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.

col_impact wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?

The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.

.

Yep. That explains the three-page debate.

 EnTyme wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?

The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.

.

Yep. That explains the three-page debate.

People are just uncomfortable with what they feel is a broken interaction when the follow the rules as written in the most straightforward way possible.

Seriously, just follow the rules as they are written. Play out a few games according to the RAW. Let us know if it's broken or not. If you think it's broken then maybe suggest to your play group that you play it some other way than RAW.

col_impact wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?

The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.

.

Yep. That explains the three-page debate.

People are just uncomfortable with what they feel is a broken interaction when the follow the rules as written in the most straightforward way possible.

Seriously, just follow the rules as they are written. Play out a few games according to the RAW. Let us know if it's broken or not. If you think it's broken then maybe suggest to your play group that you play it some other way than RAW.

It's not that it's broken, it's that your interpretation goes against the precedent set by similar rules (Skyblight Swarm, Endless Swarm, etc.). I personally could care less, but if RAW as clear as you claim it is, we wouldn't still be having this discussion, would you?

 EnTyme wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 EnTyme wrote:
Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?

The rules couldn't be more clear. There is no ambiguity.

.

Yep. That explains the three-page debate.

People are just uncomfortable with what they feel is a broken interaction when the follow the rules as written in the most straightforward way possible.

Seriously, just follow the rules as they are written. Play out a few games according to the RAW. Let us know if it's broken or not. If you think it's broken then maybe suggest to your play group that you play it some other way than RAW.

It's not that it's broken, it's that your interpretation goes against the precedent set by similar rules (Skyblight Swarm, Endless Swarm, etc.). I personally could care less, but if RAW as clear as you claim it is, we wouldn't still be having this discussion, would you?

Precedent doesn't factor into RAW. My RAW interpretation runs straight off the rules provided and does not add anything (such as precedent or unjustified qualifiers such as 'original' or 'starting')

RAW really is as clear as I claim. It's just that there are quite a few rules lawyers and sophists on this forum.

So answer this then:

In your second turn you add one base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4. You assault an enemy unit, whiff and lose 3 bases and opponent hits and runs out of combat.

In enemy's turn your last base is shot off the board.

According to your reading of RAW you now get to bring back one base. What is the size of the unit that now has one model left?

As you will anyway claim that the unit's size is now 4, please quote the rule that tells you to use this number rather than what your roster says? The Sands rule does not say so.

Exactly^

You have no basis within the rules to consider a unit to be different size when a model is added and NOT do so when one is removed.

Again, so it can be understood, unit size is fluid, both increasing and decreasing in the game as rules allow. If you are claiming that increasing the number of models makes the unit larger indefinitely, then once a scarab base has been added the unit may no longer be destroyed.

Also, since you have actively ignored the point where I proved that your ruling is false and would cause a unit to be unable to return if you have the models you claim to make up the unit but have the models to make up the original unit I am going g to assume you recognise the utter failure on your part of the rules comprehension and are simply ignoring it to continue feeling correct.

Naw wrote:
So answer this then:

In your second turn you add one base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4. You assault an enemy unit, whiff and lose 3 bases and opponent hits and runs out of combat.

In enemy's turn your last base is shot off the board.

According to your reading of RAW you now get to bring back one base. What is the size of the unit that now has one model left?

As you will anyway claim that the unit's size is now 4, please quote the rule that tells you to use this number rather than what your roster says? The Sands rule does not say so.

The Scarab Hive rule says to add a base to the unit.

The Sands rule says to bring back the unit. It makes no mention of any roster. It does not use the words "original" or "starting". If we throw those words into the rule we are breaking the rules and cheating.

So I bring back the unit.

And guess what the unit has 4 scarab bases in it. Imagine that. I follow the rules provided and I get the unit of scarabs returned to play with 4 scarab bases in it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Exactly^

You have no basis within the rules to consider a unit to be different size when a model is added and NOT do so when one is removed.

Again, so it can be understood, unit size is fluid, both increasing and decreasing in the game as rules allow. If you are claiming.ing that increasing the number of models makes the unit larger indefinitely, then once a scarab base has been added the unit may no longer be destroyed.

Also, since you have actively ignored the point where I proved that your full g is false and would cause a unit to be unable to return if you have the models you claim to make up the unit but have the models to make up the original unit I am going g to assume you recognise the utter failure on your part of the rules comprehension and are simply ignoring it to continue feeling correct.

Incorrect. Whenever a base is added to a unit the unit size is changed. Removing a model as a casualty does not change the unit size. It just changes the number of models on the battlefield versus the number of models on the side of the table in that unit.

The rules are 100% on my side.

You have no rules at all on your side.

OK, I'm confused. What exactly is "unit size"?

 Happyjew wrote:
OK, I'm confused. What exactly is "unit size"?

Good question since it's not really a fully articulated thing in the rules.





So between the Unit Composition and the Options section a player can tell the minimum unit size and maximum unit size a unit can legally have, but 'unit size' here is player terminology.

Repair Barge rule and Scarab Hive rule make mention of "starting size". The Scarab Hive rule can explicitly take the unit beyond the "starting size" by adding bases to the unit.

