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:

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.

Here are a few of the rules you must follow if you consider slain models to be IN the unit.

"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."

"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."

"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."

"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

As you can see, if you treat slain models as IN the unit then the game play breaks. Unless you are playing the game this way, you are in tacit acceptance that slain models are not IN the unit. Before we proceed any further, can you clarify whether you play the game this way or not?

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

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.

You keep burying yourself with more unbelievable statements. Scanned photos of the leaked rules can not possibly show a misquote since they are photos of the rules. I am taking note that you have the capacity to make unbelievable statements and an inability to accept responsibility for minor memory errors. Scanned photos of the rules cannot be the source of the misquote. You were the source of the misquote. Live with it.

 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?

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.

The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

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?

I asked you to present any issues with my argument. I don't see any issues listed in this post and I am not sure what you mean by 'questions above'.


If you have issues then post with a listing of them. Otherwise I take it that you accept my argument and we are in agreement that a Destroyer reanimates with 3 wounds.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
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.

Here are a few of the rules you must follow if you consider slain models to be IN the unit.

"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."

I see nothing of this being "in the unit". This is about how to be "in unit coherency" which requires "within" a distance. Not the same thing. I also do not seen any instructions for being "out of the unit".

orknado wrote:
"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."

Ah good, but where does it state that models removed from play are not in the unit?

orknado wrote:
"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."

Umm, nothing here about defining this being 'in the unit".

orknado wrote:
"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."

Okay, that's what models in the unit can do, but that doesn't define what is in the unit, much what how a model gets out of the unit.

orknado wrote:
"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."

Okay, that's what models in the unit can do, but that doesn't define what is in the unit, much what how a model gets out of the unit.

orknado wrote:
"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

Okay, that's what models in the unit can do, but that doesn't define what is in the unit, much what how a model gets out of the unit.

orknado wrote:
As you can see, if you treat slain models as IN the unit then the game play breaks. Unless you are playing the game this way, you are in tacit acceptance that slain models are not IN the unit. Before we proceed any further, can you clarify whether you play the game this way or not?

Okay, you seem to be under some very very serious delusions here and that demonstrates why you do not understand anything that DoctorTom and I have been saying.

RAW and HYWPI are not the same thing. In order for something to be RAW, there must be rules that are written and directly quoted. What you have directly quoted requires supposition in order for it to be relevant to the discussion at hand. That is not RAW.

I do not have to play something a certain way to declare it RAW. In fact, neither DoctorTom nor I have ever stated that we would play this by the RAW we have stated. We have repeatedly stated the exact opposite on several occasions.

There is nothing in the Battle Primer regarding 'removed from play' which presents the exact scenario in which you have described. There is nothing in the Battle Primer which instructs us to separate a model from the unit when we remove it from play.

How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.

orknado wrote:
I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

That's not the problem and you have been ignoring the point of the statements. What tells you to make the model "out of the unit" in the first place?

A model can indeed be returned to a unit it is still in. My brother is still in my family, even while he is in Texas. He returned to this last week for Father's Day. He left again today to go back to Texas. He will be returning to his home. A unit is an organizational entity, not a box like a house. If a gang member leaves a gang, he may be attacked, but if a gang member is in prison, he is not out of the gang.

Context provides the definitions we are looking at, and I am looking for the instructions which tell me the model is "out of the unit" in order for anything else you have said to make any sense.

orknado wrote:
You keep burying yourself with more unbelievable statements. Scanned photos of the leaked rules can not possibly show a misquote since they are photos of the rules. I am taking note that you have the capacity to make unbelievable statements and an inability to accept responsibility for minor memory errors. Scanned photos of the rules cannot be the source of the misquote. You were the source of the misquote.

Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.

So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.

orknado wrote:
The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

Reanimation Protocols also doesn't say the model is not in the unit, either. You are using a, "but it doesn't say I can't" excuse on this one. And you still need to provide where it actually started being "out of the unit" for this to happen in the first place.

A slain model which has been removed from play can be returned to play. A gang member in prison can be returned to the gang, while never having been out of the gang.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

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?

I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.

Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.

 Charistoph wrote:

How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.

Unless the slain models are treated as not IN the unit then all of those rules I listed are directing you specifically to do otherwise. You are logically compelled to treat slain models as not IN the unit since slain models IN the unit are being specifically adressed (as models in the unit) and empowered to do things that would break the game. Unless you can provide a definition of 'removed from play' you have no choice in this matter, unless you intend to play a broken game.

At any rate, you have tacitly accepted that slain models are not IN units.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

That's not the problem and you have been ignoring the point of the statements. What tells you to make the model "out of the unit" in the first place?

A model can indeed be returned to a unit it is still in. My brother is still in my family, even while he is in Texas. He returned to this last week for Father's Day. He left again today to go back to Texas. He will be returning to his home. A unit is an organizational entity, not a box like a house. If a gang member leaves a gang, he may be attacked, but if a gang member is in prison, he is not out of the gang.

Nope. A slain model that is still IN the unit cannot be RETURNED to the unit.

Your real world examples are in violation of the Tenets of YMDC. Try again.

Guess what doesn't happen when a model appears at 0 wounds instead of being reduced to 0 wounds guys?

They come back at full wounds or every unit comes back immortal.

One of these interpretations allows the rules to function as a beefy WBB. The other interpretation makes Necrons the unkillable army.

If your RAW literally breaks the game, find new RAW.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.

Unless the slain models are treated as not IN the unit then all of those rules I listed are directing you specifically to do otherwise. You are logically compelled to treat slain models as not IN the unit since slain models IN the unit are being specifically adressed (as models in the unit) and empowered to do things that would break the game. Unless you can provide a definition of 'removed from play' you have no choice in this matter, unless you intend to play a broken game.

You seemed to have ignored the context of 'in' when used in context with an organization. Physical position means nothing in regards to it. Being in a 'penalty box' means nothing to it. The models are IN the unit, even when not in coherency or in play. Without any instructions to do so, I cannot get the model OUT of the unit.

Is a hockey player that is in the penalty box out of the team? Is a Football player that has been ejected automatically out of the team?

By your statements you think that this is the case.

orknado wrote:
At any rate, you have tacitly accepted that slain models are not IN units.

No, I have not. You are misstating what I have said, a second time. Continue to do this, and you will be called a liar and reported.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I have no choice but to adhere to what the Reanimation Protocol rule tells me. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

That's not the problem and you have been ignoring the point of the statements. What tells you to make the model "out of the unit" in the first place?

A model can indeed be returned to a unit it is still in. My brother is still in my family, even while he is in Texas. He returned to this last week for Father's Day. He left again today to go back to Texas. He will be returning to his home. A unit is an organizational entity, not a box like a house. If a gang member leaves a gang, he may be attacked, but if a gang member is in prison, he is not out of the gang.

Nope. A slain model that is still IN the unit cannot be RETURNED to the unit.

Prove it with words from the Index or the Battle Primer and outside of the Reanimation Protocols. Reanimation Protocols does not state it does not affect slain models in the unit, after all.

orknado wrote:
Your real world examples are in violation of the Tenets of YMDC. Try again.

They were used to provide context to the use of the word. Do you know how "in" means something different between an organization and an object?

It has been more than you have done by repeating the same thing over and over again while simultaneously ignoring the questions.

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.

So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.

Digging yourself deeper into your hole of unbelievable statements. So now your claim is that you were fell victim to some gag edition that someone made up. Sorry, but a Google search confirms no such gag edition exists. I guess your capacity for trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true knows no end.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

How I play it is that removed from play causes the model to be removed from the table and does not interact with the play of the game until something directs my to otherwise, such as kill points and Reanimation Protocols. It is ignored, but not removed. I actually do not have permission to do anything that you have stated I should do.

