Ever-Living Question

[WYSIWYG]

If a squad of warriors with an attached Cryptek is swept in assault, does the Cryptek become an Ever-Living counter?

[The Twilight Fade]

As far as i'm aware if the squad is caught in a sweeping advance it is destroyed and any RP tokens removed and this also includes crypteks, lords and any IC's aswell.

If it looks like the squad is about to lose the assualt I always assign wounds to the crypteks first. If they die as a result of normal combat then they have a chance to return afterward

[AbusePuppy]

Everliving doesn't care how or why you are killed- you get the token regardless. Even effects like Jaws and Warp Rift that remove you from play will still generate an Everliving token, and thus allow you a chance to come back into play.

Note, however, that unlike RP tokens, you must return to play within 3" of the marker and more than 1" from the enemy- if you don't have room, the model will remain dead.

[The Twilight Fade]

Are you sure?

The ruling on RP and ever-living specifically relates to the model having to be removed as a casualty in order to claim the resurrection. Now as a necron player i'm all for being able to take these saves against sweeping and in particular JotWW but neither entry states that they are removed as a casualty and simply removed from play in general.

If you can make a case for this that I can take to my space wolf friend i'd be happy to change my view on this. The sisters faq mentions that Celestine can take her save against effects that remove her from play, but the necron faq makes no mention of this at all.

[Wildeybeast]

Twlight fade, it doesn't matter what kills him, anything any enemy ability/attack/etc 'removes a model from play' turns it into a casualty. Everliving only refers to 'as a casulty' to make it clear that it happens when something 'kills' the model. This distinction is necessary as there are occasions when, hypothetically, a model 'leaves' the table, such as teleporting elsewhere on the battlefield or going back into reserve or some similar thing. In this case the model is not a casualty as they haven't been killed, but have left the table. It would clearly be nonsenical in this case to use everliving. The term casulty basically means anything which has been permanently removed from play (though permanent is obviously a relative term for necons). The only thing I can think of that wouldn't give you everliving despite 'killing' you is if you fell back off the table edge.

[lattd]

Hope this helps clarify the question http://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m2170012a_Necron_FAQ_Version_2_0_January_2012.pdf

[keithsilva]

Here is something that might help you its in the new space wolf FAQ

Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g.
Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule
even after being removed from play by The Last
Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule
works just fine.

right out of the FAQ, I am assuming that The Last Laugh removes you from play , so why wouldnt it work for anything else that removes you from play.

The only time you wouldnt get ever-living is being turn into a spawn which makes sence since you are not being removed from play as a casualty you are being turned into something else lol aka a spawn of choas.

hope this helps

[The Twilight Fade]

Forgive me for being a bit dim on this topic as I would love to make a case for necrons being able to take an ever-living roll, (my IC's have been the victim of jaws far too often) but why would JotWW specifically say removed from play rather than removed as a casualty and why would they feel the need to FAQ it in the sisters case if it meant the same thing?

Now as a player of MtG maybe i'm looking at it from an angle that I shouldn't be looking at it from (the difference between removed from play and put into a graveyard is vastly different in this respect) but why would they word it differently (the gift of chaos rule incidentally says removed as a casualty and you can't take RP against that) if it relates to the same rule?

[keithsilva]

ok if you are looking for wording then what does The Last Laugh say removed from play or caualty?

I mean for the most part its one and the same you are being removed from the table, in the case of being turned into a spawn you arent really being removed just turned into something else, it would be like handing over your guy to the enemy and letting them play with him lol

[The Twilight Fade]

Q. Are models with an ability to return to play (e.g.
Necrons, St. Celestine, etc) able to use their special rule
even after being removed from play by The Last
Laugh? (p52)
A. Yes they can. It sounds odd but their special rule
works just fine.

I never noticed this in the FAQ before. Perfect ammunition for the case i'm trying to make.

Fair enough. Consider me converted!

Ideally you would think that they would make reference to this sort of thing in the necron FAQ but alas it is just the ruling I was looking for

[The Twilight Fade]

ok if you are looking for wording then what does The Last Laugh say removed from play or caualty?

I mean for the most part its one and the same you are being removed from the table, in the case of being turned into a spawn you arent really being removed just turned into something else, it would be like handing over your guy to the enemy and letting them play with him lol

It seems you were typing your reply as I was doing mine so I didn't see your post until after I posted!!

Already changed my mind on the matter!

[keithsilva]

Glad i was able to help either way:D

[WYSIWYG]

Thank you all for replying, unfortunately I'm having a problem with our FLGS's Tournament Organizer, he refuses to allow me to take my Ever-living rolls against Jaws of the world wolf or being swept in CC. I can't seem to convince him that this is what Ever-living was made for.

