Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The Dragon wrote: I think I'll start trying to consolidate our RAW based findings and rationalizations here pretty soon and maybe pass it through interested parties to make sure there's an absolute consensus on the rules and the specific wording of what we've found so that most everyone can understand what's being said.

You might want to keep track of notable contributors so that we can append a list of 'thanks to'.

Ryanjsmall wrote: The sentence in the rulebook that interests me says: " We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensivly scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either Dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding. 2 of those 3 options would mean that the necrons have not lost their wounds and have either been captured or hiding for the rest of the game meaning they do not get their WBB rolls and have to be removed from the game.

Hell i say draw the line in the middle. They have given us 3 choices on what they do. call 2/3 of them either captured or hiding and 1/3 of them dead and give 1/3 of your squad WBB rolls LOL.

That is what is known as "Fluff", aka Background material. The rule is that the Unit is Removed and no special rule can save them. So they do not get WBB.

Ack. You know you can't just say that 'no special rule saves them' generally like that.

It says no special rule may save them unless it specifically states otherwise i.e. ATSKNF mentioning SA with SM

This is actually one of the things that dug at me for so long in the early part of the thread and was one of the reasons why I clung to the feeble dream of WBB in the face of SA for so long-- It was a major part of the argument that I disagreed with and I had evidence (SM) contradicting it, so it left me wondering what other WBB platitudes were wrong. This of course led down the long, long trail to my current RAW friendly, factual opinion.

Well, let me give this one last go. I guess I'm not explaining very well the part I'm trying to get across.

Say Necrons are still in the unit. This is beginning to sound like a good idea to me (as it lets us move on from the 'Monolith doesn't work' argument) and I still think I can demonstrate why Necrons already down would be able to stick around after a SA. Even if you don't agree, at least there will be some different questions in the thread.

Suppose you have a 10 man unit of Warriors and 2 die in your opponent's shooting phase. They're still considered part of the unit, they roll their WBB, 1 gets up, they port through the 'Lith, 1 more gets up and there's no problems.

Suppose that 10 man unit gets completely knocked down, so none are standing, but due to other Necrons being nearby or a TS they are still eligible. Can an entirely down Necron unit be ported through the Monolith? Are they still considered in a unit if the entire unit is down?

If those 10 Warriors are instead in CC and 6 get knocked down and 4 get swept, we have 6 models that are ineligible to be removed by the SA while 4 can. In that situation, I would think the unit gets removed, but the 6 stick around. WBB creates a "bubble" around them where they "are ignored for all normal game purposes." The 6 downed Warriors are now on the table without a unit, and are negligible for the Monolith. SA is certainly a normal game purpose.

Even if you disagree, is that a little clearer than before?

Is WBB a special rule that would otherwise save the unit?

Yes you say?

Then it's ignored unless it *specifically" states otherwise.

WBB does not specifically state otherwise. WBB would oitherwise save the unit (as members of the unit are not being removed - you said so yourself above) and the only way you are not removing them is you are trying to use a special rule.

WBB does NOT work against SA: it did not work in 4th and the only change in 5th is tehy removed WBB as an *example of a rule that does not work* - that is it. No more analysis is needed.

So you are saying SA is not part of "all normal game purposes"?

And no, WBB would not otherwise save the unit. Due to the way the unit is removed, it would never try. However, it -does- protect the ones already knocked down.

I'm sure that if we could all agree on what a "normal game purpose" was, things might be easier. We can't, so we should only deal with what is certain. I already answered your question a few posts back, RobPro. As the necrons do not become a part of the unit until after a WBB is successfully made, they (the SA'd or wiped necrons) cannot get up when sent through the monolith.

The position you espouse still cannot deal with the definition of casualties argument, in any case, so the point is moot.

RobPro wrote:So you are saying SA is not part of "all normal game purposes"?

And no, WBB would not otherwise save the unit. Due to the way the unit is removed, it would never try. However, it -does- protect the ones already knocked down.

Is WBB a special rule? Yes? Then it is ignored.

The ones already down are STILL part of the unit. So when you remove the unit, by SA, you remove the ones downed as part of the unit. Can you not see the base problem in your argument? You are using a special rule to save the unit - the models that are down are part of the unit, if you dont remove them then the unit, at that point, has BY DEFINITION been saved. Just because it is not an armour save is irrelevant - the unit has yet to be fully removed, and you are trying to prevent the removal of a unit by a special rule.

SA is MORE SPECIFIC than WBB. Specific beats general everytime.

yup, and those knocked down ones can instead join the other Necron unit when they get up from WBB


Automatically Appended Next Post:

nosferatu1001 wrote: Just because it is not an armour save is irrelevant - the unit has yet to be fully removed, and you are trying to prevent the removal of a unit by a special rule.

ahem, the unit is gone. The ones that get up join another unit instead

Except they should have already been removed, as WBB does not work against SA - *at the time you resolve SA any downed models are part of the unit and by not removing them you have not complied with the requirements of SA*

It is really that straightforward.

