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.

Then explain your position a little better so I can stop coming to that conclusion:
Are you not saying that the Invincible Behemoth proves that Wrecked, Destroyed, Explode all cause the Model to be 'Remove from Play?'

JinxDragon wrote:
Then explain your position a little better so I can stop coming to that conclusion:
Are you not saying that the Invincible Behemoth proves that Wrecked, Destroyed, Explode all cause the Model to be 'Remove from Play?'

Yes, I am saying it does that.
I am not saying, and have never said in any post in this thread, that Invincible Behemoth makes Wrecked, Destroyed, etc. synonymous with each other.
You pretended I said that and then argued against that point - repeatedly - instead of my actual argument.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you quote the bit that says the Deep Strike rule is able to function when the model is not in play? I'm curious to see what your thinking is.

In order for a unit to be able to Deep Strike, all models in the unit must have the Deep Strike special rule and the unit must start the game in Reserve.

During Deployment, your army is in play. This and the Reserve rules allow you to put a unit out of play (into Reserves).

When deploying their armies, players can choose not to deploy some of their units, keeping them as Reserves to arrive later.

Additional permission to keep units out of play.

At the start of your second turn, you must roll a D6 for each unit in your army that is being held in Reserve – these are known as Reserve Rolls. If the roll is a 3 or more, that unit arrives this turn.

Permission - rather, command - to allow them an attempt to arrive, and that you don't have a choice to keep them out of play.

One big issue with this. it does not show permission to deep strike. You've shown permission to hold units in reserve, and you've shown permission to permission to deploy those units after the game begins. But permission to deep strike those units still comes from the special rule those units posses. We've shown units held in reserve are not in play. If the special rules of units not in play are 'inactive' how can a unit in reserve ever deep strike?

Only Destroyed has no definition, the closest thing we are told is that it incorporates both Wrecked and Explode
Wrecked actually requires us to leave the Model on the battlefield, which is how you defined 'in play' earlier

How can you say Vehicles are Removed from Play without instructions within the individual Rules themselves telling you to Remove them from Play?
More so when one of the Rules you quote as being 'remove from play' requires the Model to be left 'in play?'

 DJGietzen wrote:
One big issue with this. it does not show permission to deep strike. You've shown permission to hold units in reserve, and you've shown permission to permission to deploy those units after the game begins. But permission to deep strike those units still comes from the special rule those units posses. We've shown units held in reserve are not in play. If the special rules of units not in play are 'inactive' how can a unit in reserve ever deep strike?

a) They had permission to Deep Strike when arriving from Reserves due to the Deep Strike rule.
b) The Reserves rule brings them into play.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

JinxDragon wrote:
Only Destroyed has no definition, the closest thing we are told is that it incorporates both Wrecked and Explode
Wrecked actually requires us to leave the Model on the battlefield, which is how you defined 'in play' earlier

I'm not sure I said "things only on the battlefield" because that's not entirely true - things are in play during Deployment and there's obviously nothing on the field then.

How can you say Vehicles are Removed from Play without instructions within the individual Rules themselves telling you to Remove them from Play?

Because... of that... rule... right there... that I quoted.

More so when one of the Rules you quote as being 'remove from play' requires the Model to be left 'in play?'

Read the thread please - this has been addressed.
Conflicts in rules have a rule demonstrating how to resolve them.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Why would there be a conflict at all if they where synonymous?

Stop saying they're synonymous. I've never said they were, you're on a literal straw man argument right now and I refuse to play that game.
I'm done with you. I used to think you were interested in honest debate but this thread proves otherwise.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:
Can you provide the rule that says Wrecked models are removed from play? I can't find it. Without a written rule, there is no conflict. I don't accept that the 'otherwise' statement proves that Wrecked models are removed from play. I believe your interpretation is incorrect.

Well, if you don't accept actual rules I can't help you.
Please, what does "or otherwise" mean then? Enlighten me.

oth·er·wise
ˈəT͟Hərˌwīz/
adverb
adverb: otherwise

1.
in circumstances different from those present or considered; or else.
"the collection brings visitors who might not come to the college otherwise"
synonyms: or, or else, if not
"hurry up, otherwise we'll be late"
2.
in other respects; apart from that.
"an otherwise totally black cat with a single white whisker"
synonyms: in other respects, apart from that
"she's exhausted, but otherwise she's fine"

The rules you presented...

"Because of this, any attack that says that the target model is destroyed, wrecked, Explodes! or is otherwise removed from play inflicts D3 Hull Points of damage on a Super-heavy vehicle instead."

So, if an attack would destroy OR wreck OR explode OR remove from play in circumstances not involving being destroyed, wrecked, or exploding, you do something.