Here is the original PM I sent him on our forums concerning the matter:


Hey

I have a couple of rules questions. Since you were actually correct about fire frenzy on Chaos Dreads being limited to a 45 degree arc of fire, I thought you could maybe give your opinion on these as they became points of contention at the last tourney.

Question 1: If a unit of warriors with an attached Cryptek are swept in an assault and destroyed, does the cryptek still get to make an Ever-living roll?

I would assume the answer is yes because the FaQ stated:

Q: If an entire unit, including an attached character
from a Royal Court, is wiped out, do you get to make
any Reanimation Protocol rolls? (p29)
A: You would only get to make one roll for the
attached character as he has the Ever-living special rule.
Note that in this case, he must be placed within 3" of
the counter as his unit has been wiped

However, one player refused to accept that this particular ruling applied to assault, he believed that if you swept them in assault that they all were removed and that the Cryptek did not get an Ever-living roll. He tried to argue that being swept in combat was different from being removed as a causality, and that it was even different from being removed from play, he argued that it was a 3rd different way of removing models. I clearly disagree with him as the only two ways currently to remove a model in this game are:

A. The model is wounded and removed as a casualty.
or
B. The model is hit with a special ability or power ( e.g. Jaws of the world wolf) and removed from play.

I wanted to get your take on the matter as you are the TO, and I didn't want this to become a big headache at the next event.

Question 2: Does a model with the Ever-living rule get it's Ever-living roll against abilities that remove models from play? (Jaws of the world wolf, etc)

I believe the answer to this one is yes as well, as it states under Ever-living that "Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play." Seems simple and straight forward, but the same person who argued with me about units being swept, refused to play it that way. If you read the codex, Reanimation Protocols is pretty clear that it can only be used against being wounded and removed as a casualty. Where as Ever-living is pretty clear that it can be used against both being removed as a casualty and being removed from play.

So my take on the rules is....

Reanimation Protocols trumps removal method:
A. The model is wounded and removed as a casualty.

While Ever-living trumps removal method:
A. The model is wounded and removed as a casualty.
and
B. The model is hit with a special ability or power ( e.g. Jaws of the world wolf) and removed from play.

Nothing else makes any-sense because all models with Ever-living have Reanimation Protocols as well. If Ever-living doesn't protect against removal method B., their is no point for the rule to even exist.

Anyway, I just wanted to state my case, and get your ruling on these matters.


This was his reply:


Chris,
After a unit is swept in close combat, there is no other roll to make. If you had won the initiative dice off then your cryptec could invoke Ever-living and try his Reanimation Protocol roll. However, keep the last paragraph of the Reanimation Protocols rules in mind. Under the conditions you described the unit is gone with no possibility of reanimation. Losing in close combat is different than losing due to shooting. Page 40 of the rule book says, “The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this state; for them the battle is over.” The Ever-living rule specifies “If the model was locked in close combat when it ‘died’, and the combat is ongoing, then it must immediately pile in. If the returning model cannot be placed, for whatever reason, it is lost and does not return.” Here you see the answer: the combat is not ongoing in the even you lost sweeping advance, which satisfies the second condition of the model of the model not being allowed to return.

As for Jaws of the World Wolf, your opponent was correct there as well. JWW does not cause wounds, which means models are not removed as casualties. They are simply removed from the game. Period. That’s how I’ve been playing it and I did confirm my interpretation with GW.


I clearly disagree, but Im not sure how to word my counter argument to him. So what should I do? :confused:

[Sam]

The way I've been playing it (and as the only necron player in my group they tend to defer to my judgement) there are four situations where you cannot make a reanimation protocols roll for a model with ever-living.

1. There is no room for the model to be placed.

2. The model died due to death or glory.

3. The model was still alive at the end of combat and was swept.

And 4. The model was removed from play by an ability that produces one or more other models (rippers from the parasite, spawn from gift of chaos/boon of mutation, etc.)

[Nachodragon]

So, to add to the confusion of Ever-living. If you have two crypteks in a squad of whatever. How do you play that?

First off, assuming all RP rolls are successful.
Since they have to be placed within 3" of the marker, do you raise one and then the other is placed in coherency? Or do you raised them both within 3" and hope they are within coherency?

Here is another situation that arose recently (Look at the batrep between Crons and BA posted recently).
I had a group of immortals with 2 crypteks. The got whittled down to 1 remaining Immortal, he ran (I don't know how!) and almost ran off the board, but not quite. All of the immortal markers went away but I still left the EL marker. The cryptek passed the roll, and since the unit was still there I placed him in coherency with the unit.

