An argument came up in our local area, in which how does Sweeping Advance work against WBB.

Sweeping Advances specify:

If the winner’s total is equal or greater they catch the fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling back unit is destroyed. We assume that the already demoralised foe is comprehensively scattered, ripped apart or sent packing, its members left either dead, wounded and captured, or at best fleeing and hiding. The destroyed unit is removed immediately. Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

I don't have the exact wording of the WBB rules, but it says to the effect that "if the model is wounded, or would otherwise be removed as a casualty, (etc.)" then you follow the normal rules for WBB.

To further add to the issue, the current version of the Necron FAQ does not address this issue.

So looking at the RAW it was determined that if a Necron unit was caught in a Sweeping Advance, they would just fall down, rather then have the whole unit removed. Afterwards the downed Necrons are still subject to all the normal rules for WBB.

I am posting this to see what people think, as this was news to me.

"Otherwise specified" would mean a new rule which explicitly overrides Sweeping Advance.

"no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage". That's the relevant clause. WBB doesn't work against Sweeping Advance.

And Mahu, if you do a search you should find several other threads discussing this same topic.


Personally I don't understand why this should even be in a FAQ, but that's just me.

WBB is a special rule that would prevent the unit from being destroyed by a sweeping advance and the sweeping advance rules specifically deny special rules from doing just that.

In addition, none of the conditions for WBB are met - no wounds are dealt, and the models are removed from the game, not removed as a casualty.

For me, the "unless otherwise specified" means that the rule in question would have to specifically address Sweeping Advance in order to provide some sort of protection from elimination for the unit in question.

Lacking that specific reference, I don't believe WBB would qualify as a protection from being swept.

WBB does not work against Sweeping Advance.

This is what the rules say.

How you play it is up to you.

If you have a unit of warriors nearby or a T. Spider within 12" and more warriors on the board, then any of the Necrons actually killed in the combat before sweeping takes place, can WBB. As long as the warriors werent killed by power weapons. Im pretty sure that is how it is played.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:If you have a unit of warriors nearby or a T. Spider within 12" and more warriors on the board, then any of the Necrons actually killed in the combat before sweeping takes place, can WBB. As long as the warriors werent killed by power weapons. Im pretty sure that is how it is played.

Nope. The Downed necrons are removed as well.

Norbu the Destroyer wrote:If you have a unit of warriors nearby or a T. Spider within 12" and more warriors on the board, then any of the Necrons actually killed in the combat before sweeping takes place, can WBB. As long as the warriors werent killed by power weapons. Im pretty sure that is how it is played.

Downed necrons are still a part of the unit, as evidenced by the monolith teleport and the fact that downed models will "keep up" with their unit if it fails a morale check. As the whole unit is removed, the downed models don't get a chance to use their WBB.

What was thrown in my face though was "Codex > Rulebook". The WBB rules are specific in "otherwise removed as a casualty" which is what Sweeping Advance does.

So the argument is that the WBB rules take precedence because it is a codex rule. I am not saying a agree with it, I am just saying what the argument is.

Mahu wrote:What was thrown in my face though was "Codex > Rulebook". The WBB rules are specific in "otherwise removed as a casualty" which is what Sweeping Advance does.

So the argument is that the WBB rules take precedence because it is a codex rule. I am not saying a agree with it, I am just saying what the argument is.

No, Codex Does not Trump Rulebook. Specific Trumps General. Sweeping Advance Trumps WBB because WBB does not say it works against Sweeping Advance.

Sweeping advance does not remove models as casualties. It removes the unit from the game. Remove as a casualty is a defined phrase (page 27 iirc) and is only used when directly specified.

So Necron units that are down are "moved" with their unit if it say fails a morale check. That seems odd. I have never played this way. I just played if the models were down and their unit moved over 6" away the models would not get a WBB. That may be the way it is supposed to be played but it doesnt seem right. If another unit is nearby, why couldnt models absorb into it via WBB after a melee? Is it in the FAQ? GWAR I know you are usually right on these issues Im just looking for the text that says warriors killed during the melee are swept as well as what is remaining.

I don't quite remember where I read the failed morale running part, it may be in the FAQ or the second printing of the codex.

The text is that the unit is removed, and downed Necrons are still part of the unit.

