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.

 Happyjew wrote:


Right, it sets a precedent that psychic powers that do not require LoS cannot be used by an embarked psyker.

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.

And no other codex I'm aware of has the Miraculous Intervention special rule.

That's true, but the Eldar Power FAQ is far more specific than the Miraculous Intervention one as the Eldar Power FAQ only makes mention of Eldar psykers.

i.e:

Yes, Eldar Psykers cannot cast powers that do not require LoS from a transport but this does not set a precedent to effect any other psyker as they are not Eldar psykers.

Yes, Celestine can get up from effects which "remove from play". Yet, her wording in the rule only makes mention of being "removed as a casualty". Is this not then applicable to models with RPs because they have a similar rule which discusses "removed as a casualty"?

Iranna.

And the St. C FAQ only makes mention of St. C. Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.

 Happyjew wrote:
And the St. C FAQ only makes mention of St. C. Maybe I'm not understanding your argument.

Perhaps not.

Iranna.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Iranna wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
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.

"Q: The Farseer Psychic Powers rules state that they do not require the
Eldar Psyker to have line of sight to the target. Does this mean that they
can be used by an Eldar psyker embarked on a Transport? (p28)
A: No."

You are correct, if said psyker is an Eldar psyker using Farseer powers. It's quite specific there, no other codex that I'm aware of is an Eldar psyker which uses Farseer powers.

Iranna.

Right, it sets a precedent that psychic powers that do not require LoS cannot be used by an embarked psyker.

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.

And no other codex I'm aware of has the Miraculous Intervention special rule.

Ah excellent, so I can still cast Eldar Farseer powers on units embarked on a transport while my Farseer is outside! Thanks very much for your one word answer GW.

yet again i am going to sound like an idiot here


"miraculous intervention" (specific to St C)
"R.P" (GENERAL necron rule)

in the Faq R.P specifically says "last laugh" and gives no mention to JOTWW or any other thing that simply removes models.

So how can you cross Faq's to get the answer you want, you must go by the codex Faq if unsure, otherwise there would be lots of "crossing for advantage"(?).

yakface,

Why is the St. C ruling precedent that crosses codexes and tells you your opposition (in this debate) is making an argument based on a fallacy, but only Eldar cannot casts yet powers while embarked?

Same basic wording to the questions (very specific to the relevant codex), same type of answer (simple yes/no). Unless you're for every Psyker being unable to cast while embarked - I'd like to not misrepresent your opinion.

rigeld2 wrote:
yakface,

Why is the St. C ruling precedent that crosses codexes and tells you your opposition (in this debate) is making an argument based on a fallacy, but only Eldar cannot casts yet powers while embarked?

Same basic wording to the questions (very specific to the relevant codex), same type of answer (simple yes/no). Unless you're for every Psyker being unable to cast while embarked - I'd like to not misrepresent your opinion.

So in this case, a Hellhound can fire smoke launchers during a scout move, but the BAAL across the table cannot..lol

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
yakface,

Why is the St. C ruling precedent that crosses codexes and tells you your opposition (in this debate) is making an argument based on a fallacy, but only Eldar cannot casts yet powers while embarked?

Same basic wording to the questions (very specific to the relevant codex), same type of answer (simple yes/no). Unless you're for every Psyker being unable to cast while embarked - I'd like to not misrepresent your opinion.

So in this case, a Hellhound can fire smoke launchers during a scout move, but the BAAL across the table cannot..lol

Technically correct. In 5th edition. Since Scout isn't a move in 6th no one can launch smoke.

 strybjorn Grimskull wrote:
yet again i am going to sound like an idiot here


"miraculous intervention" (specific to St C)
"R.P" (GENERAL necron rule)

in the Faq R.P specifically says "last laugh" and gives no mention to JOTWW or any other thing that simply removes models.

So how can you cross Faq's to get the answer you want, you must go by the codex Faq if unsure, otherwise there would be lots of "crossing for advantage"(?).

People try and cross for advantage all of the time. Even when the precedent they are using is directly contradicted by a different codices FAQ. I've seen this come up recently with the release of DA. Their terminators are technically not allowed to take a CML + storm shield by the book, players have tried to use the precedent set by Ork nobs taking a power claw as a way of showing that the order of which your purchase wargear matters IE you buy the TH/SS, replace all wargear, then buy a CML. But the BA FAQ concerning Furioso librarians tells us that no, you absolutely can not do this. Which FAQ do we listen to?

Until something official is said about these questionable rules, players and TO's alike are going to have to make their own house rules to allow or disallow things. I just hope that they are consistent with what they allow. if we're using the SOB FAQ for st.C to say that all removed from play effects treat things as casualties, that's fine... It's not official, but it will work for some events/stores.

 Happyjew wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The only precedent set by St. Celestine is that a model must have a rule that specifically overrides removed from play. Miraculous intervention does just that. We see that in the case of Lukas and Last Laugh that MI and RP/EL go out of there way to specifically negate the removed from play from Last Laugh.

Last Laugh is a bad example as it RFPaaC (assuming a difference between RFPaaC and RFP).

The rules and FAQ would disagree with you,

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.

Last Laugh removes from play, however RP/EL and MI are given specific permission to override Last Laugh.

Jefffar wrote:
Just to point out, the Sweeping Advance rules specify that models are removed as casualties and do not allow Reanimation Protocols.

So yes, it is possible for a Necron model to get removed as a casualty and not get Reanimation Protocols.

