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.

TGA, No one is claiming that (for example) if the Lord is killed in turn 1 and fails his EL/RP roll that the unit he was with still benefits from the Orb. We are claiming that while the Lord is alive/EL token the unit he is with gains hte benefits of the Orb.

Happyjew wrote:TGA, No one is claiming that (for example) if the Lord is killed in turn 1 and fails his EL/RP roll that the unit he was with still benefits from the Orb. We are claiming that while the Lord is alive/EL token the unit he is with gains hte benefits of the Orb.

Two problems with that assumption: 1) The bearer is removed from game play prior to the RP roll (again, reread the first sentence of the RP rule, it states if the model is removed as a casualty) thus all the bearer's wargear is of the table, including the ResOrb; 2) The El token has absolutely no representation of the removed EL model beyond the indicating where the EL model was when it was removed. A successful RP roll means the model is returned to the unit.

No ResOrb on the table means no benefit from it. The effect of the ResOrb happens PRIOR to the model being removed as a casualty.

This is no different from how the Orb was used in the previous codex: the ResOrb effect is checked prior the model going down.

....and there are no rules to support that wording, so youre now just maaking things up

Did TGA not buy the new codex, and is just argueing from the old one? That might explain a lot.

nosferatu1001 wrote:....and there are no rules to support that wording, so youre now just maaking things up

Really. You haven't stepped up with any supporting your argument. I'm stating the rules as written. What are you stating?

mikhaila wrote:Did TGA not buy the new codex, and is just argueing from the old one? That might explain a lot.

Nope. The rules from the new codex are similar to the new. How is it the wording from the new codex, similar to the previous codex, is now radically changes the way the BRB is interpreted. I'm asking for proof and yet no one is providing it. Silly me for asking such a simple request.

Provide any shred of evidence my argument is wrong. Anything?

Happyjew wrote: We are claiming that while the Lord is alive/EL token the unit he is with gains hte benefits of the Orb.

Ah, that's an interesting perspective, though I'm not sure I agree with it. But to boil it down, you're saying that a EL token represents that a dead Res Orb bearer is still part of that unit?

Reading the RP rules, it states that the counters serve no other purpouse but to remind the necron player how many casualties were taken, and thus show how many dice must be rolled.

Furthermore, EL wording does seem to strongly suggest that the Res Orb bearer is returned to a unit, not that he was always attached to that unit. He is "returned to play, with a single Wound, in coherency with that unit".

It doesn't seem that he is specifically returned to that unit, but instead being placed in coherency to that unit - in that if he is places in such a way where he is in coherency of two or more friendly units, the owning player can decide which unit he joins. As such, you can actually hop the guy from one unit to another.

As such, I'm not seeing the justification for the EL unit counting as still being part of the unit he was, while he was dead.

EDIT: Just a note (again), I'm not arguing whether or not the bearer himself gets the improved roll thanks to res orb when he's dead. I'm just interested if the unit he was with still gets the improved roll while he has been killed.

"Really. You haven't stepped up with any supporting your argument. I'm stating the rules as written. What are you stating? "
So then actually provide the RAW that states you perform the check you claim needs to be made. Page and paragraph please.

Youve claimed "RAW" a few times now but have crucially yet to actually give any.

@Kharrak: that was the best way I could think to explain what people were saying, since the rez orb functions when you roll RP, if the EL token didn't have the rez orb, then there is no rez orb on the table, and the bearer and unit would not get to use it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:"Really. You haven't stepped up with any supporting your argument. I'm stating the rules as written. What are you stating? "
So then actually provide the RAW that states you perform the check you claim needs to be made. Page and paragraph please.

Youve claimed "RAW" a few times now but have crucially yet to actually give any.

Quit deflecting and prove your point. Show how wargear not on the table is effective. You need to show that.

Happyjew wrote:@Kharrak: that was the best way I could think to explain what people were saying, since the rez orb functions when you roll RP, if the EL token didn't have the rez orb, then there is no rez orb on the table, and the bearer and unit would not get to use it.

Again, the EL counter/marker is just used to keep track of EL models that have been REMOVED from game play. Removed, meaning, not in play, no longer able to be used,

So, staying within the confines of the RAW, things like wargear, powers, abilities, weapons, etc., can't be used if the model is not on the table unless a rule explicitly states otherwise. The ResOrb makes no such claim therefor it's only effective when on the table.