Unless the slain models are treated as not IN the unit then all of those rules I listed are directing you specifically to do otherwise. You are logically compelled to treat slain models as not IN the unit since slain models IN the unit are being specifically adressed (as models in the unit) and empowered to do things that would break the game. Unless you can provide a definition of 'removed from play' you have no choice in this matter, unless you intend to play a broken game.

You seemed to have ignored the context of 'in' when used in context with an organization. Physical position means nothing in regards to it. Being in a 'penalty box' means nothing to it. The models are IN the unit, even when not in coherency or in play. Without any instructions to do so, I cannot get the model OUT of the unit.

Is a hockey player that is in the penalty box out of the team? Is a Football player that has been ejected automatically out of the team?

By your statements you think that this is the case.

orknado wrote:
At any rate, you have tacitly accepted that slain models are not IN units.

No, I have not. You are misstating what I have said, a second time. Continue to do this, and you will be called a liar and reported.

I have not. If slain models are IN the unit then you must adhere to these rules.

"A unit must be set up and finish any sort of move as a group, with every model within 2" horizontally, and 6" vertically, of at least one other model from their unit: this is called unit coherency. If anything causes a unit to become split up during a battle, it must re-establish its unit coherency the next time it moves."

"Start your Movement phase by picking one of your units and moving each model in that unit until you’ve moved all the models you want to."

"Some models are noted as being a Psyker on their datasheet. Psykers can manifest their otherworldly abilities and attempt to deny enemy sorceries. The powers a psyker knows, and the number of powers they can attempt to manifest or deny each Psychic phase, are detailed on their datasheet. . . . A psyker can attempt to manifest a psychic power they know by taking a Psychic test. To do so, roll 2D6. If the total is equal to or greater than that power’s warp charge value, the power is successfully manifested."

"In your Shooting phase you can shoot with models armed with ranged weapons. First, you must pick one of your units to shoot with. You may not pick a unit that Advanced or Fell Back this turn, or a unit that is within 1" of an enemy unit. Unless otherwise stated, each model in the unit attacks with all of the ranged weapons it is armed with."

"After any Overwatch has been resolved, roll 2D6. Each model in the charging unit can move up to this number of inches – this is their charge distance this turn."

"If an attack successfully wounds the target, the player commanding the target unit allocates the wound to any model in the unit (the chosen model does not have to be within range or visible to the attacking unit). If a model in the target unit has already lost any wounds, the damage must be allocated to that model."

As you can see, if you treat slain models as IN the unit then the game breaks.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.

Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.

I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.


Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?

 Charistoph wrote:

Prove it with words from the Index or the Battle Primer and outside of the Reanimation Protocols. Reanimation Protocols does not state it does not affect slain models in the unit, after all.

I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.

So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.

Digging yourself deeper into your hole of unbelievable statements. So now your claim is that you were fell victim to some gag edition that someone made up.

Or you did.

orknado wrote:
Sorry, but a Google search confirms no such gag edition exists. I guess your capacity for trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true knows no end.

Really? You may want to actually do some proper research. It's amazing what one can find.

orknado wrote:
I have not.

Yeah, you have ignored the context I was using it in, and which I believe the games uses it in.

Howabout this one?

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?

I am still waiting on where it actually says that a model that has been removed from play is out of the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you apparently have never heard of something called the "pancake edition" on Warseer. It was a gag edition that someone made up, printed out, and provided photographs of as "evidence" of authenticity. People were very pleased with these leaks until the actual rulebook for 6th Edition came out and it was considerably different.

So, don't tell me that scanned photos of the rules cannot be a source of the misquote.

Digging yourself deeper into your hole of unbelievable statements. So now your claim is that you were fell victim to some gag edition that someone made up.

Or you did.

orknado wrote:
Sorry, but a Google search confirms no such gag edition exists. I guess your capacity for trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true knows no end.

Really? You may want to actually do some proper research. It's amazing what one can find.

Sorry I meant that a Google search confirms that no such "gag edition" exists for 8th edition. I was not doubting that a "pancake edition" exists.

Now that we have confirmed that you know how to use Google then you should have no problem finding the 8th edition gag ruleset that misled you into misquoting the rules. I tried and was unable to find such a gag edition for 8th edition. Therefore, your story is unbelievable and we have confirmed that you have the capacity to continually try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

 Charistoph wrote:

Howabout this one?

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?

Can you re-phrase your questions? You aren't making any sense here.

 Charistoph wrote:

I am still waiting on where it actually says that a model that has been removed from play is out of the unit.

The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

Further I am logically compelled by the fact that I will be playing a non-broken game with other players that slain models are not IN the unit. There really is no way to treat slain models as IN the unit without breaking the game.

All of these rules break.

You really need to work on your quoting process orknado. It's disruptive.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.

Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.

I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.

Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?

You mean like here or here? Should I quote the pertinent parts for you?

When you haven't answered the questions that come up, you expect me to agree that your HYWPI is RAW? Why?

orknado wrote:
I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

Actually, you haven't. You've made assumptions based on your reading of the Reanimation Protocols which requires actions which Reanimation Protocols does not state that you do. Since RP doesn't actually tell you to do things before you return the model, a rule that puts them in position for RP to do it is required.

Remember the Steps 1-3? It should be 4.
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) ...
4) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.

#3 is actually whatever "removed from play" does. No instructions are present as far as I can find. You say there is something that happens here, but you have yet to provide any actual written words of these rules and instructions.

 Charistoph wrote:
You really need to work on your quoting process orknado. It's disruptive.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.

Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.

I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.

Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?

You mean like here or here? Should I quote the pertinent parts for you?

Yup. Quote the pertinent parts. I am not a mind-reader.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

Actually, you haven't. You've made assumptions based on your reading of the Reanimation Protocols which requires actions which Reanimation Protocols does not state that you do. Since RP doesn't actually tell you to do things before you return the model, a rule that puts them in position for RP to do it is required.

Remember the Steps 1-3? It should be 4.
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) ...
4) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.

#3 is actually whatever "removed from play" does. No instructions are present as far as I can find. You say there is something that happens here, but you have yet to provide any actual written words of these rules and instructions.

I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule as you can see in the enclosed quote. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

You have failed to show how slain models can be IN a unit without breaking the game. All of these rules break if slain models are still IN the unit.

orknado wrote:
Sorry I meant that a Google search confirms that no such "gag edition" exists for 8th edition. I was not doubting that a "pancake edition" exists.

Now that we have confirmed that you know how to use Google then you should have no problem finding the 8th edition gag ruleset that misled you into misquoting the rules. I tried and was unable to find such a gag edition for 8th edition. Therefore, your story is unbelievable and we have confirmed that you have the capacity to continually try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

It acutally demonstrates you have more trust in Google than is warranted. Just because it hasn't been reported sufficiently on the first page, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Howabout this one?

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?

Can you re-phrase your questions? You aren't making any sense here.

The contextual use of 'in'.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

I am still waiting on where it actually says that a model that has been removed from play is out of the unit.

The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.

orknado wrote:
Further I am logically compelled by the fact that I will be playing a non-broken game with other players that slain models are not IN the unit. There really is no way to treat slain models as IN the unit without breaking the game.

All of these rules break.

Have you bothered to even notice that neither DoctorTom nor I have said that models returning with 0 Wounds is a working mechanic? If you can, please link and quote it. Your "logically compelled" statement indicates more that you are approaching this not from a RAW pov, but from an ethical or emotional pov. We have both repeatedly stated the equivalent of RAW doesn't always means "works".

Do you understand this concept between RAW and HYWPI?

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Sorry I meant that a Google search confirms that no such "gag edition" exists for 8th edition. I was not doubting that a "pancake edition" exists.

