Casualty

[Algesan]

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.

 

One is a real world effect: the model simulating a combatant is removed from the table.

The other is part of the game: Why the model was removed and how it affects other rules.

 

The main reason for batting it around? To settle it. If stupid and illogical use of the English language is a basis for rules interpretation, then where is a standard set of rules for us all to play the same game?

 

Using the claims of "GW writes rules bad" and "I don't agree so this needs a FAQ" as trump cards isn't the way to solve rules disputes.

[Algesan]

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.

 

Yep, it is daft, but it is being argued specifically to avoid triggering of certain special rules that would have negative influences on the ones arguing it.

[Algesan]

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.

 

It hasn't been dismissed out of hand. It took me about two minutes to figure out where this whole strange definition of casualty was being sourced from and immediately know it needed B.S. called on it.

 

It got a boost in needing B.S. called on it when parts of rules in the rulebook that undermined the "casualties can only be caused by wounds being reduced to zero in the shooting and assault phases" had to be disregarded.

 

I may think the sky is pink and you may think the sky is blue. You can explain to me the properties of light, test my color vision and do various other things. At what point is this actually a "potential difference" and a departure from reality?

[Algesan]

<snip>

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'.

 

Okay, you don't understand simulation games. It is simulating a battle with horror, death and casualties, the rules operate within the bounds of the simulation. Therefore, for rules purposes, simulated casualties on simulated military models have certain simulated results.

 

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.

 

Not for this discussion unless you are being actively malicious.

 

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.

 

Yep, unless you manage to find a definition of casualty that doesn't rely on pg 24 which is clearly referred to on pg 39 as "shooting casualties", a.k.a. casualties caused by shooting in the shooting phase.

 

I'm not ignoring it, I just haven't bothered to deal with it. Sparhawk hasn't been in all of the discussions so he may not realize that you haven't managed to get to the "square and rectangle" stage. We are still working on basics like how to define terms using English in a technical document than have a non-standard usage that means the dictionary definition doesn't apply.

 

The only line blurring I see is when one side is calling for marking out parts of the rulebook that contradict their position. Like you just did in your various little ad homs at the end.

[SeattleDV8]

Six posts in a row??

Wow, you understand forum rules about as well as the game rules.

Really dude , calm down.

[Grey Mage]

Alright- Im closing this one for a day or two before it gets out of hand.

 

Calm down, come back with a clear head, and for the love of god dont put so many successive posts as one of our members has done.