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.

The rule says to set up the model.
The destroyer's wound characteristics is three wounds.
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.

From this we can conclude the current hypothesis is that a destroyer is returned with the full three wounds unless otherwise specified.

I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.

 tydrace wrote:
The rule says to set up the model.
The destroyer's wound characteristics is three wounds.
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.

From this we can conclude the current hypothesis is that a destroyer is returned with the full three wounds unless otherwise specified.

I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.

100% agreed.

 tydrace wrote:
The rule says to set up the model.
The destroyer's wound characteristics is three wounds.
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.

From this we can conclude the current hypothesis is that a destroyer is returned with the full three wounds unless otherwise specified.

I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.

Yes, I have to agree, in the absence of specifics, we have to go with the least convoluted, which in this case, full wounds. Makes me hate necrons even more



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Well, they gained a 50% increase in wounds, so a 50% increase in cost is appropriate.

That logic doesn't hold at all.

A ton of other models also gained extra wounds in this edition - often far more than the Destroyers. However, few if any went up by the same % in points (some even went down).

Hence, no, an additional wound alone is nowhere near enough to justify a 50% increase in cost. Especially in an edition where inflicting multiple wounds on high-toughness models is easier than ever.

Okay, how about the fact that with the Fly keyword, they are not penalized for falling back out of combat (which is very powerful for a heavy weapon squad).

Well, I do find it very interesting(and kinda fluffy) that the only way to get rid of necrons is to hit one unit until it is entirely dead. inflicting heavy casualties can also cause the unit to fail morale(unless necrons have a morale rule I missed) and dissapear. Makes for a bit of unique tactics vs necrons. Might be overpowered though, but I need to see it in play.

 ClassicCarraway wrote:
Okay, how about the fact that with the Fly keyword, they are not penalized for falling back out of combat (which is very powerful for a heavy weapon squad).

That is nice. However, bear in mind that they lost JSJ in the process - which allowed them to move back behind cover after firing (thus protecting them from ranged fire as well as melee).

 tydrace wrote:
The rule says to set up the model.

More correlation is needed for this to mean anything. Needs tie in from deployment. Remember, not everyone has perused either the shop books or the photos to know everything about it.

 tydrace wrote:
The wound allocation rules indicate only a single model can be injured.

Context is needed in order for this to be a thing. Remember, previous editions said something similar, but it was only for that Attack. Does Wound Allocation require this from previous Attacks? Furthermore, whether full or partial, these models were injured before, so the same consideration would be in play.

 tydrace wrote:
Other specific rules, such as that of Trazyn, indicate that if it is returned with special conditions it is stated.

Another rule stating a Wound number means nothing as it is another rule. This does nothing to indicate a single Wound or full Wound return is provided.

 tydrace wrote:
I know this board is a rule lawyer haven, but a little bit of logic can't hurt now and then.

But rules lawyering is all about logic and semantics. What is needed is to extend beyond logic and semantics to fill in gaps left in the rules.

I can show you logically how 1 Wound is all that is provided just as easily as the full Wound count. After all, logically speaking: you only need 1 Wound for the model to be on the table; most of the models who will be using RP will only be getting 1 Wound back; we have permission to give all the Wounds back when putting it back on to the table. So, just as logically, only 1 Wound will be provided.

When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?

There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

 tydrace wrote:
There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.

Restoring a model to have specifically one wound is a very specific number.

The Reanimation rule makes no specification.

The rule either reanimates a 0 wound model (the model as it is in the casualties pile) or it simply restores it as a model per its datasheet.

Provided that we take it on good faith that GW is providing rules that work we reject the proposition of zero wounds (reductio ad absurdum) and can only accept that the rule restores the model per its datasheet.

There is no justification for assigning it 1 wound. That's a very specific number where the rule makes no specification. You might as well be trying to argue that the rule reanimates it with 5.0134 wounds.

If you feel otherwise point to where the rule makes the specification.

There are no rules telling us to replace the slain model with any number of wounds less than what the model has on it's datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There are no rules telling us to replace the slain model with any number of wounds less than what the model has on it's datasheet.

 Charistoph wrote:


When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?

Your logic about precedence is backwards.

The presence of those other rules show precedence that rules specify 1 wound when they mean 1 wound.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?

Your logic about precedence is backwards.

The presence of those other rules show precedence that rules specify 1 wound when they mean 1 wound.