Now that we have confirmed that you know how to use Google then you should have no problem finding the 8th edition gag ruleset that misled you into misquoting the rules. I tried and was unable to find such a gag edition for 8th edition. Therefore, your story is unbelievable and we have confirmed that you have the capacity to continually try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

It acutally demonstrates you have more trust in Google than is warranted. Just because it hasn't been reported sufficiently on the first page, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Still digging yourself in deeper into unbelievable tale weaving. Your story is unbelievable. You found this 8th gag edition but now cannot find it?? Unbelievable. And your capacity to try to pass off unbelievable claims as true knows no bounds that I see. Is your last name Trump by any chance?

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Howabout this one?

Models move and fight in units, made up of one or more models.

Are you suggesting that there is a box that enclosed in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that we are looking a matter of inclusion?

Can you re-phrase your questions? You aren't making any sense here.

The contextual use of 'in'.

Sorry. Maybe I should have clarified that your questions are grammatically unsound and read as gibberish. Fix their grammar problems please so that I can understand them.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
You really need to work on your quoting process orknado. It's disruptive.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

I don't see any problems listed in this post. I take it then that you accept my argument.

Then you are blind or deliberately attempting to enrage me. You may not have had any issues, but I listed the issues I had, which you have ignored again.

I asked you to post a listing of them and once again you have not.

Should I conclude that you have no issues with my RAW argument?

You mean like here or here? Should I quote the pertinent parts for you?

Yup. Quote the pertinent parts. I am not a mind-reader.

You don't have to be a mind-reader, you just have to read it and look for where you were quoted. It really isn't that hard.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule. It's a rule in effect so my argument is entirely RAW. I am not required to have a rule in the Battle Primer to justify my argument. A rule in the Necron Index is sufficient. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

Actually, you haven't. You've made assumptions based on your reading of the Reanimation Protocols which requires actions which Reanimation Protocols does not state that you do. Since RP doesn't actually tell you to do things before you return the model, a rule that puts them in position for RP to do it is required.

Remember the Steps 1-3? It should be 4.
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) ...
4) Reanimation Protocols says we can take these slain models at return them to the unit in coherency.

#3 is actually whatever "removed from play" does. No instructions are present as far as I can find. You say there is something that happens here, but you have yet to provide any actual written words of these rules and instructions.

I have proved it with the Reanimation Protocol rule as you can see in the enclosed quote. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

Not the point, which means you are not listening. RP does nothing to prove models are not in the unit because it doesn't say slain models are not in the unit. There are many ways to return without being out, after all.

orknado wrote:
You have failed to show how slain models can be IN a unit without breaking the game. All of these rules break if slain models are still IN the unit.

RAW does not care if a rule is broken, HYWPI does. Do you understand the difference?

 Charistoph wrote:

The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.

orknado wrote:
Still digging yourself in deeper into unbelievable tale weaving. Your story is unbelievable. You found this 8th gag edition but now cannot find it?? Unbelievable. And your capacity to try to pass off unbelievable claims as true knows no bounds that I see. Is your last name Trump by any chance?

Not my fault you are too trusting of what is out there, but not willing to believe what other people say here.

I'm not the one who is trying to palm of nothing as something, after all. I'm trying to say that hole is a hole, while you are saying its full of snake oil.

orknado wrote:
Sorry. Maybe I should have clarified that your questions are grammatically unsound and read as gibberish. Fix their grammar problems please so that I can understand them.

Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.

The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.

So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.

Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.

 Charistoph wrote:

Have you bothered to even notice that neither DoctorTom nor I have said that models returning with 0 Wounds is a working mechanic? If you can, please link and quote it. Your "logically compelled" statement indicates more that you are approaching this not from a RAW pov, but from an ethical or emotional pov. We have both repeatedly stated the equivalent of RAW doesn't always means "works".

Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.

orknado wrote:
Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.

You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Still digging yourself in deeper into unbelievable tale weaving. Your story is unbelievable. You found this 8th gag edition but now cannot find it?? Unbelievable. And your capacity to try to pass off unbelievable claims as true knows no bounds that I see. Is your last name Trump by any chance?

Not my fault you are too trusting of what is out there, but not willing to believe what other people say here.

I'm not the one who is trying to palm of nothing as something, after all. I'm trying to say that hole is a hole, while you are saying its full of snake oil.

You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.

You have been caught repeatedly trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true. I am not sure about YMDC's policy is on repeatedly 'telling tall tales' so I am just making note of your seeming capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

The Reanimation Protocol rule says this. The RP rule informs me that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. It also informs me that models are 'returned to this unit'. A slain model cannot be 'returned to a unit' if it is already IN the unit. I am compelled by the Reanimation Protocol rule to treat slain models as not IN the unit.

No, it does not. RP says nothing about "out of this unit". I even did a search on what you quoted earlier.

The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.

So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.

Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.

Nope. If the internal logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit then my argument is still 100% Rules As Written.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Sorry. Maybe I should have clarified that your questions are grammatically unsound and read as gibberish. Fix their grammar problems please so that I can understand them.

Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?

Now your question makes no sense with regards to the argument. I have never claimed that being IN a unit requires a unit to be 'in a box'. I have always maintained that being IN a unit is a matter of logical set membership.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.

You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.

You must have a very limited understanding of logic then.

"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." [Thanks col_impact for the heads up on this!]

Logical forms of argumentation are allowed per the Tenets of YMDC.

Per the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the Tenets of YMDC we can rule out that slain models are IN units because treating slain models as IN units leads to absurd game play that no one will play.

You can't counter arguments people make with implausible or absurd lines of argumentation. We simply throw those out.

Why isn't this topic locked? Discussion has bee so derailed and it's going nowhere.

 Punisher wrote:
Why isn't this topic locked? Discussion has bee so derailed and it's going nowhere.

Yup. For quite some time, I have proven that the Destroyer reanimates with 3 wounds.

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).

orknado wrote:
You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.

No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?

orknado wrote:
You have been caught repeatedly trying to pass off unbelievable statements as true. I am not sure about YMDC's policy is on repeatedly 'telling tall tales' so I am just making note of your seeming capacity to try to pass off unbelievable information as true.

Just unbelievable by you, but then, you are so stuck on believing your theory is written in stone by the Emperor's Finger that you are unwilling to look up and just recognize and acknowledge that the engine of your car's engine is blown when someone tells you.

If you think that GW makes perfect rules, then you are the one being completely unbelievable.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.

So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.

Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.

Nope. If the internal logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit then my argument is still 100% Rules As Written.

Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?

Now your question makes no sense with regards to the argument. I have never claimed that being IN a unit requires a unit to be 'in a box'. I have always maintained that being IN a unit is a matter of logical set membership.

Yet, you are treating it as if it requires that box in everything that addresses models in the unit.

Models in a unit can be in play or out of play. Nothing tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit when it is removed from play. At most, one could assume it is removed from the unit's ability to play the model with its actions.

Since nothing actually tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit, any theory you have on this is pure HYWPI, not RAW. Rules As Written (RAW) requires written rules. HYWPI can rely on assumptions or just pure decisions to play it a certain way no matter what the rules state.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.

You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.

You must have a very limited understanding of logic then.

I've programmed computers in at least 5 different languages. You want to talk to me about logic. Here's the situation. Computers will process something exactly as it is written, no matter how broken it is. They will even follow instructions you are not aware of, because they involve coding provided by someone else and doesn't work friendly with the instructions you have written. Computers do not look for a way to get it to work, they just do as ordered. Unless its instructions tell it to go through a routine to try and fix it, it will continue to process broken code until it reaches the end of the code or it is stopped. It processes it according to the logic process it is given.