Nothing inherent in this sentence assumes being wrecked means the model must be removed from play. The sentence just tells us that if a model is wrecked OR removed from play in a circumstance that doesn't involve being wrecked, you do something instead.

The rules for Wrecking tell us that the model is left in place and is treated as terrain.

If the red delicious apple is green, misshapen or otherwise rotten, don't eat it.
breaks into...
If the red delicious apple is green, don't eat it.
If the red delicious apple is misshapen, don't eat it.
If the red delicious apple is rotten in a circumstance different from being green or misshapen, don't eat it. Maybe the apple is mushy. That would be a different circumstance.

A green apple isn't necessarily rotten. Maybe it's a Granny Smith and it was mislabelled. I don't want you to eat it because I need to research who messed up the labelling. You can't assume that green means rotten or that misshapen means rotten. That's what you're doing with wrecked and removed from play.

Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?

I will simply state this about Invincible Behemoth:
The Rule doesn't do what you think it does.

You clearly believe being mentioned together in a secondary Rule, one which isn't even present in many battles as it is Super-Heavy related, is enough to forge a relationship that has to be present outside of that Rule. I do not know any more ways I can try to highlight how this is incorrect, not without you seeming to think it is a Straw-man argument. Simply put: This Rule tells us how to resolve situations V, X, Y and Z... no more, no less. Wrecked and Explode would require specific 'Remove from Play' instructions before we can state these Rules remove something from Play.

Game-workshop's mistake for having FOUR different terminologies for very similar actions!

rigeld2 wrote:

 DJGietzen wrote:
One big issue with this. it does not show permission to deep strike. You've shown permission to hold units in reserve, and you've shown permission to permission to deploy those units after the game begins. But permission to deep strike those units still comes from the special rule those units posses. We've shown units held in reserve are not in play. If the special rules of units not in play are 'inactive' how can a unit in reserve ever deep strike?

a) They had permission to Deep Strike when arriving from Reserves due to the Deep Strike rule.
b) The Reserves rule brings them into play.

But the models not in play have the deep strike rue. If the models not in play don;t have 'active' special rules then they can't enter play via deep strike because they don't have permission to do so until after they are in play. The deep strike special rule has elements to it that require you to take actions before the unit with that rule is deployed. You can't claim the rule does nothing, then also take those actions. Deep strike isn't alone in this either, there are other special rules that require you to alter the game rules before the model is 'in play'.

Now. you've claimed that models not in play have inactive special rules. Where is the support for this claim? We know they have these rules, we know these rules alter the normal game rules. I have seen nothing in the RAW that says these things are only true while the model is on the table top, in play, deployed or any other variant we might think of. If you continue to insist such a statement is in the RAW you must provide proof as the burden is on you.

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?

I NEVER SAID IT DID.
Seriously, how the feth are you back on this about them being synonymous again? What is your goal with this question?

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?

I NEVER SAID IT DID.
Seriously, how the feth are you back on this about them being synonymous again? What is your goal with this question?

Screaming and cursing doesn't help anyone. Let's try to keep this civil, please.

Ultimately, we have no wording that a Wrecked result causes a model to be removed from play. In fact, we have explicit instructions to keep the model in play, but to treat it as a different type. This isn't a basic versus advanced situation at all as both wording are only applicable to a small subset of vehicles. At best it's advanced versus advanced with the result being only useful in the relatively small context of that same subset of vehicles.

My take, as usual, is that Games Workshop writes sloppy rules and expects us to fill in the gaps when the rules break down. This is such a situation.

The only time Basic Vs Advanced matters is if there are two conflicting Rules in play... and of course, one has to be Basic while the other Advanced.
Even if a Rule could conflict with itself, outside of bad Rule writing, Basic vs Advanced would not allow us to simply choose which of the conflicts to ignore.

If you believe there is a conflict, it has to come from an outside source telling us to remove Wrecked vehicles from Play.
Do you have a quote that says exactly that, and no Invulnerable Behemoth does not state that no matter how many times you try and claim it does.

Even if it did, it begs the question:
If there is no Models with this Special Rule in any of the armies... how can you bring this Rule into play?

Is this argument still about whether or not a model can continue to provide a benefit to a unit after it's dead, or has it changed to something else?

Mutated into:
What is Out of Play and what conditions trigger it?

Well, the seemingly straight forward answer would be that a model is in play when it is physically on the battlefield, or is in a "counts as on the battlefield" situation such as being embarked in a transport or building. In such situations, a model can [potentially] engage in the 4 phases of the game. Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. A model does not require special rules to be active while "in play".

