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.
2017/06/20 20:25:08
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: 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.
Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
What is a rule?
This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
Game Rulebooks.
Army Books/Codexes
Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").
What isn't a rule?
Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
Random comments about the game from a Games Designer heard at a convention (for example). Remember, random comments made by games designers, whether made on a forum, at a game convention, or sent in an email are not "official" because other players who weren't present to see or hear the comments have no way of verifying that such a thing was ever actually said. But more importantly, if the designers really wanted their comments to be official they have the capacity to make it so by updating the official online FAQs.
2017/06/20 21:25:45
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
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...
You weren't. But until I have proof positive, I will assume that are separate. Considering that someone has repeatedly lied about what others have said, I don't put it that far from the course. And that same one has used Wikipedia, which anyone can edit, as a source when Wikipedia is rejected as a proper source by every college course that requires writing essays and reports I have taken since it existed. Though, he does have the proper arrogance of a professor in that he rejects any other reality but his own. Sadly, this is not his classroom, and he must deal with other people's perceptions on reality.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/20 21:26:43
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/06/20 21:51:30
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
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.
I suggest leaving the politics out of it as it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
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.
How about when we point out that you have a lack of rules quotes backing up your statements, or a rules quote for something else coupled with a big assumption to try to make it apply in a different way? I see you haven't responded to my last post where I showed a flaw in your argument. You have an assumption that a model that has a profile at the start of the game can lose its profile before the end of the game without a specific rules quotation to back up that assertion. It is more an assumption on your part by trying to twist one quotation that is meant for units and models starting the game and, with your assumption, suddenly have it apply to a model returning to the board that has had that profile modified by in-game effects.
2017/06/20 21:53:40
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
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...
You weren't. But until I have proof positive, I will assume that are separate. Considering that someone has repeatedly lied about what others have said, I don't put it that far from the course. And that same one has used Wikipedia, which anyone can edit, as a source when Wikipedia is rejected as a proper source by every college course that requires writing essays and reports I have taken since it existed. Though, he does have the proper arrogance of a professor in that he rejects any other reality but his own. Sadly, this is not his classroom, and he must deal with other people's perceptions on reality.
When have I lied about what others have said? It is possible that I have misunderstood what others were saying, but saying that I am lying is a bold accusation.
Are you going to get back to the argument? My last two posts have torn your argument to shreds. I have shown that your argument breaks rules and then makes up rules to fix the rules it breaks. My argument simply works. It breaks no rules. It doesn't have to make up any rules. And it is justified by the RAW of Reanimation Protocols and YMDC's tenet of Break No Rule (another way of saying reductio ad absurdum)
How about when we point out that you have a lack of rules quotes backing up your statements, or a rules quote for something else coupled with a big assumption to try to make it apply in a different way? I see you haven't responded to my last post where I showed a flaw in your argument. You have an assumption that a model that has a profile at the start of the game can lose its profile before the end of the game without a specific rules quotation to back up that assertion. It is more an assumption on your part by trying to twist one quotation that is meant for units and models starting the game and, with your assumption, suddenly have it apply to a model returning to the board that has had that profile modified by in-game effects.
Only models that are in units have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". Once the model is not in the unit the datasheet does not list the characteristics, wargear, or abilities of that model anymore. I see no permission for models to have datasheets list their characteristics unless they are in units.
Also, doctortom, I am curious about which premise you think is the correct one?
1) slain models are not in units
2) slain models are in units
If you consider 2 the correct premise how do you fix all the rules you break without having to make up a bunch of rules? A premise can't be valid if it breaks a whole bunch of other rules and you have to make up out the blue a bunch of ad hoc rules to fix the rules you break.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/06/20 22:13:36
2017/06/20 22:14:05
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2017/06/20 22:27:43
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
2017/06/20 22:58:59
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2017/06/20 23:01:19
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
2017/06/20 23:02:47
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit.
This literally is the funniest thing I have read.
Should be fun shooting weapons from all the dead models in your games since removed from play apparently means something different in your game.
Yup. In Charistoph's argument, slain models are in the unit. That premise breaks nearly all of the Core Rules, Then he proceeds to make up several rules out of the blue to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is completely invalid.
2017/06/20 23:28:07
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
lol. At least you have a sense of humor; a rare thing in YMDC.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2017/06/21 05:02:23
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit.
This literally is the funniest thing I have read.
Should be fun shooting weapons from all the dead models in your games since removed from play apparently means something different in your game.
It is pretty funny that we do not have actual instructions to take a model that has been removed from play off the table. It would make it rather cinematic, though.
