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.

rigeld2 wrote:And you're saying that all machine guns are black (using that sentence)?

No, just that in my example "that machine gun" and "the black machine gun" are the same gun. I see your understanding now but it could also be read the way I have put it.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:And you're saying that all machine guns are black (using that sentence)?

No, just that in my example "that machine gun" and "the black machine gun" are the same gun. I see your understanding now but it could also be read the way I have put it.

Only in a very simplistic (and I don't believe correct) manner.
You have logical, or contextual, reason to assume that both machine guns are the same.
Similar to how you have no logical or contextual reason to assume RFP and RFPaaC are the same.

Ok Nemesor Dave, since you have avoided it the entire thread,

How can an EL token be placed where the model was removed from play if the model was not first removed as a casualty?

As much as you want to match one with the other you cannot. I took your own BRB pagr 24 rule citation and showed you where you were wrong in equating remove from play as a casualty and remove from play.

You then try and nitpick exactly what constutes a casualty per the BRB and fail yet again because despite what a casualty can consist of, the BRB defines how a casualty is determined.

Has a Necron lord with EL suffered a unsaved wound from JotWW? So how does he then place an EL counter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just do a simple exercise;

I use my rune priest and cast JotWW with the line passing through your Necron Lord and he fails his initiative test.

Now using the RAW, explain how you place an EL counter.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

INAT has tules that models affected by JotWW count as casualties for the purposes of morale.
INAT did not change the wording to "removed from play as a casualty".
INAT has not conflated the two things.

GW will likely never FAQ it.
Decide amongst your group how to handle JotWW as far as morale casualties goes, but RAW it's pretty clear that RFP != RFPaaC.

In the BRB p.24-26 "as a causualty" is fluff. "Casualties" are defined as "not necessarily dead". It doesn't matter how the model died - even models with full wounds removed by instant death are casualties. Throughout this part of the rules, the word "casualty" is used to describe a model that is removed from play, regardless of how it got removed.

RAW does not define RFP differently than RFPaaC. In fact it uses the two interchangeably.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:INAT is pretty clear on this:
SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].

So to paraphrase rigeld2 words from another thread:
This will devolve into a heated argument. INAT has ruled that models affected by JotWW count as casualties and GW will likely never FAQ it.

Decide amongst your group

INAT has tules that models affected by JotWW count as casualties for the purposes of morale.
INAT did not change the wording to "removed from play as a casualty".
INAT has not conflated the two things.

GW will likely never FAQ it.
Decide amongst your group how to handle JotWW as far as morale casualties goes, but RAW it's pretty clear that RFP != RFPaaC.

In the BRB p.24-26 "as a causualty" is fluff. "Casualties" are defined as "not necessarily dead". It doesn't matter how the model died - even models with full wounds removed by instant death are casualties. Throughout this part of the rules, the word "casualty" is used to describe a model that is removed from play, regardless of how it got removed.

RAW does not define RFP differently than RFPaaC. In fact it uses the two interchangeably.

Again with the nit picking of the rules to fit what you are arguing. I already quoted the complete rule on page 24 which shut down your attempt at pigeonholing casualties into your argument.

Determining casualties is defined in the BRB. I agree, it doesn't matter how they died or that they are not "necessarily dead", but how you determine a casualty is pure clear RAW. Suffering an unsaved wound that reduces your wound profile to zero results in being removed from the table as a casualty. Paraphrased from page 24, but that is the BRB definition more or less of determining a casualty. Btw, instant death removes all the wounds from your profile, hence per the BRB, that is why it is a casualty.

And again since you refuse to answer yet again,

How do you place an EL counter if the model was not first removed as a casualty?

Brother Ramses wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

In the BRB p.24-26 "as a causualty" is fluff. "Casualties" are defined as "not necessarily dead". It doesn't matter how the model died - even models with full wounds removed by instant death are casualties. Throughout this part of the rules, the word "casualty" is used to describe a model that is removed from play, regardless of how it got removed.

RAW does not define RFP differently than RFPaaC. In fact it uses the two interchangeably.