A model would be out of play prior to deployment, while held in reserves, in ongoing reserves, and when removed as a dead / destroyed model. I have no interest in mincing the nuances of dead, destroyed, removed from the game... in my interpretation of the rules a model is either Alive / Functional [no need to discriminate against Necrons or Eldar Wraith-Constructs. ] or Dead / Destroyed. While out of play, a model requires special rules to interact with the game, such as being forced to deploy before the game starts, or following the Reserves process, or being allowed to have your Warlord Trait impact the rest of your army. Models that are out of play are unable to engage in the standard turn phases, though they may be allowed to impact the game through special rules.

Again, following the "Opening Premise" I presented earlier, the only thing that completely prevents a model from interacting with the game is the condition of being dead / destroyed. In an attempt to avoid the nuances that seem to be plaguing this thread, a model is generally dead or destroyed in any situation that reduces wounds or hull points to zero, though there are potentially other scenarios in which this could also happen as laid out in those unusual circumstances.

As there are rules that allow units to have functions while "off the board" it is reasonable that living models are allowed to do so. So long as a model is Alive / Functional, it may use relevant special rules whilst not in play. Once a model is Dead / Destroyed, it can't, unless it has exceptional rules that allow actions whilst in that condition. Off the top of my head, I can't think of any. Certain units are allowed to be recycled once completely destroyed [Some of the Leviathan Tyranid Formations] but even then, the rules are a Command Benefit so do not require a living model to allow it.

This interpretation would require the acceptance of a premise that the terms "In Play" and "On the battlefield / Counts-as on the battlefield" are effectively interchangeable. Whilst perhaps a poor choice of words, models that are "Out of play / Off the battlefield" are still capable of utilizing rules that apply whilst they are in that condition. Refusal to accept this premise would seem to prevent models from deploying at the start of the battle, ever making reserve rolls [even though required to do so!] or re-entering play from Ongoing Reserves. The very first issue, preventing models from deploying at the start of the game would... well... make it impossible to ever play, so it would seem a reasonable premise to work with.

JinxDragon wrote:
. Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be.

I find it ironic that you attempt to dissect rules down to their component words when you know GW does not even be consistent with their own terminology.

Fragile wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
. Re-reading that section I see it as the example of Game Workshop butchery when it comes to their own terminology that it was meant to be.

I find it ironic that you attempt to dissect rules down to their component words when you know GW does not even be consistent with their own terminology.

Yes. We're all very good at peeing in each other's corn flakes. Does anyone object to the either of the premises outlined above? I think they're required to be able to have a working game of 40k, but perhaps you feel differently? That could lead to productive discussion.

 Kriswall wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Rigeld2,
Except the 'resolution' you put forth requires one Rule to be 'Basic' and one to be 'Advanced' in order to function.
Both Rules are Advanced by that very section of the book, so where do you get permission for Wrecked to trump Explode?

I NEVER SAID IT DID.
Seriously, how the feth are you back on this about them being synonymous again? What is your goal with this question?

Screaming and cursing doesn't help anyone. Let's try to keep this civil, please.

Ultimately, we have no wording that a Wrecked result causes a model to be removed from play. In fact, we have explicit instructions to keep the model in play, but to treat it as a different type. This isn't a basic versus advanced situation at all as both wording are only applicable to a small subset of vehicles. At best it's advanced versus advanced with the result being only useful in the relatively small context of that same subset of vehicles.

My take, as usual, is that Games Workshop writes sloppy rules and expects us to fill in the gaps when the rules break down. This is such a situation.

It isn't the same model, however. We know this because the definition of model includes it's stats. The stats for a wrecked vehicle are not those of the vehicle, as told.

So it is the same physical representation, but as proven, a different model. Next.

rigeld2 wrote:

In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.

This was quite clear to me:

The model is removed "from play" but then there is a Scenery piece on the board that just happens to look a lot like your model... Although a Wrecked vehicle staying "in play" with lowered BS or efficiency would be quite appealing. 'Becomes a scenery with 1 HP and BS2 and -2 AV '

 BlackTalos wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

In any other circumstance, a Wrecked model is left in place, and is treated as a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type.

Because the rules instruct us as to what to do? The model is RFP (the model being the physical representation of the Army List Entry) but there is a Citadel scenery model with the difficult terrain type there now.
This is represented by the model (the physical thing) that used to represent the Army List Entry.

This was quite clear to me:

The model is removed "from play" but then there is a Scenery piece on the board that just happens to look a lot like your model... Although a Wrecked vehicle staying "in play" with lowered BS or efficiency would be quite appealing. 'Becomes a scenery with 1 HP and BS2 and -2 AV '

All very good, except that the rules actually tell us to leave the model in place and then to treat it as something different. We are never told to remove it from play. On the contrary, we are very unambiguously told to leave it where it is. If my Rhino becomes Wrecked, several things happen. One, it is destroyed. This is important for VP calculations. Two, it is left in place. The model never moves. It's not removed from play and replaced with something else. It stays exactly where it became wrecked. Three, it is now treated as a piece of difficult terrain. It's no longer treated as a Vehicle. The Rhino simply changes function. Does a piece of scenery (not a Fortification, mind you) have the option to shoot? to move? to assault? No.

