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:

I will need a proper quote that supports the concept that models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. This is extremely pertinent because if models that are removed from play are no longer part of their unit, then reanimation protocols cannot return the model. Reanimation Protocols activates "for each slain model in this unit". Pretty useless to have a rule that requires it to be part of the unit, but is no longer part of the unit, after all. Your logic on this is impossible to process mechanically.

You quoted the rule wrong!

Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocals activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."


You quoted the rule wrong. The Reanimation Protocol rule reads "for each slain model FROM this unit" so your entire argument is debunked. So models that are slain are no longer part of the unit. They originated as part of the unit but are no longer part of the unit. They are FROM the unit, and they RETURN to the unit when reanimation protocols activates.

The quote proves that slain models are no longer part of the unit. Slain models that are not part of the unit do not have a datasheet/profile associated with them so any wound decrements are lost when the model is 'removed from play'. ("Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit")

You also haven't addressed the problem that a reanimated 'zero wound' model will be invulnerable to further damage since attacks need to 'reduce the wounds to zero' in order to be 'removed from play' (Resolve Attack sequence, pg. 5 of Battle Primer which is available for free on GW website). This is a broken and absurd thing that happens when we follow your line of argumentation.

But that is a completely moot point. The argument has been won. The Reanimation Protocol rule proves with its wording that slain models are no longer in the unit so they don't have a profle. When a Necron model is reanimated and 'returned to play' it will be "returned to this unit" and at that point then receives a profile from the unit datasheet with the number of Wounds that it has on it.

Looks like I just completely proved my argument right and yours wrong.

Excellent.

It looks like you just proved your argument solely off the RAW.

Thanks for participating in this thread.

It looks like the matter has been completely resolved, correct?

A Destroyer model will be reanimated with 3 wounds on it.

After watching some games during opening day yesterday involving Necrons, I now believe they return with full wounds, because the player has to use reinforcement points if they want to bring the model back. That's a hell of a consequence, but also explains why Trazyn returns with D3 wounds in order to avoid paying for him again.

You heave too use reinforcement points to bring a model back with reanimation?

That's how the Necron player saw it. It was like summoning new Daemons. It definitely helps explain why they come back shiny and new (in the case of this argument, with full wounds). I was originally of the opinion that all Necrons got the stand back up rule, due to how it worked in previous editions, but thought full wounds seemed too powerful. If you have to pay for the model again, it certainly isn't too powerful, but I guess can still help during a battle.

Necrons don't need to use reinforcement points for RPs.

Yup, reinforcement points referring to adding or replacing units, not models.

Reanimation Protocols can never cause a unit to come back, iirc, so it's a non-issue for Necrons.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I will need a proper quote that supports the concept that models that are 'removed from play' are removed from their unit and considered to be no longer part of their unit. This is extremely pertinent because if models that are removed from play are no longer part of their unit, then reanimation protocols cannot return the model. Reanimation Protocols activates "for each slain model in this unit". Pretty useless to have a rule that requires it to be part of the unit, but is no longer part of the unit, after all. Your logic on this is impossible to process mechanically.

You quoted the rule wrong!

Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model from this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is returned to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocals activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."


You quoted the rule wrong. The Reanimation Protocol rule reads "for each slain model FROM this unit" so your entire argument is debunked. So models that are slain are no longer part of the unit. They originated as part of the unit but are no longer part of the unit. They are FROM the unit, and they RETURN to the unit when reanimation protocols activates.

The quote proves that slain models are no longer part of the unit. Slain models that are not part of the unit do not have a datasheet/profile associated with them so any wound decrements are lost when the model is 'removed from play'. ("Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit")

You also haven't addressed the problem that a reanimated 'zero wound' model will be invulnerable to further damage since attacks need to 'reduce the wounds to zero' in order to be 'removed from play' (Resolve Attack sequence, pg. 5 of Battle Primer which is available for free on GW website). This is a broken and absurd thing that happens when we follow your line of argumentation.

But that is a completely moot point. The argument has been won. The Reanimation Protocol rule proves with its wording that slain models are no longer in the unit so they don't have a profle. When a Necron model is reanimated and 'returned to play' it will be "returned to this unit" and at that point then receives a profile from the unit datasheet with the number of Wounds that it has on it.

Looks like I just completely proved my argument right and yours wrong.

I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.

You still have yet to provide a single quote from outside this rule to support a full restoration or any other declaration you have made. Even this last statement you are going on full assumptions. You still have to provide a quote that all previous actions against a model are nullified when it is 'removed from play'. Your argument may have some sway for HYWPI, but RAW presented so far is quite clear: The model returns to its unit, and no Wounds are provided for it.

In a RAW situation, I don't have to address the result of the rules, that is HYWPI, why have you not grasped this concept after so many repetitions? Please read up on YMDC Tenet#4.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
Yup, reinforcement points referring to adding or replacing units, not models.

Reanimation Protocols can never cause a unit to come back, iirc, so it's a non-issue for Necrons.

Pretty much. But it is an interesting way to handle a HYWPI.

 Charistoph wrote:

I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.

The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.

 Charistoph wrote:

You still have yet to provide a single quote from outside this rule to support a full restoration or any other declaration you have made. Even this last statement you are going on full assumptions. You still have to provide a quote that all previous actions against a model are nullified when it is 'removed from play'. Your argument may have some sway for HYWPI, but RAW presented so far is quite clear: The model returns to its unit, and no Wounds are provided for it.

In a RAW situation, I don't have to address the result of the rules, that is HYWPI, why have you not grasped this concept after so many repetitions? Please read up on YMDC Tenet#4.

I guess you missed the rule I already quoted.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

Only a model that is 'in a unit' has a datasheet and with the datasheet a profile. Models that aren't in units don't have profiles. When models are slain they are removed from being in the unit and therewith lose the profile with zero wounds on it, since slain models no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile. When the slain model is reanimated and returned to being in the unit then the model once again will have a profile as defined by the datasheet. That profile will have the amount of wounds defined by the datasheet on it. There aren't any rules for tracking wounds directly on models outside of the profile. The profile is the only place to store the value of the wound characteristic. So when the profile is dropped when the model is slain then the zero value for the wound characteristic is lost. Therefore, a reanimated Destroyer model will have 3 wounds.