Again with the nit picking of the rules to fit what you are arguing. I already quoted the complete rule on page 24 which shut down your attempt at pigeonholing casualties into your argument.

Determining casualties is defined in the BRB. I agree, it doesn't matter how they died or that they are not "necessarily dead", but how you determine a casualty is pure clear RAW. Suffering an unsaved wound that reduces your wound profile to zero results in being removed from the table as a casualty. Paraphrased from page 24, but that is the BRB definition more or less of determining a casualty. Btw, instant death removes all the wounds from your profile, hence per the BRB, that is why it is a casualty.

And again since you refuse to answer yet again,

How do you place an EL counter if the model was not first removed as a casualty?

An EL counter is placed where the model was removed from play. "as a casualty" is fluff.

Instant Death rule does not reduce all wounds to zero. "..killed outright and removed as a casualty". p.24 BRB says nothing about reducing wounds to zero. In this you are incorrect and should re-read this page.

The "as a casualty" and other fluff is interspersed within the rules to make it more descriptive of a battle. Don't confuse fluff for rules.

You may be new to this board, but you'll find that quoting rules and repeatedly referring to a precise wording of the rules is not "nitpicking". It is necessary to make any case for RAW.

Your supposed precise wording leaves out the inconvient parts of the rule that hurt your argument.

Why exactly is a model removed as a casualty when it suffers and unsaved wound from a weapon that is double it toughness? The model is killed outright why? Because one unsaved wound from a weapon that is double its toughness reduces it'wound profile to zero despite only suffering one unsaved wound. Funny how you can expound on abstract concepts of remove as a casualty and removed from play yet fail to see the mechanics behind suffering an unsaved wound from a weapon with double toughness and the subsequent loss of all wounds due to the instant death rule.

Btw, being removed as a casualty is defined in the BRB. It tells you exactly how a casualty is determined. A Necron Lord with EL never suffers an unsaved wound from JotWW and thus is never removed as a casualty as defined by the BRB. I expected you to try to backdoor the removed from play to try and equate it to being removed as a casualty, but I was expecting a better attempt.

You need to reread page 24 entirely and see that being removed as a casualty is not fluff. It is a defined process that a Necron Lord with EL does not suffer when hit with JotWW.

And attacking join dates? Nice sign of a losing argument. How about attacking my sig or avatar next?

Brother Ramses wrote:Your supposed precise wording leaves out the inconvient parts of the rule that hurt your argument.

Why exactly is a model removed as a casualty when it suffers and unsaved wound from a weapon that is double it toughness? The model is killed outright why? Because one unsaved wound from a weapon that is double its toughness reduces it'wound profile to zero despite only suffering one unsaved wound. Funny how you can expound on abstract concepts of remove as a casualty and removed from play yet fail to see the mechanics behind suffering an unsaved wound from a weapon with double toughness and the subsequent loss of all wounds due to the instant death rule.

Btw, being removed as a casualty is defined in the BRB. It tells you exactly how a casualty is determined. A Necron Lord with EL never suffers an unsaved wound from JotWW and thus is never removed as a casualty as defined by the BRB. I expected you to try to backdoor the removed from play to try and equate it to being removed as a casualty, but I was expecting a better attempt.

You need to reread page 24 entirely and see that being removed as a casualty is not fluff. It is a defined process that a Necron Lord with EL does not suffer when hit with JotWW.

And attacking join dates? Nice sign of a losing argument. How about attacking my sig or avatar next?

Being removed and in other words "removed from play" is the in game action. "As a casualty" is fluff and it is explained as such. The model doesn't really die. It's not really hurt either. In the BRB every explanation of removing a model is reffered to "removed as a casualty". The only part that is not fluff is removing the model from the table.

Where is removing a model but "not as a casualty" defined in the rules? It's not. You will not find it anywhere.

Brother Ramses wrote:a weapon that is double its toughness reduces it's wound profile to zero

Here we are arguing RAW. Try sticking to what is written on the page. The wounds are not reduced to zero - instead the model is simply removed. This is another key failure in your argument.

