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.

 vipoid wrote:

 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.

Totally off topic, but I guess they need the rest of the unit as a homing beacon. Still, you'd think they'd at least be able to warp him in through a Night Scythe or Monolith. *shrug* Or maybe its just for balance.

col_impact wrote:

 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.

So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.

No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.

 doctortom wrote:

So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.

See, snark aside, you could actually make a reasonable argument for that being the case (in terms of RAW if not RAI).

The rules are so shallow that the idea of tracking wounds is largely implied, rather than clearly spelled out.

 doctortom wrote:
No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.

I think full wounds is a reasonable assumption (given that the only real alternative would be 0 wounds), but I agree that an faq would be useful.

 vipoid wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.

See, snark aside, you could actually make a reasonable argument for that being the case (in terms of RAW if not RAI).

The rules are so shallow that the idea of tracking wounds is largely implied, rather than clearly spelled out.

DoctorTom brought up this connection to Disembarking earlier in the thread. And if we are to be tracking Wounds for Disembarking, why are we not doing it for Reanimation Protocols? That is the question which requires proof of an answer one way or another. I think the snark came from previous encounters with the person he responded to and the fact that he had already addressed this concept previously.

 vipoid wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.

I think full wounds is a reasonable assumption (given that the only real alternative would be 0 wounds), but I agree that an faq would be useful.

I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.

After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound. When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound. That makes 1 Wound a perfectly valid argument. From a fluff perspective, they have been repaired sufficiently to reenter the battlefield, which only requires 1 Wound.

Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment. Realistically, this is the only actual support for this concept. The concept that having fewer than full Wounds confuses the Wound Allocation system is a red herring, as it is considering "wounded" models, which these already have been, Full Wounds or not. Fluffwise, it is indicating that they will choose not to reenter battle until they are at full fighting trim.

So, either is possible. It could be that the new price point and the Power Level is considering them being restored at Full Wounds, but we have seen them be very wonky with pricing before. Just look at the difference between 5th and 7th Edition pricing for units in this army for those units which are now multi-Wound.

 Charistoph wrote:

DoctorTom brought up this connection to Disembarking earlier in the thread. And if we are to be tracking Wounds for Disembarking, why are we not doing it for Reanimation Protocols?

I've no idea why you quoted me with that question, because that's the exact opposite of the point I made.

That aside, RPs doesn't even imply that you're supposed to track wounds. Why would you? There is only one possible wound value the unit could have had when it was removed prior to RPs - 0.

 Charistoph wrote:

I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.

After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound.

Sure. But for them 1 wound is still full wounds. You are not told to bring them back on 1 wound - that's just the maximum they have on their profile.

 Charistoph wrote:
When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound.

You can't make that sort of assumption based on previous rulesets. Especially since both the rule and the army (not to mention the game) have changed considerably since them.

Hell, in the past it was really only the Necron characters that had more than 1 wound. Destroyers used to have only 1 wound. Lychguard and Praetorians had just 1 wound in 5th, and didn't even exist in the time of WBB.

 Charistoph wrote:

Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment.

Not quite - it goes back to setting models up on the table (and from a place where wounds are not tracked). You do not have permission to modify their stats in any way (including wounds). Hence, you use what's on their stats unless the rule indicates otherwise. The alternative would be to set them up with 0 wounds, which I think we can agree would be absurd.

 Charistoph wrote:
The concept that having fewer than full Wounds confuses the Wound Allocation system is a red herring

Agreed. I don't think we should draw any conclusions based on this.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 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.

So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.

No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.

Who said anything about ascribing meaning to "set up"? Quit straw-manning my argument.

The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.

A model is defined by the datasheet.

The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.

We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.

That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.

There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.

Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.

'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.

You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.

If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.

Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one (see YMDC tenet #1).

My argument is simple. The rule says return model and the datasheet defines the model.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.

After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound. When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound. That makes 1 Wound a perfectly valid argument. From a fluff perspective, they have been repaired sufficiently to reenter the battlefield, which only requires 1 Wound.

Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment. Realistically, this is the only actual support for this concept. The concept that having fewer than full Wounds confuses the Wound Allocation system is a red herring, as it is considering "wounded" models, which these already have been, Full Wounds or not. Fluffwise, it is indicating that they will choose not to reenter battle until they are at full fighting trim.

So, either is possible. It could be that the new price point and the Power Level is considering them being restored at Full Wounds, but we have seen them be very wonky with pricing before. Just look at the difference between 5th and 7th Edition pricing for units in this army for those units which are now multi-Wound.

So you can only point to prior editions or 'fluff rationale' to justify '1 wound' as a solution?

That means you are making up a solution and are house ruling.

You have no argument based on the rules themselves.

The only viable RAW solution is to reanimate the model per the datasheet.

YMDC has certain standards for what counts as an argument and arguing based on fluff or prior editions doesn't cut it.

You guys have no argument of merit here.

Why are you persisting in re-posting arguments that have no merit?

If you feel otherwise then substantiate your claim that the models are reanimated with '1 wound' (see Tenet #1).

My argument is substantiated very simply by the definition of the model provided by the datasheet.

col_impact wrote:

The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.

A model is defined by the datasheet.

The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.

Translated: "I'm making an assumption here. It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption. Despite that, I'm going to assert that it has to be what is RAW despite there being no mention at all of the number of wounds the model comes back with in the actual rule."

col_impact wrote:
We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.

That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.

There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.

Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.

'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.

You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.

If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.

Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one.

Straw man argument - you are treating my argument as if I insist it must come back with one wound. That is a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that there is NO statement about how many wounds you come back with, so that there needs to be a FAQ to definitively establish how many wounds you come back with. You want some basis for my "claim"? I submit the entire "Reanimation Protocols" rule - show me where it states you come back with full wounds, or specifies how many wounds you come back with. If you are resorting to "the only logically conceivable options" in your argument, then you have conceeded that it does not specify in the rule the number of wounds you come back with, otherwise you would not need to logically conceive of options. I'm not saying the 1 wound option is right, all I'm saying is that you have as little RAW basis for your stance as someone does for saying it comes back with 1 or 0 wounds. If you disagree with this, feel free to provide the quotation from Reanimation Protocols that specifically states that the model returns with full wounds.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

So "set up" means to put on the board (or wherever) at full wounds because that's what's on the datasheet? That's nice to know when it comes time to embark wounded multiwound models and then have them disembark in a subsequent turn, set up with full wounds as indicated on their datasheet.

See, snark aside, you could actually make a reasonable argument for that being the case (in terms of RAW if not RAI).

