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.

Basimpo - in that case, prove they are the same. You cant, because they arent defined in the rules. So you have to fall back onto English and how the phrases are constructed - and the two phrases are very different. Claiming they're not is a ridiculous stance to take.

You're also mixing up / conflating Precedent and Example. ATSKNF is an *example* of a rule which specifies what happens inthe event of a unit being caught by Sweeping Advance, showing what "specify* means. MI does not act as precedent as it gives a single specific answer to a single specific quesiton

Page 24 BRB mentions against wounds which there are no saves. Yes, wounds is in there. Please reference a rule where RFP is used, actually, please quote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually, you fall back on the FAQs which, according to SoB, RFP and RFPaac are the same.

Basimpo wrote:Page 24 BRB mentions against wounds which there are no saves. Yes, wounds is in there. Please reference a rule where RFP is used, actually, please quote it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And actually, you fall back on the FAQs which, according to SoB, RFP and RFPaac are the same.

Jaws and a DE item (forget which) - theyre rules.

Wrong, for the purposes of MI they are the same. You dont "fall back" onto an entirely different FAQ answering a specific question about a specific ability.

And according to the Nids FAQ, assaulting into something that is not terrain but requires a Dangerous Terrain test does not reduce Initiative. Yet, according to the rule book it isn't terrain but the act of taking a terrain test that lowers Initiative.

Basimpo wrote:

angelshade00 wrote:I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

I just wanted to know if there was a BRB or GW FAQ that defined RFP and RFPaaC...

No offense Basimpo, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of restarting the debate, apologies if it sounded that way. You had a perfectly reasonable question and you laid it on the table for everyone. I just meant that I was expecting it to be used as an excuse to start the little flame war we have all been witnessing for the past week or so on the last thread.

Again, apologies.

nos, I believe you were talking about the 'Crucible of Malediction"

angelshade00 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:

angelshade00 wrote:I had a feeling the thread would come to that eventually...

Same debate, new thread... sooner or later, a mod will lock this one down too.

I just wanted to know if there was a BRB or GW FAQ that defined RFP and RFPaaC...

No offense Basimpo, I didn't mean to sound like I was accusing you of restarting the debate, apologies if it sounded that way. You had a perfectly reasonable question and you laid it on the table for everyone. I just meant that I was expecting it to be used as an excuse to start the little flame war we have all been witnessing for the past week or so on the last thread.

Again, apologies.

Dont worry about it no offense taken! Like i said, im new to the game fairly so and i was under the impression that RFP and RFPaaC were actually different, defined rules. Although I AM biased because i play Necrons, before i found out i would say RFP i CANNOT roll to come back from. But, after finding out, it would be UNfair to play that way. Just like my question about nightfighting, it would be UNfair to make people shoot only as far as they can roll. I recently just won my very first game in the entire time i was playing, so, obviously (hopefully) im not a WaaC player. I like playing for fun, but i dislike doing crazy stuff, or being taken advantage of in the rules. Honestly, i think its HILARIOUS to see Trazyn stand up after 16 unsaved wounds and the look on a grey knight players face when my single lord mindshackle scarabs a dreadknight to death.

Also, when i asked the question, i thought the answer would be simple. It either was, or wasnt.

Basimpo wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

Basimpo wrote:If your stance is based solely on just how the english language is used, then that is no stance whatsoever.

Use the BRB to define the following - remember, basing the definition solely on the english language is no stance whatsoever.

special (for reference, page 74 in bold)
Measuring (for reference, page 71)
the (used throughout the book)
circumstances (page 43, 2nd word under Morale Check Modifiers)

I'll have more when you're done defining these 4.

Not all pizzas are from dominoes, but all pizzas are food.

...
To reverse that to where I started it, not all RFP effects are RFPaaC, but all RFP effects are potato.

This does not make sense.

Thanks for proving my point!

How did I prove your point? You asked for rule definitions for phrases that don't have one, and said that normal english language wasn't sufficient. I challenged you to do the exact same thing with some other words common in the rulebook - have you found page numbers yet?

No?

So your stance that you cannot fall back on the english language has been rendered false, correct?

