Lukas the Trickster+Heirophant

[eyescrossed]

So, Lukas the Trickster's Last Laugh rule states that a model in base contact with him when he dies is "removed from the board as a casualty", and the Gargantuan Creature rules state that "any attack that would kill the GC outright (but not Instant Death) causes D3 wounds to the Gargantuan Creature".

 

One half argues that "removed from the board as a casualty" is not a version of "killed outright", but I'll bold the important bit: "Removed as a casualty"

 

So, what does everybody think of this? I think it's quite simple; the GC rule would be quite redundant since I don't think anything that "kills outright" specifically states "kills outright", simply "removed from the board" or "loses all remaining rules", and, doesn't casualty imply that it's killed outright?

 

Maybe it's just me.

 

Your thoughts?

[traitor_dice]

ok

 

casualty (from the rulebook, not a dictionary or other source)

"casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. in any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle"

 

this means a casualty is not necessarilly dead (argue all you want, its stated by the rulebook)

 

the term "killed outright" specifically states and implies the unit is killed.

 

the stasis grenade states "....is removed as a casualty"

 

thus, by the rulebook's definition, is not dead.

 

this creates other various problems, and breaks the system, because of definitions used by killpoints and lowering a model's wounds to below 0, so as much as it breaks the system, its the nitty-gritty of it.

[Spacefrisian]

I dont really see a problem here the hierophant is removed from play without any wounds taken. Just accept it.

[shrike22]

"casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some other way. in any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle"

 

this means a casualty is not necessarilly dead (argue all you want, its stated by the rulebook)

 

Yes, it means that it is not necessarilly dead - FLUFF WISE. Game terms, they're treated as dead. You (as a generalization) need to be able to seperate fluff from rules. Its just like the people who claim the chapter master doesn't as firing the OB because its "from a strike cruiser" <--- Fluff. Not valid. Just like the above quote.

[traitor_dice]

no, it actually gives that as the definition of casualty in the rulebook. and even following your line of arguement, it means virtually the same thing in the english language, and im quite certain the rules/fluff is written useing the english definitions and language, so the arguement still stands.

 

 

plus, after reading the GC rule:

"any attack that would kill the GC outright (but not Instant Death) causes D3 wounds to the Gargantuan Creature".

 

last laugh is a special rule, not an attack.

 

for the casualty arguement fleshed out:

 

Eyescrossed says:

find me the english definition for stasis grenade and heirophant bio titan... I can't seem to find them

because for all we know

a heirphant might not be able to die

traitor_dice says:

no, the rules themself, or failing that the fluff define them

difference is that there IS an english definition for casualty, and the term casualty IS used in the rules

and the only alternative definition to the english one in the dictionary is the one offered in the rulebook

which is the one i quoted.

 

edited to clarify, and reflect others posts.

[eyescrossed]

I dont really see a problem here the hierophant is removed from play without any wounds taken. Just accept it.

You know, this post shows either

a: how old you are

or

b: how immature you are

 

Either way, if you can't add any reason to what your point of view is and why you think it's removed, ++Edited.I. ++.

 

Also, your name tends to make me think you play Space Wolves... Your opinion isn't justified because you play them, is it?

 

EDIT: I just saw two things; one, that you're from the Netherlands (language barriers probably made me read your post as rude) and that you do, in fact, play Space Wolves.

 

++ Edited for poor attitude and unnecessary language directed towards another B&C member. I ++

[Frosty the Pyro]

GW uses the terms killed and causulty interchangably in their rules. For proof look at pg 52 of codex chaos deamons. Heirophants imunity covers Last laugh, and rightfully so. Whats more interesting is what would happen to a vehicle/superheavy vehicle.

[traitor_dice]

GW uses the terms killed and causulty interchangably in their rules. For proof look at pg 52 of codex chaos deamons. Heirophants imunity covers Last laugh, and rightfully so. Whats more interesting is what would happen to a vehicle/superheavy vehicle.

 

which brings more problems, as again the codexs/rules are written in the english language, and casualty and killed have quite different meanings, thus if casualty and killed are interchangable, it means either:

 

A.they both have the same meaning, which if its the same as casualty, the arguement still stands, and possibly causes other problems. if casualty uses the same meaning as killed, then the "killed outright" rule itself, as worded in the rulebook becomes broken.

 

B. the term casualty would be void and incorrect if that were the case anyway, as by both the english language and the rulebook the definition is different, and if they meant the same they either wouldn't have/shouldn't have even needed/used the term casualty, and/or changed it to something such as dead.

 

again though,

 

"any attack that would kill the GC outright (but not Instant Death) causes D3 wounds to the Gargantuan Creature".

 

last laugh is a special rule, not an attack.

[chapter master 454]

I personally would believe D3 wounds are sliced off the bio-titan, it is a special attack that would normally instant death/remove all wounds from/kill outright/ slay without further use for the model, a bio-titan, who is a GC which therefor the special rules of a GC clearly state anything in the previous selections and definations of instant death are turned in D3 wounds upon the model instead of causing instant death or one of it's variant names.