Yeah downed Necrons are "sort of" that unit. I dont know when they leave the unit. If you obliterate a squad but another allows WBB. The downed models are absorbed into the new squad. Effectively a downed Necron has no unit. It is absorbed by the closest unit of its type. Although rare, it may be another unit than the original. But melee is a tricky situation because you are calculating morale and melee results by downed models so maybe they are removed. I guess I never looked into it. I always played it once the models were down, they sat their and in the following turn I just looked for WBB criteria. If no criteria were met, remove models. The unit being swept away did not effect the downed models since they were inactive until the WBB part of the game. Just how I played it but I have played other rules wrong.

They are still part of the unit - as it does not say otherwise until they succeed in WBB; they just do not follow coherency stipulations. Which is actually non-existant now as that only matters in the movement phase, iirc.

Downed necron models leave their unit when they fail their WBB saves, join another unit after their parent unit is completely downed, or in the rare case where a second unit has living models closer than it's parent unit.

Looking at the FAQ, the first entry in the second column of the first page references the downed-necron-falling-back rule.

Well thanks for the update. Looks like the rule will hurt me if a unit is swept, but help me if I fail a morale chaeck as I could replenish numbers to pull the unit over 50% for regrouping. I will have to start playing accordingly.

Just so I understand, is the argument that "removing Casulties" require a wound to be caused? I have checked the rule book and don't see that specific reference.

If that is the case, I guess you could also argue Necrons don't get WBB from Jaws of the World Wolf either.

They do not.

WBB does not work against JotWW.

They do from Lukas' last laugh, however.

/shrug

Indeed they do.

Mahu wrote:Just so I understand, is the argument that "removing Casulties" require a wound to be caused? I have checked the rule book and don't see that specific reference.

If that is the case, I guess you could also argue Necrons don't get WBB from Jaws of the World Wolf either.

If an attack kills without wounding, it has to say remove as a casualty. JoWW denies WBB, as does failing a Death or Glory! attack. Gift of Chaos is an example of a woundless attack that does let you WBB.

Whether or not JotWW interacts with WBB I think comes down to the kill points argument.

If you use JotWW to remove the a Necron Lord from play, do you expect to receive a kill point for that unit? You only get kill points for units which have been destroyed, and if JotWW just puts the model into some Limbo "removed from play" state, then the last unit in the model hasn't been destroyed, it's just "removed from play". If the unit is destroyed so that a kill point is given up, then by definition that single model unit was removed as a casualty, so WBB applies since JotWW doesn't cause any of the effects which would prevent it such as Instant Death.

JoWW doesn't cause any of the effects that would allow WBB to take place. No wounds are dealt, and remove from play != remove as a casualty.

solkan wrote:Whether or not JotWW interacts with WBB I think comes down to the kill points argument.

If you use JotWW to remove the a Necron Lord from play, do you expect to receive a kill point for that unit? You only get kill points for units which have been destroyed, and if JotWW just puts the model into some Limbo "removed from play" state, then the last unit in the model hasn't been destroyed, it's just "removed from play". If the unit is destroyed so that a kill point is given up, then by definition that single model unit was removed as a casualty, so WBB applies since JotWW doesn't cause any of the effects which would prevent it such as Instant Death.

lolwut?

That's a first for me.

Gwar! wrote:

Mahu wrote:What was thrown in my face though was "Codex > Rulebook". The WBB rules are specific in "otherwise removed as a casualty" which is what Sweeping Advance does.

So the argument is that the WBB rules take precedence because it is a codex rule. I am not saying a agree with it, I am just saying what the argument is.

No, Codex Does not Trump Rulebook. Specific Trumps General. Sweeping Advance Trumps WBB because WBB does not say it works against Sweeping Advance.

I'm really not convinced by this argument. Is a general rule in the main rulebook more specific than a codex rule, just because it says that the models cannot be saved by any (notice the general wording) special rule?

As for the argument that models are not casualties, why are any models taken off the table if this is true? It says that the unit is removed, but where is the rule saying that you remove a unit by removing all of its models, somehow without killing any models?

thebetter1 wrote:I'm really not convinced by this argument. Is a general rule in the main rulebook more specific than a codex rule, just because it says that the models cannot be saved by any (notice the general wording) special rule?

What part of "Unless otherwise Specified" is general?

Seriously, if you are going to make an argument, don't ignore half the rule please.

