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.

Me and my friend Iranna (name on this sight) have been debating recently weather a Necron can stand back up from Jaws.


These are what we have said so far

"Necron cannot resurrect from JOTWW, it removes them from play entirely. This is because the wording of RP states that it can only be used if a Necron would be removed "as a casualty," where as JOTWW just says "remove from play."

There is a reason the faq specifically talks about The Last Laugh, and doesn't mention JOTWW or powers like The Last Laugh, and that is because The Last Laugh removes models from play "as casualties." Just because you are given permission to use RP on Last Laugh, doesn't mean that you have permission to use it on JOTWW." (me to them)


he then said

" "Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention special rule
against attacks that remove models from play? (White Dwarf, August
2011, Page 103)
A: Yes." - SoB FAQ.

"Miraculous Intervention: Every time Celestine is removed as a casualty..." - SoB codex.

" If a model with the Reanimation Protocols special rule is removed as a casualty..." - Necron Codex.

Looks like a precedent to me."


To which i said


"Miraculous Intervention"

"Reanimation Protocols"

Miraculos intervention=specific>general
Re-animation protocols=general=general


Miraculous intervention is specific to St C however Re-animation is a general rule that Necrons have.

Going by your account then Vehicles do not give first blood as vehicles can't be "removed from play" they can only be destoyed not removed.



to which he said


This isn't a case of specific over general at all.

This is a case of you not accepting a precedent laid down in other codices which have the same wording regarding a rule.

And actually, by strict RAW, the only was for a unit to be removed as a casualty (the pre-requisite of getting First Blood) is for them to either be swept or for them to fall back off of the table. Therefore, vehicles could never be First Blood


Then i said



thats strange because it appears to be St C's (specific) special rule that can, however the general Necron rule (as found under "special rules" in there codex) doesn't not only that but in the Faq in terms of resurect in specifically says "Lukas the trickster's last laugh" again meaning that the Necrons CAN re-an against this, but not the specific JOTWW.

In addition you are using two different Faq's intended for two individual things.

In conclusion the Faqs also specifically says that St C's can resurrect against general rules that remove people from play, whilst the Necrons specifically says Last laugh.

There for you have two different Faq's, two different special rules, two different circumstances, two different cases of Specific>general only the wording is that same and even then the wording of JOTWW and LL are different.

there for there has been no presidence set as the two are completely different.



finally he said


Okay Scott I'll make this very blunt.

1) you're completely misunderstanding the concept of "Specific V General". This is only applied where two rules clash, i.e. "You can never re-roll a dice more than once" -Rulebook and "You must re-roll rolls of Dark Apotheosis and Spawnhood" - CSM Boons. So, does Celestine's and the Necron rules clash? No? Well you don't apply the principle.

2) It's called a "precedent" not a "presidence". Judging by your last sentence, you clearly don't understand what a precedent is. A precedent is where a related topic has already been ruled on, of which you can apply to your current situation.

Now, if you're using the fact that they come from two different codex FAQs then you're basically using semantics to win the argument. The fact of the matter is, Celestine's wording is precisely the same as Reanimation Protocols. She has received and FAQ and they haven't. So why, apart from 'differing codex FAQs' can't we apply it here?






So forum can the Crons come back to being alive after the earth has swallowed them. Or can they do the impossible.

Point of order:

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
1) you're completely misunderstanding the concept of "Specific V General". This is only applied where two rules clash, i.e. "You can never re-roll a dice more than once" -Rulebook and "You must re-roll rolls of Dark Apotheosis and Spawnhood" - CSM Boons. So, does Celestine's and the Necron rules clash? No? Well you don't apply the principle. .

This is not the correct wording for Gift of mutation on Codex: CSM P.67 tells you to roll again, which is different from a Re-Roll.

On Topic. there have been many threads about this.