The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.

The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.

Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.

But no, the "exactly what you posted" was about the situation regarding how when a model reaches zero Wounds, the model is removed from play. The quotations were not around an attack, but around the rest. Have fun with your delusions.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

You still have yet to provide a single quote from outside this rule to support a full restoration or any other declaration you have made. Even this last statement you are going on full assumptions. You still have to provide a quote that all previous actions against a model are nullified when it is 'removed from play'. Your argument may have some sway for HYWPI, but RAW presented so far is quite clear: The model returns to its unit, and no Wounds are provided for it.

In a RAW situation, I don't have to address the result of the rules, that is HYWPI, why have you not grasped this concept after so many repetitions? Please read up on YMDC Tenet#4.

I guess you missed the rule I already quoted.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

Um, no, see, that still says nothing about "removed from play". I have asked several times for one thing, but you keep giving me other things. You need more than this to make this statement pertinent.

orknado wrote:
Only a model that is 'in a unit' has a datasheet and with the datasheet a profile. Models that aren't in units don't have profiles. When models are slain they are removed from being in the unit and therewith lose the profile with zero wounds on it, since slain models no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile. When the slain model is reanimated and returned to being in the unit then the model once again will have a profile as defined by the datasheet. That profile will have the amount of wounds defined by the datasheet on it. There aren't any rules for tracking wounds directly on models outside of the profile. The profile is the only place to store the value of the wound characteristic. So when the profile is dropped when the model is slain then the zero value for the wound characteristic is lost. Therefore, a reanimated Destroyer model will have 3 wounds.

Quotes are needed to support this hypothesis. You have yet to provide them, and I have asked for them quite a few times now. All you have given me is how YOU play the game because you have yet to provide one single viable quote to support these considerations of "removed from play" you keep spouting.

Here's the list of what you need to support your statement as RAW, quotes from the Battle Primer will be sufficient:
Where does "removed from play" mean "removed from the unit"?

If it is "removed from the unit", how can Reanimation Protocols bring it back in? Or another way, If a slain model no longer has permission to have a datasheet or profile, how can Reanimation Protocols address it at all when that model no longer has this rule?

Where does it state "I no longer track Wounds directly on models outside of the profile"? Just because I don't have permission to track something, doesn't mean I clear its slate without instruction. I need a rule which tells me to do this, where is it?

Heck, can you provide me anything on the actual definition of "removed from play" in the general rules that specifically tells you to do anything?

Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.

The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.

Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.

It's real easy to post a link to the materials that you were referencing so we can see whether the material was the source of the misquote or you were the source of the misquote. Since the leaked materials are all scanned photos your story that the leaked materials you looked at had the misquote is quite frankly unbelievable. What I find odd is your inability to take responsibility for a simple mistake.

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.

The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.

Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.

It's real easy to post a link to the materials that you were referencing so we can see whether the material was the source of the misquote or you were the source of the misquote. Since the leaked materials are all scanned photos your story that the leaked materials you looked at had the misquote is quite frankly unbelievable. What I find odd is your inability to take responsibility for a simple mistake.

Charistof, I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

 Charistoph wrote:

Quotes are needed to support this hypothesis. You have yet to provide them, and I have asked for them quite a few times now. All you have given me is how YOU play the game because you have yet to provide one single viable quote to support these considerations of "removed from play" you keep spouting.

Here's the list of what you need to support your statement as RAW, quotes from the Battle Primer will be sufficient:
Where does "removed from play" mean "removed from the unit"?

If it is "removed from the unit", how can Reanimation Protocols bring it back in? Or another way, If a slain model no longer has permission to have a datasheet or profile, how can Reanimation Protocols address it at all when that model no longer has this rule?

Where does it state "I no longer track Wounds directly on models outside of the profile"? Just because I don't have permission to track something, doesn't mean I clear its slate without instruction. I need a rule which tells me to do this, where is it?

Heck, can you provide me anything on the actual definition of "removed from play" in the general rules that specifically tells you to do anything?

Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

You are misguided in your understanding of the current state of affairs. I have provided rules quotations backing up everything I say. You are the one coming up short with regards to rules quotations. My argument is entirely RAW.

Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."

1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.

3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).

4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).

5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).

6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).

So there you have it. My argument is entirely justified by the Rules As they are Written (RAW) in the Core Rules and the Necron index. I have proven that slain models are not IN the unit and so do not have a profile or a wound characteristic.

The burden of proof is on you here, not me. My argument is solid and fully supported by the rules. You have to counter with rules support and show how a slain model that has no profile or wound characteristic is somehow retaining the 'zero wound' tally that you claim it does. You won't be able to do so since I have proven with rules support that a slain model has no profile or wound characteristic. So you will have to concede that the Necron Destroyer is reanimated with 3 wounds.

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.

What online videos?

 vipoid wrote:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.

What online videos?

If the videos are officially endorsed examples of 8th edition play then they have value for the thread. If they are not officially endorsed then the videos don't matter at all to this thread as they only show the opinions of the players in the video.

col_impact wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
You still have not provided a rules quotation that proves the model comes back at full wounds. Arguing that coming back at 0 wounds is silly does not constitute a RAW argument for a level other than 0 wounds, it merely means that you should not consider RAW if 0 wounds is the only option.

Provide a rules quotation that states you come back with the wounds on the datasheet. Otherwise, it is not RAW; it is merely HIPWA. Both you and col impact seem to have a fundamental inability to comprehend this. Neither of you have been able to provide the rules quotation that proves it comes back at full wounds. Please do so, or quit referring to the option of coming back at full wounds as RAW. As I said, people won't mind if you play it that way, just don't claim it's RAW when it isn't.

