Casualty

[Dan VK]

This conversation began in another thread and I feel it deserves its own. Below are the relevant posts from the previous thread to get this thread started. As stated in the topic title and topic description, how do you define 'casualty' and why?

 

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.

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.

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.)

[thade]

Casualty and Removed from Play are neither the same thing nor mutually exclusive; there's clearly some overlap. Regardless of how the model is removed, it's generally no longer a problem. There are a few notable exceptions to this (the Necron/WBB rule, Celestine from SoB, for instance) but in general Casualty and Removed from Play/Table both result in the same thing: the model is removed from this game for the rest of this game.

 

Casualty is in part flavor-text; the whole "a casualty is not necessarily dead"-thing that lets us justify how Calgar can get mauled by gene stealers in one game and still turn up against the same Tyranid host in the next game. It's to help us craft continuous story arcs out of our games.

 

Long-story short: don't get too hung up on this. Drilling down into game term definitions like this will turn out unsatisfying because the rules are not build to withstand law-style analysis.

[Dan VK]

Long-story short: don't get too hung up on this. Drilling down into game term definitions like this will turn out unsatisfying because the rules are not build to withstand law-style analysis.

Unfortunately Games Workshop likes to use ambiguous language like 'slain' and 'destroyed', which makes a clear definition of 'casualty' very important. I prefer to define ‘casualty’ as a model that is removed from play for any reason other than movement, such as being placed in Reserve or immediately returned to the table via Deep Strike.

[greatcrusade08]

the necron argument that went on and on and on and on and on (you get the point) was based around this argument.

the BRB clearly defines a casualty and the mechanic behind removing a model as a causalty.. i.e you hit and wound a model that fails its saving throw and has its wounds reduced to 0.

removed from play is a literal statement, i.e you pick the models up and put them away.

becuase the casualty mechanic is described in full, any deviation from it in rules terms has to be dealt with differently.. otherwise they rules would say "remove as a casualty"

 

by pure RAW removed from play is not the same as removed as a casualty..

[Dan VK]

I just found the following and stand corrected. ^_^ It sure looks like a definition for 'casualty' to me.

 

CASUALTIES

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

[Sparhawk]

I liken this to squares and rectangles.

 

Every time a model is a casualty it is removed from play

Every time a model is removed from play it isn't neccesarily as a casualty.

[Seahawk]

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

And from this I get three steps, if you will: take wounds > slain > removed from table (notice how removed from the table is included here).

 

So when something says "remove it from play" (the table), it skips right ahead past "take wounds" and "slain," which to me it just means it automatically took all its wounds and slew it without the unnecessary words. It just goes to step 3 "remove it from the table" in simplicity.

[Dan VK]

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

And from this I get three steps, if you will: take wounds > slain > removed from table (notice how removed from the table is included here).

 

So when something says "remove it from play" (the table), it skips right ahead past "take wounds" and "slain," which to me it just means it automatically took all its wounds and slew it without the unnecessary words. It just goes to step 3 "remove it from the table" in simplicity.

That only makes sense for "unfriendly" effects like JotWW. What about "friendly" effects that remove models from the table, such as Gate of Infinity (C:SM) or Skyleap (C:E)?

[Seahawk]

Ah, but the friendly powers say they are placed back on the table (at some point), which would preclude the death.

 

 

I suppose I should've said it more like "When something 'unfriendly' says removed from table without a 'returns to play' clause..."

[Grey Mage]

In my book casualty has always had the same basic definition as in most of the military history Ive read- no longer able to fight.

 

Got shot in the shoulder and itll be six months until you can get back on the field? Your a casualty.

Got shot in the face and died? Yep, thats a casualty to.

Hacked apart by a poweraxe? stabbed with a bayonet? Yep.

Shot yourself in the foot, sent home to recover? Sure thing.

 

So.... in 40k that means- if its removed from play for the rest of the game *such as jaws* then its a casualty. If its slain outright,

[Mezkh]

Don't use 'definitions' that you can't back up using the rules text. Wounds, Toughness, Casualty, Save, Hit; etc are all defined in the BGB and have a specific use in the game of 40k.

 

You can say "I've lost those guys and so they're casualties" but if you're using a military history definition it's roughly equivalent to saying "If I drop a brick on your wraithlord it's going to fail it's toughness test".

 

Obviously in the letter case it's easy to tell you're using a definition of Toughness that's not derived from the 40k rules. It is the same with the former, you're using a defintion of Casualty that's not derived from the 40k Rules.

 

edit: My spelling is terribuel.

[Algesan]

I just found the following and stand corrected. ;) It sure looks like a definition for 'casualty' to me.