You are not following the logic of the process, which is RAW, but you are looking to resolve the situation to make it work, which is not actually requested by the rule itself. The request to solve the issue is provided by you through an effort of ethics and/or emotion. This is why your argument is not a logical one, but an ethical or emotional one. You want to get it to work, so you seek logical solutions. Your logic in fixing it sucks because it relies on too much data and instructions not present, which is why I won't play it like you.

orknado wrote:
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." [Thanks col_impact for the heads up on this!]

Unfortunately, GW rules are rarely as clean cut and dry as we would like. They are often broken as written and won't work. Often, all that is needed is a change of a word here, or addition of a couple there to make them not broken.

RAW, this rule be more broke than an Ozarks hill-billy with no teeth. It is absurd to take it as it is specifically written. Both DoctorTom and I have stated this repeatedly, which you have just as repeatedly ignored.

Yes, the process of defining it as a Zero Wounds return is absurd. Yes, I would like to be something else. Yes, I will be playing it as something else. But saying it is written as something is not is equally absurd, and I would like you to quit peeing on my leg with it.

orknado wrote:
Logical forms of argumentation are allowed per the Tenets of YMDC.

Per the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the Tenets of YMDC we can rule out that slain models are IN units because treating slain models as IN units leads to absurd game play that no one will play.

I have provided a method for them to be in units, but not in play that is equally logical and not taking as many hoops to run through. It doesn't follow the literal process, which is RAW, but it is closer to following the instruction set instead of the circus you keep presenting, and applies to all units, not just the ones we see with Reanimation Protocols.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.

No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?

So now you admit that there is no gag 8th edition. So the leaked materials you read were scanned photos of the actual rules. You maintain that you quoted infallibly what you read. And yet you misquoted the rule. So now you are presenting once again an unbelievable account. Either the leaked materials were wrong or you were wrong. Since we know that there was no gag 8th edition then you misquoted the rule and you seem to have a personality flaw where you can't admit the most minor of memory mistakes and will go to absurd lengths to maintain a self-delusion of infallibility. If I were you, I would have admitted the simple mistake. The absence of the gag 8th edition highlights your self-delusions.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
The logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit. I have no choice but to treat the slain models as not IN the unit. If they are IN the unit then I cannot 'return them to this unit'.

So, you are saying it is HWYPI, not RAW.

Glad we can finally agree on it and drop this.

Nope. If the internal logic of the Reanimation Protocol rule compels me to treat slain models as not IN the unit then my argument is still 100% Rules As Written.

Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?

You don't understand. The wording of Reanimation Protocal (as it is written) compels me to treat slain models as FROM the unit, not IN the unit. I am not trying to fix the rule. I am merely adhering to it. If I don't adhere to the rule then I am violating the rules. I am simply following the logic of what Reanimation Protocols tells me to do. Reanimation Protocols works on slain models FROM the unit, not IN the unit and it also 'returns the models to this unit' meaning that the slain models were not IN the unit. I have no choice but to consider slain models as not IN the unit. That is what is meant by compelled. The meaning of Reanimation Protocols forces how I treat slain models.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:
Does a unit require models to be in a box in order to do all of those things? Or should we consider that being "in" a unit is more a matter of inclusion?

Now your question makes no sense with regards to the argument. I have never claimed that being IN a unit requires a unit to be 'in a box'. I have always maintained that being IN a unit is a matter of logical set membership.

Yet, you are treating it as if it requires that box in everything that addresses models in the unit.

Models in a unit can be in play or out of play. Nothing tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit when it is removed from play. At most, one could assume it is removed from the unit's ability to play the model with its actions.

Since nothing actually tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit, any theory you have on this is pure HYWPI, not RAW. Rules As Written (RAW) requires written rules. HYWPI can rely on assumptions or just pure decisions to play it a certain way no matter what the rules state.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocol rule tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that reanimation 'returns the model to this unit' meaning that the slain model is not IN the unit. So there is direct rules support for slain models being not IN the unit.

Further, the game breaks if slain models are IN the unit. All of these rules break:



So your insistence that slain models are IN the unit can be dismissed as absurd based on formal logical argumentation (reductio ad absurdum). Logical argumentation is allowed by YMDC and my logic here is sound.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Making an argument about 'logically compelled' has nothing to do with emotions or ethics. We logically exclude absurd lines of game play, not because of emotion or ethics, but because the game will never be played that way.

You are trying to look beyond the literal statements provided by the system to justify an action. This act of justification has a source in either ethics or emotion. Logic does not actually care if something is broken.

You must have a very limited understanding of logic then.

I've programmed computers in at least 5 different languages. You want to talk to me about logic. Here's the situation. Computers will process something exactly as it is written, no matter how broken it is. They will even follow instructions you are not aware of, because they involve coding provided by someone else and doesn't work friendly with the instructions you have written. Computers do not look for a way to get it to work, they just do as ordered. Unless its instructions tell it to go through a routine to try and fix it, it will continue to process broken code until it reaches the end of the code or it is stopped. It processes it according to the logic process it is given.

You are not following the logic of the process, which is RAW, but you are looking to resolve the situation to make it work, which is not actually requested by the rule itself. The request to solve the issue is provided by you through an effort of ethics and/or emotion. This is why your argument is not a logical one, but an ethical or emotional one. You want to get it to work, so you seek logical solutions. Your logic in fixing it sucks because it relies on too much data and instructions not present, which is why I won't play it like you.

I have programmed computers in many different languages as well. I have also studied logic at the university level. What computers do is not logic, they simply mindlessly follow code. Computers, unless we are talking about Artificial Intelligence, are wholly unable to think logically.

If you use logic to rule out absurd lines of argumentation you are not implementing ethics or emotion at all. You are simply ruling out lines of argumentation that lead to absurd games that no one will play. Unless you are an advocate for absurd game play then it's pointless to give absurd lines of reasoning any merit or to use them to counter rules supported arguments that are plausible. Reductio ad absurdum, now that is logic! I suggest you look up what logic means, because you have an incorrect understanding of the term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for "reduction to absurdity"; or argumentum ad absurdum, "argument to absurdity") is a form of argument which attempts either to disprove a statement by showing it inevitably leads to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion, or to prove one by showing that if it were not true, the result would be absurd or impossible." [Thanks col_impact for the heads up on this!]

Unfortunately, GW rules are rarely as clean cut and dry as we would like. They are often broken as written and won't work. Often, all that is needed is a change of a word here, or addition of a couple there to make them not broken.

RAW, this rule be more broke than an Ozarks hill-billy with no teeth. It is absurd to take it as it is specifically written. Both DoctorTom and I have stated this repeatedly, which you have just as repeatedly ignored.

Yes, the process of defining it as a Zero Wounds return is absurd. Yes, I would like to be something else. Yes, I will be playing it as something else. But saying it is written as something is not is equally absurd, and I would like you to quit peeing on my leg with it.

Nope. The Reanimation Protocols rule by its wording indicates that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. Therefore we have a rule that tells us that slain models are not IN the unit. We of course know this already by reductio ad absurdum, but we have Rules As Written saying the same thing all on its own. This leads to a completely rules supported answer to how many wounds a Destroyer reanimates with. The answer is 3.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Logical forms of argumentation are allowed per the Tenets of YMDC.

Per the logic of reductio ad absurdum and the Tenets of YMDC we can rule out that slain models are IN units because treating slain models as IN units leads to absurd game play that no one will play.

I have provided a method for them to be in units, but not in play that is equally logical and not taking as many hoops to run through. It doesn't follow the literal process, which is RAW, but it is closer to following the instruction set instead of the circus you keep presenting, and applies to all units, not just the ones we see with Reanimation Protocols.

Your argument is an entirely ad hoc and arbitrary one that goes against the written rule of the Reanimation Protocols rule. Your argument still leads to slain models demanding coherency checks, wounds to be allocated to them, and participation in movement, psychic phase, shooting, and assaults. Your argument leads to absurd game play and can be logically dismissed as implausible .

