Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 00:38:22
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
DJGietzen wrote: insaniak wrote: Kriswall wrote:From the Forming a Unit section... "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organized into 'units'."
So, if all models must belong to a unit, what happens when a model dies? .
It is removed from play, and so is functionally no longer a part of the army.
A perfectly reasonable assumption, and extremely more then likely the RAI. Unfortunately the RAW makes no such assertion. If you look it this from a purely RAW perspective, and you absolutely should not, then a model removed as a casualty is still a model in your army, in that unit, and still has all his special rules.
So you're using it in ply despite the fact that it has been removed from play?
And you're saying that you have rules to support that?
I'd love to see that. Truly I would.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:44:50
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Rigeld2, Putting aside that the few few additional words you quoted changed very little, I will apologize for the oversight. Thank you for a whole bunch of additional Rules that had very little to do with the situation. I will sit here pondering for a while, where in the simple questions put forth did anyone ask what Models are or or what an Army List Entry / Datasheet was, before we get to the point that actually matters. In any case, let us look at what you quoted for the Rule that actually does matter, and a very important one at that, thank you. REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED Models that are removed as casualties are removed from the table and placed to one side. When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’. Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties, as far as the game rules are concerned. Take a look at the wording you quoted and realize there is a problem, you are reversing the sentence to fit your interpretation. I do not see anything within this section that informs me that Models are Removed from Play when they are Removed as a Casualty. The sentence states that models Removed from Play are also considered to have been Removed as a Casualty. This creates an additional effect on 'removed from play,' and while it might be a good Rule to use as an example I don't see how it fixes the problem in and of itself. It also reeks of vestigial, harking back to days where things like Jaws of the World Wolf could wipe whole units 'from play' and other far more common things of those times. Do you have anything more to support it aside from common sense?
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 01:46:32
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 01:46:28
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
The fact that the rulebook often uses the phrase "removed from play as a casualty" showing equivalency isn't enough? Automatically Appended Next Post: I even quoted where it says that with zero wounds that's what happens.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 01:47:09
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 02:08:23
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
No, because this Rule is not Written to state that at all till you can answer this questions for me:
Where in that rule does it state anything being Removed as a Casualty is to also be considered as having been Removed from Play?
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice Rule and very important but not for the purpose you are using it. It exists to prevent people like me from arguing that the Removed from Play Rules trump anything that can prevent a Model from being Removed as a Casualty. It doesn't, however, state that being Removed as a Casualty causes the Model to also be Removed from Play, but only the opposite. Maybe it was meant to, maybe the Authors want some Special Rules to stay in play when something dies... but the wording you quoted is also considered and re-writing the sentence to read it in reverse, then calling it Rules as Written is not enough.
I just wish I had more time to pull other Rules apart, ones that specifically state 'while alive' and effect Models after being Removed as a Casualty to see what breaks under your interpretation. I don't really care which way the breaks occur, I just find the very poor wording in these Rules something to always consider, but enough time spent on this for I. Work and more work calls to me the morning, and friends hate me enough as it is. I do say one thing in closing, before leaving the floor open to anyone what might want to continue.
Thank you for your input Rigeld2, at least you quoted a friggen Rule and put some spine into it!
Others seemed so willing to simply state 'oh yeah, sure, part of the Unit still unless specifically mentioned otherwise....
Then remain completely silent when asked if that means these sort of things continue to have an effect on the game, till they had a fragment of a Rule to hide behind.
|
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 02:17:09
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
insaniak wrote:In which case, as Nos pointed out before, your casualties and the remaining unit members will need to move to regain coherency, which is going to make playing out the rest of the game somewhat problematic.
Agreed, which is why I said I think this is a fundamental problem with how the rules are written. I certainly don't think anyone would really play this way.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 02:19:20
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Indeed, I like a Broadside with Heavy Rail Rifle, Champion rank (To lazy to look at the proper rank right now), and Targeting Array for a reason! So we know how I play it, beautiful as she is, she would be useless if she can't couldn't hunt Models with Special Rules and wargear I want gone from play.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 02:39:18
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 03:46:41
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
insaniak wrote:In which case, as Nos pointed out before, your casualties and the remaining unit members will need to move to regain coherency, which is going to make playing out the rest of the game somewhat problematic. That and Embarking on transports after a unit loses a model would be impossible if the model that was removed as a casualty is still a part of the unit...
