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.
col_impact wrote:The rules require you to have a distinction between units "in play" and "units not in play".
If you make no distinction and ignore the "removed from play" injunction, you have not only broken a clear rule but you have a broken game.
This is an assumption, only. you have no rules to support this. Even more so, not are you only making an assumption, you are making further assumptions based on that assumption. A deadly spiral.
Quote the rules that literally state this.
col_impact wrote:The rulebook provides a clear indication of what play is and we must enforce the distinction between "in play" and "not in play".
Oh, are you actually going to quote the rules finally after numerous requests? Finally!
col_impact wrote:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For
convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases:
Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of
your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with
your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault
and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and
makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start
his turn (and take his revenge).
Hmm, nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that play is confined to the Battlefield.
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
Still nothing about being "in play".
col_impact wrote:We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
So game play has to do with the actions units are entitled to make during the four main phases (Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault) that are during the turns of the game and that are also on the Battlefield.
And nothing about being "in play". 3 up, 3 fails. They are perfectly reasonable for assumptions to be made, but as actual rules for "being in play", they are failing.
col_impact wrote:Units in Reserve that have not "entered play" do not take part in game play (the four main phases) until they enter play by entering the Battlefield.
Removal from the Battlefield takes you out of where the game is played and out of the game play of the four main phases.
Units removed as casualties and "removed from play" and set explicitly off the Battlefield do not take part in game play at all unless a rule somehow returns them to play or a rule specifically addresses their "removed from play" zone.
If you do not enforce a distinction between "in play" and "not in play" then units in Reserve and units removed from play as casualties are free to participate in Movement, Psychic, Shooting, and Assault. This breaks the game.
Still failing to actually address my argument or quoting anything about how not "being in play" actually limits all the rules of the unit.
col_impact wrote:So an IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
There is absolutely nothing that supports this aside from your own assumptions. Since this portion is key to your stance, you must quote the rules to support it. This is a tenet of YMDC.
In the end what you have is, "we ignore the IC leaving a unit rules because I say they do because that is how I treat 'removed from play'." That is perfectly fine for House Rules, especially when there are no actual rules defining the situation. But at least recognize when you are doing it.
col_impact wrote: The IC is 'not in play' at the start of the following phase. If he were in play that rule would definitely affect him. But alas, he is not 'in play'. The rule must specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to affect units 'not in play'. As has been shown, the game breaks if regular rules of play are free to apply to units that are 'not in play' so the game requires that rules specifically address the 'removed from play' zone to be empowered to affect the 'removed from play' zone.
You fail to show a rule that requires him to be in play. Citation please. The rule that states he is part of the unit is the same rule you are claiming to ignore here.
The IC is not participating in the four main phases, or the turn sequence, or in action on the battlefield per rules already cited. If he were participating in the next phase, he would be 'in play' and in violation of the injunction to be "removed from play". He is skipping the next phase and indeed all phases because he is "removed from play". A rule has to return him to play on the battlefield to return him to participating in the four main phases.
You need to provide a rule that specifically addresses the IC while "removed from play" in order to detach him while the IC is "removed from play".
Lack of participation does not mean that its rules are ignored, especially when those rules are not limited to a time phrase or status of "in play". The IC rules regarding the IC leaving the unit when the rest of the unit is destroyed is the trigger. This trigger does not have any requirement of the IC being in play or not, but reliant on the rest of the models NOT being in play.
With no rule stating such a requirement that the model in question being in play, I have no right to deny this trigger. With no rule stating that a model not in play is denied any trigger of its special rule, I cannot deny this trigger.
So, again, you are making assumptions on the rules and calling them RAW. And since you ask so many to do this, mark your posts HYWPI.
At this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Play is something that occurs 'over the battlefield'.
Play is also something that happens during the game. It happens after the start of the game and before the end of the game.
The length of play of the game is measured by turns which are further divided into phases and these phases are when play is allowed to happen.
Play is also something that units get to do as participants in the flow of the game play of the 4 main phases (movement, psychic, shooting, assault).
So a unit that is "removed from play" is placed outside of the Battlefield and does not participate in the 4 main phases.
So again, at this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Up to this point, you have avoided advancing a definition of 'play' even though the BRB requires you to occasionally remove models from play.
Without a definition of 'play' and a way to resolve "remove from play" your counter argument is wholly incomplete, wholly untenable, and wholly invalid, and my RAW argument stands uncontested.
You need to advance a counter definition of 'play' and then indicate how you fulfill the injunction to remove the IC from play or else concede to my complete and tenable RAW argument and mark your argument as "invalid".
It's time for you to put up a definition of 'play' and show how you resolve 'remove from play' or concede.
This is how it goes down RAW. An IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mondo80 wrote: The formation requires the following as written:
1 Necron Overlord
1 unit on warriors
1 unit of canoptek scarabs
1 triach stalker
Other than Overlord and stalker it doesn't list the model count or transport options of the unit.
So in theory you take that formation to duochbag level and go:
1 Overlord
20 warriors with either a ghost ark or night scythe
9 scarabs
1 stalker
Huh? Have you played the Formation? Boosting the Warrior count and adding a Ghost Ark is not optimal at all. The extra warriors and Ghost Ark should come from a CAD or a Decurion.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 02:26:28
col_impact wrote: At this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Which has absolutely nothing regarding the limitations of something removed from play, now does it, maj_impact?
col_impact wrote: So a unit that is "removed from play" is placed outside of the Battlefield and does not participate in the 4 main phases.
Assumptions, assumptions, you post nothing but assumptions. You are trying to define it by what it is not by making a definition of what is. And with no rules, you cannot actually provide such a definition.
col_impact wrote: So again, at this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Well, cap_impact that is rather pointless since you need to be providing how being removed from play restricts a model's rules to all but the most specifically addressed.
col_impact wrote: Up to this point, you have avoided advancing a definition of 'play' even though the BRB requires you to occasionally remove models from play.