The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM units, not IN units. So we have Rules As Written justification for considering slain models as not IN units. On top of that, we know slain models are not IN units by virtue of the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If slain models are IN units then the game breaks. Therefore slain models are not IN units.

My argument is fully supported by the Rules As Written. It is supported directly by the logical argumentation of reductio ad absurdum, which is allowable by YMDC. My argument trumps yours.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.

No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?

So now you admit that there is no gag 8th edition. So the leaked materials you read were scanned photos of the actual rules. You maintain that you quoted infallibly what you read. And yet you misquoted the rule. So now you are presenting once again an unbelievable account. Either the leaked materials were wrong or you were wrong. Since we know that there was no gag 8th edition then you misquoted the rule and you seem to have a personality flaw where you can't admit the most minor of memory mistakes and will go to absurd lengths to maintain a self-delusion of infallibility. If I were you, I would have admitted the simple mistake. The absence of the gag 8th edition highlights your self-delusions.

Do not lie about what I said. Do you understand what it means to be aware of something? I am not admitting someone didn't make a gag edition of that page, I am simply not aware of one if they did. I just know the possibility exists because it has happened before. Do you seriously even bother trying to understand what another person types or do you just like to troll?

I am assuming what I quoted were the scanned pages of the rules, it certainly looked like one. It's not my fault it didn't match what you quoted, and I don't really care that you don't believe it. You are being way to intense over something that should have been waived off long ago. Your own quoted version doesn't support your theory, so it's not even worth harping on.

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?

You don't understand. The wording of Reanimation Protocal (as it is written) compels me to treat slain models as FROM the unit, not IN the unit. I am not trying to fix the rule. I am merely adhering to it. If I don't adhere to the rule then I am violating the rules. I am simply following the logic of what Reanimation Protocols tells me to do. Reanimation Protocols works on slain models FROM the unit, not IN the unit and it also 'returns the models to this unit' meaning that the slain models were not IN the unit. I have no choice but to consider slain models as not IN the unit. That is what is meant by compelled. The meaning of Reanimation Protocols forces how I treat slain models.

You still are not listening. RP does not make a distinction between "from" and "in". This distinction does not matter for RAW because it is not written. You still have yet to provide the rule that slain models are out of the unit in the way that allows you to make this distinction for return. You make assumptions based on how you want the game to run, but nothing specifically tells you to do so. The only "out" that a model is ever written in the rules is closer to "out of play", not "out of unit".

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Models in a unit can be in play or out of play. Nothing tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit when it is removed from play. At most, one could assume it is removed from the unit's ability to play the model with its actions.

Since nothing actually tells us to remove the model from the association of the unit, any theory you have on this is pure HYWPI, not RAW. Rules As Written (RAW) requires written rules. HYWPI can rely on assumptions or just pure decisions to play it a certain way no matter what the rules state.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocol rule tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that reanimation 'returns the model to this unit' meaning that the slain model is not IN the unit. So there is direct rules support for slain models being not IN the unit.

And nothing in ANY rule tells us that the model is OUT of the unit in the first place! You are applying a double standard here by following one concept, but refusing to look earlier in how that happened in the first place. You are also applying a "well it doesn't tell me not to" in regards to the model being out of the unit.

orknado wrote:
Further, the game breaks if slain models are IN the unit. All of these rules break:

Dude, I just told you above how this is can be treated without breaking those rules. And all are HPWPI, not RAW. RAW doesn't care if the mechanics are broken. HYWPI does.

orknado wrote:
I have programmed computers in many different languages as well. I have also studied logic at the university level. What computers do is not logic, they simply mindlessly follow code. If you use logic to rule out absurd lines of argumentation you are not implementing ethics or emotion at all. You are simply ruling out lines of argumentation that lead to absurd games that no one will play. Unless you are an advocate for absurd game play then it's pointless to give absurd lines of reasoning any merit or to use them to counter rules supported arguments that are plausible. Reductio ad absurdum, now that is logic! I suggest you look up what logic means, because you have an incorrect understanding of the term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.

Which is RAW more like, a computer program as a set of instructions or a problem you are trying to fix? See, there are several types of logic. One is a logic of processes, where you go through it step by step. This is the logic of a computer. Then there is a logic that is regarding problem-solving which reductio ad absurdum is a part of. You are considering the latter, when DoctorTom and I are talking about the former. The former is RAW, the latter is HYWPI.

If you truly have programmed computers, how many of your programs will make assumptions about how many Wounds you restore without actually having any procedure to either restore those Wounds or reset the Wounds to original?

You can use logic to find a solution to something, but logic itself does not care if something is broken because logic is not about caring. When you go to fix something without being directed to fix it, it is not logic that dictates that action, but either ethics or emotion.

When you process the instructions of Reanimation Protocols, what tells you the model is out of the unit? That it states it returns? How did it get out in the first place? Where is it returning from? You have not addressed this with your logic, which is what I have been asking for almost since you brought up this absurd direction.

And if you studied logic at the university level, then your professors should be coming back to slap you upside the head for using Wikipedia as a resource. Did you ever pass any of those classes you studied?

orknado wrote:
Your argument is an entirely ad hoc and arbitrary one that goes against the written rule of the Reanimation Protocols rule.

Actually it isn't so ad hoc. It is taking it from the steps we go by to initiate Reanimation Protocols in the first place. You know those pesky general rules which talk about remove from play which you don't actually seem to want to address at all?

orknado wrote:
The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM units, not IN units. So we have Rules As Written justification for considering slain models as not IN units.

No, we don't. Just because RP doesn't say they are in units doesn't mean they are out. That is a cop out that would get any paper with that concept thrown out with a D- if you were lucky. We actually need instructions for the model to be 'out' to consider them 'out', not an unwritten assumption based on something else.

In addition, nothing you have presented would be taken seriously as a logical argument in a proper setting when it comes to presenting the model just as if it was brand-spanking new. Because you are not following the instructions. You are adding instructions. We are not told to consider the datasheet and apply the Wounds we see there. We are not told to ignore everything that happened to model before we return it to the unit. We are simply told to return the model to the unit.

Do you know what would happen if you did this in a computer program? I gave you the results earlier. The model comes back with the same Wounds it left with. Models with Zero Wounds would then removed from play again as a check is made on every model, only to attempt again next turn. If properly tested, this would have been noticed and patched before beta testers ever got their hands on it.

orknado wrote:
On top of that, we know slain models are not IN units by virtue of the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If salin models are IN units then the game breaks. Therefore slain models are not IN units.

Or, you know, they just aren't "in play". Because they were "removed from play" not "removed from unit". Your "logic" fails to consider other instructions and directions throughout the rest of the game (or the lack of them). We don't consider RP in a greenhouse all by itself. It is in a valley that interacts with other rules and directions. Those other rules and directions are where we go to make many of these determinations.

When a model is slain, it is "removed from play". When a player's turn starts, on a 5+, a model with RP can be returned (to play with) the unit. That's as close to a translation I can get with the actual written word I have been given.

This doesn't rely on jumping through hoops to work with the mechanics as they are written. Unfortunately, the mechanics as they are written are plain broke in regards to Reanimation Protocols because we have no instructions whatsoever in regards to its Wounds.

orknado wrote:
My argument is fully supported by the Rules As Written. It is supported directly by the logical argumentation of reductio ad absurdum, which is allowable by YMDC. My argument trumps yours.

Your argument is supported by "it doesn't say this", and "it would break the game if I considered that". That is not RAW. To be RAW, it has to be WRITTEN. If you cannot actually quote where it specifically states any of your theories, it is HYWPI. Do you understand this concept? At this point, I do not think you do.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
You misquoted a rule and rather than admitting your mistake you blamed the leaked material. When confronted with the fact that all of the leaked materials were scanned photos of the actual rules, you claimed that you fell victim to a gag fake 8th edition rules leak. No such gag 8th edition exists.