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/07 05:00:21
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 04:41:58
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot
|
I'm a bit confused as to what the goal of this thread is... I mean, I'm all up for discussion of the interpretation of rules, but is there anything further anyone can say in this thread aside from "yep, GW didn't make absolutely perfect rules, we can't play perfectly RAW"?
Because there genuinely is no further angle to look at here, nothing huge we're missing. It simply boils down to this.... you either assume that a casualty is no longer part of the unit, or any unit that suffers a single casualty creates a wormhole that destroys time and space, because the unit needs to stay in coherency but can't leave the table to maintain coherency with the dead model. Draw a line on the x plane that touches a point on the z plane sort of stuff (assuming the x plane is parallel to the z plane).
So again.... there's no point saying the model is still in the unit. If you try and say the model is in the unit, the unit is destroyed because there's no way to keep it in coherency.... the only way to restore coherency is to remove the whole unit as casualties, or somehow bring back the dead model, only one of which is possible.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 12:03:50
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
JinxDragon wrote:No, because this Rule is not Written to state that at all till you can answer this questions for me:
Where in that rule does it state anything being Removed as a Casualty is to also be considered as having been Removed from Play?
Don't get me wrong, it is a nice Rule and very important but not for the purpose you are using it. It exists to prevent people like me from arguing that the Removed from Play Rules trump anything that can prevent a Model from being Removed as a Casualty. It doesn't, however, state that being Removed as a Casualty causes the Model to also be Removed from Play, but only the opposite. Maybe it was meant to, maybe the Authors want some Special Rules to stay in play when something dies... but the wording you quoted is also considered and re-writing the sentence to read it in reverse, then calling it Rules as Written is not enough.
I just wish I had more time to pull other Rules apart, ones that specifically state 'while alive' and effect Models after being Removed as a Casualty to see what breaks under your interpretation. I don't really care which way the breaks occur, I just find the very poor wording in these Rules something to always consider, but enough time spent on this for I. Work and more work calls to me the morning, and friends hate me enough as it is. I do say one thing in closing, before leaving the floor open to anyone what might want to continue.
Thank you for your input Rigeld2, at least you quoted a friggen Rule and put some spine into it!
Others seemed so willing to simply state 'oh yeah, sure, part of the Unit still unless specifically mentioned otherwise....
Then remain completely silent when asked if that means these sort of things continue to have an effect on the game, till they had a fragment of a Rule to hide behind.
So the rule I quoted that says a model with zero wounds is removed from play as a casualty doesn't mean it's removed from play?
Really?
Did you even read all the rules I quoted?
f at any point, a model’s Strength, Toughness or Wounds are reduced to 0, it is removed from play as a casualty.
As we both know, the shooting phase rules simply refer to this as being removed as a casualty. This means that RaaC is equivalent to RFPaaC.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 12:07:56
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Technically, by the rules, you need to throw your model into a black hole when it dies to ensure it's been completely destroyed. Since the model no longer exists in this universe, I think it's safe to say that it's no longer part of the unit, because non-existence tends to do that.
EDIT: The book doesn't define completely destroyed, because it assumes that you understand the generally accepted terminology of destroyed. It says to place them to the side, but that they are completely destroyed. It doesn't need to define the continuing existence of a destroyed model because the term "destroyed" has an intrinsic meaning. If "destroy" or "destroyed" didn't have intrinsic meaning, then you couldn't write the rules of Warhammer 40,000, because by the first verb, you'd have to define what the verb means, and couldn't define the verb because it would require an infinite regress of defining. Some language needs to have intrinsic value.
As for my earlier point, I looked up and saw that models don't exist in units until after you purchase them from the Army List Entry, and that you use the Army List Entry to define their existence. Admittedly, I figured this means that a destroyed model is no longer being defined by the Army List entry, because a destroyed and therefore non-existent model no longer exists to be defined.
The rules assume that destroyed has intrinsic meaning. A model that is destroyed is no longer part of a unit, because it no longer exists. We do not need clarification on that.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 12:15:00
Galef wrote:If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 12:15:46
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Yarium wrote:Technically, by the rules, you need to throw your model into a black hole when it dies to ensure it's been completely destroyed. Since the model no longer exists in this universe, I think it's safe to say that it's no longer part of the unit, because non-existence tends to do that.
No, that's not even close to "technically, by the rules" correct.
I'd be the last person to defend GW's rules authoring but let's not exaggerate that much please.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 12:25:18
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote:I'd be the last person to defend GW's rules authoring but let's not exaggerate that much please.
