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.
2017/06/21 21:51:00
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.
I already proved his critique invalid in my post above. You did not address my post, so I am guessing you did not read it. Here it is again for you.
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.
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.
First, Ghaz did not present his statement as 'a standard of HYWPI'. Discussions of HYWPI are not relevant to the thread. I was assuming he was posting something relevant to the debate. So if you want to mark his comment as HYWPI then you have essentially marked his comment as non-relevant.
Second, there are no standards for HYWPI. A horoscope can be used for a basis for HYWPI or a flip of a coin. Discussions of HYWPI are not relevant to this debate.
So far, I am the only one presenting a valid argument in this thread so far. In the spoiler below I show how the differences between Charistoph's argument and my argument.
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.
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 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/21 21:59:11
2017/06/22 07:51:12
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph failed to produce a valid argument. The argument he presented (that slain models are in units) breaks all the Core Rules and he is forced to make up at least 5 rules to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is ridiculous.
Orknado has a valid argument with RAW support. His argument is that slain models are not in units. His argument leads logically and with rules support to slain models not having profiles and losing the wound characteristic. This means that Necron models reanimate with full wounds.
Doctortom failed to provide rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument. He failed to produce a rule that attributes profiles to models which are not in units. He also failed to produce a rule that permanently affixes profiles to models.
Since Doctortom failed to support his critiques with rules, Orknado's argument that slain models lose their profiles (and therewith their wound characteristic) remains uncontested. When a model is slain, the model is no longer in the unit, so it loses permission to have a profile. That is how permission works.
So Orknado wins this thread so far. Necrons reanimate with full wounds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/22 07:56:08
2017/06/22 08:26:55
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph failed to produce a valid argument. The argument he presented (that slain models are in units) breaks all the Core Rules and he is forced to make up at least 5 rules to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is ridiculous.
Orknado has a valid argument with RAW support. His argument is that slain models are not in units. His argument leads logically and with rules support to slain models not having profiles and losing the wound characteristic. This means that Necron models reanimate with full wounds.
Doctortom failed to provide rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument. He failed to produce a rule that attributes profiles to models which are not in units. He also failed to produce a rule that permanently affixes profiles to models.
Since Doctortom failed to support his critiques with rules, Orknado's argument that slain models lose their profiles (and therewith their wound characteristic) remains uncontested. When a model is slain, the model is no longer in the unit, so it loses permission to have a profile. That is how permission works.
So Orknado wins this thread so far. Necrons reanimate with full wounds.
More accurate summary:
The rules are unclear. FAQ required.
Seriously people, it's OK to admit the rules don't say one way or another. If nothing else, having to resort to pages and pages of convoluted logic to "prove" your point is ridiculous when a much simpler answer has presented itself. Granted, that particular answer isn't very satisfying but that's where we are right now. I'm sure we'll be seeing army-specific FAQs in the near future where this will be covered.
Side note: once a discussion gets past a couple of pages with no change in the nature of the argument for any of the parties involved it ceases to be of any use to anyone.
2017/06/22 16:10:03
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Charistoph failed to produce a valid argument. The argument he presented (that slain models are in units) breaks all the Core Rules and he is forced to make up at least 5 rules to fix all the rules he breaks. His argument is ridiculous.
Orknado has a valid argument with RAW support. His argument is that slain models are not in units. His argument leads logically and with rules support to slain models not having profiles and losing the wound characteristic. This means that Necron models reanimate with full wounds.
Doctortom failed to provide rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument. He failed to produce a rule that attributes profiles to models which are not in units. He also failed to produce a rule that permanently affixes profiles to models.
Since Doctortom failed to support his critiques with rules, Orknado's argument that slain models lose their profiles (and therewith their wound characteristic) remains uncontested. When a model is slain, the model is no longer in the unit, so it loses permission to have a profile. That is how permission works.
So Orknado wins this thread so far. Necrons reanimate with full wounds.
That sounds about right for your level of intellect and language understanding. The only thing that has been 'won' is that neither you nor orknado understand RAW.
We have instructions to remove models from play, but not models from unit. Therefore, any models that are in the unit at the beginning of the game are still in the unit at the end of the game. This is possible because a unit is an organizational entity not a box. It's a different version of 'in' than being in a box. We are not told to bring the model back into the unit, just return it to the unit. Where has the model been and where is it returning from? It is been out of play, not out of the unit. This isn't making up rules, it is using the rules that we have in the language that has been presented. The fact that this may cause broken mechanics is immaterial when presenting a RAW argument.
DoctorTom and I have simply pointed out the lack of instructions presented by the Written Rules. We have rules to return the models to the unit, but no instructions to do anything more than that to the model itself. We have no instructions to return any Wounds back to the model nor instructions to ignore what happened to the model before it was slain. Those are the written rules. Anything else is supposition and assumption.
Orknado (and you) have failed to provide any written statements on what to do with models between "remove from play" and "return to the unit", but continue to insert things "intended" in there based on assumptions and call it RAW. When either of you can properly quote what happens there, with it supporting your theory, you can then call it "won".
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.
2017/06/22 17:57:27
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
Things are just too unclear without enough details given currently to make a blanket statement on which way is right. Much like the Scything Talons question though, it is best to play the version of the rule least beneficial to you until there is a clarification released.
2017/06/22 18:15:34
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
We have instructions to remove models from play, but not models from unit. Therefore, any models that are in the unit at the beginning of the game are still in the unit at the end of the game. This is possible because a unit is an organizational entity not a box. It's a different version of 'in' than being in a box. We are not told to bring the model back into the unit, just return it to the unit. Where has the model been and where is it returning from? It is been out of play, not out of the unit. This isn't making up rules, it is using the rules that we have in the language that has been presented. The fact that this may cause broken mechanics is immaterial when presenting a RAW argument.