Because my case does not depend on the definition of "play" in order for it to work. Why should I advance something unrelated to my case? If you were actually paying attention (something you trend not to do), you would be aware of what my case actually is.
col_impact wrote: Without a definition of 'play' and a way to resolve "remove from play" your counter argument is wholly incomplete, wholly untenable, and wholly invalid, and my RAW argument stands uncontested.
Why? My counter argument just points out the holes in your argument, the largest of which is YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY QUOTED ANYTHING TO DIRECTLY SUPPORT YOUR CASE.
col_impact wrote: You need to advance a counter definition of 'play' and then indicate how you fulfill the injunction to remove the IC from play or else concede to my complete and tenable RAW argument and mark your argument as "invalid".
Why should I? You have not supported your concept of "removed from play" with any level of accuracy than your own assumptions.
col_impact wrote: It's time for you to put up a definition of 'play' and show how you resolve 'remove from play' or concede.
Again, why? Being in play, or out of it, is YOUR case, not mine. You have provided zero evidence that being removed from play carries the restrictions you believe it has. You are basing it on other definitions you have gleaned from other games and applying them here. Then you are declaring them as RAW. While operating the game under your assumptions is fine so long as you recognize it, to say something is RAW when nothing is written is pure sophistry.
My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
col_impact wrote: This is how it goes down RAW. An IC is attached to a unit of scarabs and the whole lot of them are removed from play as casualties and put on the side of the table. No play happens at the side of the table off the battlefield. No play transpires for the IC and scarabs in the "removed from play" zone. They skip the turns and phases of the game - if they didn't skip them then they would not be "removed from play". If a rule returns the unit of scarabs to play then it returns the IC to play as well. No rule transpired that would detach the IC from the scarab unit.
No quotes, no quotes, no quotes to support this assumption.
mondo80 wrote: The formation requires the following as written:
1 Necron Overlord
1 unit on warriors
1 unit of canoptek scarabs
1 triach stalker
Other than Overlord and stalker it doesn't list the model count or transport options of the unit.
So in theory you take that formation to duochbag level and go:
1 Overlord
20 warriors with either a ghost ark or night scythe
9 scarabs
1 stalker
Huh? Have you played the Formation? Boosting the Warrior count and adding a Ghost Ark is not optimal at all. The extra warriors and Ghost Ark should come from a CAD or a Decurion.
This is a Tactics answer and consideration, not a rules answer or consideration.
To be more on point, you can take 3 Stalkers in one unit, so:
1 Overlord
20 Warriors with a ghost ark
9 Scarabs
3 Stalkers
Though, to be honest, it would be a consideration to do this for one main reason. Yes, you will want another unit of Warriors for this, and having it maxed out with a Ghost Ark would still be a good idea.
Use the second unit of Warriors and a Ghost Ark to provide a shield of replenishing Wounds for the Overlord, as without the Overlord, this whole Formation is largely useless. You send out the Formation Scarabs and Warriors to go out and do damage, while using the Stalkers to improve the Warriors' BS. When they FINALLY kill the Formation's Warriors, boom, the 20 Warriors come back in fighting strength and they have to start all over again. Scarabs will be used as Assault bombs mostly to get really shooty stuff in to Assault so they cannot shoot or to tie up Assault units in bad positions to let the Overlord move away. They finally kill the little buggers and they come back just in time to charge out and Assault them again.
Either way, just don't leave that Overlord in a position to be removed. He is the key to the whole Formation.
This Formation really is the epitome of the annoyance of fighting Necrons. "Why won't you just DIE?!"
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
col_impact wrote: At this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Which has absolutely nothing regarding the limitations of something removed from play, now does it, maj_impact?
col_impact wrote: So a unit that is "removed from play" is placed outside of the Battlefield and does not participate in the 4 main phases.
Assumptions, assumptions, you post nothing but assumptions. You are trying to define it by what it is not by making a definition of what is. And with no rules, you cannot actually provide such a definition.
col_impact wrote: So again, at this point Charistophe I have advanced a definition of 'play' using quotes from the BRB.
Well, cap_impact that is rather pointless since you need to be providing how being removed from play restricts a model's rules to all but the most specifically addressed.
col_impact wrote: Up to this point, you have avoided advancing a definition of 'play' even though the BRB requires you to occasionally remove models from play.
Because my case does not depend on the definition of "play" in order for it to work. Why should I advance something unrelated to my case? If you were actually paying attention (something you trend not to do), you would be aware of what my case actually is.
col_impact wrote: Without a definition of 'play' and a way to resolve "remove from play" your counter argument is wholly incomplete, wholly untenable, and wholly invalid, and my RAW argument stands uncontested.
Why? My counter argument just points out the holes in your argument, the largest of which is YOU HAVE NOT ACTUALLY QUOTED ANYTHING TO DIRECTLY SUPPORT YOUR CASE.
col_impact wrote: You need to advance a counter definition of 'play' and then indicate how you fulfill the injunction to remove the IC from play or else concede to my complete and tenable RAW argument and mark your argument as "invalid".
Why should I? You have not supported your concept of "removed from play" with any level of accuracy than your own assumptions.
col_impact wrote: It's time for you to put up a definition of 'play' and show how you resolve 'remove from play' or concede.
Again, why? Being in play, or out of it, is YOUR case, not mine. You have provided zero evidence that being removed from play carries the restrictions you believe it has. You are basing it on other definitions you have gleaned from other games and applying them here. Then you are declaring them as RAW. While operating the game under your assumptions is fine so long as you recognize it, to say something is RAW when nothing is written is pure sophistry.
Charistoph wrote: My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
We know the IC has been 'removed from play' and you refuse to address what that means so it's a gaping hole in your argument.
You need to know whether the IC rules regarding leaving a unit are a subset of 'play'. If they are then they will not do anything to a model that is 'removed from play'.
You cannot answer anything with authority about whether any particular rule is restricted or not until you sort out what 'play' means and what 'removed from play' means. Your argument is lacking critical info that it would require to offer any kind of solution.