 

Hope that helps. Sometimes RAI is better than RAW

[eyescrossed]

...You know, this post shows either

a: how old you are

or

b: how immature you are

 

Either way, if you can't add any reason to what your point of view is and why you think it's removed, just piss off...

 

Dude, while I may agree with your point of view, resorting to uncouth language and belittling personal comments is neither helpful nor acceptable.

 

And ironically enough, it kind of turns your comments around to reflect on you.

Sorry, in Australia, saying "piss off" isn't meant to insult - it's sorta just saying "please go away" or "you're joking". At least where I live.

 

Also... Well to be honest, it's probably because I'm 14 and was posting at 2 in the morning.

 

 

I personally would believe D3 wounds are sliced off the bio-titan, it is a special attack that would normally instant death/remove all wounds from/kill outright/ slay without further use for the model, a bio-titan, who is a GC which therefor the special rules of a GC clearly state anything in the previous selections and definations of instant death are turned in D3 wounds upon the model instead of causing instant death or one of it's variant names.

 

Hope that helps. Sometimes RAI is better than RAW

Hmm... Well maybe I'm at fault here, because I'm reading the rule exactly like this.

[traitor_dice]

well, as far as RAI goes, yes, it would probably just cause D3 wounds.

However, this particular rules question has shown that some people can't accept that ( see http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...;#entry2162024)

with that intention, i simply took the rules, and went to the RAW in the most extreme no-BS way.

if you want to see why i did this, and what my view on it is, again see http://www.bolterandchainsword.com/index.p...p;#entry2162024

 

my opinion is there, i only took it this far becaue i believe some people still wouldn't accept the RAI or more basic RAW solution.

 

the fact of the matter is, for any anal rules lawyers:

 

in this particular situation, there is actually no resolution, as when you take it that far the wording, terms and definitions used cause the game system to become broken.

 

simple. as. that.

 

which is why in the other thread i originally suggested a more RAI friendly solution.

 

any players who had some common sense and half a brain between them could see that, and then make a more appropriate decision (I.E rolling off to see whose solution they use for the battle)

 

the unfortunate fact is that it seems some players haven't quite reached this level of maturity yet, hence the rules lawyering. this is shown by the persistence and blatant refusal to see the other sides point, or even stop to contemplate the intention of the rules.

 

/end rant.

[Grey Mage]

Id say you need to talk to your opponent about it- I would recommend d3 wounds as a nice in between idea- as part of the heirophant is stasis'fied and the rest rips it off and carries on.

 

Or you could count it as a void grenade that doesnt scatter or keep going... as a good house rule.

 

As it is, its a Grey Area... and thats ok.

[Hellios]

Or you could count it as a void grenade that doesnt scatter or keep going... as a good house rule.

 

This is quoted for this is what God intended when he wrote the rule on the 7th day.

[Narthecium]

Yeah the great thing about Apoc is you can make up so many of your own rules so long as it's all good with everyone there. Personally I would say that removing it as a casualty for game sense is the same as killing outright, and thus I'd feel that D3 wounds would be acceptable. I mean, considering that my one little upgrade character is taking D3 wounds off your big mean gribbly simply because he DIED, I'm just fine with that.

 

But if it came down to a time where you guys couldn't decide, I'm simply say dice it off. If he wins, the thing is removed from the table. If you win, it takes D3 wounds. Either way he's coming out ahead imo.

[Isiah]

the fact of the matter is, for any anal rules lawyers:

in this particular situation, there is actually no resolution, as when you take it that far the wording, terms and definitions used cause the game system to become broken.

 

the unfortunate fact is that it seems some players haven't quite reached this level of maturity yet, hence the rules lawyering. this is shown by the persistence and blatant refusal to see the other sides point, or even stop to contemplate the intention of the rules.

 

/end rant.

 

Remember the OR section is the debate/discussion rules from a RAW standpoint. If they don't resolve using RAW fair enough and the problem rule can go into the Grey Area topic stickied at the top of this section. Gamewise if you can't resolve it then dice for it or by all means House rule it too as has been suggested.

 

What we are not here to do is judge players maturity or lack of it in terms of rules interpretation – or for that matter second-guess the RAI which is sometimes equally contentious in some cases.

 

Cheers

I

[traitor_dice]

All I'm trying to say is that people should use RAI in this situation, or roll off to decide the outcome.

useing RAW is fine, but when you and your opponent have differing opinions, it isn't likely to get you anywhere, at least in this situation. I tried to show the RAW POV in the most extreme in the hopes that people who would otherwise spend time argueing rather than playing would read it and see how the RAW works out without all the argueing in between.