The rules are so shallow that the idea of tracking wounds is largely implied, rather than clearly spelled out.

 doctortom wrote:
No, it is undefined. They do not specify how many wounds it comes back with, whether it's fully healed or not. You may assume they meant for it to come back with full wounds, but it is not stated that it does. Your argument "but that's what's listed on the datasheet" is not a proof by any stretch of the imagination, since wounded characters can get set up again and the action of being set up does not give put them back to full wounds. Since it's not defined, GW needs to clarify it in a FAQ.

I think full wounds is a reasonable assumption (given that the only real alternative would be 0 wounds), but I agree that an faq would be useful.

Yes, there are a lot of implications. 1 wound may be the alternative as opposed to 0 wounds in your last statement, and I would not be surprised if they meant it to be full wounds. It may be a reasonable assumption. It's just that someone does not want to acknowledge that it is in fact an assumption and wants to treat it as if coming back with full wounds had been an official commandment carved into a stone tablet and carried down the mountain with Moses.

If I read the words "strawman argument" one more time on this board I swear I will break that person in so many pieces even the greatest Necron Uberlord couldn't reanimate you.

All jokes aside, I wouldn't have expected it, but I guess we need an FAQ for people because goddamn I don't want to have this argument in a pug.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

DoctorTom brought up this connection to Disembarking earlier in the thread. And if we are to be tracking Wounds for Disembarking, why are we not doing it for Reanimation Protocols?

I've no idea why you quoted me with that question, because that's the exact opposite of the point I made.

I was explaining why DoctorTom was presenting it, and why the snark that was added on to it.

 vipoid wrote:
That aside, RPs doesn't even imply that you're supposed to track wounds. Why would you? There is only one possible wound value the unit could have had when it was removed prior to RPs - 0.

Do the Transport rules state we track the Wounds on the models?

The whole problem is that RP doesn't say a single word regarding Wounds. None.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I think either 1 Wound or Full Wounds could be a reasonable assumption.

After all, most of the models the average Necron player will likely be fielding more Warriors and Immortals than they are Praetorians, Destroyers, or Lychguard, and they will only be coming back with 1 Wound.

Sure. But for them 1 wound is still full wounds. You are not told to bring them back on 1 wound - that's just the maximum they have on their profile.

It's just as valid to use the Warrior's 1 Wound as it would be to use Trazyn's D3 or Celestine's Full Wounds. All we have are assumptions.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound.

You can't make that sort of assumption based on previous rulesets. Especially since both the rule and the army (not to mention the game) have changed considerably since them.

Hell, in the past it was really only the Necron characters that had more than 1 wound. Destroyers used to have only 1 wound. Lychguard and Praetorians had just 1 wound in 5th, and didn't even exist in the time of WBB.

Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound. That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Full Wounds goes back to setting up the models just as one would in deployment.

Not quite - it goes back to setting models up on the table (and from a place where wounds are not tracked). You do not have permission to modify their stats in any way (including wounds). Hence, you use what's on their stats unless the rule indicates otherwise. The alternative would be to set them up with 0 wounds, which I think we can agree would be absurd.

We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds. You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.

Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.

I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.

A model is defined by the datasheet.

The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.

Translated: "I'm making an assumption here. It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption. Despite that, I'm going to assert that it has to be what is RAW despite there being no mention at all of the number of wounds the model comes back with in the actual rule."

col_impact wrote:
We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.

That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.

There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.

Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.

'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.

You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.

If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.

Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one.

Straw man argument - you are treating my argument as if I insist it must come back with one wound. That is a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that there is NO statement about how many wounds you come back with, so that there needs to be a FAQ to definitively establish how many wounds you come back with. You want some basis for my "claim"? I submit the entire "Reanimation Protocols" rule - show me where it states you come back with full wounds, or specifies how many wounds you come back with. If you are resorting to "the only logically conceivable options" in your argument, then you have conceeded that it does not specify in the rule the number of wounds you come back with, otherwise you would not need to logically conceive of options. I'm not saying the 1 wound option is right, all I'm saying is that you have as little RAW basis for your stance as someone does for saying it comes back with 1 or 0 wounds. If you disagree with this, feel free to provide the quotation from Reanimation Protocols that specifically states that the model returns with full wounds.

The Reanimation rule says to return the model.

The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.

The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.

My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.

No FAQ is needed.

There is no ambiguity here.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 tydrace wrote:
If I read the words "strawman argument" one more time on this board I swear I will break that person in so many pieces even the greatest Necron Uberlord couldn't reanimate you.

All jokes aside, I wouldn't have expected it, but I guess we need an FAQ for people because goddamn I don't want to have this argument in a pug.

Charistoph, doctor_tom, et al are being obtuse here.

There is no ambiguity.

No FAQ is needed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:
That aside, RPs doesn't even imply that you're supposed to track wounds. Why would you? There is only one possible wound value the unit could have had when it was removed prior to RPs - 0.

Do the Transport rules state we track the Wounds on the models?

The whole problem is that RP doesn't say a single word regarding Wounds. None.

What do the Transport rules have to do with anything?

The RP rule says return the model, just like the Scarab Hive rule.

The datasheet defines the model.

We put a model on the battlefield per the datasheet since that is what RP tells us to do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
When one considers the versions of RP and WBB in the past that did the same thing, they only returned with 1 Wound.

You can't make that sort of assumption based on previous rulesets. Especially since both the rule and the army (not to mention the game) have changed considerably since them.

Hell, in the past it was really only the Necron characters that had more than 1 wound. Destroyers used to have only 1 wound. Lychguard and Praetorians had just 1 wound in 5th, and didn't even exist in the time of WBB.

Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound. That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.

What happened in prior editions has ZERO RELEVANCE to the discussion at hand.

If you want to continue in your line of argumentation, I suggest you post in the Proposed Rules section.

Posting in YMDC requires that you substantiate your argument as I have.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds. You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.

Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.

I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.

The 'zero wound' solution is implausible and silly. You can't return a model to the battlefield with 'zero wounds' and so cannot fulfill the directive of Reanimation Protocols.

Reanimation Protocol tells us to return the model.

The datasheet provides the definition of the model.

In the absence of any rule overriding the datasheet, the datasheet provides the definition for the model.

The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds on it representing 'full wounds'.

No rule needed to specify full wounds.

The datasheet provides that without specification.


You guys have no argument to speak of.

Nothing is specifying 'one wound'.

The RP rule clearly says to return the model.

The datasheet defines the model.

So we return the model to the battlefield per the datasheet.

That's all my argument is saying. We return the model per the datasheet. The datasheet defines the model.

We look on the datasheet and it just so happens to say '3 Wounds'.

Nowhere do I have to find something that says 'full wounds'. The datasheet indicated 'full wounds' by default.