The Core Rules always refer to 'in' as an organizational entity. If a slain model is 'in' a unit then nearly all the Core Rules break and you are required to make up several rules in order to fix the game. Further, claiming that slain models are in units violates the Reanimation Protocols rule which indicates the slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that slain models that are reanimated are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they were not already IN the unit. Not only does your argument break the game beyond repair, your argument forces you to make up several rules in order to fix the game your premise broke, and your premise violates the Rules As Written for the Reanimation Protocols rule. Your argument is not only dismissed because it violates the Rules As Written it is also dismissed logically by virtue of the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum which is a tenet of YMDC (as expressed in its Break No Rule tenet).
Charistoph wrote: DoctorTom and I have simply pointed out the lack of instructions presented by the Written Rules. We have rules to return the models to the unit, but no instructions to do anything more than that to the model itself. We have no instructions to return any Wounds back to the model nor instructions to ignore what happened to the model before it was slain. Those are the written rules. Anything else is supposition and assumption.
The Reanimation Protocols rule that tells you to take reanimated slain models that are FROM the unit and 'return [them] to this unit' indicates that slain models are without a doubt not IN the unit. That's a written rule. We further have a written rule that only models that are IN units have a datasheet or a profile. Therefore, when a model is slain it no longer has permission to have the profile that lists its wound characteristic. When a slain model is reanimated and 'returned to this unit', it will at that point in time have a profile attributed to it which will have the number of wounds on its datasheet. For a Destroyer model that number of wounds will be 3.
Charistoph wrote: Orknado (and you) have failed to provide any written statements on what to do with models between "remove from play" and "return to the unit", but continue to insert things "intended" in there based on assumptions and call it RAW. When either of you can properly quote what happens there, with it supporting your theory, you can then call it "won".
Incorrect. My argument is firmly supported by the Rules As Written and my argument does not break the game beyond repair like yours does. See my argument in the spoiler below.
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).
Everything I advance about my argument is firmly supported by the Rules As Written. Further, my argument Breaks No Rules and is therefore valid logically and per the tenets of YMDC. Your argument breaks nearly all the Core Rules and has no Rules As Written support and is deemed invalid by the logical principle of reductio ad absurdum (aka the Break No Rules tenet for YMDC).
I have presented a valid argument with Rules As Written justification for consideration. Let me know when you are prepared to present a valid argument for consideration. Until you or someone else does so, my valid argument remains unchallenged.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/22 18:19:42
2017/06/22 18:44:08
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
Things are just too unclear without enough details given currently to make a blanket statement on which way is right. Much like the Scything Talons question though, it is best to play the version of the rule least beneficial to you until there is a clarification released.
Yeah, when trying to figure out HYWPI, it always good to make a benefit analysis to offer up when bringing it up with opponents or TOs. Some people are actually willing to fight against armies that receive the most powerful benefit of an interpretation, but most won't be.
I see Orknado quoted me in the review box below. But since he won't listen to me, I don't feel the need to actually read what he says. Communication is a two-way street. It's one of those things one should have learned in a college communication class.
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.
2017/06/22 18:47:58
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
Things are just too unclear without enough details given currently to make a blanket statement on which way is right. Much like the Scything Talons question though, it is best to play the version of the rule least beneficial to you until there is a clarification released.
Yeah, when trying to figure out HYWPI, it always good to make a benefit analysis to offer up when bringing it up with opponents or TOs. Some people are actually willing to fight against armies that receive the most powerful benefit of an interpretation, but most won't be.
I see Orknado quoted me in the review box below. But since he won't listen to me, I don't feel the need to actually read what he says. Communication is a two-way street. It's one of those things one should have learned in a college communication class.
I have listened to and responded to your post. I can only accept your view if it is presenting a valid argument and is firmly supported by the Rules As Written. Your argument is neither. I will gladly accept your argument when you are able to present one that is valid. It is your responsibility to present a valid argument. Your argument does not become valid simply by your presenting it. I cannot accept an argument based on your word alone.
2017/06/22 18:51:12
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0. And, again, I don't think a model can lose multiple wounds instantly, I believe they have to be resolved individually. Otherwise, the rules state models are slain at 0 wounds, and wounds are not restricted like other characteristics to a minimum number. One could argue that taking 6 wounds from a single shot could reduce the model to a negative wounds number and, since it is only slain at 0 wounds, immortality.
None of this is in the Reanimation Protocols rules, I'm just applying interpretations of that rule to other areas of the game to glean intent.
I know this thread is 9 pages deep now and maybe this has been covered, but the above is not correct. You can suffer 3 damage from 1 shot and be removed instantly. You allocate and roll saves one at a time, but if you fail your save, and suffer 3 damage, there is no step-by-step of removing one damage at a time. You simply suffer 3 damage, losing 3 wounds. You go from 3 to 0 immediately. This is also pretty clear under 5. Inflict Damage under the Shooting rules. Last sentence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound
And I disagree with this. The only reason is my experience with Age of Sigmar. In Age of Sigmar, the Death army's multi-wound models are returned at full wounds. Makes me suspect that Necrons will follow that same game design.
This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2017/06/22 18:57:37
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
2017/06/22 18:58:21
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
That makes no sense. If you set them up in the condition they were in when they last left the battlefield, then they'd have 0 wounds and would immediately be removed again.
If you're talking about setting them up in the condition before they died, why are you assuming that they must have had only 1 wound remaining? They could have been hit by a Lascannon or melta and lost all 3 of their wounds at the same time.
More importantly though, I would like to see where it says any of that in the RP rules.