What i was saying is, you cant make basic english as your base argument to make believe a "rule" into existence. I suggest that right here, we compile all the RFP rules together and treat them like sweeping advance. In the other thread it was said that a rule has to SPECIFY that it works against sweeping advance, and the precedent was and they shall know no fear. If the RFPs all say that they are NOT casualty causers, and that only rules that specify that they work AGAINST RFPs can be used, also taking in consideration the precendents created by such things as SoB FAQ etc.

Except you have to in many cases. The word "circumstances" is not defined in the rules. For Morale checks to work - at all - you must use the normal english definition. If you don't, you never take morale checks.

You're slightly naive if you think that every rule is spelled out 100%.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:Like i said, im new to the game fairly so and i was under the impression that RFP and RFPaaC were actually different, defined rules. Although I AM biased because i play Necrons, before i found out i would say RFP i CANNOT roll to come back from. But, after finding out, it would be UNfair to play that way. Just like my question about nightfighting, it would be UNfair to make people shoot only as far as they can roll. I recently just won my very first game in the entire time i was playing, so, obviously (hopefully) im not a WaaC player. I like playing for fun, but i dislike doing crazy stuff, or being taken advantage of in the rules. Honestly, i think its HILARIOUS to see Trazyn stand up after 16 unsaved wounds and the look on a grey knight players face when my single lord mindshackle scarabs a dreadknight to death.

Also, when i asked the question, i thought the answer would be simple. It either was, or wasnt.

So your evidence that you found out was
a) asking for a rule definition
b) saying that you can't use the english language to define words that aren't defined in the rulebook
c) ignoring the fact that you were presented with cases where you must use the english language
d) claiming that this presentation proved your point

And that's why you're claiming they're the same?

I didnt say normal english, i said basic. Also, special, and measure are basic english words, and measuring is shown in pictures. You proved my point because, you couldnt do it either.

RFP is a make believe rule. There is no concrete evidence it exists. Its rules lawyering. Ask Celestine what she thinks of RFP's now. I bet you shed say its as if there was a miraculous intervention.

Lets take a look at the fluff. JotWW, what happens? I dont have the codex, or the quoted rule to go off of so im going out on a limb and saying that because its a psychic (im guessing here) power the targeted creatures get sucked into a null place in the warp. Necrons warp traveling? I think not. Miraculous intervention? The Corpse-Emperor sends an iota of thought towards Celestine, sealing the hole in the warp before it even ruffles her hair. Definately, id give it to you.

On the other hand, if JotWW is a physical attack manifested through psychic powers...A roaring fanged mouth emerges from the immaterium and shreds Trazyn into less then microscopic bits of flecks, and pulverizes his retinue along with him, before fading away into the immaterium. A few moments later there is a green glow surrounding the area where the destruction took place and Trazyn and his retinue step into existence and march on relentlessly. Aeons old extremely advanced technology reminiscent of the T1000? Id buy it. A roaring fanged mouth emerges from the immarterium around Celestine and her retinue. The Corpse-Emperor sends out an iota of his thought across the vast distance. After the blood mist and viscera clear, Celestine is standing alone, unharmed in a puddle of blood, bone, and ceramite armor chips. MI at work again.

If RFP were real stuff, id be happy to give it to you all day long.

Its the song that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend!

Also, when i asked the question, i thought the answer would be simple. It either was, or wasnt.

So your evidence that you found out was
a) asking for a rule definition
b) saying that you can't use the english language to define words that aren't defined in the rulebook
c) ignoring the fact that you were presented with cases where you must use the english language
d) claiming that this presentation proved your point

And that's why you're claiming they're the same?

Perfect example: FNP.
If the roll is a 4+ the injury is ignored. Everyone plays that a Wound is not lost, however, there is no actual definition of "injury" in the BRB.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry, mis-read your post.

I saw we all eat crayons, first to pass them wins this argument, cos this is as dumb as the undergrad I saw melting a glass rod with a blowtorch over his friends hands.

Removed from play and removed from play as a casualty read differently, basic or any other english you want to use(personally I use Hiberno-Englsih) read them as such. The only question is were they intended to mean the same thing, this is something you should ask the rules team. I am sure they would love to talk to all of is about this burning issue.

Actually, the FNP says specifically wound.

Basimpo wrote:I didnt say normal english, i said basic. Also, special, and measure are basic english words, and measuring is shown in pictures. You proved my point because, you couldnt do it either.

