Tervigon backlash and Jaws of the wolf

[teohell]

Hi all

during the last game, a tervigon was touched by the 24" line of the Jaws drawn from the SW librarian

she tested and falied, but as she was surrounded by gaunts, we wondered whether the gaunts should take the 3d6 F3 hits or not

 

in fact, the two rules don't match:

"whenever a tervigon is slain, [...]"

"[...] if the model fails the test, it is removed from play."

 

so, it's not clear whether the model is slain or not, because it doesn't state "removed as a casualty" but just "removed"

 

what do you think?

 

cheers, teo

[Legatus]

I would say "is killed", "is slain", "is removed as a casualty", "is removed", "is removed from play" are all pretty much synonymous as far as the rules are concerned.

 

BRB, p. 6, 'Wounds':

"Wounds show how much damage a creature can take before it either dies or is so badly hurt it can't fight any more."

 

BRB, p. 24, 'Remove Casualties':

"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. (...)

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

 

That does read to me like a model being "incapacitated" in whatever way and it "being removed" are mostly the same.

[dswanick]

My RAI opinion is that the word used is irrelavent, the model is being removed from the game so triggers the effect.

[breng77]

I would say "is killed", "is slain", "is removed as a casualty", "is removed", "is removed from play" are all pretty much synonymous as far as the rules are concerned

 

except that they are not the same. As Eternal warrior does not prevent being removed from play. I belive RAI is probably yes the effect does trigger. RAW I'm not so sure. Then again JoWW is one of the most poorly written powers in the game, so...

[teohell]

I agree on RAI is the same, but RAW is not really the same, in fact in many other codex/faqs when "is removed" is in effect, it's always accompanied by "as a casualty"

 

we went for a 4+ but I would like to know how to solve next time in an agreeable manner

 

cheers, teo

[Dan VK]

I cannot find any evidence to support either interpretation with RAW. The problem is Should a Tervigon be slain, ... (Tyranid Codex p52). What does ‘slain’ mean? Is it considered ‘slain’ if it is removed from play (Space Wolves Codex p37)? ‘Slain’ and ‘removed from play’ are both undefined, meaning that any rule in which they are used is ambiguous at best and incomprehensible at worst. If I was playing in public I would discuss the rules with my opponent before the game and settle the problem with a roll-off. I would make a House Rule for playing with friends. The Tervigon and Jaws of the World Wolf need to be clarified in their respective Codex FAQs.

 

As much as I loathe discussing RAI, if one assumes the designers of the Tyranid Codex were familiar with the intent of the designers of the BRB then ‘slain’ most likely covers ‘removed from the table’. 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. (BRB p24) I believe it is reasonable to consider being entirely swallowed by the ground to be synonymous with 'incapacitated in some other way' and ‘no longer fit to participate’.

[Grey Mage]

Indeed, I dont think I could in good conscience say anything other than 'yes, its slain'.

[teohell]

let's consider another example of "removed form play", such as the case where a model is forced to withdraw out of the table; in this case the model is "removed from the table"

I know the tervigon cannot withdraw, but powers like that of the C'tan can force her out of the table.

Would you say that in such a case that the gaunts suffer the 3d6 hits?

 

I think the withdrawal out of the table and the JoWW power are pretty much the same, because do not cause wound (as per SW faqs), and if in the case of JoWW one would say ok, it's slain, trigger the effect, it's not so clear when she's forced out of the table

 

I think the explanation is not so simple and that such issue should be clarified by a games designer

 

cheers, teo

[Legatus]

Hm, that is an excellent question. usually when a model is removed, it is also considered to be 'dead' (or 'incapacitated'). I would say that is the case with JotWW as well, as it describes the target plumetting to their deaths. In case of retreating off the table that is one instance where removing the models does not represent them diying but instead merely moving away and no longer participating in the game.

 

Anotehr example would be a loyalist Librarian with Gate of Infinity. Using that power the model is "removed from the table", but is then placed somewhere else. This "removing" is not him being killed.

 

I would say under normal circumstances "removed" = "killed", but there are a few instances where "removed" merely means "moved out of game area".

 

E.g. Retreating from the board --> moving out of game area

 

using Gate of Infinity --> moving out of game area (and then back in)

 

losing last wound --> removed = killed (incapacitated)

 

being affected by Gift of Chaos --> removed = killed (incapacitated)

 

being affected by a force weapon --> removed = killed (incapacitated)

 

being affected by Jaws of the World Wolf --> removed = killed (incapacitated)

[Tzimisce169]

Personally I would say no to this. The tervigon is slain but not within the proximity of the termagants. In essence it just ceases to exist and so does not cause any backlash

[Dan VK]

Personally I would say no to this. The tervigon is slain but not within the proximity of the termagants. In essence it just ceases to exist and so does not cause any backlash

:)

 

In game terms, if 'removed from play' is considered equivalent to 'slain' the Tervigon is 'slain' when and where it is removed from the table. The Tervigon is not removed from the table and 'slain' when it is put on a shelf or in a case, far away from the Termagants, or simply never 'slain' at all since it escaped the battlefield via player tampering.

