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.

 Charistoph wrote:
They apparently thought about it for St Celestine.

I was about to point out that Celestine isn't actually removed when she successfully resurrects (hence. she isn't set up again).

However, I then noticed that her Healing Tears ability specify that her Geminae Superiors are set up with all their wounds restored.

Back to square one.

Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.

Tyran wrote:
Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.

Any chance you could elaborate on that?

 vipoid wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.

Any chance you could elaborate on that?

Been explained before, but the system for allocating wounds on multi-wound models needs to be only one wounded model in a unit at a time.

Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.

Any chance you could elaborate on that?

Been explained before, but the system for allocating wounds on multi-wound models needs to be only one wounded model in a unit at a time.

No, it has been presented before with no quotes for proper context. That is not explaining. In a situation where not everyone has access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors, it is important to present a proper case.

It was also challenged with no rebuttal by the person who presented it.

 Charistoph wrote:

Tyran wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

Tyran wrote:
Full wounds, otherwise you break the game. You focus so hard on the raw part that you ignore the context of the system.

Any chance you could elaborate on that?

Been explained before, but the system for allocating wounds on multi-wound models needs to be only one wounded model in a unit at a time.

No, it has been presented before with no quotes for proper context. That is not explaining. In a situation where not everyone has access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors, it is important to present a proper case.

It was also challenged with no rebuttal by the person who presented it.

If you don't have access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors then what are you doing in a discussion about rules?

As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.

Tyran wrote:
As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.

If a unit had 2 wounded models, couldn't you just allocate the wound to either of them?

 vipoid wrote:

Tyran wrote:
As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.

If a unit had 2 wounded models, couldn't you just allocate the wound to either of them?

It would make it an unique case in the entire game.

It needs a FAQ, but the lack of specification, in addition to the allocating wound system and in addition that 8th edition is a permissive system, it makes full wounds the preferred choice.

 doctortom wrote:


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.

It is not undefined or needing a FAQ. The datasheet is literally the definition for the model.

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


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

The rules do provide a standard. The datasheet.

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

Tyran wrote:
If you don't have access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors then what are you doing in a discussion about rules?

I have actually seen this rule in the index. I have not had time to memorize the entire 14 pages of rules, yet, and the pictures rather suck. I have only managed to be in my LGS for a very short time since they got it, and I have a hard time getting back to them as I have kids and other responsibilities.

Tyran wrote:
As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.

Is that a direct quote or just your summary? That's part of the problem, no quoting about this, just a declaration.

The other part of the problem with this specific statement is that these models who have been removed have already been wounded, else why would they have been removed in the first place? This would be in consideration whether they returned with 1 Wound or Full Wounds.

Previous editions stated it as once a model has been Allocated Wounds, it keeps getting Wounds Allocated to it. What is the actual term? If you want this to be solid, please actually provide the paragraph for context. This is a basic tenet for this board.

-----
As a side note, I happened to notice the ignored one's post below the post editor, and I noticed that he completely missed the point again, and went rambling off in a random direction. The "standard" of which I am speaking is that when a model is returned to the table after being removed as a casualty does not have any specific standard in the rulebook as to how many Wounds it has. The Datasheet does not actually state anything about it, it only states what it has at the beginning of the game, and the rule the Index provides states nothing about Wounds, unlike the numerous other versions found in all the indexes.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

Actually, not really, but it wasn't obvious. Col Impact was going on about how it had to be coming back with all its wounds and not one wound, when there's just as little support for that claim as for coming back with one wound. Heck, it could be roll 1D3 for wounds, we don't know unless they FAQ it. He's treating "set up" as mystically healing the model of all wounds, which would mean that in order to be consistent then when you set up models on the battlefield when they disembark they would also have any wounds healed (if it mystically works that say one time then it should mystically work that way all the times it happens).

 Charistoph wrote:

Tyran wrote:
If you don't have access to the rules or willing to operate off of rumors then what are you doing in a discussion about rules?

I have actually seen this rule in the index. I have not had time to memorize the entire 14 pages of rules, yet, and the pictures rather suck. I have only managed to be in my LGS for a very short time since they got it, and I have a hard time getting back to them as I have kids and other responsibilities.

Tyran wrote:
As for wound allocation, it specifies that if there is already a wounded model, wounds must be allocated to that model. In practice this means that an unit only can have one wounded model at a time.

Is that a direct quote or just your summary? That's part of the problem, no quoting about this, just a declaration.