I'm sorry - I guess I don't understand the line you're drawing between "basic" and "normal". And I couldn't do it - but I also proved that requiring rulebook definitions for every word is a failure to understand how the 40k rules are written.

RFP is a make believe rule. There is no concrete evidence it exists. Its rules lawyering. Ask Celestine what she thinks of RFP's now. I bet you shed say its as if there was a miraculous intervention.

So quote the page where remove from play as a casualty is defined. I'll wait. The definition is implied, but not stated anywhere.

Lets take a look at the fluff.

Let's not. YMDC is about discussing RAW - and fluff has little to nothing to do with that. But just for a laugh...

JotWW, what happens? I dont have the codex, or the quoted rule to go off

First of all, this is amusing. You're going to argue fluff when you have no idea what the fluff actually is.

of so im going out on a limb and saying that because its a psychic (im guessing here) power the targeted creatures get sucked into a null place in the warp. Necrons warp traveling? I think not. Miraculous intervention? The Corpse-Emperor sends an iota of thought towards Celestine, sealing the hole in the warp before it even ruffles her hair. Definately, id give it to you.

It actually opens a chasm underneath the line, and if you fail the init test you fall in, then the chasm closes. Necrons might be able to reassemble after being crushed like that, but they'd be in the crust of the planet - not on the battlefield.

If RFP were real stuff, id be happy to give it to you all day long.

Good thing it is, so thanks for playing by the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Basimpo wrote:Actually, the FNP says specifically wound.

False. It absolutely says to ignore the injury.

It absolutely says the wound on a 1,2 or 3 is taken as normal.

Im not arguing fluff.

RFP is not real. Its make believe.

Casualties are actually defined in the BRB on page 24 at the bottom. Remove from play as a casualty means you remove it from play, as a casualty, as defined on page 24 of the BRB. What does RFP mean? You just take it off the board? So you are saying in a kill point game if i have 2 hqs standing back to back, and you JotWW my HQs, they fall into the pit of doom and are RFP, you do NOT get the kill point right? Kill points on page 91 of the BRB are given when a unit is completely 'destroyed'. Destroyed is only defined in the vehicle section. Following your logic, that means, you would only get a kill point when my unit is wrecked or explodes. Also, RFP does not 'destroy' my unit, you just remove it from play. This way, It would be the safest bet to throw your HQs in the line of fire for RFP because you cant give up a KP for them.

Basimpo wrote:It absolutely says the wound on a 1,2 or 3 is taken as normal.

Sure. Do you see the word injury in the rule?
Can you show me the rulebook definition?

Im not arguing fluff.

So why did you bring it up?

Casualties are actually defined in the BRB on page 24 at the bottom. Remove from play as a casualty means you remove it from play, as a casualty, as defined on page 24 of the BRB. What does RFP mean? You just take it off the board? So you are saying in a kill point game if i have 2 hqs standing back to back, and you JotWW my HQs, they fall into the pit of doom and are RFP, you do NOT get the kill point right? Kill points on page 91 of the BRB are given when a unit is completely 'destroyed'. Destroyed is only defined in the vehicle section. Following your logic, that means, you would only get a kill point when my unit is wrecked or explodes. Also, RFP does not 'destroy' my unit, you just remove it from play. This way, It would be the safest bet to throw your HQs in the line of fire for RFP because you cant give up a KP for them.

No, that doesn't follow my logic. At all. I'm not sure why you think that, so it's hard or me to provide a counter.
RFP means the same thing as the first three letters in RFPaaC. If you know what that means, you know what RFP means.

So...you mean RFP and RFPaaC are the same right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no counter to it. RFP does NOT cause casualties right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Forget the rest, here is the question. does RFP cause casualties?

Basimpo wrote:Forget the rest, here is the question. does RFP cause casualties?

Forget that FNP requires English language definition, and you falsely claimed it didn't?

It causes losses (ie for morale purposes). Casualties, by definition, are caused when a model loses all of its wounds, yes?
(away from my BRB atm)

If your answer is NO, RFP does not cause casualties. Ok. Lets go from there. You just take the model off the board. The model is not injured, killed, wounded, destroyed, nothing. NO KPs given for those models RFP'd.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ill define casualty as per page 24 of the BRB for you one sec


Automatically Appended Next Post:

For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course, this also incledes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with a very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty. As long as all the modles in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed.