 

In fluff terms, the Termagants witness the ground swallow the Tervigon, at which point the synaptic connection is abruptly severed, damaging the pitifully weak minds of the brood beasts.

[Frosty the Pyro]

Indeed, I dont think I could in good conscience say anything other than 'yes, its slain'.

 

indeed. Of course I would find it hard to use JoTWW vs MC in good concience either, so I guess its a moot point for me.

[Algesan]

let's consider another example of "removed form play", such as the case where a model is forced to withdraw out of the table; in this case the model is "removed from the table"

 

<snip>

 

I think the explanation is not so simple and that such issue should be clarified by a games designer

 

cheers, teo

 

They already did clarify it.

pg 24: lists dead, unconscious, injured or otherwise incapacitated

pg 40: lists dead, wounded, captured, fleeing and hiding.

pg 45: lists scatters and deserts

 

Note that the first two list types of casualties from violence and the last one lists a non-violent type of casualty as its only option. All casualties, but the chance of being "slain" only applies to the first two.

[SeattleDV8]

Casualties are caused by unsaved wounds.

BRB pg. 24

"Most models have a single wound on their profile, in which case for each unsaved wound one model is removed as a casualty."

"...any model in the target unit can be hit,wounded and taken off as a casualty,..."

JotWW does not cause wounds.

BRB FAQ

"Q. Does Jaws of the World Wolf allow cover

saves?

A. No – you could take a cover save if the power

caused wounds, but as it does not cause wounds,

no cover saves are allowed."

PG. 40 "The falling back unit is destroyed"

Pg. 45 Fall Back

"...the entire unit is removed from the game and counds as destroyed,..."

Trapped

"If the unit cannot preform a full fall back move..<snip>..., it is destroyed."

No mention of wounds or casualties.

 

I agree that JotWW should trigger the Tervigon's rule, just not that it causes casualty.

[MrBlack]

I personally would say the effect does not trigger, my reasoning being there is a difference in minute terms, and GW has gone this way in the past.

 

Example being the Daemonhunters Force Weapons, which can bypass Eternal Warrior due to the fact they "slay outright" and do not cause "Instant Death".

 

To me this is a similar scenario, a model is not being "killed" or "slain" it is being "removed from game" and would not trigger effects from the previous due to the manor in which it is worded.

 

To me both scenarios are the same.

[Algesan]

I don't see anywhere in the quotes from pg 24 where it says "a casualty is only an unsaved wound". The closest we come to a general definition of casualty is the last sentences of the section: "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way [sic]. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." No mention of unsaved wounds there.

 

Of course, we can then pop over to pg 39 (the other index listing for the word "casualty") and we read: "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."

 

So all the pg 24 stuff is defined by reference on pg 39 as shooting casualties. As in, casualties caused specifically by shooting. So all that has been managed, at best, is a definition of casualties cause by firepower, not a general definition of casualty.

 

The conclusion that even though JotWW doesn't cause a casualty, but still counts as the Tervigon being "slain" contradicts your entire position. It is isn't consistent. (Note: It doesn't matter what I think of the JotWW/Tervigon issue, this is only about the self-contradiction in the post.)

[Dan VK]

CASUALTIES

Each model can take a certain number of Wounds (W) before it is slain and removed from the table. BRB page xiii

 

By the language used, it now seems clear to me that 'slain' roughly means "removed from the table after suffering unsaved wounds," which is not the case with JotWW. I believe I stand corrected.

 

 

[EDIT: I replaced the previous contents of this post because they were incorrect and therefore irrelevant.]

[SeattleDV8]

I don't see anywhere in the quotes from pg 24 where it says "a casualty is only an unsaved wound". The closest we come to a general definition of casualty is the last sentences of the section: "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way [sic]. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." No mention of unsaved wounds there.

Why would it need to? The Unsaved wounds were mentioned three times in the Remove Casualties section that this bit of fluff is part of.

 

Of course, we can then pop over to pg 39 (the other index listing for the word "casualty") and we read: "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."

 

So all the pg 24 stuff is defined by reference on pg 39 as shooting casualties. As in, casualties caused specifically by shooting. So all that has been managed, at best, is a definition of casualties cause by firepower, not a general definition of casualty.

