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.
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed. Yet you are claiming there is a unit that exists... the two cant coexist
Huh? You are being silly. Where in the rules does it say that the unit no longer exists?
The unit is 'completely destroyed' or 'wiped out' or 'removed from play' but a resurrection rule can access the 'one side [zone]' to restore the unit to play.
In fact, 'From the Sands, We Rise' triggers after a unit is 'wiped out' so there is most assuredly still a concept of a unit in the 'one side [zone]'
Spoiler:
From the Sands, We Rise: If the unit of Necron Warriors or Canopek Scarabs from a Retribution Phalanx is wiped out, it can return to the battlefield at the start of your next turn.
What does "completely destroyed" mean then?
It does not say "return from the one sides zone", because the unit was not ever put in the "one sides zone", just its models. As noted, models removed as casualties cannot be considered part of the unit in order for the rest of the game to work. If they are no longer part of the unit when they go there, then they won't be part of the unit when it is brought back, as we have no instructions to reunite those models with the unit.
More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
Spoiler:
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/27 16:32:44
col_impact wrote: More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Who said anything about real world physics? I asked about the words and terms used in these rules themselves and the terms YOU made up for your convenience of presenting the concept.
Where does it define "completely destroyed" as anything other than the normal use of the terms?
You also have not answered the other questions I have presented regarding your theory. Namely, if the models are not to be treated as part of the unit when removed from play (in order to avoid issues with things like movement), how are they returned to the unit by From the Sand when the unit is restored?
Any definition you apply at this point will be nothing but an assumption, and assumptions are the realm of HYWPI since they are not Written.
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
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: More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Who said anything about real world physics? I asked about the words and terms used in these rules themselves and the terms YOU made up for your convenience of presenting the concept.
Where does it define "completely destroyed" as anything other than the normal use of the terms?
The normal use of the term would involve models being pulverized.
This is a game. 'Completely destroyed' refers to a game state that the models are in.
Game concepts do not correspond to real world definitions.
A unit that is completely destroyed or wiped out is set to the side of the table and placed in a removed from play state and referenced for things like scoring and resurrection effects but are otherwise 'removed from play'. No models are being shredded. Oh the silliness!
You also have not answered the other questions I have presented regarding your theory. Namely, if the models are not to be treated as part of the unit when removed from play (in order to avoid issues with things like movement), how are they returned to the unit by From the Sand when the unit is restored?
Any definition you apply at this point will be nothing but an assumption, and assumptions are the realm of HYWPI since they are not Written.
The models are removed from play as casualties per the rules. They are still organizationally part of the unit but do not interact with the unit in terms of play. Pretty simple really. The BRB just requires you to treat 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
Per the rules, models are always organized in units so when you are dealing with a model directly there is always a unit organization in consideration. The unit level of organization is never 'not there'.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 21:43:26
col_impact wrote: More silliness of trying to apply real world physics to a game. As already stated, 'completely destroyed' is a functional designation for game play and the game rules can freely remove designations and return units to play.
Who said anything about real world physics? I asked about the words and terms used in these rules themselves and the terms YOU made up for your convenience of presenting the concept.
Where does it define "completely destroyed" as anything other than the normal use of the terms?
You also have not answered the other questions I have presented regarding your theory. Namely, if the models are not to be treated as part of the unit when removed from play (in order to avoid issues with things like movement), how are they returned to the unit by From the Sand when the unit is restored?
Any definition you apply at this point will be nothing but an assumption, and assumptions are the realm of HYWPI since they are not Written.
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
The rule "REMOVED AS A CASUALTY AND COMPLETELY DESTROYED" is where the term is defined. It is defined as "When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been
‘completely destroyed’." That completely destroyed unit is what the Formation ability looks for to return.
Now, on the other hand, if you really want to get technical, "wiped out" has no defined ruling on what it means to the game, thus the Formation bonus will never happen.
col_impact wrote: The normal use of the term would involve models being pulverized.
This is a game. 'Completely destroyed' refers to a game state that the models are in.
Game concepts do not correspond to real world definitions.
A unit that is completely destroyed or wiped out is set to the side of the table and placed in a removed from play state and referenced for things like scoring and resurrection effects but are otherwise 'removed from play'. No models are being shredded. Oh the silliness!
Shredded? What the are you talking about? Are you still confusing models with units?
A unit is an organizational concept, as in "The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’." In the real world, when a organization is completely destroyed, it doesn't mean it was pulverized, it means that the cohesion that united it is no longer in play. The individual components can still exist outside of this organization as their own, but that's not the same thing. In the military, it is not uncommon for a unit in wartime to be destroyed by taking extreme or total casualties. Sometimes the unit can lose all members, but be retained in existence and filled with all new members.