If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

There's a logic to RP that makes me think the answer is full wounds. All the other RP models are 1W. They lose one wound, die, and then start rolling for RP, which will let them stand back up with their 1W. The Destroyers get no benefit from RP until they die - i.e. for wounds one and two - while three 1 wound models would. It makes a certain amount of internal sense that Destroyers should roll after taking three times the wounds in order to get back three times the wounds.

Not a mic drop argument at all, but I think it's the most balanced application of RP on a per-wound basis.

 vipoid wrote:
If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?

And again, how does Reanimation Protocols remove the concept of not having lost any Wounds so this wouldn't be in consideration whether it be 1 Wound or Full Wounds?

These are the questions I presented to Ghalef on the first page, and he didn't answer them.

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?

And again, how does Reanimation Protocols remove the concept of not having lost any Wounds so this wouldn't be in consideration whether it be 1 Wound or Full Wounds?

All previous attacks.

Reanimation Protocols never mentions Wounds, it simply says the model returns to its unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?

Sorry, I don't understand what you're asking here.

 doctortom wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

Actually, not really, but it wasn't obvious. Col Impact was going on about how it had to be coming back with all its wounds and not one wound, when there's just as little support for that claim as for coming back with one wound. Heck, it could be roll 1D3 for wounds, we don't know unless they FAQ it. He's treating "set up" as mystically healing the model of all wounds, which would mean that in order to be consistent then when you set up models on the battlefield when they disembark they would also have any wounds healed (if it mystically works that say one time then it should mystically work that way all the times it happens).

I am not saying that at all.

I am saying that the datasheet is the definition and standard to apply when reanimating.

Reanimating makes no specification as to 1 wound or full wounds.

However, in the lack of any specification, the datasheet provides the standard.

The datasheet for the Destroyers just happens to have 3 wounds on it.

So our argument is proven.

Until you can point to something that overrides the datasheet, you have no argument.

@col_impact - as much as I mostly agree that full wounds is the answer, he does indeed have an argument, whether you like it or not.

Sadly the presence of the datasheet doesn't prove your argument either. The issue at hand doesn't hinge on the datasheet.

I think full wounds is both easy and reasonable, but that's not what YMDC is about.

Tyran wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
If you want an exact quote of the relevant line: "If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

Okay, now is that in the context of the attack, or is that presented in such a way as to indicate all previous attacks?

And again, how does Reanimation Protocols remove the concept of not having lost any Wounds so this wouldn't be in consideration whether it be 1 Wound or Full Wounds?

All previous attacks.

So the sentence is alone and there is no time-frame context provided by the paragraph it is in or the paragraphs surrounding them?

Tyran wrote:Reanimation Protocols never mentions Wounds, it simply says the model returns to its unit.

Exactly the problem and the point.

If all we do is return the model to its unit, without any reference to Wounds, then it is returned to its unit with 0 Wounds, at which point we take them away and that could be a fun interaction with Battleshock, now wouldn't it?

 Fenris-77 wrote:
@col_impact - as much as I mostly agree that full wounds is the answer, he does indeed have an argument, whether you like it or not.

Sadly the presence of the datasheet doesn't prove your argument either. The issue at hand doesn't hinge on the datasheet.

I think full wounds is both easy and reasonable, but that's not what YMDC is about.

Incorrect.

The datasheet is the standard and definition to use when putting a model into play.

Unless something is overriding the datasheet with something specific, you have no choice but to reference the datasheet.

They have no argument until they can point to something that overrides the standard of the datasheet.

You can't reanimate a Destroyer with 1 leadership, so how can you possibly reanimate a Destroyer with 1 wounds, unless something is specifically telling you to do so?

 Charistoph wrote:

Tyran wrote:Reanimation Protocols never mentions Wounds, it simply says the model returns to its unit.

Exactly the problem and the point.

If all we do is return the model to its unit, without any reference to Wounds, then it is returned to its unit with 0 Wounds, at which point we take them away and that could be a fun interaction with Battleshock, no wouldn't it?

We either return the model with zero wounds or per the datasheet. No other rule is saying otherwise.

We use reductio ad absurdum to rule out the zero wound solution as completely and utterly implausible and ridiculously silly.

So we are left with the Destroyers reanimating as per the number of wounds on their datasheet.

That number happens to be three. Nothing is specifying it. We are simply implementing the standard we have - the datasheet.

I don't think anyone would even question if RP meant full wounds if it hadn't worked that way in previous editions, and i think the only reason it did then was because it also applied to necron characters. No one buying the new indexes and learning how to play from the text provided would assume it's 1 wound and i don't think we have any real reason to assume that either.
I think the only reason celestine mentions full wounds is because there are now multiple instances of resurrecting characters across several armies, including sister's own 'spirit of the martyr' act of faith, and all of those do specify that they return with 1 wound and they wanted to make sure you understood hers is a more saintly ability.
Also destroyers are not the only multi wound necrons with RP. Tomb blades, lychguard, and triarch preatorians are all 2 wounds each and all seem costed to take this into account.

