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

[Lykosan]

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. :|

Does the model have 0 wounds left/not on the field anymore? If the answer is yes, it is a casualty.

[Benjamin]

Does the model have 0 wounds left/not on the field anymore? If the answer is yes, it is a casualty.

Citation?

[Lykosan]

pg 24 small book, removing casulties section. Uses the terminolgy 'remove from the table' which is equivelent to remove from play. Yes this is in regards to wounds being suffered, but the outcome is the same as the model is no longer on the table.

[Benjamin]

I can see that argument of how the terms are meant to be similar, I really do. Here's another way to phrase it. Is a model subject to one of these instant removal effects removed from play or removed from play as a casualty?

One would have to assume, as written, that there's a difference between "removed from play" and "removed from play as a casualty". Otherwise, why write out the difference? Because GW uses different authors and poor editors? That's not really our fault, and we can't divine what any of them intended. The letter of the law is always the better path, because guessing others' intentions is unfalsifiable.

It's this type of rules parsing that might save my National League MVP butt from some serious steroid charges someday, gotta stay sharp!

[andalucien]

Well, as far as I know, there's also no rule, anywhere, that suggests that there IS a difference between "making a casualty" and "removing from play".   In other words, there's not an ability that says "remove the model from play, but don't consider it a casualty", nor is there an ability that says "this only works if the model becomes a casualty and not if it is removed from play by other means". 

I'm sure there are other examples of slightly different words being used to the same concept as well, like "Suffering a wound" and "taking a wound", "rolling for difficult terrain" vs. "making a difficult terrain check", etc.   True, nobody has a window into what GW really means, but subjectively, my take on it is: assuming there must be a difference between casualties and removal from play is reading intention into GW's words that isn't implied by the words themselves, and furthermore, it makes the rules a lot more complicated than they need to be and raises unanswerable questions about WHICH removals from play are casualties.

And OK,  we've now all officially thought about this way too much...

[keithb]

Well, as far as I know, there's also no rule, anywhere, that suggests that there IS a difference between "making a casualty" and "removing from play".   In other words, there's not an ability that says "remove the model from play, but don't consider it a casualty", nor is there an ability that says "this only works if the model becomes a casualty and not if it is removed from play by other means". 

How would you rule it then for a Deep strike mishap.  You never even made it to the table.  How does Reanimation protocol work there?  Where would you come back if you can?

[Frosthydra]

This is something that has plagued GW across all games, even in Fantasy.

If I have a spell that removes X models from the board, and that includes characters in the unit, do they get a "look out sir!" test?  That only functions if they take a wound, so by how it is written, no, they do not, since it just says "remove X models."

Most places treat it as wounds as a friendly rule, but technically, as it is written, the spell does just eat entire characters without any hope of survival.

If there were more clarifications on things like this all across all their games, it'd make things a lot easier for the players.  The fact that it is ruled as such in Fantasy makes me think that there is a definite distinction between "remove from play" and "remove from play as a casualty" in the minds of GW.

[keithb]

Of course there is a distinction,  there are words missing from one of them.

The language is not equal, and the meaning in not equal.  We can't (as not the rule writers) presume that different language means exactly the same thing.

[Moosifer]

Keith's post about deepstrike and everliving is how this ultimately should be ruled.  If you never make it to the table you cant use everliving and if you are removed from play you take no wounds and have everliving circumvented

[andalucien]

How would you rule it then for a Deep strike mishap.  You never even made it to the table.  How does Reanimation protocol work there?  Where would you come back if you can?

Good question.   Here's the wording for the consequence of a bad deep strike mishap: "The entire un t IS destroyed!"   So, if we're going to go strictly by the words used, this is actually a third form of unit elimination... "Removed from play", "removed as a casualty", and now "destroyed".   We either have to decide that these all mean the same thing, or that they all mean different things.

I think that in any case, the wording for Reanimation protocols might give us a bit of an easy out?   It kicks in when a model "is removed as a casualty". If a model was not ON the table in the first place, is it "removed" when it fails to deep strike in?  Maybe not.  

I think we are just kind of trying to make up a consistent set of rules at this point, because I don't think GW even thought about the interaction between deep strike mishapping and RP before the published the codex (just my guess).  

This is one of the downsides to not beta testing the way Privateer does.  A few people in a room just will never think of everything.

[Benjamin]

How would you rule it then for a Deep strike mishap.  You never even made it to the table.  How does Reanimation protocol work there?  Where would you come back if you can?

Hilarious! High fives, bro.

We either have to decide that these all mean the same thing, or that they all mean different things.

I can tell you at least that BG Plainville supports casual play with the same rules as they'd use for any tournament, and BG uses INAT. If you want a casual game with whatever rules you prefer and your opponent agrees to them, of course that's fine. But we'll never fix GW.

I think that in any case, the wording for Reanimation protocols might give us a bit of an easy out?   It kicks in when a model "is removed as a casualty". If a model was not ON the table in the first place, is it "removed" when it fails to deep strike in?  Maybe not.

That's no easy out. If anything, it either supports the possibilities models can be taken away from play as "not casualties", aside from removing them as casualties; or it supports murky rules language.

I think we are just kind of trying to make up a consistent set of rules at this point, because I don't think GW even thought about the interaction between deep strike mishapping and RP before the published the codex (just my guess).

Oh, this is very likely.

This is one of the downsides to not beta testing the way Privateer does.  A few people in a room just will never think of everything.

Yup.

[Loranus]

Reanimation Protocols would revive the unit where they were destroyed if you were destroyed off the table. Deep Strike Mishap would mean that you would revive off the table essentially being destroyed anyways.

I think this applies to Jaws and Boon. The Model is removed from play it would revive out of play therefore it would be destroyed upon revival.

[Moosifer]

Reanimation Protocols would revive the unit where they were destroyed if you were destroyed off the table. Deep Strike Mishap would mean that you would revive off the table essentially being destroyed anyways.

I think this applies to Jaws and Boon. The Model is removed from play it would revive out of play therefore it would be destroyed upon revival.

I like where your head is at Pat, but you are going in circles on the explanation

Removed from play = You done, toast, kaput, do not pass go do not collect revivification.

As for the deep strike question, Keith I swear I heard us talking about that before