Ruling request: can you Resurrection Protocols back from a Jaws of World Wolf?

[andalucien]

The language seems pretty ambiguous to me... the RP rule says that it works on "casualties", so it's all about what a "casualty" actually is and whether Jaws causes them.   

Here are some things that ARE casualties according to various rules and FAQs:

Dying from failing a save with 1 wound left
Being in flat out vehicle when it destroys itself
Getting turned into a chaos spawn from Gift of Chaos / Boon of Mutation (though the Necron FAQ says RP doesn't work on THESE casualties)
Getting sucked into a Vortex from Lukas the Tricker's "Last Laugh"

But nothing specifically says that  Jaws causes casualties, or directly mentions whether RP works on Jaws

[Bill]

Unfortunately jaws does not cause casualties, it removes models from play. This leaves the consensus being that you cannot RP from it.

[andalucien]

Cool thx Bill.

[andalucien]

OK - FYI, the INAT FAQ has stepped in here:



SW.37H.04 – Q: Do models removed from play by Jaws
of the World Wolf count as casualties?
A: Yes they do [clarification].
Ref: DE.60E.05/DE.61C.01/DE.61G.0

So RP would work against it.

[Benjamin]

Huh, that's strange. I believe that's the only counter to any instant removal abilities. I can abide by the rule, but I don't agree with it.

Even stranger is when Boon of Mutation occurs. When a Toughness test is failed, the model is removed as a casualty *or* replaced by a Chaos Spawn. Presumably, if replaced by a Chaos Spawn, Reanimation Protocols would not work, since the model specifically is subject to an effect different than removal as a casualty.

[Chase]

Woooo!  40k!!

[Loranus]

Woooo!  40k!!

+5 interwebs Chase

[Ed]

I like where this thread is going.

[Bill]

Yeah I'm not really sure how they could make that ruling. Makes zero sense to me but W/E

[andalucien]

IMHO, no one at Games Workshop ever meant to distinguish between the concept of a casualty and removing a model from play.  I think that some writers say "casualty" sometimes, and other writers say "removed from play" other times, but no one really every meant to say that some forms of removing from play are casualties and others aren't.   My guess would be that when you  remove a model from play, that's a casualty.  There just isn't anyone over at GW that is enforcing consistent language across their publications...

About the Boon of Mutation thing - the Necron FAQ does specifically say that Resurrection Protocols doesn't work if the model is replaced by another model, so that's covered and works the way you would think...

[Benjamin]

GW bones themselves into a corner really by having these removal abilities that do not inflict wounds. That is from where the conceptual confusion stems. That, and having many different authors, careless editors and an apathy toward errata and older armies.

[Lykosan]

IMHO, no one at Games Workshop ever meant to distinguish between the concept of a casualty and removing a model from play.  I think that some writers say "casualty" sometimes, and other writers say "removed from play" other times, but no one really every meant to say that some forms of removing from play are casualties and others aren't.   My guess would be that when you  remove a model from play, that's a casualty.  There just isn't anyone over at GW that is enforcing consistent language across their publications...

Crucible of Malediction and Hexrifle, Current Edition Codex, remove the model from play.

Removing a model from play gets around eternal warrior, that is the distinction, remember the old Nemesis Force Weapons.

[Benjamin]

Removing a model from play gets around eternal warrior...

This is true, but it's not a way to separate the difference between remove as casualty and remove from play, if there is a difference. Either way, there isn't a clear distinction from GW.

I imagine 6th Edition is the soonest this issue could be settled. :|

[GossWeapon]

You could always just ask the TO/opponent how they want to approach it until the actual gw ruling happens.

[Benjamin]

You could always just ask the TO/opponent how they want to approach it until the actual gw ruling happens.

Battleground is using INAT for the foreseeable future, so that's how it'll play out here. In other places, it's worth asking. Gotta keep the judges on their toes.