And we have a precedent with Saint Celestine that when they want the model to come back with full wounds they say 'full wounds'.

 Ghaz wrote:

 tydrace wrote:
There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.

Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.

 Ghaz wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:


When one states that other rules provide a specific number of Wounds being returned, wouldn't that establish precedent that a number of Wounds needs to be defined by the rule in order to function?

Your logic about precedence is backwards.

The presence of those other rules show precedence that rules specify 1 wound when they mean 1 wound.

And we have a precedent with Saint Celestine that when they want the model to come back with full wounds they say 'full wounds'.

Again that is not how precedence works. So we have rules that specify and in this case we have a rule that does not specify.

We are talking about the unspecified case here.

1 wound is extremely specific. Why one wound and not 200 wounds?

Either you bring back the model with zero wounds (which we can dismiss with reductio ad absurdum) or as it is on its datasheet (which is the unspecified case).

I am taking note that you have failed to point to wording in the reanimation rule that specifies 1 wound. Why are you making that specification? If we can make up specifics let's reanimate all necron models so they come back with 200 wounds. 200 is just as arbitrary as 1.

And why stop there? When we return a necron model let's make leadership 200 and attacks 200 and strength 200.

Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.

Fragile wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 tydrace wrote:
There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.

Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.

I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 tydrace wrote:
There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.

Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.

I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.

Once again you are failing to point out how the rules specifies one wound.

Unless you have something specifically overriding the datasheet, you return the model per the datasheet.

You don't get to just make up your own specifications.

You are literally throwing out '1 wound' as a made-up arbitrary amount.

Shall we also reanimate a Necron warrior so he has 1 leadership?

Why is the Wound characteristic set to 1 when all other characteristics start at their datasheet values (as per default)?

You have no justification for your claim.

Until you justify your claim, you are simply house ruling.

 Charistoph wrote:

The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

Because I bet the rule writers didn't think this would actually pose an issue to anyone. The datasheet specifies the amount of wounds a model should have when he is set up. There's no rule which overwrites the most default state the model can be in (unaltered from his datasheet).

When you set up a model at the start of the game, there's no rule which specifically states it should come with full wounds. Do we set up the Necron Destroyers with 1 wound at this point?

 tydrace wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

Because I bet the rule writers didn't think this would actually pose an issue to anyone. The datasheet specifies the amount of wounds a model should have when he is set up. There's no rule which overwrites the most default state the model can be in (unaltered from his datasheet).

When you set up a model at the start of the game, there's no rule which specifically states it should come with full wounds. Do we set up the Necron Destroyers with 1 wound at this point?

Exactly.

There really is no point of confusion here. The writers made no error. Charistoph et al are simply not adhering to the logic of the rules in this case.

You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

If it does wind up as 1 wound, that will be awesome so things can get bogged down in previous edition type wound allocation shenanigans. It's like a game within a game.

 Oaka wrote:
That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

Is it the only condition, though? Is there any place on the rulebook that states you lose one wound at a time, even with multi-wound weapons? If a Heavy Destroyer suffers 3+ damage from a single D6 damage weapon; did it ever have just 1 wound left? or did it went straight from 3 to 0 wounds?

Now, if it went from 3 to 0; and it should return with the amount it had before it was reduced to 0; then that means you have to keep track of how many wounds each model had, and roll RP separately for each model; so that you know which one returned.

Avadar wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

Is it the only condition, though? Is there any place on the rulebook that states you lose one wound at a time, even with multi-wound weapons? If a Heavy Destroyer suffers 3+ damage from a single D6 damage weapon; did it ever have just 1 wound left? or did it went straight from 3 to 0 wounds?

Now, if it went from 3 to 0; and it should return with the amount it had before it was reduced to 0; then that means you have to keep track of how many wounds each model had, and roll RP separately for each model; so that you know which one returned.

Well there is a scattering of rules that let you roll a D6 to ignore an unsaved wound or mortal wound. With command point rerolls, it's necessary to resolve those individually. To me, that's enough to suggest models take wounds one at a time and are removed from play when they reach 0 wounds. Or we could get interesting and start arguing that if a model is taken to -2 wounds then it isn't removed from play.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 tydrace wrote:
There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.

Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.

I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.

Once again you are failing to point out how the rules specifies one wound.

The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.

 Oaka wrote:
You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.

If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.

More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.