 Actinium wrote:
I don't think anyone would even question if RP meant full wounds if it hadn't worked that way in previous editions, and i think the only reason it did then was because it also applied to necron characters. No one buying the new indexes and learning how to play from the text provided would assume it's 1 wound and i don't think we have any real reason to assume that either.
I think the only reason celestine mentions full wounds is because there are now multiple instances of resurrecting characters across several armies, including sister's own 'spirit of the martyr' act of faith, and all of those do specify that they return with 1 wound and they wanted to make sure you understood hers is a more saintly ability.
Also destroyers are not the only multi wound necrons with RP. Tomb blades, lychguard, and triarch preatorians are all 2 wounds each and all seem costed to take this into account.

Interestingly enough, the 3rd & 5th Edition codex had them all come back with only 1 Wound, not full Wounds. It didn't matter in 7th Edition because it was only a modified FNP, rather than a resurrection.

But also to consider, this is a brand new system with brand new mechanics, unlike other systems before, which is why there is no precedence regarding this situation.

 Charistoph wrote:

 Actinium wrote:
I don't think anyone would even question if RP meant full wounds if it hadn't worked that way in previous editions, and i think the only reason it did then was because it also applied to necron characters. No one buying the new indexes and learning how to play from the text provided would assume it's 1 wound and i don't think we have any real reason to assume that either.
I think the only reason celestine mentions full wounds is because there are now multiple instances of resurrecting characters across several armies, including sister's own 'spirit of the martyr' act of faith, and all of those do specify that they return with 1 wound and they wanted to make sure you understood hers is a more saintly ability.
Also destroyers are not the only multi wound necrons with RP. Tomb blades, lychguard, and triarch preatorians are all 2 wounds each and all seem costed to take this into account.

Interestingly enough, the 3rd & 5th Edition codex had them all come back with only 1 Wound, not full Wounds. It didn't matter in 7th Edition because it was only a modified FNP, rather than a resurrection.

But also to consider, this is a brand new system with brand new mechanics, unlike other systems before, which is why there is no precedence regarding this situation.

Exactly.

What happened in the past bears nothing on this edition.

The standard that we have is the datasheet. Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds. No rule says otherwise. And everything is crystal clear based on the datasheet.

There really is nothing to argue here.

No one has pointed to any rule saying "1 wound".

Zero wounds can be dismissed as utterly implausible and silly.

And we are left with a datasheet that indicates 3 wounds when the Destroyer reanimates.

Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.

Just looked at the wording and the units with multi wounds (most of which are severely limited in the number of models they can bring). Based on those 2 aspects i would say full wounds. Since a full unit of destroyers would cost around 400 points and the most you could roll is 5 dice your getting back 1.5 per turn, which is easily to deal with.

 doktor_g wrote:
Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.

It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.

And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.

It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.

And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.

There is no ambiguity.

Zero wounds is ridiculous. You are trying to argue zero wounds to create ambiguity but we dismiss your zero wound solution as completely implausible and silly.

No rule says '1 wound' so you follow the standard of the datasheet.

Destroyer comes in with the amount of wounds on its datasheet. Just like it comes in with the same Toughness, Strength, Leadership , Attacks, Weapon Skill, Ballistic Skill, and Save stats.

There is nothing really to argue here Charistoph.

You have no argument.

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1 - Alpharius]


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sorry Charistoph. That was rude of me.

 Charistoph wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.

It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.

And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.

Actually, he got teleported back to the Tomb World after his body was destroyed so it could be repaired, then teleported back to the battlefield with the rest of his unit. Why Necrons can't use this same technology to teleport around the battlefield, though, is beyond me.

 EnTyme wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 doktor_g wrote:
Full wounds. RAW. Set up the model. I hate Necrons and even I can tell what this rule says. Not ambiguous in the least. Shiney new destroyer.

It is ambiguous to those who have not had occasion to see how "set up" means "placed on the table with full Wounds" in the rulebook.

And no, it is not a new destroyer. The old one got up and hustled to be in cohesion with the rest of his old unit.

Actually, he got teleported back to the Tomb World after his body was destroyed so it could be repaired, then teleported back to the battlefield with the rest of his unit. Why Necrons can't use this same technology to teleport around the battlefield, though, is beyond me.

Why their characters can't use the same technology is beyond me.