They were last on the battlefield at 1 wound, not 0. And, again, I don't think a model can lose multiple wounds instantly, I believe they have to be resolved individually. Otherwise, the rules state models are slain at 0 wounds, and wounds are not restricted like other characteristics to a minimum number. One could argue that taking 6 wounds from a single shot could reduce the model to a negative wounds number and, since it is only slain at 0 wounds, immortality.
None of this is in the Reanimation Protocols rules, I'm just applying interpretations of that rule to other areas of the game to glean intent.
I know this thread is 9 pages deep now and maybe this has been covered, but the above is not correct. You can suffer 3 damage from 1 shot and be removed instantly. You allocate and roll saves one at a time, but if you fail your save, and suffer 3 damage, there is no step-by-step of removing one damage at a time. You simply suffer 3 damage, losing 3 wounds. You go from 3 to 0 immediately. This is also pretty clear under 5. Inflict Damage under the Shooting rules. Last sentence.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
SideshowLucifer wrote: Honestly, I'm going to guess that it will be errataed to say a single wound, but that's just from past experience and I suppose coming back with full wounds is a possibility.
And I disagree with this. The only reason is my experience with Age of Sigmar. In Age of Sigmar, the Death army's multi-wound models are returned at full wounds. Makes me suspect that Necrons will follow that same game design.
There is no way to sort out which House Rule is better. Luckily, we do not have to. There are rules that clearly indicate how to resolve the matter. So we simply follow those Rules As they are Written instead of resorting to House Rules.
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).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/22 19:00:32
2017/06/22 19:10:22
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I agree with the 'full wounds' camp. Not because of the exhaustive explanation you laid out above, but because it makes the most sense. The rules does not explicitly say for the model to come back with 1 wound, which is more specific than returning with its datasheet characteristic. If no specific rule exists, then you must go with the general rule.
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
2017/06/22 19:20:30
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
puma713 wrote: Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I agree with the 'full wounds' camp. Not because of the exhaustive explanation you laid out above, but because it makes the most sense. The rules does not explicitly say for the model to come back with 1 wound, which is more specific than returning with its datasheet characteristic. If no specific rule exists, then you must go with the general rule.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with. As I've stated before, if this was a "new" model being added to the unit, there wouldn't be any question as to how many Wounds would be on the model. But we are dealing with a case of "old model returning" with the baggage of a modified profile with it.
Fluff-wise could go either way, too. The model was either repaired the minimum to get back on the field, or it wasn't allowed to come back until it was back in full fighting trim. Historically, it's been 1 Wound, but apparently Sigmar has it with full Wounds.
Still, I'd be willing to play against either until an FAQ comes out, if I wasn't busy trying to sell a house, semi-remotely buy a new house, set up moving between the two, and had an army that wasn't much more than a glorified kill team list (7th's last General FAQ left a sour taste in my mouth, and I haven't been able to sell these chainsword Crusaders in years).
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.
2017/06/22 19:31:36
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/22 19:36:20
WH40K Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
DT:70+S++G+M-B-I--Pw40K90-D++A++/eWD?R++T(D)DM+
28 successful trades in the Dakka Swap Shop! Check out my latest auction here!
2017/06/22 19:34:14
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
puma713 wrote: Not sure if you meant to quote me, but I agree with the 'full wounds' camp. Not because of the exhaustive explanation you laid out above, but because it makes the most sense. The rules does not explicitly say for the model to come back with 1 wound, which is more specific than returning with its datasheet characteristic. If no specific rule exists, then you must go with the general rule.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with. As I've stated before, if this was a "new" model being added to the unit, there wouldn't be any question as to how many Wounds would be on the model. But we are dealing with a case of "old model returning" with the baggage of a modified profile with it.
Fluff-wise could go either way, too. The model was either repaired the minimum to get back on the field, or it wasn't allowed to come back until it was back in full fighting trim. Historically, it's been 1 Wound, but apparently Sigmar has it with full Wounds.
Still, I'd be willing to play against either until an FAQ comes out, if I wasn't busy trying to sell a house, semi-remotely buy a new house, set up moving between the two, and had an army that wasn't much more than a glorified kill team list (7th's last General FAQ left a sour taste in my mouth, and I haven't been able to sell these chainsword Crusaders in years).
Slain models are not in units . Only models that are in units have profiles. Therefore a slain model that is reanimated will at that point in time receive a profile with the amount of wounds indicated on it per the datasheet. In the case of a Destroyer that number will be 3 wounds.
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
Your argument was my original argument. I changed my argument when I noticed that the Reanimation Protocols rule indicates that slain models are not in units and that the Datasheet rule only applies to models in units. Therefore, the Rules As Written provides an answer for the thread.
Your argument is helpful though in that it shows that the argument for 1 wound is hopeless by all stretches of the imagination.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/22 19:45:38
2017/06/22 19:48:06
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.
First, proven, not proved. Second, you haven't proven it. You have a rule that grants models in units a profile. The model gains the profile at the beginning of the game. You are making an assumption that the permission is revoked when the model is reduced to zero wounds. The rules do not state this, however. You are making an assumption that the model no longer has the profile that it was granted at the beginning of the game. It has a profile to start with, and it is returned to the game without a statement saying it loses its profile at one time and gets a brand new profile when it comes back.
I also have to say, going to the datasheet section to try to dig out the quote to claim that RP gives you full wounds is a convulted thing to try to prove it's RAW. As I point out here, there isn't proof that the model loses its profile when it's reduced to zero wounds. This makes your argument dubious and certainly something to be contested as a RAW argument. There is no statement explicitly stating that a model regains full wounds when it is returned to the board. You have a model that had a profile getting a different profile when it comes back (as, when it left, the profile it had showed it at zero wounds). The datasheet rule doesn't say it restores the model to this profile or automatically gives this complete profile to a returning model. You have assumptions built in which show that you are trying to make an interpretation to make something to fit when it doesn't cover all the points you are arguing - you just assume that some of those points not covered can be ignored.