The only way that the rules will justify some 'non-zero' amount is if you consider 'removed from play' as making the model a non-entity in game terms and therewith removing the tracking of wounds.

There is no way to justify a '1 wound' reanimated Necron model with any rule at all.

So this places players in the spot as either having the Necron animated models be reanimated invulnerable monsters or be reanimated with the number of wounds on their datasheet.

No other interpretations can be justified by the rules.

Orknado's argument is RAW as long as you dismiss absurd lines of argumentation (logic is acceptable for YMDC).

 vipoid wrote:
Is there a rule that states models deploy on the tabletop with full wounds?

Nope. But there is no rule overriding the datasheet either.

Thank you for the final admission that there isn't a rule stating models deploy with full wounds. As has been pointed out, it is irrelevant that there isn't a rule overriding the datasheet, because in a permissive rules set you need to have a rule giving you permission to use the datasheet as is first, and as you state there isn't one. When the model was last on the board it was not at the same wound state as the datasheet, and there needs to be a rule to state at what wound level it comes back. Unlike scarabe it doesn't say it comes back as a reinforcement, which at least has the implication that it shows up with full wounds. There is nothing said about the wound level, as you agree. That means that using the wound level from the datasheet is purely an assumption on your part. It may be a reasonable assumption, but is an assumption nonetheless, and is therefore not RAW. This seems to be the part that you and Orknado have a problem with. Having told us your method is RAW then admitting that there is no rule saying the model comes back with the rule level you propose seems highly contradictory, to say the least.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Not correct Charistof. If you return a model to play that has zero wounds then it needs to have its wounds reduced to zero in order to be slain again which becomes an impossibility. The 'remove from play' rule is conditional to damage being inflicted in the Resolve Attacks sequence so if you follow the instructions like a computer the conditional for 'reduced to zero' will never be met and you are putting an invulnerable Destroyer model into play that can never be reduced to zero wounds and that will makes its unit invulnerable. So your argument leads to OP Necrons.

What says that they have to be reduced again? The requirement is to be reduced to zero Wounds. They have been, correct? That was the whole point they were removed in the first place. Nothing in Reanimation Protocols says that they remain in play after they are returned, after all. That is going by the actual rules you have presented. This is the logic of the process. You are applying an emotional response to this and using hyperbole to appeal on an emotional level.

Where is the actual rule that states that a returned model at zero model can no more be Wounded or Removed From Play? You yourself have given the rule that when a model's Wounds are reduced to zero, it is removed from play. This has happened for the returned model. That is the logical progression of the process provided. It doesn't make any ethical sense, because it is quite stupid to do this.

I noticed that you did not comment on the the fact that the rules have a conditional for a model to be removed from play. There must be an attack that inflicts damage and reduces the model to zero wound in order for a model to be 'removed from play'. These rules are in the Resolve Attack sequence which you only have permission to use when you are resolving an attack. If you reanimate a model with zero wounds then you have made them invulnerable since no attack can reduce them to zero since they are already at zero .I am suspicious that you are not reading the rules at all. Is this true? There is no excuse for ignorance of the rules. You cannot contribute to this thread unless you have a knowledge of the rules. Instead of lamely trying to ascribe 'emotionality' to my posts, I suggest you consult the actual rules.

For someone who says "You cannot contriubte to this thread unless you have a knowledge of the rules", you seem to not have knowledge of what the actual rules say. First, what rule says they are invulnerable? It could as easily be that they are then sent back off the board because they have zero wounds. Both options are stupid, but sometimes RAW is stupid. The rules say to return the model to the board. The model last had zero wounds. There is no rule stating to change the number of wounds when he is returned to the board. You must provide the rule that says he comes back with something other than zero wounds. Granted, people won't play it as him coming back with zero wounds, but that just means that they are ignoring stupid RAW.

orknado wrote:
Either a Necron model is reanimated as a zero wound invulnerable aberration or it is reanimated per the number of wounds on its datasheet. Take your pick. That's the way the rules read in this case.

Actually, he comes back with either zero wounds or with some non-zero level of wounds. You are making assumptions that his is an invulnerable abberation at zero wounds without a rule to back that up - you actually are trying to use some kind of emotional argument here, at least it is not built on any rules that you can quote. Please quote the rule that states he comes back with full wounds, as you assert. For that matter, quote a rule that states he comes back at any wound level other than the wound level he had when he left the board.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
You have 2 choices. Reanimate invulnerable Necrons or Necrons at the number of wounds on their datasheet. Let me know your pick.

No, I actually have several choices in play.

1) Zero Wounds: I have not been instructed to modify their Wounds to beyond 0. Since they have already been reduced to Zero Wounds, they are removed from play again. This does play havoc with the unit for the last phase of the turn, as well, causing a unit to self-destruct. This is stupid, but RAW.

2) Extreme benefit: They return with full Wounds as if they were deploying the first time. This is the best option for the player, and has the ease of not having to keep track of which are barely holding on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.

3) Minimum benefit: They return with 1 Wound. This has the best initial benefit of balance (without considering Power or Points) and the second best option for the opponent. This has historical relevance (as previous versions of RP, WBB, and Ever-Living only returned with 1 Wound), but is a pain to keep track of which ones are barely hanging on. The problem is we have no actual instruction to do this.

Those are the options. None are perfect, and are only great depending on which side of the table you are on from the Necrons.

What does 'benefit' have to do with anything? As you note, solutions 2 and 3 have no basis in any rule so we throw those out as totally unsubstantiated. Also your number 1 solution goes against the rules. A 'zero wound' reanimated model is not removed from play automatically. Instead a 'zero wound' model that has been returned to play is invulnerable to being 'removed from play' again since no attack can reduce it to zero wounds.

At least you admit by saying solution 2 has no basis in rules. That means that coming back with full wounds is not RAW. You are technically wrong on the number one solution. Models reduced to zero wounds are removed from play, so it would be removed from play again. Or, at the very least, would go if it ever took damage again because it would be reduced, and numbers less than 0 for wounds would be treated as 0. But, as Charistoph and I have said, this is stupid RAW. This would not be what they meant.