So a scarab unit that has had bases added to it has some "size" that is not the "starting size".

When a model is removed as a casualty it is merely removed from the battlefield where play takes place and put on the side of the table where models do not have permission to participate in the game play of the turn sequence.

No mention is made of decrementing any "size" parameter when a model is removed as a casualty, nor is there any mention of removing the model from the organizational concept of the unit which it must be incorporated into per the rules.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.

Again, where is that a rule?

Spoiler:

THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.

Spoiler:

THE TURN
Behold the terrible splendour of war! Squads of courageous warriors pick their way through the rubble and ruin, advancing under the covering fire of mighty war engines. Lances and bolts of energy pierce the smoke-wreathed air, and power-armoured brutes hurl themselves into the enemy ranks, letting fly with chainsword and power axe.

A Warhammer 40,000 battle is a chaotic affair. To bring a modicum of order to the anarchy of battle, players alternate moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces, and then their opponent will move and fight. This process is then repeated, with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on, until the game is done.

During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).

No reference of Battlefield or "in play" in the Turn quote you presented, and "in play" is only used with the Vortex special rule rule in the entire rulebook. I was hoping your Spoiler actually held something worthwile when i saw it. Still operating on your own assumptions on how the game works.

And still can't address a whole post at once, can you. You can only do piecemeal, and still cannot pay attention to what a person says or asks, or even what you post. Rather pitiful, actually.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:I fully accept the title of bad listener. You have the title of 'man with no argument'. I am still waiting for you to present a case.

I have presented my case, right at the beginning. Your counter is your case. You need to support your case with something more than broad assumptions.

Now you are just dodging. You have failed to present a case of models outside of unit. You weren't able to. And now you are trying to obscure that fact.

You never properly addressed that. Every time you brought it up recently was in my response to your point that "the game never deals directly with a model".

And yes, I actually have stated a case where models have to be dealt with outside of a unit, one way or another, even if it is completely ignoring their unit connection or disconnecting them from the unit completely. And that is the numbers game this discussion has been about all along. I brought up several points, but you still cannot seem to grasp them or completely ignored them. I will get in to them later where it is more appropriate to respond.

EnTyme wrote:Can we at least agree that the rule is too ambiguous for this argument to be settled unless this is addressed in the Necron FAQ?

Agreed. I pretty much said that in the beginning.

col_impact wrote:Incorrect. Whenever you add bases to the unit the unit size changes. So if you add 3 bases to a unit of 4 then the unit size is now 7. If that unit is then wiped out next turn you are told by the rule to return 7 and not 1.

I thought you said the rulebook doesn't address unit sizes. If it doesn't, how can you say this and ascribe it as RAW?

Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:

Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...

Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...

So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.

Now, let's look at their restrictions on how far it can go:

Repair Barge: ... this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if it is currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle’s Transport Capacity...

Scarab Hive: ... this can take the unit beyond its starting size...

So, if the models that have been removed as casualties are still part of the unit, the Repair Barge can do absolutely nothing, since the models that have been removed still count towards the unit's starting size.

In addition, while the Scarab Hive CAN take the unit beyond its starting size, does not mean it automatically does, or if it takes casualties, that these additional models automatically increase the overall size of the unit. All it means is that if the unit has not taken casualties, and the Scarab Hive goes off, it increases the unit's model count for that time.

In addition, according to Transport Capacity, if you have a Tactical Squad that was reduced to 6 models from 10, they still could not Embark on a Razorback since:

A Transport can carry a single Infantry unit and/or any number of Independent Characters (as long as they are also Infantry), up to a total number of models equal to the vehicle’s Transport Capacity.

Then let us look at the following sentence which would make it impossible to even Embark that same unit on a Rhino even if they just lost one model:

The entire unit must be embarked on the Transport if any part of it is – a unit cannot be partially embarked or be spread across multiple Transports.

If part of the unit has been removed as a casualty and set in the "not in play" zone, then the entire unit could no longer embark on the Transport. No exception is made for models not in play.

Now, let's go back to Unit Coherency, which you said only affects models in play:

UNIT COHERENCY
When you are moving a unit, its individual models can each move up to their maximum movement distance. However, units have to stick together, otherwise individual models become scattered and the unit loses its cohesion as a fighting force. So, once a unit has finished moving, the models in it must form an imaginary chain where the distance between one model and the next is no more than 2" horizontally and up to 6" vertically. We call this ‘unit coherency’.

During the course of a game, a unit can get broken up and lose unit coherency, usually because it has taken casualties from incoming enemy fire. If this happens, in their next Movement phase, the models in the unit must be moved in such a way that they restore unit coherency (or get as close as possible to having restored coherency). If the unit cannot move in its next turn, or is unable to restore unit coherency in a single turn, then the models must move to restore unit coherency as soon as they have the opportunity, including by Running if they have that option.

No mention of excluding models that have been removed as casualties. No mention of only the models in play. It simply states, "the models in the {unit} must form an imaginary chain".

Here are just a few cases of the situation your case is ignoring while also ignoring what each one actually states.