For the game, though, a unit that is "completely destroyed" is not set to the side of the table. A unit that is "completely destroyed" is a unit that has all its models removed as casualties and set to the side of the table. Note that they don't even have to be placed on the side of the table together. This is not too far from the concept of a unit being destroyed when all of its components have had their connections severed, but that is only a way to demonstrate the concept.
As I have repeatedly pointed out, the connections between model and unit must be treated as severed when the model is removed or the situation with things like "unit coherency" get out of wack. From the Sands does not specifically address reestablishing this link when it restores the unit.
"Completely destroyed" is never associated with models, only the unit. If you think that I stated otherwise, you are deluding yourself or just not listening.
col_impact wrote: The models are removed from play as casualties per the rules. They are still organizationally part of the unit but do not interact with the unit in terms of play. Pretty simple really. The BRB just requires you to treat 'removed from play' as 'removed from play'.
Reference please.
The only place I see identifying "removed from play" does not state this. It translates "removed from play" as "removed as a casualty", which means "removed from the table and placed to one side".
col_impact wrote: Besides, the game never deals with models directly.
That is complete and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Rules interactions operate on levels of the entity in question. These range from Weapon, Model, Unit, Detachment, to Army. Many unit actions require model participation in order to operate, but also many rules interactions only pay attention to the model such as Relentless and the Heavy Weapon Type and do no care what the unit does.
Per the rules, models are always organized in units so when you are dealing with a model directly there is always a unit organization in consideration. The unit level of organization is never 'not there'.
Reread what you wrote. Now, read Select a Weapon and tell me what is in consideration there for Line of Sight, Range, and capacity to shoot, unit or model?
Read Dangerous Terrain, does the unit take the test or do the models?
When firing a Heavy Weapon, does the game care if the unit moved or the model moved?
Which suffers Wounds, model or unit?
So, my point was not that the "unit is not there" it was to the fact that you said, "the game never deals with models directly.", which is complete and utter . Just a demonstration of the fact that you don't listen, even to yourself.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/27 22:38:40
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 - still no page ref to back up your increasingly...interesting assertions.
The unit, ie the set of models, is completely destroyed. The unit no longer exists. The models do - but the unit (set) they were organised into no longer exists. The only place it exists is in the data sheet.
col_impact wrote:
Per the rules, models are always organized in units so when you are dealing with a model directly there is always a unit organization in consideration. The unit level of organization is never 'not there'.
Reread what you wrote. Now, read Select a Weapon and tell me what is in consideration there for Line of Sight, Range, and capacity to shoot, unit or model?
Read Dangerous Terrain, does the unit take the test or do the models?
When firing a Heavy Weapon, does the game care if the unit moved or the model moved?
Which suffers Wounds, model or unit?
So, my point was not that the "unit is not there" it was to the fact that you said, "the game never deals with models directly.", which is complete and utter . Just a demonstration of the fact that you don't listen, even to yourself.
You are mistaken. The game never deals with models directly. Models are always organized in units and the rules of play involve units and not models directly. So reread the rules. A model is never in play that is outside of the organization of the unit.
Feel free to point to an instance where a model that is not in a unit can participate in the shooting phase, the movement phase, or the psychic phase, etc.
Spoiler:
FORMING A UNIT
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
Units
Warriors tend to band together to fight in squads, teams, sections or similarly named
groups – individuals do not normally go wandering off on their own on the battlefields of
the 41st Millennium for obvious reasons! 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, a tank, a war
engine or a rampaging monster, is also considered to be a unit in its own right.
Spoiler:
The Shooting Sequence
1. Nominate Unit to Shoot. Choose one of your units that is able to shoot but has yet to do so this turn.
2. Choose a Target. The unit can shoot at an enemy unit that it can see.
3. Select a Weapon. Select a weapon the firing unit is equipped with. All models
equipped with a weapon with the same name can now shoot that weapon at the
target. Every model that wishes to shoot must be within range of at least one
visible model in the target unit. Models that cannot see the target, or are not in
range, cannot shoot.
4. Roll To Hit. Roll a D6 for each shot fired. A model’s Ballistic Skill determines
what it must roll in order to hit the target.
5. Roll To Wound. For each shot that hit, roll again to see if it wounds the
target. The result needed is determined by comparing the Strength of the firing
weapon with the majority Toughness of the target unit.
6. Allocate Wounds & Remove Casualties. Any Wounds caused by the firing
unit must now be allocated, one at a time, to the closest model in the target
unit. A model with a Wound allocated to it can take a saving throw (if it has
one) to avoid being wounded. If a model is reduced to 0 Wounds, it is removed
as a casualty. Wounds are then allocated to the next closest model. Continue to
allocate Wounds and take saving throws until all Wounds have been resolved.