As I clarified in my edit, it actually calls for the models to be placed to the side, I know. The exaggeration is to identify that "destroyed" means "no longer existing" as far as the game is concerned. Once they're "put to the side", they are no longer in the game, and the best way to convey that information is to use the word "destroyed", because an actually destroyed model would no longer be able to be used in the game.
|
Galef wrote:If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 12:29:09
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Yarium wrote:rigeld2 wrote:I'd be the last person to defend GW's rules authoring but let's not exaggerate that much please.
As I clarified in my edit, it actually calls for the models to be placed to the side, I know. The exaggeration is to identify that "destroyed" means "no longer existing" as far as the game is concerned. Once they're "put to the side", they are no longer in the game, and the best way to convey that information is to use the word "destroyed", because an actually destroyed model would no longer be able to be used in the game.
It also says "remove from play" meaning it can't be used in the game. Which is actually the best way to convey that meaning - if they're removed from play you can't play with them.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 13:45:41
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
The core question is "does removed from play equate to removed from the unit".
The rules never say this, but common sense dictates it must be true. Otherwise, a ton of other rules appear to break. In fact, the rules tell us that all models in our army must be organized into units. If a model is removed from play and removed from its unit, then all of a sudden you have a model in your army that is no longer organized into a unit. So... is a model that's been removed as a casualty still a part of your army? If the answer is no, then the requirement to be in a unit goes away.
HIWPI: Removed from play also removes the model from its Unit for the purposes of all special rules interactions. Removed from play models should no longer be considered a part of your army.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 13:54:03
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
If it's removed from play then continuing to consider it part of a unit for any purposes is not leaving it removed from play - you're playing with it, in contrast to the rules.
Remove from play must mean it's removed from the game for all reasons, including being part of a unit.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 19:12:02
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
@rigeld2
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
2) Most statements about what special rules a model has do not have an expatriation date. For example, special rules from wargear (optional or standard), or special rules on a datasheet.
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
4) Models are part of units. Again, we have no permission to remove models from units when they are removed from play.
5) Some special rules grant benefits to other members of a unit. These special rules often do not require any member of that unit to be in play.
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 19:14:06
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
DJGietzen wrote:@rigeld2
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
Awesome. So I can use special rule from literally any model in existence? I mean, they aren't in play.
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
Not true. Even Reserves is "in play".
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
If you remove it from play but still use a special rule from it, it's not out of play. Meaning you're not obeying the rules.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 19:25:55
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Captain of the Forlorn Hope
|
rigeld2 wrote:If it's removed from play then continuing to consider it part of a unit for any purposes is not leaving it removed from play - you're playing with it, in contrast to the rules.
Remove from play must mean it's removed from the game for all reasons, including being part of a unit.
100% this.
A model that is removed from play is no longer a part of the unit.
|
"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.
I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!
We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 19:46:02
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote: DJGietzen wrote:@rigeld2
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
Awesome. So I can use special rule from literally any model in existence? I mean, they aren't in play.
No, just those orginised into units using datasheets this game. The models not organised into units using datasheets this game have no special rules .
rigeld2 wrote: DJGietzen wrote:
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
Not true. Even Reserves is "in play".
If a Flying monstrous creature is kept in reserves then as soon as it enters play you must choose a flight mode. The flying monstrous creature is clearly in reserves but not in play. There is nothing in the BRB to support the notion that models in reserves are 'in play'. Unless I missed something, in that case please bring up the relevent rule.
rigeld2 wrote: DJGietzen wrote:
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
If you remove it from play but still use a special rule from it, it's not out of play. Meaning you're not obeying the rules.
Can you provide any sort of rule support for that claim? What rules am I not following?
To be clear. I am talking about a strict reading of the RAW. You can either agree the strict reading does not prevent this nonsense or you can quote the rules where it does. Simply put removing the model as a casualty means next to nothing, and removing it from play means literally nothing.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 19:49:09
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Lieutenant General
|
Where are you getting your definition of "in play" means its on the table?
|
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 20:39:07
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
DJGietzen wrote:rigeld2 wrote: DJGietzen wrote:@rigeld2
1) Models have the special rules they are stated as having. There is no additional requirment the models be 'in play'.
Awesome. So I can use special rule from literally any model in existence? I mean, they aren't in play.
No, just those orginised into units using datasheets this game. The models not organised into units using datasheets this game have no special rules .