And if these models are removed from consideration for the unit at these points, why must they be included for consideration with other rules that do not specifically call them out?

Remember, that if a unit is completely destroyed/wiped out, ALL of its models are removed as casualties and so are considered as part of the unit for From the Sands as much as they would be for being Embarked, Movement, or Repair Barge.

From there, the only other way the unit could be returned properly is either nothing happens, since no models can be connected to the unit, or we refer to the original starting unit to bring it back.

The alternative is completely unacceptable by not allowing Repair Barge to work at all, units attempting to achieve coherency with models off the table, and preventing units that have taken casualties from Embarking in to their own Dedicated Transports that they started in.

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.

Again, where is that a rule?

Spoiler:

THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.

Spoiler:

THE TURN
Behold the terrible splendour of war! Squads of courageous warriors pick their way through the rubble and ruin, advancing under the covering fire of mighty war engines. Lances and bolts of energy pierce the smoke-wreathed air, and power-armoured brutes hurl themselves into the enemy ranks, letting fly with chainsword and power axe.

A Warhammer 40,000 battle is a chaotic affair. To bring a modicum of order to the anarchy of battle, players alternate moving and fighting with their units. So, one player will move and fight with his forces, and then their opponent will move and fight. This process is then repeated, with the first player moving and fighting again, and so on, until the game is done.

During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).

No reference of Battlefield or "in play" in the Turn quote you presented, and "in play" is only used with the Vortex special rule rule in the entire rulebook. I was hoping your Spoiler actually held something worthwile when i saw it. Still operating on your own assumptions on how the game works.

And still can't address a whole post at once, can you. You can only do piecemeal, and still cannot pay attention to what a person says or asks, or even what you post. Rather pitiful, actually.

It's all there in the quotes. The Battlefield is where the game is played. If a model is removed as a casualty and placed on the side of the table, the model is no longer where the game is played.

Game play involves the Turn Sequence. Models on the side of the table do not have permission to participate in the Turn Sequence.

You can ignore these spoilers, but everyone on this thread knows they disprove your argument and show you to be nothing but a sophist who can't admit when he or she has lost the argument. Now that is what is pitiful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:Incorrect. Whenever you add bases to the unit the unit size changes. So if you add 3 bases to a unit of 4 then the unit size is now 7. If that unit is then wiped out next turn you are told by the rule to return 7 and not 1.

I thought you said the rulebook doesn't address unit sizes. If it doesn't, how can you say this and ascribe it as RAW?

The Scarab Hive rule refers to a new size that is beyond the starting size and that will be associated with "the unit". I have to obey the rule in order to claim RAW. You (Charistophe) choose to disobey the rule. That's why your interpretation is not RAW.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:


Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:

Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...

Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...

So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. The Repair Barge does not add bases to the unit (and therewith will have zero impact on the size of the unit and moreover is forbidden from impacting the size of the unit). The rest of your argument is wholly invalid and not worthy of any further discussion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is where Charistoph tries to critique my argument . . .


As already proven, models that have been placed on the side of the table off the Battlefield are no longer where the game is played or part of the game play of the Turn Sequence. Those models are skipped when it comes to Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge.

So basically . . .

you have no argument. All of your criticisms of my RAW argument are without substance.

Care to recoup your tactics and come back to the discussion when you have an argument?

Except the rule is specifying the scarab unit chosen by the formation. Not just any scarab unit. Otherwise you could resurect OTHER scarab units at will. Since adding a base to the size of the unit is in no way shape or form different than removing a base from the unit as far as unit size goes within the context of the rules of this game, your assertion would therefore allow the situation mentioned by myself and others where you would have to resurect smaller units depending on unit size at the time.

Also the situation I put forth where you adding models to the unit is ALWAYS adding models to the unit so it doesn't matter if they never went beyond the starting size and you have no permission to resurect less than the whole unit. Which would invalidate the rule completely and render the whole issue illegal.

You are resurecting the unit chosen by the formation. That is all you are allowed to do. Changing the unit size by increasing g or decreasing the number of models in the unit in no way changes the unit the formation special rule indicates. Since there was a specified number of models in the formation, any change to that would be you ignoring what the rule says. Blatantly.

You bring back what unit of scarabs?
The one chosen as part of this formation.
How many bases does that unit in this formation have?
Whatever it shows on your army roster.

Why is that?
Because otherwise the unit could return with one base or a dozen, but could never return at all if you don't have the number of bases required to field the entire unit.

col_impact 691958 8684574 wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:

Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...

Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...

So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. The Repair Barge does not add bases to the unit (and therewith will have zero impact on the size of the unit and moreover is forbidden from impacting the size of the unit).

Here is what I am taking away from your claims in this thread. Unit size is solely determined by number of bases. Repair Barge adds models not bases so does not affect unit size. Logical extension is when adding models from this effect they should not be attached to bases and you can add however many you roll regardless of unit size. Since that violates BRB guidelines that models should attached to the bases suplied in the kits I think we can safely say that is not correct. Adding models and adding bases must be the same thing since the two are attached to each other. Which means per your interpretation Repair Barge does literally nothing.