There is no way to sort out which House Rule is better. Luckily, we do not have to. There are rules that clearly indicate how to resolve the matter.
Given that your argument is in dispute as well as the differing sides on what number of wounds it should come back with (3 vs 1 vs RAW saying 0 but that's silly vs there being no statement so house rule it - the last two can sometimes be combined), along with a GW endorsed video showing gameplay with the number of wounds the model came back with not matching up with what you claim, despite them playing by the same rules you claim are clear, it is obvious to most people that it is absolutely not clear at all, and you should stop trying to claim that it is clear.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/22 19:56:44
2017/06/22 22:05:35
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
Nothing I said could logically reinforce your statement. You also clipped out the rest of the paragraph which provided more context to that sentence.
The datasheet does not come in to full play, because the profile has already been modified, which is why the model was slain in the first place. Without specific directions from the returning rule detailing another modification restoring any Wounds or original profile, and without any general rule of what happens when a slain model is returned to the unit, all we are left with is a null value. That you could use such logic to find a HYWPI solution, I do not deny, but it does not mean that a statement logically says something it does not say.
In a programming language, a model is more like an class with several different values stored in it. One of the variables would be Wounds, and another would be In_Play.
So, we have an instructions that state:
* If SaveRoll < Sv, then Wounds = Wounds - Dmg.
* If Wounds <= 0, Then In_Play = False.
Then we reach another instruction set that states:
* If RPRoll >= 5, Then Returned = True.
No instruction given so far, either general or specific, is providing another Modification to the Wounds value of the model returned to the unit by Reanimation Protocols, neither to origin or any other stated value. And this is why DoctorTom and I are both stating that any number beyond zero is pure HYWPI. I honestly don't know why people get so uptight about recognizing that a rule is broken (speaking of an ignored individual).
Heck, we don't even have a proper instruction of what to do with a model, either physically, statistically, or organizationally, when it IS removed from play, much less how that interacts with returning the model. It's like a computer procedure that someone properly set up the values with, but forgot the type the lines of code for it to actually DO anything.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/22 22:07:06
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.
2017/06/22 22:45:27
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.
doctortom wrote: Second, you haven't proven it. You have a rule that grants models in units a profile. The model gains the profile at the beginning of the game. You are making an assumption that the permission is revoked when the model is reduced to zero wounds. The rules do not state this, however. You are making an assumption that the model no longer has the profile that it was granted at the beginning of the game. It has a profile to start with, and it is returned to the game without a statement saying it loses its profile at one time and gets a brand new profile when it comes back.
I also have to say, going to the datasheet section to try to dig out the quote to claim that RP gives you full wounds is a convulted thing to try to prove it's RAW. As I point out here, there isn't proof that the model loses its profile when it's reduced to zero wounds. This makes your argument dubious and certainly something to be contested as a RAW argument. There is no statement explicitly stating that a model regains full wounds when it is returned to the board. You have a model that had a profile getting a different profile when it comes back (as, when it left, the profile it had showed it at zero wounds). The datasheet rule doesn't say it restores the model to this profile or automatically gives this complete profile to a returning model. You have assumptions built in which show that you are trying to make an interpretation to make something to fit when it doesn't cover all the points you are arguing - you just assume that some of those points not covered can be ignored.
Your critique isn't meeting the burden of proof. There is a huge assumption in your critique that profiles are permanent things. This is a permissive dataset so when permission is removed for something that something is lost. In this case once the permission is lost to have a profile, the profile is lost. That is precisely how the rules work.
Slain models are not in units per the rules. Models that are not in units do not have profiles per the rules. When a model is slain it loses its permission to have a profile. You have been unable to show that a profile once assigned is permanently affixed to the model.
Since you were unable to find a rule that permanently affixes the profile to the model, then the profile (along with the wound characteristic) is lost when a model is slain and removed from the unit. The slain model will then be reanimated according to the number of wounds on the datasheet.
Given that your argument is in dispute as well as the differing sides on what number of wounds it should come back with (3 vs 1 vs RAW saying 0 but that's silly vs there being no statement so house rule it - the last two can sometimes be combined), along with a GW endorsed video showing gameplay with the number of wounds the model came back with not matching up with what you claim, despite them playing by the same rules you claim are clear, it is obvious to most people that it is absolutely not clear at all, and you should stop trying to claim that it is clear.
I asked you to present evidence that the GW twitch video is officially endorsed as a rules source. You haven't yet. So why are you cluttering up this thread with arguments that have zero merit?
The downside being that there is no general rule for how many Wounds a model who has last all of his Wounds returns with.
I disagree. The datasheet is the general rule. Anything modifying the datasheet's characteristics would be more specific. Since there are no specific rules regarding the amount of wounds the model returns with, we are forced to rely on the general rule.
You reinforced this logic with the quoted statement above. You have no idea how many wounds a model returns with once he's lost all his wounds. You have no specific rule telling you how to field that model. So, therefore, there is no recourse other than to refer to the datasheet.
Nothing I said could logically reinforce your statement. You also clipped out the rest of the paragraph which provided more context to that sentence.
The datasheet does not come in to full play, because the profile has already been modified, which is why the model was slain in the first place. Without specific directions from the returning rule detailing another modification restoring any Wounds or original profile, and without any general rule of what happens when a slain model is returned to the unit, all we are left with is a null value. That you could use such logic to find a HYWPI solution, I do not deny, but it does not mean that a statement logically says something it does not say.
In a programming language, a model is more like an class with several different values stored in it. One of the variables would be Wounds, and another would be In_Play.
So, we have an instructions that state:
* If SaveRoll < Sv, then Wounds = Wounds - Dmg.