At the very best you are arguing that there is an unwritten convention being applied here that you can guess. However this convention you claim is inconsistent and the rules use RFP and RFPaaC interchangeably. Your argument is simply not based on RAW.

Wait - ND, you are saying BR is new to the board? Really?

Apparently your selective reading of rules, ignoring incovenient words like "distance", "as a casualty" et al now extends to making up joining dates?

Seriously, I can attack both your join date AND your avatar in one BR, you ready?

"You may be just a pup on this board..."

See, I'm calling you new and I'm inferring that you are a pup because you're avatar is obviously a SW.

You got me good Happyjew!

However my join date and avatar are interchangeable as "avatar" is just fluff.

Nemesor Dave wrote:

You may be new to this board, but you'll find that quoting rules and repeatedly referring to a precise wording of the rules is not "nitpicking". It is necessary to make any case for RAW.

Nemesor Dave - Join Date: 1/10/2012

Brother Ramses - Join Date: 5/5/2009


I can't thank you enough. It was a long day at law school, and I really needed a laugh.

G. Whitenbeard wrote:

Nemesor Dave wrote:

You may be new to this board, but you'll find that quoting rules and repeatedly referring to a precise wording of the rules is not "nitpicking". It is necessary to make any case for RAW.

Nemesor Dave - Join Date: 1/10/2012

Brother Ramses - Join Date: 5/5/2009


I can't thank you enough. It was a long day at law school, and I really needed a laugh.

ITT people who don't get sarcasm. You see, he has about a thousand and a half posts, but keeps calling my references to the exact wording of a rule as "nitpicking" as if he doesn't get that following RAW requires a precise understanding. Jolly good times.

/over explaining - heh!

Wow, I don't check something for a few days and this is what happens... While I thank everyone for their replies, the question wasn't regarding the use of EL against JotWW, it was if an invulnerable save could be taken against it.

And yes, to the person that asked, he was kicked out. We actually had 12-16 people there this past Saturday (about triple what it has been for the last month or so), which co-incidentally was his first gaming day being banned.

Lol sorry Brandon, thanks for asking this for me, didnt know that 2 thousand people would read it

Honestly....I would NOT play him again if he has that much trouble following clearly written rules.

@baritowned congratulations on getting rid off such a lousy opponent. As for the EL/JotWW endless argument, I guess is something like a hobby here. When there is nothing to do, dig up old hopelessly unresolved arguments and repeat them all over again... and again. I am now waiting for the next fnp& entropic strike grand slam...

I personally think that they should just get rid of jotww as its an incredibly filthy psychic power an its existence is a huge middle finger to the entire necron army.

copper.talos wrote:@baritowned congratulations on getting rid off such a lousy opponent. As for the EL/JotWW endless argument, I guess is something like a hobby here. When there is nothing to do, dig up old hopelessly unresolved arguments and repeat them all over again... and again. I am now waiting for the next fnp& entropic strike grand slam...

^Agree

Litanyoffury1 wrote:I personally think that they should just get rid of jotww as its an incredibly filthy psychic power an its existence is a huge middle finger to the entire necron army.

^Agree


Look, there's conciseness on this thread!

Yes, but Necron are Xeno, and SW are Space Marines.
...
do you REALLY think GW would nerf a SM ability for the sake of a Xeno?

(though, I've always thought the fact that GW refuse to address confusing rule clashes as rather ridiculous. Surely updating the FAQs more than once every year couldn't be that hard. It's almost as if they weren't on the internet).

Just a quick follow-up on this because I think this needs an FAQ as well.

If RFP and RFPaaC are not the same thing, then resolve this one for me.

Necron Codex: PG 29 Left side

"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."

The first half of this statement refers to destroyed, while the second half clarifies that to mean the last model has been removed as a casualty.

So it would seem that if RFP != RFPaaC, then would it not follow that if the last model in a unit was removed by JotWW then the counters are not removed because the last model was not removed as a casualty?