Alternatively, and as virtually everyone else seems to read, once a model has been removed as a casualty it is no longer part of your army, and unless specifically referenced otherwise not part of the game anymore. Support by a general lack of reference to those models after removal. Since they are not part of your army anymore they are not required to be organized in units as you keep repeating as your only real support for your position. Using any other interpretation causes significant problems with other rules such as coherency and morale checks as previously mentioned. So I challenge you, where do you see rules support that a casualty removed model is still part of your army?

Assuming you can't provide that, there are only two was I see to resolve the Sands rule as written. First it could be the size of the unit at the start of the wound pool that destroyed it. Additions or subtractions prior being irrelevant since no rules give permission to check that. Second it could be the unit size listed on your roster since after it has been destroyed that is the only place it is still referenced as a unit. Rules don't clearly specify which but I'm inclined to think the second was the intent.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Except the rule is specifying the scarab unit chosen by the formation. Not just any scarab unit. Otherwise you could resurect OTHER scarab units at will. Since adding a base to the size of the unit is in no way shape or form different than removing a base from the unit as far as unit size goes within the context of the rules of this game, your assertion would therefore allow the situation mentioned by myself and others where you would have to resurect smaller units depending on unit size at the time.

Also the situation I put forth where you adding models to the unit is ALWAYS adding models to the unit so it doesn't matter if they never went beyond the starting size and you have no permission to resurect less than the whole unit. Which would invalidate the rule completely and render the whole issue illegal.

You are resurecting the unit chosen by the formation. That is all you are allowed to do. Changing the unit size by increasing g or decreasing the number of models in the unit in no way changes the unit the formation special rule indicates. Since there was a specified number of models in the formation, any change to that would be you ignoring what the rule says. Blatantly.

You bring back what unit of scarabs?
The one chosen as part of this formation.
How many bases does that unit in this formation have?
Whatever it shows on your army roster.

Why is that?
Because otherwise the unit could return with one base or a dozen, but could never return at all if you don't have the number of bases required to field the entire unit.

Please point to rules that allow you to add or remove bases from units. AFAIK, there is only one rule, and that one rule (Scarab Hive) allows you to add bases to scarab units.

So . . . the 'Scarab Hive' rule allows you to add bases to the scarab unit that is part of the Retribution Phalanx and 'From the Sands, We Rise' allows you to return the scarab unit to the Battlefield.

Fhionnuisce wrote:


Here is what I am taking away from your claims in this thread. Unit size is solely determined by number of bases. Repair Barge adds models not bases so does not affect unit size. Logical extension is when adding models from this effect they should not be attached to bases and you can add however many you roll regardless of unit size. Since that violates BRB guidelines that models should attached to the bases suplied in the kits I think we can safely say that is not correct. Adding models and adding bases must be the same thing since the two are attached to each other. Which means per your interpretation Repair Barge does literally nothing.

BZZZZZTTTTTT. The Repair Barge rule allows you to add Necron Warriors but forbids you from going beyond starting size. This requires you to use the pool of casualties for the unit in question on the side of the table or to start bookkeeping the number of casualties on the side of table if you choose to pull your warriors from some other source (if the Repair Barge rule is going to get complicated by the 'From the Sands, We Rise' rule). Normally, the Repair Barge rule is easy to manage and will only get complicated if the Ghost Ark is part of a Retribution Phalanx.

Fhionnuisce wrote:

Alternatively, and as virtually everyone else seems to read, once a model has been removed as a casualty it is no longer part of your army, and unless specifically referenced otherwise not part of the game anymore. Support by a general lack of reference to those models after removal. Since they are not part of your army anymore they are not required to be organized in units as you keep repeating as your only real support for your position. Using any other interpretation causes significant problems with other rules such as coherency and morale checks as previously mentioned. So I challenge you, where do you see rules support that a casualty removed model is still part of your army?

Assuming you can't provide that, there are only two was I see to resolve the Sands rule as written. First it could be the size of the unit at the start of the wound pool that destroyed it. Additions or subtractions prior being irrelevant since no rules give permission to check that. Second it could be the unit size listed on your roster since after it has been destroyed that is the only place it is still referenced as a unit. Rules don't clearly specify which but I'm inclined to think the second was the intent.

The rules are fully on my side. And you have zero rules on your side.

This is all repeated information.



So unless a model has been specifically removed from a unit and put in a unit-less state (which never happens in the game), every model in your army is organized in a unit, whether it's a casualty or not. The burden is on you to provide textual support which shows that a casualty is removed from the unt. You cannot. Therefore my interpretation is correct.



The Battlefield is where the game is played. If a model is removed as a casualty and placed on the side of the table, the model is no longer where the game is played.



Game play involves the Turn Sequence. Models on the side of the table do not have permission to participate in the Turn Sequence.

Models that have been placed on the side of the table off the Battlefield are no longer where the game is played or part of the game play of the Turn Sequence. Those models are skipped when it comes to Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge.

#########################


So I have provided ample textual support for my position and your side is unable to provide any textual support.

Go ahead and take some time to recoup and rethink your argument before your next rebuttal.