But, as you readily admit, the one RAW option is stupid. The other options have no rules to indicate which to use, which means that you are not using RAW to bring a model back with RP with any non-zero number of wounds. We don't have a problem with people playing to bring them back with full wounds, just don't call it RAW, especially when you admit there's no rule to say he's brought back that way.

orknado wrote:
Either the Necron model is reanimated as an invulnerable zero wound aberration or it has the number of wounds on its datasheet. No rule exists that justifies giving 1 wound to a reanimated Necron model. The only way in the rules to avoid making a zero wound monstrosity is to treat 'removed from play' as removed from play (ie the model is a non-entity in the game) such that the wounds are not tracked on a 'removed from play model' that has no datasheet representation.

But, you just said there's no rule indicating that the model comes back with full wounds. That means that, from a RAW standpoint, 1 wound is as valid as full wounds. If neither 1 nor full are indicated by RAW, then you're into RAI and HIWPI, and that is something you discuss with your opponent before a game until there's a FAQ that provides an actual answer. You and your opponent could as easily agree that it comes back with 1 wound as with full wounds. But, either way, you are making a house rule. You are not going by a rule in the game that you can quote.

orknado wrote:
People play 'removed from play' models as 'non-entities in the game' already since the alternative is a completely broken game. No rule instructs them to remove a slain model from the battlefield but they do so anyway. And no rule instructs them to remove that model for consideration from wound allocation, shooting, moving, coherency checks, assaults, etc. but they do so anyway based strictly on the phrase itself 'removed from play'. So since people are treating models that are 'removed from play' as 'non game entities' when they play 40k, the 'removed from play' rule justifies the expunging of the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Tracking wounds is a component of 'play' after all.

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.





Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:


I guess you missed the rule I already quoted.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit"

Only a model that is 'in a unit' has a datasheet and with the datasheet a profile. Models that aren't in units don't have profiles. When models are slain they are removed from being in the unit and therewith lose the profile with zero wounds on it, since slain models no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile. When the slain model is reanimated and returned to being in the unit then the model once again will have a profile as defined by the datasheet. That profile will have the amount of wounds defined by the datasheet on it. There aren't any rules for tracking wounds directly on models outside of the profile. The profile is the only place to store the value of the wound characteristic. So when the profile is dropped when the model is slain then the zero value for the wound characteristic is lost. Therefore, a reanimated Destroyer model will have 3 wounds.

Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 SideshowLucifer wrote:
The online videos say one wound, but I'm not convinced that's the case. Much like Nids and their weapons adding an additional attack with this weapon clause, I feel these two are FAQ worthy for sure.

Yes, agreed that it's FAQ worthy. The fact that the online videos are saying one wound shows that there isn't RAW support for full wounds any more than there is for one wound, and the online videos suggest that one wound has more of a chance of what they intended.

The videos are from Frontline Gaming and GW's Livestream, but as I said, I see nothing in the rules that says which way is correct either way.
Overall, a lot of the rules can be figured out by reading the rules, but there are a few that just leave too many interpretations as valid choices, which means we need an FAQ to know what the intent was, much less RAW.

orknado wrote:

col_impact wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I quoted the leaked version I found online, as I have not been at my LGS for a week. That stated exactly what I posted. Even then, they are sufficiently similar for proper context.

The leaked materials are scanned photos of the actual indexes so they are 100% accurate to the actual rules. I am not sure why you are doubling down to dodge responsibility for your misquote by insisting that the leaked materials "stated exactly what [you] posted". I assumed you were mis-remembering, but it now sounds like you were intentionally misquoting. Unless you can point me to the leaked materials which have that misquote, it's looking increasingly like an intentional misquote on your part, or you have a personality flaw where you can't admit a simple memory or clerical mistake.

Believe what you will. You apparently have your opinion of me set in stone. I was not intentionally misquoting, but quoting what I read.

It's real easy to post a link to the materials that you were referencing so we can see whether the material was the source of the misquote or you were the source of the misquote. Since the leaked materials are all scanned photos your story that the leaked materials you looked at had the misquote is quite frankly unbelievable. What I find odd is your inability to take responsibility for a simple mistake.

Charistof

And reported for trolling. You were warned.

orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Quotes are needed to support this hypothesis. You have yet to provide them, and I have asked for them quite a few times now. All you have given me is how YOU play the game because you have yet to provide one single viable quote to support these considerations of "removed from play" you keep spouting.

Here's the list of what you need to support your statement as RAW, quotes from the Battle Primer will be sufficient:
Where does "removed from play" mean "removed from the unit"?

If it is "removed from the unit", how can Reanimation Protocols bring it back in? Or another way, If a slain model no longer has permission to have a datasheet or profile, how can Reanimation Protocols address it at all when that model no longer has this rule?

Where does it state "I no longer track Wounds directly on models outside of the profile"? Just because I don't have permission to track something, doesn't mean I clear its slate without instruction. I need a rule which tells me to do this, where is it?

Heck, can you provide me anything on the actual definition of "removed from play" in the general rules that specifically tells you to do anything?

Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

You are misguided in your understanding of the current state of affairs. I have provided rules quotations backing up everything I say. You are the one coming up short with regards to rules quotations. My argument is entirely RAW.

You have provided one quote for "removed from play", and that was only about that it occurred when a model's Wounds went to zero. You have quoted nothing on what that means and what happens to the model from there. You have only gone on assumptions and extrapolations regarding what you THINK happens when a model is removed from play. Again, do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.

orknado wrote:2) We know from the Core Rule definition of a Datasheet that only models that are IN units have datasheets and their attending profiles.

That will be pertinent if we can establish models that are 'removed from play' are no longer in the unit. Where is the quote on that?

orknado wrote:3) When models are slain they are considered FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit (Reanimation Protocol rule).

No general rule quote provided for this one. As such, it is operating on HYWPI.

orknado wrote:4) Slain models that are no longer IN the unit no longer have permission to have a datasheet or a profile (Core Rules: Datasheet rule).