In more seriousness, a unit is an organizational entity, not a box. One can still be in an organization while not being any where near it or participating with it.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/06/21 05:36:38
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
You need to demonstrate that a model that has been removed from play is no longer in his unit.
This literally is the funniest thing I have read.
Should be fun shooting weapons from all the dead models in your games since removed from play apparently means something different in your game.
It is pretty funny that we do not have actual instructions to take a model that has been removed from play off the table. It would make it rather cinematic, though.
In more seriousness, a unit is an organizational entity, not a box. One can still be in an organization while not being any where near it or participating with it.
There are no rules that keep a slain model from being considered a participant in a unit if it is considered "in the unit".
So if slain models are in units (which is your premise) then nearly all of the Core Rules break. Wounds must be allocated to those slain models and you must maintain coherency with those slain models. Further, slain models will participate in the shooting phase as Fragile noted.
For example . . .
Spoiler:
"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."
There are no exceptions in those rules that say 'do not count slain models in the unit' so your premise (that slain models are in units) would include slain models for those rules and the resulting game play would be broken beyond repair.
If your premise breaks the Core Rules to the point where you have to make up 4-5 rules out of thin air to fix the broken rules that your premise broke then your premise is wrong and your argument is invalid. See YMDC Tenet "Break No Rule". That tenet mandates that you throw out premises that break one rule. Your premise breaks nearly all of the Core Rules.
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.
2017/06/21 12:29:52
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: 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.
Oh no, if that's the case then RP isn't that strong for multiwound units.
Destroyers suddenly looking less appealing :(
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 12:32:58
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
2017/06/21 13:03:20
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: 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.
Oh no, if that's the case then RP isn't that strong for multiwound units.
Destroyers suddenly looking less appealing :(
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
As has always been the problem with GW, they don't really differentiate, the Design Studio seems to encompass everything from model creation and fluff writing to the rules that we use to play their games.
As someone else mentioned, if/until there's an FAQ or other official clarification, how the design studio plays isn't really "official." It's probably best to mention your interpretation to an opponent prior to setting up, to avoid any potential unpleasantness during a game.
Six mistakes mankind keeps making century after century: Believing that personal gain is made by crushing others; Worrying about things that cannot be changed or corrected; Insisting that a thing is impossible because we cannot accomplish it; Refusing to set aside trivial preferences; Neglecting development and refinement of the mind; Attempting to compel others to believe and live as we do
2017/06/21 15:30:43
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Yeah, that's the historical aspect that I have mentioned several times.
CthuluIsSpy wrote: Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
Yeah, it is best to wait for the FAQ before writing how you want to play it in stone. I remember a game report during 5th Edition on White Dwarf where a Tau player had a Pathfinder move and fire its Heavy-Type Markerlight. For those unfamiliar with that edition, Heavy Weapons could not be fired by a model that moved, unless it had Relentless or Slow and Purposeful. Now, it's possible that they were testing out a new version of Tau or some of the 6e rules, but that was never actually stated in the report.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2017/06/21 18:42:09
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
agnosto wrote: I'm not supporting an argument, I'm supporting how I will play
.
Not sure how else my post could be interpreted but..
That's fine. Your post just doesn't help us determine how the rules actually work though which is what YMDC is about. And that's what we are trying to accomplish in this thread.
I think that you learned folk have discussed this one to the point where you're not presenting any new information or arguments, just variations which truly means that each side has presented their ideas, the other side understands their points but don't agree with neither side budging. Circular arguments aren't really a discussion, but each to his/her own enjoyments I suppose. My point being that my little aside carries as much weight as anything presented in the last two pages.
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
Your statement isn't correct at all. I've shown where you have assumptions in your argument so that it is not RAW, and you have not chosen to address those, instead focusing on Charistoph's arguments instead. To be fair, though, I think I'll choose your statement here over Charistoph's statement as the funniest thing I've read (at least in this thread). Let's see if you come back with any arguments against what I did before or if you, like col impact, just ignore what I said and continue to assert that you have proven your argument despite things that have been demonstrated that disprove it. Or we might find out that you're just ignoring whatever I'm putting as as something you just don't want to have to deal with.
agnosto wrote: 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.
Oh no, if that's the case then RP isn't that strong for multiwound units.
Destroyers suddenly looking less appealing :(
I guess its understandable though; there has never been an edition where necrons come back with multiple wounds without any gear. Even in 3rd ed lord came back with one wound unless they have a phylactery, iirc.