Now, the ResOrb rule states the bear and the unit its with benefit from a 4+ RP roll instead of the normal 5+. It makes no statement about being activated, it makes no claim its affect happens at the RP roll, and no claims it functions regardless of the bearer being on the table or not. It just make a blanket statement the bearer and its unit benefit from the Orb.

So, the ResOrb is wargear that has continually functions. The player doesn't activate it, there is no roll to determine if the Orb worked, it always work. Thus, like the vast majority of the wargear in the game, the bearer must be on the table for the army to benefit from the affect of the Orb.

So, when the bearer is removed from play there is no longer a ResOrb on the table. Being removed from play also removes him from the unit. No bearer, no associated unit, no ResOrb, no ResOrb effect. This mean the remaining models in the unit do not benefit from the, now removed, ResOrb.

So, if the ResOrb is treated like most any other piece of wargear (since its rule makes not other such claim), it benefits the army only when on the table and only affects the bearer and the unit its with.

What if the bearer of the ResOrb leaves the unit previously joined. Does the previous unit still benefit from the ResOrb? No. The rules state the Orb only affects the bearer and the unit it joined. Therefor, the time to check for the affect of the ResOrb is when the model is removed from play: if the ResOrb is part of the unit (bearer or the unit its with) when removed, the model benefits from a 4+ RP roll, otherwise, the model gets the standard 5+ RP roll.

And thus would never benefit the bearer. When does Rez Orb come into play? When you make RP rolls. When do you make RP rolls? At the end of the phase. Who benefits from the Rez Orb? The bearer and his unit (who would only benefit if they are RP/EL tokens).

Happyjew wrote:And thus would never benefit the bearer. When does Rez Orb come into play? When you make RP rolls. When do you make RP rolls? At the end of the phase. Who benefits from the Rez Orb? The bearer and his unit (who would only benefit if they are RP/EL tokens).

The counters/markers/tokens are used to determine the number of RP rolls to be made and potentially which type of model to rejoin game play. The counters/markers/tokens are NOT a representation or delegation or replacement of the models removed from game play.

Thus, if the bearer is removed from game play, there is no ResOrb to by used when the bearer's RP roll is made. The effect of the ResOrb affected the bearer at the time of removal.

So, if models are removed AFTER the bearer is removed, those models do NOT benefit from the ResOrb since the Orb is NOT on the table.

Hasn't it occurred to you that since Necrons have the unique ability to self repair, they have unique wargears that activate at the time of self repair? Prior examples of how wargear work, on such a unique case are not that useful.

I can't believe this is still going...

Simple logical debate rules people.

Fact: Res Orb's rule is vague.
Fact: There is a contradiction between what Res Orb does (change RP to a 4+) and when it works (supposedly after the model has died).

Fact: Both the BRB FAQ and several Codex FAQs have stated that a power must be active at the time of use in order for it to function.

Fact: RP/EL order of operations is as follows: Model suffers and unsaved wound -> Model is removed from play as a casualty -> Some form of accumulator is increased (be it a stack of coins, a die, etc.)

There are direct rule references that state all of the above plainly. I am not going to bother listing them as they've all been listed in this thread previously.

Problem: The res orb does not exist when RP rolls are made if the model carrying it is removed from play (see RP/EL order of operations).

Self-contradiction: The Lord, according to RAW, may never benefit from his own Res Orb as the Orb is not on the table when RP/EL is rolled (see RP/EL order of operations and when a power must be active).

This obviously causes an issue because you can't self-contradict within a single ruling (logical fallacy).

There are two arguments to the answer to this problem.

Argument 1: The EL token counts as the Necron Lord w/ Res Orb.

Argument 2: The Res Orb is checked when the model dies, and influences the later RP roll.



Let's look at the list of assumptions (because that is what BOTH sides are making) and look at which is more logical.


Argument 1: In order for this to function, you must assume that the model is still affecting the field of play after it has been removed as a casualty. Note the wording is "The Lord and his unit" it does not say "The lord or his Ever Living Counter and the unit"

In this situation, you are allowing for a system whereby wargear choices continue to effect a unit until the end of the phase. The issue with this assumption is that you must make it explicit to the res orb. If you did not, that means that other wargear that provide similar benefits (say a BA's blood chalice) will, by precedent, also function till the end of the phase even if the model is down.