Your argument can only honestly shrug its shoulders and say "I don't know!" but you are not being honest with your argument.
Your offering up of a solution with the state of your argument where it is actually at is deceitful. You say 'sure it will detach' but have no idea what 'play' is or 'removed from play' is which would preclude the ability to detach.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The BRB demands that you place the IC in "removed from play" and you refuse to acknowledge the rule.
You can't offer any legitimate guesses since any legitimate guesses would require asserting what 'play' and what 'remove from play' mean.
If the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play' then it would do nothing on an IC that is 'removed from play' and you cannot answer if the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play'.
So your argument has offered literally nothing to the thread besides that you have no idea. And what is worse is that you won't admit your shortcoming and are prepared to judge on the matter with a gaping hole in your argument. You can neither allow nor disallow the IC from detaching since you know nothing about what 'play' is, and yet 'play' is a fundamental component of 40k. The IC has been designated 'removed from play' and you cannot ignore that designation.
Your refusal to even attempt to define play can only be seen as mean-spirited sophistry. When it suits your purposes you will gleefully pursue a definition of, for example, "shoot" based on scattered inferences.
Your argument remains willfully incomplete and wholly invalid (and intentionally obtuse with regards to offering up a definition of 'play'!) Try again (only this time I ask that you actually try!)
The rulebook is riddled with references to 'play' and we can contextually infer from the written word what 'play' and what 'removed from play' means. We can also make inferences about what 'play' and what 'removed from play' means by throwing out any lines of reasoning that lead to broken unplayable games and we can infer also based on general English usage. We have to infer something because the BRB demands we place the IC in "removed from play" so we best do it.
Spoiler:
During his turn, a player can usually move and fight once with each of his units. For convenience and flow of game play, we divide a player’s turn into four main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault.
This means that you move any models you want to first, then when you are finished all of your moving, your psykers can invoke the power of the Warp. Then you can shoot with your models, and finally, once your shooting is all completed, you can charge into assault and resolve any close combats. This process helps to keep track of what is going on and makes it easier to know when one player’s actions are over and their opponent can start his turn (and take his revenge).
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins. This step is split into two parts: creating the battlefield itself, and placing scenery upon it.
We also know that game play happens between the Start of the Game and the End of the game. Game play commences with the Start of the Game and ends with the End of the Game and generally has the length of certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
GAME LENGTH
For most games, the length of the game will be a certain number of game turns.
Spoiler:
Not Enough Room
It’s not uncommon to find that you can’t fit all of the models in your army into your deployment zone. When this happens, any units that can’t fit into your deployment zone must be held back as Reserves, and will enter play later during the battle, hopefully when there is room for them to fit onto the battlefield.
Spoiler:
If a unit enters Reserve part way through the game, such as a Flyer leaving the battlefield, this is referred to as entering Ongoing Reserves. Units in Ongoing Reserve always re-enter play at the start of their controlling player’s following turn, but otherwise follow the normal rules for Reserves.
We know that the turn, the Main Phases, and the Battlefield are the fundamental components of "play" in 40k.
The turn and the Main Phases comprise the "play" action that can take place on the Battlefield, which is the "in play" zone.
An IC that is "removed from play" is torn from the game play and placed in a stasis where the IC cannot interact with any regular game play at all - no participation in the turn of the 4 Main Phases. Only specific rules that address this "removed from play" zone can change the IC's state.
The "removed from play" zone is a special zone and set apart from the regular rules of play of 40k. Units that are "removed from play" are not on the battlefield where play occurs and are excluded from participating in the flow of game play which is comprised of turns and the 4 main phases.
"Removed from play" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
The trigger to detach the IC from the scarab unit happens on the next phase after the IC has already been removed from play. At that point in time, the IC is skipping the phases and turns of play, since joining in with the phases and turns of play violates the injunction that the IC be "removed from play".
The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 06:31:05
Charistoph wrote: My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
We know the IC has been 'removed from play' and you refuse to address what that means so it's a gaping hole in your argument.
No it is not. This is only your assumption since you cannot provide any actual rules stating the hole exists.
col_impact wrote: You need to know whether the IC rules regarding leaving a unit are a subset of 'play'. If they are then they will not do anything to a model that is 'removed from play'.
You cannot answer anything with authority about whether any particular rule is restricted or not until you sort out what 'play' means and what 'removed from play' means. Your argument is lacking critical info that it would require to offer any kind of solution.
No, I don't, since none of the rules in question bring it up. It is only required in your mind, not in the rulebook.
col_impact wrote: Your argument can only honestly shrug its shoulders and say "I don't know!" but you are not being honest with your argument.
Your offering up of a solution with the state of your argument where it is actually at is deceitful. You say 'sure it will detach' but have no idea what 'play' is or 'removed from play' is which would preclude the ability to detach.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The BRB demands that you place the IC in "removed from play" and you refuse to acknowledge the rule.
Actually, I am saying that being "removed from play" is not relevant without rules saying they ARE relevant. It is your unsupported, unsubstantiated, sophristric opinion that this condition is relevant to the rule in question. Your demonstrated ignorance of the rules is no excuse at this point. The BRB does not state anything about being "removed from play" as having any affect on this matter.
col_impact wrote: You can't offer any legitimate guesses since any legitimate guesses would require asserting what 'play' and what 'remove from play' mean.
If the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play' then it would do nothing on an IC that is 'removed from play' and you cannot answer if the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play'.
So your argument has offered literally nothing to the thread besides that you have no idea. And what is worse is that you won't admit your shortcoming and are prepared to judge on the matter with a gaping hole in your argument. You can neither allow nor disallow the IC from detaching since you know nothing about what 'play' is, and yet 'play' is a fundamental component of 40k. The IC has been designated 'removed from play' and you cannot ignore that designation.
Your refusal to even attempt to define play can only be seen as mean-spirited sophistry. When it suits your purposes you will gleefully pursue a definition of, for example, "shoot" based on scattered inferences.