Its probably best to wait for the FAQ though. Its possible he misunderstood the rule as well.
Design Studio isn't the rules group, right? Isn't that modelling?
As has always been the problem with GW, they don't really differentiate, the Design Studio seems to encompass everything from model creation and fluff writing to the rules that we use to play their games.
As someone else mentioned, if/until there's an FAQ or other official clarification, how the design studio plays isn't really "official." It's probably best to mention your interpretation to an opponent prior to setting up, to avoid any potential unpleasantness during a game.
That is what Charistoph and I have been arguing - that since there isn't any RAW to say how many wounds you come back with, you should discuss with your opponent before a game how to play it until there's a FAQ or official clarification. Some people might be assuming you come back with 3 wounds, some who have watched the video might assume you come back with one wound. The argument here is that somebody wants to insist that it's RAW without having pertinent rules quotes. (I don't have a problem with it being played that way, just that someone wants to say it is RAW).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 18:46:55
2017/06/21 18:53:26
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
This thread is exactly why I play 40k with my wife and one other friend, the amount of absurd logic is ridiculous for a game that's is supposed to be a good time. People saying that embarkments in a transport should heal the units...... I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out. If it goes to one wound ill eat my hat. Play the game and stop trying to bend everything to what you believe. I'm positive GW didn't put full wounds on the RP rule because they assumed any person with any kind of intelligence would interpret it correctly.
2017/06/21 18:57:25
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
XvReaperXv wrote: I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out.
Why? Why shouldn't we use the example given on GW's Twitch feed and go for one wound instead?
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/21 19:08:12
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
XvReaperXv wrote: I did not watch that stream, but I was told by a few that many rules were done incorrectly in some of the games, is this true?
Even if true, you don't have any way of knowing whether this specific incident was done incorrectly or not, since you don't have a rule in the book saying it comes back at full wounds. That's why we're saying it needs a FAQ - no rules support for any interpretation but a video saying you get one wound.
2017/06/21 19:12:28
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
XvReaperXv wrote: I did not watch that stream, but I was told by a few that many rules were done incorrectly in some of the games, is this true?
And I'm sure they got just as many rules right. So is there any proof they got this one wrong?
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/21 19:15:36
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
I'm all for a FAQ, but using disembarking and mawlocs saying everyone gets healed according to our interpretation of RP is insane and borderline childish.
2017/06/21 19:19:43
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
XvReaperXv wrote: I'm all for a FAQ, but using disembarking and mawlocs saying everyone gets healed according to our interpretation of RP is insane and borderline childish.
No one is arguing that happens, but that is a side effect of the arguments put forth by Col and orknado and is exactly why Charistoph and doctortom says their arguments can't be correct.
'It is a source of constant consternation that my opponents cannot correlate their innate inferiority with their inevitable defeat. It would seem that stupidity is as eternal as war.'
- Nemesor Zahndrekh of the Sautekh Dynasty Overlord of the Crownworld of Gidrim
2017/06/21 19:20:21
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
Your statement isn't correct at all. I've shown where you have assumptions in your argument so that it is not RAW, and you have not chosen to address those, instead focusing on Charistoph's arguments instead. To be fair, though, I think I'll choose your statement here over Charistoph's statement as the funniest thing I've read (at least in this thread). Let's see if you come back with any arguments against what I did before or if you, like col impact, just ignore what I said and continue to assert that you have proven your argument despite things that have been demonstrated that disprove it. Or we might find out that you're just ignoring whatever I'm putting as as something you just don't want to have to deal with.
I did address your critique with rules support. You are the one failing to address my rules supported dismissal of your critique.
Only models that are in units have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". Once the model is not in the unit the datasheet does not list the characteristics, wargear, or abilities of that model anymore. I see no permission for models to have profiles that list their characteristics unless they are in units.
Also, doctortom, I am curious about which premise you think is the correct one?
1) slain models are not in units
2) slain models are in units
If you consider 2 the correct premise how do you fix all the rules you break without having to make up a bunch of rules? A premise can't be valid if it breaks a whole bunch of other rules and you have to make up out the blue a bunch of ad hoc rules to fix the rules you break.
XvReaperXv wrote: I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out.
Why? Why shouldn't we use the example given on GW's Twitch feed and go for one wound instead?
Because Twitch is not a rule source.
You have violated a tenet of this forum by Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
YMDC wrote:What is a rule?
This is an area where people commonly get confused. Rules are limited to:
Game Rulebooks.
Army Books/Codexes
Official FAQs published on the Games Workshop website pertaining to the current edition of the game.