Let me restate that... The assumption to make this argument work is that a piece of wargear may continue to function regardless of whether it's associated model is on the field or not.

Does this not sound completely illogical? You are assuming something that generates an effect is still generating the effect even after that something has been removed from existence.


Argument 2: In order for this to function, you must assume that the "reanimation protocols" power begins the second the model is removed as a casualty. In this case, since the power triggers as the model dies, the res orb is activated simultaneously with the models removal, and thus provides all the incoming counters a 4+ save instead of the usual. To elaborate, all the models that die to a given single volley of fire (or a single Initiative value of attacks) are removed together at the same time. Therefore their RP rules trigger at the same time, and by the assumption made in this argument gain the power of the res orb just as it leaves the field of play.

Doesn't that sound a bit more plausible that the piece of wargear that helps repair them triggers the moment they die?


Let me reiterate a few points because people keep missing them (even though I've been saying them for 4 pages now)...

EVERYONE IS ASSUMING THINGS
Yes, even you. The wording of the wargear is not sufficient enough to allow for a definitive ruling. Therefore, any argument made that includes a ruling as to how it functions exactly is assuming something.


The question is which of the assumptions is a smaller leap of faith? The model affecting the field of battle after it's died, or the wargear triggering as the model dies instead of at the end of the phase?

I will leave you with a final tidbit. If a model providing a unit with something like re-rolls to hit is killed at I6 in close combat, the rest of the unit that attacks at I4 does not get re-rolls to hit (power is not active when the models attack.). As far as I know, this is a pretty obvious and standard way of playing that most people agree on, yes?

My final question to those of you who are still arguing this is how is the RP/Res Orb situation any different?

Two points I would like to bring up in this debate. First, you keep asking for an example of an item of wargear or a special rule that continues to function after the character owning/granting the rule dies. Here's one potential scenario. A Dark Eldar Haemonculi joins a unit of Wyches, granting the unit a Pain Token through "Share the Pain". In the following turn, the Haemonculi leaves the unit, and the owning player decides to leave the pain token with the Wyches, stripping it from the Haemonculus. Two seconds later, a LasCannon shot blows off the Haemonculi's head.

Does the Wych unit continue to benefit from the Pain Token granted to them by the Haemonculi?

Second: Why is everyone assuming "Ever-Living" and "Reanimation Protocols" are the same thing? While its true that they function almost the same, the wording of the "Ever-Living" rule states:

"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to this 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."

The way it reads to me is that Ever-Living is SIMILAR to RP, but it is most definitely NOT Reanimation Protocols, in which case this entire argument is pointless. The Resurrection Orb SPECIFICALLY states it works only on Reanimation Protocols. Nowhere in the item description does it say it works on Ever-Living.

Now, each of the Necron Characters has both Ever-Living AND Reanimation Protocols listed as skills, so that tends toward the two skills being completely separate, even if they accomplish the same goal. Unfortunately for the Necron Lord, Ever-living SPECIFICALLY states that you DON'T get to use Reanimation Protocols.

"do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to this unit. Instead, place an Ever-Living counter where the model was removed from play."

Rules as Written, and without adding anything in at all, the Necron Lord comes back on a 5+.

Zarry

So, as it stands, it's a moot rule regardless... which needs to be FAQ'd to be clearly understood, and seemingly would otherwise result in constant arguments over the same thing over and over again

Until the FAQ surfaces, I suppose I'll play it that the res orb bearer always gets the 4+, and the unit only gets the 4+ if the res orb is on the table when RP is rolled.

Or, if that results in too many arguments, I don't overly mind just letting everyone have 4+ until the bearer fails his EL. I don't necessarily agree with it, but in such a case it should just result in happier and smoother games.