Read this thread and decide for yourselves. If you still can not agree then roll a die and play it that way until there is an FaQ.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/487461.page#4955314

AFAIK



I dont have the necron codex in front of me, but

protocol works off of models removed as "casualties"

pg 3 BRB states "if at any point a models strength toughness or wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty"


JOTW, and other abilities which simply remove models from play, via characteristic test or some special rule, do so without wounding (pg 3, 15, and 25 talk about removing casualties in BRB, all have to do with wounds (pg 3 deals with wounds STR and T)

that vehicles are never listed as being removed as casualties (AFAIK, please someone correct me with citations if i missed where they are) is another YMDC thread entrirely.

I would think that removed, is removed as a casualty, since what else are you removing it as? not to mention no 1st blood on vehicles...




this is a tricky one, RAW isnt that clear, because sometimes they dont add the "as a casualty" after, but what else are they removed as? is it deliberate or just to save space? cant say I know for sure on this one,


HIWP and my RAI

only ever matters against the crons.... Id roll off or just give it to them rather then argue...

There has long been a logical fallacy put forth that models that simply get removed from play are not being removed as casualties because they do not specifically say that word and that premise has been used to push forth an agenda that somehow there is some massive difference between being removed as a casualty and just being removed.

In all their FAQ answers, GW has never, ever answered in the affirmative that an attack that just removes a model from the table is *not* removing that model as a casualty, yet still people persist in believing there to be some massive distinction.

The ONLY ruling on this matter is St. Celestine, and her particular ruling says that her ability (which is triggered upon being removed as a 'casualty') applies even when she just gets removed from the table.


So for my money, I say that attacks that just remove models from the table still count as those models being removed as a casualty. So I allow Necrons to use their RP against JotWW, for example.

Yet GW did decide that there was a difference between "Slain Outright" and "Instant Death". 4th edition FW vs eternal warriors, and DH up until GK codex release.

nosferatu1001 wrote:
Yet GW did decide that there was a difference between "Slain Outright" and "Instant Death". 4th edition FW vs eternal warriors, and DH up until GK codex release.

And that distinction still exists to this day...for example, Gargantuan Creatures suffer D3 wounds when hit by an attack that would remove them outright, but they completely Ignore Instant Death.

Instant Death is just a special rule that causes a model to be removed instantly as a casualty. However there are many other abilities that do a similar thing, but just aren't instant death.

But that point is irrelevant to whether a model that gets removed from an attack is considered to be a casualty whether the ability states it or not.

People have put forth the fallacy that because an ability doesn't say the word 'casualty' in it, therefore the model getting removed cannot be a casualty, which is, of course a false premise...the reality is the only thing that can be determined from such a situation is that we do not know if it is, or isn't a casualty.

And my point is, that the ONLY ruling GW has ever made on the matter is that St. Celestine's ability (which triggers on getting removed as a casualty) does apply when she is killed by something that simply removes her from the table.

I am entirely in agreement with Yakface. The St. Celestine ruling is a clear precedent. It equates being removed from play with being removed as a casualty.

Sure, but it only does so for St. Celestines' specific ability, not every ability which mentions being removed as a casualty. For what it's worth i agree with the both of you, i just wish that they'd make that a heck of a lot more clear than they have up to this point.

I can see no good reason there isn't something like this in the FAQ: "Being removed from play as a casualty is the same thing as being removed from play in all instances" rather than just a smattering of specific exceptions here and there.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure, but it only does so for St. Celestines' specific ability, not every ability which mentions being removed as a casualty.

Why not? It's a FAQ, answering a specific question, but we have the human ability to employ deductive reasoning and figure out WHY it works. It works because a model which is removed from play IS being removed as a casualty. That's the conclusion on offer there.

Premise 1: St. Celestine's rule says she can come back when she's removed as a casualty.
Premise 2: GW says her rule works when a rule Removes her from Play.
Conclusion: Removing a Model from play is removing it as a casualty.

I do agree that it would be cleaner and clearer for folks if they went ahead and made a more general ruling in the main rulebook FAQ. Most players don't read the Sisters FAQ.

I've always seen the removed from play wording as a way of causing Instant Death that still works against Eternal Warriors, in all but the words used, the same as being removed as a casualty, so yes I'd let you take your reanimation.