Your previous statement was Repair Barge does don't add to the unit, now you say it does. There is a lack of consistency to your arguments that is seriously hurting your credibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I think about it, your entire argument is based on inconsistency. You claim removed models are still subject to requirements to be in units, but are exempt from all rules related to units because they were removed from the play area. I don't see how you are justifying only applying the rules that fit your interpretation. Either the rules apply, in which case you need to apply all the rules, or the rules don't apply because it was removed from play, in which case it does not count as part of the unit. If you have rules basis for why you are applying some but not all rules to removed models I would love to see it.

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Your previous statement was Repair Barge does don't add to the unit, now you say it does. There is a lack of consistency to your arguments that is seriously hurting your credibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I think about it, your entire argument is based on inconsistency. You claim removed models are still subject to requirements to be in units, but are exempt from all rules related to units because they were removed from the play area. I don't see how you are justifying only applying the rules that fit your interpretation. Either the rules apply, in which case you need to apply all the rules, or the rules don't apply because it was removed from play, in which case it does not count as part of the unit. If you have rules basis for why you are applying some but not all rules to removed models I would love to see it.

I have been wholly consistent.

Simply look at my above post. Either models are over the Battlefield where the game is played or they are not on the Battlefield where the game is played. That is just the way the rules are written. I did not write the rules. Feel free to contact GW if you have a complaint about how they write their rules.

Don't worry about my credibility. I have all the textual support. You should start to attend to your complete and utter lack of textual support.

Feel free to take the time to rethink your argument and read the BRB. I am still waiting for you to pose a serious counter-argument

col_impact wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:
Your previous statement was Repair Barge does don't add to the unit, now you say it does. There is a lack of consistency to your arguments that is seriously hurting your credibility.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually now that I think about it, your entire argument is based on inconsistency. You claim removed models are still subject to requirements to be in units, but are exempt from all rules related to units because they were removed from the play area. I don't see how you are justifying only applying the rules that fit your interpretation. Either the rules apply, in which case you need to apply all the rules, or the rules don't apply because it was removed from play, in which case it does not count as part of the unit. If you have rules basis for why you are applying some but not all rules to removed models I would love to see it.

I have been wholly consistent.

Simply look at my above post. Either models are over the Battlefield where the game is played or they are not on the Battlefield where the game is played. That is just the way the rules are written. I did not write the rules. Feel free to contact GW if you have a complaint about how they write their rules.

Don't worry about my credibility. I have all the textual support. You should start to attend to your complete and utter lack of textual support.

Feel free to take the time to rethink your argument and read the BRB. I am still waiting for you to pose a serious counter-argument

No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.

Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?

So, because it references the base if the model, you believe that means something different than adding a model.

Fine, you may add as many bases as you wish. But bases have no statlines. You may have as many bases as you like, but they have no statistics. Since the statistics of a MODEL in this game ALWAYS refer to the model and you aren't adding models but bases...

Yes, you are correct. You have a million bases of necron scarabs. You just don't get to attack, move, claim objectives, or anything else because you decided that bases are different than models and all we know how to play with is models.

Congratulations you have won by failing utterly at understanding how to play the game. With that I will leave you to your trolling and move along.

Good day to you.

Edit:

Also

col_impact wrote:

Adding a warrior (to replace a warrior that was removed as a casualty) is not the same as adding bases to the unit. It would say add bases to the unit if it wanted you to add bases to the unit.

Still waiting on rules supported proof that the wording has to have base in it for it to be adding to the unit or not. If you think you have posted a rule that states that a base is what matters when adding anything to a unit re-post it and highlight it for me because currently I have not seen you post one. The part is red is not what the rules say to do, you are not allowed to add to the game rules and are thus cheating.

Fhionnuisce wrote:


No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.

Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?

Col_impact it's not contradicting itself, since the very beginning he's just arguing that according to one rule, you must keep the unit casualties in "a side of the table(or a specific box for the sake of clarification)" just to keep track of them, when all the unit is removed from the table (and thus the full number of models that compose it are in "that side of the table or the specific box" the unit is destroyed.

Due the fact he's using a canoptek spyder to keep adding "bases or new models beyond the original number" to the unit when the scarab unit is gone that "specific box" may contain anywhere between the original number of model/bases plus any extra ones and only when the whole unit is destroyed and whitin that "specific box" you can deploy it again all the models in it since all of them are the very same unit.

It may go against other similar formation rules and probably an oversight from GW when making the formation rule.

Fhionnuisce wrote:


No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.

Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?

Feel free to point to where I contradict myself.

The rules of 40k only permit the the models that are on the battlefield to partake in the Turn Sequence. I have quoted my textual support above.

You lack rules support for your counter-argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lord Perversor wrote:

Fhionnuisce wrote:


No, you directly contradicted yourself on Repair Barge. And you did not in any way justify only applying the rules that support your argument and ignoring the others. Rules apply or they don't. You need to back it up for why you feel you can ignore part of the rules and you have not done that. All you did was say we should believe you because you said so.