I don't think this was quite correct and really didn't matter in this situation as the squad couldn't roll under the 1 inch necessary to stay on the board on my turn. BUT, I believe the EL roll will only come in to affect if the rest of the squad is gone. Basically, I think the EL marker should have been removed when I ran. This sucks but does not make sense otherwise. I do believe that if I had run off the board he would get to come back, or if I was swept he should come back.

If you are swept in combat you are removed from the game, you are not removed as a casualty. You cannot come back from that (so kill your Lords and Crypteks first, they may come back). You would not get a roll from Jaws either as it removes you from play. Sucks for sure as it is a ridiculous power to affect potentially so many things.

As pointed out, The Last Laugh FAQ is different. Should it be, I dunno, but that is how it is FAQ'd.

[SeattleDV8]

Actually that FAQ is of very little use as the rule 'Last Laugh' removes the model as a casualty, not just removed from play.
A better FAQ to point to is from the Sisters FAQ

Q: Can Saint Celestine use her Miraculous Intervention
special rule against attacks that remove models from
play? (White Dwarf, August 2011, Page 103)
A: Yes.
We know that it works with Sisters, no way of knowing if they will also rule the same for Necrons.
Until then it Everliving seems to work.

[keithsilva]

The Last Laugh as i recall u have to pass a strength test or whatever or u are removed, which JWW does the same dam thing. so they are one and the same and I would argue based on that right there about using ever-living after JWW affect. If they dont allow it I really want to know why because that is bull**** and he doesnt know jack, point out the FAQ for The Last Laugh and if they are worded the same way as being removed u have on good argument.

As for sweeping advace u are still being removed as a caualty so in turn you can use ever-living yes the rest of the squad is gone due to not haveing everliving so Idk until gw faq u might have to deal with it, I mean if the model with everliving died before being the squad was swept thats more of a reason to be able to, and to use the arugment the combat is not on going is bull**** and funny as hell so he is saying if combat was still on going u couldnt, hell its not broken u still have to be place 3" from maker and 1" away from enemy

If he confrimed it with GW ask for prove I mean dont be a dick about it but it a nice way ask for it, because GW faq The Last Laugh and from what I understand they act the same one just happens after a models dies.

Once i get home from work i going to look at the rule book and me necron codex and figure it out lol

[Nachodragon]

Jaws removes from play, Last Laugh removes from play as casualty.

[WYSIWYG]

The way I've been playing it (and as the only necron player in my group they tend to defer to my judgement) there are four situations where you cannot make a reanimation protocols roll for a model with ever-living.

1. There is no room for the model to be placed.

2. The model died due to death or glory.

3. The model was still alive at the end of combat and was swept.

And 4. The model was removed from play by an ability that produces one or more other models (rippers from the parasite, spawn from gift of chaos/boon of mutation, etc.)

I agree with you on number 1 and number 4 was in the FaQ, but I don't understand your line of logic for 2 and 3. In situations 2 and 3 the model with ever-living is in fact removed from play, however the Ever-living rule stats "Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play." Its not that hard to understand, If the model is removed from play you put an Ever-living counter where the model was removed. In fact if Ever-living didn't work for things like Jaws, Death or glory, or being swept in assault, their would be no need for the clause about the model being placed within 3 inchs of the Ever-living counter after it makes it's Ever-living roll. Its pretty clear the intention of the rule is that the only way you could kill a model with Ever-living was:

A. The player fails his Ever-living roll.

or

B. The opponent surrounds the Ever-living counter making it impossible to place the model within 3 inchs of the counter.

Also for those using this section of the rule book to say that I can't get an Ever-living roll if swept in CC:
Page 40 “The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this state; for them the battle is over.”

Guess what folks, Codex trumps rule book, so this argument is invalid.

[SeattleDV8]

No it does do 'the same dam thing'.
JotWW 'removes from play'.
Last Laugh removes as a casualty.
No one (that I knew) had a problem with the models removed this way (old and new Codex) getting a WWB or RP roll.
The Last Laugh FAQ doesn't help us with JotWW, sweeping advance and other such effects that have a different wording.
Things that remove models from play and not remove as a casualty.




Guess what folks, Codex trumps rule book, so this argument is invalid.
Sigh... common misconception.
It is Specific trumps General.
In most cases that would be the Codices more specific rules over turning the BRB's general rules.
Sweeping Advance is one of the rules that have a VERY specific wording, no rule can overturn it unless the rule mentions SA.
With RP it doesn't matter, as the counters are removed when the unit falls back.
EL counters are not removed, but the downed character is no longer part of the unit, unlike the old codex and WWB.
The downed character is uneffected by rules that effect the unit.

[Nachodragon]

"The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this state; for them the battle is over.”