No, your datasheet rule quote is insufficient evidence as to what happens to a model that has been removed from play.

orknado wrote:5) The wound characteristic on the profile is what is used to indicate how many wounds are left on the model (Datasheet rule).

Going by this, a model cannot be removed from play, because we keep using that same Wound profile throughout the game. And you want to accuse me of generating rules to make models immortal?

orknado wrote:6) When the model is slain it is no longer IN the unit so it loses the permission to have the profile and so loses the profile entirely that contains the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

These rules do not define what happens to a slain model. A quote regarding that is required.

orknado wrote:7) When a slain model is 'returned to the unit' it will at that point in time be considered IN the unit and granted a profile from the datasheet (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

8) The profile that the newly reanimated model receives will have the amount of wounds indicated on the datasheet (Datasheet rule).

Extrapolation based on unproven theories, but no actual statement is provided that we consider the model's original profile when returning the model to the unit. That's the whole reason this thread was started. No Instruction and no permission means we have a broken mechanic.

orknado wrote:So there you have it. My argument is entirely justified by the Rules As they are Written (RAW) in the Core Rules and the Necron index. I have proven that slain models are not IN the unit and so do not have a profile or a wound characteristic.

The burden of proof is on you here, not me. My argument is solid and fully supported by the rules. You have to counter with rules support and show how a slain model that has no profile or wound characteristic is somehow retaining the 'zero wound' tally that you claim it does. You won't be able to do so since I have proven with rules support that a slain model has no profile or wound characteristic. So you will have to concede that the Necron Destroyer is reanimated with 3 wounds.

No, not really. If one tried to present that as paper for peer-review, it would be laughed out of the paper and the person presenting it would have their certification questioned.

You are trying to get us from A to Q, but excluding D-M. The portion that is missing, as I have stated numerous times now and pointed out to each of your steps above, is where you do you get your definition of what 'removed from play' actually does. Without that, you have absolutely nothing holding your case together. Everything you have stated regarding 'removed from play' you have extrapolated from other rules, which state nothing on defining the subject, and only one is a general rule.

Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

 doctortom wrote:


Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.

Do you have a rules quote that states that a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit? The rule in the Core Rules is stated thusly: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit". I have no choice but to obey that rule.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.

Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.

The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). The rule is not worded to grant that as an exceptional status only to models from units from Reanimation Protocols. However, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that this only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.

So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Rules quotation for your assertion, please. We've asked you for the rules quotations multiple times and you have not provided it. Where does it say it no longer has a permission to have a profile as opposed to still having a profile that has is wound characteristics reduced to zero? Supposition is not RAW. It may be HIWPI, but it's not RAW. Do not confuse the two as you are doing.

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:


Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.

Do you have a rules quote that states that a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit? The rule in the Core Rules is stated thusly: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit". I have no choice but to obey that rule.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit." The reference to models is in relation to the UNIT's datasheet, and makes no reference to a model being brought back at full wounds when it is returned to play. In fact, there is no reference to changing the number of wounds it has from when it left play. You need to provide the quotation to say that the datasheet doesn't apply then suddenly applies again, and that the wounds are mystically generated. The burden of proof is upon you - I have only taken the position that there is not a rule specifically stating that the model is returned at full wounds (Something you have previously agreed to in a statement, and something that seems to be true if you go by the videos of gameplay with Necrons).

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.

Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.

Does it really matter? Even with you providing the rule, you have not been able to produce the key piece - any rules statement specifically stating that a model comes back into play with full wounds. Your trying to focus on this is only a distraction from you not producing any evidence of a statement to back up your claim that your position is RAW.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.

The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). The rule is not worded to grant that as an exceptional status only to models from units from Reanimation Protocols.

So what? "returned to the unit" is not the same as "returned to the unit with full wounds". You have yet to provide concrete evidence of the latter. A quote that every unit has a datasheet is not that proof - it does not show that when a model is returned to the table that it is returned with full wounds. This is all supposition on your part. Supposition is not a rules statement. HIPWI is not RAW. Don't confuse one with the other.

orknado wrote:
However, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that this only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

How about a little rules quotation to go with that snark? If it's per the Rules as Written, QUOTE THE RULE. Don't waste everyone's time claiming it's RAW but not bothering to quote the rule when asked. You haven't provided a rules quote that directly links coming back to coming back with full wounds.

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.

You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
Actually a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit. The models have a datasheet for them when you buy the models in a shop. GW has provided datasheets for the the models so that you can use them in a game. Please provide the rules quotation that says the datasheet is no longer associated with the model when it leaves play, and that i gains the datasheet back when it's reassociated with the unit. "The datasheet" is merely a sheet for models of that type.

Do you have a rules quote that states that a model has a datasheet whether or not it's in a unit? The rule in the Core Rules is stated thusly: "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit". I have no choice but to obey that rule.

This is getting to be a "well it doesn't say I can't" level of argument here. Where do you have permission to separate the slain model from the unit? When a model has been slain, it already has been associated with that datasheet, where does it specifically state this separation occurs?

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.

Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.

Again, that is your choice to believe it. It is not the case, as I did close the window I referenced, slept and had a life between responses. Depending on which statements you're talking about, I may have even been on a different computer since I was at in-laws and used my wife's computer for a couple responses this past weekend.

I did not state that the leak wasn't a scanned photo, that is pure assumption on your part, and that seems to be how you approach things in life. Also, I have col_impact on ignore for several reasons, but the chief of which is because I wanted to stop being put on probation for calling him a liar, which he asked me to as much as you asked me to accuse you of trolling. It seems you just don't want to address my points that you have avoided since I started questioning where you got them from, and so go on the ad hominem.