Until you guys can SUBSTANTIATE your argument about '1 wound' then there is nothing more to argue here.

My argument is substantiated. Your argument is not. It's that simple.

 Charistoph wrote:
Do the Transport rules state we track the Wounds on the models?

No. Hence why I said a couple of posts ago that you could make a reasonable RAW argument for models emerging from transports with full wounds.

Probably not what was intended, but the rules are incredibly vague when it comes to tracking wounds.

 Charistoph wrote:
The whole problem is that RP doesn't say a single word regarding Wounds. None.

Indeed. So you default to the model's profile.

 Charistoph wrote:

It's just as valid to use the Warrior's 1 Wound as it would be to use Trazyn's D3 or Celestine's Full Wounds. All we have are assumptions.

That's not true at all. d3 wounds can be immediately written off because you have no permission to determine wounds that way. The other two are both coming back with the number of wounds on their profile.

 Charistoph wrote:

Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound.

Because characters had more than one wound.

 Charistoph wrote:
That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.

I never disputed that. What I said was that used to be irrelevant for non-character models, as they only ever had 1 wound anyway.

I also said (and maintain) that this is completely irrelevant. You can't make assumptions on a rule based on past incarnations of that rule.

I mean, if we're using the 5th edition ruling for wounds restored, can we also assume that characters were supposed to have RPs as well (one that isn't reliant on having an intact unit to activate)? Because that was also a thing in 4th and 5th (and 7th, in fact, though the rule was also quite different then).

 Charistoph wrote:

We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds.

That's not true at all. Nowhere in the rule does it specify that they return with a single wound (or the 'minimum wounds required to keep them on the table').

 Charistoph wrote:
You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.

By RAW they are simply returned. A wound value is not specified and you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. So you can either return them with 0 wounds (the value they had when they left the table) or you return them with wounds equal to their standard profile. We can reasonably rule out 0 wounds ad being absurd, which leaves us with them returning with full wounds.

 Charistoph wrote:

Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.

I don't either.

 Charistoph wrote:
I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.

As I said, I think an faq would be useful. However, I think the current evidence points to them returning on full wounds - anything else seems to require inserting text into the rule where none exists.

"Disembark: Any unit that begins its movement phase embarked within a transport can disembark before the transport moves. When a unit disembarks, set it up on the battlefield...."

"set it up"

So, if reanimation includes setting models up and setting up means that we follow the data card then the logic continues that any wounded, multi-wound models which disembark from a transport are instantly healed.

Cool!

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Do the Transport rules state we track the Wounds on the models?

No. Hence why I said a couple of posts ago that you could make a reasonable RAW argument for models emerging from transports with full wounds.

Probably not what was intended, but the rules are incredibly vague when it comes to tracking wounds.

Except we don't have permission to restore their Wounds to them when they Disembark.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
The whole problem is that RP doesn't say a single word regarding Wounds. None.

Indeed. So you default to the model's profile.

Why? We are not instructed to do that. That is nothing more than an assumption.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

It's just as valid to use the Warrior's 1 Wound as it would be to use Trazyn's D3 or Celestine's Full Wounds. All we have are assumptions.

That's not true at all. d3 wounds can be immediately written off because you have no permission to determine wounds that way. The other two are both coming back with the number of wounds on their profile.

Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Then why specify 1 Wound versus full Wounds? Even the Ever-Living rule that the ICs had still only returned 1 Wound.

Because characters had more than one wound.

And yet, the RP rule, which ICs did not have, still specified 1 Wound.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
That was the point of the statement, that historically this rule has only ever provided 1 Wound when it was successful, never full Wounds.

I never disputed that. What I said was that used to be irrelevant for non-character models, as they only ever had 1 wound anyway.

I also said (and maintain) that this is completely irrelevant. You can't make assumptions on a rule based on past incarnations of that rule.

I mean, if we're using the 5th edition ruling for wounds restored, can we also assume that characters were supposed to have RPs as well (one that isn't reliant on having an intact unit to activate)? Because that was also a thing in 4th and 5th (and 7th, in fact, though the rule was also quite different then).

ICs didn't have RP, they had Ever-Living. Much like RP in 8th, RP in 5th still required models of the same unit to be around in order to work.

Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

We have as much permission as 1 Wound (the minimum necessary to return the to the table and stay) as Full Wounds.

That's not true at all. Nowhere in the rule does it specify that they return with a single wound (or the 'minimum wounds required to keep them on the table').

Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about Wounds, so it says as much about 1 Wound as it does about Full Wounds. That makes it very true. You glossed over the point of the statement just to complain about the first part.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
You're right, we do not have permission to modify their stats, which means, by RAW, they are returned with ZERO Wounds, Warrior or Destroyer.

By RAW they are simply returned. A wound value is not specified and you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. So you can either return them with 0 wounds (the value they had when they left the table) or you return them with wounds equal to their standard profile. We can reasonably rule out 0 wounds ad being absurd, which leaves us with them returning with full wounds.

Assumption. No instruction is made to restore their Wounds. By RAW, it is 0 Wounds. Anything else is pure speculation and assumption. By your own statement, "we do not have permission to modify their stats".

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Remember, RP does not reference reference deployment in any form, so I don't understand why we would use the same standard here than what we would use for Transports.

I don't either.

Just going over the arguments that have been used and addressing them. That's why it was in a new paragraph.

vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
I'd be more than willing to play against either to try it out before GW releases an FAQ on it, but I will not accept either version as Ultramarines accept the Codex Astartes as some in this thread do.

As I said, I think an faq would be useful. However, I think the current evidence points to them returning on full wounds - anything else seems to require inserting text into the rule where none exists.

There is no current evidence which points to them returning with any Wounds, much less 1. Any "evidence" is purely speculative at this point, and requires "inserting text into the rule where none exists," be it full Wounds or 1 Wound.

 Charistoph wrote:

Except we don't have permission to restore their Wounds to them when they Disembark.

Nor are you told to track their wounds when they're off the table. The way the rules are written, units in a transport basically cease to exist until they disembark again.

(I very much doubt that this is the intent, I'm just saying that the rules are so vague that you could make a reasonable case for it.)

 Charistoph wrote:

Why? We are not instructed to do that. That is nothing more than an assumption.

Because you don't have permission to deviate from their profile.

 Charistoph wrote:

Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.

No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.

 Charistoph wrote:

Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.

As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.

 Charistoph wrote:

Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about Wounds, so it says as much about 1 Wound as it does about Full Wounds. That makes it very true. You glossed over the point of the statement just to complain about the first part.

Again, the whole point is that you are given no permission to deviate from the models profile - which is exactly what you're doing if you bring back a 3-wound model with only 1 wound. You have altered its profile without permission from the rule.