7. Select Another Weapon. After resolving all shots from the currently selected
weapon, if the firing unit is equipped with differently named weapons that
have yet to fire, select another weapon and repeat steps 3 to 6.
Spoiler:
THE MOVEMENT PHASE
[. . . ]
In your turn, you can move any of your units – all of them if you wish – up to
their maximum movement distance. Once a unit has completed all of its movement,
you can select another unit and move that one, and so on, until you have moved all of the
units you wish to move. Once you have started moving a unit, you must finish its move
before you start to move another unit. Note that you don’t have to move all (or any) of
your units – indeed, there are several tactical advantages to remaining stationary, as we’ll
explain later in the rules. Once you’ve completed a unit’s move, you cannot go back and
change it, so think carefully before giving the order to advance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nosferatu1001 wrote: Col - still no page ref to back up your increasingly...interesting assertions.
The unit, ie the set of models, is completely destroyed. The unit no longer exists. The models do - but the unit (set) they were organised into no longer exists. The only place it exists is in the data sheet.
Already answered.
Spoiler:
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
'Completely destroyed' means that the unit is on the side of table removed from play. Can you point to rules that say the models in the unit are no longer organizationally part of the unit? Looks like you can't.
I have pointed to rules that say models are always organized in units. So long as there are models on the side of the table they must be organized in some unit or units. The burden is on you to provide textual support for the silly things that your argument is trying to advance.
'From the Sands, We Rise' has no problems referencing the unit in the "wiped out" zone and is in itself textual support that unit is an organizational game concept in the 'removed from play' zone. The argument that you are trying to advance is that the rule cannot reference the unit in the "wiped out" zone. Are you trying to argue that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does not work at all since there are no units in the "wiped out" zone? Such silliness. You guys literally have no argument.
This message was edited 7 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 00:19:44
If col is right then why even go for scarabs when you could just add more warriors to the warrior unit via ghost ark repair. Sure you need the unit to be shot at first but hey your still adding models to the unit.
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
col_impact wrote: You are mistaken. The game never deals with models directly. Models are always organized in units and the rules of play involve units and not models directly. So reread the rules. A model is never in play that is outside of the organization of the unit.
Feel free to point out where I said a model in play is outside of an organization. I thought we were focusing on models removed from play?
What I was countering your assertion that "the game never deals with models directly."
To demonstrate my point, since you cannot be bothered to listen and research from there:
Select A Weapon ...
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
...
A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers. This must be declared before rolling To Hit. If a model chooses not to shoot with the currently selected weapon now, it cannot fire that weapon later during the same phase (but it can shoot a differently named weapon it is equipped with). All of the models in the unit that are firing the selected weapon shoot at the same time, regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together...
While it is models in a unit, it is still models that the game is addressing directly in this section.
Dangerous Terrain Dangerous terrain follows all the rules for difficult terrain – you’ve got to watch your step! In addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
Heavy Weapons ...
When shooting, a model with a Heavy weapon shoots the number of times indicated. If a model carrying a Heavy weapon moved in the preceding Movement phase, he can fire it in the Shooting phase but only as Snap Shots. Remember that weapons with the Blast special rule cannot fire Snap Shots. Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
So, yeah, from this small sample, the game definitely deals directly with models.
Allocate Wounds First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
'Completely destroyed' means that the unit is on the side of table removed from play. Can you point to rules that say the models in the unit are no longer organizationally part of the unit? Looks like you can't.
Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
col_impact wrote: I have pointed to rules that say models are always organized in units. So long as there are models on the side of the table they must be organized in some unit or units. The burden is on you to provide textual support for the silly things that your argument is trying to advance.
'From the Sands, We Rise' has no problems referencing the unit in the "wiped out" zone and is in itself textual support that unit is an organizational game concept in the 'removed from play' zone. The argument that you are trying to advance is that the rule cannot reference the unit in the "wiped out" zone. Are you trying to argue that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does not work at all since there are no units in the "wiped out" zone? Such silliness. You guys literally have no argument.
Can you reference where it defines this "wiped out" zone?
These questions have been asked a few times, but you have refused to even acknowledge what they are by providing improper answers. Can you listen to what is asked and answer properly?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oberron wrote: If col is right then why even go for scarabs when you could just add more warriors to the warrior unit via ghost ark repair. Sure you need the unit to be shot at first but hey your still adding models to the unit.
The Scarab Hive can take a unit beyond their starting number, the Ghost Ark specifically states that it cannot.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/28 05:01:52
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.
Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/28 05:29:06
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
col_impact wrote: You are mistaken. The game never deals with models directly. Models are always organized in units and the rules of play involve units and not models directly. So reread the rules. A model is never in play that is outside of the organization of the unit.
Feel free to point out where I said a model in play is outside of an organization. I thought we were focusing on models removed from play?
