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.

#1 - If a Necron model is removed from play, can it still use re-animation protocols?

Example 1 - Space Wolves Rune Priest uses Jaws of the World Wolf and removes a Necron Destroyer Lord from play via it's effect. Can the Destroyer Lord use re-animation?

Example 2 - Space Wolves FAQ states that a model removed from play by "The Last Laugh" may still use re-animation. However there's nothing on this, for JotWW giving me the impression that they cannot come back from JotWW.

#2 - If Obyron teleports to a combat involving Nemesor Zandrekh as part of his special rule. Does he count as having joined Nemesor's unit? The rule doesn't state this just says he joins into combat with the unit engaged. Thus if the scenario plays out that Nemesor is in a Challenge with the last surviving model of the unit, after combat resolution. Does this mean Obyron is no longer engaged (no other models to engage, last survivor is in a challenge) and free to consolidate to continue fighting on his own?

#1 - Yes.

#2 - No, he does not join nemesor or his unit, he is his own unit. Yes, it would mean just what you said. Though obyron could just teleport away anytime anyway.

#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Hadn't seen that I'll double check. I did see the one that was for EL but not RP

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Hadn't seen that I'll double check. I did see the one that was for EL but not RP

EL *is* RP, it's just a more advanced version of it and a different counter. Else there'd be no reason for EL models to have RP.

 Kevin949 wrote:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Hadn't seen that I'll double check. I did see the one that was for EL but not RP

EL *is* RP, it's just a more advanced version of it and a different counter. Else there'd be no reason for EL models to have RP.

Going from memory and I'm starting to get sick Bare with me

Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

Just to clear things up, from the SW FAQ...

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

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Not seeing anything like that in their faq.

fursphere wrote:
Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

It's for characters. Some characters have the IC rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Not seeing anything like that in their faq.

In tandem with the rulebook, things like Trazyn's surrogate hosts remove from play as a casualty but you are not allowed to make RP/EL rolls. A model with a res orb removed from play is allowed a roll (res orb has no bearing on it, but that's the FAQ ruling). As RP and EL are the same, if an EL model is allowed to then so is an RP only model.

 Kevin949 wrote:

fursphere wrote:
Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

It's for characters. Some characters have the IC rule.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jdjamesdean@mail.com wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Not seeing anything like that in their faq.

In tandem with the rulebook, things like Trazyn's surrogate hosts remove from play as a casualty but you are not allowed to make RP/EL rolls. A model with a res orb removed from play is allowed a roll (res orb has no bearing on it, but that's the FAQ ruling). As RP and EL are the same, if an EL model is allowed to then so is an RP only model.

Q: If a model with the Reanimation Protocol special rule is replaced
by another model, for example it is turned into a Chaos Spawn or
replaced by Trazyn the Infinite, do you place a reanimation protocol or
ever-living counter next to the unit? (p29)
A: No.

Alright replacement effects don't cause RP or EL. Specifies both.

Q: Is the roll for an Ever-living counter the same as a Reanimation
Protocol roll; does it benefit from the resurrection orb? (p29)
A: Yes to both questions.

These are the only ones I see.

 grendel083 wrote:
Just to clear things up, from the SW FAQ...

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

Its downright comical that an FAQ question that specifically names Necron and Sisters of Battle army's is found in the Space Wolves FAQ. (and not in the SoB or Necron's FAQ)

fursphere wrote:
Isn't EL just for ICs? Because the RP rule says at least one model in the unit has to survive for the others to make RP roles. Would be hard for that to work for ICs

It also works for Royal Court members attached to a unit as they have EL as well. Even if the entire unit they are attached to is wiped out they still get a RP roll due to EL.

RFP and RaaC are the same. This is made obvious through gaining first blood only via RaaC and an example. If the last 2 models in a unit with RP are RFP, if you treat them differently to models RaaC, you cannot roll for the original counters as the unit is destroyed but due to the codex wording you may only remove counters if they are RaaC or the roll is failed. Neither is satisfied, so you have objects with no rules on the table - an absurdity that breaks the game. Therefore they must be equal.

On the other hand, jaws now hits everything so there's that.

The question is stil not clearly answered.

The last laugh is SPECIFICALLY referenced as allowing RP/EL rolls however JotWW gives no allowance in this regard, so is the consensus that it is intended to allow EL/RP?

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eyjio wrote:
RFP and RaaC are the same. This is made obvious through gaining first blood only via RaaC and an example. If the last 2 models in a unit with RP are RFP, if you treat them differently to models RaaC, you cannot roll for the original counters as the unit is destroyed but due to the codex wording you may only remove counters if they are RaaC or the roll is failed. Neither is satisfied, so you have objects with no rules on the table - an absurdity that breaks the game. Therefore they must be equal.

