.com, and before that when you could call in for a rules query, are done at Games Workshop US Headquarters in Glen Burnie Maryland. Manufacturing and shipping ( with the so called ignorant box packers) were is out of Memphis, Tennessee. In the UK I believe the two locations are at the same location.

In any event, the rules"boy" still has more rules knowledge then 99% of the people out there, including yourself.

Maybe all the rest of you should ease up. Gwar is actually being fairly polite for once, and you are all being unfair to him. (This is sad for me really, because I voted to ban Gwar and now here I am defending him.)

As for the rest of you who were hurt by Gwar's "box packer" comment, let's all get real here. We all know that GW rules answers have always been horrible, and that it's just been any old person that answered the phone giving whatever answer they felt like. All the comments about "providing for the family" have nothing to do with the fact that GW didn't have a dedicated rules guru answering questions.

Now, apparently John Spencer is answering questions, but he has the same experience that alot of us do, and by his own admission doesn't have a secret bat phone to the games developers, so what are his credentials exactly besides playing the game alot? I'm sure alot of us play alot.

If you want to throw out credentials, are very own yakface, owner of this board, is personally mentioned in the new GW FAQ's, along with the Adepticon Council.

Here at Dakka we pride ourselves on having meaningful rules debates, and we all do a very good job of quoting relevant rules and creating logical sound arguments, so waltzing in here and saying that the "Rulez Boyz" said you're right doesn't really carry much weight around here.

KeithGatchalian wrote:In any event, the rules"boy" still has more rules knowledge then 99% of the people out there, including yourself.

Yes I am sure their reputation for not knowing the rules is totally unwarranted.</sarcasm>


Automatically Appended Next Post:

whitedragon wrote:Maybe all the rest of you should ease up. Gwar is actually being fairly polite for once, and you are all being unfair to him. (This is sad for me really, because I voted to ban Gwar and now here I am defending him.)

I love you too

As for the rest of you who were hurt by Gwar's "box packer" comment, let's all get real here. We all know that GW rules answers have always been horrible, and that it's just been any old person that answered the phone giving whatever answer they felt like. All the comments about "providing for the family" have nothing to do with the fact that GW didn't have a dedicated rules guru answering questions.

This is EXACTLY my point.

Now, apparently John Spencer is answering questions, but he has the same experience that alot of us do, and by his own admission doesn't have a secret bat phone to the games developers, so what are his credentials exactly besides playing the game alot? I'm sure alot of us play alot.

If you want to throw out credentials, are very own yakface, owner of this board, is personally mentioned in the new GW FAQ's, along with the Adepticon Council.

And this is also exactly what I meant. If I had to listen to Yakface or some random guy sending me an email, I'll listen to Yakface.

SO...

Is everyone all done now?

Because attacking each other, or the guy at GW who does answer questions?

That's gotten old already.

This thing has to stay on topic, or it is headed to the graveyard.

jspyd3rx wrote:I wonder if anyone even has the codex or plays necrons. Just for the record, the BRB states that whenever a model is brought down to zero wounds or dispatched in any creative or humorous way it is removed from the game; just like SA states. With that in mind, necrons shouldn't even be allowed to WBB. SA staes that a DESTROYED unit is removed from the game; just like any other instance of death and destruction. For necrons the unit is always counted as gone when killed, they don't exist anymore. WBB comes into effect and the end of the turn, after all that could possibly be done has been done. This counts towards phase out. If a swept unit brings the crons to 25% or less phase out occurs immediately, this actually applies in all instances of death, destruction and any way in which a necron is removed from the game. If they don't fall to 25% percent then they have a chance to come back after being destroyed, though the downed necrons still count as victory points or deaths or casualties. Again, WBB does not save or prevent the unit from being destroyed by SA.

This would be true except for one unit: The Necron Lord. If you let him take a WBB roll from SA, then he is Saved from the SA.... it has not destroyed him, nor was he removed from the table. Unit or model, after WBB he is still exactly the same as he was before the SA, minus a couple wounds. Nothing about WBB has changed, nor has SA changed any, but here we have clear, undeniable proof that WBB would save the unit from Sweeping Advance, without specifically countering it, and is therefor non-applicable.

Lordhat wrote:
This would be true except for one unit: The Necron Lord. If you let him take a WBB roll from SA, then he is Saved from the SA.... it has not destroyed him, nor was he removed from the table. Unit or model, after WBB he is still exactly the same as he was before the SA, minus a couple wounds. Nothing about WBB has changed, nor has SA changed any, but here we have clear, undeniable proof that WBB would save the unit from Sweeping Advance, without specifically countering it.