@zarryiosiad
If what you are saying is true then the orb never works on characters ever. Res Orb wording specifically says that the bearer, which is always a character, roll RP on 4+. So either you or Matt Ward is wrong. I'll go with Matt Ward.

wait copper, I'm confused. Are you saying Matt Ward is "gasp" wrong? Then again the necrons did get all hunky dorey with some Space Marines...

copper.talos wrote:@zarryiosiad
If what you are saying is true then the orb never works on characters ever. Res Orb wording specifically says that the bearer, which is always a character, roll RP on 4+. So either you or Matt Ward is wrong. I'll go with Matt Ward.

You're arguing the wrong thing here, Talos. I completely agree with you that the Resurrection Orb wording specifically says "The bearer of the resurrection orb (and his unit) pass Reanimation Protocols rolls on a 4+". Unfortunately, it does NOT say, "The bearer of the resurrection orb (and his unit) pass Reanimation Protocols AND Ever-Living rolls on a 4+". Do the Rules as Intended support your belief that the Resurrection Orb works on the Lord? Absolutely. Clearly, Ever-Living is SUPPOSED to be the same thing as the Reanimation Protocols. Unfortunately, the Rules as Written clearly state it is NOT the same thing, and therefore the orb (which only works for Reanimation Protocols and NOT Ever-Living) should not work on models with Ever-Living.

I have no horse in this race, guys. I play Tyranids. But after reading four pages of "RAI/RAW" debates, where people are nitpicking on a single word or turn of phrase, I just wanted to point out that all of you have been reading more into the description than you should have been. I agree with the posters who say the rule is badly written. This should have been caught long before the book went to press, and only a FAQ is going to clear it up. But I think I've come up with a pretty strong argument as to why the Lord will always have a 5+, despite the description of the Resurrection Orb. It's right there in the wording.

Zarry

@happyjew
I meant that Ward was right! Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes my english fail me...

@Zarryiosiad
so why would the resorb ever mention the bearer then?
EL is rolled just as you would RP. That means that anything that affects RP affects EL too.

copper.talos wrote:@Zarryiosiad
so why would the res orb ever mention the bearer then?
EL is rolled just as you would RP. That means that anything that affects RP affects EL too.

Because GW made a mistake in the wording. The assumption is that players would be smart enough to realize Reanimation Protocols are the same thing as Ever-Living, and that Ever-Living is simply an enhanced version of Reanimation Protocols. Unfortunately, they got sloppy. Not only do they not clear that up in the description of Ever-Living, they went one step further and made Ever-Living REPLACE Reanimation Protocols. The actual wording is so poorly thought out that what they intended isn't what they ended up with.

You cannot assume anything in this game: players want (and deserve) to have everything be clearly spelled out to avoid arguments such as these. In the Tournament scene, RAI is ALWAYS trumped by RAW, unless a FAQ specifically clears up the problem. Until such time, RAW says the Resurrection Orb works only on Reanimation Protocols, even though Lords are clearly mentioned. Unfortunately, Lords do not use RP to get back up again--they use Ever-Living. Simple.

Zarry

So how would you interpret: "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter"?
Maybe it means the way you pick up dice and throw them to the table?

Anyway this is a non-issue, especially for me. I play mostly with competitive 25+ year-olds that don't want to ruin games on such arguments.

copper.talos wrote:So how would you interpret: "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, just as you would for a Reanimation Protocols counter"?
Maybe it means the way you pick up dice and throw them to the table?

The words "just as you would" in your own quote means it is almost the same thing, but not quite, or they would have said "At the end of the phase, roll for this counter, which is a Reanimation Protocols counter in all respects".

Zarry

TGA - no, you need to prove your point. Its hard* to prove a negative, so you must prove the positive restriction.

Prove it or quit claiming it.

*yes, I am aware of exactly how "hard" it is, being a maths grad...

@zarry
Any insult you might have seen in my post, was unintentional. I'll edit it to make it more neutral.

nosferatu1001 wrote:TGA - no, you need to prove your point. Its hard* to prove a negative, so you must prove the positive restriction.

Prove it or quit claiming it.

*yes, I am aware of exactly how "hard" it is, being a maths grad...

Wait. You stated wargear is affective when not on the table. It's the basis of your entire argument. I'm asking you to prove that point.

Im asking yiu to prove your point, which is entirely the purpose of this thread.

Youvare creating a ruke, this "check", entirely out of thin air and cliaming RAW. When asked to supply some actual rules, instead of doing so yiu divert by asking others to prove their case.