You have objects that don't effect the game whatsoever with no rules on the table. Nothing breaks.
First Blood is poorly worded - interpreting it literally would mean that vehicles don't count for FB (ignoring the difference between RFP and RFPaaC).

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Well consider that JotWW allows NO COVER SAVES because it does not cause wounds.

So it shows that models can be removed by things other than what's normal.

Considering that the last laugh is specifically mentioned in the FAQ as allowing EL/RP rolls where as JotWW is not included as an allowance it to me clearly shows that it is NOT intended to allow reanimnation protocols or ever-living.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

Lucus is remove as casualty

Joww remove from play

2 different rules for 2 different powers. Im on the fence with this one since Joww does not have an faq I am of the opinion that they do not get a RP/EP since theres no mass to reanimate from. Its gone.

This again?!
OK to summarize from all other threads I can remember, RFP=RaaC
Pro:
1.In the Morale section, you roll a check because of casualties when you lose 25% of the unit's models. So losses = casualties
2.SoB FAQ equates RFP and RaaC. And that's the only ruling in existence. There is no rule or FAQ to differentiate between RFP and RaaC. So that FAQ creates a precedent.
3. RFP is found only in 1 or 2 codices by the same author, and its effect or difference from RaaC is never explained No other codex mentions RFP and BRB only mentions casualties.
4. First Blood is granted only when the unit is removed as a casualty. A unit destroyed by RFP should grant First Blood.

Against::
1. "Removed from play" is not the same as "Removed as a casualty". Different words...

 Akaiyou wrote:
Well consider that JotWW allows NO COVER SAVES because it does not cause wounds.

So it shows that models can be removed by things other than what's normal.

Considering that the last laugh is specifically mentioned in the FAQ as allowing EL/RP rolls where as JotWW is not included as an allowance it to me clearly shows that it is NOT intended to allow reanimnation protocols or ever-living.

Causing a wound or not has nothing to do with this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

No, you didn't mention the rulebook in your comment. It's quoted above. " if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely"
That is demonstrably false, as you've admitted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

copper.talos wrote:
1.In the Morale section, you roll a check because of casualties when you lose 25% of the unit's models. So losses = casualties

The actual rule:

A unit losing 25% or more of its current
models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase
must take a Morale check at the end of that phase.

2.SoB FAQ equates RFP and RaaC. And that's the only ruling in existence. There is no rule or FAQ to differentiate between RFP and RaaC. So that FAQ creates a precedent.

No, it doesn't. I'm not sure why you refuse to accept it but the ruling is very tightly centered on St. C and not RFP==RFPaaC in general. If it was worded differently I'd agree.

3. RFP is found only in 1 or 2 codices by the same author, and its effect or difference from RaaC is never explained No other codex mentions RFP and BRB only mentions casualties.

That's relevant ... how?

4. First Blood is granted only when the unit is removed as a casualty. A unit destroyed by RFP should grant First Blood.

Therefore vehicles don't grant First Blood. That's a great interpretation, let's go with that.

1. "Removed from play" is not the same as "Removed as a casualty". Different words...

Yes. Different words are different.

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

No, you didn't mention the rulebook in your comment. It's quoted above. " if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely"
That is demonstrably false, as you've admitted.

I've admitted nothing of the sort, though you've now shown your penchant for not reading things in their entirety (I.E. this thread).

And no, it's not demonstrably false as they DO use both terms in the FAQ as well as reference abilities in the codex that would/should normally allow an RP roll but do not. A little common sense on the matter goes a long way. If an effect that still causes a model to be removed from play as a casualty (such as trazyn's surrogate hosts), which is the wording used in the RP/EL rules, does not allow RP to be rolled for and an ability that Removes from Play *does* allow for RP rolls to be made then you must ascertain that the two wordings mean the same thing. It is, apparently, not the result of dying that disallows a model an RP roll but apparently the cause of this removal. As such, it would appear that the only cause of removal that does not allow an RP/EL token to be placed would be effects that replace models. Everything else allows a token to be placed, certain circumstances remove these tokens.

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
#1 is no. Last Laugh explicitly removes as a casualty. Jaws does not.

That has no bearing, if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely when describing reanimation protocol allowance or dis-allowance.

Cite the FAQs you're talking about please. The only occurrence of the word "remove" in the Necron FAQ is in the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" or "removed by a failed Reanimation Protocols roll" or "removed as a casualty"

Uh...what other method of removing is there then? Seriously, you just listed off all the ways a model is removed. Two of those are how every other model is removed.

Removing from play.

You said they alternate between Remove from Play and "as a casualty" in the FAQs. I could not find any proof of that. Since you said it, the burden of proof falls on you to either show me what you meant or concede that nothing like that exists.