No , that shows that assault follws the same rules.

 

The conclusion that even though JotWW doesn't cause a casualty, but still counts as the Tervigon being "slain" contradicts your entire position. It is isn't consistent. (Note: It doesn't matter what I think of the JotWW/Tervigon issue, this is only about the self-contradiction in the post.)

That would be true if I believed that all 'removed from play' effects were casualties.

I have pointed out several rules that 'remove from play' , 'slay outright' or 'destroy' without causing casualties.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

How do we know that the Tervigon is dead from JotWW? Maybe it just falls in the pit and theres a dinner party?

[Dan VK]

How do we know that the Tervigon is dead from JotWW? Maybe it just falls in the pit and theres a dinner party?

The same could be said for a failed Dangerous Terrain test (the Tervigon is harmlessly catapulted into the sky by the anti-tank mine and lands on a passing Land Speeder, where it immediately begins a Jazz recital!) or a Daemonhunter's Force Weapon (the Tervigon's consciousness is tossed into the Warp where it has tea with the Emperor before being returned to its body, unharmed, after the battle). The details of the fluff and player imaginings are irrelevant; the terms 'slain', 'casualty', and 'removed from play' are important. For example, I prefer to imagine that all wounded Space Marines activate their sus-an membranes and are merely unconscious until the end of the battle, at which point they are retrieved by the Chapter and receive medical attention. This does not change the fact each Space Marine is a 'casualty' for all game purposes.

 

 

[EDIT: Curse you BOBMAKENZIE, I cannot get the image of a singing Tervigon tap-dancing on a Land Speeder out of my head! ;)]

[Grey Mage]

Reposted here for simplicity:

 

This may be have not been clarified as it falls under GW's "What? Are you daft?" mentality about their rulesets. =(

 

To paraphrase someone who knew a thing or two: GW doesnt tell you that you have to check the top of the die for the number either.

 

 

Heres a question then- would you consider a tervigon hit by Jaws to have given up a kill point? Do you think theres even a single person worth playing on this ball or rock that would argue that point?

 

Guess what- the rules for KPs say 'completely destroyed'. Even going with 'squares and rectangles' something thats been completely destroyed is certainly a casualty.

[Algesan]

I don't see anywhere in the quotes from pg 24 where it says "a casualty is only an unsaved wound". The closest we come to a general definition of casualty is the last sentences of the section: "Casualties are not necessarily dead - they may be merely knocked unconscious, too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in other some way [sic]. In any case, they are no longer fit to participate in the battle." No mention of unsaved wounds there.

Why would it need to? The Unsaved wounds were mentioned three times in the Remove Casualties section that this bit of fluff is part of.

 

See, you have explanatory rules and you have to redefine them as "fluff". Why don't we all just take our markers out and darken these parts of the rules out? And if we darken them out, why not any other rules that someone wants to call "fluff" because their silly little position requires it to conceal its silliness?

 

Of course, we can then pop over to pg 39 (the other index listing for the word "casualty") and we read: "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in close combat."

 

So all the pg 24 stuff is defined by reference on pg 39 as shooting casualties. As in, casualties caused specifically by shooting. So all that has been managed, at best, is a definition of casualties cause by firepower, not a general definition of casualty.

No , that shows that assault follws the same rules.

 

pg. 39 kills your point, but you have to understand sentence structure using the English language. The same rules are used, but the reference clearly uses the adjective "shooting" to modify the noun "casualties". Which means the big case about how the text on pg 24 totally and completely defines "casualty" is a load of bushwa. Pg 24 only refers to casualties caused by shooting not all possible ways a model can become a casualty.

 

The conclusion that even though JotWW doesn't cause a casualty, but still counts as the Tervigon being "slain" contradicts your entire position. It is isn't consistent. (Note: It doesn't matter what I think of the JotWW/Tervigon issue, this is only about the self-contradiction in the post.)

That would be true if I believed that all 'removed from play' effects were casualties.

I have pointed out several rules that 'remove from play' , 'slay outright' or 'destroy' without causing casualties.

 

Only if your special, limited and illogical definition of "casualty" is used.

[BOBMAKENZIE]

[EDIT: Curse you BOBMAKENZIE, I cannot get the image of a singing Tervigon tap-dancing on a Land Speeder out of my head! :)]

 

:P

 

I prefer mine sitting at a table with a top hat and monocle sipping tea and discussing Classic lit.

[Techmarine Data007]

I think the only time where the backlash wouldn't be triggered is if you somehow got the critter to move off the table, i.e. by fleeing or some other means. Otherwise, I don't think there's any 'kill method' that would leave the psychic control intact.