The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.

Then why did they use a 'Counts/Treat as' Clause?
Those exist to force the Rules to resolve X as if it was Y... because it is still X but needs to be treated as Y.

Because to GW that's the same as saying "is".

Disagreed.
It is a way of telling us to ignore what the object really is, and to instead resolve the Rules as if the object was something completely different.

If Game Workshop wants to turn X into Y, they tell us that X is Y.
Like they did for Claimed Buildings, they simply ARE Friendly Units....

JinxDragon wrote:
Disagreed.
It is a way of telling us to ignore what the object really is, and to instead resolve the Rules as if the object was something completely different.

If Game Workshop wants to turn X into Y, they tell us that X is Y.
Like they did for Claimed Buildings, they simply ARE Friendly Units....

Do we need to have another lesson on how GW actually uses that phrase to mean "is"?

Wouldn't make your assumption correct.
You have this problem when it comes to 'count/treat as' clauses... you look at the end result and assume that X must have been Y, because the Rule resolved as if it was Y.
The Rule was resolved that way only because we where informed to treat the object as something entirely different... not because it is something else.

JinxDragon wrote:
Wouldn't make your assumption correct.
You have this problem when it comes to 'count/treat as' clauses... you look at the end result and assume that X must have been Y, because the Rule resolved as if it was Y.
The Rule was resolved that way only because we where informed to treat the object as something entirely different... not because it is something else.

If, for literally all purposes, you resolve a rule as if X was Y, how is X not Y for all purposes?

Simple:
The Clause itself.

We would not need to be informed to count X as Y for the duration of Z, unless X is not Y during Z.
Just because the end result is identical to Y, still doesn't make the X into a Y.

Besides, have you thought of this twist:
If the Model is removed from Play, then a count as Clause added to the Model would be useless... it is attached to a Model which is not in play!

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.

How is it's data sheet different? It's a Rhino that we're currently being told to treat as a piece of Difficult Terrain. We're never told anything in relation to data sheets. Please provide your rules citation for thinking so.

JinxDragon wrote:
Simple:
The Clause itself.

We would not need to be informed to count X as Y for the duration of Z, unless X is not Y during Z.
Just because the end result is identical to Y, still doesn't make the X into a Y.

If they're identical for all purposes, they're the same thing.
You're attempting to argue an absolutely irrelevant point.

Besides, have you thought of this twist:
If the Model is removed from Play, then a count as Clause added to the Model would be useless... it is attached to a Model which is not in play!

Since it's been mentioned in this thread and addressed already - yes, yes I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.

How is it's data sheet different? It's a Rhino that we're currently being told to treat as a piece of Difficult Terrain. We're never told anything in relation to data sheets. Please provide your rules citation for thinking so.

All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.

The Rhino does not have a Terrain type. Therefore we are not dealing with a Rhino, we're dealing with terrain.
Terrain does not have a Vehicle type. It doesn't have an Armor Value. Therefore the data sheet cannot be the same.

rigeld2 wrote:

JinxDragon wrote:
Simple:
The Clause itself.

We would not need to be informed to count X as Y for the duration of Z, unless X is not Y during Z.
Just because the end result is identical to Y, still doesn't make the X into a Y.

If they're identical for all purposes, they're the same thing.
You're attempting to argue an absolutely irrelevant point.

Besides, have you thought of this twist:
If the Model is removed from Play, then a count as Clause added to the Model would be useless... it is attached to a Model which is not in play!

Since it's been mentioned in this thread and addressed already - yes, yes I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

nosferatu1001 wrote:
The physical model has remained. The actual model as defined by the rules has not, because it's data sheet is different.

How is it's data sheet different? It's a Rhino that we're currently being told to treat as a piece of Difficult Terrain. We're never told anything in relation to data sheets. Please provide your rules citation for thinking so.

All of the Citadel scenery models have a terrain type. The rules for each terrain type are described below.

The Rhino does not have a Terrain type. Therefore we are not dealing with a Rhino, we're dealing with terrain.
Terrain does not have a Vehicle type. It doesn't have an Armor Value. Therefore the data sheet cannot be the same.

We're dealing with a Rhino that we're TREATING as a piece of terrain with the difficult terrain type. The data sheet is exactly the same. We're just ignoring the majority of it when we treat it as a piece of terrain. Terrain doesn't have an AV, so we ignore the Rhino's AV. Terrain doesn't have HPs, so we ignore that the Rhino has 0 HPs. Etc, etc.