Why are you cutting it off at "this game"? I can bring the datasheets for literally every model to the game. They don't have to be in play, according to you.
rigeld2 wrote: DJGietzen wrote:
3) Unless the special rule specifically requires it, these special rules do not require the model to be in play for them to function. Sometimes the special rule only functions when the model is not in play.
Not true. Even Reserves is "in play".
If a Flying monstrous creature is kept in reserves then as soon as it enters play you must choose a flight mode. The flying monstrous creature is clearly in reserves but not in play. There is nothing in the BRB to support the notion that models in reserves are 'in play'. Unless I missed something, in that case please bring up the relevent rule.
What's your point about FMCs? They can only choose a flight mode before they move. They can't move off the table (because there's no rules for it) which is why they need rules on how to manage it.
That said, FMCs do say "If a Flying Monstrous Creature is kept as Reserves then, as soon as it enters play" so models in Reserve also do not get to contribute their abilities as they're demonstrably not in play.
This contradicts numerous other past rulings of things like "... is alive ... " meaning that the rule can be used.
rigeld2 wrote: DJGietzen wrote:
Can you show permission for a special rule from a model that has been removed from play to no longer function? Or show permission to remove a model from a unit when it is removed from play? I've read the removed as a casualty section of the BRB. There is no such permission there, nor is there anything to define what removed from play means. If we go by strict RAW, and again I can't stress enough how much we should not, then a dead model with something like slow and purposeful must still grant some sort of benefit to the other members of his unit. There is a flip-side to this ridiculousness though. Unit coherency will become impossible to restore, but the way its worded you would be required to try, once a model in a unit is killed that unit is essentially nullified. It will move and run in an attempt to get the casualty with 2" of at least one unit member for the rest of the game.
If you remove it from play but still use a special rule from it, it's not out of play. Meaning you're not obeying the rules.
Can you provide any sort of rule support for that claim? What rules am I not following?
To be clear. I am talking about a strict reading of the RAW. You can either agree the strict reading does not prevent this nonsense or you can quote the rules where it does. Simply put removing the model as a casualty means next to nothing, and removing it from play means literally nothing.
... This isn't a strict reading of the RAW - it's strictly a fantasy. As in the actual rules don't support what you've stated at all. I've shown that being removed as a casualty is the same thing as removing from play, and if you're not playing with a model you cannot ever use its rules.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 20:46:59
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
So in the same vain can you use special rules like warlord traits while in reserve?
What about special rules conferred by wargear like "staff of change"?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 20:47:49
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
Sunhero wrote:So in the same vain can you use special rules like warlord traits while in reserve?
What about special rules conferred by wargear like "staff of change"?
By the rules, no. Because those models are not in play.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 22:17:27
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
rigeld2 wrote:Sunhero wrote:So in the same vain can you use special rules like warlord traits while in reserve?
What about special rules conferred by wargear like "staff of change"?
By the rules, no. Because those models are not in play.
Not true. There is no rule stating that your warlord traits do nothing while in reserve. We know they have them but being in play is not a requirement. This is made more clear when you look at warlord traits like Master of Ambush, Master of Manoeuvre, or Strategic Genius. All of these warlord traits have some aspect to them that requires the model not be in play.
It should be noted that models removed as a casualty do not have a functioning warlord trait anymore.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/07 23:16:05
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
Vanished Completely
|
Rig, If the line you quoted had stated 'Remove from Play' instead of 'Remove as a Casualty' then maybe you would have a point. You keep saying that Remove from Play and Remove as a Casualty are the same thing, from a Rule as Written standpoint, without realizing the Rule you quoted does not state what you keep saying it states. This Clause is a one way relationship that grants Removed as a Casualty status to any Model that is Removed from play... nothing more. It completely fails to do the reverse, grant Removed from Play status to Models Removed as a Casualty, because it mentions nothing about also considering Removed as Casualty Models as having been Removed from Play. The reason why I can not accept your answer is simple, you keep rewriting the sentence! From: Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties to: Models that are ‘removed as casualties’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed from play How is changing the subject matters around, and in doing so changing the whole meaning of the original sentence, fit Rule as Written?! DJGietzen, The reason I don't bring up Warlord traits myself, even though they have a specific 'ends on death' clause, is the way they are granted in the first place. It is not a Special Rule found listed on the Datasheet, even if you have 'set Warlord Traits,' but one granted by other areas in the main Rulebook or Codex's. This grants a little bit of wriggle room when it comes to interpreting the Rule, making it possible to argue that Warlord Traits are under the Army-Wide umbrella, and therefore has to be treated a little differently to Model or Unit specific Rules. It is a 'tag' granted to a Model by a secondary Rule, not something specific to the Model itself, so it isn't precise enough to be evidence. Group at Large, I still must state, much to my great humor as my whole point was just to highlight broken situations, in effort to find a way to deny this broken situation we are walking into another equally broken situation: If you need to be on the table to be 'in play' And you can only access Special Rules when you are 'in play' Then a Model in Deep Strike reserve can never Deep Strike....