* If Wounds <= 0, Then In_Play = False.
Then we reach another instruction set that states:
* If RPRoll >= 5, Then Returned = True.
No instruction given so far, either general or specific, is providing another Modification to the Wounds value of the model returned to the unit by Reanimation Protocols, neither to origin or any other stated value. And this is why DoctorTom and I are both stating that any number beyond zero is pure HYWPI. I honestly don't know why people get so uptight about recognizing that a rule is broken (speaking of an ignored individual).
Heck, we don't even have a proper instruction of what to do with a model, either physically, statistically, or organizationally, when it IS removed from play, much less how that interacts with returning the model. It's like a computer procedure that someone properly set up the values with, but forgot the type the lines of code for it to actually DO anything.
Since you like computer metaphors, try this one.
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?
The rules aren't broken. Only your argument that slain models are somehow in units is broken.
Slain models are not in units. If you argue that slain models are in units then nearly all of the Core Rules break and you must make up 5 rules out of your imagination in order to fix all the rules that you break. So your argument has no validity and you cannot use your argument to counter an argument that has validity.
We know for certain that slain models are not in units. The Reanimation Protocols rule tells us so. Per the wording of the Reanimation Protocols rule, we know for certain that slain models are FROM units, not IN units, and that reanimated slain models are 'returned to this unit' meaning that they were not already IN the unit.
Since slain models are NOT IN units then they lose their profile (and their wound characteristic) when they are slain. When they are reanimated and 'returned to this unit' then they will once again have a profile and the number of wounds on that profile. If they are Destroyers then they will be reanimated with 3 wounds.
This message was edited 9 times. Last update was at 2017/06/23 04:34:50
2017/06/23 03:38:29
Subject: Re:8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
doctortom wrote: Second, you haven't proven it. You have a rule that grants models in units a profile. The model gains the profile at the beginning of the game. You are making an assumption that the permission is revoked when the model is reduced to zero wounds. The rules do not state this, however. You are making an assumption that the model no longer has the profile that it was granted at the beginning of the game. It has a profile to start with, and it is returned to the game without a statement saying it loses its profile at one time and gets a brand new profile when it comes back.
I also have to say, going to the datasheet section to try to dig out the quote to claim that RP gives you full wounds is a convulted thing to try to prove it's RAW. As I point out here, there isn't proof that the model loses its profile when it's reduced to zero wounds. This makes your argument dubious and certainly something to be contested as a RAW argument. There is no statement explicitly stating that a model regains full wounds when it is returned to the board. You have a model that had a profile getting a different profile when it comes back (as, when it left, the profile it had showed it at zero wounds). The datasheet rule doesn't say it restores the model to this profile or automatically gives this complete profile to a returning model. You have assumptions built in which show that you are trying to make an interpretation to make something to fit when it doesn't cover all the points you are arguing - you just assume that some of those points not covered can be ignored.
Your critique isn't meeting the burden of proof. There is a huge assumption in your critique that profiles are permanent things. This is a permissive dataset so when permission is removed for something that something is lost. In this case once the permission is lost to have a profile, the profile is lost. That is precisely how the rules work.
Slain models are not in units per the rules. Models that are not in units do not have profiles per the rules. When a model is slain it loses its permission to have a profile. You have been unable to show that a profile once assigned is permanently affixed to the model.
Since you were unable to find a rule that permanently affixes the profile to the model, then the profile (along with the wound characteristic) is lost when a model is slain and removed from the unit. The slain model will then be reanimated according to the number of wounds on the datasheet.
you miss the point. You are assuming the profile is a completely temporary thing that disappears. The models get the profile at the beginning of the game from the datasheet. You assume that the profile does not stay with the model once given by the datasheet. You do not have a rules quote to state that the profile no longer applies when it goes to 0 wounds, though - you assume that the profile is gone. I don't have to prove that the datasheet applies, I merely have to point out that there needs to be a specific statement that it no longer applies and, in addition, a statement saying that a model that returns to the unit uses the pristine profile (unlike when it left the board). The burden of proof is on you; the assumption that it loses permission is not stated in the rules - the model had a profile given to it, but there's no statement about it going away. Therefore you have an assumption that makes your argument not RAW.
Also, if it's supposed to be RAW, why would it need all those contortions when it would have much more easily been taken care of by saying that the model is returned with full wounds? Since it doesn't make the statement, it isn't RAW. I don't have a problem with you making an assumption that it gets full wounds and house ruling it that way, just don't call it RAW.
Charistoph still has a ridiculous argument that breaks all of the Core Rules and that is against the tenets of YMDC (Break No Rules).
Orknado still is the only one with a valid rule supported argument.
Doctortom still has no rules support for his critiques of Orknado's argument.
Therefore, the thread has come to the conclusion that Destroyers reanimate with 3 wounds.
col, it's amazing how you only show up to be Orknado's cheerleader since he showed up and started posting, and only show up right after he posts to cheerlead him. And, the both of you seem to miss the point that the two of you need the rules support. Saying I have no rules support for my argument is also ridiculous on the face of it. My critique is pointing out the lack of full support from the rules for Orknado's and your argument, which you need to have for RAW. My position is that we don't have RAW support for making a decision (in fact, the last indication for the model's wound level is when it's taken off the board at 0 wounds without a rules statement to support it being changed when it comes back, but have acknowledged that playing by RAW with that result doesn't work). So, you are crowing again that I have no rules support to say that there is no rules support to claim that by RAW the models come back at full wounds. Once again, since I asked you this before, please indicate what kind of rules support - given previous comments from you, presumably a rules quotation - would be expected to point out that there is not rules support? I hope you aren't seriously expecting a rules quotation that states "We have not put in any rules to determine the number of wounds the model comes back with." (That would also be RAW of a lack, not a lack of RAW )
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/06/23 16:58:55
2017/06/23 17:38:12
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Jesus, will you look at how long and convoluted this thread is?