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure, but it only does so for St. Celestines' specific ability, not every ability which mentions being removed as a casualty. For what it's worth i agree with the both of you, i just wish that they'd make that a heck of a lot more clear than they have up to this point.

I can see no good reason there isn't something like this in the FAQ: "Being removed from play as a casualty is the same thing as being removed from play in all instances" rather than just a smattering of specific exceptions here and there.

If there was some other instance of GW ruling that something that triggers on being removed as a casualty didn't work then I would be in agreement. But so far there isn't.

So people have made this distinction up that being removed from play means the model doesn't count as being removed as a casualty without thinking where that line of reasoning actually leads. If a model isn't removed as a casualty, does that mean the unit they were part of can never count as being 'destroyed' for things like Power From Pain, First Blood, etc? Because I don't see how you can claim that a model is not a casualty but somehow the unit is still destroyed.

But back to the point: playing that attacks which remove models from play still count as causing casualties breaks absolutely no rules, and follows the one precedent that GW has actually ruled on the matter.

 yakface wrote:
If there was some other instance of GW ruling that something that triggers on being removed as a casualty didn't work then I would be in agreement. But so far there isn't.

The problem is that there are too many instances in the FAQs where someone claims that a question sets a precedent only for another question disproves that so-called precedent that I would be hesitant to claim any single question sets a precedent one way or the other.

yakface wrote:If there was some other instance of GW ruling that something that triggers on being removed as a casualty didn't work then I would be in agreement. But so far there isn't.

So people have made this distinction up that being removed from play means the model doesn't count as being removed as a casualty without thinking where that line of reasoning actually leads. If a model isn't removed as a casualty, does that mean the unit they were part of can never count as being 'destroyed' for things like Power From Pain, First Blood, etc? Because I don't see how you can claim that a model is not a casualty but somehow the unit is still destroyed.

But back to the point: playing that attacks which remove models from play still count as causing casualties breaks absolutely no rules, and follows the one precedent that GW has actually ruled on the matter.

Your wish is my command (from the ork FAQ):
"Q. Are models that are immune to instant death (such as those with Eternal Warrior) removed from the table when hit by a shokk attack gun that rolls a “Raargh” result? (p35)
A. Yes, unless they are gargantuan creatures or super-heavy vehicles (see the Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse book)."

...If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty..."

Gargantuan creatures and superheavy vehicles have rules negating instant death or (or in this case removal from play) and replacing it with something else. Most other effects which contain the verbiage 'remove from play as a casualty' or some varient there of don't have the above rules-text or anything similar and further don't have an FAQ like st celestine's providing that functionality either.

As i've mentioned it's intuitive enough to presume that they intended all potential varients of that phrase to mean the same thing. What it is 'not' is clearly defined that they in fact do. Players should not have to 'infer' something so fundamental to the game, that is what FAQs are for.

Strybjorn, thank you for presenting both sides of the argument. It's appreciated.

That being said, based on the arguments you've presented, and those voiced by Yakface, I'm in total agreement with the interpretation that Reanimation Protocols is granted to a model killed by Jaws of the World Wolf.

Nevertheless, I can see how this is a tricky and confusing issue. Personally, I would like to see it clarified in an FAQ at some point, but until that time I will continue both taking the rolls for my own Necrons, and allowing them to my opponents.

 Neorealist wrote:

yakface wrote:If there was some other instance of GW ruling that something that triggers on being removed as a casualty didn't work then I would be in agreement. But so far there isn't.

So people have made this distinction up that being removed from play means the model doesn't count as being removed as a casualty without thinking where that line of reasoning actually leads. If a model isn't removed as a casualty, does that mean the unit they were part of can never count as being 'destroyed' for things like Power From Pain, First Blood, etc? Because I don't see how you can claim that a model is not a casualty but somehow the unit is still destroyed.

But back to the point: playing that attacks which remove models from play still count as causing casualties breaks absolutely no rules, and follows the one precedent that GW has actually ruled on the matter.