The full rule is this:
Unless otherwise specified, no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage; for them the battle is over.

thebetter1 wrote:Is a general rule in the main rulebook more specific than a codex rule, just because it says that the models cannot be saved by any (notice the general wording) special rule?

If the rulebook rule says that special rules don't apply, why should the Necron's special rule apply?

Ok. How about this? The WBB special rule does not save the swept necron unit. They die or are removed as casualties (I'm sorry but cowering in fear doesn't seem to fit the fluff). The terms of sweeping advance have been satisfied. The unit was not saved. However, the WBB special rule, notice the wording, specifically states that models that are wounded or are otherwise removed as a casualty are eligible for a WBB roll. They're not being saved, they're coming back from being destroyed.

Look, I play it the way everybody else wants to play it. That's fine. But for somebody to come along and say "absolutely not, for I understand the intent of the rules" is ridiculous at best.

Angelis Ex wrote:They're not being saved, they're coming back from being destroyed

Last I checked, that was the definition of being saved.

Gwar! wrote:

Angelis Ex wrote:They're not being saved, they're coming back from being destroyed

Last I checked, that was the definition of being saved.

Actually, you would be wrong. Coming back is not the definition of being saved. I'll type slower this time. They d-i-e-d. Thus they were not saved. However, unlike most other armies in 40k, they have the ability to self repair a-f-t-e-r being destroyed.

I do, however, appreciate your inability to see the situation from another point of view. It seems to be rampant on these boards.

Angelis - erm, no. Really old, discredited argument.

The UNIT remains on the table, in direct contravention of the SA rule. SA tells you to remove the unit which you have not done, and you have tried to do this by using a special rule - which SA doesnt allow you to do.

So you have failed in two ways.

Angelis Ex wrote:I do, however, appreciate your inability to see the situation from another point of view. It seems to be rampant on these boards.

Perhaps you would appreciate it more if you realised I am correct 99% of the time (and am correct in this instance) instead of making old, long discredited arguments.

Angelis Ex wrote:Ok. How about this? The WBB special rule does not save the swept necron unit. They die or are removed as casualties (I'm sorry but cowering in fear doesn't seem to fit the fluff). The terms of sweeping advance have been satisfied.

The terms of Sweeping Advance have not been satisfied at this point, because the unit has not yet been removed from the table.

Whatever fluff explanation you want to give it, Sweeping Advance causes the unit to be removed from the table. No special rule can rescue the unit at this point, unless it specifically over-rides the Sweeping Advance rule.

Whether you consider WBB to be 'saving' the unit or 'not saving them but bringing them back from the dead' (which would seem to fit loosely into the definition of 'rescue', which is the actual word used in the SA rule rather than 'saved'), according to the SA rule, for that unit "...the battle is over."

So since WBB does not specifically address SA, it runs smack bang into the 'no special rules can rescue them' part of the SA rule. The unit is removed from the table.

Angelis Ex wrote:

Gwar! wrote:

Angelis Ex wrote:They're not being saved, they're coming back from being destroyed

Last I checked, that was the definition of being saved.

Actually, you would be wrong. Coming back is not the definition of being saved. I'll type slower this time. They d-i-e-d. Thus they were not saved. However, unlike most other armies in 40k, they have the ability to self repair a-f-t-e-r being destroyed.

I do, however, appreciate your inability to see the situation from another point of view. It seems to be rampant on these boards.

You know, there was no need to be rude. Gwar! may be brash, but at least he's right.

Anyways, as stated, WBB fails to protect against Sweeping Advance due to "no special rules can rescue them". Only thing I believe is exempt is ATSKNF due to it actually stating they are not destroyed.

Gwar! wrote:

Angelis Ex wrote:I do, however, appreciate your inability to see the situation from another point of view. It seems to be rampant on these boards.

Perhaps you would appreciate it more if you realised I am correct 99% of the time (and am correct in this instance) instead of making old, long discredited arguments.

LMAO. The only thing I realize is that you think you're right 99% of the time. Which in my opinion qualifies you for the top 1% most ignorant. You're definitely pompous, and in all likelyhood mistakenly proud of it.

I have read all the old arguments about necrons vs sweeping advance on this board and others. None of them have been discredited. Only refuted by strong opinions and one sided interpretations of the rules.