You have not once provided once line of rules that actually stated what you believe regarding slain models and remove from play. You have tried to use back door logic to prove, it but that does not properly qualify for RAW. It's fine for HYWPI, and both DoctorTom and I have stated we would even be willing to play against an opponent who wanted to try the returning models at full Wounds, but we do not agree with the path you have taken to get there, nor can accept that this is how Reanimation Protocols is actually written.

 doctortom wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Rules quotation for your assertion, please. We've asked you for the rules quotations multiple times and you have not provided it. Where does it say it no longer has a permission to have a profile as opposed to still having a profile that has is wound characteristics reduced to zero? Supposition is not RAW. It may be HIWPI, but it's not RAW. Do not confuse the two as you are doing.

I have quoted the rules several times.

Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."

1) The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."

2) Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile.

Therefore when a model is slain, it loses its profile. The profile is the only place where the value of the Wound characteristic is maintained. Therefore when a model is slain it loses the value of the Wound characteristic.

My argument is proven 100% by the Rules As Written.

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

It is FROM the unit, but you have nothing stating the datasheet no longer applies to it (albeit it having 0 wounds instead of what is stated). Please provide the rules quotation to back up your assertion here that it no longer has permission to have a profile. From what I see, that is an assumption on your part, and a more vaild assumption is that the profile still applies to the model except for having 0 wounds. If you can't provide a rules quotation to prove your assertion, then you have no rules at al backing up your statement. And, let us remember that you agreed there is no rule stating that the model comes back at full wounds. You are acting like there is, however. You don't get to have it both ways. Provide the rules statement that says it comes back with full wounds or admit that the one thing that you need to prove the RAW for your position does not exist.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.

You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.

I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.

I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."

 doctortom wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

It is FROM the unit, but you have nothing stating the datasheet no longer applies to it (albeit it having 0 wounds instead of what is stated). Please provide the rules quotation to back up your assertion here that it no longer has permission to have a profile. From what I see, that is an assumption on your part, and a more vaild assumption is that the profile still applies to the model except for having 0 wounds. If you can't provide a rules quotation to prove your assertion, then you have no rules at al backing up your statement. And, let us remember that you agreed there is no rule stating that the model comes back at full wounds. You are acting like there is, however. You don't get to have it both ways. Provide the rules statement that says it comes back with full wounds or admit that the one thing that you need to prove the RAW for your position does not exist.

Only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." I have no choice but to drop the profile (and with that the value for the Wound characteristic) for a model once it is slain and no longer IN that unit. You have no rules support to counter my rules support. My argument is 100% supported by the Rules As Written.

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Rules quotation for your assertion, please. We've asked you for the rules quotations multiple times and you have not provided it. Where does it say it no longer has a permission to have a profile as opposed to still having a profile that has is wound characteristics reduced to zero? Supposition is not RAW. It may be HIWPI, but it's not RAW. Do not confuse the two as you are doing.

I have quoted the rules several times.

Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."

1) The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.

"Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."

2) Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile.

Therefore when a model is slain, it loses its profile. The profile is the only place where the value of the Wound characteristic is maintained. Therefore when a model is slain it loses the value of the Wound characteristic.

My argument is proven 100% by the Rules As Written.

Does Reanimatiion Protocols STATE that it comes back with full wounds? No.

The model WAS in a unit, and had a profile provided by the datasheet. Do you have a rule stating that when the model is slain or destroyed the profile no longer applies? No. Can a model that has a profile in a game lose that profile?This is an assumption on your part. This is not a rules statement you are basing things on. With this supposition, this is not RAW.

As a bonus, since you want to make sure we play by RAW, a point brought up earlier in the thread by another:
If you want to get technical, what happens when a model reaches 0 wounds? From the Inflict Damage entry. "If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." Reanimation Protocols states you get to roll for each model that has been slain. It does not state that you get to roll for models that are destroyed. So, does that mean if the Necron's opponent specifies that all the models reduced to 0 wounds are destroyed, that the Necron player does not get to use Reanimation Protocols? By Silly RAW, yes. So, there are several things with Reanimation Protocols that make the power not work right if trying to play it by straight RAW. Playing it HIWPI will let you use the power. It does not make HIPWI into RAW, however, as you are trying to contort your assumptions into.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.

You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.

I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.

I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."

No, you have not. Provide the rules quotation saying a model that had a profile no longer gets to have that profile if removed. The datasheet applied at the beginning, you have to provide a rules quotation that shows it no longer applies. You haven't.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:
Only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." I have no choice but to drop the profile (and with that the value for the Wound characteristic) for a model once it is slain and no longer IN that unit. /quote]

Proof, please, by rules quotation, one that specifically points out that a model that had a profile at the start of the game does not still have that profile (as modified by game factors such as taking wounds, etc) until the end of the game.

orknado wrote:
You have no rules support to counter my rules support. My argument is 100% supported by the Rules As Written.

You haven't provided a proper rule to back up your assumptions, as I outlined, so you have not proven that your claims are supported by RAW, col impact.

 doctortom wrote:


Does Reanimatiion Protocols STATE that it comes back with full wounds? No.

I have never made the claim that Reanimation Protocols actually literally states that it comes back with full wounds. Full wounds is merely a consequence of following the Rules As Written exactly, as I have already laid out.

 doctortom wrote:
The model WAS in a unit, and had a profile provided by the datasheet. Do you have a rule stating that when the model is slain or destroyed the profile no longer applies? No. Can a model that has a profile in a game lose that profile?This is an assumption on your part. This is not a rules statement you are basing things on. With this supposition, this is not RAW.

I have shown several times the rule that states quite clearly that only models that are IN units have datasheets associated with them. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." If you don't respect this rule then you are in violation of the Rules As Written.

 doctortom wrote:
As a bonus, since you want to make sure we play by RAW, a point brought up earlier in the thread by another:
If you want to get technical, what happens when a model reaches 0 wounds? From the Inflict Damage entry. "If a model's wounds are reduced to 0, it is either slain or destroyed and removed from play." Reanimation Protocols states you get to roll for each model that has been slain. It does not state that you get to roll for models that are destroyed. So, does that mean if the Necron's opponent specifies that all the models reduced to 0 wounds are destroyed, that the Necron player does not get to use Reanimation Protocols? By Silly RAW, yes. So, there are several things with Reanimation Protocols that make the power not work right if trying to play it by straight RAW. Playing it HIWPI will let you use the power. It does not make HIPWI into RAW, however, as you are trying to contort your assumptions into.

