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.

Q: If a model is ‘removed from play’ due to such effects as failing their Initiative test against ‘Jaws of the World Wolf’, does this count as being removed as a casualty? (p15)
A: Yes.

Once again GW goes with reason and common sense against overly strict raw interpretations in its FAQs.

Yep. Which is why an embarked Farseer (still) cannot cast Farseer psychic powers.

The fact that this even needed to be spelled out so clearly is cringe-inducing.

 Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that this even needed to be spelled out so clearly is cringe-inducing.

Maybe, but I've been pilloried on multiple forums (including this one) for arguing that being removed by Jaws counts as being removed as a casualty.

I wouldn't say "pilloried" but saying it was absolutely clear was incorrect.

It comes down to inconsistent wording across differing codices, now it's been spelled out we can all move on (and hope GW learn the lesson and hire an editor).

Pyrian wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that this even needed to be spelled out so clearly is cringe-inducing.

Maybe, but I've been pilloried on multiple forums (including this one) for arguing that being removed by Jaws counts as being removed as a casualty.

People amuse themselves by twisting RAW and angrily arguing against common sense. It's best not to get involved.

I'm just glad that, once again, the FAQ spells out what sensible people already understood.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that this even needed to be spelled out so clearly is cringe-inducing.

Maybe, but I've been pilloried on multiple forums (including this one) for arguing that being removed by Jaws counts as being removed as a casualty.

People amuse themselves by twisting RAW and angrily arguing against common sense. It's best not to get involved.

I'm just glad that, once again, the FAQ spells out what sensible people already understood.

I don't argue angrily. I argue drunk. Slight difference.

 Monster Rain wrote:

Pyrian wrote:

 Monster Rain wrote:
The fact that this even needed to be spelled out so clearly is cringe-inducing.

Maybe, but I've been pilloried on multiple forums (including this one) for arguing that being removed by Jaws counts as being removed as a casualty.

People amuse themselves by twisting RAW and angrily arguing against common sense. It's best not to get involved.

I'm just glad that, once again, the FAQ spells out what sensible people already understood.

Common sense is something that you picked up as experience along the way.
Your common sense that makes what seems obvious does not and will not be the same to another individual.

Please don't imply that others are insensible if they do not agree with your common sense.

We all make mistakes, but cases like this are blatantly obvious.

I wouldn't have said it was blatantly obvious - I can see a Jaws-swallowed Necron having a little difficulty clawing its way back to the surface, for instance.

That said I'm happy it's been ruled this way - makes things a lot easier.

 Super Ready wrote:
I wouldn't have said it was blatantly obvious - I can see a Jaws-swallowed Necron having a little difficulty clawing its way back to the surface, for instance.

That said I'm happy it's been ruled this way - makes things a lot easier.

Agreed. While fluff-wise it does not make sense...it definitely makes the game go smoother.

There are many abilities that make their victim look that is gone for good and yet they allow Necrons to return to play. From the top of my mind I can think of 2 such abilities, Time Arrow (it sends the victim a few thousand years to the past) and Tesseract Labyrinth (it traps the victim in a pocket dimension). So returning to play from abilities with similar fluff is the rule not the exception.

wrong thread.

At last the monstrosity of Phil Kellys random creation of new rules and key words has been nuked. Very helpful.

copper.talos wrote:
There are many abilities that make their victim look that is gone for good and yet they allow Necrons to return to play. From the top of my mind I can think of 2 such abilities, Time Arrow (it sends the victim a few thousand years to the past) and Tesseract Labyrinth (it traps the victim in a pocket dimension). So returning to play from abilities with similar fluff is the rule not the exception.

Those two items never "removed from play" so the validity of models "coming back" from those was never in question.

i dont think of reanimate protocol as repairing the damaged/warped away/destroyed/ect necron,

I see it as the remaining necrons making another new necron,

glad GW actually clarified it though,

less and less do I care about the ruling, so long as everyone knows what it actually means and are playing by the same rules Im happy

In Fall of Damnos, damaged Necrons were teleported back to the Crypt.