 

CASUALTIES

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

 

No, that is from the "Overview of Play" in the forward and not the text proper, notice how all those little blocks have references to rules text? I actually use the little rulebook that comes in Assault on Black Reach and it isn't in there. That exact same two page spread is in the larger booklet "Read This First" in Assault on Black Reach but instead of being "Overview of Play" it is called "Learning the Rules". The first page of the rulebook is page 1, with "The Rules" centered on the page.

 

In my book casualty has always had the same basic definition as in most of the military history Ive read- no longer able to fight.

 

Got shot in the shoulder and itll be six months until you can get back on the field? Your a casualty.

Got shot in the face and died? Yep, thats a casualty to.

Hacked apart by a poweraxe? stabbed with a bayonet? Yep.

Shot yourself in the foot, sent home to recover? Sure thing.

 

So.... in 40k that means- if its removed from play for the rest of the game *such as jaws* then its a casualty. If its slain outright,

 

Correct: 1. 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.

 

Don't use 'definitions' that you can't back up using the rules text. Wounds, Toughness, Casualty, Save, Hit; etc are all defined in the BGB and have a specific use in the game of 40k.

 

See, here is the missing point and key error of anyone who thinks there is some general definition of the word "casualty" in the rules. Sorry, but anyone who has this "it must be in the rules" position has an impaired understanding of how the English language works for all texts.

 

Shall we start on page 3 at the first section:

"The Citadel miniatures used to play games of Warhammer 40,000 are referred to as "models" in the rules that follow."

 

Now, I suggest anyone who thinks that any word in the rules text must be "backed up" by the rules text can begin here. We need definitions backed up by the rules text for each of these words:

The

Citadel

miniatures

used

to

play

games

of

Warhammer

40,000

are

referred

as

models

in

the

rules

that

follow

 

I included both "The" and "the" to make sure we get a definition backed up by rules text on the effects of capitalization. We can also get into parts of speech and standards of English technical writing too if you want to. Can you define all that from the rules text? Or is it possible that we might not have to deal with redefining vocabulary and grammar that are part of standard English?

 

This is the main reason the WBB discussion went on and on and on and on, because the logic used by Mezkh and others requires the stupidity of redefining every word so it is "backed up by the rules text". It didn't matter that the quoted example in the OP above shows decisively that their supposed definition of "casualty" is contradicted by the rules they reference.

 

They use pg 24 (taken from the index) in the Shooting rules section to produce this made up "definitive definition" while ignoring that pg 39 (also taken from the index) clearly states that that refers only to shooting casualties.

[Mezkh]

Honestly I don't even think this does deserve it's own thread, because it will just drag out and on like the other one. If in a rules discussion you're quoting from a dictionary to try and make an argument you've reached the point where you might as well just play it how you want, D6 it, whatever.

 

It comes back to what sparhawk said, it's squares and rectangles.

 

Every time a model is a casualty it is removed from play.

Every time a model is removed from play it isn't neccesarily as a casualty.

 

If you're thinking every time a model is removed from the game that is is a 'casualty', then step back and see you're playing with 'plastic army men', and it's not a real battle with real horror, death, and 'casualties'.

 

See, here is the missing point and key error of anyone who thinks there is some general definition of the word "casualty" in the rules. Sorry, but anyone who has this "it must be in the rules" position has an impaired understanding of how the English language works for all texts.

 

My understanding of the English language is perfectly adequate.

 

The bottom line is: You're trying to prove your point that in this game, models that are removed from the game for whatever reason are 'casualties'. You're ignoring the rectangles and squares point above, you're denying that casualties is a 'game term' with a particular meaning as derived from the 40k rulebook, and you're subverting that meaning by introducing your own outside dictionary definition of the word and blurring the line between fluff (it's a space war) and reality (it's a tabletop game with a rulebook).

 

It's not a very compelling argument.

[Dan VK]

I just found the following and stand corrected. :P It sure looks like a definition for 'casualty' to me.

 

CASUALTIES

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

 

No, that is from the "Overview of Play" in the forward and not the text proper, notice how all those little blocks have references to rules text? I actually use the little rulebook that comes in Assault on Black Reach and it isn't in there. That exact same two page spread is in the larger booklet "Read This First" in Assault on Black Reach but instead of being "Overview of Play" it is called "Learning the Rules". The first page of the rulebook is page 1, with "The Rules" centered on the page.

The rules text in question indirectly defines 'casualty', and the non-rules text I quoted shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the intended definition of 'casualty'. I understand that RAI are not RAW, but in the absence of RAW I believe RAI in the words of the designers (such as an Overview of Play) is sufficient.