I am not in the least bit surprised or taken aback by the responses to my post so far. In fact it is exactly what I would expect. I've said my part as to one perfectly legitimate interpretation of the rules. I have no interest in defending my statements in a circular fashion against people who approach arguments wearing blinders, much less try to take a firmer grasp on the opposition's point of view. At the very least, I hope I give at least a few people that have been railroaded by one sided rules lawyers pause for thought.

Funny how You are the one blindly stating I am wrong without any proof, yet when I prove to you that you are wrong, I am pompous.

Go Figure.

Ha ha ha. You made me laugh.

You have to realize, the rules state that no special rule can save the unit. WBB is a special rule. I am failing to see why you think that WBB ignores that.

And you really shouldn't be attacking someone personally, but since you seem to have already gotten past that point, have fun with your vacation.

Also, re-reading your posts, you seem to be basing your interpretation on fluff, which pretty much means nothing when trying to work out what the rules mean.

EDIT:Error, hit wrong button, post screwed...

@8 ball & newb, rude? attacks? I don't think so. Gwar was first to offend in a passive aggressive way by questioning my ability to comprehend and relay definitions of simple words such as "saved". He could have chosen to respond in a more civil way. I simply return what I am given- I just tend to be more direct. Also "unless otherwise specified" which WBB does, is a part of the SA rule you quoted.

Gwar! wrote:Funny how You are the one blindly stating I am wrong without any proof, yet when I prove to you that you are wrong, I am pompous.

Go Figure.

First and foremost, you have proven absolutely nothing, other than the fact that you will not be swayed from your one sided view regardless of what evidence is provided. You have made up your mind and there it shall stay closed. Also, you didn't become pompous when you had mistakenly thought you proved me wrong. I'm sure you've been that way for a long time now. Have you read any of your own posts? Have you seen your sig?

v. saved
v.tr.
1.
a. To rescue from harm, danger, or loss.
b. To set free from the consequences of sin; redeem.
2. To keep in a safe condition; safeguard.
3. To prevent the waste or loss of; conserve.

Secondly, coming back or returning is not listed as a definition for saved. There, I have given you proof that you are wrong. Or perhaps you meant the rules argument? In that case, I never said you were wrong. As a matter of fact I even said that's the way I play it. I presented an alternative interpretation of the rules at hand, which has just as much credence as yours. I have no need to restate my premise. Either you get it or you don't want too. I think my explanation simple and clear enough for most to understand. I have offered paraphrasing of the rules as my evidence. I did not blindly enter this rules debate. What have you offered, Gwar? Ludicrous statements that you are correct 99% of the time? Please. Correct about what? A series of game rules that the creators maintain are abstract at best? Even if were true, you would not be correct, your opinions would be more accepted.

All fine and dandy, but no, WBB still does not apply to SA.

/shrug

Please, refer to the Tenet number 6 of You Make Da Call.

The rules are pretty clear, you are adding more then what there is. Sweeping Advance allows no special rules to save the unit. WBB is a special rule, is it not?

Since it is, WBB does not work.

The only thing that would work, would say that it works (ATSKNF).

Just because what is described in the rules does not fit the dictionary definition of saved doesn't mean it excludes WBB from not working against SA.

Edit: Wow my 100th post is spent arguing something that is pretty clear. Yay me.
Also Edit: Dracos pretty much wins.

There have been so many threads as to why WBB does not protect from SA. WBB is a special rule. Special rules are not allowed to stop the results of SA by the wording in SA.

SA dictates the models must be removed immediately. WBB is unable to prevent the models from being removed immediately because it is a special rule. Fluff about how they die and vanish from the table is irrelevant; in order to satisfy the SA you must remove the models immediately.

There really is no wiggle room here.

Just as another nail in the coffin on this one. WBB triggers when models are reduced to zero wounds or "removed as casualties". SA does not do either of those. It causes no wounds and does not remove as casualties per the wording, simply removes them immediately. Even without the clause that special rules can't stop SA, SA does not trigger WBB anyways.

I plead the 5th on this issue.

And again, WBB wouldn't even kick in for units removed by SA, as no wounds are dealt and models are not removed as casualties. It doesn't even get to the SA-disallows-special-rules stage.