Be clear on your answer or do not bother. Why does not being on the battlefield allow you to only apply the rules you say apply and ignore the others?

Col_impact it's not contradicting itself, since the very beginning he's just arguing that according to one rule, you must keep the unit casualties in "a side of the table(or a specific box for the sake of clarification)" just to keep track of them, when all the unit is removed from the table (and thus the full number of models that compose it are in "that side of the table or the specific box" the unit is destroyed.

Due the fact he's using a canoptek spyder to keep adding "bases or new models beyond the original number" to the unit when the scarab unit is gone that "specific box" may contain anywhere between the original number of model/bases plus any extra ones and only when the whole unit is destroyed and whitin that "specific box" you can deploy it again all the models in it since all of them are the very same unit.

It may go against other similar formation rules and probably an oversight from GW when making the formation rule.

Thanks for the summary. RAW is pretty clear and simple and straightforward as you note and I have been fully consistent.

Is it RAI? There are good reasons to think that it is not RAI so many of you may want to play it differently than the RAW.

However, I play RAW in my play group, so for me the RAW is very important.

Let's try something more simple, Col_impact.

My roster says I have purchased a unit of 10 necron warriors. I have attached a lord to it and lost 5 warriors to shooting.

What is the size of the unit?

I add 1 scarab base in my movement base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4, then lose 2 bases to shooting.

What is the size of the unit?

I have no idea why you keep arguing this as you don't have a case.

Naw wrote:
Let's try something more simple, Col_impact.

My roster says I have purchased a unit of 10 necron warriors. I have attached a lord to it and lost 5 warriors to shooting.

What is the size of the unit?

I add 1 scarab base in my movement base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4, then lose 2 bases to shooting.

What is the size of the unit?

I have no idea why you keep arguing this as you don't have a case.

Your argument in futile. Col_Impact picks pieces of rules to interpret for his arguments and refuses to acknowledge any other point of view even when proven wrong. He wont change his stance regardless of how many times he has been proven incorrect.

Naw wrote:
Let's try something more simple, Col_impact.

My roster says I have purchased a unit of 10 necron warriors. I have attached a lord to it and lost 5 warriors to shooting.

What is the size of the unit?

Per the rules, the 'size' of the unit is 11. There are 5 warrior models and an Overlord on the Battlefield and 5 warrior models on the side of the table. The 5 warrior models on the side of the table skip the Turn Sequence per the rules and do not factor into the 'current number' of models on the Battlefield for the unit.

Naw wrote:

I add 1 scarab base in my movement base, bringing the numbers from 3 to 4, then lose 2 bases to shooting.

What is the size of the unit?

I have no idea why you keep arguing this as you don't have a case.

Per the rules, the 'size' of the scarab unit is 4. There are 2 scarab bases on the Battlefield and 2 scarab bases on the side of the table. The 2 scarab bases on the side of the table skip the Turn Sequence per the rules and do not factor into the 'current number' of models on the Battlefield for the unit.

This is how it works when you use the rules provided. I have shown you rules that indicate all models are part of units, that indicate the Battlefield is where the game is played, and that give permission to participate in the Turn Sequence only to those models that are on the Battlefield

You are the one who doesn't have a case.

You lack rules for extracting models from the organizational game concept of the unit when they are placed on the side of the table. So models on the side of the table are still part of the unit per the rules. Your argument will have problems with Unit Coherency and models able to shoot from the side of the table at models on the Battlefield. My argument does not have problems with this since models on the side of the table do not have permission to partake in the Turn Sequence.

You also lack rules for decrementing the 'size' of the unit. The rules we have talk about the 'current number of models [in that phase]'

Basically, you have not presented anywhere near a complete argument and you have no case.

Come back to the thread when you have an argument of substance to share.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fragile wrote:


Your argument in futile. Col_Impact picks pieces of rules to interpret for his arguments and refuses to acknowledge any other point of view even when proven wrong. He wont change his stance regardless of how many times he has been proven incorrect.

Thanks Futile. By providing nothing more than an Ad Hominem attack you have underscored that the counter-argument to my argument has no rules support and no case.

Basically, your contentless attack on my argument is as good an indication as I will ever get out of this thread that I have won this argument.

So again, thanks!

Funny that I disproved you entire interpretation 3 separate times and you have chosen to ignore it col Impact.

Why does adding bases above the starting number count as adding to the unit when you are always adding bases when using the scarab swarm? You have no rules basis to back this up.

Where does one find the magical set of rules for bases in this game? Because a base is just what the model is.

Did it never occur to you that they say "base" because a scarab "model" would be a single, solitary scarab and they want you to have more than that per swarm?

Yes, I came back into this. But I cannot abide someone willfully ignoring how wrong they are. A base of models has no difference whatsoever to a model. Period. End of story. There is NO rule in existence that says otherwise.

But somehow you point to THAT (nonexistent) difference as price of you idea. It doesn't matter whether or not you have permission to increase beyond the starting unit size, you are told to add models to the unit.

If your interpretation is correct, then even if those die later (and this would include any that did not increase unit size) then resurrecting the unit would become impossible to do eventually because of lack of models.