Your argument remains willfully incomplete and wholly invalid (and intentionally obtuse with regards to offering up a definition of 'play'!) Try again (only this time I ask that you actually try!)
I am not the one trying to use unwritten rules as RAW here, pvt_impact. As such, you are the one practicing sophistry. Your choice to deliberately and intentionally continue to do so can only mean that you are being mean-spirited and obtuse.
I do not have to bring up a definition of "play" because my case is NOT dependent on recognizing this condition. YOU, and only you, are the one who is obsessed with the status of being in play or out of play and that rules cannot be used when out of play. You have not supported this with anything but assumptions you declare as RAW. That is sophistry.
col_impact wrote: An IC that is "removed from play" is torn from the game play and placed in a stasis where the IC cannot interact with any regular game play at all - no participation in the turn of the 4 Main Phases. Only specific rules that address this "removed from play" zone can change the IC's state.
You have established what "in play" is, and those paramters, but you have not established how it affects the opposite. You claim that it is put in stasis and only rules addressing "removed from play" can change this state. I have asked for you to quote this from the rulebook on this point, and your refusal to do so indicates your ignorance of the rules and your position. Your deliberate pursuit of this without researching sufficiently to properly prove your position indicates that you have no desire to actually address the counter-argument which is this, "The rules do directly not state anything to support your position that a model's rules are ignored when the models is removed from play." The only way to counter this counter-argument is to provide the rules which do directly support your position. After all these pages and posts, you have had time. You have failed at every single entry.
col_impact wrote: The "removed from play" zone is a special zone and set apart from the regular rules of play of 40k. Units that are "removed from play" are not on the battlefield where play occurs and are excluded from participating in the flow of game play which is comprised of turns and the 4 main phases.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: "Removed from play" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: The trigger to detach the IC from the scarab unit happens on the next phase after the IC has already been removed from play. At that point in time, the IC is skipping the phases and turns of play, since joining in with the phases and turns of play violates the injunction that the IC be "removed from play".
Incorrect. The trigger happens when the unit dies. The detaching event happens at the start of the next phase. This is only your interpretation. The IC is not permitted to skip Phases. Its options are just very very limited.
I see that you don't bother to quote for this, either.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
That is not in argument, and if you have actually bothered to read what I have said, you would be aware of that. I just do not agree with you on what those limitations when removed from play are. Which I have said ad nauseum up to this point.
col_impact wrote: Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Yet, the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not possess any "in play" requirements, nor are there any rules stating that these triggers and events cannot occur when the IC is also removed from play. I simply do not have permission to deny these rules just because the possessor was removed from play.
To put it simply, you are lying to yourself and everyone else on this board when you claim these are Written Rules, as you cannot quote anything to support it. You have found rules that could, possibly, imply it from the opposite perspective, but Implied Rules are not Written Rules of the game any more than the rules for Tournament Points are Written Rules of the game. If you wish to continue to pursue this line of thought, please properly indicate that, while they are not written, they are how you believe it should be played. I even gave you an example on how to do this when I addressed the Scarab question. But I think you are too stuck in to this idea that it has consumed you.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 07:46:19
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Charistoph wrote: My case has been: you follow the rules as they are written, and the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not say they have to be alive or in play to do so, since they actually have other triggers.
We know the IC has been 'removed from play' and you refuse to address what that means so it's a gaping hole in your argument.
No it is not. This is only your assumption since you cannot provide any actual rules stating the hole exists.
col_impact wrote: You need to know whether the IC rules regarding leaving a unit are a subset of 'play'. If they are then they will not do anything to a model that is 'removed from play'.
You cannot answer anything with authority about whether any particular rule is restricted or not until you sort out what 'play' means and what 'removed from play' means. Your argument is lacking critical info that it would require to offer any kind of solution.
No, I don't, since none of the rules in question bring it up. It is only required in your mind, not in the rulebook.
col_impact wrote: Your argument can only honestly shrug its shoulders and say "I don't know!" but you are not being honest with your argument.
Your offering up of a solution with the state of your argument where it is actually at is deceitful. You say 'sure it will detach' but have no idea what 'play' is or 'removed from play' is which would preclude the ability to detach.
Ignorance of the rules is no excuse. The BRB demands that you place the IC in "removed from play" and you refuse to acknowledge the rule.
Actually, I am saying that being "removed from play" is not relevant without rules saying they ARE relevant. It is your unsupported, unsubstantiated, sophristric opinion that this condition is relevant to the rule in question. Your demonstrated ignorance of the rules is no excuse at this point. The BRB does not state anything about being "removed from play" as having any affect on this matter.
col_impact wrote: You can't offer any legitimate guesses since any legitimate guesses would require asserting what 'play' and what 'remove from play' mean.
If the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play' then it would do nothing on an IC that is 'removed from play' and you cannot answer if the rule that would detach the IC is a subset of 'play'.
So your argument has offered literally nothing to the thread besides that you have no idea. And what is worse is that you won't admit your shortcoming and are prepared to judge on the matter with a gaping hole in your argument. You can neither allow nor disallow the IC from detaching since you know nothing about what 'play' is, and yet 'play' is a fundamental component of 40k. The IC has been designated 'removed from play' and you cannot ignore that designation.
Your refusal to even attempt to define play can only be seen as mean-spirited sophistry. When it suits your purposes you will gleefully pursue a definition of, for example, "shoot" based on scattered inferences.
Your argument remains willfully incomplete and wholly invalid (and intentionally obtuse with regards to offering up a definition of 'play'!) Try again (only this time I ask that you actually try!)
I am not the one trying to use unwritten rules as RAW here, pvt_impact. As such, you are the one practicing sophistry. Your choice to deliberately and intentionally continue to do so can only mean that you are being mean-spirited and obtuse.