This does not say removed as a casualty, it is removed from the game. If you read the whole passage, to help clarify what they meant by removed, the models may not actually be dead, they could have just run away or be ripped to shreads. It doesn't really matter what happened to the unit but they are removed, and not removed as a casualty.

I would also say Death or Glory would remove the model too and you would not get to roll for ever-living. It does not say removed as Casualty.

[WYSIWYG]

No it does do 'the same dam thing'.
JotWW 'removes from play'.
Last Laugh removes as a casualty.
No one (that I knew) had a problem with the models removed this way (old and new Codex) getting a WWB or RP roll.
The Last Laugh FAQ doesn't help us with JotWW, sweeping advance and other such effects that have a different wording.
Things that remove models from play and not remove as a casualty.

He is correct, the Last Laugh FaQ does not help. We know we can get Reanimation Protocols and Ever-living rolls against things that remove models as casualties. What we need to know is whether or not Ever-living can be used if the model is removed from play by things like Jaws. Also we need to know if being swept in CC counts as being removed as a casualty or removed from play, and whether you can use Ever-living when being swept, or not. I can't see how it could be any other way truthfully, if Ever-living doesn't protect you from being swept or removed from play, it is a completely useless and redundant rule, as every model with Ever-living has Reanimation Protocols.

[WYSIWYG]

"The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this state; for them the battle is over.”

This does not say removed as a casualty, it is removed from the game. If you read the whole passage, to help clarify what they meant by removed, the models may not actually be dead, they could have just run away or be ripped to shreads. It doesn't really matter what happened to the unit but they are removed, and not removed as a casualty.

I would also say Death or Glory would remove the model too and you would not get to roll for ever-living. It does not say removed as Casualty.

Heres the problem with your statement, Ever-living doesn't say "If the model is removed as a Casualty, place an Ever-living counter." The Ever-living rule actually says "Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play." So you, in effect, are actually agree with us when we say that you can use Ever-living for things like Death or glory or being swept.

[Nachodragon]

Ok, now that I arrived at home and cracked open my codex...
These are verbatim from the codex.

Reanimation Protocol
"If a model with Reanimation protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance..."
Ever-Living
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

You can't discount the first sentence of Ever-living. It still has to be removed as a casualty.

[The Twilight Fade]

So the last laugh doesn't actually remove from play?

Damn, the thing is i've never been bothered about not being able to resurrect after a sweeping advance as that is ultimatly sort of avoidable. The main gripe I have is my 200+ point, initiative 2 IC can be sniped out of my unit from 24" away and there is very little that can be said about it!

I like how this issue came up with the old necron codex and had pages upon pages of back and forth arguments as to whether or not it can be used after a sweep and no-one is still none the wiser

[SeattleDV8]

Heh, we had an answer for the old codex, it's just a couple of people didn't like that answer.

[Wildeybeast]

Ok, now that I arrived at home and cracked open my codex...
These are verbatim from the codex.

Reanimation Protocol
"If a model with Reanimation protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance..."
Ever-Living
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

You can't discount the first sentence of Ever-living. It still has to be removed as a casualty.

But what is the difference between being removed as a casulty and not? The rulebook doesn't make clear what makes you count as a casulty. The best I can find is:
p24 "Casulties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some way. In any case they are no longer fit to particpate in the battle". So my interpretation would be that anything which removes you form the board and prevents you from taking further part in the battle turns you into a casulty, regardless of whether it says remove as a casulty or simply remove from play. How can you be removed from the board, no longer able to return and not be a casulty?
So, IMO, the only times you don't get everliving is if you are turned into something else (since you aren't removed from the board, your model simply becomes the enemy model) and if you fall back off the board (as the model cannot be placed back onto the board). Sweeping advance would give you everliving, providing you can place the model.
At least that's my interpretation, I would welcome counter arguments.

[WYSIWYG]

Ok, now that I arrived at home and cracked open my codex...
These are verbatim from the codex.

Reanimation Protocol
"If a model with Reanimation protocols rule is removed as a casualty, there is a chance..."
Ever-Living
"If a model with this special rule is removed as a casualty, do not add a Reanimation Protocols counter to its unit. Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play."

You can't discount the first sentence of Ever-living. It still has to be removed as a casualty.

Actually your reading it wrong, the first sentence is not telling you when, where or how to use Ever-living. The first sentence is telling the Necron player that he is not supposed to place a Reanimation Protocol counter as he normally would when a model with Ever-living is removed, the players is instead supposed to place an EL counter, which is different from a Reanimation Protocol counter. The first sentence simply serves the purpose of differentiating models with RP from models with EL, and informing the player that they are not to place a RP counter for a model with EL. "Instead place an Ever-living counter where the model was removed from play." The second sentence tells you when (model was removed from play), where (where the model was removed), and how (place an Ever-living counter). You see, the first sentence is simply telling you not to place a RP counter as normal, while the second is actually instructing you on how EL is played.