You do realise that WBB happens the next turn at the earliest? At the time the models are downed they belong to the parent unit - that has been settled. Sorry. You have not got an argument there - the RAW is clear. If you still belong to the parent unit, and you are told to remove the *entire unit*, what makes you tihnk you can leave the unit there? WBB? But it's a special rule, and SA overrides special rules.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Except they should have already been removed, as WBB does not work against SA - *at the time you resolve SA any downed models are part of the unit and by not removing them you have not complied with the requirements of SA*

It is really that straightforward.

I just don't really think that SA has permission to remove the dead Necrons as they are under a "bubble" of being "ignored for all normal game purposes" after they have been killed. The SA is not triggering WBB, but it still has to deal with the models that are already under the affects of WBB.

I see what you're trying to say here, but that's not possible. If the downed models are in a bubble of "no rules" where no special rules,etc. can be used on them or trigger against them... then WBB itself also can NEVER happen.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

You can't say 'na na na na na na bubble for me and no bad rules too, but all my good ones comes through'.


The WBB for downed models never comes to be for a simple, clear, coherent set of reasons already covered and I'm not talking just screaming 'Spazifik verzas JenRal'

(1) Downed models are in fact still part of their parent unit until such time as they may WBB and move into cohesion with another unit which is closer than the parent

(2) SA removes all models in a unit from the game, not as casualties, but simply removes them.

This is not limited to live models, but the entire unit's models regardless of what state they may be in. This is the only time and place where SA's 'nothing may save them' factor comes into the equation. The WBB rule of 'ignore for all normal game purposes' fails in light of SA's mention of specific rules being necessary regarding SA itself for a unit to circumvent destruction.

(3) Because even downed models are taken by SA, and because, once again, they are not removed as casualties, but simply removed, WBB does not activate for them and thus they are destroyed.

Robpro wrote:I just don't really think that SA has permission to remove the dead Necrons as they are under a "bubble" of being "ignored for all normal game purposes" after they have been killed. The SA is not triggering WBB, but it still has to deal with the models that are already under the affects of WBB.

But you see that is the problem SA effects the entire unit. Regardless of their state, NO SPECIAL RULE can prevent them from being removed unless it has a clause to override SA. WBB does not, so it does not. It's really that simple.

RobPro wrote:I just don't really think that SA has permission to remove the dead Necrons as they are under a "bubble" of being "ignored for all normal game purposes" after they have been killed. The SA is not triggering WBB, but it still has to deal with the models that are already under the affects of WBB.

It's quite irrelevant - as you yourself posted, the models that are downed are still part of the parent unit until such time as they join another unit in an entirely different player turn and as such by not removing the unit you are not complying with the requirements of SA.

Is WBB a special rule? yes
Does it mention SA? NO
Does it attempt to save members of the unit, and by definition therefore the unit itself? YES
Conclusion: If you try to leave members of the unit on the table you are trying to save the unit, which is cheating

While your point is valid, degenerating into calling another interpretation cheating is counterproductive. Cheating implies knowingly breaking rules. Someone playing within the confines of the rules as they understand them can hardly be labeled a cheater.

No, it is cheating as this is the 6th page with no new interpretations, the rule and how it must be played has been proven over and over again.

SA specifically states you must remove the unit, and no special rule can save them unless it actually specifies it. WBB does not do so, therefore NOTHING about WBB can be enacted.

Robpro - unless you can show how your special rule works when you are told it cannot, to play that the models are not removed IS cheating unless and until your opponent agrees with you.

nosferatu1001 wrote:Robpro - unless you can show how your special rule works when you are told it cannot, to play that the models are not removed IS [violating the SA rule] [...]

Fixed that for you. Try and keep it civil please. Calling each other cheats when we disagree [even when you are correct] is not going to change anyone's mind and is rude. You are making it adversarial when it should be collaboration.

No, by this point it is simply correct usage of the word: knowingly breaking the rules.

The rule for SA is pretty straight forward, even with the pain that is WBB: you must remove the entire unit, no ifs, no buts, and the only way to save the unit is by having a special rule that says so.

Beyond all doubt models that are downed are part of the unit. By attempting to keep them on the table when the SA rule states you *must* remove them, you are leaving the unit at least partially intact and have broken the rule when you have no permission to do so.

Guys, remember -- especially with rules, not only is it important to know THAT it works or simply IS, but also WHY.

You can yell that something IS a million times and that is not going to convince anyone. Explaining, in a detailed manner, WHY something IS on the other hand can quite often shut down dissent, make something clear for everyone, or possibly lead to a better understanding or rationalization.

This entire thread is living proof of that.

I don't have any problems with someone pushing theoreticals in regards to WBB out there. If we can not coherently and concisely respond in good order in defense of our minding of the rules, then we need to examine it again and make a more plausible and comprehensive answer with supporting arguments.

This thread has run its course, and has just devolved into bickering.