Eight Ball wrote:Anways, here's why SA denies WBB: The sweeping advance rule says that "No special rule may be used to save the unit at this stage" However, the thing is that even laying the models on their sides is saving them from being removed off of the board at that point, thus WBB is saving them from the part of SA that says to "remove the models from the board", so WBB cannot be used to save from SA

MasterSlowPoke wrote:And again, WBB wouldn't even kick in for units removed by SA, as no wounds are dealt and models are not removed as casualties. It doesn't even get to the SA-disallows-special-rules stage.

What about for models that were knocked down during the combat or in the shooting phase before the sweep? They are already under the affects of WBB which states "Damaged Necrons ignore the normal coherency rules and cannot be attacked in any way." Is a SA considered a form of attack?

That was from the 1st printing of the Necron Codex, I believe the second printing explains in a little more detail what kinds of things already dead Necrons are not affected by. I'll dig it out of my car for later.

SA is not an attack, it removes the unit and never causes casualties.

While it states they are ignored, nothing states they are no longer part of the unit - and as they are part of the unit SA MUST MUST MUST remove them, otherwise part of the unit will remain which is contrary to the SA rule.

Ah, but what defines an attack? There is a roll to do a sweeping advance, and I haven't seen it written anywhere that an attack has to cause wounds. If the SA does not have permission to remove certain models in the unit, only the models it can remove would be removed.

It still wouldn't work...Dracos has really hit the nail on the head. A special rule/ability has to state that it can be used in the event of a sweeping advance, otherwise it cannot.

Even if they are under the effects of WBB they are still a part of that unit and they must be removed to satisfy the conditions of sweeping advance.

No special rule can save a model from sweeping advance, without making a specific reference to it.

Thankyou masterslowpoke. Much more eloquent than my post. What I mean to say and what I actually say sometimes don't quite match.

WBB doesn't save them from being killed. Not against Sweeping Advance, not against anything.

It only works on models that have been killed. Thus:

Sweeping Advance kills Necrons dead, SA is satisfied.

WBB puts them on their side, because they're dead now, awaiting the conditions for their roll.

They operate off different triggers, that's why the question is irrelevant.

RxGhost wrote:WBB doesn't save them from being killed. Not against Sweeping Advance, not against anything.

It only works on models that have been killed. Thus:

Sweeping Advance kills Necrons dead, SA is satisfied.

WBB puts them on their side, because they're dead now, awaiting the conditions for their roll.

They operate off different triggers, that's why the question is irrelevant.

Or...not.
Sweeping advance, pg40:
"If the winner’s total is equal or greater they catch the
fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling
back unit is destroyed... The destroyed unit is removed immediately."

The losing units are completely removed, instantly. No wounds are dealt, no necrons are 'killed' to be left on the board.
This is without even including the next line on special rules, which clearly makes WBB irrevocably irrelevant.

It doesn't work.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:No special rule can save a model from sweeping advance, without making a specific reference to it.

nosferatu1001 wrote:SA is not an attack, it removes the unit and never causes casualties.

Dracos wrote:There have been so many threads as to why WBB does not protect from SA. WBB is a special rule. Special rules are not allowed to stop the results of SA by the wording in SA.

kirsanth wrote:All fine and dandy, but no, WBB still does not apply to SA.

RxGhost wrote:WBB doesn't save them from being killed. Not against Sweeping Advance

In case you didn't pick up on this:

WBB is a rule.
It is not a Universal Special Rule
It is not a rule that applies to a particular type of unit (Jump Troops, Skimmers, etc.)
It is not a BGB rule that applies to all armies.

It is a Special Rule, which is NOT allowed saves by Sweeping Advance. Case closed.

RxGhost wrote:WBB doesn't save them from being killed. Not against Sweeping Advance, not against anything.

It only works on models that have been killed. Thus:

Sweeping Advance kills Necrons dead, SA is satisfied.

WBB puts them on their side, because they're dead now, awaiting the conditions for their roll.

They operate off different triggers, that's why the question is irrelevant.

Whole units are removed by sweeping advance. Downed models are still part of their parent unit, so they too are removed.

Okay, I'll address a couple of these points as we go round the circle again.

Sweeping Advances "No special rule, unless otherwise stated can save a model, blah, blah, blah". No one is arguing that. You guys have to understand that We'll Be Back doesn't trigger UNTIL THE MODEL IS DEAD. Nothing is 'saved', SA is satisfied.