What I was countering your assertion that "the game never deals with models directly."
To demonstrate my point, since you cannot be bothered to listen and research from there:
Select A Weapon ...
First, select a weapon that one or more models in your unit are equipped with. The selected weapon cannot be one that the unit has shot with during this phase. All models in the unit that are equipped with the selected weapon can now shoot at the target unit with that weapon.
...
A player can choose not to fire with certain models if he prefers. This must be declared before rolling To Hit. If a model chooses not to shoot with the currently selected weapon now, it cannot fire that weapon later during the same phase (but it can shoot a differently named weapon it is equipped with). All of the models in the unit that are firing the selected weapon shoot at the same time, regardless of whether or not all of the dice are rolled together...
While it is models in a unit, it is still models that the game is addressing directly in this section.
Dangerous Terrain Dangerous terrain follows all the rules for difficult terrain – you’ve got to watch your step! In addition, each model must take a Dangerous Terrain test as soon as it enters, leaves or moves within dangerous terrain.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
Heavy Weapons ...
When shooting, a model with a Heavy weapon shoots the number of times indicated. If a model carrying a Heavy weapon moved in the preceding Movement phase, he can fire it in the Shooting phase but only as Snap Shots. Remember that weapons with the Blast special rule cannot fire Snap Shots. Models that shoot with Heavy weapons in the Shooting phase cannot charge in the ensuing Assault phase.
No mention of a unit here, so the game is definitely directly dealing with models here.
So, yeah, from this small sample, the game definitely deals directly with models.
Allocate Wounds First, allocate a Wound from the Wound pool to the enemy model closest to the firing unit, regardless of which model caused that Wound.
In all of the examples you list, not once are you showing me a model that is not in a unit. So you have utterly failed to prove your point. I am waiting for you to show me a case where you are dealing with a model not in a unit, not a case where the rules simply don't mention unit out of not wanting to be excessively redundant.
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
'Completely destroyed' means that the unit is on the side of table removed from play. Can you point to rules that say the models in the unit are no longer organizationally part of the unit? Looks like you can't.
Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
My argument still stands. I have pointed to rules that settle the issue. All models in 40k are organized in units.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The game is not played outside of the battlefield (except for specific exceptions as noted).
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect. By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play.
A model that is "removed as a casualty" cannot shoot, move, or engage in the psychic phase because it has been "removed" and is no longer on the game space (ie the battlefield). Once a model or a unit is removed from the battlefield that is usually the end of it for those models or units. Once removed as a casualty, models or units are almost always doing nothing henceforth. However, a rule like From the Sands, We Rise can specifically return units that have been removed from the battlefield as casualties.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 06:34:41
The most clear point I see here is if the unit died and only had three models left, you wouldn't claim the unit may only return with the model count it had the turn it died.
Since the rule in question grants the ability to resurrect a unit chosen as part of a formation, then the unit returning would have to be the one that was purchased.
Any other action would cause the entire situation to fall appart because (under the idea of allowing the added units to return) I could kill all but one model one turn, then wait until the next turn to eliminate it and then claim you can only resurect the "unit" as it existed at the time of death.
You cant have one option without the other because the point of reference made is only speaking of the unit size being different than the starting size. Since unit size can be modified up and down in this instance there is precedent for the unit to return at its starting size.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: The most clear point I see here is if the unit died and only had three models left, you wouldn't claim the unit may only return with the model count it had the turn it died.
Since the rule in question grants the ability to resurrect a unit chosen as part of a formation, then the unit returning would have to be the one that was purchased.
Any other action would cause the entire situation to fall appart because (under the idea of allowing the added units to return) I could kill all but one model one turn, then wait until the next turn to eliminate it and then claim you can only resurect the "unit" as it existed at the time of death.
You cant have one option without the other because the point of reference made is only speaking of the unit size being different than the starting size. Since unit size can be modified up and down in this instance there is precedent for the unit to return at its starting size.
Unit size has nothing to do with it. The rule grants the ability to return the unit of scarabs. Simply return the unit of scarabs that has been removed as a casualty from the battlefield which you will find on the side of the table. Whether that is 9 or 12 or however many scarab bases depends on what the unit is comprised of on the side of the table. The rule does not specify "original" or "purchased" or "size just before it was wiped out". It just specified "the unit . . . wiped out" which is the unit on the side of the table. Simple. Simple. Simple.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 06:57:52
col_impact wrote:In all of the examples you list, not once are you showing me a model that is not in a unit. So you have utterly failed to prove your point. I am waiting for you to show me a case where you are dealing with a model not in a unit, not a case where the rules simply don't mention unit out of not wanting to be excessively redundant.
And you demonstrate your inability/unwillingness to listen. Should I just mark this as trolling?
