For the next section, here is what looks like an example of how RAI gets claimed to be RAW. As far as I've been able to research this one, it is solid. It concerns the interpretation that there is a difference between "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" when pulling a model from the table. Now it has long been said that this is RAW and nothing can change it, but I first encountered it early in my 40k career with regards to Necrons and WBB (yes, the old Necron codex) vs. Sweeping Advance. Pretty much, everyone cited the line in the 5th Ed rules (and backed it up with the 4th Ed rules, a.k.a. last edition hangover) where models in a unit caught by Sweeping Advance were "removed from play", therefore WBB didn't work. Is this true? Well, not if you read the 5th Ed Sweeping Advance rules in context.
There is no difference between 5th & 6th Edition on sweeping advance.
Quote: If the winner’s total is equal or greater they catch the fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling back unit is destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over. Emphasis added.
Now, GW does not provide a glossary with its own definition of "casualty". Therefore, we assume standard English and go to the dictionary. Note that this is a wargame, so I use only the "Military" definitions.
Quote: .Military .
a. 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.
b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.
Looking back at the 5th Ed quote above, it tells us in the rules directly that all remaining members of the unit being swept are by definition casualties. Just quoting: "The destroyed unit is removed immediately.", is quoting out of context, and pretext for a proof text applies 100% against anyone who says that sweeps in 5th weren't casualties. For the old Necron codex, this meant that you could use the Tomb Spyder rules to WBB the swept Necrons under certain conditions.
Going further, I cannot find anywhere that GW officially defines "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty/removed as a casualty".
Something new I read was that you find "removed from play" in Phil Kelly codices, which I was able to check in C:SW and C: DE. JotWW (obviously), Hexrifles, and Shattershard. In each case, it is "removed from play" after a stat test with the last two adding the phrase "with no saves of any kind allowed". In fact, the last two are shooting attacks, while I've read JotWW superpowered killyness is because it isn't a regular shooting attack. OTOH, the Tesseract Labyrinth in C:N by Matt Ward with the exact same kind of stat test has virtually the same language "removed as casualty with no saves of any kind allowed." So we may be looking at simply different writing styles by different authors to say the same thing. (C:SW pg37, C: DE, pg61, C:N, pg82)
Several contradictions show up when trying to uniformly split "removed as casualty" vs. "removed from play" in several codices, but I'll restate some of them using the Necron codex this time, since we are studying the parsing of "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" as supposedly different events, ...well, I'm not going to get into the RP part of the rules, they seem to interchange the two phrases back and forth, but the funniest bit is the last, which says you cannot do RP when the unit is destroyed, but the trigger condition is when the last model has been "removed as a casualty", so technically if something that just "removed from play" hit them, they could still trigger RP even if no models are left because you cannot remove the RP counters if a difference exists between the two phrases! (C:N, pg29)
Add into that you place an EL counter where the model was removed from play. (C:N, pg29) Then the rule degenerates as you read further concerning the details of the EL model's placement back on the board unless "removed from play" = "removed as a casualty" ="removed from play as a casualty", because removed from play and removed as a casualty are used interchangeably.
Pretty much, if the Phil Kelly thing stands, then there is no logical claim to any difference between "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty". It is an artifact of different writers with different writing styles, NOT some kind of actual difference in game terms. Anyone have any contradicting sources?
If there are none, then what we have is a perfect example of RAI in a negative sense.
BTW, if you want to bring up various FAQs, I've read a number of them and I can explain their lack of relevance in a general sense although they do have some specific application to specific models and rules. I've also dealt with trying to define "casualty" out of the way GW wrote 5th Ed rules, which is amusing, ends up lacking relevance because if "casualty" is not defined directly in a glossary, then the dictionary definition must be used..
Quote: If the winner’s total is equal or greater they catch the fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling back unit is destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over. Emphasis added.
Now, GW does not provide a glossary with its own definition of "casualty". Therefore, we assume standard English and go to the dictionary. Note that this is a wargame, so I use only the "Military" definitions.
Quote: .Military .
a. 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.
b. casualties, loss in numerical strength through any cause, as death, wounds, sickness, capture, or desertion.
Looking back at the 5th Ed quote above, it tells us in the rules directly that all remaining members of the unit being swept are by definition casualties. Just quoting: "The destroyed unit is removed immediately.", is quoting out of context, and pretext for a proof text applies 100% against anyone who says that sweeps in 5th weren't casualties. For the old Necron codex, this meant that you could use the Tomb Spyder rules to WBB the swept Necrons under certain conditions.
Going further, I cannot find anywhere that GW officially defines "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty/removed as a casualty".
Something new I read was that you find "removed from play" in Phil Kelly codices, which I was able to check in C:SW and C: DE. JotWW (obviously), Hexrifles, and Shattershard. In each case, it is "removed from play" after a stat test with the last two adding the phrase "with no saves of any kind allowed". In fact, the last two are shooting attacks, while I've read JotWW superpowered killyness is because it isn't a regular shooting attack. OTOH, the Tesseract Labyrinth in C:N by Matt Ward with the exact same kind of stat test has virtually the same language "removed as casualty with no saves of any kind allowed." So we may be looking at simply different writing styles by different authors to say the same thing. (C:SW pg37, C: DE, pg61, C:N, pg82)
Several contradictions show up when trying to uniformly split "removed as casualty" vs. "removed from play" in several codices, but I'll restate some of them using the Necron codex this time, since we are studying the parsing of "removed as a casualty" and "removed from play" as supposedly different events, ...well, I'm not going to get into the RP part of the rules, they seem to interchange the two phrases back and forth, but the funniest bit is the last, which says you cannot do RP when the unit is destroyed, but the trigger condition is when the last model has been "removed as a casualty", so technically if something that just "removed from play" hit them, they could still trigger RP even if no models are left because you cannot remove the RP counters if a difference exists between the two phrases! (C:N, pg29)
Add into that you place an EL counter where the model was removed from play. (C:N, pg29) Then the rule degenerates as you read further concerning the details of the EL model's placement back on the board unless "removed from play" = "removed as a casualty" ="removed from play as a casualty", because removed from play and removed as a casualty are used interchangeably.
Pretty much, if the Phil Kelly thing stands, then there is no logical claim to any difference between "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty". It is an artifact of different writers with different writing styles, NOT some kind of actual difference in game terms. Anyone have any contradicting sources?
If there are none, then what we have is a perfect example of RAI in a negative sense.
BTW, if you want to bring up various FAQs, I've read a number of them and I can explain their lack of relevance in a general sense although they do have some specific application to specific models and rules. I've also dealt with trying to define "casualty" out of the way GW wrote 5th Ed rules, which is amusing, ends up lacking relevance because if "casualty" is not defined directly in a glossary, then the dictionary definition must be used..
RSS Feed