There is no rule that enables the opponent to choose destroyed over slain or for any choice to be made between one or the other. So a model that is reduced to zero wounds is simultaneously one or the other state, like Shroedinger's cat.

 doctortom wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.

You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.

I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.

I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."

No, you have not. Provide the rules quotation saying a model that had a profile no longer gets to have that profile if removed. The datasheet applied at the beginning, you have to provide a rules quotation that shows it no longer applies. You haven't.

I have provided the rules quotation repeatedly. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit." Only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. Once a model is no longer IN the unit, it loses the datasheet and any profile associated with that datasheet.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit? Reanimation Protocols does not get to define this state for everyone, it is exclusive to those models who have it on their datasheet. A quote from general rules is needed to support this hypothesis.

The wording of Reanimation Protocol makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). The rule is not worded to grant that as an exceptional status only to models from units from Reanimation Protocols. However, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that this only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

No actual concession has been made, you are assuming again.

It also seems you have missed the point of the statement. "Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit?" It should not be a difficult question to answer if you have actual rules to support it. Where is the rule?

Reanimation Protocols do not define what we do when models are slain or removed from play. It defines what we do AFTER the models have been slain or removed from play. You are missing the middle step here.

orknado wrote:
I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.

No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit.

orknado wrote:
So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

No, that just demonstrates you were not paying attention to what I wrote. Here it is reworded:

"Reanimation Protocols does not get to define what happens to all slain models, as not every model HAS Reanimation Protocols. This needs to be defined as part of a general rule."

Can you understand that statement?

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 doctortom wrote:

No rule instucts you to stop paying attention to the wound level. Please quote the rule that states you expunge the tracking of wounds on a model that has been 'removed from play'. Quote the rule that says a model "returned to play" or "returned to the board" comes in with a different condition from when he left it.

The Reanimation Protocol rule makes it clear that slain models are FROM the unit and no longer IN the unit. Only models that are IN units have permission to have a datasheet and a profile. The Wound characteristic on the profile maintains the number of wounds on the model. When a model is slain it no longer has permission to have a profile and so the value of the Wound characteristic is lost. It's all according to the RAW.

Reanimation Protocols do not state that the models that are removed from play are outside of the unit. My brother lives in Texas, but he's not outside of my family. Why would Reanimation Protocols even state this, it's not its job to define such a thing. This would need to be provided in general rules, as what Reanimation Protocols actually does is also done by several other rules.

You need to provide evidence that a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile other than your assumptions.

I have complete rules support for my assertions. Reanimation Protocols makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit (and further that when reanimated the model is RETURNED to the unit). If a slain model is already IN a unit then it cannot be 'returned to the unit'. So slain models are not IN the unit.

I have also shown with rules support that only models that are IN units have permission to have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models IN that unit."

You seem as hard of hearing as an ignored col we know. Let me repeat:

You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit. Reanimation Protocols does not state the model is in the unit, true, but we have to demonstrate it is OUT of the unit, first.

This goes back to the concept of resetting Wounds. These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.

If you can provide any actual written instructions for what we are supposed to do between #2 and #3, then you will be providing RAW. Anything else is pure assumption and HYWPI. Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.

No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit any more.

If slain models are IN the unit then you must maintain coherency with them and allocate wounds to them and allow them to move, shoot, etc. Do you choose to play this way? Unless you actually play that way, then you have decided at the outset of the game that slain models are not IN the unit.

Also, the Reanimation Protocols rule makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM units (and will be returned to the unit when RP is activated) and therefore that slain models are not IN units. If you play that slain models are IN units, not only are you playing a completely broken game, you are also violating the Reanimation Protocol rule which is in effect.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

No, that just demonstrates you were not paying attention to what I wrote. Here it is reworded:

"Reanimation Protocols does not get to define what happens to all slain models, as not every model HAS Reanimation Protocols. This needs to be defined as part of a general rule."

Can you understand that statement?

The thread is talking about models that DO have Reanimation Protocols. So even if we accept your absurd stipulating that only models with Reanimation Protocols are not IN units when they are slain then you have conceded the argument that Destroyers are reanimated with 3 wounds. Can you understand that statement?

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.

Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.

Again, that is your choice to believe it. It is not the case, as I did close the window I referenced, slept and had a life between responses. Depending on which statements you're talking about, I may have even been on a different computer since I was at in-laws and used my wife's computer for a couple responses this past weekend.

I did not state that the leak wasn't a scanned photo, that is pure assumption on your part, and that seems to be how you approach things in life. Also, I have col_impact on ignore for several reasons, but the chief of which is because I wanted to stop being put on probation for calling him a liar, which he asked me to as much as you asked me to accuse you of trolling. It seems you just don't want to address my points that you have avoided since I started questioning where you got them from, and so go on the ad hominem.

All of the leaks were scanned photos and so could not have misquoted the rule. You made the claim that the leaks were the source of the misquote rather than a personal mistake on your part, which is an entirely unbelievable claim. You seem to have a fluid relationship with the truth. Since we are defined in YMDC by the principles we uphold then it's important to take note of a slip-up in a poster's principles. I am merely taking note that your story is unbelievable and you have the capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

 Charistoph wrote:

You seem as hard of hearing as an ignored col we know. Let me repeat:

You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit. Reanimation Protocols does not state the model is in the unit, true, but we have to demonstrate it is OUT of the unit, first.

This goes back to the concept of resetting Wounds. These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.

If you can provide any actual written instructions for what we are supposed to do between #2 and #3, then you will be providing RAW. Anything else is pure assumption and HYWPI. Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

I have already proved my argument. It follows directly from the Rules As Written.


Exactly which statement do you take issue with?