You said "the game never deals directly with a model". Those rules are definitely dealing directly with models. The fact that models are part of units is irrelevant since your statement did not state "the game do not directly deal with a model outside of a unit".
And even that concept is out of order. Because you have to separate models from a unit somehow in order for models removed as a casualty to not affect coherency. Then in some cases those models who have been removed gain a chance to come back, particularly from Necrons, Tyranids, and formerly Imperial Guard.
col_impact wrote:
Charistoph wrote: Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
My argument still stands. I have pointed to rules that settle the issue. All models in 40k are organized in units.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The game is not played outside of the battlefield (except for specific exceptions as noted).
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect. By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play.
A model that is "removed as a casualty" cannot shoot, move, or engage in the psychic phase because it has been "removed" and is no longer on the game space (ie the battlefield). Once a model or a unit is removed from the battlefield that is usually the end of it for those models or units. Once removed as a casualty, models or units are almost always doing nothing henceforth. However, a rule like From the Sands, We Rise can specifically return units that have been removed from the battlefield as casualties.
Insufficient to the task requested. You provided one quote and that did not define what "in play" means, nor did it properly define what "not in play" means, all it provided is where. You also incorrectly stated that a unit is removed from play when rules you have quoted state otherwise. I left the portion you quoted in to demonstrate your failure. Now, I will repeat the questions to emphasize their point.
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"? Not where it is, but what it means.
Can you reference where it states that models "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
Can you reference where it defines this "wiped out" zone?
If you can properly reference them, do so. If you cannot, just admit it. Don't just use your assertions.
col_impact wrote:Unit size has nothing to do with it. The rule grants the ability to return the unit of scarabs. Simply return the unit of scarabs that has been removed as a casualty from the battlefield which you will find on the side of the table. Whether that is 9 or 12 or however many scarab bases depends on what the unit is comprised of on the side of the table. The rule does not specify "original" or "purchased" or "size just before it was wiped out". It just specified "the unit . . . wiped out" which is the unit on the side of the table. Simple. Simple. Simple.
Unit size has everything to do with this discussion. That is the original question in the OP.
And your refusal to properly acknowledge rules you have quoted and have been demonstrated several times is tantamount to trolling. No where does it state a unit is "removed from play", only the models are. Units who have had all their models "removed from play" are "completely destroyed".
In addition, the unit cannot reference those models that have been removed as casualties at any time while it is "in play" otherwise they would have to run to the board edge to attempt to stay in coherency (and consistently fail). Unless you can demonstrate where it says otherwise, this point has no more legs than anything else stated as a solution in this thread.
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.
nosferatu1001 wrote: Yet there is no longer a unit. It was completely destroyed.
The unit is on the side of the table designated completely destroyed per the rules. You lack a rule to counter the rule in place (the models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’). You do follow the rules, right? In my play group we follow the rules.
col_impact wrote:In all of the examples you list, not once are you showing me a model that is not in a unit. So you have utterly failed to prove your point. I am waiting for you to show me a case where you are dealing with a model not in a unit, not a case where the rules simply don't mention unit out of not wanting to be excessively redundant.
And you demonstrate your inability/unwillingness to listen. Should I just mark this as trolling?
You said "the game never deals directly with a model". Those rules are definitely dealing directly with models. The fact that models are part of units is irrelevant since your statement did not state "the game do not directly deal with a model outside of a unit".
And even that concept is out of order. Because you have to separate models from a unit somehow in order for models removed as a casualty to not affect coherency. Then in some cases those models who have been removed gain a chance to come back, particularly from Necrons, Tyranids, and formerly Imperial Guard.
Still waiting for you to present a case where the game allows you to deal with models not organized in units. Accusing me of trolling is a smoke screen to cover up your failure to make a case. The game of 40k does not allow you to deal with models directly outside of units.
Charistoph wrote: Quite incorrect, especially after just being corrected on this subject.
Units that are "completely destroyed" does not mean that the unit is on the side of the table and removed from play. Units that are "completely destroyed" are ones whose have had all of their models "removed as a casualty".
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"?
Can you reference where it states that units "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
My argument still stands. I have pointed to rules that settle the issue. All models in 40k are organized in units.
The battlefield is the location where the game is played. Of course this game area can be extended by expansions or player agreement, models that are not on the battlefield are not generally subject to play (unless they have specific rules governing what they can or cannot do - ie Reserves or Ongoing Reserves which provide specific allowances)
Spoiler:
THE BATTLEFIELD
The battlefield over which your game is played must be set up before the game begins.
The game is not played outside of the battlefield (except for specific exceptions as noted).
Rules that "remove as a casualty", "remove from play","remove from the game", or "remove from the table" are all effectively doing the same thing. They are all taking the model (or whole unit) and placing it off the battlefield where the game is played and the general rules of the game are in effect. By placing the model or unit off the table the player is literally removing the model or unit from game play.