|
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2015/04/07 23:46:59
8th made it so I can no longer sway Tau onto the side of Chaos, but they will eventually turn aside from their idea of the Greater Good to embrace the Greatest of pleasures. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/08 03:26:56
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Junior Officer with Laspistol
|
Opening Premise: Models that are removed as casualties / destroyed take no further part in the battle, and no longer effect the game in any way. This is different from models that are in Reserve / Ongoing Reserve, or embarked in transports. While such models are also removed from the table, they have rules allowing their re-entry, and because they aren't 'dead' can still impact the game. This prevents 'dead' models from using abilities that could influence the outcome of the game such as, reserve manipulation effects, while allowing 'living' models that are off-table to still arrive via Reserve, or grant benefit from Warlord traits, etc. I believe this is a valid premise, as the game doesn't work otherwise.  Eventually, common understanding of language must be accepted in order for a Permissive Ruleset to be functional. One might disagree with this premise, but doing so would seem to indicate that becoming a "Casualty" in 40k simply prevents moving, psychic power use, shooting and assault. It would not stop you from using rules and abilities that exist outside of those contexts. An Astra Militarum's Senior Officer could be placed "to the side" of the table, within 12" of a unit that is still on the board. During the Shooting Phase, he could issue an order to the unit still on the board, as the only conditions preventing him from doing so are if [ AM Codex, pg 28] "... he is not locked in combat, embarked in a vehicle or building, falling back, or has gone to ground." Well, that and the SO must be within 12" of the receiving unit. Failure to accept the opening premise would allow your opponent to do such a thing. His position does not even need to be fixed, as he simply needs to be placed to the side, according to the rules for removing casualties.  At some point, reason requires that in the game of 40k, if a model is removed as a casualty, it has no further impact on the game unless given special rules to do so, such as Yarrick's ability to get back up... which is a replacement effect to being immediately removed as a casualty. Now, to cite rules that support the idea that a model removed as a casualty, such as the bearer of an Icon of Slaanesh, no longer allows their unit to benefit from the rules given by that model. 40k Rulebook, pg 9, Forming a Unit / Units: "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into 'units'. -> "In Warhammer 40,000, we represent this by grouping models together into units. A unit usually consists of several models that have banded together, but a single, powerful model, such as a lone character... or a rampaging monster, is also considered a unit in its own right." From this, we recognise that units are typically composed of "models". The whole is the sum of its parts. Those parts can change throughout the game, through the loss of models as casualties, or through the joining and leaving of Independent Characters. 40k Rulebook, pg 156, What Special Rules Do I Have?: "It may seem obvious, but unless otherwise stated, a model does not have a special rule. Most special rules are given to a model by the relevant Army List Entry or its unit type. That said, a model's attacks can gain special rules because of the weapon it is using." [Italic emphasis is mine.] From this, we see that special rules are granted to units when Models within them have those rules. If the model is no longer a part of the unit, through the loss of models as casualties or through the joining / leaving of Independent Characters, the unit likewise loses those special rules. 40k Rulebook, pg 166, Independent Character: {Joining and Leaving a Unit Section, Special Rules Section, Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects Section} From this, we see that the game allows the composition of a unit to change, as models are added or removed from it. A unit's composition is never fixed based on the beginning structure, but is instead allowed to change fluidly with game conditions. Some special rules can be gained by a unit through the addition of a Model [ie Stubborn] while others are not. By extension, some special rules can be lost through the leaving of a model, be it by choice or through removal as a casualty. Furthermore, the section Independent Characters and Ongoing Effects describes how, upon joining / departure from a unit, that IC does not confer nor receive the ongoing effects [special rules] that might be effecting one element or the other. Changes to a unit's model composition are reflected in immediate gain / loss of relevant special rules, as outlined above. The rules for IC's support this notion, and cited rules are requested to disprove this notion, before a meaningful counter argument is entertained. Chaos Marine Codex, pg 66, Icon of Excess: "Units with the Mark of Slaanesh only. All models with the Mark of Slaanesh in a unit equipped with an icon of excess have the Feel no Pain special rule." Chaos Marine Codex, pg 99, Noise Marines: "One model in the unit may take an icon of excess.... XX pts" Observing this, a Noise Marine unit may have one Model take an Icon of Excess. Without that model, the unit does not have the benefits of the IoE. As the structure of a unit is allowed to change with game conditions, the benefits of IoE are lost the moment the MODEL with the icon is removed as a casualty. The model with an IoE may use it's benefit to not be removed as a casualty, as that may prevent its removal as a casualty, but as soon as that model is removed, so is the benefit of the icon.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/04/08 03:34:57
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/08 03:39:51
Subject: Re:Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
And that's why I say that a destroyed model, by no longer existing, can't affect anything due to non-existence. It's not just not on the board, it's not in reserves, it's not even a model in your collection. It's destroyed, as in thrown into a black hole, but since you shouldn't do that, just place it to the side for the time being and count it as destroyed.