Sweeping advance does not disallow RP from working by itself. But all RP counters are removed the moment the unit loses its morale check because of the RP wording. On the other hand Everliving counters stay and can be rolled at the end of the phase.

Does EL Specify it can come back after a SA? I did not think it mentioned it.

From the Sweeping Advances section: (p.26-27)
"Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage" P.27

No save or any other rule rescued the model. It got removed from play. The EL counter is not the model. It's just a counter.

Doesn't say model, it says unit.

Why is using smoke launchers after a scout move coming into the argument here? Using them is now in the shooting phase, so its a moot point regardless as using scout doesn't invoke shooting.

I would argue that strict RAW would require RFP to be different from RFPaaC. Neither term is defined fully defined in the ruleset, so why assume they are treated identically within that same ruleset? I can't think of an instance where RFP and RFPaaC is used interchangeably within the discussion of the same rule.

copper.talos wrote:
No save or any other rule rescued the model. It got removed from play. The EL counter is not the model. It's just a counter.

So, you rescued the model, that was a member of the unit, but havent rescued the unit?

Nice doublethink.

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 Tyr Grimtooth wrote:
The only precedent set by St. Celestine is that a model must have a rule that specifically overrides removed from play. Miraculous intervention does just that. We see that in the case of Lukas and Last Laugh that MI and RP/EL go out of there way to specifically negate the removed from play from Last Laugh.

Last Laugh is a bad example as it RFPaaC (assuming a difference between RFPaaC and RFP).

The rules and FAQ would disagree with you,

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.

Last Laugh removes from play, however RP/EL and MI are given specific permission to override Last Laugh.

Last laugh removes from play as a casualty. It says so in the rules. RP and EL have general permission to override last laugh.
I understand though where you may have gotten confused as it kicks in whenever he is "removed from play".

rigeld2 wrote:
yakface,

Why is the St. C ruling precedent that crosses codexes and tells you your opposition (in this debate) is making an argument based on a fallacy, but only Eldar cannot casts yet powers while embarked?

Same basic wording to the questions (very specific to the relevant codex), same type of answer (simple yes/no). Unless you're for every Psyker being unable to cast while embarked - I'd like to not misrepresent your opinion.

The difference in the two situations is that in the rulebook the rules clearly state that if a psychic power doesn't require line of sight it can be cast into/out of transports. So GW's ruling on the Eldar powers is a contradiction of what the rules clearly state.

Therefore, the Eldar ruling is an exception to the stated rules. Because there are clear rules in place regarding psychic powers into/out of transports, we cannot simply apply the Eldar ruling to every other power that doesn't require LOS because doing so would be contradicting the printed rules.


In the case of 'remove from play' attacks, the rules do not state that there exists such a thing as a 'remove from play' model that is quantifiably different than a casualty (and what that actually means for other game situations), so in THIS case, the St. Celestine ruling is not contradicting any basic rules but rather helping to cast light on the nebulous question of: does a model that gets removed via 'removed from play' count as being a casualty or not?

While I grant you that under the 6th edition rules they have cleaned it up and used only destroyed and removed as a casualty to refer to the outcome of bad things happening to a squad. It also says that destroyed models are removed from play as casualties. Did a bit of reading and they have managed to proof read that out of the book (not that they didn't miss so much other stuff).

I don't buy it was a precedent in 5th for necrons but that was from 5th ed where there did look to be multiple ways to be taken off the board, in 6th there is no way to remove a model that is not either ongoing reserves, a replacement or a casualty. Jaws does RFP but there is no way to remove a model from the board without it falling into either of the two catagories in the brb. Unless there is any rules that say how RFP works or equates it to being locked in ongoing reserves I don't think there is much else to say on the issue.

So using celestine as precedent in 6th, Jaws is rfpaac since celestine's rules say when she is a casualty but the faq says her rule works on RFP. So necrons get their RP and EL.

 yakface wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
yakface,

Why is the St. C ruling precedent that crosses codexes and tells you your opposition (in this debate) is making an argument based on a fallacy, but only Eldar cannot casts yet powers while embarked?

Same basic wording to the questions (very specific to the relevant codex), same type of answer (simple yes/no). Unless you're for every Psyker being unable to cast while embarked - I'd like to not misrepresent your opinion.

The difference in the two situations is that in the rulebook the rules clearly state that if a psychic power doesn't require line of sight it can be cast into/out of transports. So GW's ruling on the Eldar powers is a contradiction of what the rules clearly state.

Therefore, the Eldar ruling is an exception to the stated rules. Because there are clear rules in place regarding psychic powers into/out of transports, we cannot simply apply the Eldar ruling to every other power that doesn't require LOS because doing so would be contradicting the printed rules.


In the case of 'remove from play' attacks, the rules do not state that there exists such a thing as a 'remove from play' model that is quantifiably different than a casualty (and what that actually means for other game situations), so in THIS case, the St. Celestine ruling is not contradicting any basic rules but rather helping to cast light on the nebulous question of: does a model that gets removed via 'removed from play' count as being a casualty or not?

Agreed, although you've slightly misdescribed how the rulebook describes LOS and casting in transports. Rather than explicitly stating that powers which don't require LOS can be cast from inside transports, it states that because you can't draw LOS from inside a transport to units outside, a psyker can only cast powers which require LOS on himself, on the transport, or on other units in the transport. Either way, your same reasoning applies.