I'm just saying...

 Kevin949 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
There are many abilities that make their victim look that is gone for good and yet they allow Necrons to return to play. From the top of my mind I can think of 2 such abilities, Time Arrow (it sends the victim a few thousand years to the past) and Tesseract Labyrinth (it traps the victim in a pocket dimension). So returning to play from abilities with similar fluff is the rule not the exception.

Those two items never "removed from play" so the validity of models "coming back" from those was never in question.

If you took the time to read what I was answering to, you would find that it was about the fluff of the JotWW, not the actual rule.

copper.talos wrote:

 Kevin949 wrote:

copper.talos wrote:
There are many abilities that make their victim look that is gone for good and yet they allow Necrons to return to play. From the top of my mind I can think of 2 such abilities, Time Arrow (it sends the victim a few thousand years to the past) and Tesseract Labyrinth (it traps the victim in a pocket dimension). So returning to play from abilities with similar fluff is the rule not the exception.

Those two items never "removed from play" so the validity of models "coming back" from those was never in question.

If you took the time to read what I was answering to, you would find that it was about the fluff of the JotWW, not the actual rule.

Maybe you should quote who you're responding to instead of some arbitrary comment in the middle of a thread.

And I knew what you were referring to, but using two examples that were not the same as jotww at all just wasn't a good one.

I posted a comment, only 2 people commented after that and then I posted the comment you quoted. Both of these people was talking about the fluff. I don't think it takes a genius to know to what I am responding to.
And what do yo think " So returning to play from abilities with similar fluff is the rule not the exception. " I wrote was reffering to? The fluff or the actual rule?

Just a quick post here on this one, as this is the first ive seen of this FAQ that has been released. I have always played my necrons like this, because the way the RAW state that if a necron is removed as a casualty, you get RP rolls. Fluff does not determine RAW, it makes it seem more logical sometimes, but it does not determine RAW.

Removed from play was not, until this faq, the same "thing" as REmoved as a casualty. You got RP from one and not the other

To the military it was. Doesn't matter where you went just as long as you weren't in the fight anymore you were a casualty.

 Gravmyr wrote:
To the military it was. Doesn't matter where you went just as long as you weren't in the fight anymore you were a casualty.

Not in your military. There is a big difference between KIA and MIA.

This ruling makes me quite happy. I have wasted far to much time over the last many years explaining why models that are removed from play are still casualties and now I don't have to bother repeating that mantra anymore.

The Celestine ruling was a big first step, but this; this is just like winning the lottery.

Between this and the blast marker rulings (causing casualties out of LOS), we can now all spend our time arguing about *other* stupid pointless things instead!

 Happyjew wrote:

Not in your military. There is a big difference between KIA and MIA.

Only recently. Go back and look at figures from before Vietnam. It wasn't until the military tried to make death tolls seem lower by saying that people were captured so not dead, just wait they'll be back, that we started counting them different.

Edit: Secondly the US military still counts them as casualties but MIA is a subcategory of this group. Have a look at the DoD Dictionary of Military Terms.

 Happyjew wrote:
Yep. Which is why an embarked Farseer (still) cannot cast Farseer psychic powers.

Pffffffff what about the Mind War? You can look out sir! a deadly mindlock with a telepathic being. Just in case you needed more incentive not to take it.

 xlEternitylx wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Yep. Which is why an embarked Farseer (still) cannot cast Farseer psychic powers.

Pffffffff what about the Mind War? You can look out sir! a deadly mindlock with a telepathic being. Just in case you needed more incentive not to take it.

From the 5th ed FAQ:
Q. Does Mind War allow cover saves? (p28)
A. Yes, this could represent the target diving behind
cover, out of sight of the Farseer and therefore
breaking the deadly mind-lock.

So if it is possible to avert ones eyes, it should also be possible for the commissar to grab Joe Nobody and hold him up in front of himself.