I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book. Things that RFPaaC still disallow the use of RP and things that RFP allow RP.

No, you didn't mention the rulebook in your comment. It's quoted above. " if you look at the FAQ for necrons they alternate between "Remove from Play" and "As a casualty" freely"
That is demonstrably false, as you've admitted.

I've admitted nothing of the sort, though you've now shown your penchant for not reading things in their entirety (I.E. this thread).

When you made your post to me, you mentioned literally nothing with respect to the rulebook.
And I apologize - I thought "I did, and also pointed out that it was doing it in tandem with the rule book." was admitting that you were conceding the point.
And you're acting like FAQs can't change rules or force exceptions - Trazyn not allowing you to come back is an exception.

Your original post saying that the FAQ alternated use of RFP and aaC is demonstrably false. I've shown the 4 times the word "remove" is used in the Necron FAQ and none of them are used in that manner.
If you disagree, please cite the ruling.

If an effect that still causes a model to be removed from play as a casualty (such as trazyn's surrogate hosts), which is the wording used in the RP/EL rules, does not allow RP to be rolled for and an ability that Removes from Play *does* allow for RP rolls to be made then you must ascertain that the two wordings mean the same thing.

No, you must not. You must accept that the former is an exception and not a rule.

It is, apparently, not the result of dying that disallows a model an RP roll but apparently the cause of this removal. As such, it would appear that the only cause of removal that does not allow an RP/EL token to be placed would be effects that replace models. Everything else allows a token to be placed, certain circumstances remove these tokens.

That's an argument for intent, not how the rules are written. You should note when you're attempting to discuss intent.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
1.In the Morale section, you roll a check because of casualties when you lose 25% of the unit's models. So losses = casualties

The actual rule:

A unit losing 25% or more of its current
models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase
must take a Morale check at the end of that phase.

Hmmm it seems you forgot something. Let me correct it for you

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

And in the end the "against" side, the only thing it has is "different words". No arguments whatsoever...

PS all international tournaments go with RFP=RaaC.

copper.talos wrote:

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

No. Casualties is the loss of 25% of the models in the unit. So every time the rules tell you to RFPaaC, you must remove 25% or more of the models in the unit.

And in the end the "against" side, the only thing it has is "different words". No arguments whatsoever...

In a language that has words, different words mean different things. For them to mean the same thing you have to be told they mean the same thing.
Are we ever told that RFP means the same thing as RFPaaC? Told, not lightly implied or hinted at.

PS all international tournaments go with RFP=RaaC.

Well why didn't you say so?! You've convinced me. No, really - this is the perfect argument! It's from sources that are cited as valid in the tenets of this forum and everything!
</sarcasm>
When tournaments follow the rules as written instead of divining intent, I'll care what they say when it comes to the rules as written.

Rigeld - I'm not acting like FAQ's can't change the rules, I know they can and have. That has no bearing here though, I'm not making any point of rules changing or anything of that sort (nor do I think others here are). So I don't think this line of reasoning on your part is going to go anywhere.

No, that was not conceding anything, that was filling in a blank that was left out in my earlier post regarding the FAQ's, as I was cross-referencing the two at the time and I didn't bother to make note of that originally.

It's not just trazyn's ability, it's "any" ability that replaces the model with another model. So, getting turned into a chaos spawn, getting turned into a squiq, getting turned into trazyn, or any other such nonsense. So do you know if all of those use the same "Removed from play as a casualty" wording? Trazyn's does, I know that for sure...I'd venture to say that one of the others says "Removed from play and replaced with..." Either way, it is the replacement effect that bypasses RP, not the wording of RFPaaC or RFP.

Yes, you must, as I've stated already there is allowance for "Removed from play" to be allowed a roll to come back, or rather a token to be placed.

There's really a simple way to decide this...does it say, in the rule book, what the difference between RFP and RFPaaC is? Does it say, in *any* codex, what the difference is?
Does the rulebook use the phrase "removed from play" without "as a casualty" or without the word "casualty" directly proceeding or preceding it?

And no, it's not an argument of intent, you just want it to be. That *is* how the rules are written as it is spelled out in the in the FAQ. Though there are two other instances where tokens are not allowed to be placed as well but those are indisputably made clear of that, which are Sweeping advance and Death or Glory. Which, by the way, also RFPaaC.
So I take you back full circle, RFPaaC or RFP, it does not matter. There needs to be more to it than that.

rigeld2 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:

"Casualties: A unit losing 25% or more of its current models during asingle Movement or Shooting phase must take a Morale check at the end of that phase". So losing models=casualties.

No. Casualties is the loss of 25% of the models in the unit. So every time the rules tell you to RFPaaC, you must remove 25% or more of the models in the unit.

I don't understand what you are talking about.