[Nachodragon]

You are reading it wrong. The first sentence tells you to not add a RP token and the second says to add an EL token. If you read it your way, then you would still not be able to place a EL token for removed from play. The second sentence start with INSTEAD so it is modifying the sentence previous. if you don't have that then you can't do squat. They have already clarified in the first sentence how the model was removed from play so they don't need to add 'as a casualty' again in the second sentence. Sure, I think they should have to make things SUPER easy to understand but we all know GW sucks at writing rules.

It should read for interpretation, "If a model with this special rule is removed in any way...." but it doesn't. So, anything that removes from play as a casualty gets a counter, and anything that removes from play does not. Sweeping, DoG, JAWs, etc.

[Wildeybeast]

You are reading it wrong. The first sentence tells you to not add a RP token and the second says to add an EL token. If you read it your way, then you would still not be able to place a EL token for removed from play. The second sentence start with INSTEAD so it is modifying the sentence previous. if you don't have that then you can't do squat. They have already clarified in the first sentence how the model was removed from play so they don't need to add 'as a casualty' again in the second sentence. Sure, I think they should have to make things SUPER easy to understand but we all know GW sucks at writing rules.

It should read for interpretation, "If a model with this special rule is removed in any way...." but it doesn't. So, anything that removes from play as a casualty gets a counter, and anything that removes from play does not. Sweeping, DoG, JAWs, etc.

And again I ask you define what makes a model a casulty and how you can be removed from play without becoming a casulty......

[Nachodragon]

That is the easy part. Look at what is 'killing' the unit. Jaws says remove from play. Death or glory remove from play. Shooting, removed as casualty. Assault, removed as casualty. Sweeping, removed from game. Read the full rules of the game and you will not have this problem.

There are still very important questions for Ever-living, but you guys are asking the wrong ones.

[Wildeybeast]

I have read the full rules thanks you, so don't patronise me. I ask you again, define what a casulty is. Give me a reference, from the rules, which explain what a casulty is, rather than making snide comments, defend your point. I understand full well that some things say remove as a casulty and some simply say remove from play. My contention is that since there is no clear definition of the state of being a casulty, there is no difference between being removed from play and removed as a casulty, the phrase casulty is simply an elaboration, not a rule.

[Nachodragon]

I don't need to define it as there are rules that state remove as casualty and rules that state remove from play. Ever-living and reanimation both state being removed as casualty. So, anything that says remove from play removes from play and does not get Ever-living. There are enough rules that state remove as casualty and they would get the ever-living. read my last post. Those rules state specifically remove from play or remove as casualty.

Also, I am not patronizing, but you are ignoring words in the rules and trying to say they don't matter. So, one can only assume you have not read the rules or are merely trolling.

These were never questions to ask.
Questions to ask,
1. What happens with two crypteks(or lords) and how does Ever-living work with them? Roll for first and put within 3" and the other in coherency? Or both just within 3" and possibly out of coherency?
2. Does Ever-living only work if the unit is wiped out completely?
3. If a you falls back and is still on the board does the EL model come up in coherency with them? Was it wiped out? Does it come back within 3" of the marker and most likely out of coherency and would not be able to rally if they brought the unit over 50%?

[Wildeybeast]

I am not ignoring words in the rules, far from it. I agree that 'casulty' is the key, but you are maintaining there is a difference between being removed as a casulty and simply removed. I agree that there are plenty of examples of both, but for you to assert that there is a difference between the two, you need to expalin what that difference is, beyond just saying 'some use and some don't so I don't need to explain it'. I'm not trolling nor trying to casue an argument, I'd just like you to give an explanation of why you think they are different, as I can't find an expalantion in the rules. If there is a key difference, surely it must be explained somewhere in the rules? Your assertion that you don't need to explain the difference simply leads one to think that you can't because there isn't a difference, at least not one explained in the rules, which I'm sure isn't the case. So if you have a rules backed explanation, please enlighten me. If I'm wrong, fair enough, just point me to something in the rules that clearly backs up your view.

[Nachodragon]

Pg 20 of the BRB. I am not able to copy the rule at the moment. But if you read under "Taking saving Throws" it will define removing as casualty.

Basically, (to simplify) anything that can have an armor/invul save is a casualty and says remove as casualty. Anything else is removed from the game. This is also dependent on the rule itself as some removed from game examples say remove as casualty. Flat-out immobilizing on your turn for instance, it says remove as casualty but there is no armor/invul saves for it. You can still place a EL marker for the overlord and hope you make your roll. (Incredibly amusing when this actually happens).

