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.

Vindicare-Obsession wrote:Has the celestine point been made yet? As far as I can tell, Ever Living works almost exactly the same way as her divine intervention. I agree that he dies, I also agree that he cannot stay alive in any clever way, however, 1 he dosent, he dies and then comes back. 2 I also remember that Codex > Rulebook. You can say "Necrons can never win ever" in the Rulebook but if the necs codex says "We always win no matter what" then necs win, no matter what. That is an extreme example but you get the idea. I would say if Celestine can get back up after she is squished so can a Cron with Ever Living. I assume that wsa the idea in this players mind as he DoG'd as I would've done the same thing. No risk and all that, you know.

He doesn't "die then come back". He'd be a kill point farm if that was the case since the unit (of one) was destroyed more than once.

And you have no basis for codex overriding BRB. It's specific overrides general.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Grugknuckle wrote:Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you still arguing about 5th ed rules?

Holy crap. 6th Ed is only 6 days away. Why are you bothering to click threads in YMDC?

DeathReaper wrote:

Yad wrote:

Grey Templar wrote:No, Codex is not > rule book. Its Specific>General.

Death or Glory > Everliving because it is more specific.

Neither rule interferes with, or contradicts, the other. Both work fine without breaking the game. DoG removes the model. EL drops a token. Vehicle completes Tank Shock move. Phase ends and EL token is rolled for.

-Yad

and if EL is passed the model comes back, saving it from dying, which breaks the DoG rules.

This is where I think the failure is. If EL is passed is does not save the model from dying. The EL model has already 'died'. A failed DoG attempt has resulted in the EL model being killed and removed. EL is not a save.

-Yad

The model was killed and removed.
It's the last member of its unit, so the unit is destroyed.
The model comes back. Is this a new unit?
If the model is still the same unit that was destroyed, it has stayed alive in a clever way.
If the model is not the same unit that was destroyed, it's time to farm for kill points.

rigeld2 wrote:

The model was killed and removed.
It's the last member of its unit, so the unit is destroyed.
The model comes back. Is this a new unit?
If the model is still the same unit that was destroyed, it has stayed alive in a clever way.
If the model is not the same unit that was destroyed, it's time to farm for kill points.

Bold and Italics added.

Premise 3 is invalid. These cannot both be true. We accept that for all intents and purposes a Lord and/or Cryptek is considered to be part of the unit (which negates your 4th point). Additionally, I had thought it commonly accepted that the unit only gives a kill point when the model(s) is irrevocably removed from play (exception for the Lone Wolf I think) I.e., the Lord/Cryptek has failed its EL roll. All the DoG mechanic cares about [in a failure scenario] is that the model which failed the attempt is removed with no way to prevent the removal. EL doesn't doesn't do this. EL doesn't stop the removal as caused by a failed DoG attempt. After all that is resolved you are then required to roll for the EL token..

-Yad


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I get what you're trying to do here, I just don't think the mechanics in question work the way you think they do.

DakkaHammer wrote:Hi Dakka,
This came up in a game today. I tank-shocked a squad of Necrons because I thought they looked lonely sitting on an objective all by themselves. The guy decided (after passing LD) that his lord was going to death or glory with his 2D6 armor pen. The lord chose death.

This made me laugh. I have no idea about the rules, but I found this post hilarious.

Eidolon wrote:

DakkaHammer wrote:Hi Dakka,
This came up in a game today. I tank-shocked a squad of Necrons because I thought they looked lonely sitting on an objective all by themselves. The guy decided (after passing LD) that his lord was going to death or glory with his 2D6 armor pen. The lord chose death.

This made me laugh. I have no idea about the rules, but I found this post hilarious.

We are glad you are amused.

Yad wrote: We accept that for all intents and purposes a Lord and/or Cryptek is considered to be part of the unit (which negates your 4th point).

It doesn't negate anything.
If you're argument was limited to Lords/Crypteks you might have a point. Unfortunately it's not. It cannot be. You're arguing for all EL models, some of which are single model units. Therefore any argument that proves you wrong for single model units proves you wrong for all EL models.

Additionally, I had thought it commonly accepted that the unit only gives a kill point when the model(s) is irrevocably removed from play (exception for the Lone Wolf I think) I.e., the Lord/Cryptek has failed its EL roll.

Correct. Which means that the unit is not destroyed if a model is allowed to make an EL roll.
If a unit is not destroyed, the model was not removed "regardless of ... Any other clever way of staying alive".
If the model was not removed, DoG has not been satisfied.

All the DoG mechanic cares about [in a failure scenario] is that the model which failed the attempt is removed with no way to prevent the removal. EL doesn't doesn't do this. EL doesn't stop the removal as caused by a failed DoG attempt. After all that is resolved you are then required to roll for the EL token..

Your bold is an assumption and your interpretation.

And this also ignores that DoG doesn't remove as a casualty which is how EL is triggered.

I get what you're trying to do here, I just don't think the mechanics in question work the way you think they do.

It'd be great if you could post why instead of just saying you think I'm wrong. Do you have rules to back up your statement?

rigeld2 wrote:

Yad wrote:
We accept that for all intents and purposes a Lord and/or Cryptek is considered to be part of the unit (which negates your 4th point).