I mean, when a unit enters play from reserves, do you say that they have to enter with 1 wound because their rule doesn't specify otherwise?

 Charistoph wrote:

Assumption. No instruction is made to restore their Wounds. By RAW, it is 0 Wounds. Anything else is pure speculation and assumption. By your own statement, "we do not have permission to modify their stats".

You are the one making assumptions - you are assuming that you have to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. Nothing in the rules supports this claim. It is not impossible, but seems far more far-fetched than the idea that you simply use a model's profile unless instructed otherwise.

 Charistoph wrote:

There is no current evidence which points to them returning with any Wounds, much less 1. Any "evidence" is purely speculative at this point, and requires "inserting text into the rule where none exists," be it full Wounds or 1 Wound.

But, by that logic, is there any rule which states that models have their full wounds when you first deploy them?

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Except we don't have permission to restore their Wounds to them when they Disembark.

Nor are you told to track their wounds when they're off the table. The way the rules are written, units in a transport basically cease to exist until they disembark again.

(I very much doubt that this is the intent, I'm just saying that the rules are so vague that you could make a reasonable case for it.)

This goes back to your statement that "we do not have permission to modify the stats" (which I agree with).

How is returning a model to the table with 1 Wound any more different than recognizing previously lost Wounds or returning with Full Wounds when it comes to having "permission to modify the stats"?

This is a double standard here. In either case of a Wounded model Disembarking or returning through RP, they have previously lost Wounds through directions to modify the stat. Yet, the case being presented is that we DO modify the stat back to origin point without any specific direction to do so.

So, which is it? Do we modify the stats without instruction or not? If there is an instruction to modify the stats, where is it and why has it yet to be presented?

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Why? We are not instructed to do that. That is nothing more than an assumption.

Because you don't have permission to deviate from their profile.

We do not have instructions or permission to return them to the table with their original profile. Try again.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.

No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.

Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.

As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.

It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Nowhere in the rule does it say anything about Wounds, so it says as much about 1 Wound as it does about Full Wounds. That makes it very true. You glossed over the point of the statement just to complain about the first part.

Again, the whole point is that you are given no permission to deviate from the models profile - which is exactly what you're doing if you bring back a 3-wound model with only 1 wound. You have altered its profile without permission from the rule.

I mean, when a unit enters play from reserves, do you say that they have to enter with 1 wound because their rule doesn't specify otherwise?

False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?

When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Assumption. No instruction is made to restore their Wounds. By RAW, it is 0 Wounds. Anything else is pure speculation and assumption. By your own statement, "we do not have permission to modify their stats".

You are the one making assumptions - you are assuming that you have to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. Nothing in the rules supports this claim. It is not impossible, but seems far more far-fetched than the idea that you simply use a model's profile unless instructed otherwise.

I am making zero assumptions here. I am stating things as they are. Refer to the first quote above for more information.

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
There is no current evidence which points to them returning with any Wounds, much less 1. Any "evidence" is purely speculative at this point, and requires "inserting text into the rule where none exists," be it full Wounds or 1 Wound.

But, by that logic, is there any rule which states that models have their full wounds when you first deploy them?

Their original profile. But as you agreed, RP is not originally deploying them, and RP does not refer to that at all. So, there is no point in trying to use that as a case.

Remember, RP has the model returning to its unit, this is not a "brand new" model being added to the unit like the Tervigon does with Gaunts. If it was a "brand new" model being added to the unit, using the original profile would be the proper course of action, just as it would be when deploying the model at the start of the game. But that is not the case here.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:

The Reanimation rule says "return model" just like the Scarab Hive rule does.

A model is defined by the datasheet.

The only logically conceivable options are to return the model back with 'zero wounds' or per the datasheet.

Translated: "I'm making an assumption here. It might be a reasonable assumption, but it's an assumption. Despite that, I'm going to assert that it has to be what is RAW despite there being no mention at all of the number of wounds the model comes back with in the actual rule."

col_impact wrote:
We dismiss the 'zero wounds' option as entirely implausible and silly.

That leaves us with returning the model per the datasheet.

There is no rule anywhere that states '1 wound'.

Until you can point to some rule that says '1 wound' you have no argument.

'1 wound' is an entirely arbitrary solution that has no basis in any rule whatsoever.

You might as well be arguing that the Destroyers are returning with '200 wounds'.

If you feel otherwise then provide some basis for your premise that the Destroyers return with '1 wound'.

Unless you show some basis for your claim, '1 Wound' is entirely arbitrary, and we dismiss that solution as an unfounded one.

Straw man argument - you are treating my argument as if I insist it must come back with one wound. That is a complete misrepresentation. My argument is that there is NO statement about how many wounds you come back with, so that there needs to be a FAQ to definitively establish how many wounds you come back with. You want some basis for my "claim"? I submit the entire "Reanimation Protocols" rule - show me where it states you come back with full wounds, or specifies how many wounds you come back with. If you are resorting to "the only logically conceivable options" in your argument, then you have conceeded that it does not specify in the rule the number of wounds you come back with, otherwise you would not need to logically conceive of options. I'm not saying the 1 wound option is right, all I'm saying is that you have as little RAW basis for your stance as someone does for saying it comes back with 1 or 0 wounds. If you disagree with this, feel free to provide the quotation from Reanimation Protocols that specifically states that the model returns with full wounds.

The Reanimation rule says to return the model.

Fine. You return the model to the board. It does not say how many wounds you return him with.

col_impact wrote:
The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.

The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.

So what? As you point out, the rule says " return the model", as you put it. It does NOT say to place a different model. You are returning the model. The model had gone to 0 wounds when he was taken off the board. The rule does not specify that he returns with full wounds. It does not specify the number of wounds he comes back with. Technically, by RAW he would come back with 0 wounds since no level of wound recovery is stated, but I think most people would agree that GW certainly didn't intend that. However, "return the model" is not the same as "return the model with full wounds".

col_impact wrote:
[My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.

No, it is filled with assumptions and does not have any basis in RAW. You failed to provide a quotation that states how many wounds the model comes back with. Saying you return a wounded/ casualty model to the board in no way specifies how many wounds you return it to the board with. You are making an assumption, which you should admit that you conceeded with your "the only logically conceivable alternative" argument earler. If it were RAW, you would not have to consider options, it would have been stated.

col_impact wrote:
[No FAQ is needed.

There is no ambiguity here.

There is, at least for people with normal reading comprehension skills who can determine that they are trying to factor in assumptions when there actually isn't something mentioned in the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

By RAW they are simply returned. A wound value is not specified and you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. So you can either return them with 0 wounds (the value they had when they left the table) or you return them with wounds equal to their standard profile. We can reasonably rule out 0 wounds ad being absurd, which leaves us with them returning with full wounds.