[Turner]

Let's take a step back, take a deep breath and pick up our 3rd Ed. Necron Codex, shall we?

Question: If a Necron warrior squad fails their moral check in CC and is swept do the remaining models get their "We'll Be Back Roll." ???

Answer:

Be careful where you tread, this was my argument from the very get go. I pointed to the 3rd Ed. Necron FAQ with Lukas the Tricker's Last Laugh power were you were literally removed from play yet still allowed a "We'll be back roll." I'm told that if something from a codex conflicts with the main rule book then the codex win's the day... Are we placing the model on it's side? What does it say...? Are we removing the model and replacing it with a token? What does that say? Doesn't sweeping advance state "removed as casualty" ??? Does it state that no armour saves, invul save or saves of any kind are allowed? What exactly does it say...

I'll admit that I entered at the end of 4th Ed. and played through up to right now and was astounded at the gaming community's answer to the "We'll be back" rule vs "Sweeping Advance" rule. I'm not saying the gaming community was right or wrong but the main argument I kept coming up against was "Well it's been do this way since the beginning so everyone can't be wrong." I couldn't find an instance in which GW came out and explicitly stated that "THIS IS HOW WE'LL BE BACK WORKS" except for the Space Wolf FAQ with Lukas the Tricker's Last Laugh. And basing it off that I assume that we simply "roll dice and declare stuff dead."

[Nachodragon]

Sorry, not sure why we need to take a step back and get more confused. The rules and FAQ are quite clear about Reanimation protocols and Ever-living. Let us not introduce rules from a previous codex and muddy up the waters. As I stated before RP and EL both say in the rules 'remove as casualty' and when something 'kills' a model it states whether that was as a casualty or not. This is again pretty clear.

What is not clear is this:
1. What happens with two crypteks(or lords) and how does Ever-living work with them? Roll for first and put within 3" and the other in coherency? Or both just within 3" and possibly out of coherency?
2. Does Ever-living only work if the unit is wiped out completely?
3. If a you falls back and is still on the board does the EL model come up in coherency with them? Was it wiped out? Does it come back within 3" of the marker and most likely out of coherency and would not be able to rally if they brought the unit over 50%?

There could be a couple more one-off instances that have not come up but for the most part the rules are quite clear about what gets a marker/laid on side/token.

[Wildeybeast]

Pg 20 of the BRB. I am not able to copy the rule at the moment. But if you read under "Taking saving Throws" it will define removing as casualty.

Basically, (to simplify) anything that can have an armor/invul save is a casualty and says remove as casualty. Anything else is removed from the game. This is also dependent on the rule itself as some removed from game examples say remove as casualty. Flat-out immobilizing on your turn for instance, it says remove as casualty but there is no armor/invul saves for it. You can still place a EL marker for the overlord and hope you make your roll. (Incredibly amusing when this actually happens).

I read p20, at no point does it define 'casulty'. In fact the only time it even uses the word is right at the start "Before he removes any models as casulties, the owning player can test to see whether his troops avoid the damage by taking a saving throw". Not really a definition, just that you get to take a saving throw before becoming a casulty. I don't really understand your argument. I get that anything which is capable of having a saving throw can become a casulty, but we still have no clear definition of being a casulty means, nor how a model becomes one nor what the difference is between being removed as casulty and simply being removed from play. Hence my assertion that it doesn't really matter, being a casulty is not a definite thing in the rules, simply a term for models removed from play.

[Nachodragon]

Everything that removes a model from play somehow has it written whether it is a casualty or not. RP and EL both say remove as casualty. It does not need to be defined any more than that. If you want to ignore words in rules and read them how you want then fine, just know this is why you can't pull any shenanigans at tournaments, because they will be reading these rules and using all of the words.

They don't need to define casualty because it is a word that is understood to mean what it means anywhere, "a member of the armed forces lost to service through death, wounds, sickness, capture, or because his or her whereabouts or condition cannot be determined. "

But let's put this in 40k terms. JAWs... removes the model from the board because it got swallowed in the warp, there is nothing to mark. Death or Glory, the model is ground to a fine metal mist and cannot repair. Sweeping advance says in the rules the models could have run away, so again no markers/tokens, they could have been killed as well, but doesn't matter, they are not there. None of these rules say remove as casualty. They say REMOVE FROM PLAY.