It doesn't negate anything.
If you're argument was limited to Lords/Crypteks you might have a point. Unfortunately it's not. It cannot be. You're arguing for all EL models, some of which are single model units. Therefore any argument that proves you wrong for single model units proves you wrong for all EL models.

My argument was initially focused on Lords/Crypteks and I'm spot on about that (there's no 'might' about it). You're supposition is that I'm arguing for all EL models. Given a sufficient difference in type an argument for one does not always constitute an argument for all. Regardless, in EL's interaction with DoG it holds equally true for all EL models.

rigeld2 wrote:

Additionally, I had thought it commonly accepted that the unit only gives a kill point when the model(s) is irrevocably removed from play (exception for the Lone Wolf I think) I.e., the Lord/Cryptek has failed its EL roll.

Correct. Which means that the unit is not destroyed if a model is allowed to make an EL roll.
If a unit is not destroyed, the model was not removed "regardless of ... Any other clever way of staying alive".
If the model was not removed, DoG has not been satisfied.

Again, those to positions cannot both be true. You cannot 'kill', i.e., remove a model from play and subsequently claim that it has managed to stay alive. The model is first 'killed'. Then it checks to see if it can come back onto the board. There's a subtle difference there that you're missing.

rigeld2 wrote:

All the DoG mechanic cares about [in a failure scenario] is that the model which failed the attempt is removed with no way to prevent the removal. EL doesn't doesn't do this. EL doesn't stop the removal as caused by a failed DoG attempt. After all that is resolved you are then required to roll for the EL token..

Your bold is an assumption and your interpretation.

And this also ignores that DoG doesn't remove as a casualty which is how EL is triggered.

Hardly my interpretation. Is there any other way to describe how DoG is evaluated to be successful (on a failure). No way to prevent the removal speaks directly to the player's inability to prevent the model's death as a result of a failed DoG. EL is never described as a save and never rolled in response to a DoG.

I get what you're trying to do here, I just don't think the mechanics in question work the way you think they do.

It'd be great if you could post why instead of just saying you think I'm wrong. Do you have rules to back up your statement?

It's removed from play. Therefore unless the rule says it comes back into play it's dead...

Yad - can you post rules why you get to activate Removed as a Casualty abilities when the model is only Removed?

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - can you post rules why you get to activate Removed as a Casualty abilities when the model is only Removed?

RFP and RFPaaC are the same. Mainly due to the lack of a clearly defined definition of the two. With regards as to the why...Yakface summed it up nicely enough. The only thing that I would add is if you require as an entry point into a specific rule, a specific trigger, then that trigger had better be clearly defined and uniform across the ruleset. Treating RFPaaC as a 'thing' is not really supported as it's never properly defined as a game mechanic.

-Yad

Yad wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:Yad - can you post rules why you get to activate Removed as a Casualty abilities when the model is only Removed?

RFP and RFPaaC are the same. Mainly due to the lack of a clearly defined definition of the two. With regards as to the why...Yakface summed it up nicely enough. The only thing that I would add is if you require as an entry point into a specific rule, a specific trigger, then that trigger had better be clearly defined and uniform across the ruleset. Treating RFPaaC as a 'thing' is not really supported as it's never properly defined as a game mechanic.

-Yad

You are just regurgitating Randall Turner and other clown that were trying to equate them as being the same despite the overwhelming evidence of rules showing them being distinct actions taken by distinct rules.

If you are going down that road, you might as well start bringing up the definition of removing as a casualty as well from the BRB to show that it doesn't necessary mean a model is dead.

Since you refer to those that advocate removed as a casualty is the same as removed from play in a very derogatory manner, may I remind you that yakface himself says so too.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/449495/4281381.page

And I believe his opinion holds a lot more value that yours.

This isnt even RfP, just "Removed"

copper.talos wrote:Since you refer to those that advocate removed as a casualty is the same as removed from play in a very derogatory manner, may I remind you that yakface himself says so too.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/449495/4281381.page

And I believe his opinion holds a lot more value that yours.

Which is just about relevant as posting up an email from GW customer service. INAT rulings have had to be corrected in the past due to GW FAQ and errata. What Yakface may or may not deem is his opinion and only his opinion.

Now, if you want to believe that GW is making an exception just for Celestine that's your right, but in my mind an effect that just removes a model from play has always been nebulous.

Therefore IMHO, I've always treated any model removed from play by any kind of attack as being removed as a casualty. Although it is clear that some rules actually say 'removed from play as a casualty' and others just say 'removed from play' I see this as a case of sloppy writing rather than any kind of deliberate intent to create some sort of shadow realm of model removal.

Just from that post alone. He is going not by any rules but his own opinion. He even acknowledges that it is clear that there is a distinction in some rules between RFPAAC and RFP, he just dismisses it as sloppy writing.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote:This isnt even RfP, just "Removed"

A point obviously lost by some that are going to just classify "removed" as they see fit to support the argument.

So if RP and/or EL are cleaver ways of staying alive does that not mean that Surrogate Host is also by passed by failed Death or Glory.

NL_Cirrus wrote:So if RP and/or EL are cleaver ways of staying alive does that not mean that Surrogate Host is also by passed by failed Death or Glory.

Re-reading the rules for Surrogate Hosts, brings up an interesting observation.
The model he replaces is RFPaaC, however, the model does not get to try and come back. Interesting if you ask me.