 

Now, I suggest anyone who thinks that any word in the rules text must be "backed up" by the rules text can begin here. We need definitions backed up by the rules text for each of these words:

The

Citadel

miniatures

used

to

play

games

of

Warhammer

40,000

are

referred

as

models

in

the

rules

that

follow

 

I included both "The" and "the" to make sure we get a definition backed up by rules text on the effects of capitalization. We can also get into parts of speech and standards of English technical writing too if you want to. Can you define all that from the rules text? Or is it possible that we might not have to deal with redefining vocabulary and grammar that are part of standard English?

 

This is the main reason the WBB discussion went on and on and on and on, because the logic used by Mezkh and others requires the stupidity of redefining every word so it is "backed up by the rules text". It didn't matter that the quoted example in the OP above shows decisively that their supposed definition of "casualty" is contradicted by the rules they reference.

 

They use pg 24 (taken from the index) in the Shooting rules section to produce this made up "definitive definition" while ignoring that pg 39 (also taken from the index) clearly states that that refers only to shooting casualties.

:huh:

 

I believe you are confusing 'term' with 'word'.

 

Honestly I don't even think this does deserve it's own thread, because it will just drag out and on like the other one.

It very well may drag on, but it will drag on here where it is the topic rather than in three separate threads where it is off-topic. It has been brought up often enough in threads where it does not belong I feel it is important enough to be discussed exclusively.

[SeattleDV8]

The rules have to be understood in their own context.

 

GW does not make this easy.

Some terms are clearly defined, others implied and some unclear.

I'll say again, anytime your argument is based on the dictionary, fluff or real world examples you are more than likely on the wrong track.

The Game is not real. It is not logical when compared to the real world.

It is also not logically consistant with it's own fluff.

You do know that the dictionary also has many words with contradictory meanings?

 

Term casualty is defined in the shooting rules, so are saving throws and Instant Death.

Are you also claiming that they only apply to shooting?

 

BRB pg. 39 "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in Close combat."

 

It doesn't seem to back your point very well, as the assault rules follow the same rules.

 

A casualty is a model that has lost all of it's wounds, and it removed from play.

Not all models removed from play suffer wounds, like with JotWW.

[thade]

I'm with Grey Mage here, as was clear in my original post (I think). The fluff, modeling, and painting accounts for well more than half of Warhammer 40k (and it's Fantasy variant); it shouldn't surprise any of us that the ruleset is centric on that point, as selling models, books, and rules are where they make most of their capital.

 

Casualty as defined by GM makes sense as it's the definition that most clearly supports the fluff and people's hot paint jobs. If the definitions were as clear cut and precise as some of you seem to want them to be, it seems that a "slain" Vulkan He'stan could no longer be in any of our lists, as I guarantee at some point somebody has fielded him and he has gone down. No offense to you all intended, but I see little else of value in this. Consider:

 

If a model is removed from the table and no special rule allows for that model to be put back on the table, that model is no longer a factor for the game at hand.

If a model is removed as a casualty and has no special rule that allows for that model to be put back on the table, that model is no longer a factor for the game at hand.

If a model is removed from the table because it is 'slain' or 'destroyed' or for any other reason, and has no special rule that puts it back on the table, that model is no longer a factor for the game at hand.

 

How are these different? Semantics? Is this really important?

 

No.

 

Removed and no longer a factor for any reason is removed and no longer a factor. While it seems like having these core things more clearly defined might clarify other connected issues (e.g. WBB), I don't foresee that happening. I instead foresee a 'cron update addressing this, probably in an unsatisfactory way. In the meantime, we are doing each other a disservice by batting this around.

[Sparhawk]

I agree that from a fluff standpoint there is probably little difference between a casualty and removed from the game, but the fact remains that fluff is completely irrelevant when looking at this from a rules mechanic standpoint.

 

A casualty is a model whose W statistic has been reduced to 0 and is removed from the tabletop.

A model removed from the game skips the whole reducing wounds and is removed from the tabletop.

 

The mechanics are different even if the fluff would say otherwise.

[thade]

A casualty is a model whose W statistic has been reduced to 0 and is removed from the tabletop.

A model removed from the game skips the whole reducing wounds and is removed from the tabletop.

 

A model removed is a model removed. Still unclear to me how this semantic difference is important. If no special rule says the model can be "un-removed", then it's no longer a factor for the remainder of the game. Whether it's purely removed, a "casualty", "slain", "destroyed", or what have you, if no rule says it can come back, then what does it matter by what manner it left?

 

In short, why are we all having this argument?

[Sparhawk]

It's based on any special rules whose activation is specifically predicated by a model becoming a casualty. Under normal game circumstances there is no practical difference for a tac marine, however if they had a rule that would come into affect upon becoming a casualty then it shouldn't activate if something like JOTWW "removes it from the game" as it bypassed the casualty status that would trigger the affect.