[Wildeybeast]

I'm not ignoring words in the rules, I'm not trying 'shenanigans', I don't play tournaments, nor do I play Necrons, so I don't really care, I just think it's an interesting rules point to debate, which is all I'm trying to do, my apologies if you took this discussion as something else. I get your point that there is a difference between being removed from play and as a casulty and I think there is intended to be one under RAI or else why not alays use the same term, and I agree with your RAI examples, but my contention is under RAW there is no clear definition of what that difference is, nor when you are/are not casulty (we should be able to work this out without each individual rule having to state). I would agree that it doesn't need defining under most circumstances as then end result is the same, but GW has decided to make it possible for models to be returned to play which makes it necessary. You still haven't been able to give a definition of this difference and IMO your assertion that it doesn't need to be isn't satisfactory, but as you clearly think I'm trolling/cheating/a moron, I'm prepared to concede that we won't agree and leave the discussion at that.

[Angelofblades]

Bringing this debate back to a level headed discussion:

@ Wildeybeast

Does Page 24 of the rulebook suffice for you, under the heading:

Remove Casualties


For every model that fails its save, the unit suffers an unsaved wound. Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted, such as those from weapons with very high AP. Most models have a single Wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is immediately removed from the table as a casualty. As long as all the models in the unit have the same profile, special rules, weapons and wargear, the player who owns the unit can choose which of his models is removed.

So a few things to take from this. Firstly, let's identify that the rulebook makes a distinction between Wounds and wounds. Where Wounds refers to the (W) profile for a unit/ model. Where wound, refers having caused a wound to the model, IE rolled to hit, roll to wound, then unsaved wound would also refer to the failed save.

So I would have to say, by this paragraph, it's evident that the definition of 'Casualty,' by the rule book, is when a model suffers enough unsaved wounds, that it's Wounds are reduced to 0 and it is removed from the table.

Lastly, girls that play 40k don't get to pick which of their models become casualties, since it says 'HIS' models - JOKE!

:P

[Tynskel]

Actually, since it says HIS model, the model actually doesn't die, according to RAW.

[Wildeybeast]

Bringing this debate back to a level headed discussion:

@ Wildeybeast

Does Page 24 of the rulebook suffice for you, under the heading:

Remove Casualties



So a few things to take from this. Firstly, let's identify that the rulebook makes a distinction between Wounds and wounds. Where Wounds refers to the (W) profile for a unit/ model. Where wound, refers having caused a wound to the model, IE rolled to hit, roll to wound, then unsaved wound would also refer to the failed save.

So I would have to say, by this paragraph, it's evident that the definition of 'Casualty,' by the rule book, is when a model suffers enough unsaved wounds, that it's Wounds are reduced to 0 and it is removed from the table.

Lastly, girls that play 40k don't get to pick which of their models become casualties, since it says 'HIS' models - JOKE!

:P

I think this is about the best we've got, but I'm still not happy with it. I agree with your interpretation of the rules, but it is just that, interpretation. Sadly it still isn't clearly defined in the rules. I can't think of any examples of this of the top of my head, but what happens if an ability says 'remove as a casulty' without causing wounds? E.g. you have to pass S test or be immeadiately removed as a casulty. Your interpretation makes sense and in the absence of a clear definition, it seems like a good way to go.

[Nachodragon]

Going flat out in a command barge and immobilizing yourself.

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

The overlord inside would be able to potentially come back with EL. I did this once too. Though he died next turn to some marines boots to the head....

[Angelofblades]

I think this is about the best we've got, but I'm still not happy with it. I agree with your interpretation of the rules, but it is just that, rules. Sadly it still isn't clearly defined in the rules. I can't think of any examples of this of the top of my head, but what happens if an ability says 'remove as a casulty' without causing wounds? E.g. you have to pass S test or be immeadiately removed as a casulty. Your interpretation makes sense and in the absence of a clear definition, it seems like a good way to go.

You don't have to be happy with it, but them's the rules. There are quite a few things I'm not happy about with the rules, but, we abide by them. Why? because them's the rules.

I don't see why you would think that paragraph doesn't clearly define what a casualty is, in the context of 40k. That paragraph is more than enough, imho.

Just because you are thinking of a scenario, which by the way, doesn't exist, yet or otherwise, that may throw off the definition, doesn't mean that it's not the definiton. That's probably why that scenario doens't exist in the game, because there are only 2 kinds of ways in which a model can be removed from the table. Either by becoming a casualty, IE Wounds down to 0, or removed from play. In this case, it's simply an either or scenario, since the scenario you are imagining doesn't exist, why take it into consideration at all. It's not pertinent to the actual discussion.

[Wildeybeast]

You don't have to be happy with it, but them's the rules. There are quite a few things I'm not happy about with the rules, but, we abide by them. Why? because them's the rules.

I don't see why you would think that paragraph doesn't clearly define what a casualty is, in the context of 40k. That paragraph is more than enough, imho.