A model that is "removed as a casualty" cannot shoot, move, or engage in the psychic phase because it has been "removed" and is no longer on the game space (ie the battlefield). Once a model or a unit is removed from the battlefield that is usually the end of it for those models or units. Once removed as a casualty, models or units are almost always doing nothing henceforth. However, a rule like From the Sands, We Rise can specifically return units that have been removed from the battlefield as casualties.
Insufficient to the task requested. You provided one quote and that did not define what "in play" means, nor did it properly define what "not in play" means, all it provided is where. You also incorrectly stated that a unit is removed from play when rules you have quoted state otherwise. I left the portion you quoted in to demonstrate your failure. Now, I will repeat the questions to emphasize their point.
Can you reference where it states this "in play" concept you keep harping on? In addition, where it defines "not in play"? Not where it is, but what it means.
Can you reference where it states that models "removed as casualties" are able to keep their unit identity while not violating coherency?
Can you reference where it defines this "wiped out" zone?
If you can properly reference them, do so. If you cannot, just admit it. Don't just use your assertions.
These have all been properly referenced. The Battlefield is where the game gives permission for play to occur. 'Game play' is divided into 4 main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. If you are not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in those phases except by rules that specifically permit you to do so. 40k is a game of permission. This is why a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency. In fact, you are being disingenuous to insist that I point out what is fully referenced and obvious. "Wiped out" is obviously synonomous with 'removed as a casualty'. Feel free to make the counter-argument to the thread that "wiped out" doesn't mean anything and that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does nothing as a rule and see how that goes for you. I will not bother arguing things that are patently obvious and that will not come into contention in any game of 40k and that you will not provide a counter-argument in good faith.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 18:44:39
nosferatu1001 wrote: The unit is completely destroyed, yet you claim the unit exists. Page and graph, fifth time of asking.
Spoiler:
The models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’.
Fifth time answered.
Are you having trouble with reading the rule I keep posting? It seems pretty clear to me.
A unit that is completely destroyed sits on the side of the table along with everything else that has been destroyed, removed as a casualty, removed from the game, wiped out, etc.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 19:23:01
col_impact wrote: The unit is on the side of the table designated completely destroyed per the rules. You lack a rule to counter the rule in place (the models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’). You do follow the rules, right? In my play group we follow the rules.
False. The unit is never noted as being on the side of the table, only the models are. The unit whose models are all on the side of the table is "completely destroyed".
Reread:
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’.
What is the designation of the unit stated in the above statement?
col_impact wrote: Still waiting for you to present a case where the game allows you to deal with models not organized in units. Accusing me of trolling is a smoke screen to cover up your failure to make a case. The game of 40k does not allow you to deal with models directly outside of units.
You misspoke. You then tried to accuse me of something I did not state in connection to your misspeaking. You are attempting to make this about something which has no connection to the original statement. This is the trolling behavior.
If you want to correct that misstatement, then go ahead, but so far, you have not even acknowledged you stated it. You keep trying to push that you were stating as something that you did not state in order to hide your grievous error. It is for this reason when you do this, I accuse you of not listening.
No, they have not been properly referenced. Alluded to, perhaps, but that is not the same thing. Proper referenced is where it states this concept. Here, let me show you by point this out.
col_impact wrote: 'Game play' is divided into 4 main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. If you are not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in those phases except by rules that specifically permit you to do so.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that if an entity is not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in these phase?
col_impact wrote: This is why a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency?
col_impact wrote: In fact, you are being disingenuous to insist that I point out what is fully referenced and obvious. "Wiped out" is obviously synonomous with 'removed as a casualty'. Feel free to make the counter-argument to the thread that "wiped out" doesn't mean anything and that 'From the Sands, We Rise' does nothing as a rule and see how that goes for you.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that a unit that is "wiped out" is "removed as a casualty" when that is a status associated with models and not units? Usually it is more synonymous with "completely destroyed", which IS associated with units.
col_impact wrote: I will not bother arguing things that are patently obvious and that will not come into contention in any game of 40k and that you will not provide a counter-argument in good faith.
Patently obvious to you does not mean patently obvious to another, especially when they ask for clarification by reference. If a person asked those questions, it means that it is not "patently obvious". You have done the same thing to me, so don't think that you will get away with it.
So, you cannot or will not properly reference answer these questions and any further points you make regarding this without properly referencing the rulebook can be ignored.
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: 'Game play' is divided into 4 main phases: Movement, Psychic, Shooting and Assault. If you are not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in those phases except by rules that specifically permit you to do so.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that if an entity is not on the Battlefield you do not have permission to participate in these phase?
col_impact wrote: This is why a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency.