Anything published by Games Workshop that is noted as being official (i.e. for 40K, rules denoted as "Chapter Approved" that are not also marked as "trial" or "experimental", etc).
Other Official Rulebooks (such as game supplements like "Cities of Death" or "Apocalypse").
YMDC wrote:What isn't a rule?
Lots of things seem like rules, but really are not. Here's some of them:
Rulezboyz do not create rules. GW doesn't pay someone to be a "Rulezboy", they pay someone to stock shelves, or take phone orders. In their spare time they answer the Rulesboyz e-mail account. They're not experts on the rules. They're often wrong. And if you ask them the same question three or four times, it's not unheard of to get three or four different answers. If your argument includes any reference to a Rulezboy, you've just refuted yourself. Redshirts (i.e. staff at GW stores) fall into this same category.
Random comments about the game from a Games Designer heard at a convention (for example). Remember, random comments made by games designers, whether made on a forum, at a game convention, or sent in an email are not "official" because other players who weren't present to see or hear the comments have no way of verifying that such a thing was ever actually said. But more importantly, if the designers really wanted their comments to be official they have the capacity to make it so by updating the official online FAQs.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 19:35:55
2017/06/21 19:31:57
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
XvReaperXv wrote: I'm all for a FAQ, but using disembarking and mawlocs saying everyone gets healed according to our interpretation of RP is insane and borderline childish.
No one is arguing that happens, but that is a side effect of the arguments put forth by Col and orknado and is exactly why Charistoph and doctortom says their arguments can't be correct.
My argument has nothing to do with transports of Mawlocs. Vipoid was the one discussing Transports, not me. Slain models are not in units so they don't have profiles when they are 'removed from play' and so when they are reanimated their profile will then have the number of wounds on the datasheet. See the spoiler below for a summary of my argument.
Spoiler:
Reanimation Protocols
"Roll a D6 for each slain model FROM this unit (unless the whole unit has been completely destroyed) at the beginning of your turn. On a 5+, the model's reanimation protocols activate and it is RETURNED to this unit, otherwise they remain inactive (although you can roll again at the start of each of your subsequent turns). When a model's reanimation protocols activate, set it up model in unit coherency with any model from this unit that not returned to the unit as a result of reanimation protocols this turn, and more than 1" from enemy models. If you cannot do this because there is no room to place the model, do not set it up."
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).
Also, you might find it helpful to see a comparison between my argument and Charistoph's argument which I already posted.
Spoiler:
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.
In the spoiler above I show how Charistoph's argument is invalid. So far, I am the only one presenting a valid argument in this thread so far. Everything I argue proceeds from my main premise that slain models are not in units. My main premise has RAW and logical support. The alternative premise that slain models are in units breaks the game to to the point where you need to make up several rules to fix all the rules that premise breaks. Since the alternative premise breaks the game, the premise is not valid (the Break No Rule rule of this forum, aka reductio ad absurdum).
I would love it if people who disagree with my argument could present valid counter arguments. So how about it? For those of you who disagree with my argument, what is your valid alternative?
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 19:43:25
2017/06/21 19:48:15
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
That's not correct. In the last two pages I have proved my argument as the only valid one.
Your statement isn't correct at all. I've shown where you have assumptions in your argument so that it is not RAW, and you have not chosen to address those, instead focusing on Charistoph's arguments instead. To be fair, though, I think I'll choose your statement here over Charistoph's statement as the funniest thing I've read (at least in this thread). Let's see if you come back with any arguments against what I did before or if you, like col impact, just ignore what I said and continue to assert that you have proven your argument despite things that have been demonstrated that disprove it. Or we might find out that you're just ignoring whatever I'm putting as as something you just don't want to have to deal with.
I did address your critique with rules support. You are the one failing to address my rules supported dismissal of your critique.
Only models that are in units have datasheets. "Each unit has a datasheet that lists the characteristics, wargear and abilities of the models in that unit". Once the model is not in the unit the datasheet does not list the characteristics, wargear, or abilities of that model anymore. I see no permission for models to have profiles that list their characteristics unless they are in units.
Also, doctortom, I am curious about which premise you think is the correct one?
1) slain models are not in units
2) slain models are in units
If you consider 2 the correct premise how do you fix all the rules you break without having to make up a bunch of rules? A premise can't be valid if it breaks a whole bunch of other rules and you have to make up out the blue a bunch of ad hoc rules to fix the rules you break.
No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
XvReaperXv wrote: I mean, come on guys, its not hard, full wounds for RP until a FAQ comes out.