We'll Be Back states that any Necron reduced to 0 wounds "or would be otherwise removed as a casualty" remains on the battlefield as per its own rules.

Basically, and stop me if I'm wrong here, ya'll are arguing that Sweeping Advance does not remove the models as casualties?

Seriously, that's the leg you're standing on?

No, in all reality, Necrons surviving SA for a WBB roll is unlikely (about as unlikely as them getting SA'd, but I digress) because they still have to have another unit of that type or a spyder around or they don't get back up anyways.

RxGhost wrote:Basically, and stop me if I'm wrong here, ya'll are arguing that Sweeping Advance does not remove the models as casualties?

Seriously, that's the leg you're standing on?

Well, what does sweeping advance tell you to do?


"If the winner’s total is equal or greater they catch the fleeing enemy with a sweeping advance. The falling back unit is destroyed..."

See, no mention about casualties at all.

How does sweeping advance remove models as casualties?

I know you're just being pedantic, don't make me get a dictionary out, I don't wanna' be that guy.

You know, that guy that just assumes the people he's having a discussion with are idiots and has to get a dictionary to read from so that there's no confusion about a word (and group of words) that everyone knows the definition of but are too stubborn to be swayed.

Everything that is listed under sweeping advance is "removed as casualties". Both by the context and language used in the rest of the book as well as by people who, you know, speak english.

RxGhost wrote:Everything that is listed under sweeping advance is "removed as casualties". Both by the context and language used in the rest of the book as well as by people who, you know, speak english.

No, they are destroyed. Not Removed as Casualties. The same way that Jaws of the World Wolf or a SAK that rolls a RAAAAAAAAAAAAAGH! doesn't remove models as casualties.

And as an Englishman, I can tell you that in English, Casualty and Destoyed are very different. I don't know what it is like in Colonial English however, but the Rulebook is Written in British English

Oh, I'm sorry, now you're arguing that units destroyed are not removed as casualties?

Where do they go, vacation? The moon perhaps? Though Terra is more like their moon, which they call...the moon.

They are different here to.

Pedantic would be trying to say they are the same, especially given that the rules themselves say they are not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

RxGhost wrote:Oh, I'm sorry, now you're arguing that units destroyed are not removed as casualties?

Where do they go, vacation? The moon perhaps? Though Terra is more like their moon, which they call...the moon.

They are simply removed from the game.

This _alone_ prevents them from being laid on their side.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Very much like things that remove a model from the game ignore eternal warrior. Yes it is slain instantly, which, if pedantic, would be instantly killed which is instant death. However, this is NOT the same in game terms.

/shrug

So I guess in the part of the rulebook that says Remove Casualties, and then goes on to say that "casualties are not necessarily dead, they may be knocked unconscious , too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some way. In any case they are no longer fit to participate in battle." and Sweeping Advance says that "...it's members are left either dead, wounded or captured, or at best fleeing and hiding."

Since Remove Casualties says they're dead, and Sweeping Advance says their dead, I think we can come to the conclusion that models which are killed by sweeping advance are, in fact, dead and removed as casualties.

Models reduced to 0 wounds or removed as casualties benefit from We'll Be Back.

RxGhost wrote:
Models reduced to 0 wounds or removed as casualties benefit from We'll Be Back.

Sweeping Advance does not cause wound, nor does it remove models as casualties.

Sweeping advance rules also say "removed immediately" and "no save or other special rule can rescue the unit at this stage". Do not forget that part.

Also note: neither the word "casualties" nor "casualty" appears in the SA rules.

No, but it does say they're dead, and dead models are removed as casualties. Models that are removed as casualties get them some We'll Be Back.

/thread

RxGhost wrote:No, but it does say they're destroyed and to remove them immediately, only wounded models are removed as casualties. Models that are removed as casualties get them some We'll Be Back.

/thread

fixed.

Mahu wrote:What was thrown in my face though was "Codex > Rulebook". The WBB rules are specific in "otherwise removed as a casualty" which is what Sweeping Advance does.

I am sure this has already been mentioned (probably in this thread).

Sweeping Advance does NOT remove models as casualties. It simply removes models... so the specific WBB rule does NOT trump the Sweeping Advance rule.

Again, this has probably already been done in this thread (I've done it in others). I hope this clarifies it for you better.