I do not have to bring up a definition of "play" because my case is NOT dependent on recognizing this condition. YOU, and only you, are the one who is obsessed with the status of being in play or out of play and that rules cannot be used when out of play. You have not supported this with anything but assumptions you declare as RAW. That is sophistry.
col_impact wrote: An IC that is "removed from play" is torn from the game play and placed in a stasis where the IC cannot interact with any regular game play at all - no participation in the turn of the 4 Main Phases. Only specific rules that address this "removed from play" zone can change the IC's state.
You have established what "in play" is, and those paramters, but you have not established how it affects the opposite. You claim that it is put in stasis and only rules addressing "removed from play" can change this state. I have asked for you to quote this from the rulebook on this point, and your refusal to do so indicates your ignorance of the rules and your position. Your deliberate pursuit of this without researching sufficiently to properly prove your position indicates that you have no desire to actually address the counter-argument which is this, "The rules do directly not state anything to support your position that a model's rules are ignored when the models is removed from play." The only way to counter this counter-argument is to provide the rules which do directly support your position. After all these pages and posts, you have had time. You have failed at every single entry.
col_impact wrote: The "removed from play" zone is a special zone and set apart from the regular rules of play of 40k. Units that are "removed from play" are not on the battlefield where play occurs and are excluded from participating in the flow of game play which is comprised of turns and the 4 main phases.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: "Removed from play" means you don't get to play with the model anymore, period. No rules, nothing. Its removed from game play and has zero impact on the game until it gets specific permission to re-enter the game or factors into specific things like scoring at the End of the Game.
Where is the rule that states this?
col_impact wrote: The trigger to detach the IC from the scarab unit happens on the next phase after the IC has already been removed from play. At that point in time, the IC is skipping the phases and turns of play, since joining in with the phases and turns of play violates the injunction that the IC be "removed from play".
Incorrect. The trigger happens when the unit dies. The detaching event happens at the start of the next phase. This is only your interpretation. The IC is not permitted to skip Phases. Its options are just very very limited.
I see that you don't bother to quote for this, either.
col_impact wrote: The game requires a separation between units that are 'in play' and units that are 'not in play' or it falls apart. The regular basic rules of play (movement, shooting, assault, etc) can only apply to units that are 'in play' or all sorts of silliness ensues like units in reserves shooting units on the battlefield if they are positioned close enough outside of the battlefield to do so.
That is not in argument, and if you have actually bothered to read what I have said, you would be aware of that. I just do not agree with you on what those limitations when removed from play are. Which I have said ad nauseum up to this point.
col_impact wrote: Indisputably, when the IC dies as part of the unit of scarabs he is removed from play as a casualty and as part of the unit of scarabs. The IC rules do not consider IC death as a trigger to detach from the host unit so he is removed from play as part of that unit. Since he is 'not in play' the regular rules of units 'in play' do not affect him. Regular rules of play have no affect on the 'not in play' zone unless they specifically address that zone.
If the IC were still in play and the rest of the scarabs died around him he would detach. However, the IC is not still in play and no rule is specifically addressing him in the 'removed from play' zone that would detach him.
Yet, the IC rules regarding leaving a unit do not possess any "in play" requirements, nor are there any rules stating that these triggers and events cannot occur when the IC is also removed from play. I simply do not have permission to deny these rules just because the possessor was removed from play.
To put it simply, you are lying to yourself and everyone else on this board when you claim these are Written Rules, as you cannot quote anything to support it. You have found rules that could, possibly, imply it from the opposite perspective, but Implied Rules are not Written Rules of the game any more than the rules for Tournament Points are Written Rules of the game. If you wish to continue to pursue this line of thought, please properly indicate that, while they are not written, they are how you believe it should be played. I even gave you an example on how to do this when I addressed the Scarab question. But I think you are too stuck in to this idea that it has consumed you.
Charistophe, the IC is indisputably in a state of "removed from play" and your continual ignoring of that fact can only mean that you are aware that doing what I ask and offering up a definition for consideration for "removed from play" will only reveal your argument to be propped up on a house of cards.
Seriously. Why the continual dodging? Surely you can take a stab at what "removed from play" means based on its relatively common use through the BRB. Since the IC is indeed in a state of "removed from play" you cannot offer up a statement of no comment and claim that your argument is definitive. Your argument has a gaping hole in it and one that you refuse to acknowledge.
Until you offer up a definition like I have of what "removed from play" can possibly mean you have no business offering a perspective on whether the IC can detach from the unit while "removed from play". To suggest you could is ludicrous. The IC is in a state of "removed from play" and you cannot get around that fact and must deal with it. You must first answer what that means to the best of your understanding and only then can we discuss whether a rule action is legal or not legal.
Continued refusal to offer up a definition of "removed from play" can only be interpreted as concession on your part that your argument is not worthy of serious consideration.
All the evidence we have from the BRB would indicate that being "removed from play" places the unit in a very restricted state where the unit would not interact at all with hardly any rules, since nearly all rules would be rules comprising rules of "play". The turn, the 4 main phases, and the Battlefield are all fundamental components of "play" and the IC is removed from all of them. The rule that would detach the IC from the "removed from play" zone is dependent on "play" and so cannot function on an IC that is "removed from play"
A unit that is "removed from play" is wholly removed from the Battlefield where 'play' happens and is wholly removed from the scheduling of the turns and the 4 Main phases when 'play' happens.
The IC rule that you would have detach the IC from the unit is dependent on 'play' and so cannot function on a unit that is 'removed from play'.
And until you offer up a definition of what 'removed from play' means you cannot counter my argument. My complete and tenable argument trumps your incomplete, evasive, and invalid argument.
In reality all you need to do to defeat my argument is to come up with a plausible definition of "removed from play" that supports your argument - a definition that enables the IC to detach from the unit of scarabs while "removed from play" and a definition that is in accord with what we can ascertain about 'play'. Based on my analysis of the use of 'play' in the rules I see a fairly radical distinction between 'in play' and 'not in play' which puts the IC that is 'removed from play' in a non-interactive state with nearly all rules, with the exception being rules that specifically address the 'removed from play' zone.