And since you must resurrect the WHOLE unit with the special rule you are negating the ability to do so at all.

What scarab swarm is resurrected? The one CHOSEN as part of this formation. Any, and I mean ANY other interpretation would allow for the unit to count as whatever size it was when it died. This includes any characters attached when it was killed since the necron lord doesn't have a statline in the scarab unit entry.

Your argument only has merit if you ignore the fact that there is no definition for what a "base" is in regards to game mechanics.

I think I might have stumbled onto an issue while thinking this out today, maybe col_impact can elaborate.

Ghost ark says "Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result – this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size ... (any excess are destroyed)".

Then the rule we keep using "When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’." does set up the unit is now as big as the total causalities from that Unit.

The issue becomes if the total number of casualties from that unit is how many are being returned for the Formation bonus, how does that interact with the newly added Models to the unit?

Example: Start with normal 10, lose 2, G-ark Adds 3, one is destroyed due to G-ark rule. Then that unit is wiped out next turn.

That was a unit of 10 legal models on the field, but 13 total casualties.

Would Formation bonus return 13, as that was the total number of casualties?
Would Formation bonus return 12, as the extra warrior was destroyed before joining the unit?
Would Formation bonus return 10, as the ones added by G-ark can not take the unit over starting size, even though the G-ark rule is not causing it to go over starting size right now?

Same situation with scarabs, start with 3, gain 1, 2 are lost, gain another 1, all are wiped out. The total size of that unit after they are all casualties is 5.

Draco765 wrote:
I think I might have stumbled onto an issue while thinking this out today, maybe col_impact can elaborate.

Ghost ark says "Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result – this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size ... (any excess are destroyed)".

Then the rule we keep using "When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’." does set up the unit is now as big as the total causalities from that Unit.

The issue becomes if the total number of casualties from that unit is how many are being returned for the Formation bonus, how does that interact with the newly added Models to the unit?

Example: Start with normal 10, lose 2, G-ark Adds 3, one is destroyed due to G-ark rule. Then that unit is wiped out next turn.

That was a unit of 10 legal models on the field, but 13 total casualties.

Would Formation bonus return 13, as that was the total number of casualties?
Would Formation bonus return 12, as the extra warrior was destroyed before joining the unit?
Would Formation bonus return 10, as the ones added by G-ark can not take the unit over starting size, even though the G-ark rule is not causing it to go over starting size right now?

Same situation with scarabs, start with 3, gain 1, 2 are lost, gain another 1, all are wiped out. The total size of that unit after they are all casualties is 5.

The G-Ark unit has 10 casualties total when the unit is completely destroyed on the side of the table. The Repair Barge rule forbids monkeying with the size so the total size of the unit on the battlefield and on the side of the table is fixed at the starting size.
The scarab unit has 5 casualties total when the unit completely destroyed on the side of the table. The Scarab Hive rule explicitly permits adding bases and increasing the size of the unit.

This is a permissive ruleset. You are not allowed to do something unless you have permission to do it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Funny that I disproved you entire interpretation 3 separate times and you have chosen to ignore it col Impact.

Why does adding bases above the starting number count as adding to the unit when you are always adding bases when using the scarab swarm? You have no rules basis to back this up.

Where does one find the magical set of rules for bases in this game? Because a base is just what the model is.

Did it never occur to you that they say "base" because a scarab "model" would be a single, solitary scarab and they want you to have more than that per swarm?

Yes, I came back into this. But I cannot abide someone willfully ignoring how wrong they are. A base of models has no difference whatsoever to a model. Period. End of story. There is NO rule in existence that says otherwise.

But somehow you point to THAT (nonexistent) difference as price of you idea. It doesn't matter whether or not you have permission to increase beyond the starting unit size, you are told to add models to the unit.

If your interpretation is correct, then even if those die later (and this would include any that did not increase unit size) then resurrecting the unit would become impossible to do eventually because of lack of models.

And since you must resurrect the WHOLE unit with the special rule you are negating the ability to do so at all.

What scarab swarm is resurrected? The one CHOSEN as part of this formation. Any, and I mean ANY other interpretation would allow for the unit to count as whatever size it was when it died. This includes any characters attached when it was killed since the necron lord doesn't have a statline in the scarab unit entry.

Your argument only has merit if you ignore the fact that there is no definition for what a "base" is in regards to game mechanics.

I am just following the rules provided. Repair Barge does not let you add bases in such a way as to change the size of the unit. Scarab Hive rule does allow you to add bases to change the size of the unit.

You can answer all of your own questions if you simply read the rules.

What you are failing to understand is that your interpretation would never allow necron warriors to be resurrected at all with the ghost ark. You claim the unit is whatever size it was with casualties being placed to the side. Since this ghost ark ADDS models to the unit (not replaces, adds, exactly like the scarab hive rule) and your contention is that the model's still count as being part of the unit though they are set to the side. The necron warriors cannot have ANY models added because the unit is already full size (lost two to casualties, but your interpretation makes it a 10 man unit with tho models off to the side)

Now, I can bring a big bucket of warriors to add to my units, because I am ADDING to the unit. Nowhere, and I mean NOWHERE does it state you bring the lost models back. This also means that per your interpretation of the rules any models added to the scarab unit will count as being higher than the starting point because the casualties are still counted as being part of the unit.