No gag 8th edition that you (or even I) are aware of. I do not like to state absolutes without knowing for sure. I stated I quoted what I read, and I stand by that statement. You are making claims that I have said things have not actually stated. I have only stated that the possibility existed as they show up all the time, and I actually also attributed it to you falling for it, too, if you don't recall. You really have a hard time reading another person's writing, don't you?

So now you admit that there is no gag 8th edition. So the leaked materials you read were scanned photos of the actual rules. You maintain that you quoted infallibly what you read. And yet you misquoted the rule. So now you are presenting once again an unbelievable account. Either the leaked materials were wrong or you were wrong. Since we know that there was no gag 8th edition then you misquoted the rule and you seem to have a personality flaw where you can't admit the most minor of memory mistakes and will go to absurd lengths to maintain a self-delusion of infallibility. If I were you, I would have admitted the simple mistake. The absence of the gag 8th edition highlights your self-delusions.

Do not lie about what I said. Do you understand what it means to be aware of something? I am not admitting someone didn't make a gag edition of that page, I am simply not aware of one if they did. I just know the possibility exists because it has happened before. Do you seriously even bother trying to understand what another person types or do you just like to troll?

I am assuming what I quoted were the scanned pages of the rules, it certainly looked like one. It's not my fault it didn't match what you quoted, and I don't really care that you don't believe it. You are being way to intense over something that should have been waived off long ago. Your own quoted version doesn't support your theory, so it's not even worth harping on.

If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

 Charistoph wrote:

Then you don't understand the difference between "compels" and "is written". You see a problem, and you choose to fix it. This is not following the logic of the rule, but following a logic to fix the rule. Do you understand the difference?

You don't understand. The wording of Reanimation Protocal (as it is written) compels me to treat slain models as FROM the unit, not IN the unit. I am not trying to fix the rule. I am merely adhering to it. If I don't adhere to the rule then I am violating the rules. I am simply following the logic of what Reanimation Protocols tells me to do. Reanimation Protocols works on slain models FROM the unit, not IN the unit and it also 'returns the models to this unit' meaning that the slain models were not IN the unit. I have no choice but to consider slain models as not IN the unit. That is what is meant by compelled. The meaning of Reanimation Protocols forces how I treat slain models.

You still are not listening. RP does not make a distinction between "from" and "in". This distinction does not matter for RAW because it is not written. You still have yet to provide the rule that slain models are out of the unit in the way that allows you to make this distinction for return. You make assumptions based on how you want the game to run, but nothing specifically tells you to do so. The only "out" that a model is ever written in the rules is closer to "out of play", not "out of unit".

I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocol rule tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that reanimation 'returns the model to this unit' meaning that the slain model is not IN the unit. So there is direct rules support for slain models being not IN the unit.

And nothing in ANY rule tells us that the model is OUT of the unit in the first place! You are applying a double standard here by following one concept, but refusing to look earlier in how that happened in the first place. You are also applying a "well it doesn't tell me not to" in regards to the model being out of the unit.

Incorrect. The Reanimation Protocols rule itself tells us that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that when reanimation does its thing slain models are 'returned to this unit' where previously they were not IN the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Further, the game breaks if slain models are IN the unit. All of these rules break:

Dude, I just told you above how this is can be treated without breaking those rules. And all are HPWPI, not RAW. RAW doesn't care if the mechanics are broken. HYWPI does.

The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM unit, not IN units. If you don't treat slain models as not IN the unit then you are not adhering to the Rules As Written for the Reanimation Protocols rule. You cannot be 'returned to this unit' if you are already IN the unit.

So RAW proves that slain models are not IN units. The logical argument of reductio ad absurdum merely reinforces what we know already from the RAW.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I have programmed computers in many different languages as well. I have also studied logic at the university level. What computers do is not logic, they simply mindlessly follow code. If you use logic to rule out absurd lines of argumentation you are not implementing ethics or emotion at all. You are simply ruling out lines of argumentation that lead to absurd games that no one will play. Unless you are an advocate for absurd game play then it's pointless to give absurd lines of reasoning any merit or to use them to counter rules supported arguments that are plausible. Reductio ad absurdum, now that is logic! I suggest you look up what logic means, because you have an incorrect understanding of the term. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic.

Which is RAW more like, a computer program as a set of instructions or a problem you are trying to fix? See, there are several types of logic. One is a logic of processes, where you go through it step by step. This is the logic of a computer. Then there is a logic that is regarding problem-solving which reductio ad absurdum is a part of. You are considering the latter, when DoctorTom and I are talking about the former. The former is RAW, the latter is HYWPI.

If you truly have programmed computers, how many of your programs will make assumptions about how many Wounds you restore without actually having any procedure to either restore those Wounds or reset the Wounds to original?

You can use logic to find a solution to something, but logic itself does not care if something is broken because logic is not about caring. When you go to fix something without being directed to fix it, it is not logic that dictates that action, but either ethics or emotion.

When you process the instructions of Reanimation Protocols, what tells you the model is out of the unit? That it states it returns? How did it get out in the first place? Where is it returning from? You have not addressed this with your logic, which is what I have been asking for almost since you brought up this absurd direction.

And if you studied logic at the university level, then your professors should be coming back to slap you upside the head for using Wikipedia as a resource. Did you ever pass any of those classes you studied?

Computers have no logic. They mindlessly follow instructions which are actually just bits. Logic requires intelligence and thinking, so unless we are talking about Artificial Intelligence, you are misusing the term logic. The logic in a program would be in the human understandable pseudo-code that a programmer writes documenting his work which may succeed or fail on a compile depending on if there are any syntax errors.
Not only did I pass my undergraduate years with high honors I went on to teach at the university level. So as a professor myself I will slap you upside the head for stubbornly refusing to acknowledge that your use of the term 'logic' is incorrect. The Wikipedia proves it as an unbiased 3rd party. Do you want me to provide further proof of your shortcomings here?

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
Your argument is an entirely ad hoc and arbitrary one that goes against the written rule of the Reanimation Protocols rule.

Actually it isn't so ad hoc. It is taking it from the steps we go by to initiate Reanimation Protocols in the first place. You know those pesky general rules which talk about remove from play which you don't actually seem to want to address at all?

'Removed from play' has no rules associated with it. There is no definition of 'play' nor any instruction to remove the model from the battlefield or to actually do anything except designate it 'removed from play'.

What we know about 'removed from play' comes strictly from the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit, and that slain models are reanimated to be 'returned to this unit' meaning that slain models are not IN the unit.

Further, we know that 'removed from play' logically must mean not IN the unit since all the Core rules break if we treat slain models as IN the unit. In computer terms that would be a compiler error. The 40k ruleset does not compile unless you set slain models to not IN the unit. GW gave us a buggy ruleset that breaks if you try to compile it with slain models defined as IN the unit.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that slain models are FROM units, not IN units. So we have Rules As Written justification for considering slain models as not IN units.

No, we don't. Just because RP doesn't say they are in units doesn't mean they are out. That is a cop out that would get any paper with that concept thrown out with a D- if you were lucky. We actually need instructions for the model to be 'out' to consider them 'out', not an unwritten assumption based on something else.

In addition, nothing you have presented would be taken seriously as a logical argument in a proper setting when it comes to presenting the model just as if it was brand-spanking new. Because you are not following the instructions. You are adding instructions. We are not told to consider the datasheet and apply the Wounds we see there. We are not told to ignore everything that happened to model before we return it to the unit. We are simply told to return the model to the unit.