Note that any model in the target unit can be hit, wounded and taken off as a casualty, even models that are completely out of sight or out of range of all of the firers. This may seem slightly strange, but it represents the fact that the real action on the battlefield is not as static as our models. In reality the warriors, both the firers and the targets, would be moving around and real bullets have a nasty habit of ricocheting or simpley going through the covering terrain!

Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconcious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way [actual wording in my BRB-Basimpo]. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
That was under the header Remove Casualties


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Destroyed - definition on page 67 of the BRB

KP under the heading annihilation on page 91 of the BRB

Annihilation
Some battles are fought with only one goal - find your enemy, crush him utterly and take away his means to mount further resistance.
Victory Conditions
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 'kill point' for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed.

If a character has a retinue, the character and his retinue are worth 1 kill point each.

The player with the highest total of kill points wins. If the players have the same total, the game is a tactical draw.

Okay so I was correct - RFP does not cause casualties. You have no basis for saying KPs are not awarded at the end of the game.

Also - are you going to admit that you were wrong and some rules require language parsing to work?

Page 45 Under the heading fall back, last sentence if the unit falling back [paraphrased slightly] touches the table edge, the unit is removed from play and counts as destroyed. So...Now i roll to see if they blow up or are wrecked? Or are they casualties? Or is this the only way to score kps?



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Where do you get that you were right that RFP does not cause casualties?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
My basis for saying RFP on models does not cause KPs is that, the models are now in limbo. They are not destroyed, because RFP does not destroy them.

Casualties are caused by wounds. RFP abilities generally don't cause wounds.

Skimming the rules for falling back, assaults while falling back etc all come up with the word destroyed. In my skimming i havnt seen the word losses...Im probably missing it though


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I could language parse what you said generally they dont cause...But i agree, it does require some language parsing. Make believing rules out of nothing because they left fluff etc off it is what i would call Rules Lawyering in never never land.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
So, if RFP does not cause wounds, then, JotWW does not give KPs. Right, wrong?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Q: Do units off of the table at the end of a game count
as destroyed for kill point purposes? (p91)
A: Yes.

Ok JotWW theres your KP!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But, doesnt this set a precedent that units that are off the table are counted as destroyed? There was no mention of reserves. Just about models off of the table.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Heres some similar FAQs
dark eldar

Q: If a unit with the Power from Pain special rule
destroys an enemy unit, does it gain a pain token no
matter how the unit was destroyed? For example the
resultant explosion from shooting at a vehicle wipes
out an enemy unit. (p25)
A: Yes.

Heres one i find VERY similar to what weve been talking about

Q: When does a unit with Power from Pain gain a pain
token for destroying a model/unit with the ability to
return to play. For example a Necron with the We’ll be
Back special rule. (p25)
A: The model/unit must be completely destroyed so the
unit will only gain a pain token once the model/unit is
completely removed from play. In the case of a
Necronunit, a pain token will be generated once a unit
has been destroyed (even if some of its models have
returned into other nearby units).

Models off the table at the end of the game. Models in reserve when the game ends are also destroyed.

that last one is a RFP...wait a second...its also destroyed...



Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g.
Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule
even after being removed from play by The Last
Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule
works just fine.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Do Ghost Knights removed due to Grand Master
Mordrak’s death in close combat count when
determining the assault result? (p40)
A: Yes.

The rule under grey knights JUST says removed, not RFP or RFPaaC.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Q: Does an enemy unit arriving by deep strike or
deploying within 6" of a servo-skull count as moving
to within 6" of it? (p62)
A: Yes, remove the servo-skull from play.

But the last laugh removes from play as casualties, not a great example to use.

Q: When do models with an ability that can bring them
back after they loose their last Wound count towards
The Tally of Pestilence? (p52)
A: Only once they are finally removed from the game,
after failing to come back.

Can someone quote the chaos demons rule for this one for us please?

Saying just "removed" is the same thing as RFP. Removed from what? Unless you answer "play" the rule is useless.

The last one uses removed from the game...but i mentioned it anyway (thought i mentioned it didnt really help much) i found a couple similar just removed FAQs in my search