But the point is that it is not up to me or anyone else to let the lord or any other necron take WBB from SA. It is not the way the rules work.
Units caught in SA are destroyed and immediately removed.
No special rule can save them.
WBB is a special rule.
It cannot save any necron unit from SA.
For any rule to do so, it would have to specify that the rule negates or prevents destruction from SA.
WBB has no specific wording, rule or clause that prevents or negates destruction from SA.
It doesn't get much clearer than that.

LOL my bad for not reading the quoted post all the way through. I am firmly entrenched in the 'SA does not allow WBB' side of the debate. Will edit my post to reflect this.

Try sweeping him. He made me start this thread.

What does a Necron Lord Conversion have to do with this?

Just trying to lighten up the debate, that's all.

okay guys I'm throwing the towel in on this one, but it's not because of your guys' arguments. To be frank, you got me on the right topic 'casualty v. destruction' but you could have been a little better with the yellow highlighter.... and of course none of you Ba$tards ever bothered to offer an explanation for what in tarnation WBB's 'or would otherwise be removed as a casualty' meant...I had to really think on it and look it up myself (took me a while to divine it)and I'll send you the bill for the medicine. It still has problems by the way, but we'll get to that...

Anyways...


This is what I have found in my 'meditation' on the Necron WBB rule and its relation to SA in the context of casualty v. destroyed...

The first thing is that I have come to accept that there actually IS a difference between the two terms of Casualty and destroyed.

This is difficult to make out because they are two of the nebulous pseudo-rule terms within the BGB that are certainly in there, but not organized/Listed with a reference or absolute description in the back index. You have to find their mentions individually if you have anything referring to them.

For those who are interested, casualties are mentioned specifically in 3 separate situations ( though numerically they are in more than one section--there's some repetition).

They are mentioned as occurring as a result of wounding from shooting on p. 24, from an Instant death attack on 26, and wounding from an assault on p.39

Simply put, and though it galls me to admit so, because SA simply says remove the models and that they are destroyed, without mention of the word 'casualty' , WBB does nothing.

I say this because the rule-book specifically took pains to mention that lost models were 'casualties' in each of the other examples, yet did not in reference to SA

However... this still leaves us with answering just exactly what WBB does do.

As I said they don't mention rules for nothing....

'When reduced to 0 wounds...'

I have taken this to mean 2 instances for WBB. In the case of failing a dangerous terrain test with a model, losing the 1 wound, and then having the model dead, and also for instances of regular 'casualties' where a wound was not saved and resulted in model death.

Now.... is where things get WeIrD

"...or would otherwise be removed as a casualty"

Since we know regular (NPE: Non-Power-Equivalent) wounds would work under the 'reduced to 0 wounds' this must refer to something else.

We have that something else.... or at least we think we do.

The instant death as mentioned above is counted as a casualty and does not involve being reduced to 0 wounds. It's instant death.

Thus we have a plausible meaning for "or would otherwise be removed as a casualty"

...except for a teeny tiny problem. Like....
N-Codex p.13
"A Necron cannot self-repair if it was destroyed by a close combat weapon that allows no Armour save or any weapon whose Strength is twice the Toughness of the Necron concerned."


You know... the thing that causes ID in most cases...
*sigh* Real useful, thanks GW.


So, for the most part, there goes that. Instant death, the only seemingly legal use for the "Otherwise removed as a casualty' clause is almost entirely shut down.

Double strength causing ID is down and any power-class melee weapon that causes ID is down. Since nearly nearly all melee weapons which cause ID are also power weapons (Force Weapon, etc.) that also pretty much locks that down.

So all I can think up being left where WBB actually works for ID is a NPE melee weapon which causes ID and a special ranged-weapon which causes ID yet doesn't have double Strength to Toughness.

So in that regard... does anyone know of a single weapon which is not a power weapon yet can cause instant death? Likewise, does anyone know of a ranged-weapon which causes ID, but does not have the double Strength to Toughness over say... a T4 model?

...I can't think of any other possibilities for what the "ORAAC" clause could mean other than if the weapon just 'happens' to mention 'remove it as a casualty.


Oh well....another fine day for Necron.

Just some quick looking around, the Chaos Demon psychic power "Boon of Mutation" removes a target model as a casualty without reducing wounds, and replaces it with a spawn. I'd say WBB would kick in this situation, leading to the interesting situation where a spawn was created from a model but your necron still was able to pull itself together.

Lol, yes that sounds about par for the course.

Someone else in ... I guess a 'cousin' of this thread mentioned that the Eldar have a gun which causes ID, however I thought it just removed a model.

I don't know because I'm not all that familiar with Eldar.

Again though, thanks for the mention of the Chaos power

I was convinced when I read that the WBB specifies model and SA specifies unit.

Models are not taking a wound, entire unit is being removed.