Why? Why shouldn't we use the example given on GW's Twitch feed and go for one wound instead?
Because Twitch is not a rule source.
You have violated a tenet of this forum by Offering Up Something That is Not a Rule as a Rule
You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 19:55:08
2017/06/21 20:05:23
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
I have shown a rule that shows that only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit. Therefore, a slain model no longer has permission to have a profile. I have no permission to attribute a profile to slain models. My argument is proved. This is a permissive dataset. Slain models that are not in units do not have profiles unless YOU can show they have permission to have that profile. This is not an assumption on my part. That is just how permission works. A slain model does not have permission to have a profile so it has none. So far you have been completely unable to show this thread any permission for slain models to have profiles. That is why your critique has no rules support and no merit. I have pointed this out repeatedly already and you are ignoring your critique's lack of rules support or merit. Let me know when you are prepared to provide a critique that has merit.
In fact, if we dig deeper into the assumptions behind your critique we can see that you are the one making assumptions. There is no rule that permanently affixes profiles to models. No rule indicates that profiles are sticky or permanent. This is entirely an assumption on your part. The only thing we have to go on in the rule is the permission for models in units to have a profile. Once a model is no longer in a unit it loses permission to have a profile, so it no longer has a profile.
doctortom wrote: You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
Only models that are in units have permission to have profiles. Once a model is slain it is no longer in a unit and so no longer has permission to have that profile. Until you can show permission for models that are not in units to have a profile, my argument is proved and your critique remains disproved. This is a permissive data set so the burden of proof is on you here since your critique is invalidly claiming permission that it does not have (attribute a profile to models not in units).
doctortom wrote: It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
I am not just disagreeing with it since it contradicts my position. I would be fine with it as a rules source if it indeed were officially endorsed by GW as a rules source. Can you provide evidence that it is to be treated as an official rules source? If you cannot, then it's just two players playing the game according to their understanding of the rules which may or may not be correct. I pointed to the standards that YMDC has on this matter and it is clear that the Twitch video does not meet that standard. So your statement here is in direct violation of the rules of YMDC.
This message was edited 10 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 20:47:21
2017/06/21 20:44:05
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
doctortom wrote: No, you essentially ignored the critique. You're making an argument against Charistoph there, not me. Since that's not my argument I don't need to address that.
The models were in units at the beginning, and therefore have the profile that's been given to them, as shown by the rule you quoted for the datasheet. You have not shown that they lose this profile (as modified by things like taking wounds) when they reach zero wounds. This is an assumption. There is nothing stated in the rules specifying that the model loses permission (as you put it) to have the profile that it starts the game with. Your entire argument is based on that assumption, along with the assumption that the model once again gets the wounds it started with from the datasheet (which is not referenced in the RP rules, and so far the statement is a generic statement that we see applied to the models when they first show up. This isn't the first the model shows up.. You have to show a rules statement saying a model that has a profile loses it, then gets a whole new profile with new, full amount of wounds when it "returns" to the table.
To be fair, I did bring this up (I may have been referencing your statement in some manner), and he just as equally ignored it. It was part of the whole concept of the model being out of the unit. His insistence on choosing not to listen to others and using an assumption as the written word is rather detrimental to having any reasonable discussion.
Just because a datasheet has a profile for every model in the unit, by no means excludes the model when they leave it.
doctortom wrote: You mean like you have with your arguments? You have yet to show a rules quote specifying a RETURNING model gets back to full wounds. The statement for the datasheet does not say that for a returning models, and has already been applied to the model once. Wounds changed for the model since that point, and you have said that it loses permission to have a profile when you haven't demonstrated a rules quote for a model having a profile losing that profile during the game.
It can be argued that the GW sponsored videos showing gameplay are demonstrations of the rules, endorsed by GW, and would certainly could be taken as an indication of Rules as Intended if not actually Rules as Written. So, given thre's an argument about the rules here, and there is no clear rule stating that you come back with full wounds, introduction of evidence that exists as to their intent is perfectly fine to demonstrate how they might have intended this to be played. So, he hasn't violated a tenet of the forum at all. You're just upset that it contradicts your position.
Indeed, Ghaz was even pointing it out as using as a standard of HYWPI. I didn't see him post it as Rules As Written. That's not a violation of YMDC Tenet #4 at all.
He needs to understand the difference between RAW and HYWPI in order to properly understand where we've been coming from. Apparently, he does not feel the need to listen to what others say because he is a professor, and they know everything.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/21 21:44:14
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
~4100
~1660