Your wish is my command (from the ork FAQ):
"Q. Are models that are immune to instant death (such as those with Eternal Warrior) removed from the table when hit by a shokk attack gun that rolls a “Raargh” result? (p35)
A. Yes, unless they are gargantuan creatures or super-heavy vehicles (see the Warhammer 40,000: Apocalypse book)."

...If a model suffers an unsaved Wound from an Attack that has a Strength value of double its Toughness value or greater (after modifiers), it is reduced 0 Wounds and removed as a casualty..."

Gargantuan creatures and superheavy vehicles have rules negating instant death or (or in this case removal from play) and replacing it with something else. Most other effects which contain the verbiage 'remove from play as a casualty' or some varient there of don't have the above rules-text or anything similar and further don't have an FAQ like st celestine's providing that functionality either.

As i've mentioned it's intuitive enough to presume that they intended all potential varients of that phrase to mean the same thing. What it is 'not' is clearly defined that they in fact do. Players should not have to 'infer' something so fundamental to the game, that is what FAQs are for.

What you have presented does not set a conflicting precedent at all. There is *no* current conflicting ruling. I went through and checked every single FAQ recently when working on the BAO FAQ specifically to see if there were any issues.

All that you posted is a question where they answer that, yes, there is a difference between suffering instant death and just being removed outright. That does NOT in any way say that the model being removed by that ability is not a casualty.

So again, what you would need to find would be an actual question revolving around an ability that is triggered when a model is removed as a casualty (such as reanimation protocols, St. Celestine's ability, etc) and a FAQ ruling by GW stating that the model doesn't get to use that ability when removed outright.

But again, I'll save you the time and tell you that there is no such ruling in existence. The only one is St. Celestine and it tells us that yes, she can use her ability even when removed outright despite the fact that it is triggered by being removed as a casualty.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Ghaz wrote:

 yakface wrote:
If there was some other instance of GW ruling that something that triggers on being removed as a casualty didn't work then I would be in agreement. But so far there isn't.

The problem is that there are too many instances in the FAQs where someone claims that a question sets a precedent only for another question disproves that so-called precedent that I would be hesitant to claim any single question sets a precedent one way or the other.

Again, if there were some conflicting situation or the rulebook presented us with some alternative to a model being removed as a casualty, but it doesn't. So why wouldn't that ruling set a precedent until something else comes along and contradicts it? That's the whole point of a precedent. I would never claim that what I was saying is 100% flawless by the RAW because it isn't. I'm inferring that models removed outright are still casualties based on the fact that the only ruling by GW backs up this position and it makes logical sense within the framework of the rules.

Now, if GW later comes along and issues a contradictory ruling on a similar situation, then you go back to it being a crapshoot of not knowing which way to play. But until then...yes we have a precedent because the rules don't clearly identify that a model being removed outright is not a casualty.

yakface wrote: Now, if GW later comes along and issues a contradictory ruling on a similar situation, then you go back to it being a crapshoot of not knowing which way to play. But until then...yes we have a precedent because the rules don't clearly identify that a model being removed outright is not a casualty.

is that not what you were looking for; an official source that indicates that removed as a casualty and removed from play are different things?

Because IMHO a single question is not enough to set a precedent. If you had multiple questions backing your position then I would say you have a precedent. A single question could just as easily be the exception to the rule as it is a precedent.

 Ghaz wrote:
Because IMHO a single question is not enough to set a precedent. If you had multiple questions backing your position then I would say you have a precedent. A single question could just as easily be the exception to the rule as it is a precedent.

True but there is nothing else that gives us information in either direction. So how would you play? That removed as casualty = removed from play or that removed as casualty =/= removed from play (and all the issues that causes re VPs)

One reading follows the only precedent and causes no other problems the other reading goes against the only precedent and causes all sorts of other issues in the rules...

The necrons cannot come back from being exchanged with another model unlike sister celestine. I think that shows that these rules are different and necrons haven't a get out of jaws free card.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The necrons cannot come back from being exchanged with another model unlike sister celestine. I think that shows that these rules are different and necrons haven't a get out of jaws free card.