The first sentence is the crucial one in play here. A wound value is not specified and, as you say, you do not have permission to pull one out of the air. That applies to full wounds as much as almost any other level The number of wounds is undefined. You can make assumptions that you come back with full wounds, and they might be reasonable assumptions, but they are still assumptions (despite what col_impact states). By RAW you merely get returned to the board. Technically that would mean being returned with 0 wounds. That doesn't make sense, but that's all we have from the RAW. Therefore, they do need a FAQ to make clear how many wounds you come back with. Until then I don't see any
problems house ruling that you come back with full wounds, since it's a reasonable argument, but people just need to realize that it's a house rule built on some assumptions.

vipoid wrote:
You are the one making assumptions - you are assuming that you have to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. Nothing in the rules supports this claim. It is not impossible, but seems far more far-fetched than the idea that you simply use a model's profile unless instructed otherwise.

Assuming that you remove from a model when you are told to return it to the table is as much an assumption as having to track a model's remaining wounds even after it has died and been removed from the table. It has an equal level of rules support as what you were chastising Charistoph about. One seems more likely than the other (less far-fetched, as you say), but is not spelled out in the rules. This is why it should be FAQ'd.

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.

The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.

So what? As you point out, the rule says " return the model", as you put it. It does NOT say to place a different model. You are returning the model. The model had gone to 0 wounds when he was taken off the board. The rule does not specify that he returns with full wounds. It does not specify the number of wounds he comes back with. Technically, by RAW he would come back with 0 wounds since no level of wound recovery is stated, but I think most people would agree that GW certainly didn't intend that. However, "return the model" is not the same as "return the model with full wounds".

The 'zero wound' solution is ridiculous and implausible. You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.

So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet.

It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.

No, it is filled with assumptions and does not have any basis in RAW. You failed to provide a quotation that states how many wounds the model comes back with. Saying you return a wounded/ casualty model to the board in no way specifies how many wounds you return it to the board with. You are making an assumption, which you should admit that you conceeded with your "the only logically conceivable alternative" argument earler. If it were RAW, you would not have to consider options, it would have been stated.

No. I am able to quote the datasheet as the definition of the model. When the RP rule says 'return the model' you return the model per the datasheet unless there is some rule overriding the values on the datasheet. In this case there is no overriding rule so the Destroyer comes back with however many wounds are on its datasheet. That number happens to be three.

Because the datasheet is a rule that I can quote in the rulebook, my argument is completely substantiated.

Your argument is entirely unsubstantiated. You have no rules to substantiate your argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[No FAQ is needed.

There is no ambiguity here.

There is, at least for people with normal reading comprehension skills who can determine that they are trying to factor in assumptions when there actually isn't something mentioned in the rules.

Apparently you are unable to read the datasheet that defines the model.

When you read the datasheet and the RP rule that says 'return the model' then you have no other way to proceed than to return the Destroyer model per the datasheet.

No FAQ is needed. Players are expected to have read all of the rules, which include the rules for the datasheet. Your refusal to read the datasheet rule does not mean we need a FAQ. You simply need to read the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

vipoid wrote:
Because you don't have permission to deviate from their profile.

We do not have instructions or permission to return them to the table with their original profile. Try again.

Your reasoning is backwards.

The rule says return the model. The datasheet defines the model. You don't have any rule that tells you to deviate from the datasheet.

TRY AGAIN.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.

No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.

Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.

You have permission to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. No rule specifies the number of wounds. The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds that corresponds to 'full wounds' on it.

Unless you find some rule that overrides the datasheet, your argument is hopelessly unsubstantiated.

This isn't really a debate here. You keep spouting off the same completely unjustified argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?

When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.

Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.

The datasheet is a rule in the book.

There is no rule in the book that says reanimate the model with 1 wound.

Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.

In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.

As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.

It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.

OMG.

Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.

The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.

You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.

To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
The model is defined by the datasheet per the rules of the game.

The datasheet has 3 wounds on it for the Destroyer.

So what? As you point out, the rule says " return the model", as you put it. It does NOT say to place a different model. You are returning the model. The model had gone to 0 wounds when he was taken off the board. The rule does not specify that he returns with full wounds. It does not specify the number of wounds he comes back with. Technically, by RAW he would come back with 0 wounds since no level of wound recovery is stated, but I think most people would agree that GW certainly didn't intend that. However, "return the model" is not the same as "return the model with full wounds".

The 'zero wound' solution is ridiculous and implausible.

Nobody's saying it isn't ridiculous or that it's what they intended. Please pay attention.

col_impact wrote:
You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.

So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet. .

No. You have "return the model." It does not say "return the model as it is on the datasheet". It does not say "return the model at full health." It merely says "return the model" without making any statement about wounds. Whichever level of wounds your group chooses to return it at is a choice based on assumptions trying to fill in the void left by the rules text not dealing with it. Is it a reasonable assumption? Could very well be. Does that make it any less of an assumption? Not in the slightest.

col_impact wrote:
It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet..

So any rule which returns a model to the board means the model goes to full wounds? What about a wounded multiwound model you embark in a vehicle than later disembark? It's left the table, then you return it to the table when you disembark. Does it suddenly have full wounds also because it has a certain number of wounds on its datasheet? There's no mention of the datasheet with "return the model" in Reanimation Protocols, and no mention of how many wounds the model has when you return it. You have failed to provide a rules quotation that specifies how many wounds it has. You have only mentioned a rule then made some assumptions, probably logical assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. That's not RAW, that's HIWPI and an educated guess at RAI. I don't care if that's how you want to play it, I just want you to admit that coming back at full wounds is not cast-in-stone RAW given what is said so far. If it were, you would be able to provide a direct quote without having to make any inferences or assumptions.

col_impact wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
[My argument is directly substantiated and proved by the rules of the game.

No, it is filled with assumptions and does not have any basis in RAW. You failed to provide a quotation that states how many wounds the model comes back with. Saying you return a wounded/ casualty model to the board in no way specifies how many wounds you return it to the board with. You are making an assumption, which you should admit that you conceeded with your "the only logically conceivable alternative" argument earler. If it were RAW, you would not have to consider options, it would have been stated.

No. I am able to quote the datasheet as the definition of the model. When the RP rule says 'return the model' you return the model per the datasheet unless there is some rule overriding the values on the datasheet. In this case there is no overriding rule so the Destroyer comes back with however many wounds are on its datasheet. That number happens to be three.

Because the datasheet is a rule that I can quote in the rulebook, my argument is completely substantiated.