Just because you are thinking of a scenario, which by the way, doesn't exist, yet or otherwise, that may throw off the definition, doesn't mean that it's not the definiton. That's probably why that scenario doens't exist in the game, because there are only 2 kinds of ways in which a model can be removed from the table. Either by becoming a casualty, IE Wounds down to 0, or removed from play. In this case, it's simply an either or scenario, since the scenario you are imagining doesn't exist, why take it into consideration at all. It's not pertinent to the actual discussion.

Ummm..... because it does exist?


Going flat out in a command barge and immobilizing yourself.

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.

The overlord inside would be able to potentially come back with EL. I did this once too. Though he died next turn to some marines boots to the head....

Thanks for the example Nachodragon, I thought there would be one somewhere. So in this case no wounds are inflicted yet they are removed as casulties. It's not that I don't like what the rules do, I just think they are badly written and unclear. And I would again like to emphasise that I'm not trying to cheat/not abide by the rules, I'm just pointing out that rules aren;t clear and asking if someone can define them. Following RAW, we haven't been able to get a clear defintion of what makes you a casulty, we just have to go with the fact that sometimes you are and sometimes you are not, based on what the particular rules says. It isn't a good way of solving this problem, but it seems to be the only one (and a reaosnable one IMO)

[Angelofblades]

Then you deduce, that in this case, remove as casualty ergo model has been reduced to 0 wounds.

In my previous post, the summary of that rule is simply

Model reduced to 0 Wounds = Casualty

Ergo

Casualty = Model reduced to 0 Wounds

If you notice the second sentence of that passage,

"Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted..."

At this point, it's no longer interpreting. It is abiding by RAW.

[keithsilva]

What I dont get is there is no real difference from the too honestly, being removed from play, u are being reduced to 0 wounds and removed from play, removed or not u are still a casualty regardless the rulebook honestly does not give a clear exsample of them of the two.

[Wildeybeast]

Then you deduce, that in this case, remove as casualty ergo model has been reduced to 0 wounds.

In my previous post, the summary of that rule is simply

Model reduced to 0 Wounds = Casualty

Ergo

Casualty = Model reduced to 0 Wounds

If you notice the second sentence of that passage,

"Of course this also includes wounds against which no save can be attempted..."

At this point, it's no longer interpreting. It is abiding by RAW.

Except of course that you aren't following RAW. At no point in this example does it mention losing wounds or being reduced to 0 wounds or anything to do with wounds or even that the model is any way injured or dead. Simply removed as a casulty. So if you contend that this example does actually reduce you to 0 wounds (despite at no point mentioning it in any way, shape of form), I can contend that anything which removes you from play does in fact reduce you to 0 wounds and thus there is no difference at all between 'removed as a casulty' and simply 'removed from play'. And your logic is flawed as it is circular and self perpetuating. You interpreted that anything reduced to 0 wounds is a casulty and then used that prove that something 'removed as a casulty' is reduced 0 wounds, regardless of what the rules in that particular case actually say.

Q: If a transport vehicle is destroyed in a Movement
phase in which it has moved flat out, what happens to
any embarked models, as passengers may not
disembark from a vehicle that has moved flat out in
that Movement phase? (p70)
A: They are removed as casualties.


What I dont get is there is no real difference from the too honestly, being removed from play, u are being reduced to 0 wounds and removed from play, removed or not u are still a casualty regardless the rulebook honestly does not give a clear exsample of them of the two.

That's my contention as there is no clear difference made in the rules, but others obviously disagree, which is fair enough. Though they've yet to provide me with a clear RAW example to prove there is a difference. I hope there is because I think there is meant to be a difference under RAI or else why the different wording.

[Col.Straken]

I took this to my local GW and they said it definatly needs FAQing but they play it as you get it against things that "destroy" you, then you get it, if it "teleports/removes" you then you don't.

For example: Jaws - you drop down a hole, can't repair because you sent there

Shattershard - you get smashed to pieces, can repair

Trans Beamer - you get teleported to another dimension, can't repair

Sweeping advance/death or glory - you get stomped/crushed etc. can repair.


Now this isn't 100% official but it is how the GW guys are playing it. So just something to think about.

[Tynskel]

oh my, it is as though they read the description! oh my gosh, it is as though the intent of the design solves the problem!

[Col.Straken]

oh my, it is as though they read the description! oh my gosh, it is as though the intent of the design solves the problem!

Thats exactly what they did and what they think. No need to be patronising, just trying to give an idea for people to use, and seeing as that's how the GW guys think a lot of people will agree with it.

At our local non-GW club we play it as anything that "removes from play" does exactly that, and you don't get Re-animation or ever living (unless they died in the combat and the unit got swept).

[Tynskel]

excuse my patronizing.
people have this argument over 'RAI' and 'RAW' when they are the sam thing.