Do you know what would happen if you did this in a computer program? I gave you the results earlier. The model comes back with the same Wounds it left with. Models with Zero Wounds would then removed from play again as a check is made on every model, only to attempt again next turn. If properly tested, this would have been noticed and patched before beta testers ever got their hands on it.

Since I am in the position of evaluating the papers students write then I assure you that my argument merits an A.

To express this in computer terms, if you compile with slain models set to IN units then it refuses to compile. The game breaks and produces bizarre buggy behavior where units drift off to the side of the battlefield to stay in coherency with slain models, and units are invulnerable to further harm because all wounds are being allocated to the slain models, among other bugs like reanimating models at zero wounds (that would be invulnerable per explicit instructions the Resolve Attack sequence)

However if you compile the 40k ruleset with slain models set to not IN units then the game performs without bugs and models are reanimated with the amount of wounds on their datasheet. All that it takes for the game to work without a hitch is the setting of that one variable that is otherwise an undefined variable.

And we know that that variable needs to be set that way. The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us that the variable is set that way. That's why my argument is Rules As Written.

So once again, in computer terms, if you set slain models to IN then you get a hopelessly buggy program. If you set slain models to not IN then the program works as designed and performs marvelously. So which setting for the slain models is correct? This is another way of expressing what 'reductio ad absurdum' means.

Now you can go in and write mountains of ad hoc spaghetti code adding additional instructions to define and differentitate between 'removed from play' and 'in unit' to eventually get the program to compile and work with the variable of slain models set to IN. That would still leave you with models reanimating at zero wounds so you need to still write an ad hoc line of spaghetti code to arbitrarily set the wound count to 1 or 3.

Alternatively you compile the program with slain models set to not IN and the program runs perfectly fine and to spec. All the rules work as designed and Reanimation Protocols returns a valid result. No mountains of spaghetti code required.

Which of those procedures involves good programming sense on behalf of the programmer? Obviously the latter, so as a programmer why are you insisting on the former?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
On top of that, we know slain models are not IN units by virtue of the logical argument of reductio ad absurdum. If salin models are IN units then the game breaks. Therefore slain models are not IN units.

Or, you know, they just aren't "in play". Because they were "removed from play" not "removed from unit". Your "logic" fails to consider other instructions and directions throughout the rest of the game (or the lack of them). We don't consider RP in a greenhouse all by itself. It is in a valley that interacts with other rules and directions. Those other rules and directions are where we go to make many of these determinations.

When a model is slain, it is "removed from play". When a player's turn starts, on a 5+, a model with RP can be returned (to play with) the unit. That's as close to a translation I can get with the actual written word I have been given.

This doesn't rely on jumping through hoops to work with the mechanics as they are written. Unfortunately, the mechanics as they are written are plain broke in regards to Reanimation Protocols because we have no instructions whatsoever in regards to its Wounds.

I have already stated that there are absolutely no rules defining what 'removed from play' entails. So you have no firm basis of what that means exactly.

You have the tunnel vision of a programmer who has already invested days of writing spaghetti code trying to wrestle out all of the bugs out of the program and can only get the program to compile by murdering the elegance of the computer code you were given with mountains of spaghetti code garbage.

Your boss doesn't like your end result since the developers ahead of you were able to present a game that demoed fine and he doesn't understand why you needed to go to extraordinary measures to get the game to be bug free. He wants a new set of eyes on the code.

Your boss hands it off to me. I throw away all your work to the side and start fresh and within a minute I test setting the slain model variable to not IN unit and voila the program works without a hitch and according to spec. The developers did not hand off a program with two dozen random issues. The developers handed off a program with one issue. I was able to spot the issue so quickly because the pseudo code for the Reanimation Protocols mentioned in its comments that the local slain model variable is set to not IN and I noticed that the global variable simply needed to be similarly set.

I feel sorry for you as you simmer red-faced in the corner. Tunnel-vision happens to everyone. You have gotten so invested in your ad hoc and arbitrary argument with mountains of specific exceptions that you have lost sight of the sheer elegance and utter simplicity of mine.

But, on second thought, tunnel-vision is your fatal flaw. Just as you can not admit to a simple mistake with regards to a misquote, your inability to admit error sends you again and again down the perilous rabbit hole of tunnel-vision spaghetti coding where instead of finding the one bug you patch up the two dozen red herring bugs that are there because you missed the one actual bug. You miss the one bug because you never stop to re-think your initial approach and to try to keep things simple (K.I.S.S = Keep It Simple Stupid!)

Your boss lets you go. It was only a matter of time. Good programming requires an open mind and one that can admit mistakes..

The mechanics of Reanimation Protocols are not plain broke as you claim. You are just unable to admit that your initial stab at a solution to the problem could be wrong or that anyone else could have a better solution than you.

When slain models are considered as not IN the unit, everything works perfectly. The Reanimation Protocol rules are not broke. You just missed the solution and are too stubborn to admit you missed it.

Orknado,

OMG!

Epic post!

Your computer programming metaphor nailed it.

You marvelously show the elegance of your one bug fix solution and the utter spaghetti code mess of Charistophe's 2 dozen false bug fix solution.


















Exalted!

I wish I wasn't on vacation. Check your PM.

orknado wrote:
If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.

Do not equate the presidential election rallies to what is happening here, especially when the news crowds arrived hours before any significant groups showed up to take pictures and either didn't take pictures during the actual event or refused to present them.

I stated what I stated. I am not sure I can bring up the exact image I quoted. That's a fact. If you don't like it, that is your problem.

orknado wrote:
I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.

If you are not going to listen to me, then quit responding to me. As it is, you are demonstrating the same foibles that col_impact has shown save one. You have copy and pasted your responses even after they have been rejected. You have refused to actually address the questions requested. You make up your own rules and call them RAW. So, if you are not going to listen to me, I will just put you on ignore, and both of us can be happier.

orknado wrote:

 Punisher wrote:
Why isn't this topic locked? Discussion has bee so derailed and it's going nowhere.

Yup. For quite some time, I have proven that the Destroyer reanimates with 3 wounds.

No, he hasn't, but he's not willing to admit it. I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)

orknado wrote:
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."

Okay, we have nothing indicating the level of wounds it comes back with in Reanimation Protocols itself. Returned to the unit is not the same as returned to the unit with full wounds. So, you have to come up with another quote which we'll deal with.

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.

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

Yes. This is true. And the model has the characteristics, wargear and abilities listed when it starts the game. During the game things change, such as the wound level dropping when it takes damage. When it reaches 0, it is removed. The model still had a profile when it's removed; you have not provided any quotation to back up your assumption that nothing from the datasheet applies to the model any more when it is removed, and that it resets to factory condition when it is brough back to the table. You have no rules quotation showing that it comes back with any wound level that differs from the wound level it had when it left the game. Is it stupid to bring it back at 0? Yes, so that isn't intended. However, it is the only indication we have from the rules, since there is not something else in the rules to indicate that this level changes. Your quote here does not apply to returning a model without a rules statement specifically saying that it applies to a returning model. Without that statement or any other rules statement that changes the wound level of the model, then you are forced by RAW to go with the last RAW statements you have - the ones that let it be reduced to 0 wounds. There's no problem if you want to play it another way, but that is HIWPI, not RAW. You (and col impact)seem to have a huge problem differentiating between HIWPA and RAW, since the both of you keep making assumptions not backed up by a rule to get to your conclusion, yet want to claim it is RAW. Assumptions to skip over areas without rules does not make for RAW. Provide the rules quotation for the model losing its status as outlined by the datasheet when it is removed from play, and again when it is reinstated getting to come back to factory fresh condition. A general quotation like you have here, which governs the units and models at the point you start the game, does not work for what you are claiming.



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 contai

orknado wrote:
ns the wound characteristic (Reanimation Protocol rule, Datasheet rule).