After a cursory glance, it appears as if there are two possibilities:
Either they come back with zero wounds (which is obviously not how it is meant to be played), or they come back with full wounds.
I can see nothing that would suggest multi wound models would come back with only a single wound, and will assume that interpretation was invented as a house rule.
2017/06/23 17:53:15
Subject: Re: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.
They use house rules on GW's Twitch channel? Also note, you're not going to find anything that says how many wounds they come back with. That's the problem.
'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
2017/06/23 18:18:32
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
skoffs wrote: Jesus, will you look at how long and convoluted this thread is?
After a cursory glance, it appears as if there are two possibilities:
Either they come back with zero wounds (which is obviously not how it is meant to be played), or they come back with full wounds.
I can see nothing that would suggest multi wound models would come back with only a single wound, and will assume that interpretation was invented as a house rule.
There is as much to suggest full Wounds as a single Wound. We honestly do not know. It's rather irritating that they made such a big mess up here.
A single Wound is all that is necessary for the model to be on the board, after all, and there is a lot of historical precedence to consider as well.
Someone pointed out that the Undead in Sigmar come back with full Wounds, so that could be an indication as well.
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.
2017/06/23 18:34:40
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
Given that your argument is in dispute as well as the differing sides on what number of wounds it should come back with (3 vs 1 vs RAW saying 0 but that's silly vs there being no statement so house rule it - the last two can sometimes be combined), along with a GW endorsed video showing gameplay with the number of wounds the model came back with not matching up with what you claim, despite them playing by the same rules you claim are clear, it is obvious to most people that it is absolutely not clear at all, and you should stop trying to claim that it is clear.
I asked you to present evidence that the GW twitch video is officially endorsed as a rules source. You haven't yet. So why are you cluttering up this thread with arguments that have zero merit?
GW posted it on their Twitch channel as an example of playing. This is for people to watch to see how the rules work - on GW's Twitch channel (which is their official channel). As I pointed out, that's official enough to at least suggest that it's RAI. Your claim that the argument has zero merit itself has zero merit.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
skoffs wrote: Jesus, will you look at how long and convoluted this thread is?
After a cursory glance, it appears as if there are two possibilities:
Either they come back with zero wounds (which is obviously not how it is meant to be played), or they come back with full wounds.
I can see nothing that would suggest multi wound models would come back with only a single wound, and will assume that interpretation was invented as a house rule.
You're right that there are two possibilities, but you're not right about the options. Either they come back with zero wounds, which is RAW since there's no statement that they come back with any other level, or they come back with some level of wounds that it not zero. RAW isn't really playable, so you don't play it by RAW. The video on GW's twitch channel is a suggestion for RAI, at least. Arguments exist for coming back with full wounds, but again it's a house rule like coming back with 1 wound would be. Talk with your opponents, agree beforehand and play it the way your group is happy with until a FAQ shows up to clear it up.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/06/23 18:37:49
2017/06/23 18:53:22
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
you miss the point. You are assuming the profile is a completely temporary thing that disappears. The models get the profile at the beginning of the game from the datasheet. You assume that the profile does not stay with the model once given by the datasheet. You do not have a rules quote to state that the profile no longer applies when it goes to 0 wounds, though - you assume that the profile is gone. I don't have to prove that the datasheet applies, I merely have to point out that there needs to be a specific statement that it no longer applies and, in addition, a statement saying that a model that returns to the unit uses the pristine profile (unlike when it left the board). The burden of proof is on you; the assumption that it loses permission is not stated in the rules - the model had a profile given to it, but there's no statement about it going away. Therefore you have an assumption that makes your argument not RAW.
Also, if it's supposed to be RAW, why would it need all those contortions when it would have much more easily been taken care of by saying that the model is returned with full wounds? Since it doesn't make the statement, it isn't RAW. I don't have a problem with you making an assumption that it gets full wounds and house ruling it that way, just don't call it RAW.
I am not the one making assumptions here. This is a permissive dataset. You don't have permission to do something unless you have permission. Slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have profiles. Profiles are not permanently affixed to models unless you have permission to permanently affix profiles to models.
Until you show permission, your critiques of my argument have no rules support and are completely invalid.
My argument follows strictly from the Rules As Written. Slain models do not have permission to have profiles. No rule states that profiles are permanently affixed. Therefore when a model is slain it loses its profile (and the associated Wound characterstic) and will be reanimated with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
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.
I asked you to present evidence that the GW twitch video is officially endorsed as a rules source. You haven't yet. So why are you cluttering up this thread with arguments that have zero merit?
GW posted it on their Twitch channel as an example of playing. This is for people to watch to see how the rules work - on GW's Twitch channel (which is their official channel). As I pointed out, that's official enough to at least suggest that it's RAI. Your claim that the argument has zero merit itself has zero merit.
Incorrect. Until you can point to an official statement that the Twitch channel is an official rules source, the channel has no status whatsoever. It's just two dudes playing 40k 8th edition. Let me know when you can point to a GW statement that the Twitch channel is to be understood by everyone as how the game is meant to be played. Until then your suggestion is as laughably inappropriate as asking GW store employees for rulings.
There is as much to suggest full Wounds as a single Wound. We honestly do not know. It's rather irritating that they made such a big mess up here.
A single Wound is all that is necessary for the model to be on the board, after all, and there is a lot of historical precedence to consider as well.
Someone pointed out that the Undead in Sigmar come back with full Wounds, so that could be an indication as well.
Incorrect. There is direct rules support for full wounds. See the spoiler below.
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).