[shrike22]

Well, seeing as you keep pressing the fact that its not neccesarily dead, if this ever happens, i'll do the following: give into our definition of casulty as not being dead, instead, i'll give into the "rules" of your argument. I'll take the GC and then.... i'm going to move it to the clostest piece of terrain. Upon reaching the terrain the GC will then "hide". I'm going to put the piece of terrain ontop of the GC, after all, its neccesarily dead, just hiding or mortaly wounded.

[traitor_dice]

Well, seeing as you keep pressing the fact that its not neccesarily dead, if this ever happens, i'll do the following: give into our definition of casulty as not being dead, instead, i'll give into the "rules" of your argument. I'll take the GC and then.... i'm going to move it to the clostest piece of terrain. Upon reaching the terrain the GC will then "hide". I'm going to put the piece of terrain ontop of the GC, after all, its neccesarily dead, just hiding or mortaly wounded.

 

i really couldnt care less, because it makes no difference, as by any definition, "casualty" also means its unable to fight, so you'd just have a random GC hiding under a piece of terrain, which other than looking funny, wouldnt achieve much.

[eyescrossed]

Well, seeing as you keep pressing the fact that its not neccesarily dead, if this ever happens, i'll do the following: give into our definition of casulty as not being dead, instead, i'll give into the "rules" of your argument. I'll take the GC and then.... i'm going to move it to the clostest piece of terrain. Upon reaching the terrain the GC will then "hide". I'm going to put the piece of terrain ontop of the GC, after all, its neccesarily dead, just hiding or mortaly wounded.

 

i really couldnt care less, because it makes no difference, as by any definition, "casualty" also means its unable to fight, so you'd just have a random GC hiding under a piece of terrain, which other than looking funny, wouldnt achieve much.

Actually, it would give cover and/or block LoS.

[Frosty the Pyro]

GW uses the terms killed and causulty interchangably in their rules. For proof look at pg 52 of codex chaos deamons. Heirophants imunity covers Last laugh, and rightfully so. Whats more interesting is what would happen to a vehicle/superheavy vehicle.

 

which brings more problems, as again the codexs/rules are written in the english language, and casualty and killed have quite different meanings, thus if casualty and killed are interchangable, it means either:

 

A.they both have the same meaning, which if its the same as casualty, the arguement still stands, and possibly causes other problems. if casualty uses the same meaning as killed, then the "killed outright" rule itself, as worded in the rulebook becomes broken.

 

B. the term casualty would be void and incorrect if that were the case anyway, as by both the english language and the rulebook the definition is different, and if they meant the same they either wouldn't have/shouldn't have even needed/used the term casualty, and/or changed it to something such as dead.

 

again though,

 

"any attack that would kill the GC outright (but not Instant Death) causes D3 wounds to the Gargantuan Creature".

 

last laugh is a special rule, not an attack.

 

 

Casualty and killed being (game wise) the same does not cause any rules to become broken. When something is killed outright, it becomes removed as a casualty. Nothing is broken. There are however rules that become broken of you do not consider casualty to be killing (again from a rules standpoint). For example Epidemius The tallyman of Nurgle (codex: chaos daemons pg 52).

 

It is RAW that the gargantuan creature is not removed due to lukas, he takes 1d3 wounds. Examples given in the rule book are (old) force weapons, attacks that kills on the result of a failed characteristic test, etc.

 

a Deamonhunters force weapon (codex deamonhunters pg 17) uses the term "If the test is passed the oponent is slain outright, no matter how many wounds it has"

For an example of one that is on a failed characteristic test you can look at Boon of mutation which on a failed toughness test "the target is transformed into a shapeless blob of flesh and removed as a casualty" (codex chaos daemons pg 73)

 

Gargantuan creatures imunity extends to these things, and extends to lukas.

[shrike22]

so you'd just have a random GC hiding under a piece of terrain, which other than looking funny, wouldnt achieve much.

 

everything i do, i do "for the lulz" :D

[Frosty the Pyro]

so you'd just have a random GC hiding under a piece of terrain, which other than looking funny, wouldnt achieve much.

 

everything i do, i do "for the lulz" :)

This is a man who knows whats greatest in life.

[traitor_dice]

what! how'd that heirophant get inside that building? musta been some kind of tactical geni-

CREEEEEED!

[chapter master 454]

so you'd just have a random GC hiding under a piece of terrain, which other than looking funny, wouldnt achieve much.

 

everything i do, i do "for the lulz" :wacko:

 

Someones been listening to too much 'Imma firing my lazor' song. You brother must be cleansed or I shall subject you to more terrifying forces (like caramelldansen: WITH FEMALE ULTRAMARINE DANCER!)

 

RAW = rule lawyer

RAI = gamer

[LPetersson]

Your thoughts?

 

I think my house mate said it best when he said that he is going to put something very heavy in his Hierophants base, so if anyone tries that on him, he can bash them around the face with it until they stop that silliness.

I then suggested building his hierophant around a bowling ball for extra power.

 

Anyone who seriously tries this really ought to be laughed at. D3 wounds, and be happy with it :-)