Assumption on your part. The model had a profile at the start of the game, provided by the datasheet for the unit the model was in. You must give a quotation to support your statement that it loses this profile during the game. Just saying it no longer has permission isn't something backed by a rule. It had permission, there needs to be a specific quotation for the permission to be revoked. Merely being reduced to 0 wounds is not an inherent permission to revoke it. Without this, your subsequent steps don't matter.

 doctortom wrote:
I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)

And here I thought I was the only person thinking that...

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
If you are unable to provide a gag edition of the page you quoted, then you are responsible for misquoting the rule. You read scanned photos of the leaked rules like everyone else did and you made a mistake and quoted the rule wrong. That's not bad in and of itself. What's bad is that you are pathologically unable to to take responsibility for a simple mistake. You couldn't have possibly made a mistake so there must be a gag edition out there. You have the same foibles Trump does. He couldn't accept that Obama's crowds were bigger than his. So he made up stories, like you did. The story you tell yourself is that there is a gag edition out there, somewhere where it mysteriously showed up on the internet to intentionally mislead you and then disappeared from the internet after that. It's ridiculous (humorous, cringe-worthy) the story you have concocted to protect your ego from the threat of fallibility.

Do not equate the presidential election rallies to what is happening here, especially when the news crowds arrived hours before any significant groups showed up to take pictures and either didn't take pictures during the actual event or refused to present them.

I stated what I stated. I am not sure I can bring up the exact image I quoted. That's a fact. If you don't like it, that is your problem.

How wonderfully ironic that you believe in the stories concocted by the Liar in Chief of the United States! You can't bring up an image showing the misquote because it doesn't exist. You misquoted the rule and need to blame something that doesn't exist instead of taking responsibility for your mistake.

 Charistoph wrote:

orknado wrote:
I don't have to listen to you. You are not a rule. The Reanimation Protocols rule is a rule and I must adhere to it. The RP rule indicates by its wording that slain models are FROM the unit, not IN the unit. When a slain model is reanimated it is 'returned to this unit'. The rule does not say 'return to play' as you would have it, but 'returned to this unit' meaning without a doubt that it was not IN the unit. I suggest you start adhering to the logic of the Rules As they are Written. Until you do, your argument has no rules support like mine does.

If you are not going to listen to me, then quit responding to me. As it is, you are demonstrating the same foibles that col_impact has shown save one. You have copy and pasted your responses even after they have been rejected. You have refused to actually address the questions requested. You make up your own rules and call them RAW. So, if you are not going to listen to me, I will just put you on ignore, and both of us can be happier.

I am obviously hearing what you are saying since I have been responding to your posts but you have to reject my argument based on logic or rules quotes and not simply your word. I do not take simply your word as an authority on the matter. That is what I mean by 'I don't have to listen to you'. So I will consider supported arguments that you have to put forward but I will not seriously consider your unsupported claims. Your word alone factors nothing into this rules debate without support. You can't just say my argument is rejected. You have to prove it has no merit.

 Ghaz wrote:

 doctortom wrote:
I think the mods just want col impact to move the post count up a little more with his orknado handle (or, if it isn't col impact, then his clone twin)

And here I thought I was the only person thinking that...

What about me do you find to be a 'clone of col_impact'? I am not seeing it.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Let's summarize the differences between my argument and Charistoph's argument.

The key difference between our arguments is the main underlying premise for the argument.

My main premise:
Models that are slain are not in units.

Charistoph's main premise:
Models that are slain are in units.

That's it. That's the main difference between our arguments.

There is no rule in the Core Rules which tells us explicitly whether slain models are in units or not so each of us has to find support for our main premise.

I support my main premise from the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they could not have already been IN the unit. I also support my premise by virtue of reductio ad absurdum since treating slain models as IN units breaks all the rules in the game and thus can be thrown out as absurd. Reductio ad absurdum here is equivalent to the 'Break No Rule' tenet of YMDC so I am justified directly by the guidelines of YMDC to have that premise.

Charistoph support's his main promise by noting that the slain models were IN units prior to being slain and no rule explicitly takes that status away when the slain model dies. Fair enough. The problem with his premise is that he breaks almost all of the Core Rules by doing so (and he doesn't find logical problems with his premise or care that he violates a YMDC tenet to Break No rule). He must then make up rules to fix the damage slain models being in units does to the rules of the game.

1) First, he must define 'play' as all Core Rules except rules that specifically target the 'removed from play' zone (e.g. Kill points, Reanimation Protocols) which is an entirely made up category on his part.

2) Further, he must define 'removed from play' as meaning that slain models do not participate in rules categorized as 'play' by the former rule. Which is another entirely made up rule.

3) Third, he must make a special exception for the Datasheet rule. The datasheet rule still finds models that are 'removed from play' even though the datasheet rule doesn't specifically address the 'removed from play' zone and will maintain a profile for them. So the Datasheet rule gets a special made up exception to his 2 already made up definitions.

4) Fourth, at the end of all of this he still has to make up a rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is inexplicably broken. So he makes up a rule that reanimates Destroyers with 1 wound or 3 wounds depending on how much he favors Necrons at that time.

So, Charistoph's argument leads to a lot of broken rules that he then needs to fix with made up rules. And at the end of it all he has to come up with some rule to fix Reanimation Protocols which is hopelessly and unfathomably broken according to his premise. He shakes his head and can only attribute such an oversight to terrible QA from the playtesters.

My premise leads to a completely elegant and clean argument since no rules are broken by asserting that slain models are not IN units. When slain models are not IN units then they naturally exclude themselves from the Core Rules that would otherwise be all broken. And since we know that only models in units have permission to have datasheets and profiles then we know that slain models lose their profile with the wound value on it. A slain models gets back a profile when it is reanimated and 'returned to this unit' which means I get a functioning Reanimation Protocols rule for free without having to make up a rule to fix it.



My premise doesn't lead to any made up rules since it doesn't break any rules. By sorting out the one bug everything falls into place. I don't have to make up any rules to fix anything since my premise doesn't break anything. In fact, my premise fixes for free the Reanimation Protocols rule without have to specifically address that rule.

Charistoph's premise leads him to make up many rules since his premise breaks just about every rule in the Core Rules. By fixing the wrong bug in the rules, he introduces a whole bunch of bugs and he has to generate a whole mess of made up rules to fix those bugs.


Considering that my argument has RAW support and obeys the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rule) I have in my opinion a superior argument to Charistoph's who violates a tenet of YMDC by breaking almost all of the Core Rules and who then has to make up a host of rules to fix the damage to the ruleset that his premise causes.

YMDC wrote:Conflicts With Another Rule

If you've provided a set of premises that support your argument, but they are in conflict with another rule, your argument will not hold. It's important to remember to "Break No Rule".

For example, in 40K (4th edition) units that arrive on the table via deep strike "may not move or assault on the turn they arrive". However, if that unit has the 'Fleet' Universal Special Rule they are allowed to move D6" during the shooting phase in a turn they don't shoot. In this case there are two viable rule that clash; one stating that the unit cannot move that turn and the other saying the unit is indeed allowed to move if it doesn't shoot, so which one takes precedence? Because we must always strive to "Break no Rule" and moving at all during the turn a unit arrives via Deep Strike would break a rule we must play that the unit arriving via Deep Strike cannot 'Fleet' on the same turn.

So YMDC by its own guidelines considers Charistoph's argument to be invalid. My argument, on the other hand, adheres to the 'Break No Rule' tenet and so would be considered valid by YMDC.

So, Joey Logan, GW's Design Studio Operations Manager played a game on Twitch; Necrons vs. Space Wolves and they played it at 1 wound restored for RP.

I figure they know what they meant when they wrote the rule so that's good enough for me.

https://www.twitch.tv/videos/151318982