Your refusal to take up the challenge and try to come up with a plausible definition for "removed from play" only augments my argument, so why continue dodging? You can't claim to have a tenable argument if you can't answer the simple question of what "removed from play" means and be able to provide a plausible answer.
In order for you to have a tenable argument you are going to have to tackle what "removed from play" means. The scenario we are discussing requires an answer put forward by you.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 08:36:25
I do not have to tackle what "removed from play" means since it is your case, not mine. Especially since I do not disagree with the determination of the status (as I have repeated numerous times already). I only have to tackle what its effects are.
To which, no notable effects are expressly written for being "removed from play", so are only what one chooses to consider them as. Since it is not written and only what we the players choose to impose, it makes it a House Rule, not RAW.
I cannot believe you have not understood this fact up to this point after the many many times I have explicitly stated this.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 15:37:11
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
"[We have] an inheritance which is beyond the reach of change and decay." 1 Peter 1.4
"With the Emperor there is no variation or shadow due to change." James 1.17
“Fear the Emperor; do not associate with those who are given to change.” Proverbs 24.21
Elric Greywolf wrote: It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
No apparently that part of the rule is not in affect when we go to measure Kill Points because the IC started as a unit and is still subtly his own unit. Never mind that he is NOT considered his own unit when the Warriors/Scarabs are returned to the table. He likes contradictions in his rules-perspective.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
In that sense, there is a general community consensus, if not an absolute one.
The most reasonable interpretation is that "the unit" is referring to the destroyed unit as defined by your army list and NOT what the unit looks like as the last model is removed as a casualty. This would mean no extra models and no ICs. I can't imagine any TO playing this otherwise.
In a casual environment, talk to your opponent, but based on the responses in this thread, expect a negative reaction if you want to bring extra models or ICs back from the dead.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
You'll live a much happier life if you let offensive statements from strangers on the internet just sort of wash right over you. He's called me similar in the past. Sometimes I get a little aggravated, but then remember that in the grand scheme of my life, a random forum poster's opinion doesn't even register.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Elric Greywolf wrote: It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
Incorrect. I have pointed out numerous times that the IC is an individual unit per his ALE and the Purge the Alien rule references his ALE and scores based on the ALE. You have to show how the ALE is removed from the IC to counter my argument.
Elric Greywolf wrote: It seems like col_impact is saying that a unit with any number of ICs attached during the game that is killed only counts as one Kill Point, since the IC is somehow still attached when dead.
That's a pretty obvious rules violation, and therefore impact's interpretation fails.
No apparently that part of the rule is not in affect when we go to measure Kill Points because the IC started as a unit and is still subtly his own unit. Never mind that he is NOT considered his own unit when the Warriors/Scarabs are returned to the table. He likes contradictions in his rules-perspective.
As already indicated the Purge the Alien script only references the ALE. The IC is always an individual unit whether attached or detached. You have to show that the ALE is discarded to counter my argument.
I do not have to tackle what "removed from play" means since it is your case, not mine. Especially since I do not disagree with the determination of the status (as I have repeated numerous times already). I only have to tackle what its effects are.
To which, no notable effects are expressly written for being "removed from play", so are only what one chooses to consider them as. Since it is not written and only what we the players choose to impose, it makes it a House Rule, not RAW.
I cannot believe you have not understood this fact up to this point after the many many times I have explicitly stated this.
Your argument cannot be presented as tenable until you can present plausible definitions of 'play' and 'removed from play' that do not contradict your argument that the IC can detach while 'removed from play'.
If the IC were not 'removed from play' your argument would not be dependent upon presenting plausible definitions of 'play' and 'removed from play'.
However, since the IC is indeed 'removed from play' and 'play' is a pervasive category which would include almost all rules, it is up to you to show how the rule that you would use to detach from the IC could apply at all.
There is a dependency that you are simply not attending to. The state the IC is in is critical info.
1) John is in a state of Quasi-quasi.
1a) If John is Quasi-quasi he has permanently lost his arms.
2) Color John's fingernails blue.
What are the color of John's fingernails?
Your argument is saying that since "color John's fingernails blue" did not have the condition "while not Quasi-quasi" then it has no problem coloring his fingernails and his fingernail's are now definitively blue and you don't have to care what Quasi-quasi means. However, John is in a state where the 2nd rule simply cannot apply based on the state John is in (no arms).
Similarly, the IC is in a special state and you have to define what that state is before you know if the rule can even apply - even if the rule you are trying to apply makes no mention of this special state!
Again, all you have to do is present a plausible definition of 'play' and a plausible definition of 'removed from play' that would not affect the IC detaching from the unit in the subsequent phase and you could defeat my argument.
Since you refuse to address the gaping hole in your argument, your argument is untenable - an argument cannot be presented as tenable that relies on implausible definitions.
And we can only assume the continued dodging is an attempt to distract from the gaping hole.
The bar is set pretty low here. All you have to do is present a plausible definition of 'play' and a plausible definition of 'removed from play' that would not affect the IC detaching from the unit in the subsequent phase and you could defeat my argument.
Failure or refusal to hit even that low of a bar only underscores that your argument is untenable.
If you were truly trying to get to the truth of the matter at hand in an honest and open manner rather than simply trying to push your argument's agenda through then you would indeed comply and present a plausible definition of removed from play that would not affect the IC detaching from the unit.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
I have never called you a liar. However, people frequently try to be mislead or be deceitful in their argument tactics and I have had to call you out on your tactics. These kind of argument tactics are frequent. People often argue to push an agenda rather than to arrive at the truth of the matter.
All you have to do to convince me that you are well-intentioned and wanting to arrive at the truth of the matter (rather than twist the rules to push an agenda) is provide a plausible definition of "removed from play" that does not undermine your argument. Otherwise you are leaving a pretty big hole in your argument and trying to convince me that it is not relevant (which is an deceitful). If it's not relevant then you should have no problem showing me that it is not relevant by providing a plausible definition of "removed from play" where it is indeed not relevant.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
In that sense, there is a general community consensus, if not an absolute one.