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2017/06/23 19:05:45
2017/06/23 19:14:44
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
you miss the point. You are assuming the profile is a completely temporary thing that disappears. The models get the profile at the beginning of the game from the datasheet. You assume that the profile does not stay with the model once given by the datasheet. You do not have a rules quote to state that the profile no longer applies when it goes to 0 wounds, though - you assume that the profile is gone. I don't have to prove that the datasheet applies, I merely have to point out that there needs to be a specific statement that it no longer applies and, in addition, a statement saying that a model that returns to the unit uses the pristine profile (unlike when it left the board). The burden of proof is on you; the assumption that it loses permission is not stated in the rules - the model had a profile given to it, but there's no statement about it going away. Therefore you have an assumption that makes your argument not RAW.
Also, if it's supposed to be RAW, why would it need all those contortions when it would have much more easily been taken care of by saying that the model is returned with full wounds? Since it doesn't make the statement, it isn't RAW. I don't have a problem with you making an assumption that it gets full wounds and house ruling it that way, just don't call it RAW.
I am not the one making assumptions here. This is a permissive dataset. You don't have permission to do something unless you have permission. Slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have profiles. Profiles are not permanently affixed to models unless you have permission to permanently affix profiles to models.
Until you show permission, your critiques of my argument have no rules support and are completely invalid.
My argument follows strictly from the Rules As Written. Slain models do not have permission to have profiles. No rule states that profiles are permanently affixed. Therefore when a model is slain it loses its profile (and the associated Wound characterstic) and will be reanimated with the number of wounds on its datasheet.
The model had permission to have the profile from the datasheet at the start of the game. It continues through the game to have the profile that the datasheet gave it, as things happen to modify its profile. when it reaches zero wounds, there's nothing said about permission being revoked. Not that it needed permission, it already had permission and gained its profile at the beginning of the game. There's no indication at all that it loses the profile that it has when it goes to zero wounds during a game, as it is not mentioned in the rules. It should be obvious that the model has its own profile during the game, as the model loses wounds as it takes damage. You aren't constantly referring back to the datasheet for the wounds it has listed there when there's damage taken (unless you think the models are immortal with the wound level in the datasheet and always have that at all times since the rules say that the profile tells you the profile for all the models in the unit - including wounds). You haven't been able to prove that slain models have no permission to have profiles - they had permission and gained a profile before being reduced to 0 wounds, and there is no statement saying that permission is revoked. This is an assumption on your part, just as it's an assumption that a returning model consults the datasheet again to find its level of wounds. It may be what they intend, it may not be, but it's not stated.
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.
Kindly point to the statement on GW's Twitch channel that we are to consider that channel as an official rules source.
Come on people. The Twitch channel is obviously NOT a rules source. Making suggestions that it is is only hurting your argument.
The Twitch channel is for GW to be able to disseminate things like videos. A video GW puts up for gameplay is put up by them to denomstrate how the game is played. As an indication of how GW plays it, it is perfectly valid, which makes it a source for RAI. It miay not be a source for RAW, but it certainly is a source for RAI. (note that RAI stands for RULES As Intended, which means that something demonstrating RAI is in fact a rules source - a source for RAI although possibly not a source for RAW. Ghaz even indicated when mentioning it earlier that it shows what they intended. Quit treating it like we're saying it's a RAW source. Having an indication of RAI is good when the RAW that you have - having 0 wounds when you return - is silly, and can be used as a reasonable source to cite when coming up with a house rule as to what non-zero level of wounds you want the model to come back with.
2017/06/23 19:21:23
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
The model had permission to have the profile from the datasheet at the start of the game. It continues through the game to have the profile that the datasheet gave it, as things happen to modify its profile. when it reaches zero wounds, there's nothing said about permission being revoked. Not that it needed permission, it already had permission and gained its profile at the beginning of the game. There's no indication at all that it loses the profile that it has when it goes to zero wounds during a game, as it is not mentioned in the rules. It should be obvious that the model has its own profile during the game, as the model loses wounds as it takes damage. You aren't constantly referring back to the datasheet for the wounds it has listed there when there's damage taken (unless you think the models are immortal with the wound level in the datasheet and always have that at all times since the rules say that the profile tells you the profile for all the models in the unit - including wounds). You haven't been able to prove that slain models have no permission to have profiles - they had permission and gained a profile before being reduced to 0 wounds, and there is no statement saying that permission is revoked. This is an assumption on your part, just as it's an assumption that a returning model consults the datasheet again to find its level of wounds. It may be what they intend, it may not be, but it's not stated.
Per the Datasheet rule, slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have a profile. There is also no rule that says profiles are permanently affixed to the model. This is a permissive dataset, so once a model loses permission to have a profile, it loses that profile. I am not making any assumptions at all. I am strictly following the logic of permission and the exact letter of the rules involved. You are the one making the giant assumption that profiles are permanently affixed to models. Until you can find that rule your argument is premised on a giant assumption. My argument wins out since it follows strictly from the rules as they are.
The Twitch channel is for GW to be able to disseminate things like videos. A video GW puts up for gameplay is put up by them to denomstrate how the game is played. As an indication of how GW plays it, it is perfectly valid, which makes it a source for RAI. It miay not be a source for RAW, but it certainly is a source for RAI. (note that RAI stands for RULES As Intended, which means that something demonstrating RAI is in fact a rules source - a source for RAI although possibly not a source for RAW. Ghaz even indicated when mentioning it earlier that it shows what they intended. Quit treating it like we're saying it's a RAW source. Having an indication of RAI is good when the RAW that you have - having 0 wounds when you return - is silly, and can be used as a reasonable source to cite when coming up with a house rule as to what non-zero level of wounds you want the model to come back with.