|
Galef wrote:If you refuse to use rock, you will never beat scissors. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/08 05:18:55
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
JinxDragon wrote:Rig,
If the line you quoted had stated 'Remove from Play' instead of 'Remove as a Casualty' then maybe you would have a point.
You keep saying that Remove from Play and Remove as a Casualty are the same thing, from a Rule as Written standpoint, without realizing the Rule you quoted does not state what you keep saying it states. This Clause is a one way relationship that grants Removed as a Casualty status to any Model that is Removed from play... nothing more. It completely fails to do the reverse, grant Removed from Play status to Models Removed as a Casualty, because it mentions nothing about also considering Removed as Casualty Models as having been Removed from Play.
The rules treat them as equal. Your failure to understand that is why your entire premise is wrong.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/08 12:08:43
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
The Hive Mind
|
DJGietzen wrote:
Not true. There is no rule stating that your warlord traits do nothing while in reserve. We know they have them but being in play is not a requirement. This is made more clear when you look at warlord traits like Master of Ambush, Master of Manoeuvre, or Strategic Genius. All of these warlord traits have some aspect to them that requires the model not be in play.
It should be noted that models removed as a casualty do not have a functioning warlord trait anymore.
So models not I play are modifying play?
JinxDragon wrote:
The reason why I can not accept your answer is simple, you keep rewriting the sentence!
From:
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties
to:
Models that are ‘removed as casualties’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed from play
How is changing the subject matters around, and in doing so changing the whole meaning of the original sentence, fit Rule as Written?!
So you've not read all of my posts then.
In the characteristics section, what does it say happens to models with zero wounds?
Does it say "removed from play as a casualty"? If so, please retract your statement that I'm rewriting rules.
I've quoted the literal line from the BRB.
If you need to be on the table to be 'in play'
And you can only access Special Rules when you are 'in play'
Then a Model in Deep Strike reserve can never Deep Strike....
Except, you know, for the specific rules allowing it. Pesky that.
|
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/04/08 13:04:49
Subject: Special Rules, and wargear on top.
|
 |
Prescient Cryptek of Eternity
|
rigeld2 wrote:DJGietzen wrote:
Not true. There is no rule stating that your warlord traits do nothing while in reserve. We know they have them but being in play is not a requirement. This is made more clear when you look at warlord traits like Master of Ambush, Master of Manoeuvre, or Strategic Genius. All of these warlord traits have some aspect to them that requires the model not be in play.
It should be noted that models removed as a casualty do not have a functioning warlord trait anymore.
So models not I play are modifying play?
JinxDragon wrote:
The reason why I can not accept your answer is simple, you keep rewriting the sentence!
From:
Models that are ‘removed from play’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed as casualties
to:
Models that are ‘removed as casualties’ by special rules or attacks are also considered to have been removed from play
How is changing the subject matters around, and in doing so changing the whole meaning of the original sentence, fit Rule as Written?!
So you've not read all of my posts then.
In the characteristics section, what does it say happens to models with zero wounds?
Does it say "removed from play as a casualty"? If so, please retract your statement that I'm rewriting rules.
I've quoted the literal line from the BRB.
If you need to be on the table to be 'in play'
And you can only access Special Rules when you are 'in play'
Then a Model in Deep Strike reserve can never Deep Strike....
Except, you know, for the specific rules allowing it. Pesky that.
Can you quote the bit that says the Deep Strike rule is able to function when the model is not in play? I'm curious to see what your thinking is.
|
|
|
 |
 |
|
|