Your argument is entirely unsubstantiated. You have no rules to substantiate your argument.

Oh, that's actually pretty darn funny. I'm saying there are no rules at all to state how many wounds a model comes back with, and you reply that I have no rules to substantiate my argument. Helllloooo, McFly!!!! I really have to applaud you for efforts above and beyond this time. You don't really have a grasp on what you're arguing against, do you? What kind of rules would you expect me to cite to show that there are no rules to cite for what we're talking about?

You are able to quote the datasheet in question. You have, however, no rule that states that you bring back the model which has been damaged at the value that it has on datasheet. Your argument is totally unsubstantiated because you can not provide a rules quote that states the level of wounds he comes back with, or that when you set him back up on the board that you use the full wounds on the datasheet. Please provide a quotation from Reanimation that mentions the datasheet when bringing the model back so that we know we are to reference the full wounds on the datasheet. When we bring a wounded model back onto the board by disembarking, we do not bring him back at full wounds. Where is the rules citiing for bringing the model back at any wound level other than what he went off the board at? Stupid RAW? Yes. The only RAW? Yes. Is looking at the wounds on the datasheet and bringing him back at that level an ssumption to get around stupid RAW? For a third time, yes.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

col_impact wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

vipoid wrote:
Because you don't have permission to deviate from their profile.

We do not have instructions or permission to return them to the table with their original profile. Try again.

Your reasoning is backwards.

The rule says return the model. The datasheet defines the model. You don't have any rule that tells you to deviate from the datasheet.

TRY AGAIN.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.

No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.

Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.

You have permission to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. No rule specifies the number of wounds. The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds that corresponds to 'full wounds' on it.

Unless you find some rule that overrides the datasheet, your argument is hopelessly unsubstantiated.

This isn't really a debate here. You keep spouting off the same completely unjustified argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?

When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.

Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.

The datasheet is a rule in the book.

There is no rule in the book that says reanimate the model with 1 wound.

Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.

In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.

As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.

It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.

OMG.

Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.

The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.

You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.

To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.

Quoted and appended so that Charistoph might read it and respond if he has the desire. I think, though, that saying Charistoph's argument is flat out ridiculous here, given that he just tried to give me an argument that my assertion that we don't have any rules to tell us how many wounds a model comes back with doesn't have any rules to back it up.

 doctortom wrote:
[

col_impact wrote:
It just so happens that the datasheet for the Destroyer has 3 wounds on it. The RP rule doesn't specify the number of wounds, but when it says return the model, then the datasheet provides the definition of the model. Unless some rule overrides the datasheet, the Destroyer is returned to play with the number of wounds on its datasheet. There is no rule that overrides the datasheet..

So any rule which returns a model to the board means the model goes to full wounds? What about a wounded multiwound model you embark in a vehicle than later disembark? It's left the table, then you return it to the table when you disembark. Does it suddenly have full wounds also because it has a certain number of wounds on its datasheet? There's no mention of the datasheet with "return the model" in Reanimation Protocols, and no mention of how many wounds the model has when you return it. You have failed to provide a rules quotation that specifies how many wounds it has. You have only mentioned a rule then made some assumptions, probably logical assumptions, but assumptions nonetheless. That's not RAW, that's HIWPI and an educated guess at RAI. I don't care if that's how you want to play it, I just want you to admit that coming back at full wounds is not cast-in-stone RAW given what is said so far. If it were, you would be able to provide a direct quote without having to make any inferences or assumptions.

The Transport rules make no mention of 'returning the model'.

The Scarab Hive rule uses those words and in a similar fashion a scarab model will be returned to the battlefield per the datasheet (at full wounds).

When we are told to return a model that is a casualty we have no choice but to return a model per the datasheet.

No assumptions are made.

We are simply following rules that we can directly quote ('return the model', datasheet).

No rule is telling us to return the model with 1 wound.

So since nothing is overriding the values of datasheet, the Destroyer model is returned with however many wounds are on its datasheet.

And a scarab model is returned to the scarab unit with however many wounds are on its datasheet.

My argument is fully substantiated and justified.

Your argument has no substantiation and is in violation of tenet #1 of this forum.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:

col_impact wrote:
You can't even fulfill the RP rule and return the model with 'zero wounds' so the 'zero wound' solution logically excludes itself from possibility on top of also being excluded based on absurdness.

So we simply have 'return the model' as the directive. Per the rules of the game, the datasheet defines the model. We return the model per the datasheet. .

No. You have "return the model." It does not say "return the model as it is on the datasheet". It does not say "return the model at full health." It merely says "return the model" without making any statement about wounds. Whichever level of wounds your group chooses to return it at is a choice based on assumptions trying to fill in the void left by the rules text not dealing with it. Is it a reasonable assumption? Could very well be. Does that make it any less of an assumption? Not in the slightest.

The datasheet provides the definition of the model. When a rule says 'return the model' it means return the entity defined by the datasheet.

No assumptions are being made. I am simply following the rules as they are.

There needs to be a rule overriding the datasheet values in order for the outcome to be any different.

There is no rule overriding the datasheet.

Until you can point to a rule overriding the datasheet then you have no argument.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Quoted and appended so that Charistoph might read it and respond if he has the desire. I think, though, that saying Charistoph's argument is flat out ridiculous here, given that he just tried to give me an argument that my assertion that we don't have any rules to tell us how many wounds a model comes back with doesn't have any rules to back it up.

Charistoph is relying on personal belief and prior editions for support for his argument. So indeed his argument is ridiculous and completely unsubstantiated.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 doctortom wrote:


Oh, that's actually pretty darn funny. I'm saying there are no rules at all to state how many wounds a model comes back with, and you reply that I have no rules to substantiate my argument. Helllloooo, McFly!!!! I really have to applaud you for efforts above and beyond this time. You don't really have a grasp on what you're arguing against, do you? What kind of rules would you expect me to cite to show that there are no rules to cite for what we're talking about?

You are able to quote the datasheet in question. You have, however, no rule that states that you bring back the model which has been damaged at the value that it has on datasheet. Your argument is totally unsubstantiated because you can not provide a rules quote that states the level of wounds he comes back with, or that when you set him back up on the board that you use the full wounds on the datasheet. Please provide a quotation from Reanimation that mentions the datasheet when bringing the model back so that we know we are to reference the full wounds on the datasheet. When we bring a wounded model back onto the board by disembarking, we do not bring him back at full wounds. Where is the rules citiing for bringing the model back at any wound level other than what he went off the board at? Stupid RAW? Yes. The only RAW? Yes. Is looking at the wounds on the datasheet and bringing him back at that level an ssumption to get around stupid RAW? For a third time, yes.