Eight Ball wrote:The sweeping advance rule says that "No special rule may be used to save the unit at this stage" However, the thing is that even laying the models on their sides is saving them from being removed off of the board at that point, thus WBB is saving them from the part of SA that says to "remove the models from the board", so WBB cannot be used to save from SA

I still never heard any counter to how you can even place them on their side which is PART of the WBB rule, which (even placing them on their side) is "saving" them (from being removed off the board), which of course isn't allowed.

There is not one.

"They are instantly and irrevocably removed from the board, you can't prevent this with special rules"
"But I can use my special rule to leave them on the board on their sides making rolls right?"
/facepalm

RxGhost wrote:So I guess in the part of the rulebook that says Remove Casualties, and then goes on to say that "casualties are not necessarily dead, they may be knocked unconscious , too injured to carry on fighting or incapacitated in some way. In any case they are no longer fit to participate in battle." and Sweeping Advance says that "...it's members are left either dead, wounded or captured, or at best fleeing and hiding."

Since Remove Casualties says they're dead, and Sweeping Advance says their dead, I think we can come to the conclusion that models which are killed by sweeping advance are, in fact, dead and removed as casualties.

Models reduced to 0 wounds or removed as casualties benefit from We'll Be Back.

Part of the problem here lies in quoting parts of rules (stay with me a momment, I'm not being condescending or trying to start a flame war)

WBB doesn't trigger when a model is dead, it is taken at the start of the Necron player's turn.

During the opposing player's turn, models that are reduced to 0 wounds are lain on their sides awaiting an attempt at WBB.

If all the models in a unit are reduced to 0 wounds, and there isn't a like unit within 6" or a tomb spyder within 12" (and another like unit on the table) they are ineligilbe to attempt WBB and are removed.

If a Necron unit has damaged models in the unit, and is forced to fall back, the damaged models fall back with the unit. They are still part of the unit at this point.

If a Necron unit is caught in a sweeping advance, the unit is destroyed and the unit is removed immediately. All the models in the unit, both undamaged ones and models that are awaiting an attemt to WBB are removed.

Not all that difficult.

Gorkamorka wrote:"They are instantly and irrevocably removed from the board, you can't prevent this with special rules"
"But I can use my special rule to leave them on the board on their sides making rolls right?"
/facepalm

Thats about the size of it.

Gorkamorka made me laugh...all this fuss and with 3 lines he puts it all into perspective.

See, that's the whole point though. You can't save models from Sweeping Advance, you can't use We'll Be Back until it's dead. How hard is this to understand?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Oh hey, we should sort this out over some Tekken 6 matches. I just picked that up for mah Xbizzle.

RxGhost wrote:See, that's the whole point though. You can't save models from Sweeping Advance, you can't use We'll Be Back until it's dead. How hard is this to understand?

It isn't hard to understand:
The models were destroyed and removed from play. They were not killed and are not elligable to use WBB, even if WBB was allowable in this case (it isn't).

Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

Care to try my Jack-6!?

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

kirsanth wrote:Also note: neither the word "casualties" nor "casualty" appears in the SA rules.

I want to repeat my call for a facepalm ork icon.
PLEASE?!?!

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

No, not 'as a casualty'. Just removed.

It's also an entirely moot point even if you were right, as WBB is a special rule and thus can't stop the removal (which prevents WBB from working later) anyway.

It doesn't work.

Gorkamorka wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

No, not 'as a casualty'. Just removed.

It's not a moot point, as WBB is a special rule and thus can't stop the removal (which prevents WBB from working later) anyway.

It doesn't work.

fixed.

kirsanth wrote:
fixed.

fixed first

Gorkamorka wrote:

RxGhost wrote:Oh, removed from play huh....as a casualty?

No, not 'as a casualty'. Just removed.

It's also not a moot point even if you were right, as WBB is a special rule and thus can't stop the removal (which prevents WBB from working later) anyway.

It doesn't work.

fixed your fix.

You missed mine.

kirsanth wrote:
fixed your fix.

You missed mine.

I didn't, my 'moot point' was in refernece to the current discussion and that his argument was meaningless because in either case wbb would not work.
I agree that as a general rules point it isn't moot, and that straight removal vs casualties should be understood as distinct.

Back on topic: It doesn't work.

Back off topic, as this topic should die now. Moot is too often used in a manner that is self contradictory.

kirsanth wrote:Back off topic, as this topic should die now. Moot is too often used in a manner that is self contradictory.