Statement with no reference. Where does it state that a model that is removed from the Battlefield does not have permission to factor into unit coherency?
Per the rules, the Battlefield is where the game is played. A model doesn't have permission to participate in Game Play (unless a rule expressly permits it) unless the model is on the Battlefield. Them's the rules.
col_impact wrote: Still waiting for you to present a case where the game allows you to deal with models not organized in units. Accusing me of trolling is a smoke screen to cover up your failure to make a case. The game of 40k does not allow you to deal with models directly outside of units.
You misspoke. You then tried to accuse me of something I did not state in connection to your misspeaking. You are attempting to make this about something which has no connection to the original statement. This is the trolling behavior.
If you want to correct that misstatement, then go ahead, but so far, you have not even acknowledged you stated it. You keep trying to push that you were stating as something that you did not state in order to hide your grievous error. It is for this reason when you do this, I accuse you of not listening.
I fully accept the title of bad listener. You have the title of 'man with no argument'. I am still waiting for you to present a case.
col_impact wrote: The unit is on the side of the table designated completely destroyed per the rules. You lack a rule to counter the rule in place (the models that make up your Warhammer 40,000 army must be organised into ‘units’). You do follow the rules, right? In my play group we follow the rules.
False. The unit is never noted as being on the side of the table, only the models are. The unit whose models are all on the side of the table is "completely destroyed".
Reread:
Incorrect.
Spoiler:
When all of the models in a unit are removed as casualties, the unit is said to have been ‘completely destroyed’.
I place the unit on the side of the table and I say (ie designate) "completely destroyed". 'Completely destroyed' is a designation in the game that can be revoked by resurrection rule.
col_impact wrote: I will not bother arguing things that are patently obvious and that will not come into contention in any game of 40k and that you will not provide a counter-argument in good faith.
Patently obvious to you does not mean patently obvious to another, especially when they ask for clarification by reference. If a person asked those questions, it means that it is not "patently obvious". You have done the same thing to me, so don't think that you will get away with it.
So, you cannot or will not properly reference answer these questions and any further points you make regarding this without properly referencing the rulebook can be ignored.
I will not answer questions that are patently obvious. You have to be prepared to present a full counter-argument in good faith for it to be worthy of my attention. Bad faith arguments are ignored.
Is this the best you guys can do? Throw a bunch of bad faith arguments that no one will take seriously? My RAW argument stands uncontested.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 20:16:20
nosferatu1001 wrote: So that is an absolute statement, that cannot be overwritten by another rule? Oh wait, it isn't such a thing....
Fact: the unit IS completely destroyed. If you try to point to a unit, that is completely destroyed, you are failing to head this rule
You love to ignore inconvenient rules. It's amusing.
You are mixing game logic with real world physics. The game designates the unit as completely destroyed and puts the unit wholly on the side of the table and then 'From the Sands, We Rise' returns the completely destroyed unit on the side of the table to play. Somehow you think something existentially has happened to the unit when all that has happened is a simple change in game state. Your argument is plain silly.
Is this the best you can do? Silly lines of argumentation like this only bolster my RAW argument.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/28 23:40:26
The unit, which the models were a part of, no longer exists. It cannot do so, because it has been "completely destroyed"
Your argument cannot be raw, because it ignores written rules and how the game is constructed. Par for the course.
Where does it say that the unit no longer exists? I see a rule which says that the unit is said to be completely destroyed. So there is a unit designated as completely destroyed with all of its models on the side of the table. And there is a rule that can take a "wiped out" unit and return it to play.
Your continued persistence in this line of argumentation is very amusing. Please keep going. I am loving how strong it makes my argument look.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/29 00:15:21
You ignoring a rule makes your argument stronger? That's a perverse view on argumentation, but whatever...
You're treating something that is destroyed as if it isn't destroyed. Keep going, I want to see what else you will gloss over because it is inconvenient.
nosferatu1001 wrote: You ignoring a rule makes your argument stronger? That's a perverse view on argumentation, but whatever...
You're treating something that is destroyed as if it isn't destroyed. Keep going, I want to see what else you will gloss over because it is inconvenient.
I am ignoring no rules. It is all RAW. It's really hard to cause an organizational concept like unit to cease to exist since it has no tangible existence in the first place. LOL.
In fact, if we follow your line of argumentation to its rational conclusion, 'From the Sands, We Rise' doesn't even work. Care to expand on that?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/29 00:20:24
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
So now ghost ark does nothing ever? Ghost ark does not say take a model that was destroyed and return it to play it clearly says add. Either the ghost ark adding to the warriors works just the same as ths scarab swarm in regards to rise from the sands or the ghost ark does nothing because you can't add models to the warrior unit to repair them because they are somehow always at full unit count.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/29 00:30:59
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
You are ignoring that the basic rule is overwritten by the more advanced rule. Thus your argument is not raw. This is proven, as you cannot dispute the fact of the written rule, you just ignore it. You can disagree, but your disagreement has no objective value as you are failing to apply a rule.