 Oaka wrote:
You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

Good point, though it would be interesting if vehicles could suddenly heal multiwound models merely by their embarking and disembarking.

 vipoid wrote:


That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.

If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.

More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.

They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0. And, again, I don't think a model can lose multiple wounds instantly, I believe they have to be resolved individually. Otherwise, the rules state models are slain at 0 wounds, and wounds are not restricted like other characteristics to a minimum number. One could argue that taking 6 wounds from a single shot could reduce the model to a negative wounds number and, since it is only slain at 0 wounds, immortality.

None of this is in the Reanimation Protocols rules, I'm just applying interpretations of that rule to other areas of the game to glean intent.

 Oaka wrote:
They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0.

No, they were last on the battlefield with 0 (right before they were removed).

If they'd been on the battlefield with 1 remaining wound, then they wouldn't have been removed in the first place.

 vipoid wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.

If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.

More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.

Col impact was using "set up" to mean that they come back at full wounds because you set them up with RP. Vipoid is merely pointing out that if you try to use "set up" as a precedent for that, then suddenly any multiwound model gets set up at full wounds when it disembarks, no matter how many wounds it had taken before.

 doctortom wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Oaka wrote:
You can't use the term 'set up' to assume the model gets placed on the board according to its datasheet. When models embark a transport, they leave the battlefield, and when they disembark, they are 'set up'. I'm sure we all agree those models are set up in the condition they were in the moment they left the battlefield, with any remaining wounds. That's why I think multi wound Necrons return with 1 wound, as that is the condition they were in when they were last on the battlefield.

That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.

If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.

More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.

Col impact was using "set up" to mean that they come back at full wounds because you set them up with RP. Vipoid is merely pointing out that if you try to use "set up" as a precedent for that, then suddenly any multiwound model gets set up at full wounds when it disembarks, no matter how many wounds it had taken before.

I think you got the names muddled up a bit there.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Fragile wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

 tydrace wrote:
There is nothing in the rule that would indicate the model returns with a single wound.

Correction. There is nothing in the rule that would indicate how many wounds a model come back with, be it one wound or full wounds or somewhere in between.

Therefore when you return a model without any clarification, the model is returned as it stands on its profile as covered in p 174. which would be with full wounds.

I need more information than that for it to be a default. No matter how you look at it, unlike the numerous other rules which provide a set number or reference a method for determining it, we have NONE of that here. The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

No matter the illogic of Col_Ignored's theories on precedence, we need a standard of how it is supposed to work first to know for a surety if Trazyn's rule is a bonus or a restriction, something he glossed over and ignored. The rulebook does not provide that standard. The rule itself does not provide that standard. Every other rule which provides a method for returning a model is presented to us at the same time so there is no past standard with which to derive precedence from.

Once again you are failing to point out how the rules specifies one wound.

The rules specify one wound exactly as much as they specify bringing it back at full wounds - not at all for either case. Precedence has been shown for needing to specify it comes back at full wounds as much as it has been shown for needing to specify that it comes back at one wound. It is undefined, and therefore needing a FAQ.

Someone seemed to have missed the point of my statement that I wasn't supporting either 1 Wound or Full Wounds, but that there is nothing on it. But then, the ignored one often doesn't bother reading what other people write.

I am not supporting one or the other at this point. I find as much logic in supporting 1 Wound as Full Wound restoration, and that's part of the problem. The rule does not state anything regarding Wounds at all. No standard has been presented to support either one as every other rule that does the same thing does specify the Wounds that are returned. Honestly, I do believe that this is something that was passed over in proof-reading and is a form of typo. Hopefully, it will be addressed when the online version of the rules come out. It is on Yakface's FAQ submission, so hopefully it will get addressed quickly.

 tydrace wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

The really sad part of it is that it wouldn't have required a huge amount of proofreading or adjusting the print copy that much to state that they come back with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

Because I bet the rule writers didn't think this would actually pose an issue to anyone. The datasheet specifies the amount of wounds a model should have when he is set up. There's no rule which overwrites the most default state the model can be in (unaltered from his datasheet).

When you set up a model at the start of the game, there's no rule which specifically states it should come with full wounds. Do we set up the Necron Destroyers with 1 wound at this point?

They apparently thought about it for St Celestine.

As for the 'set up' phrase, is that the actual phrase used for deployment? Someone also attributed this phrase to Disembarking from a Transport, has anyone confirmed or countered this?