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I should point out that in addition to the Reanimation Protocol rule which you cannot violate we know that slain models are not IN the unit since if you treat slain models as IN the unit then you have to maintain coherency with them, allocate wounds to them, and allow them to participate in movement, shooting, and assault. Do you play the game this way? If you do, good luck finding people to play with you. If you don't then you have answered the issue for your games that slain models are not IN the unit.

No quote to support this paragraph. HOW do we know that slain models are not IN the unit? That they are no longer in coherency with the unit is not in argument, but that does not mean they are outside the unit any more.

If slain models are IN the unit then you must maintain coherency with them and allocate wounds to them and allow them to move, shoot, etc.

Why? Where is the rule or instruction that states this? Since you are stating something other than a rule, I am attributing this to assumption.

orknado wrote:
Also, the Reanimation Protocols rule makes it 100% clear that slain models are FROM units (and will be returned to the unit when RP is activated) and therefore that slain models are not IN units. If you play that slain models are IN units, not only are you playing a completely broken game, you are also violating the Reanimation Protocol rule which is in effect.

Going by implication and assumptions here as you are not providing any actual quoted statement that says models removed from play are 'out of the unit' in the first place. You are assuming that slain models are out of the unit.

Remember, my brother in Texas is not out of my family, nor is my brother who has been dead these 40 years.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
So again, even if we were to accept your absurd stipulation that removing slain models only applies to Necron models with Reanimation Protocols then you have conceded the argument of the thread. A Destroyer will be reanimated with 3 wounds per the Rules As Written. I accept your concession.

No, that just demonstrates you were not paying attention to what I wrote. Here it is reworded:

"Reanimation Protocols does not get to define what happens to all slain models, as not every model HAS Reanimation Protocols. This needs to be defined as part of a general rule."

Can you understand that statement?

The thread is talking about models that DO have Reanimation Protocols. So even if we accept your absurd stipulating that only models with Reanimation Protocols are not IN units when they are slain then you have conceded the argument that Destroyers are reanimated with 3 wounds. Can you understand that statement?

Oh, I understand what's going on. You are trying to use your assumptions on how the game works to make an ethical and emotional case for why the models should be returned with full Wounds. You have yet to answer the questions we have asked in regards to where are the actual rules which define what happens to models which have been slain and removed from play. You have said this is how it goes but have yet to provide one single piece of written evidence that doesn't relying on assumptions on how you think the game works for them to be accurate.

Reanimation Protocols does not define what happens to models between the time they have been removed from play and when they are returned, nor is it the only rule which does a similar thing. Since it literally states nothing on this subject, and other rules will be doing the same thing, it must be defined elsewhere. Where is this elsewhere?

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:I agree with Col_Impact here. It's not hard at all to provide proof that the leaked materials are where the misquote came from if your story is true. Do you have a link to the leaked materials with the misquote? Alternatively, you could just admit that you made a simple human error. It happens. I make simple mistakes all the time and I don't have problems owning up to them.

Hmm, maybe its because I closed the window from that leak and I'm not sure I could pull up that same exact window? A certain amount of time had passed, after all.

Your story is unbelievable. There were no leaks that were not scanned photos. You misquoted the rule and it looks increasingly like you intentionally misquoted the rule.

Again, that is your choice to believe it. It is not the case, as I did close the window I referenced, slept and had a life between responses. Depending on which statements you're talking about, I may have even been on a different computer since I was at in-laws and used my wife's computer for a couple responses this past weekend.

I did not state that the leak wasn't a scanned photo, that is pure assumption on your part, and that seems to be how you approach things in life. Also, I have col_impact on ignore for several reasons, but the chief of which is because I wanted to stop being put on probation for calling him a liar, which he asked me to as much as you asked me to accuse you of trolling. It seems you just don't want to address my points that you have avoided since I started questioning where you got them from, and so go on the ad hominem.

All of the leaks were scanned photos and so could not have misquoted the rule. You made the claim that the leaks were the source of the misquote rather than a personal mistake on your part, which is an entirely unbelievable claim. You seem to have a fluid relationship with the truth. Since we are defined in YMDC by the principles we uphold then it's important to take note of a slip-up in a poster's principles. I am merely taking note that your story is unbelievable and you have the capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

You have accused me of deliberately misquoting. I quoted what I read. If that doesn't match what you read, then either what you are quoting or what I am quoting was wrong. I said I'm not sure I could find the exact picture again. Live with it. There is no reason to try and make this more than what it is, especially when you have such a large glaring hole in your own case.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

You seem as hard of hearing as an ignored col we know. Let me repeat:

You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit. Reanimation Protocols does not state the model is in the unit, true, but we have to demonstrate it is OUT of the unit, first.

This goes back to the concept of resetting Wounds. These are the instructions we have:
1) We have instructions to reduce the Wounds.
2) We have instructions to remove the model from play when its Wounds have been reduced to zero or otherwise instructed.
3) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.

If you can provide any actual written instructions for what we are supposed to do between #2 and #3, then you will be providing RAW. Anything else is pure assumption and HYWPI. Do you understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI?

I have already proved my argument. It follows directly from the Rules As Written.

Spoiler:

Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."

This is step #3, any quote needed will require being before we call Reanimation Protocols in to play because it does not state anything on this matter. Can you properly respond to the request?

orknado wrote:
1) We know from the Reanimation Protocol rule that slain models are FROM the unit and NOT IN the unit. We also know that slain models are RETURNED to the unit when reanimation protocols are activated. Reanimation Protocols reanimates slain models FROM the unit, not slain models IN the unit.

How do we know this? Where does it state that slain models are not in the unit?

Where does Reanimated Protocols state "not in the unit"? Where does any rule between Step #2 and Step #3 say that a model that is removed from play is "not in the unit"? The funny part is that this has been asked several times and you keep ignoring the question.

orknado wrote:
Exactly which statement do you take issue with?

The same ones which you repeatedly refuse to properly support. I gave my answers last time and you did not answer my questions. Can you answer the questions above with a proper rules quote?