[thade]

I'm not sure that the authors intended for there to be a difference between "removed as casualty" and "removed from play". If a model is removed from the table because it's no longer supposed to be a factor in the game, it's definitively a casualty in the most basic respect: it can't participate in the fight anymore. That's what a casualty is.

 

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

 

EDIT: pretty misleading typo; doh.

[Grey Mage]

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.

[thade]

/sarcasmon

 

But wait, GM! No weapon in the game says "completely destroys" unit! Seems that NOTHING renders KPs!

 

/sarcasmoff

 

Hmm. @_@

 

Pretty clear to me that casualty is a synonym for completely destroy[ed], especially in case of a single model infantry unit. Perhaps "destroyed" and "slain" are also synonyms - at least in aggregate - to "completely destroy[ed]". Kind of makes sense, no? As "completely destroy[ed]" - like all of these other examples - describes a unit that is no longer a factor in the current game. This is a theme.

[Sparhawk]

Like I said I'm not saying that that's how I play the game but the argument is there and it is legitimate. I would consider the tervigon as giving up a KP however I don't know if it's backlash would trigger because I don't know the wording of the rules.

 

Hey if I played the game like that Wraithlords couldn't shoot because they don't have eyes to draw LOS with. If consensus is that they are completely interchangeable phrases that is fine with me, I have no vested interest in the outcome of the discussion I just think dismissing a potential difference out of hand would be hasty is all.

[Algesan]

The rules text in question indirectly defines 'casualty', and the non-rules text I quoted shows beyond a reasonable doubt that it is the intended definition of 'casualty'. I understand that RAI are not RAW, but in the absence of RAW I believe RAI in the words of the designers (such as an Overview of Play) is sufficient.

 

It correctly defines that a model reduced to zero wounds has become a casualty and I agree with that, but does not even come near defining that as the only possible definition of casualty.

 

Now, I suggest anyone who thinks that any word in the rules text must be "backed up" by the rules text can begin here. We need definitions backed up by the rules text for each of these words:

<snip>

 

This is the main reason the WBB discussion went on and on and on and on, because the logic used by Mezkh and others requires the stupidity of redefining every word so it is "backed up by the rules text". It didn't matter that the quoted example in the OP above shows decisively that their supposed definition of "casualty" is contradicted by the rules they reference.

 

They use pg 24 (taken from the index) in the Shooting rules section to produce this made up "definitive definition" while ignoring that pg 39 (also taken from the index) clearly states that that refers only to shooting casualties.

:devil:

 

I believe you are confusing 'term' with 'word'.

 

Nope, this is the end result of claiming that words must only be defined by the use of the rules text.

 

Honestly I don't even think this does deserve it's own thread, because it will just drag out and on like the other one.

It very well may drag on, but it will drag on here where it is the topic rather than in three separate threads where it is off-topic. It has been brought up often enough in threads where it does not belong I feel it is important enough to be discussed exclusively.

 

Agreed, either we are using the English language or we are using some kind of special lingo that uses rules different from standard English. If it is the second, then every word of every sentence needs to be defined or we don't have rules, we have chaos.

[Algesan]

The rules have to be understood in their own context.

 

GW does not make this easy.

Some terms are clearly defined, others implied and some unclear.

I'll say again, anytime your argument is based on the dictionary, fluff or real world examples you are more than likely on the wrong track.

The Game is not real. It is not logical when compared to the real world.

It is also not logically consistant with it's own fluff.

You do know that the dictionary also has many words with contradictory meanings?

 

Term casualty is defined in the shooting rules, so are saving throws and Instant Death.

Are you also claiming that they only apply to shooting?

 

BRB pg. 39 "All of the rules for removing shooting casualties apply in Close combat."

 

It doesn't seem to back your point very well, as the assault rules follow the same rules.

 

A casualty is a model that has lost all of it's wounds, and it removed from play.

Not all models removed from play suffer wounds, like with JotWW.

 

And part of that context is standard use of the English language. Which means if there is a special definition of a term, it needs to be clearly defined as such. Not simply using an index and claiming it is a glossary.

 

My point isn't made on a dictionary definition, but it refutes yours because if we toss the dictionary, then there is not a single word in any of the rules that can be defined by standard English usage. Especially since by rejecting the dictionary the position you support actually has to delete words from the rulebook to make it stand.

 

The game must have internal logic or it is chaos and none of the rulebooks matter. This is true of all simulation games and this is a game simulating small unit tactical combat in the 41st Millennium. Since it is a simulation of something, it obviously is not the real world.

 

Does this word have a contradictory meaning in the dictionary? No? Keep your red herrings to yourself, because context tells you which definition to use.

 

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.