The most reasonable interpretation is that "the unit" is referring to the destroyed unit as defined by your army list and NOT what the unit looks like as the last model is removed as a casualty. This would mean no extra models and no ICs. I can't imagine any TO playing this otherwise.
In a casual environment, talk to your opponent, but based on the responses in this thread, expect a negative reaction if you want to bring extra models or ICs back from the dead.
We are discussing RAW and not the popularity of the RAW or the OPness of the RAW.
General consensus has time and again shown that it will ignore the RAW and assert its house rule and try to pass it off as RAW (see the ITC and Tau Hunter Contingent for example) in order to nerf a minority.
General consensus does not change RAW. It's exceedingly clear what the RAW is in the case of Coordinated Firepower and yet the majority has deluded themselves into thinking otherwise.
I don't care if people want to house rule something like Coordinated Firepower or the Retribution Phalanx, but when they try to pass what they are doing as RAW then I call them on it, since it's deceitful.
Oberron wrote: Does the writing on the spyder directly say it increases the scarabs unit size or does it simply state it just adds another scarab, currently unable to get to my codex atm.
Spoiler:
Scarab Hive: Once per friendly Movement phase, each Canoptek Spyder can use this special rule to create Canoptek Scarabs. To do so, nominate a friendly unit of Canoptek Scarabs that is within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. Add a single Canoptek Scarab base to the unit – this can take the unit beyond its starting size, but must be placed within 6" of the Canoptek Spyder. If a model cannot be placed for any reason, it is destroyed. Canoptek Scarabs created in this manner can move and act normally this turn. Roll a D6 each time a Canoptek Spyder uses its Scarab Hive special rule, immediately after placing any Canoptek Scarabs that were created – on a roll of a 1 the Canoptek Spyder suffers a single Wound with no saves of any kind allowed.
So, it does not increase the unit's size, it just adds Scarabs, if we take it literally. That it can be taken beyond its starting size is permission granted when adding the base. Nothing in either rule provides an explicit avenue for a Scarab unit of 12 bases to be returned. We can House Rule it to be so, but I doubt many people would accept it unless they could do the same.
Incorrect. "Taking the unit beyond its starting size" is increasing the unit's size. If you still have a unit size of nine somehow, you have not taken the unit beyond it's starting size, and contradict what the rule told you to do. Simple logic.
The RAW is exceedingly clear that the full unit of 12 scarabs will be returned. The unit size of the scarabs has been taken beyond its starting size and there are 12 models in the "removed from play" pile on the side of the table when the "From the Sands, We Rise" rule is triggered. In order to satisfy the rule you have no choice but to return the unit of 12 scarabs to play. There is literally no justification to return anything but the unit of 12.
That is just how the RAW pans out.
I have tested the rule interaction and can attest that it is not OP. However, should the rule interaction make you feel uncomfortable, then you are of course free to house rule it however which way you like.
This message was edited 19 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 20:31:36
col_impact wrote: As already indicated the Purge the Alien script only references the ALE. The IC is always an individual unit whether attached or detached. You have to show that the ALE is discarded to counter my argument.
I'm curious about this. According to my copy of the rulebook, the primary objective of Purge the Alien is:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Where does the above mention ALEs?
Furthermore, if the underlined part of your statement is true, than you are not treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and your opponent can nominate your IC as a target of a shooting attack.
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia
I think we need to take the heat out of this thread a little...
I don't think there's a 'community consensus' here. Actually I think RAW Col_Impact is right on both accounts.
For characters, the FTSWR rule refers to the unit. We're not told the unit ceases to be a unit on being completely destroyed, in fact the rule clarifying VP's suggests that even in death it is still a unit (otherwise they'd be no need to state the VP thing).
For the size of a unit, I don't think anyone can argue that 9+3 bases isn't the unit... And the rule doesn't say 'original sized unit', just 'the unit' - which, as Col says, is a pile of bases of scarabs on the side of the table in the dead pile.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
col_impact wrote: As already indicated the Purge the Alien script only references the ALE. The IC is always an individual unit whether attached or detached. You have to show that the ALE is discarded to counter my argument.
I'm curious about this. According to my copy of the rulebook, the primary objective of Purge the Alien is:
At the end of the game, each player receives 1 Victory Point for each enemy unit that has been completely destroyed. Units that are Falling Back at the end of the game, and units that are not on the board at the end of the game, count as destroyed for the purposes of this mission. Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units and award Victory Points if they are destroyed.
Where does the above mention ALEs?
Furthermore, if the underlined part of your statement is true, than you are not treating the IC as a member of the unit for all rules purposes, and your opponent can nominate your IC as a target of a shooting attack.
"counts as part of" does not equal "becomes part of"
The IC is always an individual unit. It is something that can never be fully taken away from the IC as it is part of the ALE.
The Purge the Alien rule in fact proves my point.
"Remember that Independent Characters and Dedicated Transports are individual units" proves that my statement is correct. The rule indicates that under all circumstances (whether attached or detached) the IC is always an individual unit.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
I took the extra effort of testing if the rule is broken or not and built a list and played it. The rule is surprisingly not broken.
It's easy to just see the brokenness theoretically possible but you have to factor in the costs which are hidden until you test.
Once you start building a list and playing the list you will see what I mean, so I welcome you to follow up on my testing and post your findings.
If you invest in lots of spyders and a uber-tough castle for the OLord you are setting yourself up to have to recoup a lot of points from the outset.
The scarab unit has to regularly die to recoup those points and the O Lord has to stay alive.
If you grow the scarab unit or attach ICs to it, the unit has a harder time dying. But it needs to regularly die so you can recoup all the points invested in trying to make the unit a recursively growing threat.