I am able to quote 'return the model' and the datasheet.

There is no rule overriding the values on the datasheet.

So we follow the rules and the model is returned according to the values on the datasheet.

The values on the datasheet happen to correspond with 'full wounds' and not '1 wound'

My argument is fully substantiated and justified.

Your argument has nothing justifying it or substantiating it.

There is no rule that says '1 wound' and you have been unable to offer any argument of merit.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Yet they state that they come back with full Wounds, do they not? RP says nothing about Wounds, so Full Wounds or 1 Wound has as much support and is operating on assumptions as using Trazyn's D3 Wounds for RP. That was the point of the statement.

No. Because 1 wound is a specific number that is not specified by the rule. In the case of multi-wound models, you are deviating from their profiles without permission.

Missing the point. We do not have permission to return them with either 1 Wound or Full Wounds. You are deviating from the profiles they left the table without permission if you return them with Full Wounds or if you return them with 1 Wound.

You have permission to return the model. The datasheet defines the model. No rule specifies the number of wounds. The datasheet just so happens to have an amount of wounds that corresponds to 'full wounds' on it.

Unless you find some rule that overrides the datasheet, your argument is hopelessly unsubstantiated.

This isn't really a debate here. You keep spouting off the same completely unjustified argument.

Lack of listening doesn't help your case. Reanimation Protocols says NOTHING about the Wounds. NOTHING. Look up the definition of "nothing" to understand the point I was making.

You even state here that the rule does not specify the number of Wounds, yet you keep insisting that it comes back at full strength. Hence, why there is as much to support it returning with 1 Wound as Full Wounds, i.e. NOTHING.

I have a rule for removing Wounds from the model's stat on the datasheet. It comes from the various different Attacks. I CAN NOT GIVE THEM BACK without permission. Where is the permission?

Yes, the Datasheet indicates what the Full Wounds of the model are, the point is 'What in Reanimation Protocols or the datasheet says I should care what that is?"

Do the Lychguard/Praetorian/Destoyer Datasheets provide each an Ability to return with Full Wounds? Do the Warriors and Immortals provide an Ability to have them return with 1 Wound?

If you have it, quote it. If you don't, admit it and we can go on our way.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

False comparison. When coming in from Reserves, a model usually hasn't lost Wounds due to previous instructions, has it?

When bringing it back with 1 Wound, that is the minimum needed for the model to be returned to the table and remain there. I have as much right to insist that as a standard as the model's original Wound profile.

Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.

Who said anything about belief? Reread it again if you are confused.

col_impact wrote:
Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.

In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.

First, you do not seem to understand comparisons, because the passage you quoted was comparing the validity of the two arguments, not presenting an actual argument for 1 Wound over Full Wounds. Go read up on the purpose of comparisons and reread that passage with renewed understanding before bothering to respond to this. If you don't, you are either presenting yourself as a fool or a deliberate troll. The choice is yours as to how you want to present yourself.

Second, I am well within the Tenet #1 of YMDC because I have insisted that there is NOTHING in the rule which provides the number of Wounds a returning model has, which makes 1 Wound and Full Wounds equally valid, i.e. not valid at all. The only thing I can insist as RAW is that they come back with 0 Wounds, and either 1 Wound or Full Wounds is HYWPI.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

 vipoid wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Stating 1 Wound is more about noting what was specifically stated in times past to come to basis for historical precedence.

As I said earlier though, I don't think you can reasonably use historical precedence here. There have been too many sweeping changes to the game, to Necrons and to the rule itself.

It is as reasonable to use historical precedence here as it is to the unit's original profile. We have equal direction to use either.

OMG.

Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.

The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.

You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.

To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.

It is not ridiculous because you are not reading it with proper understanding regarding how a comparison is written and why a comparison is written.

To restate, I have as much permission to consider the historical versions in interpreting Reanimation Protocols as I do in considering the datasheet's original value as if it was deploying, in other words, none, zero, zip, nada. By stating I cannot use the rules from prior editions in your argument (partially false when trying to make a precedence without further information), I cannot use the datasheet's original value as if the model was deploying fresh for the first time.

Do you understand this concept?

 Charistoph wrote:

Lack of listening doesn't help your case. Reanimation Protocols says NOTHING about the Wounds. NOTHING. Look up the definition of "nothing" to understand the point I was making.

You even state here that the rule does not specify the number of Wounds, yet you keep insisting that it comes back at full strength. Hence, why there is as much to support it returning with 1 Wound as Full Wounds, i.e. NOTHING.

I have a rule for removing Wounds from the model's stat on the datasheet. It comes from the various different Attacks. I CAN NOT GIVE THEM BACK without permission. Where is the permission?

Yes, the Datasheet indicates what the Full Wounds of the model are, the point is 'What in Reanimation Protocols or the datasheet says I should care what that is?"

Do the Lychguard/Praetorian/Destoyer Datasheets provide each an Ability to return with Full Wounds? Do the Warriors and Immortals provide an Ability to have them return with 1 Wound?

If you have it, quote it. If you don't, admit it and we can go on our way.

The rule says 'return the model'. The datasheet defines the model.

So you return the model per the values on the datasheet. I only keep insisting that you return the model per the datasheet and nothing more since that is exactly what the rules instruct me to do.

The datasheet itself could have any value for wounds on it. It just so happens to have the amount for the 'full wounds' on it.

The RP rule and the datasheet provide full support for my argument.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Huh? Since when does your firm belief about something count as a rule in the book.

Who said anything about belief? Reread it again if you are confused.

You weren't pointing to any rule so you only had your belief that there was '1 wound' to point to.

If you feel otherwise, point to the rule that says '1 wound'. Otherwise it's just a belief with no substantiation on your part.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:
Until you can find an actual rule in the book that says '1 wound' you have no right to insist that the model returns with '1 wound'. Absolutely no right at all.

In fact, your entire argument is in violation of tenet #1 of YMDC. You keep spouting off the same completely unsubstantiated argument.

First, you do not seem to understand comparisons, because the passage you quoted was comparing the validity of the two arguments, not presenting an actual argument for 1 Wound over Full Wounds. Go read up on the purpose of comparisons and reread that passage with renewed understanding before bothering to respond to this. If you don't, you are either presenting yourself as a fool or a deliberate troll. The choice is yours as to how you want to present yourself.

Second, I am well within the Tenet #1 of YMDC because I have insisted that there is NOTHING in the rule which provides the number of Wounds a returning model has, which makes 1 Wound and Full Wounds equally valid, i.e. not valid at all. The only thing I can insist as RAW is that they come back with 0 Wounds, and either 1 Wound or Full Wounds is HYWPI.