I asked you to provide an official statement from GW indicating that the Twitch channel is an official rules source. You failed to do so. We cannot take your statement here seriously. It is in direct violation of the rules of this forum. You are trying to present something as a rule which is not a rule.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/06/23 19:24:34
2017/06/23 20:02:56
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
4. Rules as Written are not How You Would Play It. Please clearly state which one you are talking about during a rules debate, and do not argue a RAW point against a HYWPI point (or vice-versa).
A Few Definitions
For those who haven't seen these terms before.
Rules As Written - This refers to playing by the strict letter of the rules, which can lead to odd or counterintuitive situations.
How You Would Play It - This refers to taking small liberties with the rules to smooth out the odd or counterintuitive situations listed above.
I would add "broken" to the situations which Rules As Written may result in. It certainly fits here.
Since there are no actual letters describing anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile in Reanimation Protocols, saying that the RAW says anything regarding Wounds, datasheet, or profile is disingenuous at best, or lying and trolling at worst.
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.
2017/06/23 20:05:30
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
The model had permission to have the profile from the datasheet at the start of the game. It continues through the game to have the profile that the datasheet gave it, as things happen to modify its profile. when it reaches zero wounds, there's nothing said about permission being revoked. Not that it needed permission, it already had permission and gained its profile at the beginning of the game. There's no indication at all that it loses the profile that it has when it goes to zero wounds during a game, as it is not mentioned in the rules. It should be obvious that the model has its own profile during the game, as the model loses wounds as it takes damage. You aren't constantly referring back to the datasheet for the wounds it has listed there when there's damage taken (unless you think the models are immortal with the wound level in the datasheet and always have that at all times since the rules say that the profile tells you the profile for all the models in the unit - including wounds). You haven't been able to prove that slain models have no permission to have profiles - they had permission and gained a profile before being reduced to 0 wounds, and there is no statement saying that permission is revoked. This is an assumption on your part, just as it's an assumption that a returning model consults the datasheet again to find its level of wounds. It may be what they intend, it may not be, but it's not stated.
Per the Datasheet rule, slain models that are not in units do not have permission to have a profile.
Where does the datasheet rule specifically say slain models do not have permission to have a profile? Keep in mind these are models which had permission to have a profile at the start of the game.
orknado wrote: [ There is also no rule that says profiles are permanently affixed to the model.
We do know that the profile does get affixed to the model, however. Otherwise, a model could never take damage because that is the profile on the datasheet, and the damage a model takes would not modify a datasheet for a unit. If the model doesn't get affixed to the model, you suddenly have invulnerable models, not unlike the situation you claimed would happen if a model was returned with 0 wounds. We know that the models aren't invulnerable, so they must have their own profiles in order to be able to keep track of where the wound levels on each model are. So, given that we know the model has a profile, and that the profile can differ from the profile on the datasheet (as the wounds change), you have to see where it states it no longer has that profile. Your claiming permission is revoked is an assumption that the model's profile is no longer applicable to the model, yet there is no explicit statement as such.
The Twitch channel is for GW to be able to disseminate things like videos. A video GW puts up for gameplay is put up by them to denomstrate how the game is played. As an indication of how GW plays it, it is perfectly valid, which makes it a source for RAI. It miay not be a source for RAW, but it certainly is a source for RAI. (note that RAI stands for RULES As Intended, which means that something demonstrating RAI is in fact a rules source - a source for RAI although possibly not a source for RAW. Ghaz even indicated when mentioning it earlier that it shows what they intended. Quit treating it like we're saying it's a RAW source. Having an indication of RAI is good when the RAW that you have - having 0 wounds when you return - is silly, and can be used as a reasonable source to cite when coming up with a house rule as to what non-zero level of wounds you want the model to come back with.
I asked you to provide an official statement from GW indicating that the Twitch channel is an official rules source. You failed to do so. We cannot take your statement here seriously. It is in direct violation of the rules of this forum. You are trying to present something as a rule which is not a rule.
Trying to present something as probably RAI when it's presented by the company producing the game, suggesting this is how thay play the game (which is what RAI is), is in direct violation of the rules of this forum? That's just taking an obstinate position because you don't want to accept that for other people in the forum they might like to know what the RULES as intended are,which is a valid consideration in a case like this where the RAW isn't clear (well isn't clear to anybody besides you and col impact).. Posturing that something submitted potential evidence of RAI isn't RAW when it was never claimed as RAW is just exhibiting a stubbornness and myopia that discredits any of your other statements as being worthy of consideration.
2017/06/23 20:10:01
Subject: Re: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.
Sorry if I missed it, but could someone point out the time at which the reanimate a model with only 1 wound in the video? Or when they mention it only having 1 wound because of RP?
2017/06/24 16:20:21
Subject: 8th:. Reanimation Protocols with multi-wound models
doctortom wrote: Trying to present something as probably RAI when it's presented by the company producing the game, suggesting this is how thay play the game (which is what RAI is), is in direct violation of the rules of this forum? That's just taking an obstinate position because you don't want to accept that for other people in the forum they might like to know what the RULES as intended are,which is a valid consideration in a case like this where the RAW isn't clear (well isn't clear to anybody besides you and col impact).. Posturing that something submitted potential evidence of RAI isn't RAW when it was never claimed as RAW is just exhibiting a stubbornness and myopia that discredits any of your other statements as being worthy of consideration.
Yeah, that's why I linked and quoted RAW and HYWPI above. I even linked the Tenets for him before. He just kept bulling on ahead.
For one who claims to have been through college and has been a professor, there is difficulty in one to follow standards laid out by another organization. We aren't in his classroom or his university, so he has no authority on anything he says other than what he can demonstrate.
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.
Death Guard 5100 pts.
Daemons 3000 pts.
)