Classic diversionary tactics from you.

Zarryiosiad wrote:Two points I would like to bring up in this debate. First, you keep asking for an example of an item of wargear or a special rule that continues to function after the character owning/granting the rule dies. Here's one potential scenario. A Dark Eldar Haemonculi joins a unit of Wyches, granting the unit a Pain Token through "Share the Pain". In the following turn, the Haemonculi leaves the unit, and the owning player decides to leave the pain token with the Wyches, stripping it from the Haemonculus. Two seconds later, a LasCannon shot blows off the Haemonculi's head.

Does the Wych unit continue to benefit from the Pain Token granted to them by the Haemonculi?

Pick a different example as pain tokens are covered on page 25 of the Dark Eldar codex and it states the player may divvy up the pain tokens as he see fit when an IC leaves the unit. In your example, the unit has all the pain tokens regardless of what happens to the Haemonculi.

Second: Why is everyone assuming "Ever-Living" and "Reanimation Protocols" are the same thing? While its true that they function almost the same, the wording of the "Ever-Living" rule states:

"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to this 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."

The way it reads to me is that Ever-Living is SIMILAR to RP, but it is most definitely NOT Reanimation Protocols, in which case this entire argument is pointless. The Resurrection Orb SPECIFICALLY states it works only on Reanimation Protocols. Nowhere in the item description does it say it works on Ever-Living.

No it doesn't. The ResOrb rule states the bearer and the unit pass RP rolls on a 4+. The EL rules states make a RP roll for each EL marked, just like the RP markers. Therefor, the bearer of the ResOrb with EL does benefit from the ResOrb.

Now, each of the Necron Characters has both Ever-Living AND Reanimation Protocols listed as skills, so that tends toward the two skills being completely separate, even if they accomplish the same goal. Unfortunately for the Necron Lord, Ever-living SPECIFICALLY states that you DON'T get to use Reanimation Protocols.

No, EL SPECIFICALLY states to use a marker different from those used to track RP rolls and use the RP rule for the EL model.

Zarryiosiad wrote:
I have no horse in this race, guys. I play Tyranids. But after reading four pages of "RAI/RAW" debates, where people are nitpicking on a single word or turn of phrase, I just wanted to point out that all of you have been reading more into the description than you should have been. I agree with the posters who say the rule is badly written. This should have been caught long before the book went to press, and only a FAQ is going to clear it up. But I think I've come up with a pretty strong argument as to why the Lord will always have a 5+, despite the description of the Resurrection Orb. It's right there in the wording.

Zarry

Actually, no you haven't. You're a victim of your own diatribe. You're attempting to read way to much in to the notion EL and RP are radically different to prove your point.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Im asking yiu to prove your point, which is entirely the purpose of this thread.

Youvare creating a ruke, this "check", entirely out of thin air and cliaming RAW. When asked to supply some actual rules, instead of doing so yiu divert by asking others to prove their case.

Classic diversionary tactics from you.

Actually, nos, no. I'm not the OPer and in fact until WanderingFox posted a reply, I supported your notion. But Fox's argument was clear and is, in retrospect, what I should have originally posted.

The "check" you're so concerned about happens as a normal part of game play. Was the piece of wargear available when the model was removed from play? If so, the model benefits from the wargear, if not, no benefit.

Otherwise, you have to introduce the notion that wargear can be used when not on the table and that's your argument that you've yet to prove.

Zarryiosiad wrote:You cannot assume anything in this game: players want (and deserve) to have everything be clearly spelled out to avoid arguments such as these. In the Tournament scene, RAI is ALWAYS trumped by RAW, unless a FAQ specifically clears up the problem. Until such time, RAW says the Resurrection Orb works only on Reanimation Protocols, even though Lords are clearly mentioned. Unfortunately, Lords do not use RP to get back up again--they use Ever-Living. Simple.

Not quite.) RAW is a tool that can be used to sometimes to solve disputes. RAW is also poorly defined itself, and can mean a lot of different things, and be argued differently by different people. If it really solved everything, we would never have 10 page threads. And in some cases, RAW gives incredibly stupid results, that no one actually plays by, just argues about on the interwebs.

For better information on how a situation will be ruled on at a tournament, ask the TO running the tournament.