The datasheet is a rule and that rule provides the number of wounds a model has. The RP rule says 'return the model' and we have no choice but to follow that instruction and return the model to the battlefield per the datasheet.

There is no rule overriding the values of the datasheet definition of the model so there is no choice but to return the model with the number of wounds on the datasheet.

RAW the only solution is returning the model as it is defined by the datasheet.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

col_impact wrote:

OMG.

Your argument is flat out ridiculous here.

The 7th edition rules have nothing to do with 8th edition.

You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument. This should go without saying. But apparently I have to say it for the members of DakkaDakka who don't understand how the rules work.

To repeat. You cannot use rules from prior editions in your argument.

It is not ridiculous because you are not reading it with proper understanding regarding how a comparison is written and why a comparison is written.

To restate, I have as much permission to consider the historical versions in interpreting Reanimation Protocols as I do in considering the datasheet's original value as if it was deploying, in other words, none, zero, zip, nada. By stating I cannot use the rules from prior editions in your argument (partially false when trying to make a precedence without further information), I cannot use the datasheet's original value as if the model was deploying fresh for the first time.

Do you understand this concept?

The 7th edition rules have ZERO relevance to 8th edition. So making any comparisons with 7th editiion is completely and utterly pointless.

The datasheet on the other hand is a rule in 8th edition and is completely relevant and on point. The datasheet defines the model.

The RP rule says 'return the model'.

I have no choice but to return the model as it is defined by the datasheet. Doing something else would be in direct violation of the rules.

The model happens to be defined as 3 wounds.

The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?

orknado wrote:
The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?

Col hasn't proven himself with rules. And how are Doctortom and Charistoph supposed to prove themselves with rules when their position is that there is no rules to begin with? Seems like you've totally missed their point.

 Ghaz wrote:

orknado wrote:
The datasheet is a rule, correct? So far, col_impak has proven himself with rules. Doctortom and Charistof haven't proved their argument with rules. I am new here on YMDC. Which argument wins? The one with rules support or the ones with no rule support?

Col hasn't proven himself with rules. And how are Doctortom and Charistoph supposed to prove themselves with rules when their position is that there is no rules to begin with? Seems like you've totally missed their point.

Col is saying that your return the model per the model definition which can be found in the datasheet. Since reanimation tells you to return the model and the datasheet is a definition for the model, his argument is solid and prove with rules in the book. So he is providing actual rules which can be found in 8th edition. Doctortom and Charistof aren't providing any rules to support what they say and haven't proven his argument wrong. Correct me if I am wrong but that means Col is the one who has the argument with proof and doctortom and Charistof have no proof to speak of. Does YMDC care about which person has proof for their argument? Please let me know. If you obey the rules you have to reanimate the Destroyer model according to its datasheet which is 3 wounds.

Except Col doesn't have anything that says that. Where does it say that a model returns with the full wounds as presented on his datasheet. Until you can show where it says that, then no, he's not provided any proof to support his argument.

 Ghaz wrote:
Except Col doesn't have anything that says that. Where does it say that a model returns with the full wounds as presented on his datasheet. Until you can show where it says that, then no, he's not provided any proof to support his argument.

The datasheet is a rule and Col has provided that as proof for his argument so your claim that he has not provided any proof is completely wrong. Reanimation says to return the model. Ok, so you return the model. How do you do that? You look at a datasheet. Ok I look at the datasheet. I return the model. It now has 3 wounds on it. A rule doesn't have to say 'full wounds'. The datasheet does that already. That's what I mean by my comment that Col's argument is the only one supported by the rules. The datasheet is a rule. Col has provided that rule in support of his argument. You or doctortom or Charistof haven't disproved that the datasheet applies in this case. And the datasheet says right on there the number of wounds the model has. Does YMDC care whose argument is supported by the rules? How are you going to disprove that the datasheet has 3 wounds on it? All of this works just like the Scarab Hive rule. Are people saying that scarabs get repopulated at 1 wound? No. There should be some standard in this forum that people have to support what they say with rules. So far in this thread only the people who are arguing that reanimation brings back the model as defined by the datasheet have supported what they say with rules.

No. You return the model. You don't place a new model. The returned model lost all of it's wounds, so where do Reanimation Protocols say the model has all of the wounds of a new model. Please quote the actual rule.

This has all been covered in this thread already. Please take the time to read the thread instead of repeating what's already been disproved.

 Ghaz wrote:
No. You return the model. You don't place a new model. The returned model lost all of it's wounds, so where do Reanimation Protocols say the model has all of the wounds of a new model. Please quote the actual rule.

This has all been covered in this thread already. Please take the time to read the thread instead of repeating what's already been disproved.

I have read the thread. It's really funny and it's cringe-worthy how some people are arguing with nothing to support their arguments.
A model in the casualty pile has zero wounds. So you can't bring a model back that has zero wounds. So the only way to satisfy the rule and return back a model to the battlefield is to return the model. Ok so I return the model. Now how is it defined? Ok, I look at the datasheet. I know from the datasheet what it's stats are. It has strength, toughness, attacks, weapon skill, ballistic skill, and a save along with other information such as the number of wounds the model has. When the model is returned it is returned as defined. We don't return models as modified in any way unless there is a rule telling us to modify it. I need permission to change anything as defined on the datasheet. So when the model is returned it has the number of wounds on its datasheet. If you read the datasheet it has 3 wounds. This all works just like the Scarab Hive rule. When you return a scarab base with the Scarab Hive rule the scarab base is returned to the unit according to its datasheet just the same. I have provided proof for mine and Col's argument. Does it matter on this forum that you have proof or not? Please let me know.

I'm just here to pour some fuel on the fire:


People have been using disembarking models as an example in this discussion, but I have a much better one....

...Mawlocs.

They even use the same "return to the battlefield" language as RPs (which is not found verbatim in the transport rules).

Are my Mawlocs immortal? Please tell me yes.

 Altruizine wrote:
I'm just here to pour some fuel on the fire:


People have been using disembarking models as an example in this discussion, but I have a much better one....

...Mawlocs.

They even use the same "return to the battlefield" language as RPs (which is not found verbatim in the transport rules).

Are my Mawlocs immortal? Please tell me yes.

Are they being returned to the battlefield from the casualty pile? I don't think so. Why would you think it's the same situation? Sounds like you are just trying to confuse the situation with non relevant cases. We have had enough of that already in this thread. Prove your argument with rules.
The Scarab Hive rule is the same exact situation. When you return a scarab base from the casualty pile to the battlefield the scarab base comes back per its profile/datasheet which is full wounds. Please tell me that in this thread we care about justifying our arguments with the rules. I have justified my argument. Now other people should do the same. Isn't that how it works in You Make Da Call?