By the time you have recouped the costs the game is on turn 5 or 6 or so, and you are just doing ok. Your opponent has had optimal units from the start and only late in the game is the tide starting to turn.
Because of the costs, it winds up underperforming compared to regular Scarab Farm or just Harvest spam.
Things often seem more OP than they actually are.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 21:28:29
Ffyllotek wrote: I think we need to take the heat out of this thread a little...
I don't think there's a 'community consensus' here. Actually I think RAW Col_Impact is right on both accounts.
For characters, the FTSWR rule refers to the unit. We're not told the unit ceases to be a unit on being completely destroyed, in fact the rule clarifying VP's suggests that even in death it is still a unit (otherwise they'd be no need to state the VP thing).
For the size of a unit, I don't think anyone can argue that 9+3 bases isn't the unit... And the rule doesn't say 'original sized unit', just 'the unit' - which, as Col says, is a pile of bases of scarabs on the side of the table in the dead pile.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
You cannot take the heat out. It is how Col_Impact argues. He basically yells the same point over and over without RAW support until a mod locks the thread.
And you have not addressed any of the counter points in your argument.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
I have never called you a liar. However, people frequently try to be mislead or be deceitful in their argument tactics and I have had to call you out on your tactics. These kind of argument tactics are frequent. People often argue to push an agenda rather than to arrive at the truth of the matter.
You called my arguments sophistry.
The definition of sophistry is, "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.". The definition of liar is "one who makes an untrue statement with intent to deceive".
You sir, have called me a liar several times in this thread, while you have either been extensively mistaken or lying for your entire case. Since you have not supported your case with rules, but insistent that it is a rule of the game, I can only consider you a liar at this point.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
Kriswall wrote: You guys should just let him think whatever he wants. Not a single person has supported his interpretation. When one person is absolutely convinced a situation works a certain way and can't drum up even a single supporting voice... well, that person should probably just be ignored.
I have no problem with him considering how he wants to play the game.
I do take offense to being called a liar for pointing out that his opinions are not RAW when he cannot present a proper quote to support himself.
I have never called you a liar. However, people frequently try to be mislead or be deceitful in their argument tactics and I have had to call you out on your tactics. These kind of argument tactics are frequent. People often argue to push an agenda rather than to arrive at the truth of the matter.
You called my arguments sophistry.
The definition of sophistry is, "the use of reasoning or arguments that sound correct but are actually false.". The definition of liar is "one who makes an untrue statement with intent to deceive".
You sir, have called me a liar several times in this thread, while you have either been extensively mistaken or lying for your entire case. Since you have not supported your case with rules, but insistent that it is a rule of the game, I can only consider you a liar at this point.
Our difference of opinion stems from a difference on how to handle the "removed from play" rule.
You cannot call your argument RAW if you ignore that rule since it is obviously in effect and descriptive of the status of the IC and the BRB demands that you adhere to it.
The rule book is not silent on what "removed from play" means since it is riddled with references to "play", "in play", "enter into play", and "removed from play", and "removed from play" is semantically 'not connected with play'.
When you actually trace the meaning of "play" in the BRB then you easily see that it is a pervasive concept that includes almost all rules; "removed from play" is therefore a category that is very pertinent to the discussions at hand.
I have come up with and asserted plausible definitions for "play" "removed from play" based on the rules in the BRB, logic, and English usage and those have been implemented into my argument as the rules require.
You have not come up with or asserted any definitions for "play" or "removed from play" even though you are required to in order to rule out any dependencies on any rule interpretation that you would assert.
I have called you out several times to offer a plausible definition for "play" and "removed from play" and you ignore it and assert that you do not have to.
You try to veil your argument as RAW when it ignores a rule plainly written in the book.
If you were able to actually come up with plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" that did not preclude the rule that you are using to detach the IC then you could actually win the argument.
However, until you can come up with plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" you have an incomplete and untenable argument.
An argument is simply not tenable if it is propped up on missing or implausible definitions.
I am fully prepared to concede the 'IC returning to play with the unit of scarabs' argument provided you actually come up with plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" that did not preclude the rule that you are using to detach the IC.
As it stands, the plausible definitions for "play" and "removed from play" that I came up with on analysis of the rules as they are written in the rulebook DO preclude the rule that you are using to detach the IC. I do not ignore the "removed from play" rule plainly written in the BRB and that is why I can claim RAW support over yours.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/02/02 22:58:27
Ffyllotek wrote: I think we need to take the heat out of this thread a little...
I don't think there's a 'community consensus' here. Actually I think RAW Col_Impact is right on both accounts.
For characters, the FTSWR rule refers to the unit. We're not told the unit ceases to be a unit on being completely destroyed, in fact the rule clarifying VP's suggests that even in death it is still a unit (otherwise they'd be no need to state the VP thing).
For the size of a unit, I don't think anyone can argue that 9+3 bases isn't the unit... And the rule doesn't say 'original sized unit', just 'the unit' - which, as Col says, is a pile of bases of scarabs on the side of the table in the dead pile.
No that I'd play either... FTSWR is the most broken rule in the game right now!
You cannot take the heat out. It is how Col_Impact argues. He basically yells the same point over and over without RAW support until a mod locks the thread.
And you have not addressed any of the counter points in your argument.
I think he argues much like everyone else.
The counter points I just don't see as relevent. To me they don't shed any light nor actually apply in the situation.
On the issue of the unit of 12 scarabs returning to play it's been a pretty slam-dunk case that RAW that the whole unit of 12 returns to play.
It has been shown that the Spyders do increase the unit size of the scarabs and no one has successfully pointed to a rule that says "starting" or "original" that would restrict the pile of 12 scarab models from returning to play.
The thread has now focused on the IC issue which is more controversial.
For me the IC issue hangs now on whether anyone can offer up plausible definitions of "play" or "removed from play" that are coherent with usage in the BRB and that do not preclude the rule that would detach the IC.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/02/02 23:09:13
8500
1500
6000
2000
5000
15k+
3k+
6000+
2000
2000