The word moot and the modern english idiom moot point are different things, to be sure.

edit: huzzah, my 100th is entirely pointless and offtopic.
A moot post, as it were.

And therein lies my issue.
A moot point can be either needing debate or not for debate.
The idiom comes from people not wanting or not being able to actually debate.

A lazy practice, IMHO.

Dern colonials and their mixing up of the Queens English

kirsanth wrote:And therein lies my issue.
A moot point can be either needing debate or not for debate.
The idiom comes from people not wanting or not being able to actually debate.

A lazy practice, IMHO.

They aren't necessarily exclusive.
My understanding was that the point is (endlessly) debatable, while being meaningless practically (often rendered so by the endless debating itself).

That would be a lot closer to what I was saying in the first place.

There is no case for debate in this case. The answer is there, and has been shown. Debate in that case is not moot, it is someone not listening/reading/understanding.

Moot would be something that can be legitimately debated -- endless or not (as many issues in YMDC really are).
Generally to be a moot point, in that regard, the debate should be legitimate. Which is why I said not moot, in this case.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like this discussion!

You are not using it technically wrong.
That is a legitimate usage, it is just using "moot" in a manner that can be the opposite of the meaning of the word "moot".

Debate doesn't necessarily have to be valid and logical on both sides, it can refer to simple unregulated discussion of/arguing over a disputed topic.
If one side is incorrectly reading the rules, the debate is sure to be endless

kirsanth wrote:And therein lies my issue.
A moot point can be either needing debate or not for debate.
The idiom comes from people not wanting or not being able to actually debate.

A lazy practice, IMHO.

Actually, the idiom comes from the fact that a "moot" was a meeting where people got together to discuss legal issues, community affairs, and to meet out justice.

"Moot point" comes closer to the 1531 usage of "moot case" which was a discussion of a hypothetical law case, and later came to refer to students practicing debate over legal issues. The American usage of "moot point" refers to that last, more academic root of the idiom. Oftentimes, such an academic debate serves no other purpose that for two sides to have a debate; there's no practical resolution, and the debate doesn't serve a purpose to further understanding or resolve a conflict.

Hence, the American idea of the idiom meaning something not worth discussing as being irrelevant or of no importance.

Ironically, the British usage of the idiom is probably less idiomatic and more true to the original meaning of "moot point" in that it is something that is open to debate. The American version concedes that the matter might or might not be open to debate, but it really isn't worth the time.

Edited for clarity.

moot–adjective 1. open to discussion or debate; debatable; doubtful: a moot point.
2. of little or no practical value or meaning; purely academic.
3. Chiefly Law. not actual; theoretical; hypothetical.


From American definitions, since they list the contradictions for me.

Okay, I'm finally caught up with the debate.

So far, I have not seen a single rule suggesting what makes the BRB rule on Sweeping Advance somehow more specific than the specific codex rule for WBB. If a rule says that it always functions perfectly as written in that spot against absolutely everything, and it is in the main rulebook, isn't this a textbook case of a general rule?

Here it is. The SA rule is more specific because it specifically states special rules do not work against it. Conversely, the WBB special rule does not have a specific statement saying it works against SA. Because of this, SA is more specific in of the two rules when it comes to models wanting to WBB from an SA.

Read it again. It does not have to specify Sweeping Advance. It has to specify otherwise.

Angelis Ex wrote:Read it again. It does not have to specify Sweeping Advance. It has to specify otherwise.

Read it again.
The main rulebook rule specifically disallows Special Rules from being used to save the unit.
The codex SR just generally saves the unit.
Also, the WBB rule doesn't apply to the unit being removed in the first place.

It doesn't work.

Angelis Ex wrote:Read it again. It does not have to specify Sweeping Advance. It has to specify otherwise.

And in the context of SA telling you you need to specify otherwise this means you need to specify it works against SA. Like ATSKNF.

WBB does not do so. WBB has NEVER done so, and it has NEVER worked - look at 4th ed: the example given in the SA rule was that WBB does not work. All they have done (they have not changed a single other word) in 5th ed is remove WBB as an example of a special rule that does not work.

WBB never, ever works against SA. Ever.

This thread is perhaps starting to wander a tad close to the uncivil side of the paddock in places.

Please stick to arguing the point, rather than directing comments at the poster.