That has nothing to do with it. Just because Celestine's rules have more benefits over and above that of Reanimation Protocols doesn't mean that this singular issue is any different. They both have the same wording regarding "Removed as a casualty". Is it not surmisable that their FAQs regarding "Removed as a casualty = Removed from play" are interchangeable?

Iranna.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
The necrons cannot come back from being exchanged with another model unlike sister celestine. I think that shows that these rules are different and necrons haven't a get out of jaws free card.

Are you saying models removed from play are not models removed as casualties? do you really believe the rules are that these models are not casualties?

Well that's just it, there is a lot more to celestine.
People seem to cherry pick the parts they want from her rules until GW take them away.

Celestine would equate any removal from the board in any way for her but necron faq's seem to disagree that it is the same for them.

 liturgies of blood wrote:
Well that's just it, there is a lot more to celestine.
People seem to cherry pick the parts they want from her rules until GW take them away.

Celestine would equate any removal from the board in any way for her but necron faq's seem to disagree that it is the same for them.

Then Jaws can never be used to gain First Blood because the rule book clearly states that First Blood can only be gained by "removed as a casualty" and since Jaws never removes anything by a casualty, according to your line of logic, then it doesn't work.

As we digress further into this strict RAW we can also look at Slay the Warlord. It says that Slay the Warlord is only granted if the Warlord "has been slain". Where in the rules does it state what is slain vs "removed as casualty" vs "removed from play"?

Aycee

Nobody says that both rules are exactly the same. But the part of Celestine's rule that matters for this specific issue is exactly the same as that of the RP. So the faq can be used as a precedent.

Well where does the brb define slain?

Is a model that is replaced removed as a casualty?

That precedent gets weaker every time another aspect of celestine's rule diverges from the necron's rules.
Does telion get the abilities of a vindicare as they have similar rules? They both used to be very similar so what about now?

Both Celestine and Necrons put a token when the model is removed as a casualty. That's all the similarity needed to create a precedent for this specific matter.

Precedents are used all the time where is need for a ruling. In 5th we used an Eldar FAQ about an exarch for the Manticore, we use the faq for Baal for other vehicles (even from other codices) with scout and smoke launchers etc...

Liturgies

answer the question. Are models removed by Jaws casualties?

Well, if we are using a single question as precedent, then that means an embarked psyker cannot cast powers that do not require LOS, as set by the Eldar FAQ.

I'm aware of that. The Baal was the exact same as other scout vehicles.

Celestine is both more specific and different from the RP and everliving rules. Is there anywhere that actually says that the necron rules have any words about coming back from removed from play like celestine does?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Liturgies

answer the question. Are models removed by Jaws casualties?

What does jaws say? That is your answer. Off the top of my head look at page 38 of the SW codex.

 yakface wrote:

 Neorealist wrote:
Sure, but it only does so for St. Celestines' specific ability, not every ability which mentions being removed as a casualty. For what it's worth i agree with the both of you, i just wish that they'd make that a heck of a lot more clear than they have up to this point.

I can see no good reason there isn't something like this in the FAQ: "Being removed from play as a casualty is the same thing as being removed from play in all instances" rather than just a smattering of specific exceptions here and there.

If there was some other instance of GW ruling that something that triggers on being removed as a casualty didn't work then I would be in agreement. But so far there isn't.

So people have made this distinction up that being removed from play means the model doesn't count as being removed as a casualty without thinking where that line of reasoning actually leads. If a model isn't removed as a casualty, does that mean the unit they were part of can never count as being 'destroyed' for things like Power From Pain, First Blood, etc? Because I don't see how you can claim that a model is not a casualty but somehow the unit is still destroyed.

But back to the point: playing that attacks which remove models from play still count as causing casualties breaks absolutely no rules, and follows the one precedent that GW has actually ruled on the matter.

Yakface - I would just like to point out, as playing devils advocate here, that when using Trazyn's ability to take over a Lychguard or Lord via his surrogate hosts rule, this removes that model as a casualty but does not allow RP/EL rolls.