The unit is destroyed. Thus the rule fails to function, as it gives us nothing to determine what is brought back. Min unit, starting unit, unit after additions are all possibilities, but the rule is lacking this information and thus fails
Which you've been told all along, yet you cling to this comical argument that ignoring rules makes you right.
You are ignoring that the basic rule is overwritten by the more advanced rule. Thus your argument is not raw. This is proven, as you cannot dispute the fact of the written rule, you just ignore it. You can disagree, but your disagreement has no objective value as you are failing to apply a rule.
The unit is destroyed. Thus the rule fails to function, as it gives us nothing to determine what is brought back. Min unit, starting unit, unit after additions are all possibilities, but the rule is lacking this information and thus fails
Which you've been told all along, yet you cling to this comical argument that ignoring rules makes you right.
The unit is said to be completely destroyed. So now there is a unit designated as completely destroyed on the side of the table. 'From the Sands, We Rise' returns the unit to play. This is about as simple a RAW argument as they come.
The fact that you cannot manage to understand a notion of game state is thoroughly amusing. The game of 40k can do whatever it pleases with its rules and is not bound by you rant "but, but, but how can it bring a unit back if its completely destroyed."
The title of the rule - 'From the Sands, We Rise' supports the dynamic of being able to bring back to life something that has been reduced to ashes! The game of 40k can certainly have rules which make the miraculous happen. Arguing against the power that rules can have is making you look silly.
Please keep going. I am loving all the support your argument is giving mine.
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
So now ghost ark does nothing ever? Ghost ark does not say take a model that was destroyed and return it to play it clearly says add. Either the ghost ark adding to the warriors works just the same as ths scarab swarm in regards to rise from the sands or the ghost ark does nothing because you can't add models to the warrior unit to repair them because they are somehow always at full unit count.
The rule effectively requires you to add from the pool of warriors on the side of the table that would have been in the Ghost Ark. If you add warriors from some other pool such as to go beyond your unit size, that violates the Ghost Ark rule. So as others have pointed out, the Ghost Ark case sheds no light here. The Scarab Hive specifically allows the starting size of the scarab unit to be increased and the Ghost Ark rule specifically disallows it.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/05/29 00:50:09
Oberron wrote: Still the same principle that col is talking about. The ghost ark can't add more than the starting number but there are still models that were removed and put aside. The unit in play never goes beyond its starting point. According to col once the unit gets wiped out all the models that were part of the unit come back.
But that isn't HIWP, just pointing out another thing using col's stance.
Not the same. The models are organized in units whether in play on the battlefield or removed as a casualty from the battlefield. If you are adding warriors (from your box of extra warriors) and not adhering to the size of the entire unit (on battlefield and off battlefield) then you are cheating.
The Scarab Hive special rule allows you to add scarab bases to the scarab unit and increase the unit size.
So now ghost ark does nothing ever? Ghost ark does not say take a model that was destroyed and return it to play it clearly says add. Either the ghost ark adding to the warriors works just the same as ths scarab swarm in regards to rise from the sands or the ghost ark does nothing because you can't add models to the warrior unit to repair them because they are somehow always at full unit count.
The rule effectively requires you to add from the pool of warriors on the side of the table that would have been in the Ghost Ark. If you add warriors from some other pool such as to go beyond your unit size, that violates the Ghost Ark rule. So as others have pointed out, the Ghost Ark case sheds no light here. The Scarab Hive specifically allows the starting size of the scarab unit to be increased and the Ghost Ark rule specifically disallows it.
But that clearly isn't what the rule says with ghost ark "...Add a number of Necron Warriors to the unit equal to the result - this cannot take the unit beyond its starting size nor, if its currently embarked in the Ghost Ark, beyond the vehicle's Transport Capacity (any excess are destroyed)...."
Taking warriors from the side of the table that were destroyed isn't adding necron warriors to the unit, it is replacing them on the table, which is not what the rule says. If you take the warriors that were part of that unit and set aside you are not adding warriors to the unit and are breaking the rules for ghost ark since that is not adding to the unit.
Again either the ghost ark can add warriors to the unit (not replacing already destroyed warriors since that isn't what the rule says) and then if the entire unit is destroyed return all the warriors back on, or the Repair Barge special rule is broken and does not work ever since you are insisting that the unit's size is always counting models on and off the table.
It's easy to assume that people arguing an interpretation you disagree with are just looking for an advantage for themselves... But it's quite often not the case.
and ignores a whole host of rules. You quoted one just a few posts ago about models being removed.
Such silliness. You guys literally have no argument.