As you can see, this would mean that you could never use the ghost ark's ability on ANY necron warrior unit and that once you have added more models to the scarab swarm than you have total models, no matter if you actually increased the size beyond its starting size on the table, you will be unable to resurect the unit because there aren't enough for me to represent them on the table.

Congratulations, you have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the game doesn't work at all the way you think it does because if it did none of these rules would do anything at all in the game.

Go ahead, think about your argument. You don't appear to have done so thus far.

col_impact wrote:
It's all there in the quotes. The Battlefield is where the game is played. If a model is removed as a casualty and placed on the side of the table, the model is no longer where the game is played.

Game play involves the Turn Sequence. Models on the side of the table do not have permission to participate in the Turn Sequence.

You can ignore these spoilers, but everyone on this thread knows they disprove your argument and show you to be nothing but a sophist who can't admit when he or she has lost the argument. Now that is what is pitiful.

And yet you persist on things lasting past this phase anyway when they are no longer in play when you say they cannot be included. You contradict yourself in this approach. Either models do not contribute to the unit size when removed as a casualty or they do. If they do not contribute to the unit size when removed as a casualty, then they do not contribute when they are called upon to be restored without directly addressing this. If the do contribute to the unit size when removed as a casualty, then numerous different aspects of the game will no longer work as I stated in the section you so causally dismissed.

col_impact wrote:
The Scarab Hive rule refers to a new size that is beyond the starting size and that will be associated with "the unit". I have to obey the rule in order to claim RAW. You (Charistophe) choose to disobey the rule. That's why your interpretation is not RAW.

I do not. I have read the entire rule. You've missed the key component every time. The Scarab Hive CAN take it beyond the unit's starting size. This can only take place if the unit is not taken below it's starting size. It never states it takes it beyond the unit's ultimate size any more than From the Sands states to "restore all the models removed from play" back to the board.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Now, let's review it properly comparing the Repair Barge and Scarab Hive rules and how they interact with the size of the unit:

Repair Barge: ... Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result...

Scarab Hive: ... Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit...

So both rules do the exact same thing to the unit.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. The Repair Barge does not add bases to the unit (and therewith will have zero impact on the size of the unit and moreover is forbidden from impacting the size of the unit). The rest of your argument is wholly invalid and not worthy of any further discussion.

You are incorrect and in error. It seems you are unaware of how each of these units works if you think that this is the significant difference. Let me illuminate you.

Necron Datasheet Legend:

7. Unit Composition: This section shows the number and type of models that form the basic unit, before any upgrades are taken.
10. Options: This section lists all of the upgrades you may add to the unit if you wish to do so, alongside the associated points cost for each.

Necron Warriors Datasheet:

UNIT COMPOSITION:
10 Necron Warriors
OPTIONS:
• May include up to ten additional Necron Warriors...

Necron Canoptek Scarabs Datasheet:

UNIT COMPOSITION:
3 Canoptek Scarab bases
OPTIONS:
• May include up to six additional Canoptek Scarab bases…

Basically, when it comes to adding to a unit, "bases" are "models". Swarms are just listed as bases as their model type. So, Repair Barge and Scarab Hive both add models to the unit, even if the models the Scarab Hive lists are called "bases".

So, if we go by your interpretation, and the ultimate unit size is increased in size when the Scarab Hive adds to a Scarabs unit, then so is the Warriors, even if their casualties have reduced them to below their starting size. If that Warrior Squad took 19 Casualties and 6 added by the Barge when the last one dies, then the returning Warrior Squad would be 20, even though it started at 14.

If it cannot do this, then either one of three things is in error.
1) The Repair Barge (and numerous other rules) can do nothing because we take the unit's total size, including casualties, in to account. This would also mean that Transports cannot Embark units that have taken casualties since the whole unit must Embark.

2) Both the Repair Barge and the Scarab Hive (and all the other rules that reference unit size in gameplay) only consider the unit size in existence on the table when adding models to the unit. This would mean that any models added by the Ghost Ark would be returned along with the rest of the Unit along with all the Scarabs added by the Scarab Hive since they are added to the whole unit.

3) Once the game starts, the game rules only considers the unit size in existence on the tabletop, and only models on the tabletop or in Reserves as part of the unit. Once the unit size drops below 1, it is completely destroyed and the unit no longer exists as an organization that can be called upon by the game to perform actions. From the Sands now references an organization that no longer exists and does not state which form to restore. Precedence from other rules state to restore the starting unit, so we use that or From the Sands now fails.

col_impact wrote:
As already proven, models that have been placed on the side of the table off the Battlefield are no longer where the game is played or part of the game play of the Turn Sequence. Those models are skipped when it comes to Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge.

Then they are also ignored by Scarab Hive and From the Sands since neither of them directly refer to models removed as casualties any more than Embarking, Movement, or Repair Barge, either.

Either they work the same for everything or nothing. Not just because the impacted colon decides they work.